facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

‘Right-to-work’ petitioners seek November vote



Published: Sat, April 13, 2013 @ 12:06 a.m.

By Marc Kovac

news@vindy.com

COLUMBUS

Backers of a proposed constitutional amendment to make Ohio a “right to work” state have collected about a quarter of the signatures needed to place the issue before voters.

Chris Littleton, former head of a statewide tea-party coalition and one of the petitioners, said the group (online at www.ohioansforworkplacefreedom.com) has fewer than 100,000 names with plans to circulate petitions in earnest with the return of warmer weather.

They’ll need 386,000 valid signatures to qualify for the general election.

“We’ll be back out, grassroots style signature gathering,” he said About prospects for appearing on this November’s ballot, he added, “It’s a big hurdle, with a lot of signatures in a short period of time, so we’ll hustle through spring and summer and see if we can. But if not, we’ll put it in 2014.”

The amendment would ban forced union membership or dues payments, a move supporters say is needed to make Ohio more competitive for businesses and protect residents who don’t want to join unions.

Michigan and Indiana both recently adopted right-to-work laws. Ohio voters rejected a similar move in the late 1950s.

Democratic and union leaders oppose the amendment, saying it would hurt organized labor and, ultimately, all working Ohioans. In Washington, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is seeking passage of national legislation that would apply right-to-work principles to every state in the union.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich has said he has higher priorities than seeing Ohio follow the lead of Michigan in enacting right-to-work statutes.


Comments

1timOthy(802 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Does the Tea Party have any original ideas of THEIR OWN ??? Or do they always FOLLOW OTHER STATES AND THERE'S ?? AND THOSE STATES ARE IN BAD SHAPE !!!!!!!

Suggest removal:

2jethead11(139 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Who cares if it is an original idea. Ohio is 30 years behind on workers rights and it is about time it be put to a vote. No one in a free country should be forced to join a union (or any other organization) to keep their jobs, or pay for "representation" they don't want or need just because the Democrats profit from it.

Suggest removal:

3Attis(900 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

The name of the petition is incomplete; it should read "Right to Work as Slaves and Serfs".

Suggest removal:

4jethead11(139 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

If you are a slave or a serf, you are forced to work that job. No one is forced to work at any job. The closest thing to slavery is being FORCED to join a union and pay dues to keep your job. I don't call it slavery, I call it what it is, extortion.

And don't give me the right to work for less crap either, look at how they come up with the number. They use salaries of airline pilots, sports figures and movie stars to push up the average annual income above the overall national average annual income.

There really is no legitimate argument for FORCING someone to pay union dues, except to fund the Democrats and whatever activities they do.

Suggest removal:

5glbtactivist(255 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

The only time the US was prosperous was during times when unions were strong. Since Reagan attacked unions, the US has declined. Sure, a few rich business owners got richer, but the US economy declined. Now, you and your spouse can work and still not make enough money to live decently with. Until unions are given the power to force greedy businessmen to pay a living wage, there will be no prosperity in the US for the vast majority of citizens.

Suggest removal:

6RTS1416(117 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

I have done just fine representing myself during my working life, that being said, there are others who would rather pay someone to do it for them. Fine, everyone should be able to make their own choice = Right to work.

Suggest removal:

7papa1(677 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

if it weren't for unions nobody in the middle class would be working for more that minimum wage. they're not perfect, what is, but they're all middle class workers have between the pigs who run corporations in America. have you seen the income disparity between wage earners and the rich in America for the last 30 years? wage earners have remained frozen while the richs' have gone through the roof. it's not jealousy, in some cases they earned it, but what about simple fairness?

Suggest removal:

8DaleSFleischer(5 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Unions are no longer what they were meant to be. The Unions were established to protect the worker for health and welfare and from the abuse of those in higher authority. Today it's all about money. I've been on both end's. I've been a union worker and I've been in a management position. What I see is that those that are problem workers they get protected and it is very hard to get rid of those that are bringing the rest of the work force down. But when they are in a legit situation they do protect the worker. But the disagreement I have with the Unions are that they prevent a person from working unless they belong to the union. To give an example; in 1992 I lost my job and was getting unemployment. I found a job helping a friend lay carpeting. We did numerous jobs in homes then my friend was given an opportunity for a job putting carpeting in a bank. We were on the job for about a day when these men came to the site and asked if we were "Union" members. I was not, nor was my friend. In order for him to finish his job he had to join the union, I refused and had to leave the site! Back on unemployment for me. They prevented me from working and supporting my family. If I wanted to start my own business, like construction or electrical or handyman, I would not be able to unless I became a member of the Union and this is unfair to those who want to work. Ohio needs to be a Right to Work State and this goes for all the states across the United States.

Suggest removal:

9jethead11(139 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Keep in mind, right to work only gives workers the right to not join the union if they feel the union does not speak for them. It does not ban unions from forming in any way. If conditions are so bad, and the union actually provides a good service to its members, workers will gladly join. That's the way it was originally designed and the way it should be.

Nevada is right to work, but has one of the highest union participation rates in the country. That's because the union has to perform for the workers and provide a service they want and need. In union shops, it makes the union accountable to the worker, which they don't have to do in forced union states.

Suggest removal:

10RTS1416(117 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

The industry I work in is century's old and has never been unionized and we are treated fairly. I don't buy into the whole "if it weren't for unions"
argument. As far as the difference in income is concerned, if you are able to demand a higher wage for the services you provide more power to you, that is fair.

Suggest removal:

11steelwagon(284 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

We need to get past this attitude that every wealthy person or business owner is greedy and always ready and willing to screw the working class.

Who do you think builds the plants,invests their money in equipment and materials,pays the federal,state and local taxes,wages and benefits and all other expenses involved in running a business.

Business is created to make a profit and there's nothing greedy or evil about that.
You're not forced to work or stay at a job you're unhappy with.
You're free to leave anytime.

Unions don't serve the work force the way they once did.
In fact it seems they're more interested in serving their political masters these days .
And we all know where politics leads.
No greedy ass politician ever had the working persons best interest at heart !!

If the unions are such a great deal for working people then the unions need not fear right to work.
Give workers a chance to make their own choice

No one should be forced to join any organization,pay dues if they don't feel it's in their best interest.
Ask the younger union members at the G.E.plant in Warren how they feel about their union and their senior co-workers who voted their jobs away.

There's your typical case of pure greed.
"I got mine screw you fellow union member"

Suggest removal:

12AnotherAverageCitizen(1175 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

If someone does not want to belong to a union, why would they go to a place that has a union?

Steel, I agree with your statement ""You're not forced to work or stay at a job you're unhappy with. You're free to leave anytime.""

So if you do not like the UNION, you have the right to quit and move on.

""No one should be forced to join any organization,pay dues if they don't feel it's in their best interest.""

Again I agree with you. No one is forcing a person to work at a unionized place. They can look for employement else where.

Suggest removal:

13jethead11(139 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Average, the difference is the union is a third party that dictates you pay them for the privilege of working somewhere. If you don't like your employer, of course you should go somewhere else. But if there is a company you really like, and don't think the union there has any value, why should you be required to join that union in order to work for that company? You like the company, the company likes you, but an outside (yes, outside) force says pay up or you can't work here. That is the definition of extortion. It's hard to believe that actually happens in the United States, land of the free, but it is happening in Ohio right now, and legally. If working on the line at GM Lordstown is my ultimate goal in life, then no one, especially not a so-called worker's organization, should stop me just because I don't want to meet their demands.

Suggest removal:

14cambridge(3027 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

If a company and a union have an agreement and you choose to work for that company you agree to work by the rules the company and the union agreed on. You don't get to have all the benefits both parties negotiated and then make up your own rules.

Suggest removal:

15AnotherAverageCitizen(1175 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago


Jet, Then that person can go work for Honda or Toyota. At least they have job security there. They have to work on all the cars atleast twice.

A number of automakers -- including Japanese leaders Honda and Toyota -- are recalling around 3.4 million cars due to airbag defects

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/11/news/...

Suggest removal:

16jethead11(139 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Non-union employees in union shops can always be put into separate bargaining groups where they have to negotiate their own pay raised and work rules. That provision is in federal labor law, and I worked in just such an environment when I graduated from college. I was a non-union person in a union shop and I had to fight for my own raises and benefits. And I did so MUCH better than the union did for my counterparts doing the EXACT same job (with the exact job classification). We had federal contracts, and at the time, the feds were right to work (and still are), and required that right to workers with companies with certain federal contracts. That's how I know, and that's when I became an advocate for right to work so other workers wouldn't be extorted, or as liberals say, put into slavery, by unions who may or may not have their best interest at heart.

