What is wrong with Right to Work???

[Tanasi]

I happen to think it's a good thing because it brings competition to the job market and employers aren't held hostage by out of control unions.

Thoughts???

[AmbrosiaWriter]

It doesn't bring competition to the job market, unless you think competition is "Hey, who will work for us cheaper and for less benefits than this guy?" It just drives wages down across the board.

[Panacea]

I happen to think it's a good thing because it brings competition to the job market and employers aren't held hostage by out of control unions.

Thoughts???

"Right to Work" really should mean "Right to Screw Over your Employees."

Now I'm not going to try to say that unions are perfect; they're not. But most of the abuses people used to complain about with unions don't exist any more. Unions give up a LOT when the economy goes south in order to save jobs. They opposed NAFTA because they feared jobs would move over seas, which they did.

The best health benefits I've ever had was as a union employee.

I almost didn't join the union the first time around (in my 2nd correctional nurse job). I voted against unionizing, and told the shop steward I wasn't going to join. And I didn't have to; it was an open shop.

Then I started noticing how the managers were fucking over employees they didn't like. And I mean really fucking them over. There was a real power struggle in the department over issues that were not union related. I decided to join the union, fearing I might be next.

I was.

The union backed me up and saved my job and my professional reputation, and probably my license as well. I was able to leave the job with my dignity intact (I didn't really want to work there after what they tried to do to me).

So when I started another job some years later that was union, open shop, I immediately agreed. That job didn't have any problems between management and staff that the union needed to protect me from, but the benefits were good, the pay was good (but competitive with other, non union hospitals in the area).

The political work the union did (California Nurses Association) was patient oriented. The Safe Staffing Law greatly improved patient safety in the state, and was strongly supported by nurses both union and non-union.

Now I'll agree some unions are out of control: the correctional officers union in California being among them. But the solution is not creating Right to Work states. It's management bargaining in good faith, but setting reasonable limits.

[AdminAssistant]

Well, right-to-work has arguably been a good thing for the South, as many automakers have moved their factories down here, bringing much needed jobs. Detroit's loss has been the Mississippi Delta's gain.

[Nekojin]

Well, right-to-work has arguably been a good thing for the South, as many automakers have moved their factories down here, bringing much needed jobs. Detroit's loss has been the Mississippi Delta's gain.

That's technically a side-effect of RTW, not an actual direct effect. It wasn't RTW itself that is benefitting the south, it's the auto-makers' reaction to RTW - namely, that they can hire people for less money and less benefits, and have fewer issues with firing people for whatever reason they wish.

The long and short is that Right to Work is good for employers, neutral or worse for employees. The benefits it brings for employees certainly don't outweigh the drawbacks.

[Rapscallion]

If the employers are people you can trust, then it's fine - the sort of people who recognise that they need good employees for their businesses to function and need to be rid of bad employees to reduce their unecessary overheads.

However, several of the more effective employers out there are frankly sociopaths. I've known several who go for the power for the power, and they exercise it poorly for their own amusement and not for the betterment of the company. Plenty of tales on CS about such issues.

If there are sensible limits, then it's fine, but sensible limits are pretty much what we have over here. I think ours go a little too far towards worker protection, but as an employee who doesn't fuck about then I'm pretty much fine with that. It's galling when I see alleged colleagues failing in their basic duties time and again, yet getting the same income as me.

That said, we once had massive union power, and that was back in the seventies and early eighties. The Thatcher government broke that, and it was painful, but this was back in the day when unelected (by the population) union officials were crippling the country. Unions these days are far more sensible and actually - in my experience - work for the betterment of their members.

It's finding a happy medium between 'sack people because you want to feel tingly in the bathing suit area' and 'have to employ liabilities for life'.

Rapscallion

[Mytical]

Right to work..works good on paper, not so much in reality. Don't get me wrong, I think if an employee is messing up, it shouldn't take an act of god to get them out the door..but right to work basically says an employer can fire somebody if that employer gets a wild hair up his/her posterior. They don't even have to give a reason.

It allows for discrimination also. Sure they have to hire anybody who is good for the job..but they do not have to keep them. Don't even have to say why the employee is let go. Basically the employer can go "Oh if I don't hire Suzy, I can get in trouble..I'll just hire her then fire her in a week and hire my brother Ted." or some such.

[Racket_Man]

Right to work..works good on paper, not so much in reality. Don't get me wrong, I think if an employee is messing up, it shouldn't take an act of god to get them out the door..but right to work basically says an employer can fire somebody if that employer gets a wild hair up his/her posterior. They don't even have to give a reason.

It allows for discrimination also. Sure they have to hire anybody who is good for the job..but they do not have to keep them. Don't even have to say why the employee is let go. Basically the employer can go "Oh if I don't hire Suzy, I can get in trouble..I'll just hire her then fire her in a week and hire my brother Ted." or some such.

RTW is NOT the same as At Will employment (which you describe above).

At Will employment is the situation where an employer OR employee can terminate the employment at any time for any reason unless the employer does something stupid like break anti-discrimination laws.

