Indiana becomes 23rd "right-to-work" state

Comments (101)
educandi wrote:

Susan, would you explain to me the difference between having to join a union to work vs having to be a white male to work 70 years ago? Having to join a union to work any place is discrimination and the same arguments that were used to keep black people and women out are being used by the unions today. So tell me, Susan, what’s the difference between having to join a union to work and having color or sex restrictions?

Feb 01, 2012 10:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
educandi wrote:

Susan, would you explain to me the difference between having to join a union to work vs having to be a white male to work 70 years ago? Having to join a union to work any place is discrimination and the same arguments that were used to keep black people and women out are being used by the unions today. So tell me, Susan, what’s the difference between having to join a union to work and having color or sex restrictions?

Feb 01, 2012 10:03am EST  --  Report as abuse

Go for it, baby.

Feb 01, 2012 11:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
Marvin8 wrote:

Same thing that happened in Wisconsin will happen in Indiana. The law will take affect, the citizens in Indiana will be angered, Daniels will probably be recalled next election, and he’ll then be a hero within the shrinking Republican party. Yawn.

Feb 01, 2012 11:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
ajmg1 wrote:

Simple, the state wants to attract jobs. Companies do not want interference of union Thugs running their business. Lower wages? More like competitive wages. The unions are one of the reasons the U.S. cannot compete on the world market.

Feb 01, 2012 11:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
dahnb2000 wrote:

educandi- “right to work”is code for “right to lower wages & benefits”.
The unions are already there when you apply to work. If you don’t want to join the union then don’t apply to work at a union shop.
Additionally, at most places with unions, employees who don’t belong to the union still get all the benefits of a union contract with the employer.
Also, your comparison doesn’t work because color and sex discrimination are not related to union membership. Which union arguments are the “same”as racism or sexism? Many, many jobs have requirements of a degree or training (mandatory). Is this discrimination?

Feb 01, 2012 11:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
JSeagram wrote:

Indiana is a national disgrace. The state is trying to be big-business friendly in stripping workers of rights and lowering wages. If Republicans like Daniels had his way then the minimum wage would be abolished. He’d be happy seeing workers in the state working for $1 an hour.

The Republicans want to take us back to the Victorian era. Look at Gingrich with his suggestions on child labor.

Feb 01, 2012 11:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
dahnb2000 wrote:

ajmg1- “union thugs”? As opposed to corporate thugs?

Feb 01, 2012 11:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
BiggieD wrote:

educandi, that’s simple, Unions give you a way to bargain collectively for higher wages and other benefits,not being part of a group that was discriminated against doesn’t. Union workers in general have seen a far lower decline in their wages since the 70s than the rest of the work force due to these bargaining powers, I’d say that’s a big difference, and a big sign that we need more organized labor to help keep everyone else’s wage from dropping so quickly. Tell me educandi, since you’re so anti-union, what’s the last time you were at a non-union job and got a “raise” that was more than that years rate of inflation?

Feb 01, 2012 11:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
spikesallrite wrote:

im a union member-if michigan said i didnt have to pay my union dues i would ignore and continue to pay my dues! union thugs thats laughable ajmg watchs to many movies lol basicly my union bargains for my wage and benifits,our union is flexable it has to be-2 years ago every union member in 1191 laborers union took a pay cut!we also lost our eye dental and hearing insurance due to the high cost of medical insurance!you talk about competitive wages-should americans make 30 cents an hour to compete with communist china-live at the factories in bee hive type living quarters?and theres little protection from the union if your company wants to get rid of you for your work performance-companies simply laff you off and dont call you back!hopefully wisconson recalls the folks who pushed thru the collective bargaining bull they passed! funny how the gov there didnt mess with the law enforcements collective bargaining(he’s going to need the police to protect him lol)all the union is trying to do is give its members a chance at a decent life!union members contribute greatly to the economy with its buying power-the middle class destruction is whats causing our recession no buying power-low wages=no buying power,the lower wages go the more the economy will tank-pretty simple.there are minumum wages for certian job skills-dont confuse that with us guys that are building bridges ,roads etc.theres an element in this country that wants to completely destroy the middle class,i believe its the republican party and the have to be stoped.

Feb 01, 2012 11:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
UnHueMan wrote:

Just another giant leap from the GOP to continue to strip Americans of their rights and depleting their wages taking this country one step closer to becoming a third world.

Feb 01, 2012 12:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
toby3061 wrote:

This is not going to sit well with union thug bosses…

Feb 01, 2012 12:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
budster278 wrote:

All unions are not run by ‘thugs’, any more than all companies are run by thugs. Unions serve a useful purpose, protecting workers against abuses by employers and unsafe work conditions. We’d still have workhouses, events like the Triangle fire, and Chinese-style laborers if unions had never existed. Have they gone too far sometimes, sure, but that doesn’t negate all the great things they have done. They created the middle class of the 50s and 60s that everyone is now pining for – labor with a decent wage and pension. Rather than tearing them down, how about paying a few dollars more for that toaster from Walmart and have it made by American union workers rather than slave labor in China? Is corporate profits really the most important gauge of success? And, by the way @educandi – unions don’t prevent people from getting jobs, the usual situation is that if you get a union job you have to join the union. Why? Because they need the dues to pay for the contract negotiations, benefits, etc. etc. If the union is going to protect you and get you a living wage, the least you can do is contribute back.

Feb 01, 2012 12:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
smurph wrote:

For those of you who think this is bad, how many of you bought items based on a lower price, that were made in China? I have always tried to buy US, but can’t even find a single power tool made in the US. THe American public has spoken and wants lower prices every day. THis and Union demands for higher wages and benefits just don’t mix. Who is wrong?

