Right-to-work fallacy
To the editor:
A recent article in this paper described an event hosted by the “Tea Party.” The event was a supposed “debate” involving several Republicans who want the party nomination to run against Rep. Tom Perriello.
As the story reported, most, if not all of the candidates expressed their priorities and the importance of keeping Virginia a “right to work” state. Sounds good, right?
In this “right to work” state, an employer can increase your hours, decrease your hours, eliminate your benefits, reduce your pay, ignore your seniority, increase your workload without limits and demand your worship … literally. An employer can fire you for no other reason than the brand of car you drive.
This “right to work” designation exists for the sole purpose of defeating the efforts of workers from organizing and/or joining a union. This is why we need the “free choice” act. Regardless of political views, why should workers be denied the right to organize and negotiate a fair contract that ensures fairness in the workplace?
Without a negotiated contract, an employer can do whatever they want to do. It’s unfortunate, but we live in a state that is considerably anti-labor. Our legislators have granted more rights to wealthy businesses than to the individuals they are supposed to represent.
Good job, gentlemen.
MICHAEL HUNTER SCOTT
Keeling
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Watchman, you apparently didn’t read my post that said “Unions had their purpose at one time”. If you owned a company, would you want a union telling you how you should run it, or how much you should pay your employees? I sure wouldn’t.
I guess none of you ever read a history book in your life. How do you think the laws and benefits enjoyed by workers today came about? It wasn’t from the generosity of the company owners. Dan River was the perfect example…...
I sincerely hope all employers in Danville have entered the name “MICHAEL HUNTER SCOTT” in their little book of people to never, under any circumstances, hire.
Just a few observations:
“In this “right to work” state, an employer can increase your hours, decrease your hours…“ You mean using employees to perform services to fulfill customer demand? Why do you think the employer hired you in the first place, Mr. Scott?
“...ignore your seniority…“ Sounds like Mr. Scott thinks the mere act of somehow managing not to get fired should qualify him for preferential treatment over superior employees. How does this backward thinking ever get traction?
“...An employer can fire you for no other reason than the brand of car you drive.“ Yeah, and an employee can quit if he doesn’t like the brand of car the boss drives. I fail to see the problem. Goose and gander, you know.
Mr. Scott, a job is nothing but a mutual agreement between an employee and an employer to sell hours of the employees life in exchange for money. The terms of the agreement can be changed at any time by either party. The employee is free to demand more money, better benefits, or a more amicable work schedule. The employer is then free to accept or reject the employee’s demands. The inverse is also true.
If you have in-demand skills and a decent work ethic, you will be successful. Which, if you think about it, is most likely the problem here.
Virginia should be a right to work state. You should be able to negotiate your own terms of employment without a union. If you do not like the terms, find another job. Employers are not typically in the business of changing the terms of the employment agreement such as hours, pay, or workload without good cause. To do otherwise is just not good business. Unions had their purpose at one time. But now there is a whole litany of laws to protect worker safety and to ensure they are not unduly exploited without compensation. An employer should have the ability to terminate an employer at will. It is the employee’s responsibility to make himself indispensable to his employer.
And you forgot to add that union thugs are such lovely people.
Advertisement