Indiana Dems walk out -Again

[EagleKeeper]

Walkout by Indiana Democrats stalls anti-union bill

...
Under the proposed law, employees at unionized private workplaces would not be required to pay union dues. Supporters say the move would attract jobs to Indiana. Critics call it union busting.

Last year, House Democrats fled the state to neighboring Illinois to avoid voting on a similar right-to-work bill and other legislation they viewed as anti-labor and anti-public education. The bill died, and other bills were altered.
The absentees were fined and a bill that raised the amount of money that could be collected from absent legislators was enacted.
Should the Democrats return, the numbers are in Republicans' favor with a 60-40 majority in the House and a supermajority of 37-13 in the senate.
Bosma said there would be no fines involved with Wednesday's absences but criticized the Democrats for failing to do the jobs they were elected to do.
If the bill passes, Indiana would become the first right-to-work state in an area considered the country's traditional manufacturing belt.
The bill's sponsor, Republican Indiana State Representative Jerry Torr, has been introducing similar legislation since 2004. He said the bill was about "fairness and freedom" for individual employees to decide whether they want to associate with a union.
Democrats argue that such laws lead to lower wages for all. In an article circulated by Democratic lawmakers, University of Notre Dame professors Barbara Fick and Marty Wolfson argued that trying to attract businesses to a state based on low wages undermines living standards for most workers.

A person should have the right to choose their employer without external influence.

Those that support the forced unionization, please explain how allowing a person to chose will force wages lower?

 

[Ausm]

The only reason why Republicans hate unions is because they are a major contributors to the Democrats...eliminate union dues then the Republicans can steamroll elections. It comes out of the same playbook for voter I.d laws basically.

 

[dank69]

Walkout by Indiana Democrats stalls anti-union bill



A person should have the right to choose their employer without external influence.

Those that support the forced unionization, please explain how allowing a person to chose will force wages lower?

This issue doesn't affect me at all but I think the answer to your question is right in the piece you quoted:

trying to attract businesses to a state based on low wages undermines living standards for most workers

 

[fskimospy]

Unions act to increase wages for workers. I think this is an agreed upon point by everyone. Unions use dues to enact their agenda. Eliminating mandatory contributions will lower dues paid to the union and make them less able to implement their agenda. Therefore, this will likely force wages lower.

 

[Ausm]

The part about Republicans worrying about workers right to choose is especially hilarious to me...the GOP doesn't give a fuck about laborers if they do please list all the GOP's efforts to enhance worker rights.

 

[soulcougher73]

If they dont want to pay the dues why dont they work at a NON-unionized private workplace? Maybe the workplace should un-unionize. But if its a unionized workplace then you should pay your dues or dont work there.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting that the employees of a workplace and the employer have come to a private agreement between themselves on how the workplace will be run, but the Republicans want to use the power of government to alter this private transaction.

 

[Atreus21]

If they dont want to pay the dues why dont they work at a NON-unionized private workplace? Maybe the workplace should un-unionize. But if its a unionized workplace then you should pay your dues or dont work there.

Kind of agree here. If you don't want to join a union, don't join one. But if you do, you should pay the dues. Is this a case of people being forced to unionize, and then forced to pay the dues? That's a different animal, and I don't support it at all. But that doesn't seem to be the case unless I'm mistaken.

 

[fskimospy]

Kind of agree here. If you don't want to join a union, don't join one. But if you do, you should pay the dues. Is this a case of people being forced to unionize, and then forced to pay the dues? That's a different animal, and I don't support it at all. But that doesn't seem to be the case unless I'm mistaken.

It's that due to the private agreement between employees and employer at some workplaces, all workers there are required to be in the union. This is done to prevent the free rider problem where people piggyback on the union's wage scale without paying dues. It's important to remember with this legislation you are advocating for forcible government intervention in a private contract.

As someone who supports those things sometimes that's not an issue for me, but it's odd that a political ideology that claims to celebrate as little government intrusion into the market as possible would be trying this.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Kind of agree here. If you don't want to join a union, don't join one. But if you do, you should pay the dues. Is this a case of people being forced to unionize, and then forced to pay the dues? That's a different animal, and I don't support it at all. But that doesn't seem to be the case unless I'm mistaken.

This is the overall case here.

