does anyone really understand...

moparlvr4406

moparlvr4406

Active Member
Jun 29, 2011
4,462
Lake Monroe Indiana Fourwinds H31
Boat Info
1985 340DA
1966 SRV180
(2)1960 Sea Ray 600
(2) 1963 808 Cruise-a-bouts
Engines
twin 350hp Crusaders 4.0 Onan /
Merc 950 SS
Merc 650
Merc 1100
twin Johnson 40
the "right to work" bills
Indiana is trying to get this passed.
what advantages does it have??
IMO the days of need for unions have passed long ago
but what am I missing in the importance of this issue :huh:
 
Hmmmmm, I think I'm going to grab another cup of coffee and just kick back and watch the fur fly. :grin:
 
I'm selling.
beer.gif
&
popcorn.gif
in this thread. :grin:

Beer, $2.50

Popcorn, $1.00
 
Last edited by a moderator:
in right to work states an employer and a union CANNOT agree to have a "closed shop. " In a right to work state YOU have the option of joining the union or not. In non right to work states closed shops are legal and if the employer and the union agree to a closed shop then union membership is required of each employee. if the employee withdraws from the union they cannot work in that shop.
 
We have right to work laws in Virginia...

I wouldn't run a business in a state that didn't have it that way.
 
It's a two edged sword. If you have the right to work then the employer has the right to fire for what ever reason. If it's a closed or non right to work state then the employer needs to build a case to show cause to fire. I'd rather have the right to work wherever I wish and do a go enough job not to get fired than the be at the whim of the union and be used as a bargaining pawn.

Just my opinion.
 
Old skool ,does that mean they can fire you instead of laying you off because they dont want to pay into unemployment though?Not to mention if you get sick and they dont want the liability of keeping you around.Ok i mentioned it.
 
You don't get fired because you are sick.

You get fired because you are underperforming.

If you are sick, but still perform well - then you have nothing to worry about
 
comsnark said:
You don't get fired because you are sick.

You get fired because you are underperforming.

If you are sick, but still perform well - then you have nothing to worry about
Click to expand...

You can be terminated for any reason as long as it's not discriminatory. You can be performing very well and if I don't like the color of your car, I can terminate you.

Saying that, it's not good business practice to terminate people willy nilly... but it's not a "law" about performance... If someone comes along and says "Hey, I'll do that job cheaper than Joe", I have the right to terminate Joe and hire the cheaper guy. Likewise, if a better person comes along (and is more expensive), I have the right to terminate the cheaper guy and hire the more expensive guy. That would be a termination without cause... and the person will get unemployment if he/she applies.

Performance is a "termination for cause" thing... and you can't get unemployment for that... but "termination without cause" (like being sick all the time) will get you unemployment.
 
Last edited:
In Jersey, I think even if you get terminated with cause you can still collect unemployment.....but there's a penalty of a some amount of weeks before you can start to collect.
 
No argument here....It's getting to where a guy can't even 'embelish' his LOA as a transient anymore....
 
Last edited:
Four Suns said:
You can be terminated for any reason as long as it's not discriminatory. You can be performing very well and if I don't like the color of your car, I can terminate you.

Saying that, it's not good business practice to terminate people willy nilly... but it's not a "law" about performance... If someone comes along and says "Hey, I'll do that job cheaper than Joe", I have the right to terminate Joe and hire the cheaper guy. Likewise, if a better person comes along (and is more expensive), I have the right to terminate the cheaper guy and hire the more expensive guy. That would be a termination without cause... and the person will get unemployment if he/she applies.

Performance is a "termination for cause" thing... and you can't get unemployment for that... but "termination without cause" (like being sick all the time) will get you unemployment.
Click to expand...

Which is a good reason to be better, thus more valuable than the next guy...
 
Exactly right Four Suns. My brother was injured and his work ethic was spotty. His employer fired him for a better and more competent person. My brother was able to get unemployment and a ration of big brother verbal whipa$$ from me. I hope he does better in his next job but that's another story.

I was a member of the teamsters and they were in bed with the company as the company was it's biggest contributor to the local. Good old boys would bump heads in the back room then tell the rank and file how it was going to be. They let the company hold back 3 month of dues so the company could earn the interest as the dues sat in the bank coffers. Bunch of crooks took our money and let the company walk all over us. Great representation.
 
This is a pretty clear expalnation. MM

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120108/NEWS05/201080367?odyssey=mod|mostcom

"Labor wars have shattered the Indiana General Assembly's fragile decorum for a second straight year. With the divisive "right to work" bill, lawmakers and their supporters have launched an epic fight to protect their interests. Republicans say it's about making Indiana business-friendly to attract jobs and have fast-tracked the issue. Democrats say guarding unions and wages are key and have stalled House actions. In the end, the legislative gamesmanship has real consequences for Hoosiers. Here's what you need to know about the issue:

What is the bill?

Under House Bill 1001 and Senate Bill 269, companies and labor unions could no longer negotiate a contract that requires nonmembers to pay fees. Violators could face a misdemeanor, and lawsuits could be filed against companies for real or "threatened" violations. Currently in Indiana, unions can negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement that requires nonmembers to pay fees, though not all unions do.
Republicans enjoy a 60-40 majority in the House and a 37-13 majority in the Senate, leaving few recourses for Democrats. They've delayed the start of the session in the House for three days, knowing they don't have the votes to stop the proposal.

Why is it called 'right to work'?

Proponents say it's the right to work without paying fees for representation. But detractors decry it as the right to work for less money.

Why should you care?

It depends upon your perspective. Both sides offer evidence to support their viewpoints, but here are the basic arguments:
The Indiana Chamber of Commerce and Indiana and National Right to Work committees say the legislation would put Indiana on the list of potential business sites for companies that currently won't consider coming here. They say that would bolster economic development and create more jobs in a state hovering at 9 percent unemployment. With lower unemployment, supporters say, companies would offer higher salaries to skilled workers in a competitive market.
Unions say the legislation is intended to weaken them. Unions must represent all workers in a bargaining unit, even nonmembers, so they say the law would encourage workers not to join when they can get the benefits for free. Weakened unions, they say, would result in lower-paying jobs, higher unemployment and unsafe workplaces. Nonunion jobs also could become lower-paid positions, they say, as companies no longer would have to compete with union wages and benefits.

Bottom line: There's no common ground."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,193
Messages
1,428,281
Members
61,104
Latest member
Three Amigos
Back
Top