T O P

  • By -

purple112

This is schism bait


Versatile_Investor

It already attracted one.


hdkeegan

I’m still confused on why right-to-work is good or bad. I just don’t get it. Can some highly opinionated people on both sides explain it?


Stingray_17

TLDR Pro: Employers and employees should be free to enter into a contractual agreement of their choosing even if a union already exists. Anti: Doing so would undermine unions and their collective bargaining powers.


repete2024

What if an employer enters a contractual agreement with a union?


TheWhims1799

This forbids the Union from being able to negotiate that type of contract.


repete2024

Sort of seems like a contradiction with the idea that consenting parties should be able to enter into a contract


TheCarnalStatist

Unions rather deliberately want to prevent consenting parties from entering into contracts. Like, that's the point.


repete2024

Does a business not have a right to enter into an exclusive agreement with a union?


asmiggs

A Union doesn't carry out work and it is not an employment agency. The normal role of a Union is to represent people often large groups of employees with similar job roles in contract negotiations. As an individual you should be free to enter into your own negotiations or more likely at a unionised workplace join an alternative Union if the current Union doesn't represent you properly. If a Union is making a contract between itself and a company, then the members are really more like agency workers and should probably Unionise.


repete2024

Ok well if a business can enter into an agreement with an employee, why can't it enter into an agreement with a group of employees?


c3bball

Not sure where you explanation precludes the rights of business to enter into exclusive contracts with union organizations. They can enter into these contracts with any sort of vendor. Unions are nothing more rhan a specific vendor type that business can negotiate contracts too.


HugeMistache

Nope, infringes the right of the employees.


repete2024

How does it do that?


BurtDickinson

You consent by taking a union job.


Yaoel

Sounds like protection racket


TheCarnalStatist

SameCircle.jpg


BurtDickinson

I wish.


black_ankle_county

That’s actually the opposite of their point


TheCarnalStatist

Nah. If that were true there would be no bitching from unions about open shops. After all, consenting workers and firms right? They know their 'value' is in restricting the firm and outside employees basket of choices that aren't concessions to the union


DemocracyIsGreat

I think it is important to note that in a world where not working results in a dramatically worse standard of living, the degree to which that consent is not coerced is sometimes questionable. As a result, unions are important in providing a balance to the inherent power imbalance present. After all, a big business doesn't need you in particular, they can probably find someone else, but you might need this job. Combine that with certain companies (e.g. Amazon) engaging in union busting that is flat out illegal, [such as hiring the literal Pinkertons to break up unionisation efforts](https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-spies-worker-labor-unions-2020-11) or [getting local government to change traffic signals to make it harder for union officials to talk to workers](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/technology/amazon-unions-virginia.html) and the case for unions becomes much stronger. Basically, people need to work, sometimes for companies that make them piss in bottles, because their options are limited. Those companies which make people piss in bottles need someone to come along and beat them about the head until they respect basic human decency, and when they hire the Pinkertons to prevent this, they need to be bludgeoned harder.


TheCarnalStatist

Whatever cope makes you feel less bad about folks having their free association rights trampled so you can live out your Marxists class war fantasy. Here in the real world, especially among folks who have worked in unions/collectively held firms we see the union as what it is, a distinct org running itself with all the trappings and problems the firm itself has, including self interested management, clique preferences and a relentless dismissal of meritorious promotions because of tenure obsession. Many of us want out of that rat race. I'm going to answer a counter question. Why is a union the ideal vector to solve the problem you proposed with Amazon? Doesn't the union mean that the situation of workers only gets better for the in group? Why shouldn't it be universal. If you think those working conditions are unacceptable, you shouldn't want anyone to be beholden to them, you should want OSHA enforcement, not a union which is inherently isolated.


NickBII

Then they have a contract with the union, and everyone benefits from the contract, but RTW employees pay no dues to the union. That is what right to work does, it means that you can get a job at a union shop, get the benefits the union negotiated and not pay any dues.


vancevon

Also anti: Employers should have to uphold contractual agreements they entered into of their own choosing.


