Why Oregonians Deserve the Right to Work

ProgressrequiresFreedom.serendipityThumb Why Oregonians Deserve the Right to WorkThe twenty-two states that have not required workers to join a union and pay union dues have enjoyed, as a group, more rapid employment and income growth, better job preservation, and faster recoveries from recession. Oregon is not one of those states, yet. Here, policymakers tried to pull us out of the most recent recession through greater state spending, funded by the Measure 66 and 67 tax increases. Research concluded that those measures actually will make our situation worse. Now, new research confirms that a better approach is for Oregon to remove a key barrier to private sector initiative and job creation by enacting a so-called “right-to-work” law.

Right-to-work laws provide job seekers and current employees the right to work for a company whether or not they choose to join a union. On February 1 Indiana became the twenty-third Right-to-Work state when its Senate approved a bill and Governor Mitch Daniels signed it into law.

A new study from Cascade Policy Institute (Right to Work Is Right for Oregon) examines the economic impacts right-to-work legislation would have on Oregon. The study is consistent with the vast majority of peer-reviewed research in finding that if Oregon were a right-to-work state, we would see improved employment and income growth. For example, enacting right-to-work legislation this year would lead to:

• 50,000 more people working in five years; 110,000 more working in ten years.
• $2.7 billion more in wage and salary income in five years; $7.0 billion more in ten years.
• 14 percent more taxpaying families per year moving into Oregon from non-right-to-work states.

A right-to-work law can be viewed as part of a pro-investment package that encourages firms to locate and expand in the state. In turn, the improved opportunities would have the effect of attracting more taxpaying families to Oregon from other states, while slowing down the number who leave. By examining IRS mobility data, we found that a right-to-work policy here would increase net in-migration from non-right-to-work states by 14 percent from what it otherwise would be. That is a significant number of new families bringing their earning power and their consumer needs with them. Think how our depressed housing market could benefit from such a trend.

Our study breaks new ground by covering 70 years of data and every state and relying on what we believe to be the largest datasets ever used to study the impacts of right-to-work laws. The results demonstrate more than just a correlation between right-to-work policy and economic growth, but point toward a causal link. In other words, we conclude that the right to work actually contributes to more employment, higher incomes, more net in-migration of taxpaying households, and faster economic growth. It is, therefore, a policy we believe Oregon should adopt.

Unlike fiscal policies that must weigh spending against taxes or pit one government program against another, enacting right-to-work legislation will not take a single dime out of state coffers. Indeed, right-to-work legislation is one of the few pro-growth policies that are actually costless to enact.

Oregonians need to recognize that capital and people are mobile. Tax measures 66 and 67 push high-income people and corporations away from the state and likely will lose Oregon up to 70,000 jobs and 80,000 high-income tax filers in the ten years after their passage. Enacting a right-to-work law will put mobility to work in our favor, likely adding 110,000 jobs in ten years and 14 percent more taxpaying families from non-right-to-work states every year.

Even if our research had not shown so clearly that Oregon’s economic prospects would improve as a right-to-work state, we still would support the policy based on the non-economic benefits that the name itself implies. It is unconscionable that workers are denied the right to earn a living simply because they decline to join a union. Basic principles of liberty and justice demand that we defend everyone’s right to work without third-party interference. The right to work is, therefore, a moral as well as an economic imperative.


See full report here.

Steve Buckstein is founder and Senior Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

tt twitter big4 Why Oregonians Deserve the Right to Work tt digg big4 Why Oregonians Deserve the Right to Work tt facebook big4 Why Oregonians Deserve the Right to Work tt reddit big4 Why Oregonians Deserve the Right to Work

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Economy, Government Regulation, Individual Responsiblity, Leadership, Oregon Government, Right-to-Work, State Taxes, Taxes | Tagged , , , , , | 89 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • MoBetter

    Right to work states are bad as they hurt the unions. How can a union survive if people are not forced to pay their dues. They can’t. Utah has proven that.
    So, please do not let Oregon fall prey to the anti-union crowd. Look what happened when those strikers in Canada struck. They closed the plant forever. How fair is that?
    Get real. Right to work??? Forget about it.

