Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

A spin-off from my original question of the "right to work." And are any of you for or against Right to Work vs At Will states..

And why? I read about the RTW and what it means. And what I read it seems to be a win-win for all involved. IMO, I would want the choice to whether or not to pay Union dues, and it doesn't make it a requirement of employment. There were quite a few states that were like MI and the job economy, and when their RTW law was passed, employment went up and the economy improved. So whats the matter with these folks are are just so against this law to the point violence gets involved. Ohio went for the RTW, and numerous new companies moved into the state. In the south, there are GM plants that moved to thr RTW states. Here in MI, just about all the GM plants up and moved out of the state and into the RTW states. Maybe if MI went RTW, some more GM plants would open up....

Answer Question
 
Michigan-Mom74

Asked by Michigan-Mom74 at 7:11 PM on Dec. 11, 2012 in Politics & Current Events

Level 34 (66,351 Credits)
Answers (11)
  • I am definitely for RTW. Michigan has the highest union representation and the highest unemployment. Not necessarily related but definitely suspicious. I live in NC which is RTW - keep the jobs coming!
    missanc

    Answer by missanc at 7:15 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • RTW here in Oklahoma means, right to fire/let go without cause. I like the way Washington state has it. They have to have a reason to fire/let you go.
    louise2

    Answer by louise2 at 7:38 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • there are version of RTW that make sense & versions that dont (like ours in OK). i see the point in being allowed to chose whether or not to join a union, but putting all the control in the hands of the companies harms workers. there has to be balance. like job security for those who are good workers, while allowing companies to fire workers who should be fired. firing good workers "just cause" is wrong, but having to keep on crappy workers b/c of union rights is wrong too.
    okmanders

    Answer by okmanders at 8:30 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • I'm pro choice.
    QuinnMae

    Answer by QuinnMae at 9:34 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • I think that I am glad about MI's decision, as we in OH are taking up the same issue this next year. Although ours is going to be on the state ballot, rather than the state legislature making the decision. Anyway, I am all for it!! I hope that things start turning around for you all in MI.
    29again

    Answer by 29again at 11:22 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • I am in favor of right to work.

    My guess is that those in the unions have a "monopoly" on those job and they do not want to lose the total control they have had and they are willing to get violent to hold on to that control. That is just my guess. I was in a union when I was young and I went to two meetings and declined to go after. They IMO are brainwashing sessions.
    Dardenella

    Answer by Dardenella at 12:31 AM on Dec. 12, 2012

  • I live in a right to work state. It is something most people do not like who are employees but like as an employer. No teachers do not get fired here for doing a poor job. I read that rumor. Bad teachers still work. As do crappy doctors. What it really does is make it hard for the low income wage earners. Worked ten years for a company and want off for your first vacation ever. So sorry. Right to work. I say no as an employer and if you don't show I will fire your ass, that's right to work. In other words the employee is a slave to "the boss man." That's what most people making under 35 a year call their employer. I don't know gotta ask my boss man first. There is no win win. Only poor quality work environments, little to know benefits, zero time off, and at the beck and call of an employer 24/7. Professionals in certain categories are protected.
    frogdawg

    Answer by frogdawg at 11:02 PM on Dec. 12, 2012

  • frogdawg...All a RTW state is, is giving a person the right to choose whether or not they want to join a Union and pay dues, it no longer makes it requirement of employment for you to join the Union. It also is not against the law fro an employer to provide vacation days, sick days and so forth. It makes it a better company to work for, but it isn't mandatory.
    Michigan-Mom74

    Comment by Michigan-Mom74 (original poster) at 11:12 PM on Dec. 12, 2012

  • Ohio is not a RTW state yet. But we are an "at will" state, which sucks. They don't need a reason to fire you. Having worked for both union & non-union employers, I'll take the protection of the union any time. When a person decides to apply for a job, they know in advance if it's a union job or not. It's their choice if they will work there or not. I honestly don't know if becoming a RTW state will help the economy or not. I've seen so much greed & corruption from so many of these companies, that not having a union to keep them in check & protect the rights of the workers, it could have the opposite effect. I guess time will tell.

    mrsmom110

    Answer by mrsmom110 at 8:11 PM on Dec. 13, 2012

  • I live in a right to work state. Have for 12 years. I am very familiar.
    frogdawg

    Answer by frogdawg at 9:58 PM on Dec. 13, 2012

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Cafemom Join now to connect to other members! Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN