It has nothing to do with your right to work
It has nothing to do with your right to work
B-but you can quit your job at any time!
And the only repercussion is adding more difficulty to an already arduous job search by having to explain why you did not list your previous employer as a reference.
Surely that privilege outweighs the tradeoff of allowing businesses to abuse and fire you whenever they feel like it for no reason at all and with no negative repercussion for them when doing so.
You're thinking of at-will employment.
At-will: Able to quit/be fired without notice for any reason, other than membership in a protected class
Right to work: Able to work without joining a union
You probably aren't intentionally doing it, but you are somewhat repeating a propaganda line from the anti-union side.
It is against federal law (Taft-hartley act) for a closed shop to exist, meaning that there is no state where you can be forced to join a union to work in a specific job.
This creates the "free-rider" problem where someone who doesn't join the union still benefits from the collective bargaining. In states that don't have right to work, the union can collect "agency fees" from those non-union employees to cover just the benefits that they are receiving, while giving nothing else to the union.
Right to work outlaws this practice, so that free-riders get the benefits of the union without any fees.
There is some disagreement between unions and the anti-union people on whether unions are required to provide "duty of fair representation" to non-members. It's a mix of law, policy, and precedent, so it is a little unclear, but I would side with what the NLRB says on it.
Your union has the duty to represent all employees - whether members of the union or not.
Some anti-union people advocate for changing that, which sounds good, but the actual effect would be that businesses would pay non-union members less, saving themselves money, so they would choose to only hire non-union employees.
You're right, got wires mixed up.
Universal basic income > right to work
Hey, it’s „right to work“, not „right to get a living wage“ /s
I prefer the activist jargon of "free ride" states and "fair share" states. Your union fights for, represents, and supports everyone in a workplace. Don't be a free loader.
Ask how easy it is to get fired in a "right to work" state. They can do it for almost any reason at any time.
It's a "right* for the employer to "work" the system.
"right to work" means the business reserves the right to fire you without any reason.
Of course not, it is about the employer's right to take your work whenever they want for whatever compensation they deem acceptable.
I don't know much about RTW
From my understanding, not all unions benefit their members. Some just charge money and do nothing.
Why would someone want to be forced to join one?
Doesn't it make more sense to have the freedom to choose if you want to be a part of one or not?
Like make a law that corporations have to have joinable unions available that are funded by the corporation.
The idea that someone pays dues in hopes of getting benefits is wild to me. They shouldn't have to pay dues to make sure the business treats them fairly.
There certainly are 3 kinds of unions.
-
The unions like in the past that were strong and fought tooth and nail for their workers, getting them what they need to live a good and happy life. There are a few of these left but not many.
-
The unions that let their older greedy members sell out their younger members with two tiers, one for the older members that has good wages and benefits while the lower tier has lower wages and shit benefits. There are many of these unions around now.
-
CLAC type unions that you pay dues but they always side with the company and fuck their members over because they just use their veneer of Christianity to not get questioned.
The biggest determinant of how a union is going to be is based on the membership and how many of the old guard at the top care about the younger members. I have been part of a union with many new guys that voted out the old guys because they were trying to protect themselves at our expense but we got concessions that helped everyone instead of tiered membership.
-
I'm from a union family and was in one myself for many years before I changed to a career path where it's proven difficult to organize. You're starting in a good place, but few points.
- The members are the ones who typically determine union leadership. If the union isn't doing anything, it's probably... at least partially the members fault. However, just like in the real world, the wants and needs of older members tend to dominate (as turnout of older members is generally higher) and that can leave newer members left out.
- You might not get everything, but you typically will benefit from most of the things the union fights for whether you're in it or not, so for voluntary dues you end up in a situation where the smartest short term play is to not be in the union so that you can reap the rewards without having to contribute. However, this leads to the union not having the funds needed to fight for more things (because not enough are contributing).
- Having unions funded by the corporations directly is slippery... It's like going to court and your lawyers are on the payroll for the other side. It creates an incentive to side with the people who are funding them.
You have to remember that... a business treating you fairly would ideally be the default, but there's no reason they have to. Your union should be watching out for that for you so that you can focus on showing up and doing your job. The dues aren't for "getting benefits", you already deserve those and those already should be owed to you, the dues are for having someone to fight for you and advocate on the behalf of you and your colleagues.
Not a new concept
Doesn't need to be a new concept. Just needs to be said.