I know what it means. I live in a right to work law state. What it
means is that legally membership in a union can not be a condition of
employment. I believe that there should not be a law against union
membership as a condition of employment. I believe that employers have
a right to enter into agreements ans contracts with employees that
state conditions of employment. I believe that employers have a right
to establish conditions of employment. That is why I believe that
right to work laws are an infringement of both the freedom of
employers and employees to agree to a certain condition of employment.
I do not believe that the government should restrict the type of
agreements employers and employees can agree to.
$
--- In [email protected], Cory Nott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think you understand what "Right to work" means in this
case. It means that people have the right to work for an employer -
and the employer has the right to hire them regardless of whether they
are a member of a union. It has nothing to do with forcing an employer
to hire that person or forcing that person to work for an employer. It
has nothing to do with whether or not an employer can fire an
employee, though it may make it easier if that employee is not a
member of a union.
>
> The standard argument against Right-To-Work laws is that they
allow non-Union employees to take advantage of the collective
bargaining agreements. Ie. they are free riders.
>
> I'm not entirely sure why you think "Right To Work" means that the
employer cannot choose whether or not to hire you. We all have the
fundamental right to enter into a contract with any willing entity in
order to trade our labor for material wealth. That is, essentially,
the right to work. Whether or not anyone will hire you is a matter of
property rights and freedom of association and doesn't preclude you
from your right to work. What we have is a situation where unions have
the power to exclude anyone who is not a union member from working in
a union shop. The employer cannot hire non-union people without
breaking the law.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> hrearden_hr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In [email protected], "Cory Nott" <corynott@> wrote:
> If anything, right-to-work protects freedom of association by
> > allowing them to choose not to be a member of a union and still work
> at a
> > "union shop."
>
>
> It does not protect freedom because no person has the freedom to work
> for a particular employer. Employers have a right to establish the
> conditions of employment because they are the creators of jobs. Nobody
> has the right to work for an employer without the employer's consent.
> Right to work laws deny freedom.
>
> $
>
>
>
>
>
> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Libertarian English language Political parties
Online dictionary American politics
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
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/
