Terror Tied To Occupiers

[garyd]

Now run down a cost of living in those same states.

Buy the way RTW varies significantly from state to state. In Oklahoma it includes a service fee of sorts you may be charged if you benefit from labor union negotiations with your employer.

[9ball8]

Here's a link to OK right to work for less law: http://www.nrtw.org/c/okrtwlaw.htm
Quote: "B. No person shall be required, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, to:
...3. Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization..."
Now, unless you have some update on OK's law -a link, which allows a "service fee" that a union can charge when a non-union member benefits, I suggest you concede the point.
The issue should be resolved at the SCOTUS level; allowing even one state to corrupt contract law should never be allowed. RTW states should have simplified matters by going with a bare-bones "Open Shop" law, instead.
"Think logically". That's a good sig; you should try it this time.

[garyd]

Sorry states may legally invalidate any and all laws or contracts they so choose. Statute of limitation laws do this in the case of financial arrangements like crdit cards.

By the way if you read the part in the parenthesis at the bottom. It does not invalidate contracts existing at the time of the bill until such time as those contracts either pass into history or are renewed.

In other words if at the time of the bill you worked in a closed shop you were stuck until the then current contract had run it's course.

[9ball8]

That fails to deal with contracts in real time. One pays for benefits received at the time they are received, unless a contract divides those payments over time. Your case for statute of limitations is completely irrelevant to a current labor union contract being required to provide benefits that are never paid for by non members. Please stick to the issue.

You might try looking for legal contracts that require a private organization to provide benefits -at no charge or any other compensation- to non member individuals and/or other organizations. If you can find a law originating at any level of government, that legitimately imposes that condition on non-governmental agencies, your argument would be much stronger. If your only example is some right to work law, or contract law from a communist country, then realize you have lost the argument.

[garyd]

It is your argument that is specious. Technically if I never talk to the union or it's reps it is dificult to argue that I am receiving benefits from a union. Just because I work for the same company that some union dudes work for. I get no part of the greivance process, nor any similar benefits all I get is access to a salary and whatever other benefits my boss chooses to throw my way. What benefits are you required to give me? You don't pay my salary, my health insurance or anything else.

[9ball8]

So, the problem is that you do not realize (or refuse to realize) any difference between an open shop law, vs. right to be forced to confer benefits to freeloaders law. Let's say your workplace labor union negotiates a .50/hour raise. Under a communist-inspired (but applied by cynical fascists) right to work law, the employer would be required to pay that .50/hour raise to all employees, regardless of dues-paying status in the union. Under an open-shop law (not tainted by contract law bastardization), dues paying union members get the .50/hour raise, while non-union members accept what their employer gives them. Might be less, might be more than the union members get, because they are outside the union contract. Either way, you don't have to communicate with union members about the issue. If the RTW raise is less than your boss would have given you, the likely outcome is that you're stuck with the lower figure due to labor contract restrictions (eg, "evrybody gets the same raise, no exceptions"). Maybe that last point will help you see the difference between true open shop and RTW (bastard version).
If you care to go back to my later posts, & re-read them carefully, you should be able to really get it.
Your failure to provide relevant examples to counter this observed difference between RTW and open shop, even provide links, tells me you would go to irrational lengths to believe they are one and the same thing. Why don't you tell your state OK rep to change the law -to always allow you to work outside any union contract coverage? He won't because that violates the OK RTW statute and upsets business concerns that support him in office. That's right, you work in a state that effectively has a closed-shop law, only the unions are toothless and riddled with parasites. Your only other option is to work for an employer that has no union, if you want something like merit raises. Enjoy.

[garyd]

First, you're assuming I give a damn about the difference which is negligible at best. And second that the difference as specified actually in practice matters.

[9ball8]

I also assume you will give more of a damn if/when you are subject to paying or providing a service at your expense -by contract- without the benefit of receiving any compensation for your service. It's a good bet you would be very , should that happen. You might even get , and with good reason.

[garyd]

Again the difference, in practice, doesn't matter as the only benefit I get if I get that is slightly higher wages than I might otherwise have gotten.

By the way I've done that every year of my life and so has every other taxpayer.