Quote Originally Posted by jared81 View Post
[/B]i know what you are saying, but that should be up to the employee if he wants to support the union.
So then employees who aren't in the union shouldn't benefit from the efforts of the union, right? It's fine with you if compared to their union counterparts, they're forced to work more hours for less pay, get fewer days off and a reduced pension?

many conservative people dont want to be in unions because they dont agree wtih their politics. this will keep them honest. also, dont pretend that unions are the most efficent in regards to a quality workforce.
Efficiency has nothing to do with it, for either side. It's about cutting the deal that's best for you. Capitalism only ensures that people's motives are focused on profit, which in theory helps engender efficiency. But it doesn't always work that way, especially when CEOs only stay at a company for a few years at a time. Their motivation is wholly in the short term, which can -- as we saw in 2008 -- lead to disastrous results down the road.

in most unions, if employee (A) works very hard and has only been at the plant for 4 years and only makes $20 an hour, meanwhile employee (B) has worked at the plant for 10 years and sucks at his job, yet he gets the raises and promotions because he has tenure. there are negatives on both sides, you feel like this is capitalism, i feel like it is freedom. agree to disagree.
You assume people with tenure suck at their jobs. I'm not sure why.

Anyway, what I'm describing is indeed capitalism, because the workers are using their leverage to better conditions for themselves just as management will use their leverage to maximize their own goals. Right to Work seeks to impede the worker's right to maximize their leverage.

this problem has unfolded right in front of our eyes. many unions is states like (CA, WI, ILL, etc) have promised their public employee unions pensions that the taxpayer cant pay for.
And who's fault is that?

Despite having a huge amount of leverage during WWII, the unions decided -- out of patriotism -- not to try to angle the best deal for themselves while the fighting was still going on. Instead they waited until the war was over, at which point the deal cut was this: less wages up front for more benefits on the back end.

Happy to live with a great profit margin in the short run, businesses and the government happily took the deal. But now they're not so happy, because the benefits ended up being worth a lot more over the long haul.

This is not the fault of unions. It's the fault of the people who made that deal for not being able to see five feet in front of them. But people seem content to bash the unions because they cut a smart deal rather than pressure their lawmakers negotiate better.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich's book Supercapitalism does a great job explaining the post war period in the labor movement (as well as many other interesting things). I recommend it to all.

in a private company, the company is responsible to the companies money. in a public employee situation, the elected officials will give the public unions anything they want so they can gain votes.
Which doesn't address my argument. You're seeking to restrict the rights of people because they're employed by the government and need to show some legal basis for that.

---------- Post added at 07:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 PM ----------

Quote Originally Posted by GoFins! View Post
It's the rights of the employees vs the rights of the taxpayers. Public unions negotiate with government officials about how much of the taxpayer's money they are promised. The taxpayer is never represented in those negotiations.

Imagine two greedy people deciding how much of your future earnings they get without any concern for your ability to pay or giving you any say in the matter.
This is a republic, not a democracy. We elect representatives to do that negotiating for us.

The "say" you're referring to is called "voting."