The Republicans are stating that a person should not be force to join the union just to work.

The Dems are stating that if a union exists; you MUST join the union and pay the dues.

In many shops that get converted to union, the unions do not improve the workplace or increase the benefits. Promises are made to get the employees to vote for the union, but the union can not deliver. Then it is almost impossible to decertify the union

 

[PokerGuy]

Worthless dems in the legislature.... what a shock.

It's amazing to me that some people are perfectly fine with forcing people to join organizations that they don't want to join and forcing them to contribute their money to those organizations. Even worse is that those organizations are heavily involved in politics, so people are forced to contribute their money to organizations supporting political candidates they disagree with.

Then those same people who want to remove the ability of workers to choose what organizations they want to join claim to be working on their behalf. It would be hilarious if it wasn't true

 

[actuarial]

A person should have the right to choose their employer without external influence.

Those that support the forced unionization, please explain how allowing a person to chose will force wages lower?

I was really confused about what this law meant until I did some further research. This line made no sense to me:

Under the proposed law, employees at unionized private workplaces would not be required to pay union dues.

Because this would imply that currently all employees, union members or non union members, would be required to pay dues to any union the company works with.

This makes much more sense (from here):

The measure would bar businesses and private unions from mandating that workers pay union fees for representation.

How can any Republican support a law which limits the ability of a private business from deciding who they want to hire and the conditions upon which their employment is based? Are private companies currently not allowed to hire union and non union workers, or give new employees the right to join the union or not?

 

[Atreus21]

It's that due to the private agreement between employees and employer at some workplaces, all workers there are required to be in the union. This is done to prevent the free rider problem where people piggyback on the union's wage scale without paying dues. It's important to remember with this legislation you are advocating for forcible government intervention in a private contract.

As someone who supports those things sometimes that's not an issue for me, but it's odd that a political ideology that claims to celebrate as little government intrusion into the market as possible would be trying this.

I don't advocate this legislation. I advocate union busting in the event that the union can force people to join who don't want to join or contribute, under the excuse that it can't allow other people to freely ride on its pay scale. Unions in that case have become too powerful. Even if this system is agreed upon in a private contract, I am in favor of governmental force to disallow forced unionization.

If the person wants to join the union, let them join. If they don't, let the employer determine their pay.

 

[actuarial]

Kind of agree here. If you don't want to join a union, don't join one. But if you do, you should pay the dues. Is this a case of people being forced to unionize, and then forced to pay the dues? That's a different animal, and I don't support it at all. But that doesn't seem to be the case unless I'm mistaken.

Is anyone being 'forced' to unionize though? If a prospective employer offers you minimum wage, are you being 'forced' to work for that wage?

 

[fskimospy]

Worthless dems in the legislature.... what a shock.

It's amazing to me that some people are perfectly fine with forcing people to join organizations that they don't want to join and forcing them to contribute their money to those organizations. Even worse is that those organizations are heavily involved in politics, so people are forced to contribute their money to organizations supporting political candidates they disagree with.

Then those same people who want to remove the ability of workers to choose what organizations they want to join claim to be working on their behalf. It would be hilarious if it wasn't true

Amazing that people who celebrate the free market are in favor of forcible government intervention in a private contract worked out between two parties.

 

[Jhhnn]

In many shops that get converted to union, the unions do not improve the workplace or increase the benefits. Promises are made to get the employees to vote for the union, but the union can not deliver. Then it is almost impossible to decertify the union

Unsubstantiated assertion. Merely reiterating propaganda doesn't make it true, other than in the minds of those who believe it in the first place.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't advocate this legislation. I advocate union busting in the event that the union can force people to join who don't want to join or contribute, under the excuse that it can't allow other people to freely ride on its pay scale. Unions in that case have become too powerful. Even if this system is agreed upon in a private contract, I am in favor of governmental force to disallow forced unionization.

If the person wants to join the union, let them join. If they don't, let the employer determine their pay.

These are simply the terms of employment offered by a company, pursuant to a private contract worked out between them and their employees on how the business will be run. No one is forced to join it, as no one is forced to work there.

Again, this sounds very much like a government interventionist argument, the exact type of which would cause an epic freakout on the right if it had to do with anything other than unions. Democrats do believe in the government's ability to intervene in workplace contracts, environments, etc, but I thought that conservatives were heavily ideologically opposed to this.

