Workers should be allowed to choose to join Unions
Right-to-Work
I completely support the rights of those who choose to be a member of a union. How could I not? My paternal grandpa was a member of Teamsters and my maternal grandpa was a member of the UAW-CIO. My mother’s dad worked in Michigan at the Ford Plant and helped organize the union there in 1936. He witnessed men being physically beaten by so-called Pinkerton Detectives (ex-cons who Henry Ford bailed out of prison) if they were suspected of union organizing. Prior to union negotiations, there was no health insurance or paid vacations for “rank-and-file” workers. Unions gave the little guy the leverage needed to obtain the fair working standards that we have today.
Having said this, I equally support the rights of those who choose not to join a union. Regardless of the employer, these people have a right to work in their chosen occupation and should not be forced to join or pay union dues as a condition of employment. To me, making them do so creates an unfair working standard because the employee never had a choice in the matter.
I will continue to champion the individual rights and freedoms of those who choose unions/dues as well as those who shy away from unions/dues. A decision needs to be made and I encourage our State Representatives to make Indiana the 23rd Right to Work state.
Rob Hamilton Ferdinand, IN
What also can be considered unfair is for those who choose not to pay for a union membership receiving the benefits generated by all those in the union.
I tend to agree with Rob. No one should be forced to pay a union just to get a job. If the Union is that good then people want to join it. The point is, freedom of coice should be the goal and not protection of a system.
I agree, a person should not be forced to join a union. But, it's really not fair that they get the same benefits. "Unions gave the little guy the leverage needed to obtain the fair working standards that we have today." If someone decides they don't want to join a union they should have to give up that leverage and take what the employer offers. That's the gripe everyone has. Look at it this way, Is it fair for someone to work hard at a job but give up some of their money to support the person that sits on their butt all day collecting welfare? No it is not. So it's not fair for someone to say no to a union and expect all the same benefits as a union worker.
Unions served a much needed purpose at one time in their very clouded past and perhaps the idea that a union may be formed to insure safe and fair working environments provide an unseen check and balance now that does not require the formation of a union at this particular time.
The fact that unions do exist and so do non-union employees provides a choice for every worker to choose to work for a union and pay the dues or work for a non union shop and get payed less but not have to pay the dues.
The employee can decide for themselves who they want to work for.
Michael, if that is true why have 22 states had to have passed a right to work law? I think you need to look into this further. If Unions are so not needed that the majority of workers there can function without paying dues, then the union must not be needed. If the employer is so bad the employee must unionize, then the union reforms. Simple as that. If there are people willing to work for less, then it gets interesting.
Adrian "if that's true" I guess that means you didn't even look up Michael's claim. Look up the facts before you attack someone.