Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.


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.


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


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


“Right to work” is the new speak for “at-will”


Incorrect. Right to work is about not having to join a union or pay dues. At will is about the rules for firing.


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.


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


Well put, but:

> even going as far as saying the employer does not have to deduct dues for members (who have agreed to it) pay

I'm surprised you frame this as an extreme example. Regardless of one's views on unions (they have their place), it seems way off for the employer to deduct those payments. Perhaps it's a convenience, but as a worker that is my money to pay to the union; if the union and the employer orchestrate the transfer of my membership payment behind closed doors before the money hits my account, it's makes it harder to feel the union is truly acting in my interests.

This is not just a matter of hygiene; for example, I was once in a (notoriously corrupt and socially reactionary) union here in Australia that represents retail workers. I didn't have a choice in the matter and my membership payments were deducted by my employer. About a decade later, a court ruled that a deal made between that employer and the union had left workers worse off (but was in the interests of the union bureaucracy). Incidents like this seriously damage the reputation of the union movement.

Having your dues deducted automatically in an environment of compulsory unionism doesn't seem to have much to do with empowering workers at all!


Compelling employers to pull the wages for dues is a way to make sure the worker pays no matter what. Don't you see? A blue collar worker can't be trusted not to piss away their wages at the bar and be able to come up with their union dues.


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).


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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).


At least California and Washington.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: