Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site cca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!cca!g-rh
From: g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: The Sub-Minimum Wage Again - (nf)
Message-ID: <367@cca.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Sep-84 19:50:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: cca.367
Posted: Sun Sep 23 19:50:51 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 06:17:34 EDT
References: <485@tty3b.UUCP>, <40500040@convex.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Corp America, Cambridge
Lines: 24


	Technical correction:  "Right to work" does not mean that
you have to BE a union member to qualify for a job; it means that
you don't have to join the union after you get the job.  The Taft
Hartley act outlawed contracts in which you have to be a union
member in order to qualify for the job.  It permits contracts in
which you must join the union (and it must accept you) if you get
the job.  States which have right-to-work laws outlaw contracts
in which you have to join the union after you get the job.  The
term, "right-to-work" , is a misnomer; your right to work is not
infringed.  Right-to-work laws free you from the compulsion to pay
union dues.  

	In practice states which have "right-to-work" laws have
weaker unions because the unions get less dues income.  People who
argue against "right-to-work" laws argue that all employees get the
benefits of union negotiations; therefore all employees should pay
for the union.  People arguing for such laws object to the compulsion
to join and pay dues.  (Actually most arguments for "right-to-work"
laws dishonestly claim that they are actually right-to-work laws;
however the argument against compulsion is a valid and legitimate
one.)  In practice management groups support "right-to-work" laws
on the pragmatic grounds that they weaken unions.