Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
‘Right to work’ is conservative code for screw the worker
Earlier this week the Michigan legislature passed a law making Michigan a “right to work” state. This change represents Michigan’s dramatic shift from a pro-union state to a more conservative, pro-business state. Nearly half of the states are right to work states, a trend that shows no sign of abating. Right to work is a brilliantly contradictory term composed by pro big business factions. The term is more accurately defined as “screw the worker”.
As an attorney in North Carolina, which is a right to work state, I have seen firsthand how this pro-business/anti-worker legislation hurts not only the workers but the economy in general. Right to work legislation is premised on the idea that lack of regulation is a good thing because it promotes business growth. Proponents of this legislation believe unions get in the way because they make business inefficient and stifle growth. Recently North Carolina has not fared well economically in spite of right to work legislation.
In right to work states, an employee may be fired for virtually any reason other than discrimination against a protected class. This means an employer can fire an employee because he or she does not like the employee’s clothing or thinks the employee is fat. Even if there is some form of discrimination an employer need only show some other reason for termination, and the aggrieved employee will have little if any legal recourse. The reason does not have to be a good reason.
Employment law claims are very difficult to maintain in right to work states because the law is slanted in the employer’s favor. Regardless of the merits of the case, the law makes it difficult to maintain a case.
The process usually goes like this: Employee is fired. Employee files a complaint with the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Rarely is the case resolved at this level. The EEOC will issue a right to sue letter. Employee retains an attorney, but, even if there is discrimination, harassment or a hostile work environment, the case stands the likelihood of being dismissed if there is any legitimate reason for termination. Again, this is a very low bar for the employer.
In right to work states, unions have little if any power, and this means workers are paid less because no one forces management to pay workers more. Anti-union people argue unions stifle business growth, but there has never been any evidence to support this notion. To the contrary, the United States thrived economically in the 1950′s and 1960′s when unions had more influence.
When workers make less everyone suffers. If workers are paid lower wages, they will not have as much money to support themselves and their families. This means they will have less money to spend on goods and services. Businesses that provide these goods and services will suffer if no one can afford their goods and services.
Generally, proponents of right to work legislation argue regulation of any kind is a bad thing. They believe in pure capitalism, free and unfettered by nettlesome regulations. This is a fallacy, and history has shown us what happens without proper regulations.
What these proponents of right to work legislation fail to acknowledge is appropriate regulations can make the workplace safer and more efficient. Ultimately this benefits the corporation and the worker.
For example, a worker who is safer will be much more productive because he or she will be able to stay on the job. When there are not appropriate safety regulations, workers stand a greater chance of being injured. If these injuries occur on the job, in most states the corporation will have to pay the injured worker’s workers’ compensation benefits. This is expensive, and, if the worker cannot fully recover, the worker will never make the same wage he or she did prior to the injury. This dissipates the worker’s purchasing power, and this has a ripple effect throughout the economy.
The most troubling aspect of right to work legislation is many workers support the legislation. Ironically, the very people who are protected by unions and who benefit economically from unions are duped into thinking right to work legislation benefits them. Citizens United and other organizations like it have been masterful in convincing people to vote against their own self-interest in this regard.
Right to work legislation does not help workers. In fact, it does a great deal to hurt them. Right to work legislation insures workers will make less money. Workers will have less legal recourse against employers, and the work environment will be less safe. Unfortunately this is a trend that will continue until people elect representatives who are less beholden to corporations and more loyal to the people.
Image: Occupy Las Vegas
Look who's running scared from their own extreme anti-union agenda. Yes, it's Republicans in Ohio. Ohio ...
An inanimate object or representational figure manipulated by an entertainer can be amusing and tell a story ...
It was another sad day for the middle class yesterday as Republicans in Indiana passed a Right to Work f ...
The people calling themselves 'conservatives' are full of glee over what Americans for Prosperity (the s ...
The Employee Free Choice Act is a bill that depending on your political leanings, you either love or hate, b ...
robbiecc
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 11:50 am
I really don’t get it-don’t these same companies realize that with out a strong middle class with disposable income helps these same businesses. Take a lession from one of the pioneers of modern business-Henry Ford. He had the insight to know that if his workers did not make enough money to buy his products(which he also priced reasonably)he would soon be out of business with alot of un sold cars. These idiots of industry need to look at their business practices and stop looking at the short term/bottom line and start takeing the long view and a stable company for years to come. It’s really not rocket science, a large middle class(with disposable cash), happy workers with a safe, clean work enviorment make for a strong economy where everyone can prosper. That’s basic economics 101-maybe they should go back to basics.
Anne
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 11:58 am
“Right to work” is a benign-sounding phrase which masks anti-worker sentiment. It’s worth noting that the most important resource of a business is its workers because they are instrumental in helping a company to reach its goals. Some of the very people defending the actions of Gov. Rick Snyder in Michigan are expressing glee at the idea that he’s sticking it to “libs” without taking into considering the fact that such a far-reaching piece of legislation affects all workers there, regardless of their unionized status or even political party. This adversarial attitude toward workers in right-to-work states means a less solid middle class which is an underpinning for successful businesses. People like Snyder are the frontmen for the ethically challenged, sociopathic Koch brothers whose contempt for everyday Americans is well-known.
buckeyewill
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Thanks a lot for the information.
