Kentucky Republicans Pass Right-To-Work, Dropping The Hammer On Unions
67 replies, posted
[img]http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/58701e121b00008d016e607a.jpeg[/img]
[quote]Organized labor suffered its first major legislative setback due to the 2016 elections on Saturday, when Kentucky Republicans gave final approval to right-to-work legislation and repealed the state’s prevailing wage law. Both bills are expected to be signed into law by the governor, and will take effect immediately.
Kentucky is the last holdout in the South without an anti-union right-to-work law on the books. For decades, labor unions and Democrats fended off such measures, which diminish union membership and weaken the labor movement. But when Republicans captured the state House in November, they paved the way for passage of the legislation. The law will apply to all new labor contracts, but will not affect current agreements.[/quote]
[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kentucky-republicans-right-to-work_us_58701cc6e4b043ad97e38561"]Huffington Post[/url]
Let's keep voting against our own interests, shall we?
This won't make America great.
What the fuck are we doing with this country
I love these euphemistic names like "right-to-work" it's so sinister.
So essentially it's not "right to work" at all - it's actually a law that forces unions to represent people who aren't part of their union, weakening them financially and politically.
Considering the States already has shit labour laws, this is not going to help the people of Kentucky at all.
What exactly does this new bill do?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51641140]I love these euphemistic names like "right-to-work" it's so sinister.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly why they choose them. I'm sure a decent portion of voters just saw "right-to-work", thought it sounded good, and voted for it.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51641699]That's exactly why they choose them. I'm sure a decent portion of voters just saw "right-to-work", thought it sounded good, and voted for it.[/QUOTE]
I think we need an amendment or something that has a third party analyze and name bills accurately.
[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;51641713]I think we need an amendment or something that has a third party analyze and name bills accurately.[/QUOTE]
I wish misleading or outright untrue names for bills was considered unconstitutional. You should make EVERY effort to inform the voters WHAT they are voting for.
But that would mean less fucking over the uninformed so of course they wont do it.
[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;51641713]I think we need an amendment or something that has a third party analyze and name bills accurately.[/QUOTE]
The "Fuck up the country's financial and social future" act doesn't have quite the same ring to it
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51641147]So essentially it's not "right to work" at all - it's actually a law that forces unions to represent people who aren't part of their union, weakening them financially and politically.
Considering the States already has shit labour laws, this is not going to help the people of Kentucky at all.[/QUOTE]
A friend of mine from Kentucky says the illiteracy rate there is 40%. So they don't know anything about laws and what the text behind them are, just what they ~sound~ like. And because of this, they're basically exploited by Republican politicians due to their lack of education.
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;51641150]What exactly does this new bill do?[/QUOTE]
It stops employment agreements from forcing new employees to pay union fees. That way employees can opt in instead of being forced to pay union fees.
This means that where there is a union, the employees who don't want to pay union fees don't have to, essentially pissing off unionized workers and leading to them calling these employees free loaders.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;51641779][B]A friend of mine from Kentucky says the illiteracy rate there is 40%.[/B] So they don't know anything about laws and what the text behind them are, just what they ~sound~ like. And because of this, they're basically exploited by Republican politicians due to their lack of education.[/QUOTE]
How in the fuck?
There are many much poorer countries that have a much, much lower rate of illiteracy.
How... just... what?
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;51641787]It stops employment agreements from forcing new employees to pay union fees. That way employees can opt in instead of being forced to pay union fees.
This means that where there is a union, the employees who don't want to pay union fees don't have to, essentially pissing off unionized workers and leading to them calling these employees free loaders.[/QUOTE]
Is there stipulation in that if the person hired backs out that the Union has to provide the same services it does to members though?
Personally I always thought it was bullshit to be forced to pay into the union even if you weren't a part of it. Why should I pay into a service I don't want and not receive any of the benefits anyway?
Kentucky also allows employers to fire employees for any reason whenever they want with no written notice. The only exception is you can't fire people for being a member of a protected class. However, it's very hard to prove your employer fired you for discriminatory reasons when they do.
So in the state of Kentucky, unions going to be severely crippled in their ability to fight for worker's rights and employees are pretty much under threat of immediate termination for attempting to speak out in any way against unfair practices.
This is why I'm so confused about how people think taking shitty jobs from other countries and moving them here is a "good idea" when red states are going to gradually become as pro-employer as possible.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51641801]Is there stipulation in that if the person hired backs out that the Union has to provide the same services it does to members though?[/QUOTE]
Under law, unions are forced to provide the same benefits of representation to everyone in the union. Right to work exists solely to drain money from unions under the proposition of workers still getting union benefits without paying for them.
