National Free Ride legislation
 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-introduces-national-right-to-work-legislation/article/2613428

"Right to Work (for Less.)"

Good. The federal government has no authority to deal with labor issues, except for immigration.

Oh great, let's work for peanuts and let management crap all over us more than they already do. The unions should be better but they're better than not having one.

Agreed. How about we let the free market work unencumbered? And allow unions and companies to sign -- and abide by -- contracts without government interference?

While we're at it I'd like free insurance and someone to negotiate my next raise -- without having to pay them.

So basically...a union has to bargain for you and represent you if you're called in by a manager but you're not required to pay anything for those services.

Of course they throw in key words like "freedom" and "choice" to make it sound like it's an amazing thing.

It's purpose has nothing to do with freedom, and it has everything to do with getting rid of those pesky unions that negotiate better wages & benefits.

Government's job is to enforce contracts, so yeah sure sounds good to me.

Maybe you don't want their services?



First off, federal labor laws are unconstitutional, which is the issue at stake here.

Secondly, why should someone be forced to pay dues to someone just to work? That is the very definition of theft.

You realize this would simply allow a race to the bottom? Further eviscerating what's left of the middle class? A union negotiates a certain level of compensation and work rules, then someone comes in off the street (let's call him a "rugged individualist") and wants a job without having to pay (prolly less than 1%) dues. He doesn't want representation because he believes in freedommm!!!.

Will the wages/work rules he negotiates be ...
(a) higher
(b) the same
(c) lower

If (c) then you can see where this leads. Bangledesh here we come.

You fail to see the other side of the equation... many business don't want bottom feeder employees, so they are willing to pay more for higher quality. Put another way, not everyone buys on price alone. Some people will buy a BMW, while others will buy a Ford. There are at least two sides to every market.

Back to the days when you'd show your ID AND Union Card if you want to ride the jumpseat.

Airlines don't want a BMW. They want the cheapest car that will do the job.

The idea that there is an airline that will always want the best pilots (as if that can actually be measured) isn't true. Odds are you can be a pretty bad pilot and make it to the end of your career on luck. Airlines will be happy hiring those "lucky" pilots for less.

So then they should have nothing to fear from collective bargaining.

There is nothing wrong with collective bargaining, and in fact it can many times be a good thing. But it is not legal for the federal government to give unions special powers and privileges.

Really?

So anyone can get a job at DAL or FedEx? :rolleyes:

Interesting how people who proclaim to loathe freeloaders benefitting from the efforts of others are championing a law that would allow freeloaders to benefit from the efforts of others.

Also interesting how healthcare and other topics aren't "rights", yet somehow work is a "right".

I wonder if the same people also think government involvement in marriage is appropriate.

Then why is the federal government going to interfere in contracts between unions and companies?

Because the federal government constantly breaks the law

Strawman fallacy...I'm not sure that means what you think it means.

Republicans proposed this RTW bill, which will allow union non-members to receive compensation and benefits negotiated by union members (along with union representation!) without paying a dime in dues to aforementioned union.

Is that not the definition of free-loading - taking advantage of others' efforts while contributing nothing?

Do Republicans not loathe "freeloaders" who want something for nothing? I'm a Republican, and the answer is yes, yes Republicans do loathe "freeloaders"...which makes the hypocrisy all that more apparent.

Do Republicans not frequently say things like "health care is not a right"? I'm a Republican, the answer is yes, yes they do, because health care (or more appropriately, health insurance) *isn't* a right. Along those same lines, there also isn't a "right" to work.

It is disingenuous to utilize the same line of logic you dismiss whenever it suits your own ideology.

Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you work in a closed shop; no, an individual has a CHOICE to do that or take their services elsewhere. If an individual CHOOSES to work in a closed shop, being a member of the collective bargaining agent is kinda part of the deal. You know, freedom of choice and all...

So we're agreed: "Right to Work (for less)" laws trample on contract law and are a government intrusion in the marketplace.

[emoji1369]. Exactly.

No one wants to pay more than the gong rate for anything. To an employer, what makes one pilot more valuable than thousands of others with equal ratings? Of course I'm more valuable in my mnd but good luck convincing anyone else. Flying is not that exclusive and we all punch a clock. We would be better off improving the front end of our careers instead of trying to get it all at the end.

I would say yes except that, if there's anything worse than living hand to mouth as a youngster, it's doing the same with a worn out back at 60.

Support agency shop fees.

No, national labor laws are unconstitutional. The state level is a different matter.

Then why is the pay rate for Delta, FedEx, United, UPS, and American all different from each other? And why do they pay more than the majors?


Yes lots of people will buy based on price, but not everyone. Some people want the best and are willing to pay for it. Businesses are the same way. They want the best most experienced pilots and are willing to pay for it.

Again, federal labor laws are not authorized by the Constitution.




I agree, but unions should not be given special benefits and privileges by the government, on any level. A business should not be forced into a union if they do not want to be. And they should be able to choose whether or not they want to have both union and non-union employees.


If unionism is such a good idea, then why do you have to force people to join? :confused:

NM, where do yo work? Just curious?

Businesses aren't forced into a union. As a matter of fact, no one is forced to join a union.

But it's only fair that a non-union member pay a fee for the services provided, right? Why haven't you answered that question?

Compensation packages drift depending on the economic conditions during contract negotiations. Pilots at the majors took their 30% cut, downgrades, and decade of frozen pay because it was still better than any other job that they were qualified to do. UPS truck drivers make more than most major pilots under 45 these days.

Commerce Clause. It has become the Swiss Army Knife of Congress. :rolleyes:

Sad, but true.... even though the Commerce Clause is actually restrictive, not expansive.

Cite your source?

You need to go back and read the law.

So in a "Right to Work (for less)" scenario if a guy walks into FedEx and says, "Hey, I'm a "rugged individualist. I'd like to work for 75% of what your pilots covered under the CBA are working for-- with no job protections."

Do you think:
(a) They'd hire him.
(b) They'd like to hire more guys like him and fewer under a CBA.
(b) It would have any effect on the negotiations for the rest of the pilot group.

If you're a pilot, you can see where this whole thing leads.

And we're still waiting to hear about how freeloaders should be dealt with.

It would depend on the circumstances, his qualifications, and what the company needs/wants.

So if he was qualified he could make 25% less in lieu of 2% union dues? Sweet deal!!

I'd wager Harrison & Ford.......

I have a hard time believing he believes what he writes. My guess is he's interning at Cato.

Most major pilots under 45 are new hires, they don't make s--t.