Feb 01, 2012 12:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse

A little perspective here…I am a non-union employee of a small wholesale company in Ohio. I recently did research into an equivalent job in Texas(currently a ‘right-to-work’ state), in order to live closer to my elderly parents.
The result? Well, after talking with several companies in their area, the BEST offer of several went a little like this:
To take the same job in Texas that I currently do in Ohio would mean-
-A 33% pay cut,
-Loss of all health insurance through company,
-Loss of paid time off benefit (no employer in Texas offered paid sick time, a couple offered a week vacation after a mere 5 years…I got a week after a year in Ohio and two after five years),
-Loss of 401k…have one now, with employer matching contributions, wouldn’t even have the option of a ‘no match’ 401k there.),
-Would be hourly employee in TX with no guarantee of 40 hour week. Am currently salaried with yearly bonus,
-No Bonus incentives offered in Texas.

See, “Right-to-work” goes FAR beyond union jobs, and in fact brings down quality opportunities in ALL job markets in the state.

So, I made the only logical decision one could make in this situation…my folks are gonna LOVE living in Ohio.

Feb 01, 2012 12:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Fight4Peace wrote:

If you have any intelligence at all do not believe the people that claim that the unions are bad for America. The unions are the workers backbone. Do you want to be paid a minimum wage while you slave away and watch the executives getting richer by the day? Unions keep wages fair! If you are a skilled laborer don’t you believe that you deserve a larger wage that the unskilled labor of a fast food restaurant? The people posting vitriol against unions are disingenuous. They either do not possess enough intelligence to succeed in life and want to drag the rest of us down, or they are paid shills working for a marketing company hired to spread anti union propaganda.

Feb 01, 2012 12:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jayce wrote:

The GOP supports the “right-to-work” but not the right to healthcare. Wouldn’t it be in the best of industry to have a healthy workforce?

Feb 01, 2012 12:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JTWStephens wrote:

I don’t understand the “union thug” rhetoric. Yes, I’m sure certain union officials have exploited businesses in the past, but one or two bad apples do not poison the entire bushel. Yes, unions are part of the reason we’re losing jobs to overseas competition, you know why? Because unions ensure higher wages, better medical coverage and an overall higher standard of living. Yes, if you depower unions, we’ll have more jobs, but the quality of living and capacity of the common worker to bargain will be DRASTICALLY reduced. Are you really prepared for blue collar American workers to be working for $4 an hour with no insurance or job security? It horrifies me.

Feb 01, 2012 12:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:

I find it odd that some people are still brain washed into calling uni
ons “thugs.” Unions made this country great. Now we keep hearing that we need to be competitive, which would mean we need to make 30 cents per day to a high of 30 cents an hour.

Is that truely what every one wants. Watch this country go into a depression then. Basically food, housing, medical care, etc cannot be afforded or paid for by these “competative wage rates.”

Union membership gives workers enough clout to bargain for decent living wages, and some medical care. Union members generally can afford to buy a house, a car, etc. They generally do not become so poor that they require public assistance, and they are more generous to charities (percentage of income donated) than the “rich.”

So once again, how are they “thugs”?

Feb 01, 2012 12:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cally51 wrote:

As a 20 year union member, I say FINALLY!!!!! Unions are destroying America and jobs. They steal our $$, threaten workers through intimidation , lies and bribery. THANK GOD FOR DANIELS!!!

Feb 01, 2012 12:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
HoosierShelly wrote:

Indiana did not ask for this or any of the other legal changes that have been handed to us by Mr. Daniels. The United States should be thankful to his family for convincing him not to run for president. He would change the time zones, sell the highways and make it impossible for a middle class family to get a decent well-paying job. What he has done to education in Indiana will have negative ramifications for years to come. Thank God this is his last year in office.

Feb 01, 2012 12:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
paperburn451 wrote:

40 hour work week,paid vacation days, workers rights, health care and living wage. all union sponsored.
company stores, company housing, company wages. all corporation sponsored. Read your history. Be carefully what you ask for you, might just get it.

Feb 01, 2012 12:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ralpho wrote:

So now that states 1 % will get about 10 percent more over all wages and prosperity will fall yet again.
As if it were not bad enough there.

Feb 01, 2012 1:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
snidewoman wrote:

Call it what you want its a step in the right direction.

Feb 01, 2012 1:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jambo86 wrote:

In Indiana and probably other GOP bastions corporate interests will soon have the cheap labor force that they have always wanted. They will not need to go to China to find workers to exploit. Another victory for the wealthy. Another defeat for the middle-class. Poverty in Indiana will mushroom and soon spread its ugly tentacles everywhere. Long live the oligarchs!!

Feb 01, 2012 1:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
NotFOX wrote:

I’m no union supporter but this is just stupid. Conservatives just love being corporate puppets.

Feb 01, 2012 1:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jambo86 wrote:

In Indiana and probably other GOP bastions corporate interests will soon have the cheap labor force that they have always wanted. They will not need to go to China to find workers to exploit. Another victory for the wealthy. Another defeat for the middle-class. Poverty in Indiana will mushroom and soon spread its ugly tentacles everywhere. Long live the oligarchs!!