Suggest removal:

17jethead11(139 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Average, but what if they don't want to work for a foreign car company. What if they want to work for GM. But they feel the union there is corrupt and ineffective. Why, in a country that values freedom, should they have to go somewhere else just because a third party demands they pay them, like it or not, in order to have that job? How can anyone say that's ok?

Suggest removal:

18AnotherAverageCitizen(1175 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Jet, we are proud of you. That is the difference between you and unions.

I never found it a better workplace when one points out how much better they are then the person doing the same job next to them.

Suggest removal:

19AnotherAverageCitizen(1175 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

That 3rd party has an AGREEMENT with that BUSINESS. If you don't like the business agreements your owners have, TOO BAD.. You have a right to work. You have a right to apply to a union place and you have a right to apply to a nonunion place. YOU DECIDE. Would you tell the employer during the interview that you don't like the way they do business?

Suggest removal:

20jethead11(139 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Not good enough, Average. In about half the states those kind of AGREEMENTS are illegal. They are illegal on the federal level as well. They are only allowed in Ohio because the people don't have the will to stop it. Before either one of us leave this world, right to work will be national law and forbid those types of agreements. Then workers will have real freedom and real rights. And have the ability to form a strong union if, and only if, they choose.

As far as telling the company in an interview that I don't like their arrangement with the union, of course I would tell them that. In fact I did tell them that. That's why I was a non-union employee in a union shop. And yes, I'll brag to the person beside me that I can do a better job for free than their $40 a month union can do for them. I liked my co-workers. I want them to succeed, not fall for union propaganda when they don't have to.

Suggest removal:

21redeye1(4560 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

AAC You are the typical union member who thinks that the unions are GOD. Well when i also started working I was non-union rep in a union work place. I got to meet with the company owners. They treared us better then the union members. Why ? You ask, it was simple we respected them and they respected us. We didn't go in with demands, we went with ideas that were fair for both sides. I've told my children to stay as far away from the unions as they can, So far, the both of them are doing very well on their own

Suggest removal:

22fd6636(255 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

You want right to work? fine. Should you EXPECT to get the same pay/benefits as the workers who have a contract? Hell no!!! Do you go to the auto dealership and say " I want that car, but I don't want to pay for it?" no, It does not happen that way.
You don't get something for nothing, isn't that what all you say about welfare? Now its OK to expect something for nothing. Wishey- washey to me! Tea baggers battle cry, "not gonna ride on my back for free"! You don't want to be part of a union, then get paid what the companies WANT TO PAY YOU!!! Guess what that will be! Hey, the choice is yours. Oh, by the way, ask someone who has worked in a right to work state and ask them how great it is. I have family members who moved back, and they say a non union job in Ohio is way better than a job in a right to work state, and unions weren't even the issue! Pay/ work conditions way better in a non right to work state. Employers in these right to work states have total control over employees, working conditions are worse than most of you backing these idiots know! We should believe the tea baggers backing this garbage, they have clout, Right? You think its all good? Wait till it affects YOU!!

Suggest removal:

23jethead11(139 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

FD, I live in a right to work state, and have for 20 years. I would never live in a forced union state again.

Non-union people in a union shop don't get the same benefits as union people. Read the above posts. They negotiate directly with management while union people go through their union to do it for them. No free riders. That's the union's line to get people fired up about right to work, but it is not true. Your family members are a rare breed, not many people are fleeing the south and west to live in forced union states.

Suggest removal:

24timOthy(802 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

I'm a UNION CARPENTER ! Retired now ! But if we did not work you got fired !! And nobody cared ! Which I believe in. Butts and elbows guys ! I will not or have not worked with a Non -Union tradesman or woman. But welcome them in our house. IF THEY WANT TO WORK ! AND ANY OF RIGHT WORKERS .BUT DON'T STEAL BREAD OFF OUR TABLE. UNLESS YOU WANT TO MEET THE NIGHT SHIFT !

Suggest removal:

25jethead11(139 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Timothy, the skilled labor unions (carpenters, electricians, etc) are already right to work. Right to work will only stop the "big labor" unions like the UAW that force people to join to keep their jobs. Skilled trade unions like yours provide you with training and work, and those unions do only want the best trained people. Your union is like the UAW in name only. Other than that, they have very little in common. The UAW, UFCW, AFSME, CWA, etc are the targets for right to work. Those unions want everyone to pay them, regardless of how good they are, and are pretty much just after money and power.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport