Right to Work
Incoming budget committee co-chairman Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said Wednesday he had drafted right-to-work legislation in the past but stopped short of saying whether he would introduce it in the coming legislative session, saying he needed to consult with other GOP leaders. Vos made his comments one day after Walker said he would consider stripping public employee unions in Wisconsin of the bargaining rights that they have held for decades.
“I think every single worker in Wisconsin should be able to join a union if they choose,” said Vos. But “if you choose not to be, you shouldn’t be forced to pay dues.”
This is a fundamental issue of liberty. Nobody should be forced to join an organization with which they disagree just to work.
Also, Barca’s comments are just nonsensical:
“During the course of a sometimes acrimonious campaign of more than a year, this issue never came up,” Barca said. “So before (Walker has) even taken the oath of office to bring this up is rather startling.”
First, is Barca saying that if Walker brought this up after he was sworn in then he’d be OK with it? Of course not. Second, there was a lot of talk about the cost of state government during the campaign. What did Barca think that was about? Also, Walker’s interactions with the Milwaukee County unions were unambiguous (I think capper would agree). Did any thinking voter not understand Walker’s position regarding public employee unions?
Not a good start for Barca out of the gate.
Owen, Barca’s statements are true on the surface. Yes, everyone knows Walker’s a union buster and is open for business. But it’s also true that he didn’t specifically mention right-to-work legislation during the campaign (to my recollection, I could be wrong). I bet that’s not an accident, either. He isn’t going to trot out specific pieces of legislation during a campaign. That wouldn’t be prudent. Walker’s agenda is clear, he is open for business. He is not on the side of the worker.
Your assertion that this is a fundamental issue of liberty is disgustingly arrogant. If this succeeds, I will loose rights. This is an issue of representation and who will be represented in the governor’s mansion. I will not be. Walker is open for business.
Posted by Mike on December 09, 2010 at 1305 hrs
Mike,
What right would you lose?
Posted by Owen on December 09, 2010 at 1321 hrs
He is not on the side of the worker.
BS! I’m a worker and he’s on my side ...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2010 at 1441 hrs
The right to bargain my health insurance. This is a right I have now. I will not have it if Walker and his supporters have their way, which I am sure you will.
TD, he is not on your side if it is a question of whom to protect, you or your boss. Walker is making Wisconsin open for business. He will favor the interests of businesses over the interests of their employers whenever the two come into conflict.
Posted by Mike on December 09, 2010 at 1451 hrs
Mike,
Really? You need a union to do that? Are you incapable of doing it yourself?
(BTW, that’s not a right)
Posted by Owen on December 09, 2010 at 1457 hrs
BS! I’m a worker and he’s on my side ...
x2
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2010 at 1607 hrs
TD, he is not on your side if it is a question of whom to protect, you or your boss. Walker is making Wisconsin open for business. He will favor the interests of businesses over the interests of their employers whenever the two come into conflict.
If he protects my boss, he protects me in the process. I know most of you ‘Workers of the World Unite’ types don’t understand that, but the fact is, what is good for my boss is good for me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2010 at 1623 hrs
Oh, and at the risk of stating the obvious ... my boss is a worker too. In fact, my bosses work their assess off.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2010 at 1624 hrs
Or to state the obvious… If Wisconsin is closed for business… you don’t have a job to bargain for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2010 at 1851 hrs
I listened to Jay Weber this morning. As usual, as soon as someone started to make sense in opposition he cut them off. All that is happening is that instead of meeting on common ground the in fighting has begun. Back when, state workers worked for a lower wage and had good benefits. Now that state government ( Dem and Rep ) have driven the higher paying jobs out of the state. Now it has boiled down to the usual. I don’t have it why should they. Try to keep in mind, one of the benefits is not tax exemptions. Every time there is a tax increase, state employees pay more into their own wages. They also pay a portion of their health care and have been blessed with furlough days. Dont think they have come through this unscathed. I worked for a company years ago that payed the full boat but that dosn’t happen anymore. Webber also said state janitors make $60,000 a year. What a horses ass, thats just a good example of why they cut him back and put Beck on. Statements like that show he dosn’t research and has no credibility. Unless your talking supervision that number isn’t realistic. Many of the state workers I know voted for Walker, knowing full well they would lose something. I do think at this stage of the game it was irresponsible for Scott to even make the comments he did. It’s not quite like Harley, he can’t threaten to leave the state.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2010 at 2157 hrs
I know most of you ‘Workers of the World Unite’ types don’t understand that, but the fact is, what is good for my boss is good for me.
So I guess I am a Workers of the World Unite type—news to me. I know that I am NOT naive enough to believe that what is good for my boss (who also works very hard, by the way) is good for me.
I, too, am glad to have my job. I, too, share a mission with my bosses. I think that we are all working for a similar aim, the success of our workplace. I get all that and would never deny it. That does not mean that the interests of my boss are the same as my own interests. And when there is a power differential, organizing and speaking together as a workforce is much more effective and, I would argue, better for the overall health of the workplace, than speaking alone. Balancing the needs of the workforce against the aspirations of its leadership is healthy.