Can you give other examples of private contract stipulations between two consenting parties that you would like the government to step in and forcibly void?

 

[PokerGuy]

Amazing that people who celebrate the free market are in favor of forcible government intervention in a private contract worked out between two parties.

You're just pretending the agreements are "private contracts" between two parties. The reality is that those contracts and agreements are made based heavily on government regulation, labor regulations, unionization rules and so forth.... so government is already heavily involved. This law would just change the nature of the involvement to allow workers a choice.

 

[fskimospy]

Unsubstantiated assertion. Merely reiterating propaganda doesn't make it true, other than in the minds of those who believe it in the first place.

So wait, are the unions super successful and bankrupting companies with high worker costs, or are they doing nothing for the employees that join them? Seems like you can't have it both ways.

 

[fskimospy]

You're just pretending the agreements are "private contracts" between two parties. The reality is that those contracts and agreements are made based heavily on government regulation, labor regulations, unionization rules and so forth.... so government is already heavily involved. This law would just change the nature of the involvement to allow workers a choice.

They are definitely private contracts, that's just a simple definition that cannot be argued.

So just that we're clear, you would like to increase the government's involvement in this contract by prohibiting parties from agreeing on certain provisions?

 

[Atreus21]

Amazing that people who celebrate the free market are in favor of forcible government intervention in a private contract worked out between two parties.

Private contracts are not absolutely sacred even to free marketeers. If you and I work out a contract by which you willingly enslave yourself to me for 10 years, a court would void it.

An anarchist might argue against this, but most conservatives wouldn't.

The free market isn't supposed to be anarchy. The government has a role to protect third parties from effects they had no hand in willfully creating. That is clearly the case in forced unionization. A person ought not have to choose between forced unionization, and being unemployed. It takes the choice to employ out of the employer's hands, and into the union's.

 

[fskimospy]

Private contracts are not absolutely sacred even to free marketeers. If you and I work out a contract by which you willingly enslave yourself to me for 10 years, a court would void it.

An anarchist might argue against this, but most conservatives wouldn't.

The free market isn't supposed to be anarchy. The government has a role to protect third parties from effects they had no hand in willfully creating. That is clearly the case in forced unionization. A person ought not have to choose between forced unionization, and being unemployed.

Be careful with where that logic will lead you.

If you believe the forcible deduction of a fairly meager sum from someone's paycheck each month is an unconscionable imposition by an employer there are probably a whole ton of other stipulations for employment that you would have to consider unconscionable, some of which you may have defended in the past.

 

[actuarial]

You're just pretending the agreements are "private contracts" between two parties. The reality is that those contracts and agreements are made based heavily on government regulation, labor regulations, unionization rules and so forth.... so government is already heavily involved. This law would just change the nature of the involvement to allow workers a choice.

No, this law would change the nature of the involvement to take away employers AND workers choice.

Workers already have a choice, they can work with employers where there is a union and everyone is required to join, work with employers where there is a union and everyone is not required to join, or they can work with employers where there is no union.

From a workers perspective, they have LESS choice now, as the first option will no longer exist. Are you trying to say that there's no workers out there who would prefer to work in an all union place as opposed to an optional union place?

 

[Atreus21]

Be careful with where that logic will lead you.

If you believe the forcible deduction of a fairly meager sum from someone's paycheck each month is an unconscionable imposition by an employer there are probably a whole ton of other stipulations for employment that you would have to consider unconscionable, some of which you may have defended in the past.

Any logic, if followed with absolute consistency, will lead you to madness.

I'm against people being forced to join unions when they seek employment. I don't think employment ought to be contingent on whether or not you're willing to join a group whom you otherwise would not join.

If I applied for a job, and they offered me the job on the condition that I agreed to root for the Lions against the Saints, I would have a problem with that.

 

[fskimospy]

Any logic, if followed with absolute consistency, will lead you to madness.

I'm against people being forced to join unions when they seek employment. I don't think employment ought to be contingent on whether or not you're willing to join a group whom you otherwise would not join.

If I applied for a job, and they offered me the job on the condition that I agreed to root for the Lions against the Saints, I would have a problem with that.

Do you believe that religious groups have a right to make membership in that religion or at least a refrain from things that religion finds acceptable a condition of employment?