Right to Work

[Rick M.]

The ConCon is a great opportunity to get Right to Work into the constitution. Unions have much too much power in Hawaii and this will cut their line.

[Rick M.]

Well, that's what the free market is all about. People get paid what the employer has to pay to get them. If jobs are scarce, then we employers are probably scraping by too so the employee has to take a cut also.

This is America and capitalism is our system. If you want to make more money, become an entrepreneur.

[Kent Fonoimoana]

Having actually worked in a right to work state, I can tell you what it really means is ' in a right to work state, you have the right to work for less'.

[Rick M.]

point taken

[Kaunaloa]

Rick, I would refer you to pj o'rouke's oft-used quote -- "if you think health care costs a lot now, just wait 'til it's 'free!'"
:-)

[Rick M.]

Well, I like to be unexpected sometimes. :-) but payroll taxes and benefits are absolutely killing us.

[Peter Kay]

Rick, I'm shocked to see such a comment from a free-market kinda guy like you. Shocked! :)

[Rick M.]

At this point, even though I oppose this idea that the government should be our mommy and daddy, the only way out of the crippling costs of having employees IS universal health care.

So we agree on that.

[Philip Gregory]

Mr. M, I think you have legitimate concerns as it relates to the high costs of being an employer. I also think that your animosity may be a bit misguided and you may be able to effect better results as they relate to your directing your energies where they ought to go. First of all this response assumes that you believe it is appropriate to compensate employee’s fairly so that they can have a decent standard of living and take care of their families. This response also assumes that you don't simply view your employees as a number but as a part of a team and that you believe in ethical business practices.

Take a look at medical costs. Unions have been on the forefront of fighting for universal healthcare for many years. Unions aren’t blind to the costs of medical. In fact, they see the numbers every time they negotiate and oftentimes encourage their members to ratify contracts that take less on wages in order to sustain decent medical coverage. Union’s have seen the tremendous value in universal healthcare, even if its very existence were to be detrimental to their own membership base as who should want to pay dues if the benefits are equal in both Union shops and non Union shops? The membership in Unions is willing to take that risk in order to assist all people and this type of healthcare would certainly help the small business owner compensate her/his workers better and rest assured that their employees medical care is decent. The reduction of this expense would allow businesses to grow as it would surely free up much needed capital.

It is only recently that some businesses have started to take a harder look at this type of system. I would argue that if business joins Union's in demanding that our government supply medical care to its citizenry, we might actually see the paradigm shift and this almost uncontrollable expense might not be borne by you. Had business been on this bandwagon much earlier, the pre paid health care act would not have needed to occur but because of the anti universal health care messaging, Union’s have been forced to support and enhance the more universally acceptable employer sponsored health care coverage.

As this argument has raged over the past two decades, business was no where around. In fact, many business groups called it communism or socialism and took the notion as a direct assault to their perceptions of free enterprise. Of course we have heard the analogies such as the fire and police departments not being free enterprises and yet nobody is screaming that their function is communist or socialist.

If you are a leader who truly wants to reduce the costs of doing business, it is my opinion that you should help support the common interests that you may not have realized you had with Unions. Unions are not blind to the realities of the business owner. A simple truth is that Unions want their members to make a good living so that they can contribute to their churches, communities, kid’s schools, and so forth. If a business has too many avoidable cost demands then the members won’t be able to negotiate wage increases as the business must stay afloat or everybody drowns.

You can of course spend your resources fighting Unions and the middle class through right to work legislation which will cost both sides a lot of time and energy and may or may not reduce your expenses in the final end game, if we are alive or still in business to see it. But, you could join the battle for universal health care paid for by the government and assist not just your workers, who you probably value, but assist your fellow countrymen in offloading this terrible yolk that limits all of our movement.

[Rick M.]

Sorry, even with paragraphs I don't understand your post. Are you supporting Right to Work or are you supporting unions?

[Philip Gregory]

I view the so called "right to work" advocates as those who either are leaders who want unilateral decision making power in order to effect their narrow goals or they are people who suffer from a type of Stockholm Syndrome that demands that they don't deserve any type of economic leverage that community provides.

Workers who are collectively united are much like the thirteen colonies united against the tyranny of Great Britain. There is leverage in numbers and how often do we vote to be American? Are the right to work advocates suggesting that we should have a choice to be American once we are born here and that the collective choices of our forefathers in Philadelphia in the late 1700's have no bearing on us today? I would doubt that they should even entertain the analogy. If rational thought prevailed, they might suggest that if the American government needs changing, one should take part in the internal processes of that government and effect change through those processes within the constitution as opposed to offering every person born another choice of whether or not to be American in an effort to water down America’s power.

Now, just as many have argued that America may be the greatest country on earth, the statistics have shown (refer to Bureau of Labor Statistics) that the more Union density of a town or state, the higher the collective wages are and therefore the higher the standard of living which increases the roster of the middling classes. If we are to believe Aristotle when he suggests that the best form of government is one ruled by the middling classes, then we must believe that the preservation of the middling classes is tantamount to a good government and those who wish to reduce the ranks of the middling classes either pine for an oligarchy or a monarchy.

In states that have had "right to work" laws enacted, the incomes of the middling classes have taken large hits while the richest peoples in those states have become even wealthier and far more powerful. When one argues that Union’s have too much power, one is actually arguing that their own narrow interests are in jeopardy from the collective middling classes that have united to find a voice within a realm that is dominated by those smaller interests with the larger money to support implementing their narrower agendas. The Unions who are in fact a collective of what is left of the middling classes, unlike the big business lobbyists are democratically told by their members which laws and politicians to support.
Most Union members are concerned about maintaining or trying to attain status in the middling class but Union members also democratically push their leadership to support laws that help all workers, especially those without an association to express their needs. Who is at the legislature pushing for minimum wage increases? Not Wal-Mart or the chamber of commerce. Who is at the legislature pushing for better health care coverage for all people in the state? Not the governor. This is all being pushed and supported by Union’s whose members already enjoy these benefits as secured by collective bargaining agreements. This type of compassion does not sit well with the Oligarchs. This type of compassion is diametrically opposed to supporting the wealth of the few at the expense of the many. If I have a choice between the opinion of Rick M. and Aristotle, I think I will go with Aristotle. God save the middling classes!!!