Feb 01, 2012 1:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Having to join a union in order to work for a company is just another Republican lie. You are hired by the company, not the union. The union negotiates a contract with the company for the workers that work for the company. Whether you are in the union or not, the company still has to abide by the agreement they have signed with the union.
You still get paid the same and still get the same benefits as a dues paying member. My union considers you a member when you are hired by the company. If you don’t pay your dues, you may be considered as a member “not in good standing” with the union. If you go thru a hardship (ie medical disaster, house fire ect.. ), most unions will let you suspend your dues until you can get back on your feet. And they will raise money for you and do what ever they can to help you. There are very few entities in this country that can make you do something against your will. Most of these are government agencies such as the IRS and law enforcement, not unions. Most people gladly pay union dues because of the higher wages and perks they receive. Bottom line, Republicans are trying to protect the CEO’s and wall street investors. Republicans do not care about the working middle class or the working poor. As far as women and blacks, unions were created to equalize the pay and rights for all, as well to improve safety regulations and much more. Unions have pro’s and con’s but saying you are forced to pay union dues when a company hires you is a lie.

Feb 01, 2012 1:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UnHueMan wrote:

The fact that so many on the right have been brainwashed and misinformed through rightwing Fox Fairy Tales propaganda is scary. The fact that they cheer for depleting wages for working Americans and stripping working Americans of their rights is frightening. Yay, lower wages even more for working Americans, take away Americans healthcare, while at the same time screaming that billionaires are taxed enough already at their 14% rate. I still don’t understand why so many conservatives continue to vote against their own best interests.

Feb 01, 2012 1:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
leftcoaster wrote:

Doesn’t it make sense that if an individual wants to freely join a union for representation and collective bargaining, union dues would be gladly paid? What is the worry? And if a union member decided not to pay dues would that worker still be represented by the union?

I would hope this applies to the public employee unions because it’s this group that is more dictatorial than others. They have a monopoly on public education and I would suspect that more than a few teachers would opt-out of their union if they could.

Feb 01, 2012 1:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
reker13 wrote:

To my fellow Americans & Union workers, we live in a global economy now like it or not. Our productivity must compete with the rest of the world. U.S. unions have swung the labor pendulum way too far in the wrong direction making US goods too expensive to export or even consume within our country. Something never considered in a global reality. Other countries have learned from our capitalistic ways and are on the up rise as we grow our governments and deficits instead.

Look where factories are growing in the USA. Mostly in the non union south where foreign companies are making billions off USA workers who are in turn taken care of with high salaries and benefits. How is this possible without a union? It is happening. The new reality. Until unions decline in the north, you will see a rise in the southern economy. Only you can choose to learn from the new reality or foster the old reality. Consumers will ultimately decide your fate.

Feb 01, 2012 1:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ajmg1 wrote:

spikesallrite- he’s going to need the police to protect him lol.
Yep that is what I mean about union thugs, at least the thinkint of union people.

Feb 01, 2012 1:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ajmg1 wrote:

Oh, and the comments implying that without unions we would have sweatshops and low wages. Note, however, that unions represent about 11.9 percent of workers in U.S. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011) So the other 88.1% of the workers must be providing cheap labor to the corporate demigods.

Feb 01, 2012 2:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mike9999 wrote:

I’m having trouble understanding the objections to this law. This literally puts the fate of the unions into the hands of the unionized workers – exactly where it should be, IMO. If the unions fail as a result, it’s because the workers don’t feel they’re getting their money’s worth from the union, in which case, the union SHOULD fail. Those who are opposed to this law apparently are of the opinion that the unions can’t survive without coercion, making forced union membership nothing but a bailout paid for by the working class (not by the 1%). Where am I wrong on this?

Feb 01, 2012 2:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
digitaltech wrote:

There was a time when Unions were needed to ensure safety and a fair wage for workers. Then they got greedy! When things were good the Unions made sure to look out for the workers they represented.
When times were tough they would not give an inch, many Union members get better pensions and healthcare than most workers get. No compromise and now they are feeling the effects of the greed. In Wisconsin, if the Unions have given in to accept a .02% increase in pension contributions they would have been much better off, and it would have been a win for both sides, now look what they face… all in the name of greed! They got what they asked for!

Feb 01, 2012 2:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ajmg1 wrote:

Mike9999 – You are right.

Feb 01, 2012 2:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ocparks wrote:

If everyone remembers the original reason for unions in the first place, this peace of legislation would not be supported. Unions initially hit the scene due to poor working conditions low wages and horrible benefits. Without UNIONS we will eventually get back to that horrible era, where the the employers will make the job duties so outrageous, with low pay, and worse benefits then are already present. If the unions were strong the whole overseas movement of jobs would have never happened and we would still have a plethora of jobs around,the economic crises would not have been as bad. Corporate America doesn’t want unions because, unions try to attempt to shrink the disparity in wages of the workers and the upper echelon management. It’s not fair for upper management to make $500 to $1000 a hour and the actual person who makes the product or provide the service that they are selling to make minimum wage to $10 a hour,and without unions that’s exactly the digression we will experience!

Feb 01, 2012 2:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
missyr829 wrote:

I have lived all my life in a right to work state. I have seen up close why people look poorly on unions. As a salaried employee I had the benefit of working in a cubicle next to a displaced union worker. I watched that man that should have been fired for sleeping on the job and incompetent work threaten to file a grievance with the union because the company decided to combine two positions into one and hire the more competent worker. They moved him from an hourly union job to a salaried non-union job to the cubicle next to me where he refused to do any work, waiting out the time for the company to fire him outright without the protection of the union. I have also witnessed a person have to respond to a grievance filed by a co-worker because they wore a green shirt with company logo, versus the blue shirt with company logo…really? Did the color of the shirt have ANY bearing on the ability to do a job? It had the company logo on it! Not being flexible for lunch breaks or forcing people to take a break at a certain time that limits productivity. I have sat at my desk on countless occasions in the middle of a project only to look down and realize that it was 30 minutes past the time that I normally leave for lunch. That is the problem I see with unions. They are inflexible, prevent any sense of reasonable process and promote such hostile work environments between co-workers. It matters to me if someone with little work ethic gets the same raise as I do. Why should I work any harder if I get the same compensation? From what I see unions lower standards to the least common denominator.

