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.