  • Anonymous

    We need Right to Work.
    Let face it,  who think they have a right to tell me  I got to join their union and fork over some hard earn money to give me representation I never ask for or want.  What right to work will do is allow me  liberty  to decide to join a union or not. With how unions are today my answer is  a strong No.
    Unions can stick it were the sun don’t shine. If they don’t like that then tough.
    Unions
    I done got no Unions
    I don’t need no stinkin union badge.

    • 3H

      You don’t have to take a job that is covered by an Union contract.  The choice is entirely yours.  

      • Anonymous

         Probably it would not be an issue if the union buts out of what not any of their business

        • 3H

          Such as?

          • Anonymous

            It none of the business of unions if an employer wants to hire me and I refuse to join Union. It is  none of your business how I live my life and who I work for.
             Got it 
            Now get out of my way 3H I do not need you and you do not  represent me. 

          • valley person

             But you think it is the business of the nanny state to step in and protect you from the union?

          • 3H

            I don’t believe I asked you how you live your life or who you work for.  Nor have I claimed to represent you.   Now you’re just making stuff up.

            It is your employers business that you either join a union or pay dues if that is what the contract that the employer, voluntarily, signed with the Union.  

            Got that?  The employer signed a contract that obligates them to do just that.  

            Just like if part of their doing business with the government requires them to do a back-ground check on you, then that is what they have to do.

            You don’t have a right for an employer to ignore a legally binding contract simply because you don’t like it.   You still have the choice to quit or not take the job.

  • MoBetter

    Unions are the only reason we don’t still have children threading the looms of our fabric industry.

    • Worker

      Tell me, who’s suggesting we go back to child labor?  The only thing Right-to-Work does is give you, the worker, the choice of whether you want to be a part of the union or not.  You can still join if you want to, or don’t- now you have the freedom to choose!  That’s what this is- giving freedom back to workers.

      • 3H

        No, it has nothing to do with freedom to choose, and has everything to do with breaking unions.  The people backing Right to Work laws… they don’t care about the average worker.  They don’t care about worker’s rights.  What they do care about, is getting labor as cheaply as possible. Of not having to justify why they fire someone. 

        • Steve Buckstein

          3H, you might believe that, but you’re lumping a lot of people into your “don’t care about worker’s rights” basket.

          Many, many employers care a lot about worker’s rights and understand that “getting labor as cheaply as possible” is often a recipe for business failure. 

          • valley person

             Steve, you and Cascade are not fooling anyone with a brain. “Right to work” is a bogus slogan intended to hide your true intent. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights of an individual worker and everything to do with the ability of businesses to prevent unions from forming in the first place, with the intent being to hold down wages and benefits.

            Even for “enlightened” businesses that treat workers as something other than replaceable parts, keeping wages and benefits as low as possible (without losing valued workers) is usually a goal. Its the way the market works, and if you don’t understand that you don’t understand free enterprise.

          • Steve Buckstein

            Sorry, but right-to-work is not a “bogus slogan.” It is explicitly used in the statutes of most states that have exercised their rights under the federal Taft-Hartley Act to protect workers from being required to join a union, or pay dues, in order to be employed in union organized companies.You may not like it, but it is a legal term defined in the laws of 23 states.

          • 3H

            Just because it’s defined by states doesn’t exclude it from being a bogus term.  It has nothing to do with the right to work.

          • valley person

             Its a bogus term and you know it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting workers and everything to do with protecting owners. The evidence is in the low rates of unionization in those states.

            Its like Republican state attorney generals complaining about the Obamacare requirement for individuals to buy insurance. They aren’t protecting these individuals from anything, and don’t give a damn about them. 

          • 3H

            But on their terms, not the worker’s.  I’m sure there are many that do.  I think there might be even more that say that care… as long as their workforce is compliant — but don’t want to have to bargain on equal terms with their employees.  

      • 3H
  • Bob Clark

    How radical that Oregonians should have more opportunities to find work in fields that should interest them, rather than having to take a number and sing praises to the union bosses to some day in the distant future (if ever) be accepted into a fixed work position. 

  • Lets Be Honest

    “The twenty-two states that have not required workers to join a union and pay union dues”

    I’m sorry, but this is false. No state has required workers to join a union or pay union dues.

    It’s hard to take seriously a post that starts with an obvious falsehood.

    • JoelinPDX

      The lie is yours. In fact your moniker should be “Let’s Lie.”

      I was required to join a union — AFTRA to be precise — to take a job in Portland…and not once but twice. I was told to join the union and pay union dues or don’t work. At one job I tried to fight the union but was told by the pro-labor NLRB that I had no choice but to join the union if I wanted the job.

      • Lets Be Honest

        Joel, in libertarian terms, you weren’t forced to take that job. Did someone put a gun to your head?

        If you didn’t like the job, or the fact that you had to join a union, you were free to quit your job and find another. 

        • JoelinPDX

          VP and Let’s Lie…read my comments further up on OC. I explained why I had no choice because the unions had cherry picked the bigger higher paying employers. I also explained why the union contract was worthless.

          It’s a totally guileless position to take claiming that I had a choice.

          And Let’s Lie…I’m not a Libertarian (or even a libertarian) so I don’t give a hoot about their definitions. I was forced, by circumstances, to take the job in the union closed shop.

          • valley person

            ” I explained why I had no choice because the unions had cherry picked the bigger higher paying employers.”

            You explained it. That doesn’t make it true.

            You had many choices, including starting your own business. You just wanted a choice you didn’t have because the workers at those businesses had decided to organize and managed to win a contract. So you want the state to help you out by outlawing what they were able to achieve.

            You were plenty “free to work.” But you wanted the nanny state to protect you.

      • valley person

         But the STATE did not require you to join the union, which is what Lets Be Honest said. So don’t call him a liar Joel. You chose to work at a closed shop, that’s your business, but the shop was only closed because of a private contract between the union and the employer, not because of the STATE.

  • valley person

    “Right to work” is false marketing. People have the exact same right to work in every state. They just get paid less in the so called right to work states. 

    “Right to work for less” would be more honest. 

    • guest

      nuts!

    • JoelinPDX

      I wondered when someone was going to drag out the old “right to work for less” saw and actually I figured it would be you, VP, or 3H. You two, after all, are the resident union goons here on the OC.

      • valley person

         Well, its a documented fact that wages in so called “right to work states” are well below wages in other states. Not that facts matter to you Joel.

        • JoelinPDX

          I’m well aware that wages are lower in right to work states (no quotes needed.) 

          Isn’t it amazing that without the threat of work stoppages hanging over their heads that business owners are allowed to pay market rates and hopefully combat outsourcing to cheaper overseas workers.

          • valley person

             Yeah, its amazing. Its also a ticket to a third world economy.

      • 3H

        LOL.. and you my friend, are the resident loon.

        • JoelinPDX

          I’d rather be a loon than a union goon

          • valley person

             Mazeltov Joel!

  • Let’s Be Honest

    “Libertarians” like Mr. Buckstein claim to be all about “freedom,” but it’s a peculiar kind of freedom.

    When those who already have power band together in order to exercise their power more forcefully in the economic realm, libertarians are all for it, and see any limitation of that exercise of power as bad, and even “evil.”

    However, when those who are not powerful band together in order to increase their power, then those same libertarians oppose it.

    I’ve never seen a libertarian suggest that shareholders should be required to give the okay before a corporation gives money to political causes, yet when it comes to unions, then it’s all about “individual rights.”

    • 3H

      That is an interesting point.  Well, Steve?  Do you think that shareholders should have a “right to profit”?   That Corporations spending money on issues with which the shareholder disagrees is inherently unfair?  That it is unconscionable to require them to take less profit in order to support issues with which they disagree?  Shouldn’t the investor be allowed to invest without finding some of their money going to political causes?

      • 3H

        Shouldn’t corporations be required to have an opt-in requirement?  If a share-holder doesn’t want to opt-in on political campaigns, they shouldn’t have to?  This should, of course, be a law.  Oregon could lead the way in the “Right to Invest” movement.

      • Steve Buckstein

        As I replied above, I have no problem with shareholders (who are voluntary owners of a company) voting to approve or disapprove corporate political contributions. But if they’re on the losing end of that vote they are free to sell their shares without losing their jobs, unlike workers in a non-right-to-work state like Oregon who would lose their jobs if they resign from the union over objections to its political contributions.

