Comment by balabaster | Hacker News Reader

Comment by balabaster | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't know what it means to live in a "right to work" state. I assume that means that everyone has a right to reasonably paid employment?

I don't understand how this situation could come to be. What if there were no employers? That situation can only occur if there are enough jobs to maintain gainful employment of every citizen of the state. In such a situation I would likely only remain around as long as there was work willing to pay me what I need to maintain a lifestyle to which I was attracted.

I left Kamloops, BC in 2001 because the only jobs available there sucked (in my eyes). I was frowned upon as a snob because I turned down 3 union jobs which appeared to be the pinnacle of success in Kamloops at the time. I couldn't understand why that seemed to be the height of ambition there. I moved to Vancouver Island in the hope of better. I loved it there, but I left there in 2004, because again the only jobs available had shit pay and I couldn't afford any kind of enjoyable lifestyle. Now I live outside Toronto and enjoy a much more financially comfortable lifestyle... at the cost of an almost complete lack of scenery admittedly. I've never been one to stick around when the economic situation wasn't viable. I couldn't see myself sticking around in a "right to work" state if that's what it meant. I don't really see how it would change my opinion either.

> I don’t know what it means to live in a “right to work” state. I assume that means that everyone has a right to reasonably paid employment?

It’s Doublespeak. It’s a union-busting law. Effectively, it means the opposite — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Btw, in other countries that use sectoral bargaining systems this law wouldn't stop unionization, because the union contract applies across the industry rather than one company at a time. This makes it more impersonal, but companies are no longer motivated to stop unions because they'll become less competitive, and it works well enough in places like Denmark that they don't have minimum wage laws.

I don't know how things work in the UK, but here in the states various bills/acts are often given misleading names because politics. In this case, "right to work" means, basically, the right to take a job without either having to join a union or being prohibited from joining a union.

There's debate over what the impact of "right to work" is, and of course, what role unions should play.

Another term that might interest you is "at will employment". This one means that your employer can fire you at any time for any reason that isn't illegal; and, you can leave your employer at any time for any reason that isn't illegal. This one is also argued intensely as to whether it is more favorable to the employer, employee, or neither.

Right-to-work effectively weakens unions, but is sold under the reasonable sounding rhetoric. The common pitch is something like...

> Right-to-work means that you can work in a union trade without joining the union. Otherwise you have to join and pay the union to work in your profession. Why should you have to pay to work as a <insert profession here>? Support right-to-work!

That's how I often see it sold. In the end, it means unions get weaker in industries that need them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#Arguments_fo...

I guess “right to work” refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law:

“In the context of U.S. labor politics, "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions. Under these laws, employees in unionized workplaces are banned from negotiating contracts which force employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation.”

So, in such states, the (union, employer) combo cannot force every employee to pay the union (employees can choose not to become a member, but still would have to pay them)

I don’t understand how that fits in the story, though. I guess the OP meant “at will”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment): “In U.S. labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal.”

That is an incomplete and misleading definition of "at-will employment". The most important part of at-will employment is that the employee is allowed to leave their employer for any time, for any reason; i.e., they can't be forced to work for their employer even by contract. It is literally just an anti-slavery law, and yet somehow some folks have turned it into a bogeyman. Imagine being against an anti-slavery law because ____?

How is that the most important part? Slavery is already illegal outside of prisons. You know very well this is so companies can cut employees whenever they need to and not face legal repercussions.

> That is an incomplete and misleading definition of "at-will employment". The most important part of at-will employment is that the employee is allowed to leave their employer for any time, for any reason; i.e., they can't be forced to work for their employer even by contract. It is literally just an anti-slavery law, and yet somehow some folks have turned it into a bogeyman. Imagine being against an anti-slavery law because ____?

Honestly, I'd say you're being more hyperbolic and misleading. At-will employment is "just an anti-slavery law?" I'm pretty sure that was already illegal before these laws, and at-will employment wasn't the mechanism for its abolition.

My understanding is that the actual effect of at-will employment laws wasn't to free employees from jobs they didn't want, but to make their positions more precarious (e.g. previously employers had to give a good reason for termination or it was invalid, or at least give notice).

Lol, an anti-slavery law? Better not tell Montana that, it would become a human rights atrocity overnight. They are not an at-will state.

> I don't know what it means to live in a "right to work" state. I assume that means that everyone has a right to reasonably paid employment?

It's the opposite! It means you can be fired for any reason whatsoever.

"Right to work" is American euphemism for your employer being able to fire you at will for no cause

Not really euphemism. More of an Orwellian term.

It mostly means that you are not forced to be part of a union to work. Which is something I agree with. But I highly encourage people to be part of an union.

You can never be forced to join a union. Federal law forces unions to represent non members. "Right to work" means non members can force them to do it for free. Other states let unions force non members to pay for what the union is forced to provide them.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this law simply prevent a situation where a non-union employee would be forced to pay the union fees even if he doesn't want to be a part of the union in a unionized workplace? If yes, how is it a bad thing for employees?

Genuine question, because I don't understand the issue. If they want to join a union and pay the associated fees, they are welcome to. If they just wanna work a job without joining a union and paying their fees, they can do that as well. How is it a bad thing, unless you consider forcing those employees who don't care about unions to still contribute fees a good thing?

It isn't simple because federal law forces the union to represent non members still. Free riding is good for free riders. It's bad for people who pay for it.

This has nothing to do with "right to work".

"Right to work" is literally the right to work for any employer who will have you regardless of whether you're in a union or not in a union.

You should question where you got the misleading definition of "right to work" and cui bono? by feeding you that misinformation.

In that user's defense, the practical outcome of right-to-work from the perspective of someone who doesn't have it is that you can quit or get fired without notice.

The definition of US gun laws isn't "you can have most semi-auto rifles unless you've gone to jail, you live in California and the rifle looks scary, or the barrel is too short", but it's probably how someone would explain the practical outcome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com