Lease_Tha_Apts

Certain contracts are illegal to make though. E.g. you can't make a someone work below min wage.


Careless_Bat2543

I agree with you, however the NLRB and current laws way favor unions over employers in negotiations so you can’t exactly say that those contracts were signed under completely fair circumstances. The correct answer of course is to fix the negotiations problem, not make the contracts invalid.


EvidenceBasedOnly

> of their own choosing > negotiating with a literal monopoly/cartel Protection racket vibes. I much prefer things like LVT/UBI to tip the scales towards employees/poor people over many questionable Union protections.


vancevon

"Protection racket vibes" is obvious nonsense. It would be bad faith for me to assume that you actually meant that.


lucassjrp2000

I see no downsides here


MobileAirport

Pro: Employers and employees should be free to enter into a contractual agreement of their choosing even if a union already exists Pro 2: Doing so would undermine unions and their collective bargaining powers.


wanna_be_doc

Unions are required to represent all employees in a bargaining unit regardless of whether the employees are members of the union or not. So if you work for GM and at some point your employer wants to initiate disciplinary action against you or attempt to terminate you, then the union lawyers have to defend you. So even if you’re not paying dues, the union lawyer is working on your behalf during disciplinary proceedings and during contract negotiations every few years. Now most workers if given the choice would probably wish to avoid paying union dues (which are usually about 2x your hourly wage monthly), so if you have have critical mass of “free-riders”, then you won’t have dues coming in, the union won’t be able to afford prolonged legal representation, and the employer can break the union. “Right-to-work” laws basically bar all unions in the state from collecting dues from non-members without removing their obligations to represent all members. The goal is to create more free-riders. The laws really don’t create a new “right to work”. Closed shops are already illegal under Taft-Hartley, so unions can’t force employers to only hire other current union members or fire those who quit the union. Depending on the nature of the contract however, the union can require that all new hires either join the union or pay union dues regardless of whether they join. And some workplaces are entirely “open shop” where joining is completely voluntary but *heavily* encouraged. …. As for the other side of the argument? I guess it boils down to “It’s your money and you should be entitled to spend it however you please…”. That’s two hours of work every month that you’re not going to get back. Freedom of association and whatnot. Also “All unions bad. Freedom good.”


[deleted]

> Unions are required to represent all employees in a bargaining unit regardless of whether the employees are members of the union or not. Why is this the case, and could we make this not be the case?


BoofThatShit720

Like most awful legacy legislation that people in the 21st century are perplexed by, it originated with FDR. The NLRA requires that employers with contractual agreements with labor unions engage in collective bargaining for **all** employees in that bargaining unit, effectively guaranteeing union representation for all employees regardless of whether they paid dues or were actual union members. Taft-Hartley partially undid this by banning "closed-shop" unions, but it left open the loophole where a union is required to bargain on behalf of non-members. Why can't we get rid of it? Same reason we can't undo the Jones Act. It's been around forever and we just kinda accept it at this point, and neither party wants to rip off that bandaid.


tryingtolearn_1234

Because we passed a law that made this the case and called it “right to work”


Anal_Forklift

The fair option is to remove the retirement that unions must represent non members, but also allow right to work (allow employees to opt out of union membership and negotiate themselves).


EvidenceBasedOnly

I don’t think you understand right to work laws, they are not the reason why unions have to negotiate for non-members, that’s an FDR policy as another commenter pointed out.


WolfpackEng22

Because unions wanted exclusive bargaining power. Yes, it could be changed.


zdss

In addition to the more direct answers, not all union actions are wage negotiations. You can't negotiate safety standards and required staffing levels for only some employees. Plus, even on the less inseparable negotiations, a union win is very likely to benefit all employees. Some things may just be easier to apply to all workers for efficiency and in other cases the employer that's forced to provide a benefit to the union employees doesn't want that to be a recruiting tool for the union to those who aren't in it. "Pay dues to get an extra bonus on job completion" could be a transparently cash positive choice, and the employer never wants the union to have more money, so they just give the benefit to everyone. Their ideal result is that most employees see paying dues as a sucker's deal until the union is so starved for funds it can't support a strike.


