The Governor and legislators like to posture that this is an "individual rights" issue. Just seems to me that people have the right to decline to work in a union shop, if they don't want to join the union. If they work in the union shop, and receive the same pay and benefits that the union negotiated for, then they should pay union dues for the value received.The most obvious remedy would be for union members to receive their contract pay and benefits, while the non-union workers standing beside them receive $6-8/hr less, with much more expensive medical coverage, no pension, and no means of redress of grievences. 'course that would backfire, for the employees, as management would find some excuse to fire every union member and replace them with non-union workers.Odd how the workers that cheer this kind of infringement of the worker's right to "peaceably assemble", never seem to notice that the states with the lowest household incomes tend to be the "right to work" states.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incomeAnd the "right to work" laws, and lower incomes didn't save "jobs" in the southern textile and furniture industries, did they?Steve
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra