Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: NH Not A Right-To-Work State?  (Read 6993 times)

Matt Clem

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
NH Not A Right-To-Work State?
« on: August 10, 2013, 07:21:05 am »

I currently live in Virginia, probably one of the most anti-union states I have heard of. My understanding is NH is not a right to work state. How prevalent are unions throughout NH, and is there any organized attempt to make it a right to work state?
Logged
Government is the great fiction through which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else.  ~ Frederic Bastiat

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: NH Not A Right-To-Work State?
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2013, 07:47:14 am »

NH used to be a right to work state but that was well before we were born. Here is the percentage of workers in a union. The US percentage is 11.3. For NH it is 10.5. For VA it is 4.4. There is a national organization attempting to remove right to work laws in many states. The NH legislature voted to go to RTW again last session but the govenor vetoed it. It won't happen again until there is a Republican govenor that strongly supports it. If your issue is being forced to join a union, you don't have to in NH.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: NH Not A Right-To-Work State?
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2013, 08:12:48 am »

The NH legislature voted to go to RTW again last session but the govenor vetoed it.

One of Lynch's better decisions.  It was so refreshing to see Lynch say, "States should not interfere with the rights of businesses and their employees to freely negotiate contracts."  And it was amazing to see anti-liberty folks like Daily Kos pick up and repeat that message, not really realizing what they were repeating to their readers in their zeal to get the story out.

RTW is nothing but interference in private contracts, and is an anti-liberty idea which is totally in opposition to the principles set forth in the Statement of Intent.  No FSP participant should be supporting such nonsense.

As has been discussed previously, if the concept was applied only to public employees (public contracts rather than private contracts), there would be no issue.  But RTW's supporters don't apply any such limitation, and have steadfastly refused to do so, making it clear that their goal is to reduce liberty, not to correct an injustice.

Also, your numbers are not accurate.  They're true, but they don't tell the whole story.  Very few private employees in NH work in "closed shops," so RTW would have no practical impact on them (other than the greatly-offensive part about enshrining anti-liberty ideals in law).  NH has only around a 1% greater unionization rate than VA does, among private employees.  The difference is among the public-sector workers - around a ninth of VA's public sector employees are unionized or union-represented, whereas over half of NH's public employees are.  RTW for public employees would have a huge impact.

So long as the RTW supporters push to interfere in private contracts, the unions will fight them, and the entire liberty movement will fight them.  If they limited it to public contracts, then they would only have to fight some of the unions, not all unions, and not the liberty movement, as well.

The fact that they passed RTW last session and Lynch had to veto it, and that the Republican candidates for governor were RTW supporters, is one of the key reasons that we now have Hassan in office, and the swing towards Democratic control of the legislature.  This swing may continue unless the NH GOP grows a spine and stands up for the principles it claims to support, officially making opposition to RTW for private employees part of its platform.
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..

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: NH Not A Right-To-Work State?
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2013, 08:40:37 am »

The NH legislature voted to go to RTW again last session but the govenor vetoed it.

So long as the RTW supporters push to interfere in private contracts, the unions will fight them, and the entire liberty movement will fight them.  If they limited it to public contracts, then they would only have to fight some of the unions, not all unions, and not the liberty movement, as well.

While I agree that right to work laws are anti-liberty, most liberty activists I know both inside and outside of NH support them. So no, the entire liberty movement certainly hasn't and won't fight right to work laws. For example, John Tate, who I believe runs Campaign for Liberty, is a former head of the national right to work group.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2013, 10:04:57 am by 1DayAtATime »
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: NH Not A Right-To-Work State?
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2013, 09:03:40 am »

While I agree that right to work laws are anti-liberty, most liberty activists I know both inside and outside of NH support them. So no, the entire liber movement certainly hasn't and won't fight right to work laws. For example, John Tate, who I believe runs Campaign for Liberty, is a former head of the national right to work group.

Then he's not a liberty activist, is he?  He's an anti-liberty activist, because he's working against liberty.

The entire liberty movement will fight them.  Some "fairweather friends" who pretend to care about liberty, but only actually care about their own pet projects, will support them.  Anyone who actually cares about liberty will oppose them.
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..

Matt Clem

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: NH Not A Right-To-Work State?
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2013, 09:40:50 am »

Perhaps I do not completely understand the meaning of "Right to Work". My stance on it comes from my understanding that in a non right - to - work state, if a majority of the employees (50% +1) decide to unionize, a union is formed. All employees must then pay union dues, whether they want to or not, which is fine because you are at liberty to find another job. My understanding is that Unions can be formed without the consent of the employer. I take it from this:

The NH legislature voted to go to RTW again last session but the govenor vetoed it.

 "States should not interfere with the rights of businesses and their employees to freely negotiate contracts." 

that this is not true and in order for a Union to form, the employer must consent to its formation?
Logged
Government is the great fiction through which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else.  ~ Frederic Bastiat

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: NH Not A Right-To-Work State?
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2013, 10:06:34 am »

Correct, mostly.  Any number of employees (even smaller than a majority) can form a union to represent themselves.  But they cannot force others to join, or force the employer to only employ those who are either members of the union or pay union dues.

In some states, mandatory unionization is possible when a majority of employees want to forcibly unionize the workplace.  Even so, RTW would not be the correct response - repealing that mandatory unionization law, would.

NH does not have such a law, anyway.

There is a Federal provision in which an employer who refuses (in some pretty serious ways) to deal with a voluntarily-formed union can be forced to do so.  Seeking the repeal of that law would be good.  But, even so, it is rarely used.  To the best of my knowledge, it has never been used against an NH-based company (and, even if someone can come up with a single example, that would not justify oppressing the entire rest of the population).

