WashPo (opinion): The right-to-work dilemma

[PeterMP]

You really think developing countries are going to be in the market for $3,000 washer and dryer combo.

You didn't ask this of me, but and while the answer to that question might be no, is there any real doubt if you give people in developing countries money, they are going to do something with it.

Maybe it'll be food, clothes, decent shelter, clean water, or basic health care, and not a washer dryer combination, but globally, I'm not sure it will matter.

(Realistically, though that isn't the issue I'm concerned about. The issue is where does the difference in US wages and developing countried go. People that attack gloabilization because it decreases the wages of Americans are missing the boat in my opinion and being unbelievably selfish too. How dare those people that don't have the money to buy the things I have want a consistent work at what for them is a good paying job?)

---------- Post added December-14th-2012 at 01:35 PM ----------

THAT isn't a union v non-union issue. That's an issue of people demanding the lowest possible price on crap at the expense of their "neighbors".

The idea that prices are aligned with production costs was abondoned by economists a long time ago for this idea that you might have heard of called supply and demand.

---------- Post added December-14th-2012 at 01:42 PM ----------

In other words, “Right to Work” laws allow workers to pay nothing and still get all the benefits of union membership.

seems like that would get full progressive support

it also allows workers at shops that go union freedom of choice

Why should the workers at the union shops that don't pay the union reap the benefits of the union?

Why can't we let some workers at a shop be union, pay for the union, and be represented by the union, but if you don't want to pay the union, that person is on their own in terms of negotiations and other labor disputes w/ management? The union isn't forced to represent people that aren't members.

As is, in one case you are penalizing the worker (they have to pay for the union if they don't want to), and in the other case, you are penalizing the union (they have to represent the worker even if the worker doesn't help fund the union).

Why is one fair and not the other? Allow people to opt out of the union, but then they are on their own. If in a company unions can negotiate good deals, people will opt into the union.

[JMS]

You didn't ask this of me, but and while the answer to that question might be no, is there any real doubt if you give people in developing countries money, they are going to do something with it.

That assumes you give them a fair wage, even a livable wage... Countries with immature economies which are the targets for off-shoring are much more exploitative of their workers not ever having been exposed to organized labor collective bargaining agreements. In these countries wages tend to be subsistence alone and not sufficient to even buy the products the workers produce.

Maybe it'll be food, clothes, decent shelter, clean water, or basic health care, but globally, I'm not sure it will matter.

More likely the jobs will go to a third world country like Vietnam or Burma where decent shelter, clean water, or basic healthcare are not afforded to the average worker.

That is after all the competitive advantage which third labor has over first world labor.

(Realistically, though that isn't the issue I'm concerned about. The issue is where does the difference in US wages and developing countries go. People that attack globalization because it decreases the wages of Americans are missing the boat in my opinion and being unbelievably selfish too. How dare those people that don't have the money to buy the things I have want a consistent work at what for them is a good paying job?)

:doh: It goes into more profits for the corporations... Profits to pay chairmen unbelievable benefits.

Yes the American worker is being incredible selfish...

but Lee, Fat ****, Raymond who makes 25 million a year in wages and was given a 400 million dollar retirement package a then record for US corporations he represents the American work ethic?

[elkabong82]

I think unions are needed to protect workers against corporations and bosses as their goal of maximizing profit many times comes at the expense of the worker, However, I do not think union membership should be mandatory when you are hired at a job.

A balance needs to be struck. Union-busting was likely the motivation behind the new laws unfortunately, and it is a disgrace that actual care for the workers is disparaged. There has to be a way to allow unions without fear of firing for joining but without making joining mandatory.

IMO, the requirements for reasonable firing need to be raised. There should have to be actual evidence, and a fair amount. Open documentation of past incidents that support the firing, for example, or video showing theft, etc. The threat of being easily fired on trumped up charges because secretly the company wants to eliminate the union has to be stopped in response to weakening the union with right to work laws.

Again, while I am not in favor of making union membership mandatory, I am in favor of protecting unions and workers.