Home

Join

Main Menu



blog advertising is good for you

Links

Two Perspectives on RTW

As Indiana lawmakers get ready to make Indiana the 23rd Right to Work state in the country, I wanted to put up two interviews that I conducted this week.

I spoke with JR Gaylor of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Indiana and Brent Voorhies of the Central Indiana Labor Council.  Both offer some interesting perspectives on the issue and are worth a listen.

JR Gaylor – 10 minutes

Brent Voorhies –  7 minutes

The Indiana Senate passed RTW Monday 28-22.  A final vote House vote on RTW could come today if there is a quorum in the chamber.

  • Pascal

    So, the whole “freeloading” lie is based on union greed.  Alls they have to do is organize for members only?  All RTW does is say that if a working man chooses to not be represented exclusively by thugs then he cannot be coerced into being shaken down by thugs.  It is no surprise that thugs lie about this.  The union greed is an attempt to maximize their profits by obtaining a monopoly exclusive jurisdiction thus snaring more than their members but the price exacted for their greed is that if they claim such they must perform such.  

  • Prevailing Rage

    People take their exclusive property, their skilled labor, to trade with an employer for compensation; which they alone are entitled to negotiate or contract for negotiation (unions, lawyers, talent agents, etc.), as they see fit.  

    Workers who value unions or other forms of representation, will pay for it.  Unions aren’t the gatekeepers of access to employment opportunity.  Representation is exclusively an individual decision.  Forced association is unconstitutional.

    “Freeloading,” would be a counterfeit lien on the property of sovereign citizens (their labor), under the specious pretense of “representation;” claims of imposed 51% “democracies” notwithstanding.  

    Threatening the driver at a stop light with a broken or squeegee cleaned windshield, isn’t “representation” in exchange for “dues.” 

            

  • Think Again

    How is it a line?   You know when youj go into a union shop that it’s a union shop.  If you don’t pay dues, every dollar you earn, every benefit you have, is gained through union representation.

    If you don’t belong to a union at a union shop, by any reasonable definition, it’s freeloading.  

  • Think Again

    But you’re wrong.  Representation is NOT exclusive.  By law and contract.  Thus the term “union,” or mass representation.

    Such a simple concept.  

  • wurstnitemare

    This train left the station yesterday. As Bobby Knight would say, its time for the Ds to just lay back and deal with it. 

  • Prevailing Rage

    Tis the exclusive option / decision of the property / labor owner; the worker.  The worker is primary, contracted representation for whom would be tertiary; dependent, upon that which is essential or base (worker, employer).  

  • Think Again

    And then there’s Indiana statute.  Nice poetry, though.  It avoided the issue perfectly.

  • Pascal

    You act as if duh unions actually own the shop. Generally, they own nothing of the shop.  The owners of the shop, the real ones, likely would prefer RTW.  And, the shop owners can exist very well without duh union-what they really want, I suspect, is good help.  That is not often the case in union shops, as you well know.  Under Federal Law unions can opt to represent union members only.  That is what they should do.  But…greed….lotsa union greed….caught them up in the other provision of Federal Law.  TA, I’d give up-the facts are against you.  

  • Pascal

    Dunce, TA.  Union representation can be either exclusive monopoly sort, or not.  There are consequences either way.  I guess you missed labor law classes.  When the union chooses the exclusive representation route they pledge to represent all workers, union or not, in the unit. That is their pledge-crayfishing or trying to use the freeloader argument is for fools, TA, because if they wish to avoid those expenses all they have to do is let go of their greed and demand to only represent union members.

  • Pascal

    I’ve read, courtesy of our host, the new statute.  Clear, concise, does the job.  Game over-bring on the jobs.

  • Prevailing Rage

    No need to avoid the poetry of our Constitution…

  • Southsider

    I like clear, concise, also accurate.   Like the Gov’s speech last night.

  • Tyler Durden

    Wow, how stumped was Voorhies when he was asked about how it is the union’s choice to represent all workers in the bargaining unit and not just union members.

    His inability to answer shows what a crock of s**t the union “free-loader” argument really is. In truth, “forced-riders” is more accurate.

  • Pascal

    Good Point Tyler!  I’d be getting that Gaylor guy on quite a bit more often.  

  • Pascal

    Good Point Tyler!  I’d be getting that Gaylor guy on quite a bit more often.  

  • Anonymous

    “If you don’t belong to a union at a union shop, by any reasonable definition, it’s freeloading.”

    TA, extending your remark, one could presume that you believe that, if you know it’s a union shop, and you don’t want to be part of a union, then you have the choice of not working there.

    Fair enough.

    By comparison, if I owned a bar, and allowed my customers the freedom to use tobacco products, and had LARGE signs on my building proclaiming my property allows smokinging.

    You have a CHOICE of entering or not.  Why do the smoke Nazi’s insist upon taking CHOICE away from property owners and private citizens?