If the right-to-work legislation becomes law, a crucial aspect of the health of my organization and many others will be put in jeopardy. Its a bad idea.
Posted by Mike on December 10, 2010 at 0834 hrs
I’d tend to agree that unions keep labor prices higher than they would be otherwise. They do this not so much through the strike weapon, but by reducing competition between employees for retention and promotion.
In a union workplace, so long as you meet absolutely minimal standards, all that matters is time-in-service. And so, if we both have five years’ service, then I’m not going to be competing against you. Whereas in the non-union workplace, if we both have the same job description but I work faster or better or show more initiative, then I am a threat to your job and, even if you’re retained, to your pay.
On the other hand, an employer’s inability to favor more productive employees, and the all-too-frequently stifling union work rules, make union labor worth less to an employer than non-union labor would be, even if both received the same average wages and benefits.
And so, the bottom-line effect of a union is to make labor both more expensive, and less valuable.
Which means, if you work in an industry with serious competition, then Union is a strategy for unemployment—because your employer will either get out of this competitive business, or figure out how to reduce or eliminate the burden of paying more money for less valuable labor.
But if you work for government, or an industry that is protected in some way, then perhaps Union will get you a better deal—especially if you’re not much interested in striving to outperform your peers.
Aside from that, reasons to favor right-to-work include not only personal liberty, but also economics—nothing would quite put up the “open for business” sign in Wisconsin quite like passage of Right-to-Work. It is, for example, a long shot to believe that the Janesville GM plant will ever again be used to assemble vehicles. But with right-to-work, it’s at least a possibility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2010 at 1058 hrs
I am pretty sure competition with the guy who works two spots over from me would not be as productive as the collegial relationship we enjoy as it stands. To be sure there are things he does better than me, as there are things I do better than him. We help each other out in this respect, because it doesn’t benefit us or our organization NOT to.
So instead of competing against one another, we compel each other forward by sharing our practice. This goes on all the time in my workplace and is a part of the reason we are very successful.
If we were competing against one another for speed or efficiency and not sharing our practice, we would be keeping the benefits of the other guy’s skills from some of my clients, and some of mine from the other guy’s clients.
Posted by Mike on December 10, 2010 at 1151 hrs
Believe it or not, Mike, if your counterparts that don’t like being represented by the union can act on it, and if pay for your health insurance and retirement like the private sector, you still have the ability to share your wisdom with your co-workers. It happens in the real world.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2010 at 1313 hrs
yeah just lemme keep the viagra, dude.
Posted by Mike on December 10, 2010 at 1345 hrs
I think we’ve established root cause. Without the viagra Mike and WEAC can’t screw over Wisconsin residents….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2010 at 1352 hrs
I yield to your rhetorical superiority
Posted by Mike on December 10, 2010 at 1409 hrs
I don’t know, Mike. Your concession, in itself, has enough wit to keep you going….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2010 at 1443 hrs
organizing and speaking together as a workforce is much more effective and, I would argue, better for the overall health of the workplace, than speaking alone. Balancing the needs of the workforce against the aspirations of its leadership is healthy.
Or to put it more simply “Workers of the World, Unite”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2010 at 1759 hrs
So instead of competing against one another, we compel each other forward by sharing our practice. This goes on all the time in my workplace and is a part of the reason we are very successful.
The only compelling going on in the union shops I know of are to slow down so you don’t make the slackers look bad. Spouse was threatened with physical harm if he didn’t. The don’t call it “Hide and Seek for a Grand a Week” for nothing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2010 at 1833 hrs
OK whatever name you wanna call me TD…do you feel better?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2010 at 1836 hrs
neomom-
Pay attention to the part that says, “is a part of the reason why we are very successful.” Slackers are generally not successful. Sounds like the spouse was in a crappy place. Sorry to hear it. That sucks for everyone.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2010 at 1841 hrs
Just pointing out that its the same speech ... I don’t care what lipstick you put on it, its the same pig.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2010 at 2208 hrs
Nobody has ever accused me of being a fan of unions. And, nobody believes in at-will employment more than do I. Yet, I don’t buy this stuff that right-to-work is about liberty. Closed shops (workers must belong to the union) only exist where the employer has agreed to a closed shop arrangement, and nobody is forced to take a job in a closed shop. It’s like the arguments in favor of ths smoking ban ... that people were “forced” to work in smoke laden workplaces. Bullshit, they chose to take employment there. If somebody feels working in a place where ownership/management has agreed to compel union membership is too large a burden, they should work someplace else. Tell me again how this is about liberty???
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2010 at 2313 hrs
Actually, Owen, capper would disagree. Walker has said one thing, but done another when it comes to the unions. But don’t worry, it’s the tax payers that have to foot the bill for his hypocrisy.
Perhaps you should turn off the talk radio, put away the Walker press releases, and actually pay attention to what is going on.
Posted by capper on December 17, 2010 at 0105 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 143
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 10:54 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).