        • 3H

          And if an employee is on the losing end of a vote, they can quit their job.  They are not held at gunpoint and forced to continue working.  People are voluntary employees of a company, yes?  They can choose to work somewhere else if they want.  Yes?

          So, I take it you would not be in favor of a law requiring that money spent by a corporation on political campaigns  be only gathered from share-holders who opt in?  Why not.  Why not have that choice Steve?  Why is it that the biggest share-holders (not necessarily the most numerous) get to decide for everyone else.  Does that seem democratic to you?

          But, at the very least, require, by law a vote of share-holders with a detailed prospectus of where the Corporation wants to spend their money before any is spent so that share-holders can dump their stock before any of their money is spent.  

    • Steve Buckstein

      I am not opposed to any group of individuals “banding together to increase their power.” What I am opposed to is forcing others to “band” with them when they choose not to.

      As for shareholders giving their okay before a corporation gives money to political causes, I have no problem with that either. But, becoming a shareholder and selling one’s shares are voluntary acts, unlike the coercive act of being forced to join a union or pay dues in a non-right to work state like Oregon.

      • 3H

        Taking or not taking a job is also voluntary.  As VP pointed out, the state only allows a closed shop to be part of the contract.  There is no requirement that the contract contain that language.  It is a voluntary agreement between the employer and the union.  

        Shareholders aren’t allowed to opt out if they are outvoted by the other shareholders.  Why should they be coerced into giving up some of their income to a cause they don’t believe in.

        Would you agree that a law requring that only those shareholders who opt-in donate part of their income to political donations through the corporation?

        • Steve Buckstein

          Buying and selling shares of stock have a lot lower transaction costs than quitting or being fired from your job because you disagree with the union.

          The transaction cost issue (wonky economist talk for the costs involved in making an economic decision) is one reason why so many people, including me, disagree when someone says “love it or leave it” to those they believe are advocating anti-American ideas. Leaving a state, let alone leaving a country, involves very high transaction costs. 

          For most people, quitting or not taken an offered job because of union issues is not very realistic. That’s one reason why right-to-work is so important.

          • 3H

            What about various workplace health and safety rules?  Are you generally in favor of those? 

          • Steve Buckstein

            To the extent rules really protect health and safety I would probably support them. But, as you know, the devil is in the details. I’m not going to go off on an endless discussion of such rules here. This post is about right-to-work and I prefer to stick to that topic here.

          • 3H

            And I like to determine if you’re really for worker’s rights, or if you really just using that as a ruse to tip the balance in favor of employers.   

            Probably neither of us are gonna get what we want, huh?

          • valley person

            ” Buying and selling shares of stock have a lot lower transaction costs
            than quitting or being fired from your job because you disagree with the
            union.”

            Huh? Doesn’t that depend on the amount of stock you are talking about, and the nature of the job in question?

            Aren’t you just rationalizing here Steve? Don’t principles of freedom matter to you? Or are you just being selective where you apply your principles?

          • Steve Buckstein

            Huh?  No, as a generalization transaction costs involved in selling publicly traded shares are miniscule compared to the transaction costs of changing jobs. The term transaction costs may  be new to you. A general introduction is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_cost

            Principles of freedom matter to me very much. I’m not being selective; I’m trying to navigate a byzantine web of rules and laws that your preferred government system has created.

          • 3H

            And you’d do that by adding yet another law.   Seems counter productive and even more byzantine.

            You’ve gone to great lengths to try and describe how it effects the economy in general — but spend very little time on why it is so bad for workers.   You only have a vague notion that it is a matter of freedom and choice…  a standard that I seriously doubt you’d apply to worker and an employer.  

            What sort of rights do you think a worker should have with regards to his employer?  Do you think, by law, that employers should have to negotiate with their workers (non-union) for workplace changes?

          • valley person

             My preferred government system? What do you know about what system of government I prefer? You object to a constitutional Republic?

            Here is where you are being quite selective. You want a new law passed in Oregon that would prevent workers from contracting with their employer to create a closed shop. You want the state to support your position with a restrictive law that prohibits a type of contract you don’t like.

