Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Right to Work in Ohio

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Right to Work in Ohio

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 61 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #90263

    News
    Participant

    ‘Right to work’ advocates can start petition drive

    By Darrel Rowland

    The Columbus Dispatch

    Thursday February 9, 2012 4:17 PM

    A group seeking to bring a November statewide vote to make Ohio a “right to work” state got the green light to circulate its petition today. The final OK came from the Ohio Ballot Board, which ruled the proposed constitutional amendment is a single issue.

    READ MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/02/09/right-to-work-petitioners-can-start.html

    #481246

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    Pretty mixed on this. I hope if it passes it will allow employers to hire you on their terms if you exercise your “right to work”.

    #481247

    DavidF
    Participant

    lifeontwowheels said:
    Pretty mixed on this. I hope if it passes it will allow employers to hire you on their terms if you exercise your “right to work”.

    Pretty much just destroys union protections and continues the race to the bottom.

    Child labor laws next! Them kids got it too easy!

    #481248

    James
    Participant

    DavidF said:
    Pretty much just destroys union protections and continues the race to the bottom.

    And the evidence for this is so obvious it needn’t be mentioned.

    #481249
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    DavidF said:
    Pretty much just destroys union protections and continues the race to the bottom.

    Because when people aren’t forced to join a union, they don’t?

    #481250

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    DavidF said: Pretty much just destroys union protections and continues the race to the bottom. Child labor laws next! Them kids got it too easy!

    I’m speaking to the benefits derived from union membership. I’m at UPS picking up hours and we’re teamsters. Major benefits under the union contract include biannual pay increases, job protections and free healthcare. What I’m suggesting is a company utilizing merit based pay based pay raise for a RTW employee. Just as an example. Why should someone gain benefit if they aren’t members?

    #481251

    sirlancelot
    Participant

    When I applied for a clerk job at Kroger, I had to join the union. This was a part time, minimum wage job (20 hours a week @ about $7.56 an hour). My first paycheck, such as it was, had the annual union fee plus weekly fee deducted (more than $50). I can see that some people might really need the money deducted to pay an essential bill or for food. I generally support unions but I think requiring part-time, low wage workers to pay fees is unreasonable.

    #481252

    ehill27
    Participant

    I feel your pain, but without unions, expect those low wage jobs to get lower.

    I believe that there’s a direct correlation between the decline of unions and the decline of middle class. Companies will always look for ways to get the most out of people for the least in return. As the bar falls in one company, the bar falls among their competitors.

    Trust me, the CEO’s and shareholders will be glad to take all the money they’re not paying to you and your pesky healthcare.

    #481253

    James
    Participant

    ehill27 said:
    I feel your pain, but without unions, expect those low wage jobs to get lower.

    I believe that there’s a direct correlation between the decline of unions and the decline of middle class. Companies will always look for ways to get the most out of people for the least in return. As the bar falls in one company, the bar falls among their competitors.

    Trust me, the CEO’s and shareholders will be glad to take all the money they’re not paying to you and your pesky healthcare.

    Or maybe there is a direct correlation between globalization and wage decline? And maybe the success of unions in maintaining higher wages comes at the cost of higher unemployment?

    #481254

    DavidF
    Participant

    James said:
    Or maybe there is a direct correlation between globalization and wage decline? And maybe the success of unions in maintaining higher wages comes at the cost of higher unemployment?

    So it doesn’t matter how little you pay as long as it drives down unemployment? Sounds like the biggest drag on our competitiveness is our middle class. Luckily, at the rate we are going, that impediment won’t be around much longer.

    #481255

    Polis
    Participant

    lifeontwowheels said:
    Why should someone gain benefit if they aren’t members?

    Because the entity employing that employee sees value in giving such benefits? They want to retain talent?

    I don’t believe government unions should exist, especially at the state and federal level. There are already mechanisms in place to protect employees. The unions that I deal with just like to bully around the gov’t, demanding benefits far beyond what the non-represented employees receive and automatic non-merit pay increases above inflation. It’s already difficult enough to find qualified individuals to fill the represented positions; the union just adds another layer of crap to deal with. Without the union not much would change except maybe going to merit pay, since attracting the talent needed is a concern.

    #481256

    gramarye
    Participant

    DavidF said:
    So it doesn’t matter how little you pay as long as it drives down unemployment? Sounds like the biggest drag on our competitiveness is our middle class. Luckily, at the rate we are going, that impediment won’t be around much longer.

    No, it doesn’t matter how little you pay as long as someone is willing to work for that wage. (And yes, that is an argument for abolishing the minimum wage law as well.)

    Also, the notion that unions are somehow the guarantors of middle-class existence (rather than one of the major influences behind pushing companies overseas and into automating work) is seriously questionable in today’s world (and I’m not convinced of the truth of that thesis even 60 years ago, but that’s moot at this point).

    #481257

    DavidF
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    No, it doesn’t matter how little you pay as long as someone is willing to work for that wage. (And yes, that is an argument for abolishing the minimum wage law as well.)

    Also, the notion that unions are somehow the guarantors of middle-class existence (rather than one of the major influences behind pushing companies overseas and into automating work) is seriously questionable in today’s world (and I’m not convinced of the truth of that thesis even 60 years ago, but that’s moot at this point).

    No, the right wing hasn’t been happy with work conditions since the 1890s. Serfhood is the route to prosperity for all.
    1. Take everything away from all but a few.
    2. Work more for less.
    3. ???
    4. Everyone prospers!

    #481258

    howatzer
    Participant

    ehill27 said:
    I feel your pain, but without unions, expect those low wage jobs to get lower.

    That’s the wonderful thing about having states – they give you a good sample from which to test such beliefs before committing all 330 million of us to the same policy.

    According to here the % of union workers ranges from 2.9% (NC) to 24.1% (NY). If you compare those rates to median household income by state (using data from here[/url]) you get no correlation (R = -0.009). Further, the median income for states with greater than 10.9% union membership (the median) is $48,714 and for those with less than 10.9% membership is was $50,195. The difference between those are not statistically significant.

    Now, as a right wing maniac, I’d suspect that higher unionization would result in higher unemployment rates (because it would cost more to hire). Comparing union membership to the latest unemployment figures from here[/url], we also find no significant correlation.

    Conclusion: Unionization doesn’t really matter to either income or unemployment rates at the state level.

    #481259
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    howatzer said:
    That’s the wonderful thing about having states – they give you a good sample from which to test such beliefs before committing all 330 million of us to the same policy.

    According to here the % of union workers ranges from 2.9% (NC) to 24.1% (NY). If you compare those rates to median household income by state (using data from here[/url]) you get no correlation (R = -0.009). Further, the median income for states with greater than 10.9% union membership (the median) is $48,714 and for those with less than 10.9% membership is was $50,195. The difference between those are not statistically significant.

    Now, as a right wing maniac, I’d suspect that higher unionization would result in higher unemployment rates (because it would cost more to hire). Comparing union membership to the latest unemployment figures from here[/url], we also find no significant correlation.

    Conclusion: Unionization doesn’t really matter to either income or unemployment rates at the state level.

    Very interesting. Thanks!

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 61 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE