4 ms·

Does anyone know where these employees were employed? I’m a worker in a right-to-work state and would love it if this set a precedent for icing out employers fr

by yinser 3y ago

Does anyone know where these employees were employed? I’m a worker in a right-to-work state and would love it if this set a precedent for icing out employers from retribution style separations.

MBCook 3y ago
Doesn’t the NLRB deal with federal laws and not state laws? So wouldn’t this apply to any state?
basementcat 3y ago
At least California and Washington.
KennyBlanken 3y ago
That's not what right-to-work means. Right to work was invented by conservatives to give employees the "right" to not pay dues to a union that represents employees at the company. It's just one of the many ways employers have managed to weaken unions in the US over the last half-plus century.
- MBCook 3y ago
  I think they meant that since they are in a right to work state having something like this to show that that doesn’t automatically mean you can be pushed around would be a good thing.
  - mixdup 3y ago
    again, right to work has nothing to do with it they meant at-will employment state, which is every state in the country except Montana. at-will employment means you can be fired or you can quit at any time for any reason that is not illegal (such as discrimination) right-to-work and at will are constantly conflated in situations like this
- brudgers 3y ago
  I am not sure what the OP meant, but I have seen at-will-employment and right-to-work conflated. Maybe that happened here, maybe it did not.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  I'm very socialist but I kinda agree with this. Often the unions here in the Netherlands are too entangled with the company's management and don't actually represent my interests. As such I don't pay them (and their ridiculously overpaid CEOs). Unfortunately in the last 30 years the grassroots unions got corrupted by big business when the left (red) and right (green) parties worked together (we called it the "purple" cabinets). And the union leaders became entangled into the business cultures, also known as the "polder model". They basically made underhanded deals and cashed out. Our prime minister at the time himself started out on the barricades with a megaphone and ended up in luxury commisary appointments. Most unions are a joke now, just corporate puppets. I don't want to pay for their puppet show :P The left-wing party got severely punished for this betrayal and is only on its way back into the political scene 20 years later, but unfortunately they left a vacuum which meant the country has deteriorated a lot (to the point of the extreme-right winning the last election).
fyrn_ 3y ago
You mean at-will (employment) not right-to-work
clipsy 3y ago
This is being enforced by the NLRB which, as far as I understand, only enforces federal labor laws. So it should not matter what state you're in as far as having similar protection goes.
throwawaymaths 3y ago
I think you mean "at-will", not "right-to-work"
- Skunkleton 3y ago
  “Right to work” is the new speak for “at-will”
  - jon_richards 3y ago
    Aren’t they orthogonal concepts? Right to work means you can’t be forced into playing Union dues (you have a “right” to scab) and “at will” means the employer can fire anyone at any time for any reason (other than protected classes).
  - lokar 3y ago
    Incorrect. Right to work is about not having to join a union or pay dues. At will is about the rules for firing.
    - throwaway914 3y ago
      I appreciate you making this distinction; it's one I haven't understood clearly. My outside impression is that right-to-work is a campaign to smear unions, though I understand in some areas/professions they can only hire union workers.
      - lokar 3y ago
        There is a range of rule by state/history: Closed shop: must be a full union member to have the job Fair share: you don’t have to join, but you must pay the portion of dues that go towards contract negotiations and enforcement Right to work: they can’t make you do anything. In some cases even going as far as saying the employer does not have to deduct dues for members (who have agreed to it) pay
        cdogl 3y ago

by yinser 3y ago

Does anyone know where these employees were employed? I’m a worker in a right-to-work state and would love it if this set a precedent for icing out employers from retribution style separations.

MBCook 3y ago

Doesn’t the NLRB deal with federal laws and not state laws? So wouldn’t this apply to any state?

basementcat 3y ago

At least California and Washington.

KennyBlanken 3y ago

That's not what right-to-work means. Right to work was invented by conservatives to give employees the "right" to not pay dues to a union that represents employees at the company. It's just one of the many ways employers have managed to weaken unions in the US over the last half-plus century.

MBCook 3y ago
I think they meant that since they are in a right to work state having something like this to show that that doesn’t automatically mean you can be pushed around would be a good thing.
- mixdup 3y ago
  again, right to work has nothing to do with it they meant at-will employment state, which is every state in the country except Montana. at-will employment means you can be fired or you can quit at any time for any reason that is not illegal (such as discrimination) right-to-work and at will are constantly conflated in situations like this
brudgers 3y ago
I am not sure what the OP meant, but I have seen at-will-employment and right-to-work conflated. Maybe that happened here, maybe it did not.
wkat4242 3y ago
I'm very socialist but I kinda agree with this. Often the unions here in the Netherlands are too entangled with the company's management and don't actually represent my interests. As such I don't pay them (and their ridiculously overpaid CEOs). Unfortunately in the last 30 years the grassroots unions got corrupted by big business when the left (red) and right (green) parties worked together (we called it the "purple" cabinets). And the union leaders became entangled into the business cultures, also known as the "polder model". They basically made underhanded deals and cashed out. Our prime minister at the time himself started out on the barricades with a megaphone and ended up in luxury commisary appointments. Most unions are a joke now, just corporate puppets. I don't want to pay for their puppet show :P The left-wing party got severely punished for this betrayal and is only on its way back into the political scene 20 years later, but unfortunately they left a vacuum which meant the country has deteriorated a lot (to the point of the extreme-right winning the last election).

fyrn_ 3y ago

You mean at-will (employment) not right-to-work

clipsy 3y ago

This is being enforced by the NLRB which, as far as I understand, only enforces federal labor laws. So it should not matter what state you're in as far as having similar protection goes.

throwawaymaths 3y ago

I think you mean "at-will", not "right-to-work"

Skunkleton 3y ago
“Right to work” is the new speak for “at-will”
- jon_richards 3y ago
  Aren’t they orthogonal concepts? Right to work means you can’t be forced into playing Union dues (you have a “right” to scab) and “at will” means the employer can fire anyone at any time for any reason (other than protected classes).
- lokar 3y ago
  Incorrect. Right to work is about not having to join a union or pay dues. At will is about the rules for firing.
  - throwaway914 3y ago
    I appreciate you making this distinction; it's one I haven't understood clearly. My outside impression is that right-to-work is a campaign to smear unions, though I understand in some areas/professions they can only hire union workers.
    - lokar 3y ago
      There is a range of rule by state/history: Closed shop: must be a full union member to have the job Fair share: you don’t have to join, but you must pay the portion of dues that go towards contract negotiations and enforcement Right to work: they can’t make you do anything. In some cases even going as far as saying the employer does not have to deduct dues for members (who have agreed to it) pay
      - cdogl 3y ago