Wisconsin Court Deems Right to Work Illegal
- Thread starter 251
- Start date
He won't.
There are many jobs out there that don't require you to pay union dues. Yet, you chose UPS to reap the rewards of well over a half decade of union run collective bargaining? If you want to live as a scab, I say you start from zero, negotiate your own contracts for yourself and self represent. You'll be lucky if UPS gives you $15 and half of your check for your medical. I gladly pay $105 a month in dues. My cellphone bill is more than that. My gas bill, more. Cable, more. Electric, more. My kids drink more in milk and OJ than my dues. Yet, what that will get me at the end of this contract is $37 an hour and $22 change in my health, welfare and pension. And, I've never been in fear of my job thanks to the great Intenational Brotherhood of Teamsters. So you are a fan of RTW, learn what it's really about. Everyone already has a right to work, yet they leave out that you want to be carried by someone else's hard work...for free.
Brown Spider
Well-Known Member
Agreed...and the key to the entire RTW charade is in wide load's last sentence. It's simple greed perpetuated by politicians, employers and those among us who would prefer that their co-workers foot the bill for the benefits that they themselves enjoy. The argument that a RTW employee doesn't agree with the political contributions of their union is nonsense. Since 1947, the Taft Hartley Act has provided that employees can pay an Agency Fee, a lesser amount than dues, that covers the union's expense for representation, collective bargaining, etc. I don't see this as the perfect solution, but it's been in place for 70 years and somewhat offsets the free riding selfish and greedy approach of the RTW parasites. Agency Fee employee's continue to receive representation and the benefits of collective bargaining but are prohibited from voting in union elections or attending meetings. Another possibility that RTW advocates are missing while they gladly let their co-workers pay their way is the adverse effect they're forcing on a small bargaining unit. Once the burden of representing that small unit with declining revenues becomes a drain on the local union treasury, the union has a moral obligation to consider disclaiming interest in that bargaining unit. The majority of members who are doing their part to support their union can't be expected to carry the freeloaders in a weak RTW bargaining unit. I'd like to see the reaction on the faces of those freeloaders when they learn too late that a valid disclaimer of interest would effectively terminate the CBA. As to my reaction...Adios Scabs! Enjoy your Right To Minimum Wage!
Bottom rung
Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter whether the politicians have D or R next to their name. They've all sold us out to huge corporations. And they will continue to do so until we've reached bondage. Two wings of the same bird. The only reason D won't support rtw is because they'd lose the union money. None of them give a 
about us.
about us.
brownmonster
Man of Great Wisdom
When unions were the strongest the middle class was the strongest and the economy grew. Money that doesn't go into the pockets of the worker goes into the pockets of the bosses.
251
You know me...
The misnomer "Right to Work" is the real problem here. As @wide load mentioned, the right to work has already been established. It was the driving force behind the Taft Hartley act of 1947 and has been argued to be contained in the 14th Amendment by common law constitutionalists for decades before that.
What people need to understand, and where this gets confusing (by design) is the definitions of what "Right to work" means in Taft Hartley, what it means as it applies to the 14th Amendment and what today's "right to work" legislation means. The arguments are as different as the eras in which the laws that defined them were enacted.
The 14th Amendment argument is pretty easy to simplify . It breaks down to each individual having the right to "contract his or her own labor as he or she deems appropriate." This argument is used by modern day Common Law Constitutionalists to argue that any law which restricts this right (I.E. minimum wage laws etc) is unconstitutional.
Taft-Hartley, AKA the Labor Managment Rights Act of 1947 was an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). It was put into law by an EXTREMELY conservative supreme court. This act was the true "right to work" law in that it made the "closed shop" concept illegal and allowed employers who previously could ONLY hire members from the Union hall that organized the labor to hire whomever they wanted. This act also made it illegal to force someone to join the Union and pay dues as a term of employment, as well as deemed the practice of using dues payer money to fund political candidates or activity without their consent illegal (this is why you should contribute to D.R.I.V.E). But even the EXTREMELY conservative supreme court recognized that giving people all of the benefits of Unionism for free was inherently unfair so they made it a law that non members must pay what is known as an "Agency fee" to the union. This agency fee covers ONLY the cost of representation by the Union, and is usually about 10 to 20% less than full dues. BUT...and this is where it gets messy. The supreme court left a loophole in the Taft-Hartley Act. Even though the EXTREMELY conservative Supreme Court at the time recognized that recieving all of the benefits of Union representation for nothing was inherently unfair to the Union, it allowed the States the right (states rights...sound familliar?) to abolish the "Agency Payer Fee" if they so desired. And that...my friends, is exactly what today's "Right to work" legislation does. It forces the Unions to represent non-members for free. Not only that, but it allows non members all of the rights and recourse that members have if they are not satisfied with their representation. So in a "Right to work" state, if a non dues, non agency fee paying member is not happy with their representation, they have the right to sue the union for not providing the representation that they never paid for.