The idea is if more and more people don't pay, the union has to cover all their members with decreasing reserves. So after a while they won't have the money to effectively call strikes, campaign for wage changes, or fight for workers rights.
The reduction in efficiency makes the union seem less valuable, so people will drop out of the union resulting in no union protection and unions that are extremely weak and pretty useless. So yeah. Kind of everything conservatives have wanted for the last 130 years.
Pardon the rant, I've done a lot with the teacher's union here.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51641798]How in the fuck?
There are many much poorer countries that have a much, much lower rate of illiteracy.
How... just... what?[/QUOTE]
they're using the right to be illiterate
[QUOTE=joshuadim;51641779]A friend of mine from Kentucky says the illiteracy rate there is 40%. So they don't know anything about laws and what the text behind them are, just what they ~sound~ like. And because of this, they're basically exploited by Republican politicians due to their lack of education.[/QUOTE]
There is NO fucking way the illiteracy rate is that high. Provide a source.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51641899]There is NO fucking way the illiteracy rate is that high. Provide a source.[/QUOTE]
Well, I found this report which states that the illteracy rate is appropximately 14% (which is still bonkers): [URL="https://nces.ed.gov/NAAl/pdf/state_summaries/Kentucky.pdf"]report.[/URL]
But Wikipedia is claiming it's 40%... I can't find a source for that.
EDIT: Wait no, it's 40% [B]low literacy[/B] skill levels. I still can't find a source for that however? [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Kentucky"]Wikipedia.[/URL]
If only there was some sort of government organization that tracked these things with proper sampling and scientific methods:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/eFv2lxv.png[/img]
To summarize, they estimate those lacking basic prose literacy is 12%, and then they state their 95% confidence interval is between 10.3% and 14.3%.
Source: [URL]https://nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/StateEstimates.aspx[/URL]
Is there nothing more up to date? The population is 4 million now.
And to be fair I didn't know about that system at all due to the fact of being Irish... :v
get me out of this state
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51641147]So essentially it's not "right to work" at all - it's actually a law that forces unions to represent people who aren't part of their union, weakening them financially and politically.
Considering the States already has shit labour laws, this is not going to help the people of Kentucky at all.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't force unions to do anything. It just stops forcing people to associate with a union if they don't want to.
[QUOTE=elitehakor;51641996]get me out of this state[/QUOTE]
ohio ain't much better my friend.
[editline]8th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;51642009]It doesn't force unions to do anything. It just stops forcing people to associate with a union if they don't want to.[/QUOTE]
its also pretty much the first step to subcontracting union jobs to skirt the unions
[QUOTE=Sableye;51642077]its also pretty much the first step to subcontracting union jobs to skirt the unions[/QUOTE]
Shouldn't it be the union's job to be attractive enough to encourage voluntary membership, instead of just taking it for granted that people owe them 'union dues'?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51641798]How in the fuck?
There are many much poorer countries that have a much, much lower rate of illiteracy.
How... just... what?[/QUOTE]
Eastern Appalachian kentucky is stuck in the 19th century. Where I live in kentucky it isn't that bad.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;51642086]Shouldn't it be the union's job to be attractive enough to encourage voluntary membership, instead of just taking it for granted that people owe them 'union dues'?[/QUOTE]
How can it be attractive if there aren't enough union members to fund anything substantial?
[QUOTE=soulharvester;51642086]Shouldn't it be the union's job to be attractive enough to encourage voluntary membership, instead of just taking it for granted that people owe them 'union dues'?[/QUOTE]
Do you not know what collective bargaining is.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51642009]It doesn't force unions to do anything. It just stops forcing people to associate with a union if they don't want to.[/QUOTE]
Again, unions are already required to offer the same representation to all members. Right-to-work forces unions to pay more to cover the people who aren't paying to disempower the union as a whole.
I wouldn't personally care that much for being forced to pay someone else to negotiate on my behalf what I should deserve to be payed.
Then again I don't really care for states enforcing unions either, if they're going to be a middleman between worker and employer then their dues should be 100% voluntary on the part of the worker.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;51642156]Again, unions are already required to offer the same representation to all members. Right-to-work forces unions to pay more to cover the people who aren't paying to disempower the union as a whole.[/QUOTE]
The solution to this is to change the law requiring unions to represent non-members, not force people into the union.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51642278]The solution to this is to change the law requiring unions to represent non-members, not force people into the union.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what this law does?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.