            Hardly a libertarian position to think you know best and you get to impose your position on everyone else through law. 

  • 3H


     It is unconscionable that workers are denied the right to earn a living simply because they decline to join a union. Basic principles of liberty and justice demand that we defend everyone’s right to work without third-party interference. The right to work is, therefore, a moral as well as an economic imperative.”

    They can earn a living, since (the one statistic I saw) that only 16% of the Oregon workforce is unionized.   The means the other 84% of the jobs are available if you don’t want to work for a unionized business.

    I’m somewhat surprised that as a Libertarian that you want government intervention in a contractual agreement between two parties.   You see a greater good if a Union is limited in what it can ask for in a labor contract?

    • Lets Be Honest

      I believe that the real “principle” here is helping those with power keep their power:

      If a worker loses or is denied a job because their employer doesn’t like them because they’re gay, or black, or female, or they have the “wrong” political viewpoint, or they want to join a union, then that’s just too effin’ bad, and they’re free to look for a job elsewhere.

      If, however, a worker loses or is denied a job because they refuse to band together with the other workers, then that is an outrage!

    • Steve Buckstein

      I have to partially agree with you here (surprised?). I don’t like government intervention in a contractual agreement between two parties. But, the intervention has already occurred through federal labor law. Given those existing interventions, right-to-work is one way to reduce the influence of a third-party (a union) on the contractual arrangement between worker and employer. Repeal federal labor laws and I’d probably be with you on the right-to-work law issue.

      • valley person

         Isn’t it between the union and owner to decide whether the contract is closed or open shop? And isn’t that a private contract?

        • Steve Buckstein

          Not entirely. There is a whole body of federal law governing such contracts. Included in that body of law is the provision that states may decide whether to allow closed shops or not. Bad slogan or not, from your perspective, that provision is knows as the right-to-work.

          • valley person

             We are getting closer to what matters now. A certain type of private contract between workers and employers is disallowed in certain states. Those states, for the most part are the low wage, low union, high poverty south.

            Libertarians like you Steve, are exposed as the same sort of hypocrites you like to criticize. You want the nanny state to intervene where it benefits what you think are your interests and you want it to stay away where it benefits someone elses interest. If you were at all consistent you would tell the state to butt out and not hide behind its skirts.

        • JoelinPDX

          Of course the open shop/closed shop question hangs over the business owners head like a jumbo sized ax. Approve the closed shop provision or we’ll take our “members” out on strike and shut you down.

          At that point the business owner is within his rights to hire workers at the market rate, rather than paying the inflated wages required by the union contract…except for the pro-labor NLRB which will slap them down for exercising the prerogative.

          • valley person

             Yep. Laws to protect workers are  a pain for employers. No question. That is why China outlaws workers rights.

  • Ardbeg

    Do people really have a problem against unions or is it the money unions give to politics?  Very few workers are unionized and no industry I’m aware of is 100% unionized so there is nobody ‘forced’ to pay dues.  I think people forget how unions got started in the first place; they are voted on.  That’s a heck of a weird way to decide something in a Democracy.

  • http://rantingsofatrimetbusdriver.blogspot.com/ AL M

    Hell, China is a right to work country isn’t it?
    Getting rid of all the unions means America will be just like China, is that what we really want for America?

  • JoelinPDX

    This only makes perfect sense…but it will never happen in Democrat Oregon. Even if you could get “Right to Work” through the legislature (which won’t happen under the current configuration) you run into a brick wall called Kitzslobber. Oregon Democrats will never do the right thing by making their union goon buddies play on a level playing field.

    What’s worse is we have Obozo pimping for “Card Check” so the unions can organize without the bother of going through the process of a secret ballot.

  • Lets Be Honest

    Mr. Buckstein,

    Do you oppose drug testing as a pre-requisite to employment?

    “Libertarians” say they are for “personal freedom”, but it seems like they’re more for the freedom of the moneyed class. If you oppose government restrictions on drug use, but have no problem with private businesses restricting the off-work activities of their employees, then it’s not about personal freedom, it’s about protecting the interests of the powerful.

