Right to Work

[Joseph]

Just a quick and easy question to the Constitution scholars out there.

Would a National Right to Work Bill violate the 10th Amendment? Why or Why not?

 

[MooCowzRock]

Not if the wording was designed to prevent the federal government from getting involved in forcing unionization for certain jobs, or give preferential treatment for unions.

 

[Acala]

As long as it is limited in effect to Federal employment. If it tries to restrict what the states can do or what private employers can do, it exceeds Constitutional authority.

 

[oyarde]

Just a quick and easy question to the Constitution scholars out there.

Would a National Right to Work Bill violate the 10th Amendment? Why or Why not?

Maybe not , forcing people to participate in paying union dues etc could be construed as a violation of the 13th , involuntary servitude ...

 

[oyarde]

I do not think it to be something the Federal govt should be involved in , twenty some states have handled it for themselves , the rest may catch on when they see the jobs, new mnfg plants going to those states ?

 

[camp_steveo]

If a union tries to prevent a company from relocating to another state the Federal govt has an obligation to prevent the union from accomplishing that.

 

[oyarde]

Dems protect the unions because that is where the Dem money comes from .

 

[oyarde]

Of course , I also think that property taxes and the current Federal tax code is also " involuntary servitude ".

 

[oyarde]

I would never want to pay union dues , just my opinion.

 

[Keith and stuff]

No. The federal government created the problem. All the federal government has to do is pass a bill that will make slight changes to current federal law, call it a national right to work law (if someone wants to name it that) and it is done.

 

[bolil]

The federal government should not be involved either way, except to undo anything they've done to grow union power. There are benefits to unions, they have just been corrupted and hijacked. If a company only wants to hire people that are in a union, why shouldn't they be able to do that? Likewise, if a company wants nothing to do with unions, should they not be allowed to hire exclusively outside of them? This isn't even a states issue, it is an individual issue. Unions have dues, they also have benefits. People that don't want the solidarity that a union provides should never be forced into one. I guess what I am saying is the "right to work" should not infringe upon "the right to unionize" they can and should coexist.

 

[AFPVet]

I think Right to Work should be at a state level unless you are talking about government jobs. If you don't want to pay union dues, why should you be forced to? It is just as bad as taxation.

 

[guysenjem]

No one "forces" anyone to accept a union negotiated contract. If that person doesn't want to work for a union he/she can seek employment at a non-union shop. Why should anybody get a free lunch? In that retain the benefits of a union, but be allowed to not pay the dues? I'm against welfare and I'm against "right to work for less." Besides, our financial mess has nothing to do with teachers getting paid "too much money" on the rather meager salaries. Freedom to unionize is the same as Freedom of association and assembly.

 

[oyarde]

//

 

[AFPVet]

No one "forces" anyone to accept a union negotiated contract. If that person doesn't want to work for a union he/she can seek employment at a non-union shop. Why should anybody get a free lunch? In that retain the benefits of a union, but be allowed to not pay the dues? I'm against welfare and I'm against "right to work for less." Besides, our financial mess has nothing to do with teachers getting paid "too much money" on the rather meager salaries. Freedom to unionize is the same as Freedom of association and assembly.

1. Jobs are few and far between... why should I be forced to seek employment elsewhere?
2. Why would I want to "benefit" from a union which is not helping the outsourcing of jobs?

Unions have done their job in the past; however, they are only hurting us in today's economy. Employment laws do a pretty good job... unions shouldn't force companies to pay people $25/hour for a $15/hr position.