Feb 01, 2012 2:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ocparks wrote:

digitaltech you are correct in what you say greed has corrupted the unions but it has also corrupted corporate America, and the country.

Feb 01, 2012 2:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
conway1711 wrote:

Let’s try to be objective … What is Indiana’s Unemployment Rate? And, how does it compare to the National Average? Does the spread merit a “Right to Work” action by the Legislature? Anybody?

DEC
Glendale CA

Feb 01, 2012 2:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ajmg1 wrote:

Do the math. Lets give the workers $ 1000 per hour and the managers $ 10 per hour. See where tha gets you. As was mentioned before, who would pay $ 200 for an import TV or $400 just because it was made in USA? We have to wake up to reality. The answer is that eventually the standard of living of the third world will have to rise. BUT the standard of living of industrialized countries will have to adjust also. This is a fact that cannot be changed by unions. The high standard of living that unions profess to create will cause companies to go overseas. Remember the U.S. is not the only market for their products. So U.S. boycots will not work.

Feb 01, 2012 2:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ocparks wrote:

I said shrink the disparity not be not be asinine, I am in total agreement that the upper management needs to make more that’s why they are there, but it’s really unfortunate when a man or woman who is supporting his/her family and gets laid off because some CEO/CIO or whatever you want to call them wants a bigger bonus so they can buy a new jet or 100 foot yacht. Also the company sets the lunch/break time not the unions. I used to be a union worker and was the low man on the seniority list so I do understand the concept of being in jeopardy of keeping your job for a slacker and the union protects them but I am still of the opinion that unions are desperately needed or it all will get out of hand.

Feb 01, 2012 2:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Xira wrote:

It’s a race to the bottom, one we can’t possibly win, so why are we racing?

Feb 01, 2012 3:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
johne37179 wrote:

A great move forward for Indiana. This is a bill to protect America’s workers from tyranny. Congratulations, Indiana!

Feb 01, 2012 3:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Salvo1967 wrote:

The sooner we move the corrupt, useless unions aside, the quicker we can all get back to work building American again. One small step for creating American jobs. One giant leap for Indiana manufacturing.

Feb 01, 2012 3:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CRS54 wrote:

Good for them! Unions are bad for business, and state employees should not have collective bargaining rights anyway. They go on strike, fire their butts!

Feb 01, 2012 3:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

While unions are not perfect, they were more responsible for creating a thriving middle class in this country then anything else. While I agree that unions have bad points, I doubt that letting corporations dicate how they will treat their employees will be better. The best approach would be for both the unions and companies to work together to create a good profitable working environment. The auto industry revival shows that it can work. Do we really think the best way to compete with china is to lower our wages, benefits and pollute our environment without regard is the best approach?

Feb 01, 2012 3:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CivilSocTrust wrote:

I fully support a worker’s right to form and join a union. But here’s the central question: Does a worker have the right NOT to join a union?

If the worker agrees to not enjoy any benefits that they did not “bargain for” or acquire through their own behavior, do they have the right to simply NOT join a union and to NOT be bound by its rules and dues?

Feb 01, 2012 3:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
grasspress wrote:

i hope voters are savvy enough to understand that these ‘right to work’ issues are simply attempts by the right wing to eliminate a funding source for workers and middle class families to have a voice in american politics. when this voice is eliminated the right will increase it’s power even more and it will lead to further disruptions in our social fabric.

Feb 01, 2012 3:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
blitz2020 wrote:

States can only compete by Value or Cost. If they cant increase the value of their business location (more services/security for new business) then the are forced to reduce the costs (Salaries/benefits).

Its the law of the land. Unions can whine all they want, but they have proven consistently to Reduce the competitive edge of a state and not increase it. Thus, they have chosen, through incompetence or shortsightedness, to be marginalized.

27 more states to go!

Feb 01, 2012 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CRS54 wrote:

You Union types crack me up. “unions made this country great” NO..capitalism made this country great. Unions are leaches on the back of business that need to be gone. The government has guild lines and policies that protect workers. We don’t need the thugs telling us what they want and then threaten business when they don’t get their way. I watch how unions wiped out companies/business in England. Bad bad unions.

Feb 01, 2012 3:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
toby3061 wrote:

So does this mean I can’t make $35 an hour screwing lug nuts on to auto wheels at a car factory in Indiana? Or fall asleep at my job and have a union thug boss protect me from being fired? I guess I really do need a union…

Feb 01, 2012 3:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Okie1 wrote:

I am from Oklahoma, right to work worked here, our unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the nation. We are looking for workers. If you need a job, you should come here. Everything from engineers to truck drivers. Seriously. Decent pay and benefits. And we do have unions, good ones they take care of their employees….

Feb 01, 2012 3:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ALSTEIN wrote:

The miscasting of union-busting legislation as “right to work” legislation is sham rhetoric propogated by greedy elitists who have no regard for human diginity. People in America are supposed to have the right to basic dignity, which necessarily includes being paid a fair wage and reasonable benefits (informed by cultural standards and the prevailing cost of living) in exchange for their dedicated labor. Polciies that potentiate more jobs are useless if the resulting additional jobs won’t afford a genuine opportunity for an employee to support and raise a family. Yet, those garbage jobs are the ones that get created by union-busting legislation are weakened ,all for the sake of making the rich even richer. This is a America, not China. Enhancing business profitability, while obviously a good thing on its face, is a legit policy objective only to the extent its calculated to generate QUALITY jobs. It’s not a legit end unto itself.