There's a lot more that would have made this post three times as long. But that's the best nutshell explanation I could muster as I wait for my 10:00am appointment to show up.
What people need to understand, and where this gets confusing (by design) is the definitions of what "Right to work" means in Taft Hartley, what it means as it applies to the 14th Amendment and what today's "right to work" legislation means. The arguments are as different as the eras in which the laws that defined them were enacted.
The 14th Amendment argument is pretty easy to simplify . It breaks down to each individual having the right to "contract his or her own labor as he or she deems appropriate." This argument is used by modern day Common Law Constitutionalists to argue that any law which restricts this right (I.E. minimum wage laws etc) is unconstitutional.
Taft-Hartley, AKA the Labor Managment Rights Act of 1947 was an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). It was put into law by an EXTREMELY conservative supreme court. This act was the true "right to work" law in that it made the "closed shop" concept illegal and allowed employers who previously could ONLY hire members from the Union hall that organized the labor to hire whomever they wanted. This act also made it illegal to force someone to join the Union and pay dues as a term of employment, as well as deemed the practice of using dues payer money to fund political candidates or activity without their consent illegal (this is why you should contribute to D.R.I.V.E). But even the EXTREMELY conservative supreme court recognized that giving people all of the benefits of Unionism for free was inherently unfair so they made it a law that non members must pay what is known as an "Agency fee" to the union. This agency fee covers ONLY the cost of representation by the Union, and is usually about 10 to 20% less than full dues. BUT...and this is where it gets messy. The supreme court left a loophole in the Taft-Hartley Act. Even though the EXTREMELY conservative Supreme Court at the time recognized that recieving all of the benefits of Union representation for nothing was inherently unfair to the Union, it allowed the States the right (states rights...sound familliar?) to abolish the "Agency Payer Fee" if they so desired. And that...my friends, is exactly what today's "Right to work" legislation does. It forces the Unions to represent non-members for free. Not only that, but it allows non members all of the rights and recourse that members have if they are not satisfied with their representation. So in a "Right to work" state, if a non dues, non agency fee paying member is not happy with their representation, they have the right to sue the union for not providing the representation that they never paid for.
There's a lot more that would have made this post three times as long. But that's the best nutshell explanation I could muster as I wait for my 10:00am appointment to show up.
Last edited:
Yes that certainly is a nutshell explanation. But for those of us on Earth that understand process, it was the 80th Congress, with Republican majorities in both houses and support from "solid southern Democrats", that enacted the Taft-Hartley Act, not the Supreme Court.
Hope your appointment went better than your post.
251
You know me...
You're right. All acts are passed by Congress. But when researching acts that are passed by Congress, vetoed by the President, subsequently overturned by Congress, and taken to the Supreme court... most researchers usually go to supreme court decisions for clarification. I should have made that distinction.
But thanks for pointing out my short comings on the one issue I thought we might actually have common ground on. Good to know that we can't agree on ANYTHING.
Last edited:
251
You know me...
Oh sure we do partner, I'm just a bit of a stickler when I come across inaccuracies, and you provide a fertile field. BTW...it's "overridden" by Congress, not "overturned".
Now breathe deep and relax Francis, I still think there's hope for you. XXXOOO
If I wasn't such a fan of sarcasm, I'd keep this argument going. But in this case, I'll concede defeat [emoji12]
Brown Spider
Well-Known Member
Boys, Boys, Boys...we've got a labor movement in a downward spiral, a windbag for a General President, declining membership, co-workers who refuse to pay for the benefits that they gladly accept, and a chance that a demented billionaire will lead our country next year. "Overridden"? "Overturned"? Who cares? We're being overrun!
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
barnyard
KTM rider
Very interesting article.
I have always questioned making unions represent non members, I also believe that unions could add to the case by having to administrate health care benefits, as is the case with Teamcare. Right now, we are paying union administrators to help non dues paying members with their healthcare.
Illegal taking.
I like it and hope that this is the argument that overturns RTW.
Thanks for the link.
I have always questioned making unions represent non members, I also believe that unions could add to the case by having to administrate health care benefits, as is the case with Teamcare. Right now, we are paying union administrators to help non dues paying members with their healthcare.
Illegal taking.
I like it and hope that this is the argument that overturns RTW.
Thanks for the link.
Coldworld
Well-Known Member
Don't forget all of their stock which could add up to 100s of millions over their upper mgt through ceo lifespan
Coldworld
Well-Known Member
My wife, dad and brother all work for union companies... Two in utilities and one in healthcare and yes ONCE in a while there is an "issue" with something but from what they tell me and from what my wife hears from the ups trenches from me ups is way worse...and it seems like employee relations is the biggest problem along with this obsession about production .... Which all of the other jobs listed have but its not close to ups....they keep this up because nobody has checked them on it ..
Coldworld
Well-Known Member
Do we even get the 5% discount anymore???
Similar threads
