It is a matter of the right for an employer to enter into certatin
working arangements with employees. Employers are not forced to sign
contracts that state that being a member of a union is a condition of
employement. No person is forced to work for a particular employer. If
one does not want to join a union and union membership is compulsory
in order to work for a particular employer then they can choose not
work for that particular employer. At one time there were employers
who actually prefered to hire union members because unions trained
workers for certain skilled jobs and thus if one was a union member
the employer knew that they had been trained for the job by the union
or guild. Why should the government not allow employers and employees
to enter into certain working arrangements? I support the freedom of
employers and employees to enter into whatever contract they both
agree to. The government does not and should not be involved.
$
--- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> That does not apply much to the points I actualy care about. The
> ratio between loss and gain from the balancing act of wages versus
> unemployment.
>
> You can attack right-to-work, from both sides with a Libertarian
> standpoint, either yours against or as a protection of the
> individuals libertey to not be coerced by unions. Making an
> idealogical point for or against is not, effective. If you could
> quantify your stance though, it would be intrest to me. IE You don't
> believe it is the role of the state because it has *THIS NEGATIVE
> IMPACT* supported by *THIS SET OF STATISTICAL FACTS*.
>
> --- In [email protected], "hrearden_hr" <HRearden@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I live in a right to work state but I don't work in a unionized
> > industry. I oppose right to work laws because they interfere with
> the
> > type of agreements employers and employees can enter in to. I
> support
> > a separation of economy and state. In a capitalist economy the
> state
> > would dictate which type of agrrements employers and employees can
> > enter in to. It is a matter of principle with me. I don't believe
> the
> > state should favor either the employer or employee in matters of
> > employement, benefits, wages, salaries, etc... or act as a
> arbitrator
> > in disputes between employees and employers. I don't see that as a
> > legitimate roll of the state.
> >
> > $
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Any one here working in a right-to-work state , preferably one
> working
> > > in a unionized industry, who could give there point of view on
> right-
> > > to-work legislation? I am from a state with out such legislation
> and I
> > > want a better perspective of the pro's and cons of such
> legislations,
> > > or lack of legislation, effect on economic growth, work force
> growth,
> > > saleries and unemployment.
> > >
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