What this really boils down to, is outside interest groups who want to pressure NH to "go with the crowd" and do exactly what they've done, to "solve a problem" which NH does not even have (and to do so in an anti-liberty manner).  It's no wonder that the people of NH, who have been fighting for liberty for many decades, are getting sick of this nonsense, and voting out those who support it.
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..

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: NH Not A Right-To-Work State?
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2013, 10:06:45 am »

While I agree that right to work laws are anti-liberty, most liberty activists I know both inside and outside of NH support them. So no, the entire liber movement certainly hasn't and won't fight right to work laws. For example, John Tate, who I believe runs Campaign for Liberty, is a former head of the national right to work group.

Then he's not a liberty activist, is he?  He's an anti-liberty activist, because he's working against liberty.

The entire liberty movement will fight them.  Some "fairweather friends" who pretend to care about liberty, but only actually care about their own pet projects, will support them.  Anyone who actually cares about liberty will oppose them.

Almost everyone I've ever met in the liberty movement that I've talked to on this issue supports right to work over the current system if given in choice. They do support liberty, just not 100% of the time. Maybe a 100% purist like yourself opposes right to work. That's great but not common of the people I know.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: NH Not A Right-To-Work State?
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2013, 10:13:10 am »

Almost everyone I've ever met in the liberty movement that I've talked to on this issue supports right to work over the current system if given in choice. They do support liberty, just not 100% of the time. Maybe a 100% purist like yourself opposes right to work. That's great but not common of the people I know.

RTW isn't even a "100%" issue.  You can't support liberty more than a tiny fraction of the time, and still think that's acceptable.  Calling someone like that "in the liberty movement" is like saying that some redneck who is pro-gun, but thinks that drug users should be executed, the borders should be closed, and cops should be able to search anyone they want is "in the liberty movement" because he's pro-gun.  Sorry, but the other issues outweigh the one issue on which he is correct.  Saying that someone who is only 10% pro-liberty is not "in the liberty movement" is not the same as demanding 100% perfection.  It's just common sense that if someone is anti-liberty on the majority of issues, that individual is not part of the liberty movement.

Directly attacking private contracts (particularly to "solve" a problem that does not even exist in NH) is too severe of a violation of the principles of liberty to be considered anything other than a rejection of liberty, itself.  Getting a handful of minor issues right, does not outweigh that one.
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..

Matt Clem

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: NH Not A Right-To-Work State?
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2013, 10:21:57 am »

I'm going to have to look into this more carefully in Virginia. I get the feeling here that the majority of the population believes that mandatory unionization is law in all instances of non - right to work states. But as you said MaineShark, I would now concur that a restrive law to "fix" the consequences of another restrictive law is not the answer, and the repeal of the law would be. I'm going to have to share this with my companions down here.

I've been politically active for around 5 years, but libertarian for just over three. I try hard to be diligent, but I sometimes am reminded (such as this topic) that I need to do some more research before I assume something to be correct.
Logged
Government is the great fiction through which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else.  ~ Frederic Bastiat

KBCraig

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1466
Re: NH Not A Right-To-Work State?
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2013, 10:31:15 am »

Part of the problem in discussing the issue, is agreeing to definitions.

"Right to work" means, at the most basic level, that no employee may be forced to join a union as a matter of law. By that standard, NH already is a RTW state.

There is also the issue of "shared contributions" (I think that's the term), where unions can mandate withholding from all bargaining unit employees, even non-members, of their "share" of operational and bargaining costs (but not political contributions). I don't remember the current status of that in NH; I know it caused some hubbub in public sector unions a few years back.

RTW is anti-liberty in the strictest since, but it is no more or no less anti-liberty than closed shop laws. Both prohibit free negotiation of terms. If it was either/or, I'd opt for RTW.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: NH Not A Right-To-Work State?
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2013, 11:13:22 am »

"Right to work" means, at the most basic level, that no employee may be forced to join a union as a matter of law. By that standard, NH already is a RTW state.

That's Federal - true "closed shops" are prohibited.  No one can be forced to join a union.

There is also the issue of "shared contributions" (I think that's the term), where unions can mandate withholding from all bargaining unit employees, even non-members, of their "share" of operational and bargaining costs (but not political contributions). I don't remember the current status of that in NH; I know it caused some hubbub in public sector unions a few years back.

RTW is anti-liberty in the strictest since, but it is no more or no less anti-liberty than closed shop laws. Both prohibit free negotiation of terms. If it was either/or, I'd opt for RTW.

That's what's being discussed.  NH does not provide for such.  The only way a shop can be "closed" (not in the strict sense, but in the "you must pay dues, even though you didn't join the union" sense) here in NH is if the employer and the union privately and freely negotiate such terms.  The government has no business interfering in that private contract.  The only exception is that the Feds can force a such an arrangement in certain extreme cases.  But, as I noted above, I've found no evidence of that happening in NH (and it still wouldn't justify oppressing the entire rest of the population, even if there were one case).
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

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: NH Not A Right-To-Work State?
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2013, 05:13:14 am »

Part of the problem in discussing the issue, is agreeing to definitions.

"Right to work" means, at the most basic level, that no employee may be forced to join a union as a matter of law. By that standard, NH already is a RTW state.

There is also the issue of "shared contributions" (I think that's the term), where unions can mandate withholding from all bargaining unit employees, even non-members, of their "share" of operational and bargaining costs (but not political contributions). I don't remember the current status of that in NH; I know it caused some hubbub in public sector unions a few years back.

RTW is anti-liberty in the strictest since, but it is no more or no less anti-liberty than closed shop laws. Both prohibit free negotiation of terms. If it was either/or, I'd opt for RTW.
'Agent fees'; and their still intact. They were negotiated into the contracts several years back; when the Legislature opened the door to the concept.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

anything