Feb 01, 2012 4:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
M.T.M wrote:

I keep my wages competitive by being the best at what I do, keeping up with advances in my field, and providing a good ROI for my salary to my employer. Not by joining a union where the oldest guy gets the most money. Unions served a purpose long ago when workers basic rights were being violated. Their time has passed….

Feb 01, 2012 4:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
iceph03nix wrote:

I’ve never understood how ‘right-to-work’ isn’t the default. Why should anyone be legally required to give a percentage of their wages to a third party?

Feb 01, 2012 4:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GOODvEvil wrote:

I too believe unions have gone too far (and so has corporate greed). My cousin works for NJ transit, works a few hours a week, and gets paid for over 40 hours. WTF is THAT?

Feb 01, 2012 4:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dijitz wrote:

For 20 years, I have worked as a contractor for companies whose union workers refuse to do the work I do. In my experience, unions protect the least productive members of society. People use the term “union thugs” because it is usually a true statement. I have been physically threatened, had my work sabotaged, had tools and equipment damaged countless times by union “thugs”. I have seen many examples of people getting away with stuff that would never fly at a non-union company without getting fired….sleeping on the job, purposely damaging company equipment, using drugs while working, you name it. There used to be a need for unions. Those reasons are covered by federal regulations now. I would NEVER work for a unionized company. I prefer that the harder I work, the more I make. Every union I have seen creates the exact opposite effect. It really does seem that most union workers feel that their salary is owed to them for simply showing up. If they are expected to actually work….well, that’s just asking too much. Congrats Indiana!

Feb 01, 2012 4:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JamVee wrote:

Right to Work is not necessarily “anti-union”. I like to think of it as PRO-FREEDOM!

Feb 01, 2012 4:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
user8192 wrote:

Only 27 more states to go. It’s time for union coercion and misuse of members’ dues for leftist politics to end once and for all.

Feb 01, 2012 4:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
user8192 wrote:

remotet1tester, what you write MAY be true in some companies, but not so for those working in broadcasting, as teachers in public schools, and many other areas. No union membership means no job; no job means no way of making a living.

Feb 01, 2012 4:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ocparks wrote:

Unions are not bad for business, PERVERTED CAPITALISM is bad for business!!

Feb 01, 2012 4:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WestTexas wrote:

I live in West Texas, a place with basically no unions. In fact, I don’t believe I know a single person in a union. Our economy has not suffered the last several years like many other places in the country, and our unemployment rate is fairly low. I may not make as much yearly salary as someone who let a union do my negotiating, but I do alright, and our cost of living is very low here. Typically, $100,000 will get you close to a 2,000 square foot home with a 2 car garage and your own yard. We don’t have state income tax, and our city is growing. From the time I was hired at my job 1 1/2 years ago I was given a little over 2 weeks of vacation per year, plus 6 paid sick days, and full medical vision and dental. From the outside, I don’t see any positives in requiring employees to join a union. It hurts everyone, raises production costs, and increases the cost of living. People can be fired for not doing their job, so they do it. Unions made large gains for employees a century ago, then got greedy and never stopped. Screwed themselves.

Feb 01, 2012 4:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
insig wrote:

educandi is so wrong they had to post twice.

You do not have to join a union to get a job. When you get a job
you become a member of a union. That’s completely different than
what you are selling. Your racial discrimination analogy is
laughable in its hyperbole.
We get it, you’re a corporate apologist. They’re
people too.
This overreach will be corrected.

Feb 01, 2012 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
frank37069 wrote:

When I think of unions 2 industries come to mind – Airlines and automotives. Not sure that is what i would be trying to spread to other industries

Feb 01, 2012 6:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Marla wrote:

Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that Unions are good for ALL of us, even if we are not union members. Unions work to see that business pays a living wage and offers decent benefits, they raise the bar for non-union business who must offer competitive packages to attract skilled workers. Without unions, business will only offer us crumbs, and expect us to be grateful for them.

Feb 01, 2012 9:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SATX wrote:

I can appreciate you’re all proud to be union, but it’s time to get your history straight. The unions had nothing to do with creating the middle class in the 50s and 60s. They were just there at the time to ride the wave of prosperity. The middle class was created by the GI Bill. Veterans of WWII now had the money and opportunity to go to college, something they would not have had only a couple of years before. They went to college and got better jobs and created the economic boom of the 50s and 60s.

Feb 01, 2012 10:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JSeagram wrote:

Right to Work = anti-employee, pro big business. Destroy the unions = treat employees like slave labor.

Reading all these mindless pro-employer comments reminds me why the Republican party is not fit to hold state or national office.

You are a Disgrace! You only support the rich!

Feb 01, 2012 11:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
unclejeems wrote:

Daniel’s statement is nothing more than a typical modern Republican lie, another species of right-wing mendacity. Right-to-work will not bring one business to the Hoosier state. It’s just on the check-list of the ideological reactionaries in Indianapolis. They will have their reward.

Feb 02, 2012 1:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
fatfenders wrote:

Occasionally there is still a “step in the right direction”!
It’s a world market out there folks. You whiners and whingers are just going to have to get used to it. At this point in history… unions are old fashioned and out dated.

Feb 02, 2012 1:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
steve99 wrote:

Right to Work means that you
have the right to work for “Less”.
And you will.

