Blog Archives

Video: Minneapolis Firefighter at State Capitol: Should we have a Right to Work Out?

“Right to Work” isn’t just a union issue

Right to work out?What is a “Right-to-work-out” law?

It’s really not that complicated, although the name is misleading since everybody already has a right to work out — just as we have a right to work. What the special interests are trying to do is say union membership should be free, even though currently nobody is forced to join a union, and the economic boom of the 50s and 60s followed the biggest expansion of unions in the history of the U.S.A.

Gyms charge membership fees, but you don’t have to pay if you just work out at home, or walk in the park (which tax-payers make possible, actually.)
Read the rest of this entry

Republican Senator chooses irregular tactic in ploy to get so-called “Right-to-Work” on November ballot.


A sneaky move by Senator Thompson of Lakeville to try to take his bill about jobs (ok, a bad, deceptive bill about worker’s pay) from the Senate Jobs Committee to the Judiciary Committee. Not logical to most of us, but the Senator appears desperate to get this on the ballot in November despite widespread bi-partisan resistance.

Originally posted on Minnesota Nurses:

Today Senator Dave Thompson (R-Lakeville), the author of the so-called “Right to Work” bill, took the unusual step of moving his bill from the Jobs Committee (where it had stalled and possibly didn’t have enough votes to pass) to the Judiciary Committee. As you know, “Right to Work” is a deceptive bill aimed at weakening unions and taking away workers’ voices in their worksites. It is unsafe, unnecessary and unfair:

  • Unsafe: This amendment puts public safety at risk by making it harder for nurses, firefighters, police officers to negotiate and advocate for things like better nurse staffing and shorter response times.
  • Unnecessary: This amendment is risky in these economic times. Our state has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and our manufacturing sector is the strongest sector of our economy. Forbes rated Minnesota as having the third best quality of life in the nation. Why would we…

View original 199 more words

We don’t need unions? Do we need the Constitution?

Unions are no longer important?

That’s what some say, that unions were important back in the day, but they’ve out-lived their purpose. They won us reasonable work shifts, overtime pay, maternity and family leaves, sick pay, holidays, and other great stuff — but now that that’s all done we don’t really worry about losing any of that, right?

Did anybody ever make that argument when it comes to the U.S. Constitution, or the systems established by our Founding Fathers?  The Bill of Rights was a great thing, but we don’t need Congress anymore, our laws are all fine now, we can pretty much rely on momentum to keep everything on course.  After all, what could happen?

According to ABC News, Amy Zvovushe, a senior program manager with a marketing company in Connecticut, alleges the Human Resource department asked her to resign rather than providing leave after learning she was pregnant; that’s a form of discrimination that advocates say many women in the progressive, pro-family United States still face, an HR department intent on something other than helping the human resources a company has today.
Read the rest of this entry


Some unions are getting better at the PR side of the equation. If you’re not familiar with John Nemos’s work for the MNA you need to check him out.

Originally posted on The Same Rowdy Crowd:

On the abortion issue, one group of advocates says “Right to Life,” the other side says “Pro-Choice” and the news media usually opts for the more neutral term, calling it a debate over “abortion rights,” or describing the protagonists as being “anti-abortion” and “pro-abortion rights.” Fair enough. On that issue, reporters have done a pretty good job of striking a balance on the language they use.

But on the top labor issue of the day, one side says “Right to Work,” the other side says “Right to Work for Less” or “union busting.” The media goes with “Right to Work.”

Pioneer Press headline: “Republicans set stage for right to work fight in Minnesota”
Star Tribune headline: “State Republicans launch right-to-work amendment”
MPR headline: “One on One: The Right to Work Amendment”

In other words, the news media is framing the issue exactly how pro-amendment spin savants want it framed.


View original 253 more words

So-called “Right-to-Work” is really a right to freeload

Even just the label, “Right to work” is very clever, but very misleading. It really has nothing to do with a right to work

A “Right-to-Work” law seeks to prohibit what advocates label compulsory unionism…

Really a big driver of this is politics rather than economics.

John Budd, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Human Resources and Labor Studies

Busting so-called “Right-to-Work” Myths

You’ve heard of ALEC, right?

The acronym stands for “American Legislative Exchange Council,” an industry-sponsored group dedicated to promoting CEO-friendly changes to laws — that lobbies elected officials. They’re promoting a tempting-sounding change to Minnesota’s constitution, and Minnesota’s Republicans are ignoring the founding father’s warnings about the “tyranny of the majority” as they flex their new-found muscle at the state house.

factory workers

American workers won the right to bargain collectively; it's like big business using the Chamber of Commerce and ALEC.

Contrary to the talking-points being spread by the Center of the American Experiment, evidence shows that adding new government regulations in the form of so-called “Right to Work” laws actually hurts economic growth and development.

It’s a job killer!  Read the rest of this entry

Right to Work Out

Constitutional Amendment: Should MN become a “Right to Work Out” state?

Right to work out?What is a “Right-to-work-out” law?

A “Right to work out” law would prevent health clubs from forcing people to pay dues or membership fees to use the equipment, services, and facilities. Such laws would require gyms and health clubs to admit everybody, whether or not he or she pays a cent.

In other words, “right to work out” laws would allow everybody to get all the benefits of health club membership absolutely free! How cool is that?

Without a “Right-to-work-out” law, can I be forced to join a health club?

No. Membership is voluntary, like joining a union. Incidentally, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that no collective bargaining agreement can require anyone to join a union, either.

Look, you already have a “Right to work out,” Read the rest of this entry


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.