    • Steve Buckstein

      You’re getting off point here, but I will say that at the very least government should not mandate employee drug testing in the private sector. I have no problem with voluntary unions negotiating such issues with employers, again, as long as workers are not forced to join the union as a condition of employment.

      • 3H

        Why are other conditions of employment OK?   

  • LivingFree

    Face it folks. We need these laws to protect the unions.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Look, its pretty obvious. The requirement that someone join a union in order to work somewhere has no logical basis.

    You are a group of workers and you form a union? That’s great, I am really happy for you. You got the Acme Tire company to negotiate with your union rather than individual workers? That’s great too!

    However you don’t have any right to demand all future workers have to sign up with your union.

    How we have gotten to a point where just because a union negotiates with a company that means they get to require everyone who works there in the future has to join them is beyond me.

    It’s time to end this nonsense and realize that although unions may have addressed abusive workplace issues in the past, they have caused their own work place issues in the present. This is one of them.

    • valley person

       ”However you don’t have any right to demand all future workers have to sign up with your union.”

      Its called a closed shop contract, and it is legal in some states, meaning you do “have a right” to make such a demand. Its an agreement between private parties. Why do you think the state should prevent private parties from agreeing to a contract?

      • 3H

        Just as you can write a contract that requires a business to only purchase an item from you.  Even if someone cheaper comes along (for the length of the contract).   Concession and Requirements contracts do that very same thing – limits who gets to play.    

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Big difference between that and requiring a third party who never signed the contract, the prospective worker, to be a party to it.

          There is a reason why closed shop union contracts are illegal in some states. My guess is more and more states will make them illegal as they clearly are abusive. Witness Boeing.

          Closed shop union rules are a union excess of the type people are becoming more and more familiar with. My guess is that in 20 years time they will be looked upon as an anachronism. 

          • 3H

            Why not?  The contract between the employer and the union is binding upon all current and future employees.  Current employees who voted against the union were out-voted by their fellow workers.  They don’t have to join the union, but they do have to pay fair-share.  It is no more unfair than any other legal workplace change that adversely effects employees. 

            As for potential employees, presumably they are told at either the interview or time of hire that they will be working for a closed shop.  How is that unfair?  

            The thing is, I don’t get a sense that you are Steve Buckstein really care about workers.  I think that at the heart of it is a desire to eviscerate unions and keep them from advocating for workers – and lowering profits for the employer.  I really don’t think it has anything to do with worker’s rights, because I don’t think that when it comes to protecting the rights of worker that you will be on their side against the employer.

        • JoelinPDX

          A total lack of understanding how contract law works. In a business contract both sides receive some form of consideration. A business opts to buy a service and in return to pay ‘x’ amount for the service. Everybody wins.

          In a union contract, there’s no mutual consideration…unless you want to consider removing the threat of a strike to be consideration. Of course, if the mob (sane thing as unions basically) does this it’s called protection and is unlawful.

          Why is it you Democrats support the mob anyway?

          • 3H

            Are you against democracy and majority rule?  I’m assuming that’s what you mean by the “mob”.

            There is mutual consideration – the employer agrees to pay “x” amount for the labor he needs.  Everybody wins.

            Why is it you Republicans support elitists?  Do you think you know what is best for everyone else?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Why do you think the state should prevent private parties from agreeing to a contract?

        Because it does so all the time. In fact it is one of the foundations of contract law. It would be a bizzare and strange circumstance if it were any different.

        Warning – Your argument here is in direct conflict with previous arguments. If you proceed with it you will directly contradict your entire argument for the State regulating the insurance industry in one iteration.

        • valley person

           So in this case you are saying the state knows best?

        • 3H

          Why do you think that asking questions equals making  definitive statements of opinion?   Asking a question is not the same thing as making an argument.

          Sometimes you have to let the person make the argument instead of assuming you know what they’re thinking.

      • JoelinPDX

        It’s called a closed shop. Really? Not like the whole point of the article was that closed shops should be illegal. Geez, VP, get a clue.

        • valley person

           Yes, I get the point. Conservatives want the state to outlaw the rights of workers to enter into contracts with employers. Just call it what it is. It has nothing to do with a “right to work.”  It is about protecting employers from their employees by having the state step in.

