Monday, March 23, 2015

"Right to Work" for NH?

The NH House on March 11th passed HB 658 the latest version of a proposed NH  House version of a "Right to Work Law." In February, the Senate version of the bill SB 107 was tabled with a 12 to 12 vote.
According to the National Right to Work Legal FoundationThe Right to Work principle--the guiding concept of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation--affirms the right of every American to work for a living without being compelled to belong to a union. Compulsory unionism in any form--"union," "closed," or "agency" shop--is a contradiction of the Right to Work principle and the fundamental human right that the principle represents. The National Right to Work Committee advocates that every individual must have the right, but must not be compelled, to join a labor union. "  27 states are so called " right to work " states having passing some version of this legislation.
The House bill passed in a close roll call vote , 149 to 146. Our local representatives Glen Cordelli and Ted Wright voted "YEA" and Karel Crawford was listed in the roll call tally as "Not Voting/Excused. "
HB 658 will now  presumably be headed to the NH Senate seeking concurrence. If by chance it passes the Senate ( not likely based upon the 12-12 tie on SB 107)  it faces a possible veto by Gov. Hassan.

12 comments:

Edward Bressoud said...

Hmmm . . .
Someone once said: Follow the money.
The National Right to Work Committee happens to be funded by the Koch Brothers, their affiliated PAC's and by . . . wait for it . . . The John Birch Society.
And, of course, ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council.
In fact, ALEC has written - word for word - this same legislation in other states.
Hmmm . . . gets one to wonder !
Like sheep . . . we follow.

Baa Baa said...

No Ed, you got that wrong. It's the sheep that belong to the Unions.

Just around the corner said...

The Koch Brothers are responsible for some 70k paychecks every week around the nation and the world. Likely more than you are Mr. Bressoud. So pardon my twisted mind, but I think that gives them the right to support the Right To Work or any other worker effort they want. Interesting how the Left is so quick to deny the Right To Work while most of them are on the government teat.

Joe Cormier/jcormier2@myfairpoint.net said...

HOUSE BILL 658-FN
"AN ACT prohibiting collective bargaining agreements that require employees to join a labor union."

Are employees required to join a union as a condition of employment?

Where are the attorneys?

Some of us non-attorneys believe an individual cannot be required to join a union ("close shop" is illegal). As I remember, having been a Union Steward (IBEW) while working as a semi-retired, and anti-Union while working in senior management in Hi-Tech in my early work life, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in the past, with many addendums, I believe.

An individual can be required to pay union dues, because of the enjoyment of the benefits from a collective bargaining agreement, but not be required to be a union member.

I understand there is a different legal distinction from private sector and government employees.

Is this a proposed state law affirming federal law? Why doesn't the NH Justice Dept. just tell the NH legislature it is already illegal under federal law, which supersedes state law?


References:

HB 658
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0658.html

SCOTUS and R-T-W
http://www.nrtw.org/en/foundation-cases.htm

NRTW
http://www.nrtw.org/your-rights-3-minutes


Joe Cormier/jcormier2@myfairpoint.net said...

I forgot to mention that when you hear "Right-To-Work", it means, use state law to get rid of the requirement to pay dues, not to be a union members.

There's a political reason for any political entity, voting no on R-T-W, if unions happen to be supporting that political persuasion.

Anonymous said...

Right to work is purposely twisted to imply bad union stereotypes. It simply means the right to work for less.
If the union did not advocate better wages for all, does any single person really believe the company would pay anywhere close to the bargained wage.

Anonymous said...

Where does Rep. Karel Crawford stand on Right to Work?

William Gardner said...

Eddie above.

Most of these posters don't have a clue as to how they are being manipulated.
Most don't have a clue how ALEC writes this legislation to fulfill an agenda.
Most don't even know what ALEC is.

Terence C. Jatko said...

Liberals get their collective knickers in a knot every time right to work legislation appears. Less in union dues means less money to fund the Democrat party and their left-wing agenda. "Follow the money" indeed.

Dan Cooper said...

I wonder how many posting here are part of Romney's 47%.

Kelly Marsh said...

As a union member I don't have a problem with RTW per se. After all, if you don't want a service you shouldn't have to pay for it. (In NH, no one can be forced to join a union already) So those who do not pay union dues should immediately forfeit any union negotiated benefits. Pay, sick time, vacation time, health care, pension/401K etc. After all, if you take something you didn't pay for it is at worst theft and at best you are a moocher.

Look Further.. said...

Dear Coffee Pot, It runs a little deeper then that. As long as our federal government forces us to spend top dollar for Union construction projects, we are being unfairly taxed. Union members are seeing thru the union promises of jobs. Union membership has dropped from 37 % to under 10 % now.