GOP's new Pro-Labor stance...? Right-to-Work under attack from closet Socialists

Mr. Deez said:
For me, an ideal system would balance both interests. I'd let employees vote to unionize, and I'd let employees opt out. However, if they opt out, they become true at will employees. They get to negotiate their own pay, benefits, etc. The CBA and everything about it is out the window.
Click to expand...

I'm okay with that too in principle.
 
I understand the reasoning. It makes sense. Would the Union want to know details of any non union employee's agreement? And vice versa?
 
I know whenever there is a strike local news reports on differences between union and employer and what compromises have been made.
A year ago WFAA mentioned the Taft Hartley act in reference to details of agreements so I wondered if that info was available publically.

If so would seem to be an advantage to a non union member.
 
The old-time Democrats did various things to aid labor, but when the rubber met the road, they made sure business was taken care of and not disrupted for long. See Harry Truman and the steel industry.
 
Chop said:
The old-time Democrats did various things to aid labor, but when the rubber met the road, they made sure business was taken care of and not disrupted for long. See Harry Truman and the steel industry.
Click to expand...

During the Truman era, this was true. However, they were starting to lose control of that balance in the '60s and especially the '70s. They started shilling for the unions so hard that they pushed the businesses overseas or at least to non-union states. Why put up with entitled auto workers and their thuggish representatives in Flint when you can hire harder-working good ol' boys in Arlington, Texas for less money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top