          • Steve Buckstein

            “Conservatives want the state to outlaw the rights of workers to enter into contracts with employers.

            No, they want the state to outlaw the ability of unions and employers to enter into contracts that violate the rights of employees who prefer not to join or pay dues to the union.

  • 3H

    Perhaps “Right to work for less” is a more apt description:

    http://epi.3cdn.net/a39019fdac5ee92a28_s8m6b9f8x.pdf

    At least a different perspective.

  • 3H

    “It is unconscionable that workers are denied the right to earn a living simply because they decline to join a union

    Oh, by the way, people are not required to join a union.  They are required to pay fair-share.  That is just propaganda on your part.  To me at least, when you word things like that you are simply using scare tactics.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Nice try. People are required not to pay “fair share” but rather to pay that portion of union dues which supposedly went to collective bargaining.

      This is not due to union largess however. Unions fought this one tooth and nail.

      In the Supreme Court decision known as the “Beck Decision” a worker sued over this exact thing, that’s where what you are talking about descends from.

      Are Beck rights taken advantage of by employees?

      Not really. Most workers are unaware of them, or how to go about enforcing them.

      Unions, and the Federal government, who have a unique love of work place posters and notices, and requiring employers to post them so workers know their right -  have a strange dislike about requiring employers to post to workers any notice of their Beck rights.

      The first time there was ever any requirement to inform workers of their rights regarding Beck was under Bush 1. He did so by executive order.

      With little fanfare Bill Clintons very first action as president, his very first one, was to rescind that Bush executive order.

      Enforcing Beck for the worker is extremely difficult and legal enforcement or recourse is difficult if not impossible if the union denies a claim.

      Yet another legal abuse by unions that is why right to work is a welcome, and growing, phenomenon in our country.

    • JoelinPDX

      What a totally naive, not to mention elitist, point of view. Of course you have to consider the source. If union membership is a required condition of employment, then joining the union (and contributing to things like Obozo) is mandatory.

      Unfair share is just another way of saying forced political contributions.

      And saying you don’t have to take the job in the closed union shop is so out there it’s hard to even see it. When I was forced to join the union it was because the bigger, more appealing, employers had been cherry picked by the unions. Sure, I could have continued to be employed by the smaller companies. Of course, if I wanted to move up in the world then I had to move up to the bigger cherry picked employers.

      And, yes, when I went to work for the bigger employer I made more money but I also made considerably more than what the union bonds required. I worked for a company that knew to get the best product they had to pay for it and therefore paid a whole lot better than what the goon union negotiated.

      And, before you make some lame comment about the closed shop being in the union contract. That clause was negotiated under threat of strike. Fortunately, after I left the company the workers voted out the union because the union bosses were telling them they needed to strike. Good riddance to bad garbage.

      • valley person

         ”And, before you make some lame comment about the closed shop being in
        the union contract. That clause was negotiated under threat of strike.”

        Yes, perhaps. And strikes are a last resort tool workers can use. Should strikes be illegal because you were inconvenienced?

        • JoelinPDX

          No strikes should be illegal because unions should be illegal. Face it, VP, labor unions are scavengers, parasites that exist on ancient worries about child labor and sweat shops. Labor unions exist today basically because the Democrats want the political contributions they extort from their ”members.”

    • LivingFree

      fair share is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. There is nothing fair about being forced to pay dues to a bunch of thoughtless thugs.

  • Anonymous

    Hears the deal Why right to work.
    Wen business behave badly one can boycott, tell other not to work for them or organize and petition the company. The problem there no recourse if unions behave badly or do not represent my interest. I can not just say I refuse to join. Right to Work gives me that choice.  

    • 3H

      You can decertify the union with a majority vote of the employees.   You also have the option of not working for the company as you noted above if you don’t like the policies of your employer.

      • guest

        D’oh, de certification of 3H takes a little bonger.  

        • 3H

          Yessss… I’m the one that sounds like they’re stoned out of their mind.  Uh huh.  On the plus side, I’m can only image how bad it would be without medicinal marijuana.

  • Pingback: Conservative union members speaking out | The Oregon Catalyst

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)