Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould states adopt right-to-work legislation?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 58% | 18 votes | Total: 31 votes | |
| No | 42% | 13 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesShould states adopt Right-to-Work legislation? In order to be able to answer this question intelligently, we must first look at the definition of a Right-to-Work State. A Right-to-Work State is a State of the United States in which employees are not required to join a union in relation to their employment. In a Right-to-Work State, an employer cannot force an employee to join a union in order to continue said employment. Legislators have fought in many states in America to demand freedom for the employees in this country.
While many have opposed states adopting Right-to-Work legislation, I feel that this legislation is an important step toward protecting the rights of Americans. When an employee is forced to join a union, he is also forced to pay dues to the union. Since this is America, no employer should be allowed to confiscate hard-earned money from any of his employees. How can there be freedom and liberty in a state where employees are coerced into joining unions just to remain employed? It is an outrage that the practice of unionization being a prerequisite to retaining employment has been the norm for so many years!
In a Right-to-Work State, employees have more freedom of choice regarding how to spend their own money, what type of representation they prefer, and which industry or profession best suits their interests. It just makes sense. Every man and woman in America should crave the freedom to make their own choices and decision in regard to joining unions.
There are also benefits to the employers in a Right-to-Work State. Employers have the responsibility and the privilege to oversee their companies as they see fit. They do not have to check the union guidelines in order to make a decision regarding their own companies. Employers have more freedom to make decisions regarding compensation, bonuses, leave, and disciplinary actions. Many also argue that companies in Right-to-Work states are able to manage far more efficiently than unionized companies.
Should states adopt Right-to-Work legislation? Certainly! The freedom to choose whether or not to be a part of a union should always be the decision of the employee. To preserve liberty in America, every state must adopt Right-to-Work legislation!
Learn more about this author, Pamela Majdi.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The very question that asks if states should adopt to work legislation is folly, at the very best. One close look at the employment pool signifies that there are some very legitimate job seekers that will return an honest days work for an honest days pay. Evaluating those that are able and willing to work for a living, took a dive with the welfare state. It is so extremely easy to stay at home and collect benefits without having to pay taxes, transportation, lunches and clothes to be dressed correctly.
How can legislating right to work legislation create a market to employ the unemployable? The process to hire all that will meet qualifications is already in existence because the market demand commands the amount of retain able employees. When there is a call, there are no restrictions as to who should apply, and furthermore, all that qualify will be hired and retained. There does not exist a list of named people who are outcast and are without hope of finding a job.
Yes, as hard as it is to believe, there are criminal's living lifestyles that deviate from the norm of public behavior. Those that cannot be trusted to perform according to the company standards because they lack the skills, or they refuse to follow direction cannot be in a position to influence the customer base.
Such legislation puts the responsibility to hire the misfit directly on the shoulders of the state Government; there is no way that hiring these people and putting the nexus on the back of the tax payer. The reality is that we still have the same old welfare state, but under a different classification. The truth is that calling a alligator, a dog, does not cure or alter the alligator. As a society, these people require real help and this problem should not be swept under the carpet and relabeled to appear that something constructive has been done.
The legislator that recommends this type of legislation to reclassify a sore point in the government's failure in an attempt to hide the problem is suspect at best. Hiding the problem only creates more confusion and unfortunately, the problem does not disappear.
Learn more about this author, Francis Palmieri.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Government & Policies
- Should the US implement a carbon tax on energy sources that emit carbon dioxide?
- Was President Bush right to grant control of records to a president's family?
- Should members of Congress and their staff disclose information about their meetings and contacts with lobbyists?
- Should the federal government make transportation infrastructure a funding priority
- Should the Freedom of Information Act cover federal court records?
- Should elderly drivers have to undergo road tests to renew licenses?