PHOOEYRAT
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 3:13 am
This is the “New-Modern”Corporate-World C.E.O.’s Agenda to have a cost-effective (“Cheap-Slave”)labor source to work their “Modern-Day”Plantation’s.The Modern Plantation Owner’s advantage today is that the Employee’s(Modern-Slaves) are now Responsible for providing their Own housing,transportation, food, clothing,health-care costs,education,etc. The wages and Benefits that they do receive have to be in a lot of cases supplemented with “Govt.Assistance” so that these People can”survive”. Is this the “New American Dream” to work from “cradle to grave” on a corporate plantation??? If not I suggest you create or join a group (Union) that promotes fair wage and benefits laws that both Labor and Employers can Agree on. And Vote Out Of Our Govt.Offices any Politician’s who would allow this country’s labor- force to be subject to this corporate domination of the working class Citizens of this country. “Corporations are People”;More like Royalty “Kings”and”Queens”(In My Opinion). Why Shouldn’t the Common Tax Paying U.S. Citizen’s have a say in this since it is said that corporate “Royalty” goes out of their way to avoid Paying Taxes(At all Costs). Since We the “Real-People” pay the majority of the taxes that fund this country and it’s needless Wars that Our Children are sent to die and be maimed in (only to Advance Corporate Interests and profits)etc. LETS WORK NOT TO WORK.WHY NOT MAKE IT SO NO ONE HAS TO WORK SO HARD EVER AGAIN.LET THE BEST-MINDS DESIGN A PUBLIC SYSTEMS NET-WORK RUN BY COMPUTERS AND ROBOTS THAT CAN PROVIDE ALL OUR COUNTRY’S BASIC NEEDS,FOOD,ENERGY,HOUSING’
TRANSPORTATION,EDUCATION HEALTH-CARE AT COST.WE CAN STILL ALLOW THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO COMPETE IN THESE AREAS IF THEY THEY CAN. THEY CAN ALWAYS COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW TO SELL US AS WE WILL BE ON THE WAY TO ENJOYING LIFE AND “EVOLVING AS A SPECIES ON THIS PLANET; DREAM.VOTE IN THE RIGHT TEAM AND MAKE IT SO.SIMPLE BUT IT WOULD WORK.IF WE AS TAX-PAYERS AGREE.
A Walkaway
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 10:39 am
What we need to argue is that the market correction for too-low wages is weakened or removed when “Right to Work” laws are enacted. The business owners have an unfair advantage in that they can force people to work through the threat of starvation or homelessness.
You just cannot stop working because the wages aren’t enough.
Add to that the fact that business owners do collude and work together to suppress wages, and you also can’t very easily change jobs to get a fair wage (they tried to get me involved in that crap when I had my business – go to their special invitation-only seminar on destroying unions).
So in effect the “self-correcting marketplace” that the conservatives prattle about is harmed by these “right to work” laws.
I would also tell any supporter of “Right to work” that the “Free markets” they prattle about never existed. The rich/elites have always manipulated the markets for their personal enrichment, without regard to the damage they do to others in doing so.
freck
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:12 am
The only people who get more freedom in this is managment who now has the freedom to threaten and harras there employees not to join the union.Employees get the choice, but the boss has a gun to they’re head while they’re making it.And as far as those labor laws go, the same politicians who are working hard to get rid of the unions will be working twice as hard to get rid of those labor laws that the unions fought for decades to get.
clarence swinney
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:55 am
REFORM TAX RATES
Total Income Tax Rates-1M+ Incomes
1993=31%
2002=28%
2007=17%
Top 400 Income Tax Rates
1992=28%
2002=22%
2007=17%
Income growth 1979-2007
Upper 0.1%=363%
upper 1%=156%
Bottom 90%=17%
We need fiscal justice
Dave
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Years ago at the Union shop I worked at I was a shop steward. We had just finished negotiating our contract and I was offered a job as Maintenance Supervisor. Seeing as I had a very bad back and it was getting difficult to do some of the heavy work that we did. I took the job and at the same time a production employee also took a job as a production supervisor, just odd that two strong Union Stewards were offered jobs, but anyways they told us we were mandated to attend daily meetings.
The first two meetings we attended were about the new Contract we just finished and they were telling us how to get around them and the intent of the wording. Almost everything they said was wrong. Well finally it pissed us off as we were there in the same room of the contract talks and the same person who was talking was the Human Resource Manager who was the main guy for the Union. He was twisting the wording so bad. So as we started telling him and the rest what we really agreed upon and on the second day we got thrown out of the manatory meetings and told not to come to anymore of them. This is how a company works? Less than 2 weeks after contracts were proofed and printed than given out. We could not believe something that was just negotiated i good faith was being ripped apart. Of course we let the Union know what they were doing and what to expect. Probally should have shut up and just got the full details, but back than I had a little bit of a temper. This is why companies need a Union Just Imagine what non Union companies talk about without the worry to stop them. The biggest reason a company has a Union is because they mistreat their employee’s. This same place closed and than a new company set up there and I saw a Regional rep and asked if they had that place yet and he said no they treated everyone well and were in no need of a Union and were’nt going to try and Organize them, A couple years later and it now has a Union because the company started to take advantage
A Walkaway
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Our graduate assistant union caught the school negotiating in bad faith (bold-face lying at the negotiation table). It wasn’t a pretty scene.
They were trying to get us to take cuts in pay (we’re the lowest-paid people on campus, partially because our main benefit was a major reduction in our tuition), and then demanded that we pay full price for our tuition AND take other reductions, along with an increase in responsibilities.
Their negotiating in bad faith ended up costing the school partial coverage of medical insurance on top of everything we already had.
(They’re trying to go to a “business-based” model for the universities, including the way the lowest people are treated.)
What was so personally offensive to all of us was that not only they were negotiating in bad faith, but they gave the president a big raise AND provided a fund for her husband to travel with her if he wanted – and said fund would have paid the salary of a number of us. She alone made more than all of us together.
After seeing (and experiencing) how business owners in this area treat their employees, I am 100% pro union. That bad faith negotiating just reinforced my negative opinion of corporations.