Speaker Vos Statement on Right-to-Work Decision
Wisconsin became the 25th Right-to-Work state on March 9, 2015 in 2015 Wisconsin Act 1.
Madison…Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) made the following statement regarding a ruling in Dane County Circuit Court on the state’s Right-to-Work law. Wisconsin became the 25th Right-to-Work state on March 9, 2015 in 2015 Wisconsin Act 1.
“Once again a liberal Dane County judge is trying to legislate from the bench. No one should be forced to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment. I’m confident that this decision will be reversed in a higher court and worker freedom will prevail.”
NOTE: This press release was submitted to Urban Milwaukee and was not written by an Urban Milwaukee writer. While it is believed to be reliable, Urban Milwaukee does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
Recent Press Releases by Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos
And no business should be forced to provide services without compensation. A business cannot survive without adequate compensation for services provided. The only reason they wrote the law as they did was to force unions out of business. All Republicans do is put obstacles in people’s way, and all these laws they are passing are written by corporations to help them cheat their workers out of benefits and adequate compensation for their work. When that happens it hurts the economy and their own businesses. As a consumer, if I do not buy your service or product, then you go out of business.
Thank you Speaker Voss for you continued support of Conservative values. I know acting like an adult around so many liberal children is not easy. You have my backing.
If you are going to praise him, at least spell his name right.
Yes the man who mocked higher education and humanities courses acts like an adult. Keep telling yourself that.
Hal: Only an immature or irresponsible person calls other people names rather than offer an intelligent comment.
Alene, you say, “,,,, no business should be forced to provide services without compensation. A business cannot survive without adequate compensation for services provided.”
I’m unable to make sense of those statements, although you then allege that corporations cheat their workers out of “benefits and ‘adequate’ compensation for their work” Seems you think the law is flawed and/or undesirable, and/or something. Funny use of the word “cheat”, so maybe you’d be kind enough to explain its meaning as you intend us to understand it.
Maybe the sum and substance of your commentary boils down to:
Corporations seeking to manage costs and earn a profit are bad. Unions seeking to organize workers and increase dues collections are good.
If that’s it, I understand. I cannot support such simplistic “across-the-board” thinking, but at least I can understand it, And message boards like this one provide the opportunity for all to put out their thoughts, and react to those of others. Which is a good thing,
Terry Ott: If you cannot understand what I wrote then I feel sorry for you because you are obviously brainwashed into thinking only one way and cannot possibly see any alternate viewpoint. For clarity, right-to-work and crushing unions give corporations more power over their workers. Any place you work without a union gives the corporate leaders all the power over the workers (without which the corporation would not exist) who get no say in their job, their salary, or their benefits. They end up with lower wages, dangerous working conditions (in some cases), and few benefits, if any benefits at all. If you think that doesn’t happen under the right-to-work law, then you are more brainwashed than I can possibly imagine and nothing or no one can possibly get you to see an alternate viewpoint. Sometimes the best way to think things through is with a simplistic viewpoint.
Should people be required to join a union for employment? No. But, neither should they benefit from the services the union provides to those who do join. That is what’s fair. Is that too simplistic for you too?
Alene, it seems as if you sure are one angry person! You needn’t preach and harangue; frankly, it undermines your credibility.
Brainwashed? My resume includes working for the NLRB in Washington, administering union grievance procedures in a manufacturing plant, being hired jointly by a union and company to facilitate their contract bargaining process, and lots more.
I majored in Industrial Relations where my MS degree research involved meeting with UAW leaders on a case headed for the Supreme Court, so I got into the field much younger than most do. Fifty years later I am retired and no longer as “current” but still interested in the field and know that there are good unions and bad just as there are enlightened employers and exploiters. I’ve lived through strikes and organizing campaigns, and early on worked for an excellent guy that was an elected union official before going into management in that same company. I learned a lot from him, to say the least.
Again, then, what does this mean: “no business should be forced to provide services without compensation. A business cannot survive without adequate compensation for services provided.” Doesn’t seem to make sense. That’s all.
Terry Ott: No business should be forced to provide services without compensation. A business cannot survive without adequate compensation for services provided. Should people be required to join a union for employment? No. But, neither should they benefit from the services the union provides to those who do join (without due compensation for those services). Get it now? If not, then maybe someone else on this thread can help you. .
Alene, this may not be your cup of tea … but here is how I have come to understand things after many years as (1) an employee, (2) a business owner, and (3) a consultant to companies re: their Human Resource strategies and programs.
A business must price its services according to what the market is willing to pay, and enough customers must choose to buy from that business to both cover costs (materials, labor, capital equipment, production, distribution, marketing, taxes, and regulatory compliance), and to produce a profit (and projected profits) in the long run sufficient to attract investors. Failing those things, it will cease to exist as business. Hopefully we can agree on that. Granted, some companies could afford to pay “labor” more, and many are paying their executives an awful lot of money, some undeserved. But there are limits on costs of doing business.
To be employed, a worker must deem acceptable the level of wages, benefits, hours, and working conditions that some business is willing to pay him/her for his/her time and contributions. An employee is wise to shop the market for his/her skills and abilities and to upgrade his/her career capital ongoing. I counsel young people never to be in the position of being essentially locked in to one company; they change and the changes are accelerating.
So where does the union fit in? It can affect the amount of pay and benefits, hours, work rules and conditions for employees at a particular company at a point in time. But it cannot affect them so much that, in the long run, the company is forced to raise prices and thus lose market share. Or decides to operate elsewhere where the cost structure is lower for the same or better quality of goods or services. Losing market share is usually the beginning of the end for the business, and thus for the workers at that company — union and nonunion alike.
In my experience in labor relations, if employees and the company understand they are “in this together”, their mutual future is much more attractive. But when it becomes “us against them” things slide downhill.
I have come to the point of view that, for me, I would not go to work for a unionized company, but not for the reason you may expect. It’s not because of any malice toward unions in general, as they have had (and in some cases continue to have an important role to play). But, rather, it is because I believe that a company gets a union when and if it deserves one by virtue of it management practices. And if it allowed conditions that made union organization attractive to its employees I would not be comfortable assuming it has capable management and leadership, even if the “deal” (pay and benefits) looks reasonably enticing.
My two cents. It does bother me when someone generalizes overmuch about how poorly companies treat workers, take advantage of them, etc. … as if they are all “bad actors”. That just isn’t the real world any more than it would be to say, “companies are great places for employees”