Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: NH Libertarian Shows Significant Strength in Upcoming Special Legislative Electi (Read 10773 times)
|
|
Dreepa
|
No one can be forced to join a union or pay union dues.
it may not be called union dues.. but you can be forced to pay a 'bargaining fee' to the unions. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
The change in the wording of the proposed statute would have to allow the employer, as part of the employment contract, to require the joining of such a Union/Association.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
No one can be forced to join a union or pay union dues. it may not be called union dues.. but you can be forced to pay a 'bargaining fee' to the unions. Find me the statute that says that. No one else has been able to, despite repeated requests that the claim be supported. Absent a statute in support of that, you can only be forced to pay such a fee (whatever you want to label it) if the employer has willingly chosen to make that a condition of employment. Find it, and we can amend the RTW bill to simply repeal that statute, and it will become fully libertarian, and should pass immediately. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Closed shops, banned by the federal law, the Taft-Hartley Act, in 1947, were agreements between employer and unions "in which employees at unionized workplaces must be members of the union as a condition of employment." Yes. But, in common use, since true closed shops are now illegal, you'll hear union/agency shops referred to as "closed shops." (Contrary to what you said about no one being forced to pay dues - this would only be true in NH if there was a right-to-work law there - or does the state have a partial right-to-work law, banning agency shops but not union shops?). No, it would be true, regardless. No one is forced to work for any particular employer. If an employer requires that you join the union or pay dues/equivalent in order to work there, you have the option to simply not seek employment there. It would only be true that one is forced to pay dues if there were a law stating such. After reading this article, it seems that a right-to-work law is definitely against the freedom of an employer, but gives more freedom to workers. Does the article describe it accurately according to your understanding? It's also against the freedom of the workers. Some workers might want to work in a closed shop. Interfering with private contracts is always wrong. There's never a libertarian case to do so. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
maxxoccupancy
|
Back to the topic, Brendan Kelly could sure benefit from some folks holding signs at the polls on Tuesday, September 6th. Brendan's really one of our guys, and he's the only libertarian candidate out of three in the race. This one is tight, and if you know anyone in Hampton Falls, Seabrook, Kensington, or South Hampton, please give them a call and ask them to support Brendan's campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We're in need of volunteers to help out with Freedom Expo. PM one of the organizers (like me) if you'd like to help.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." Freedom Expo is at Trinity Parish House, Seabrook, April 27, 2013! (right next to the Post Office)
|
|
|
|
Fishercat
|
No one can be forced to join a union or pay union dues. it may not be called union dues.. but you can be forced to pay a 'bargaining fee' to the unions. Find me the statute that says that. No one else has been able to, despite repeated requests that the claim be supported. It's part of the ongoing court battle that defines Labor Relations in this country. The actual law (Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act) is rather innocuous in its wording. However, the courts have interpreted the non-discrimination clause to allow unions to charge an "agency fee" to non-union employees. To mitigate the questionableness of this interpretation, Taft-Hartley "allows" the States to effectively override the court case by passing a "Right-to-Work" law. As I understand it, the content and wording of these RTW laws are designed to dance through the interaction between federal law and existing case law to override the operative court interpretation. The result being that the courts hold that it is OK to charge union dues (or at least, most of it) to non-union employees because the States have the opportunity override the federal decision with RTW. And that's where NH is. NH is trying to invoke the appropriate protection of the Taft-Hartley act to pre-empt the agency fee. As you have pointed out previously, all other provisions of RTW are already effectively in place in New Hampshire. The one and only impact that passing RTW would have, both for public and private workers, is to eliminate the ability to mandate agency fee from non-union employees. Employees are still free to join the union, and non-union employees can still be asked to cough up an agency fee as their "fair share" of what they receive from the union via representation. But after RTW it cannot be mandated or made a condition of employment. Of course it is not pro-liberty to restrict the terms of a union/private employer negotiation as RTW does. But the terms of negotiation between and union and private employer are already restricted beyond comprehension (for private employers, by federal case law and the NLRB). The RTW law is simply the one "move" that the system allows in this game of defining to the utmost detail exactly how employers are allowed to provide employment to their workers. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 11:34:12 am by Fishercat »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maxxoccupancy
|
Can you folks take that discussion to another thread? This thread is about Brendan Kelly's campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We're in need of volunteers to help out with Freedom Expo. PM one of the organizers (like me) if you'd like to help.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." Freedom Expo is at Trinity Parish House, Seabrook, April 27, 2013! (right next to the Post Office)
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
No one can be forced to join a union or pay union dues. it may not be called union dues.. but you can be forced to pay a 'bargaining fee' to the unions. Find me the statute that says that. No one else has been able to, despite repeated requests that the claim be supported. It's part of the ongoing court battle that defines Labor Relations in this country. The actual law (Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act) is rather innocuous in its wording. However, the courts have interpreted the non-discrimination clause to allow unions to charge an "agency fee" to non-union employees. To mitigate the questionableness of this interpretation, Taft-Hartley "allows" the States to effectively override the court case by passing a "Right-to-Work" law. As I understand it, the content and wording of these RTW laws are designed to dance through the interaction between federal law and existing case law to override the operative court interpretation. The result being that the courts hold that it is OK to charge union dues (or at least, most of it) to non-union employees because the States have the opportunity override the federal decision with RTW. And that's where NH is. NH is trying to invoke the appropriate protection of the Taft-Hartley act to pre-empt the agency fee. As you have pointed out previously, all other provisions of RTW are already effectively in place in New Hampshire. The one and only impact that passing RTW would have, both for public and private workers, is to eliminate the ability to mandate agency fee from non-union employees. Employees are still free to join the union, and non-union employees can still be asked to cough up an agency fee as their "fair share" of what they receive from the union via representation. But after RTW it cannot be mandated or made a condition of employment. Of course it is not pro-liberty to restrict the terms of a union/private employer negotiation as RTW does. But the terms of negotiation between and union and private employer are already restricted beyond comprehension (for private employers, by federal case law and the NLRB). The RTW law is simply the one "move" that the system allows in this game of defining to the utmost detail exactly how employers are allowed to provide employment to their workers. Federal law does allow for such agreements. What's your point? It's one of the few instances where the Feds are not interfering with private contracts. RTW is purely an interference in private contracts. It creates a restriction that did not, previously, exist. And it is not addressing some other restriction in an imperfect way (at least, no in NH, it's not). It's purely an act of interference. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Can you folks take that discussion to another thread? This thread is about Brendan Kelly's campaign. And Kelly is campaigning, in large part, on his support for RTW. Given that a few votes could over-ride Lynch's veto, this is a critical point of discussion for anyone thinking of supporting Kelly. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Actually RTW was meant to be an interference in public contract, but is badly worded.
The reason that no one can find and RSA on the subject is one doesn't exist.
The public union leadership determined that it was in their memberships interest to place compulsory agency fees in the contract.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MS Libertarian
|
seems like anywhere that isn't RTW, you are forced to be in a union. If that is true then RTW seems preferable.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Only Jedis should use the force!
The Second Amendment is my gun permit.
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
seems like anywhere that isn't RTW, you are forced to be in a union. If that is true then RTW seems preferable. Nope. That's not true, at all. You cannot be forced to join a union, anywhere in the US, under Federal law. In some states, if more than 50% of the workers in a company want to unionize, they can force the others to either join, or pay fees equivalent to union dues. In NH, that's not the case. The only way you can be forced to either join or pay the union without joining, is if the employer has chosen to make that a requirement. It's their right to make that a requirement, just like it's your right to tell them you won't work for them under those conditions. RTW is an interference in a private contract, so it is 100% anti-liberty. It's just as anti-liberty as minimum wage laws, or any other such nonsense where the government tells employers and employees how they must interact. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
MS Libertarian
|
seems like anywhere that isn't RTW, you are forced to be in a union. If that is true then RTW seems preferable. Nope. That's not true, at all. You cannot be forced to join a union, anywhere in the US, under Federal law. In some states, if more than 50% of the workers in a company want to unionize, they can force the others to either join, or pay fees equivalent to union dues. In NH, that's not the case. The only way you can be forced to either join or pay the union without joining, is if the employer has chosen to make that a requirement. It's their right to make that a requirement, just like it's your right to tell them you won't work for them under those conditions. RTW is an interference in a private contract, so it is 100% anti-liberty. It's just as anti-liberty as minimum wage laws, or any other such nonsense where the government tells employers and employees how they must interact. Joe alrighty then |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Only Jedis should use the force!
The Second Amendment is my gun permit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
seems like anywhere that isn't RTW, you are forced to be in a union. If that is true then RTW seems preferable. Nope. That's not true, at all. You cannot be forced to join a union, anywhere in the US, under Federal law. In some states, if more than 50% of the workers in a company want to unionize, they can force the others to either join, or pay fees equivalent to union dues. In NH, that's not the case. The only way you can be forced to either join or pay the union without joining, is if the employer has chosen to make that a requirement. It's their right to make that a requirement, just like it's your right to tell them you won't work for them under those conditions. RTW is an interference in a private contract, so it is 100% anti-liberty. It's just as anti-liberty as minimum wage laws, or any other such nonsense where the government tells employers and employees how they must interact. Joe Again. Because of how it is written. Its sort of like the 'evergreen' clauses initiated under Thomson. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
