Martin Luther King on “right to work” very revealing

http://www.epi.org/publication/marti...right_to_work/

"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as 'right to work.' It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.

Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone...Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights.

We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote." -Martin Luther King, speaking about right-to-work laws in 1961

The was before the voting rights act of 1965. The Game never changes and it's funny how history seems to always repeat itself.

I too was reading Reddit this morning.

Unions improve working conditions at the expense of their employers and, ultimately, their workers. They fight for their own interests not that of the community... just look at the big auto groups or, more recently, hostess. We could also point to the obvious shortcomings from groups like the teachers' union but that's a whole other story (and I'll let that be told to you via "waiting for superman")

It's really a shame that workers in some states have to choose whether they want to be a part of a union.

They can still vote with those who choose to be part of a union. Not everyone sees unions as a benefit, so they shouldn't be forced to join one.

"Wages are lower, jobs are fewer".

Michigan is a bastion of high paying, readily available jobs right now. I mean, everybody is moving to Detroit for all the work tone found there, right? Right?

Like you didn't have the choice to work somewhere else that wasn't unionized?

Republicans crack me up.

Can't wait to see the drubbing they take in the next elections.

Originally Posted by Lair

Like you didn't have the choice to work somewhere else that wasn't unionized?

Republicans crack me up.

Can't wait to see the drubbing they take in the next elections.

Not if you're an uneducated laborer who wants a job that will support his/her family. Then you're just a slave to the union.

And if the union is so great, this law won't matter, right? Since all the union members will still pay their tithes to the union bosses for their protection.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Unions improve working conditions at the expense of their employers and, ultimately, their workers. They fight for their own interests not that of the community... just look at the big auto groups or, more recently, hostess. We could also point to the obvious shortcomings from groups like the teachers' union but that's a whole other story (and I'll let that be told to you via "waiting for superman")

Much the converse could also be said of employers, companies and corporations: that they improve their profits at the expense of their employees and workers. They fight for their own interests (profits), not necesarily those of the community, which often suffer as the majority of the residents, the workers, clearly have lower wages, benefits and inferior working conditions while the corporate profits often leave the community rather than being reinjected/invested back into that local economy.

In the end, I think there needs to be a proper and roughly equivalent balance in power across a company/business, much like, dare I say, in a representative democracy like the U.S. Employers and investors can be as equally myopic, short sighted, greedy and rapacious as workers and employees -- these sins hardly reside solely on the employee side.

It's only when one side or the other can prevail over, rather than work in concert with, the other that their own myopia, short-sightedness, greedy and rapaciousness can run unchecked. Both sides, employer and employee, have clearly shown that capacity in the past. But the answer is not necessarily to effectively do away with or cripple one or the other, as I think many/most "right to work" laws tend to do in the end, but rather restore a balance.

I don't see why workers need these "rights".. if they don't like a workplace, they will leave. If they stick around in a workplace because they offer certain advantages (higher salary for example) in spite of downsides (dirty office for example) that's their choice. I think the reality is that far too many employees sit around complaining about what is rather than seeking other opportunity. Perhaps this is just me being blinded by the large number of opportunities in the major city around me.. but it always shocked me how much people will complain about their employer, all the while, doing NOTHING to change their scenery.

Ultimately, a companies success/failure is what dictates their ability to benefit their workers. If you want more direct impact, go to a smaller company. If you want more fog around your contribution, work for a larger company. I agree that there needs to be care given the employees but why explicitly do that when employees can leave an employer that doesn't provide some type of input/output work/reward scenario?

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Unions improve working conditions at the expense of their employers and, ultimately, their workers. They fight for their own interests not that of the community... just look at the big auto groups or, more recently, hostess.

Improving working conditions at the expense of their employers. OK I will agree with that. At the expense of their workers...eh....not so much. It wasn't hostess workers we are talking about here. It was The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union. They have members beyond just those who work for the now defunct hostess. It can be argued that if they had given in to Hostess' demands/requests it would have hurt all their members over the long haul. The good of the many out weighs the good of the few. And judging from at least a few of the union members interviewed, there were hostess employees that were members of that union who were believed in that.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

I don't see why workers need these "rights"

I am sure you don't. But, I am equally sure you don't know are refuse to admit labor history in a post industrial revolutionary America. Without worker rights, corporations would have no reason, as it is an increase in cost which you admitted yourself, to make conditions better. It just reduces their profits.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Unions improve working conditions at the expense of their employers...

if yo uthink hostess failed because of the union then you are dumber than a dingdong and more gullible than a twinkie

Originally Posted by rdsesq

I am sure you don't. But, I am equally sure you don't know are refuse to admit labor history in a post industrial revolutionary America. Without worker rights, corporations would have no reason, as it is an increase in cost which you admitted yourself, to make conditions better. It just reduces their profits.

Yup, industrial revolution-era America needed unions to keep businesses honest, because it was nearly impossible to find steady work in a city in anything but a factory, and your options for work outside a city were more or less limited to farming. If you didn't already own a farm, or had just sold one, you most likely weren't going to have the spare cash to buy a large chunk of land, plus seed and equipment to start one, or be able to wait around to see the cash flow for several months.

Today, you can travel from one end of the country to the other in less than a day, you can hunt for jobs worldwide without leaving your home, and you can be paid directly into a bank account in US dollars without ever stepping foot inside an office.

People have far more varied choices in how and where to work that if a major manufacturer suddenly decided to pay salaried minimum wage with zero benefits, they'd see all their employees leave.

Workers don't need to pay a union boss every month to protect them anymore.

I completely respect the right of workers to organize themselves to keep the best possible working conditions for themselves, but a worker should not be forced to pay money to belong to the organization if they don't want to be a part of it.

And again, if these unions are so great and relevant today, then workers having the choice to join or not should be zero threat to them.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

Not if you're an uneducated laborer who wants a job that will support his/her family. Then you're just a slave to the union.

Better than being a minimum wage/no benefits slave to the corporation.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

And again, if these unions are so great and relevant today, then workers having the choice to join or not should be zero threat to them.

Nobody has ever been forced to join a union.

Originally Posted by Lair

Better than being a minimum wage/no benefits slave to the corporation.




Nobody has ever been forced to join a union.

That's right, only if you want to be an auto worker in Michigan.

Why is choice such a bad thing?

And again, the law shouldn't matter, right? The UAW is so amazing that people will willingly line up to pay them money

Right-to-work still allows for people to unionize. Not sure you can reference what Martin Luther King, Jr. said and have it apply to the present in this case.