Feb 02, 2012 5:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
cp61 wrote:

A world market?
don’t make me laugh, I would love to see one of these guys go apply for a job on the factory floor in china or even japan.
sure he would send you there but he wouldn’t go there.
unions are not the cause of unemployment.
laws favoring companies that sell things which are illegal to make here.
It’s against the law for children to work in the USA but you can buy clothes and shoes made by children.
we have a target for the minimal standard of living here in this country.
but it’s perfectly legal to buy goods made buy slaves.
as a mater fact, the only thing illegal about slavery in the USA is;
it’s illegal to engage in a business transaction transferring the human rights of another individual for money.
all other forms of slavery are legal.
America never asks who picks the vegetables.

Feb 02, 2012 6:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
GLK wrote:

You’d have to be a complete idiot to be against this law. Bottom line: If Unions were so great then they’d have nothing to worry about.

Feb 02, 2012 6:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
John2244 wrote:

Unions are no longer effective because the members are focused on one thing – their pay and benefits. I was lucky enough to work in Germany and part of the union AG METAL and collective bargaining is only part of what they do. The Unions were much more interested in young people entering the workforce (meaning that not all benefit analysis was geared towards the senior employees). They also were focused on the environment, politics and industrial policy. If something was bad at the plant the focus wasn’t going after management, it was introducing legislation so all similar plants got the same deal. That way the issue was dealt with the public at large. I was amazed at monthly union meeting there was already a realization that wages were high and idea’s were around how to do things to keep industry competitive. The word “Opfern” often came up in terms of the unions role in society. “Opfern means sacrifice.

Final word – our unions are broken but opting in or out doesn’t make sense. If a company wants to break a union then do it upfront with a firing and hiring back the scabs. To bleed a union of its dues is ridiculous if the members voted for the union and new employees have signed a union contract.
Unions are important if an industry has lots of workers because they put someone on the table to discuss worker viewpoints. But that someone at the table should not be a spoilt child. Thats why Germany are still 90% unionized and they get things done. Meanwhile we are 10% unionized and jobs keep going to China.

If you are a Union member change your viewpoint, change your objectives and sacrifice a bit for society and then you’ll get more support from the public at large.

Feb 02, 2012 7:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
JimsZ wrote:

Paying the cost of employment is simple supply and demand. The more jobs, the pay will rise to get the better employees. Fewer jobs lower the pay due to increased competition of who will accept the job for less! Get more jobs in the state and the pay will eventually rise for everyone.

How are the Unions working at some of these other companies? Most “older” union jobs have went out of the Country as in company closed shop and is building in Mexico, China, Taiwan, and those that didn’t are failing (GM/Chrysler/American Airlines/Hostess/A&P)

Unions extort to get what they want and do not care if the company can sustain itself providing what pay/benefits the Union workers will accept. Could these Companies be slightly mismanaged? Possibly. But even slightly mismanaged, can they to pay over $100k/yr per employee that WILL NOT do any more than his Union tells him he has to? Hmmmm

Feb 02, 2012 7:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
GA_Chris wrote:

This law stops people being FORCED to join a union… they still have the right to.
Look at the auto plants in the south… VW, BMW, Kia, etc All non-union, with better wages and conditions than union workers, and better productivity

Feb 02, 2012 8:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
wildbiker wrote:

I can only relate personal experience in response to many here who have shared theirs. And, it would add nothing to what’s already been said. Experiences with and without unions are as varied as the people who have them. Some union leaders are trustworthy, benevolent shepherds of the members they serve. Some are self-serving, greedy thugs. Yes, some environments force you to join a union to get the job. Some places even force you to pay union dues if you work there as a non-union employee. That is simply wrong. And that is part of what fueled the support for this law. Let’s see how this plays out.

Feb 02, 2012 8:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

A blow struck for liberty on behalf of the middle class. Thank you, Indiana, for following Wisconsin’s lead. Ohio may just come around yet. What state is next?

Feb 02, 2012 9:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
ArcherB wrote:

Wait. I don’t understand. All this law does is give workers the right to NOT join a union. If they want to join a union, fine. This law does nothing to prevent that. But what if I want to work somewhere and NOT join a union? Are people here seriously suggesting that I should not have that RIGHT?

Feb 02, 2012 12:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
StewartIII wrote:

NewsBusters: Biz News Wire Reuters Spins Passage of Ind. Right-to-Work Bill with Liberal/Union Talking Points
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/02/02/biz-news-wire-reuters-spins-passage-ind-right-work-bill-liberalunion-t

Feb 02, 2012 12:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ArcherB wrote:

I’ve noticed many of the pro-union posts here also seem to be against Capitalism. Tell me, what kind of economy would we have if we did away with Capitalism? Whatever your answer is, there is certainly a country in the world with that economic system. I don’t understand why you don’t simply move there. Why would you want to take away MY rights to CHANGE the system we have in place here now? Why not move to where you will be happy and leave me here, also happy? Why are you trying to make this into a Win-Lose instead of a Win-Win?

Feb 02, 2012 12:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ArcherB wrote:

I should also point out that “Right to Work” laws also protect union members from being fired for being union members. It protects me from unions. It protects union members from mistreatment. What’s wrong with that? You lose nothing. I gain a right. Do you really have something against MY rights?

Feb 02, 2012 12:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Adam_S wrote:

I’m not even going to read all the comments. Nice cross section of brain trust from those I did read, though.

1. Less than 10% of the US workforce is unionized. This makes most of the argument (“We need to abolish unions to get a fair shake for business, those unions are mucking it all up with their blah blah blah) null right there. The number of non-union operations in any state FAR outweigh the number of unionized operations. The anti-union posters, judging from their comments, must think 80% of the workforce is in a union.

