See this poll on: https://poll.fm/4659531/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
I think Capitalism's founder Adam Smith, is instructive here. Smith like other beneficiaries of the Enlightenment saw human beings as narrowly self-interested. This applied to both employers ("masters") and to workers ("labour"). Smith wrote that the rich and powerful will use their influence to keep as much of their wealth and power for themselves. He also wrote that the "workman" will try to get as much as he can. Why because their bad? No, because of their nature. Solutions to our economic problems that ignore this are bound to fail. Any solution must get the incentives right as well as balance and check existing powers. This means that employers are bound by their own self-interest and cannot objectively determine "what's best" for their employees. Furthermore, with out adequate checks on managers they will use the company for their own purposes. So Right to Work? It eliminates a counterveiling power in the workplace, which means that health and safety standards and pensions and benefits suffer. But not only that. These counterveiling powers also deliver for society: unions invented the weekend, paid vacations, healthcare benefits, health and safety laws in general, pensions and more. While our society can not survive without competitive business, our families and communities cannot survive without the benefit of unions. Afterall, we work to live not live to work as in so many so RtW states.
Come on, our competition isn't southern, 'right-to-work' (sic) states, it's low cost foreign producers whose health care is covered by a national system. This bill won't create jobs any more that taxing the richest 2% will cost us jobs. Give us single payer health care and we'll compete with the world.
Unions would not be necessary If the employer provide the employee with a safe work place, a wage that is comparable to their skill and effort and with due respect. We all know that where there is a strong union movement that wasn’t the case.
By outlawing labor unions or putting more obstacles in the way of settling employment problems is the same as saying what civic clubs or church you can belong too.
There is also something wrong with an employer that does not want a simple and fair way for their employee to sound concerns.
Having lived in Massachusetts and Texas before moving to Maryland, I can compare conditions in right to work states and states friendly to labor. There is no comparison. Wages are deplorably low in right to work states and employees have few, if any, rights. The question I ask myself is why is the only way to increase job growth to penalize labor? Tax cuts for the top one percent under the ruse that jobs will be created, a strategy that has failed for ten years, yet teachers making fifty thousand dollars a year are regarded as greedy; priveleged, and overcompensated? We are dogs fighting for scraps off the table and right to work laws would not ensure new jobs or investment as corporations increasingly export jobs to the cheapest labor market to maximise profits and dividends. There is no penalty for American corporations moving their operations to tax havens and poorer countries; yet you are't asking why we no longer expect that corporations will balance the needs of their workers with those of their stockholders. GM achieved its greatest profit in a decade or more after recieving assistance from the taxpayers and yet laid off workers? Stockholders and executives were rewarded and workers hit the streets? C'mon, folks, do your listeners a favor and call the situation what it is; class warfare and our class is losing as wealth is transferred upwards by disproportionate regressive tax policies.