Right to Work

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I understand that it makes collective bargaining difficult and enables employers more freedom to sack workers but I've never been exactly sure what the right-to-work laws in the States actually entail other than, obviously, fucking over the working class for the benefit of the capitalist.

I was reading this article and I was wondering if any comrades from the US would elucidate:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/06/166668057/protests-erupt-in-michigan-capitol-after-governor-unveils-right-to-work-bill


Police arrested several protesters and they sprayed tear gas at a crowd gathered at the Michigan State House today.

As the Detroit Free Press reports (http://www.freep.com/article/20121206/NEWS06/121206059/Michigan-Capitol-protesters-arrested-mace?odyssey=tab</p><p>topnews</p><p>text</p><p>FRONTPAGE), State Police used "chemical munitions" when the crowd tried to rush the Senate floor.

All of this comes after Gov. Rick Snyder and the Republican legislature announced a bill that would make Michigan the country's 24th right-to-work state. The legislation is bound to set up a heated confrontation between union activists and the legislature.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Right to work is Orwellian double talk, kind of like how mandatory austerity is only indirectly referred to as the fiscal showdown

[blake 3:17]

In future, please refer to "right-to-work" legislation or states as "anti-union".

It's just one product of the Taft–Hartley Act, which needs to be repealed in its entirety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act

[GoddessCleoLover]

I am old enough to remember when repealing Taft-Hartley was a major issue. Now it seems like an impossible dream. Sometimes thinking about the political trends of the past thirty years can be really depressing.

[Red Commissar]

"Right to Work" laws were sold to the public as a means to break up union dominated workplaces- this is basically a workplace where you have to be a member of the relevant union in order to work in there (or more accurately, pay dues to the union who won the contract). A popular example provided of this in the US is Hollywood and other entertainment sectors where the relevant unions (for everyone from actors to writers and technicians) have strong control over who can work in their field because of the high level of unionization among those in the field. Several professional-level jobs also have similar arrangements. As far as labor labor goes, I believe it's only in the longshoremen arena where rates are higher than the average.

With the help of the media- one that has already been demonizing strikes not only in the United States but pretty much everywhere I look- business groups were able to demonize such arrangements as unfair to the worker, in both restricting the availability of work and their pay. It's important to note though beyond their sales pitch to make it seem like it was beneficial to the worker- ("why have obstacles to work some place just because you don't want to join the union?" or some variation was the typical argument), it was essentially a means to discourage union organization and by extension harm labor rights. It is no coincidence that in states which have implemented "Right-to-Work", pay and benefits for a worker is lower than their counterpart in a unionized workplace.

In the United States such laws were more often than not pushed with the support of the business sector and had virtually little input from workers in the areas that mattered. So yeah like Blake said it was essentially a state implementation of the union busting measures of the Taft-Hartley Act.

The biggest impact there has been with the weakening of union clout from this law in the states that have passed it is that the collective bargaining so highly prized by unions essentially goes out the door when they are drained of dues, and with it the ability to contest employer attempts to cut pay, benefits, safety and health obligations, etc. Technically while an employer can't fire you for joining a union, it also doesn't guard you from getting your ass fired because of some reason related to that (trying to organize others in your workplace, making criticisms of the employer's policies, and so on), one they can construe as some form of workplace harassment, disruption, or what ever. It basically provides an employer with greater flexibility in their management of employees (read firing employees).

Ultimately a union isn't in the place to try and do collective bargaining if it's representation in a workplace is minimal, and it's difficult to try and independently get all the workers on the same boat. Not to mention all the other tasks that must be done with a strike like having a constant source of funds from dues. It's very much a pro-management arrangement despite the attempts to make it seem like employee-friendly by getting back at union officials and having to pay union dues. Here in Texas, which is a right-to-work state, Unions are almost absent from any activity. I mean I hear more about pilots unions than the unions in other workplaces, and those that exist typically only represent their members on the national arena and are absent from local issues. I can only remember teacher unions here being the exception but even then the ones in Texas aren't as strong as those in other states.

[Green Girl]

I agree with everything Red Commissar said I just wanted to add, here in Nevada, also a "Right to Work" state we call it "Right to Work Cheap" Since workers are not required to join Unions, in Union shops the Unions have little power and thus "Right to Work" states have the lowest wages in the country for both Union and non-Union jobs.

A right to work state does not create a single new job as evidence by Nevada having the highest unemployment rate in the country.

What we need in the USA instead is what the Green Party promised: A guaranteed right to a job. Jill Stein was going to turn unemployment offices to employment offices.

In a pro-workers government the protesters would have been made heros and Michigan State House would have thrown out the anti-worker "Right to Work" bill. And Police would have been called to arrest the authors of the "Right to Work" bill.

However this is America, which currently does just the opposite of what is good for its citizens.

[Marxaveli]

The name "Right To Work" is pretty misleading. It should really be called "Right to be Fired".

[Green Girl]

The name "Right To Work" is pretty misleading. It should really be called "Right to be Fired".
Yes, I had forgotten about that, it's called "employment at will" which means employers don't have to give a reason for firing anyone, they just say your services are not required anymore.

"Right To Work" is about as anti-worker as one can get, low wages, no job security, no need to listen to employee's grievances. An employee becomes something to use and discard at will.

[Q]

For a moment I thought this was about the SWP UK campaign of the same name (http://righttowork.org.uk/).

So, could the OP in the future state the country being discussed?

As an aside: This confusion shows how much of an Orwellian double-talk it indeed is.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Cheers guys. I kinda knew what the law was essentially about but not the exact details of what that actually meant. I can't believe that such laws even exist or, rather, I can believe but it's just so depressing to think of the effectiveness of the bourgeois culture industry in spinning these things sometimes.

[Haunter]

"Right to work" is just one step closer to wage slavery.
If you can't protest the conditions of your job, but the nation is in a state where is very damn hard to find a job at all, what are you going to do?
Stop paying your bills?
No. There may be other options, but it seems to me that under a "right to work state", the option is basically to take what is given to you and shut up.
I live in a right to work state as well.

[blake 3:17]

So, could the OP in the future state the country being discussed?

As an aside: This confusion shows how much of an Orwellian double-talk it indeed is.

Yes to both. I thought the thread was going to be about the social right to employment. And the doublespeak is horrific.

[The Idler]

Wasn't going to mention this because it might be different in non-English translations but Orwell's concepts were called newspeak and doublethink.

Also right-to-work on both sides of the atlantic has more in common than differences. Both represent a defence of exploitation couched in terms of rights. Even the new pamphlet on workfare contents don't seem to criticise paid work as exploitative. Which makes me wonder whether it is worth distinguishing.

[Klaatu]

Actually, here in Michigan, there are UAW workers fighting in FAVOR of right-to-work. (I am not making this up)

In one case, a guy thinks he can negotiate a better wage for himself than the UAW can (good luck with that, lame brain)

In another case, a guy doesn't like how the UAW spends his union dues, so he actually heads a right-to-work
organization! What this guy is doing is equivalent to going into a church during services, grabbing the microphone
from the pastor and vilifying the flock for practicing their beliefs. If such a nut case doesn't like that church, then just find
another one he does like. Don't try to burn the place down just because YOU don't agree with that organization's ways.
If this clueless fuck doesn't like his job situation, quit and go to work at WalMart, where there is no union to whine about!

Ironically, these are the same people that want to 'get government off our backs.' That is, until it becomes in their own self
interest to use government to push through their own divisive and destructive agenda. (In this case, 'right to work')

You have NO RIGHT to invade and fundamentally change someone else's club, group, league, fraternity, association,
organization, or UNION, if YOU are not happy there. Just LEAVE and don't let the door slam into your ass on the way out,
simple-minded invading Tea Party Nazi Zombies :sneaky:

[Red Commissar]

Actually, here in Michigan, there are UAW workers fighting in FAVOR of right-to-work. (I am not making this up)

In one case, a guy thinks he can negotiate a better wage for himself than the UAW can (good luck with that, lame brain)

In another case, a guy doesn't like how the UAW spends his union dues, so he actually heads a right-to-work
organization! What this guy is doing is equivalent to going into a church during services, grabbing the microphone
from the pastor and vilifying the flock for practicing their beliefs. If such a nut case doesn't like that church, then just find
another one he does like. Don't try to burn the place down just because YOU don't agree with that organization's ways.
If this clueless fuck doesn't like his job situation, quit and go to work at WalMart, where there is no union to whine about!

Ironically, these are the same people that want to 'get government off our backs.' That is, until it becomes in their own self
interest to use government to push through their own divisive and destructive agenda. (In this case, 'right to work')

You have NO RIGHT to invade and fundamentally change someone else's club, group, league, fraternity, association,
organization, or UNION, if YOU are not happy there. Just LEAVE and don't let the door slam into your ass on the way out,
simple-minded invading Tea Party Nazi Zombies :sneaky:

I've definitely gotten the same vibe from some workers on this in the same way. They've bought the argument that the union is more burdensome than helpful to them. In a sense, this is correct about many unions, I just don't see how they think that a law passed by business interests actually helps them at all.

The bit about being able to make more is a popular way they have tried to argue it, basically relying on saying that without union dues and having your pay fucked up by the "lazy" workers, you can individually negotiate a pay raise because you alone are the best worker. It's funny then when you consider about all of them consider themselves to be that particular worker, and that the rest of them are the ones holding them back.

I mean yeah maybe some of them could progress up the hierarchy and make more money, but it's doubtful that everyone could benefit in the same way.

It's a depressing battle for unions. With the media demonization of unions, demoralization of rank and file members, corruption of the union bosses, it's been very easy to jam this shit through state legislatures with out much opposition, and more mind boggling that some workers would support such stuff.

I mean seriously it's like Stockholm syndrome in a way.

[Klaatu]

They've bought the argument that the union is more burdensome than helpful to them. In a sense, this is correct about many unions, I just don't see how they think that a law passed by business interests actually helps them at all.


I fully agree. I have personally worked under union protection for many years (as well as non union) I surely have had my fights with the union once in a great while, but would I dump them altogether? (Would I throw my own family loved ones under the bus simply because we had a scuffle or two?)

[Lynx]

Instances where a union betrays its members should be pointed out.

Clinging to the Democratic Party is a form of betrayal and will only result in more defeats as witnessed in Michigan.

[Klaatu]

I could not believe there exists such an organization as this:

Labor Relations Institute
http://lrionline.com/about-us


Labor Relations Institute was founded in 1978 as a consulting firm dedicated to maintaining the union-free workplace. Initially, LRI assisted employers with on-site campaign direction, developing all phases of NLRB representation election campaigns.

Today, Labor Relations Institute provides the widest possible range of employee communications products and sophisticated database and deep intelligence services. Through a single source, our clients can secure everything required to monitor their risk of unionization, build positive employee relations, train supervisors, and if necessary, run a winning campaign.

Recognizing the power, convenience and economy of video communications, LRI began producing custom video presentations for management in 1984. By 1988, the first edition of the NLRB Election Campaign Program was released. This revolutionary approach utilized a series of videos and a comprehensive campaign manual that allowed employers to effectively conduct campaigns. The program’s success is unprecedented, having been used in more than 10,000 elections and consistently maintaining a win rate of over 90%.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Even the new pamphlet on workfare contents don't seem to criticise paid work as exploitative. Which makes me wonder whether it is worth distinguishing.

Workfare is slave labour to undermine wages anyway...

[The Idler]

“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.
Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.” —Martin Luther King, speaking about right-to-work laws in 1961

[fgilbert2]

Well, unions have been bleeding slowly to death here in Michigan. I'm not happy that Right To Higher Workplace Fatalities passed yesterday, but it is an opportunity for us here in Michigan to become more radicalized. I didn't think it was a coincidence that red was the color of choice yesterday for all protesting the legislation.

[Klaatu]

How about when employers start requiring you to sign an "I will not join the union" pledge when they hire you? That would be a way for them to remove the existing union members by attrition. A 'closed shop' is intended to prevent this from happening.

'right-to-work' forbids closed shops, therefore weakens unions, both directly and indirectly.

[skitty]

—Martin Luther King, speaking about right-to-work laws in 1961

I am opposed to ‘right to work’ legislation because it does nothing for working people, but instead gives employers the right to exploit labor.
Eleanor Roosevelt, 1959

[Lucretia]

"Right to work" is just an Orwellian way of framing what is actually a right to terminate employment. A right that management exercises, of course.