2. The idea of “competitive wages” (and to go a step farther, benefits) is all fine and well, but if those wages/etc are so low they don’t allow people to pay their bills and raise a family, I’m pro-union all day long.

3. If unions make a workforce unsustainable and noncompetitive, why are economies in so other industrialized nations, where union membership can be as high as 90%, not completely doomed?

4. Union bargaining and wages created a baseline for other companies wages in decades past…this helped lead to the creation of our middle class. Keep this in mind, guys. Whether you like it or not, whether unions are solid today or not, their wage policies helped build our nation into the greatest nation on earth.

5. Corporate ‘thugs,’ as others have pointed out, have raided, ruined, and destroyed far more in this country than unions ever have, or will.

…And no, I’m not a union member, I don’t want to be a union member, nor am I outspokenly pro-union a majority of the time. I work with unions sometimes, I see both sides. Organized labor in this country could go for plenty of reforms, it’s just ridiculous to read the comments section and see such profound ignorance.

Feb 02, 2012 2:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JL4 wrote:

I agree that a company should have recourse to fire a non-productive worker for cause. In fact, I think a company has that inalieable right. That’s a downside of unions – can that be fixed? Probably, but that really isn’t the Corporations’ point.

I believe that corporations are now desperate to hobble unions so that they can exploit American workers with as much ease as they do foreign workers, not so they can fire lazy workers.

I live in a Right-to-Work state. We rank pretty low on the income/cost-of-living/standard of living scale in the U.S. Most Right-to-Work states rank lowest. We will welcome Indiana with open and sympathetic arms.

Feb 02, 2012 2:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheFig wrote:

This is to be welcomed!

There was a time for people to form an alliance, and that was when work-days consisted of 18 hours, no alternative forum was available for beneficial negotiations and employers were monopolizing a market, section or industry.

Then, of course, the “unions”, too, became a means to fill some criminal-minded subjects’ pockets, which should have made them obsolete a long while ago.

Feb 02, 2012 4:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
conserfolife wrote:

Do you guys really think businesses are going to all of the sudden lower everyone’s salaries to that of someone working in China? It won’t work because of competition. Companies will compete for workers by trying to give them better wages than the next guy, and businesses that want to attract the best workers will offer more money for the best. That’s how competition works, and it’s that form of competition that used to make the US the most powerful country in the world. Anyone who thinks wages are going to drop down to nothing are 100% ignorant fools.
People should read into the benefits high school dropout union workers get over people who went to university and work a non-union job. What unions are able to extort out of businesses is disgraceful.

Feb 02, 2012 4:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Adam_S wrote:

Conserfolife….

It’s not that wages will drop to nothing, it’s that wages will continue to stagnate, while the cost of goods, services, etc etc, will increase. A candy bar gets about 3% more expensive every year…while $12-15/hour has been a ‘decent’ wage for the past ten. I was making $12/hr as a telemarketer in 2001…I have friends in call centers in 2012 making $12/hr. A candy bar was cheaper in 2001 than it is today.

Feb 02, 2012 6:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The auther calls this anti-union, and I guess the union workers agree, else they wouldn’t be on the steps of the state capitol. But, the title of the legislation is Right to work. As I understand it, currently, if you work in a union shop, you are forced to join the union, or you can’t work. The new law says you could work in the union shop with or without joining the union, thereby giving you an additional choice. Are the unions afraid that the companies would just hire people who don’t want to be in the union, and perhaps, at a lower wage or with less benefits? Would companies be able to hire all non-union replacement workers if the union workers went out on strike?
I would want to know more about what passing this law will likely lead to in situations like strikes and when the company hires new workers to replace older union workers who retire. I would also like to testify to the down right threatening situation I have seen when union workers are on strike/picket. Intimidation is their game. When you read about the way it was in the old days before organized labor, you can understand the good that unions have accomplished in places like coal mines, where the intimidation was all on the other side. I currently work in a union shop on the salaried side, and see many abuses of what I would consider honorable working practices. My last union job ended when the plant I worked in closed down. I saw terrible behavior there by the work force prior to the plant closing. I don’t want to be worked like a dog and treated like dirt, but I can’t stomach the work ethic of many union workers and feel that the company has rights too, since they are signing the pay checks.

Feb 02, 2012 9:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bartski wrote:

Unions have given millions a decent set of wages & benefits such that workers could enjoy a degree of prosperity while raising a family in a home rather than Soviet style company housing.Corporations were able to adequately compensate their employees while still fulfilling their ‘obligation to the shareholders’. These laws are truly a race to the bottom. With decades of significant tax breaks & the more recent bailouts (taxpayer money); there are plenty of jobs for all. You just have to re-locate to Beijing.

Feb 03, 2012 11:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
YoungTurkArmy wrote:

Once they bust the unions, then they can eliminate the minimum wage. At that point they can invite Foxconn in to set up iPhone factories and bring those $1 an hour jobs back to the USA. Who wouldn’t want to work for a company that eliminates unemployment and suicide at the same time?

Feb 03, 2012 7:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JamesChirico wrote:

Right to work is BS. Right to destroy assemblies called unions is what it actually does. No one forces an employer to sign a contract with unions. Existing government unions offered cuts due to fiscal problems have accepted them. Instead the GOP takes away rights. No collective bargaining says those assemblies can’t petition the government. Non-dues payers voting for labor reps violates the precedent set in Boy Scouts of America vs Dale. Right to work states have not seen any increase in job creation over other states. In the 2010 elections 7 of the top ten contributors nationally were corporate backed, the other 3 were union affiliated. Right to work is a political attack not a fiscal or job creating one.

Feb 04, 2012 6:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
JamesChirico wrote:

Some conservatives make stupid arguments. Whether a person joins a union shop or a non-union shop, it is up to that individual. Why should a person be forced to join to work is the same as why should a person be forced to not have a union to work. Argument falls on it’s face using either side.

Feb 04, 2012 6:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
runawaychild wrote:

Thank God I secured my Union Wages, Benefits and pension, BEFORE these idiots gave up their rights to a livable wage. Just keep direct depositing my money to my account, as I am moving to a small caribbean island and away from this insanity!

Feb 04, 2012 1:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:

The US needs a nationwide right to work law. And then after that, they need to make all public jobs non union and outlaw public sector unions. I am tired of hearing on the news how a 61 year old teach can do dispicable things to children for 20 years after being first reported, and then in the face of the new charges some 400+ accounts, is given the right to resign with a $4000 a month pension and a cadilac health care plan all paid by the tax payers whose children was abused by him or are now tax paying citizens abused by him. It was the decision of the teachers union to honor the man. Public sector unions are dispicable, their employer is American citizens who have no vote at the bargaining table, we are being taken for a ride.

Feb 04, 2012 4:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:

@badbobthealbino

You are correct. A right to work law does not outlaw unions. What it does do is it allows people who don’t want to join a union the ability to get hired by a company that has a union workshop. Of course unions do not want this. It directly keeps them from extorting money and strong arming the workers. Unions do not want any freedoms for the rest of American, and they are never satisfied until they run companys like GM and American Airlines into bankruptcy with their pensions and pay.

Feb 04, 2012 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
donjgen wrote:

Not every company has to except a union. Unions came about to begin with because of poor working conditions and wages. Now poor working conditions are no longer an issue with OSHA and other regularlatory agency’s. Now the issue is wages and benefits. Unions raise the standard. If there was no standard then you can bet that wages and benefits would be lower across the board. There is always talk about how wages do not keep up with inflation. The issue of having a union and then saying, who ever wants to join can join and who ever wants to pay dues can pay dues basically is a recipe for lower wages and benefits. The employer knows there is no mechanism for workers rights and will do as little as possible in order to save money. In a perfect market place the market would determine wages and benefits.

Feb 05, 2012 12:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:

@donjgen

I work for a non union shop. My pay and benefits are higher than my union counterparts in our competition. Unions are not needed to dictate pay and benefits. Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Management, Programmers, Analysts, etc seem to not need a union to establish their worth. The only people who will work for little to nothing are the illegals, and those whose evidently don’t have any skills. You can pretty much take anyone off the street, and within days or weeks train them to do what they are doing. That is in the private sector. But it is simple in a capitalist market. Those whose work is valuable and specialized gets paid, no union is needed for that. Uneducated labor, can be done by who ever will work for the lowest ammount of cash.

Please, oh please tell me why public service unions are needed. Extorting money off of the public and making deals with politicians for excessive pay and benefits at the cost of their communities should be a crime.

Feb 05, 2012 3:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

Unions are closed clubs not open to all individuals. That fact alone should make them abhorrent to americans. They are all about who you know no different that the big boys clubs of the owners. Once upon a time unions fought for work safety and better wages for all…now they are simply another syphon of money from the worker class. They take your money for their political goals regardless of the political affiliation of the worker.

Arguing that the unions maintain high ‘standards of living’ is completely idiotic considering the jobs are leaving the country entirely. How effin stupid are you twits? You think losing the job entirely is better than taking a pay cut? Daaaaaamn! You think losing benefits is worse than losing the entire paycheque?! My oh my but you is some dense mofos.

Well, keep on pushing you unionist dorks. Keep pushing all the jobs to China and India. When the last factory has closed due to the actions of the unionists just wait and see what happens to these ‘thugs’. These ‘thugs’ will be strung up from trees for destroying america.

Feb 06, 2012 7:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
MommaSmiles wrote:

It is partially BECAUSE of unions that we have the inflation we have now. Pay for union workers keeps going up and up and up and it is taking its toll on the market. Supply and demand. With the economy the way it is, this is a time when Americans should take stock in what they have, prioritize what is important and if we ALL took a 3% cut in pay, maybe inflation would decrease. Unions served their purpose in their day. There have been a lot of good and useful laws set in place that save the common employee from being taken advantage of. But it is time for Unions to go. All they do is suck the life out of the common working person and they have to justify their existence by adding to the mayhem in Washington. Get rid of them AND the Fed Reserve. We no longer need to pay the middle man.

Feb 07, 2012 10:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
dragonass wrote:

@debahn.. Please look at the big 3. Union employees get ridiculous benefits and protections for work that requires little skill or training. The salaried engineers require years of training and get pay and benefits lower than many union flunkies. I applaud Indiana for right to work. Why should anyone be forced to join an organization that they either do not believe in or do not agree with it’s political stance? The only reason the unions are upset is because they will lose a lot of money and the power that goes with it. Now they have to face their own internal costs of retiree benefits, expensive property maintenance (union halls), and a few extravagant golf courses (northern michigan). when the unions stop protecting workers who should be fired and require all of their workers to actually do their best, then maybe right to work will not be such a big deal.

Feb 07, 2012 1:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dragonass wrote:

To see the abuse of unions look at the news. How can all of these union employees spend hours or even days protesting at state capitals and still retain both their jobs and benefits. Any other worker who acted in such a way would be properly fired, yet union workers are exempt from the expectation that they will actually show up and work when they are supposed to. Give me Right to work any day so that those who actually want to work will have the right to work.

Feb 07, 2012 1:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.