Right To Work is where you do NOT have to join a union in order to get a job at an employer even IF there is a union in place

[Rageaholic]

Right To Work is where you do NOT have to join a union in order to get a job at an employer even IF there is a union in place

If that's the case, then I fail to see what's wrong with it too. I'm generally pro union, but I can see where forcing people to be part of a union can cause problems.

[EricKei]

At Will employment is the situation where an employer OR employee can terminate the employment at any time for any reason unless the employer does something stupid like break anti-discrimination laws.

Just a side note -- It also allows either party (employer=ER, employee=EE) to terminate the employment WITHOUT cause. Firing someone with or without cause each has their benefits, I should think:

- Terminate without cause: EE can claim unemployment benefits fairly easily, as they were not fired for doing something stupid/unethical/etc (in theory); but, it's very difficult for the EE to successfully sue the ER for term due to discrimination of any kind (after all, the record states that they were fired for no particular reason/laid off)

- Terminate with cause: I would imagine that this is normally used when the ER really doesn't wanna be held responsible for unemployment, or when the EE did something really bad. Makes getting unemployment harder (the cause will ALWAYS be something negative); but, if they choose their wording poorly or outright admit that they fired the EE on a discriminatory basis, it opens up things for a potential lawsuit

[Nekojin]

That's how it works in theory. In practice, not so much. In practice, "at-will" and "right to work" are almost indistinguishable. The only difference is whether you can be blocked from a job by a Union.

While it's true that the employee can quit without notice or explanation in RTW states, the flip side of that is that any future prospective employer who bothers to call them will most likely hear about it, and will probably cost you jobs that you otherwise "deserve." And, as EricKei points out, UI benefits are only eligible for people who are fired without cause - if you quit, you're 99% likely to be uneligible, even if you have cause.

[EricKei]

Of course, this also assumes that the ER is honest about it. I have back issues that go way back (and have worsened to the point where the doc has advised me to seek SSDI due to a second injury in the meantime), which effectively cost me a job last October after a mere two days. read: they told me to go home and not come back, as I could not stay on my feet long after leaning over -- tho I did not KNOW my back was that bad before starting work, I did advise them that I had a prior back injury. For some reason, I was forced to file Unemployment against the two-day job rather than against the one where I had worked for several months earlier in the year (normally you need to earn a specific amount of money at one place, and earning less than the minimum is supposed to force the claim back to a prior ER); it's happened to me before. Long story short: I got initial unemployment, but had to pay it back AND cannot get it again until I have another "real" job, because they lied and claimed that I quit willingly and I could not prove otherwise.

Fun addendum: The fact that I had said injury caused me to miss out on several jobs I might otherwise could have had, and COULD have done, based on prior experience, such as courier driving, just as long as I don't have to lift anything heavy (literally -- I had managers seem cool with me until I mention the back issue and see their look change like THAT; the conversation generally ended with a "we'll call you when we're done looking thru all of the apps" and that was that.)

[Panacea]

If the previous back injury was far enough in the past, it would make sense to make the claim against the new job, because that's the job you were working when the new injury or aggravating factor occurred.

I've had several back related injuries. I always applied on the job I was actually working, not the jobs I worked in the past.

[bara]

The trend I've seen the past ten years is that employers will use anything they can to get more work while paying less.

The fist time I really noticed this was when I was at Wal-Mart. They always seemed to be 'looking' for people to fill 'x' shift but never hired anyone. Instead they would cross train everyone in the store to run register and then threaten to write people up when they were unable to get the work in their assigned department done. But, it went further than that.

Say you work in Lawn and Garden. But for reasons no one seemed to be able to figure out, there would be no one working in Sporting Goods, pets, toys, housewares, or hardware. Those customers have to find someone to ask questions, find merchandise, catch fish, get bikes down, mix paint. But no sooner do you finally get that done, you get called to the front register because. Not enough cashiers were scheduled.

Now, after all that. Taking a short break or just skipping it all together, you finally get to your backstock, current stock, basic housekeeping only to find out your dept. manager didnt do any returns all day so now you have three cart loads of stuff that need to get done.

Ive got a feeling anyone who has worked retail probably knows exactly what I am talking about. This was pretty standard.

[EricKei]

Panacea -- the first injury happened a year before the "second job", but this complication did not appear at the job I had in between.

The reason I mentioned filing against a specific job was that, many years past, I filed for UE and filed against my most recent employer. When I was approved, I got a notice that I had not been working for them long enough/did not meet the minimum of $XXXX gross earned, thus, the claim was being redirected to the job immediately prior. I was informed at that time that I should have filed against PriorJob in the first place, for that reason. In this case, I filed against the "prior" job to begin with (because I knew I had not met that minimum at Job2), and it got redirected to Job2 for no apparent reason, even tho they were NOT a valid "candidate".

TLDR: I had been on UE, I took a job because, well, I'd rather work; I lost access to UE because of that second job even tho it only lasted for two days, due to a complication I had not experienced in the past x.x