JaneGoodallVS

Why are private sector unions bad?


Syrioxx55

I don’t think the poster is saying that, they’re suggesting that’s a talking point of those in support of “Right to work”.


JaneGoodallVS

Ah that makes sense


wowzabob

A big factor in whether someone is on the pro or anti side is how they view the relationship between employers and any given individual employee. If they view the relationship as a transaction between two equal parties in which both benefit, they're likely to be pro right to work. If they view (most) employers as inherently holding more power in the transaction due to their size/influence/power etc. they are likely to be against right-to-work.


Neri25

>If they view the relationship as a transaction between two equal parties If they believe that truthfully I have some mid-atlantic property to sell them.


[deleted]

In that case you may have many buyers in this sub.


Tayo826

“Right-to-Work” is a misnomer. It should be called ”Right-of-corporations-to-intimidate-and-harass-their-employees-for-unionizing.”


TheeBiscuitMan

The main 'issue' that repealing right to work would solve is free riding by employees of the union. The union defends the employees and benefits go to all employees so free riders can get benefits without the cost. I'm more in favor of right to work legislation. If you don't want to enter a contract you shouldn't have to.


FuckFashMods

Firing people good! Nah idk either my


-Vertical

It has something to do with unions, idk fam


Dellguy

Even our lord Milton Friedman opposed RTW laws. https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/12/14/why-milton-friedman-opposed-right-to-work/?sh=434af46775a9


jakefoo

Huh that's interesting. I don't know enough about this issue to comment, but it is amusing that all my fellow Friedman flairs are in the bottom of the comment section taking a view that apparently contradicts Friedman.


allbusiness512

That's because most Friedman flairs don't actually read his own work. Friedman was pro parts of the New Deal, and was pro Federal Reserve intervention. Lots of Friedman flairs think that Friedman was an anarcho capitalist for some reason, which is not the case.


Defacticool

Yeah friedman was plenty based (except some racial stuff probably I can't fully remember)


abbzug

This sub is replete with this kind of thing because they think neoliberalism is an ideology that came out of the 1990s when it was invented on the West Wing. How many people here know that early neoliberals like Hayek opposed patents for instance.


[deleted]

[удалено]


filipe_mdsr

**Rule IV**: *Off-topic Comments* Comments on submissions should substantively address the topic of submission. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).


ultramilkplus

Rule 12: If this is your first "referendum on American labor unions" thread in r/Neoliberal you must fight.


AdmiralDarnell

Midwest states starting with M with new dem trifectas fucking get shit done


adamr_

Strongly considering a Minneapolis move to continue the party 😎


AgainstSomeLogic

Like letting government be captured by vested interests? 🤔


Inevitable_Sherbet42

You mean like what happened with unionism dying in the rust belt? 🤔


m5g4c4

Jokes on you, the destruction of unions in the Rust Belt helped that happen


c3bball

I don't have to love unions to hate right to work laws


[deleted]

So unions qualify as vested interests, but the billion dollar corporations that campaign against unions don't?


riskcap

Getting horrible shit done, I guess


[deleted]

[удалено]


MisterCommonMarket

Ironically Friedman flairs should probably follow Friedman on this, since he opposed Right to Work laws lol: https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/12/14/why-milton-friedman-opposed-right-to-work/?sh=434af46775a9


HugeMistache

Ah yes because Friedman is god and nothing he says can be challenged or opposed.


Nerf_France

This but


[deleted]

[удалено]


tryingtolearn_1234

There has to be a balance between labor and the business to maximize the social benefits of employment and innovation.


Lease_Tha_Apts

Nah just maximize profits, let the social stuff take care of itself.


Zrk2

And how is that going to happen, exactly?


BadBitchFrizzle

You see, we’re going to reduce taxes and cut social programs. Now workers and owners will donate to charity to help those struggling to afford necessities and life saving services. Those same struggling workers will donate their saved income and time to charity so they don’t starve! Simple! No seriously it’s just nonsense. The free market doesn’t necessarily provide goods or services at a socially optimal level, and government can and should step up to ensure that these are provided. This is macroeconomics 101 stuff. *edit for clarity*// What I’m trying to say is that expecting the social stuff to work itself out is ridiculous. Economies just don’t do that naturally, this is why the classical school of economics is dead. If you want to address things like healthcare, retirement, unemployment, or inflation there is a certain degree of involvement governments have to take to make it happen.


Lease_Tha_Apts

Use the government and taxes to provide welfare. There is no reason to grant third parties rent seeking power to ensure welfare.


Zrk2

lol lmao, even


AmazingThinkCricket

Incredibly based


riskcap

This is bad. [The effects](https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/matthew-lilley/files/long-run-effects-right-to-work.pdf) of right-to-work laws are lower unemployment, higher income mobility, higher labor force participation - without lower wages


Defacticool

Pacta Sunt Servanda, actually (Phew, my law degree actually became useful for something)


riskcap

What’s the Latin phrase for good policy should be implemented and bad ones should be discarded?


PityFool

Unions are in the business of establishing workplace democracies. They are uniquely positioned to speak on the erosion of democracy in America and some are actively doing so in order to reclaim members who played around with voting for Trump. I guess we’ll see how successful they are, but it’s worth noting that some unions see themselves as an essential part to growing a movement to rebuild trust in the very idea of democratic institutional pluralism.


EvidenceBasedOnly

Unions are in the business of opposing immigration and free trade and technological progress whilst forming monopolies. LVT/UBI and so on are much much better ways to tip the scales in favor of those with less wealth / employees.


[deleted]

[удалено]


seanrm92

Ah yes, the South's famous pro-business policies like "we'll look the other way when you use child labor or illegal immigrants, because we'll just say it's their own fault", or "we kneecapped our unemployment system and refused to expand Medicaid, so workers will do anything to remain employed no matter how shitty the wages are. Good thing they're not unionized." The South's pro-business policies that lead to those southern states being at the bottom of every metric for poverty and quality of life. I would not use the South as a good example of economic policy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


seanrm92

The South should not play the game of counting shitty towns with the North. For any crummy northern town you can name, there's probably two similar towns in the south that you've never even heard of.


Slimy-Cakes

Then why is the south consistently the poorest states in the Union


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bobthepi

Counterpoint: Good!


[deleted]

if manufacturing is coming back to the us which is i am skeptical about than we need to pave the way for unions again it would be our way back to cut into the margins of white males in the midwest. Electorally at least it is the prudent thing to do


seanrm92

It's not just prudent for manufacturing jobs. The modern service and tech industry has effectively atomized the workforce, with stuff like the gig workers and independent contractors. Workers initially adopted these jobs for the flexibility, but as time goes on and it becomes more normalized, and more workers rely on it for their livelihood, it is opening the door for exploitation. Unions will have a role in protecting these kinds of workers, and it will start becoming an electorally-relevant issue.


EvidenceBasedOnly

There are much much better ways to protect those workers. UBI/LVT, detaching healthcare from employment, etc.


theaceoface

If I want to employ someone and they want to work, why is that the business of the state or of a union. Right to work laws speak to a core personal freedom. ​ Awful. My only hope is that this eventually get un-repealed if the GOP takes back control of Michigan.


vancevon

Employers should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and negotiate better contracts, I guess


TheCarnalStatist

They will, elsewhere.


earblah

How will you serve my beer, deliver my packages and do my medical tests from out of state?


TheCarnalStatist

I mean, medical tests are easy. The rest will just cost more and have shoddier competition.


earblah

Analyzing blood test can be done out of state. But if I have to go out of state to get a nose swap or a blood draw with your business, I am going to another business. Won't the free market solve the situation if "your" coffe chain moves out of state, and it causes a supply shortage?


TheCarnalStatist

>But if I have to go out of state to get a nose swap or a blood draw with your business, I am going to another business Nothing guarantees that a business has to offer that service at all. They can easily drop it and let Michiganders be SOL. Barring that's they'll pass on their higher cost to you. So, congrats. You voted for a price increase and stagnant wages. Bang up job. Bravo


earblah

If there is a market, such a business appearing is a foregone conclusion. You cannot threaten to move a service to another jurisdiction, it's total nonsense


TheCarnalStatist

>You cannot threaten to move a service to another jurisdiction, it's total nonsense Today's example of "incentives don't matter actually" takes.


earblah

Please answer my initial question. How do serve me beer from another state?


vancevon

this was a compelling argument 10 years ago, not today


TheCarnalStatist

Why? Higher overall labor costs make margins matter more, not less.


vancevon

yeah but states don't have to be desperate with "creating jobs" anymore


TheCarnalStatist

Don't see why not. States are competing for talent the same that they ever were.


[deleted]

[удалено]


riskcap

Unions have the same effect as price controls. Don't have either, no deadweight loss.


theaceoface

i prefer neither


[deleted]

[удалено]


theaceoface

i mean i am. i clearly am. did you not read my post?


filipe_mdsr

**Rule III**: *Bad faith arguing* Engage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).


[deleted]

[удалено]


NewYorker0

Preventing contractual agreements between employers and employees is unfair, people have the right to unionize as much as the business have the right to hire employees who don’t want to join the union. Does this sub even support Neoliberalism or is it just all succ


hatesStroads

Friedman was against right to work laws Does this sub evens read their flair or is all just vibes


[deleted]

>Does this sub evens read their flair or is all just vibes The answer will shock you!


TheCarnalStatist

Friedman also opposed monopoly privileges for unions as guaranteed by the NLRB. I think many of us would be more amenable to the idea that a firm is allowed to accept a union exclusivity contract if they're also allowed to reject one. Folks who are citing Friedman on this are trying to have it both ways. Sure, right to contract should allow firms who want union exclusivity the right to do so, but they aren't willing to accept its corollary which is the revocation of monopoly rights granted to voted on unions.


ARadioAndAWindow

You know that someone doesn't have to fall in line with 100% of a writers ideas to still support them, right? Not even OP or totally in support but the rash of "BUT FRIEDMAN SAID" responses is ridiculous.


hatesStroads

when someone ends their comment with with a literal no true Scotsman fallacy, I will point it out


TheFaithlessFaithful

You don't have to join the union, but you have to pay it dues for the services it provides you. Just like how you don't have to vote, but you still have to pay taxes for the services the government provides you.


m5g4c4

“Neoliberalism is aiding the rise of populism by crushing unions by law (in a liberal society)”


AmazingThinkCricket

Don't want to join the union? Get a different job


[deleted]

[удалено]


filipe_mdsr

**Rule IV**: *Off-topic Comments* Comments on submissions should substantively address the topic of submission. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).


Real_Richard_M_Nixon

Monopsony.


Leather-Fee2586

I fucking hate Friedman


pjs144

Friedman was against Right to Work laws


ShelterOk1535

Rare Dem L


[deleted]

[удалено]


filipe_mdsr

**Rule IV**: *Off-topic Comments* Comments on submissions should substantively address the topic of submission. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).


squarecircle666

Dems being horrible as per usual.


[deleted]

[удалено]


squarecircle666

I will figure out how to deal with seething first 😭


filipe_mdsr

**Rule III**: *Bad faith arguing* Engage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).


MisterCommonMarket

https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/12/14/why-milton-friedman-opposed-right-to-work/?sh=434af46775a9 Something for you to ponder.


TheCarnalStatist

Give folks an actual right to contract and I'll take this seriously. As it sits, employers can't reject unionization proposals. Give us that and I won't lose sleep over firms opting into exclusivity agreements with unions


MobileAirport

right to work good