Well if they named it honestly as "Right to Fire" then only 55% of voters would vote for it.
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
454 points (99.1% liked)
Work Reform
10044 readers
575 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's a different thing entirely.
"Right to Work" is about the relationship between workers and unions. Specifically, it bans mandatory membership in unions and union-member-exclusive benefits. The most important part of that is it keeps unions from being able to collect union dues.
"At-will employment" is about the relationship between employer and employee, and is what allows someone to be fired for any non-protected reason or no reason at all. It's also the standard almost everywhere and has little impact most places because firing someone without cause still incurs payment for unemployment benefits.
Trust me, as a former manager, it's still very hard to get corporate permission to fire someone who shows up on time, sober, in dress code no matter how toxic or lazy they are.
That's "at-will" though, isn't it?
And naming it honestly would go against spin doctors', advertisement professionals', and capitalists' right to work — which in their case is sugarcoating exploitation. But I guess they have that right 😡
Never got why small government guys would support it where I lived. It's just the government stepping in to limit the union on behalf of big corporations
Because they're brainwashed to support things that are against their own best interests.
The most common argument I've heard, totally boiled down: "unions just protect the bad workers and if there weren't unions the best workers would be able to get get paid more than those guys".
But I also hear this kinda stuff predominantly from people who aren't in professions that commonly benefit from collective bargaining. Most pipefitters understand that even a free rider benefits from collective bargaining, and that without unions it's more often a race to the bottom rather than getting obscene raises for meritous reasons. The dude who drives parts for NAPA or whatever is usually the guy to say unions are dumb
Its a sly joke. They have a right to your work. That's why its called right to work.
Next you'll be telling me that war isn't peace and freedom isn't slavery.
All I know is that we've always been at war with Eastasia.
Any conservative thing named after any form of the word "freedom" is always a scam to reduce freedom.