Ohio is a right to work state, which we've always defined as a right to get fired whenever for no real reason if the company chooses to. It's very frightening at times to have that hanging over your head when your life depends on that job, as most people do.
Is the whole "right to get fired for no reason" real or just a talking point? Is it codified into law in the Right to Work legislation? If so where?
Who's going to protect you if the union collapses?
Ok I am very confused.
How on earth is this some kind of polar spectrim situation? What exactly is a "right to work" state?
If people do not want to pay unions, they don't have to. If they feel they are being oppressed, they can choose to join a union, find another job, or just organize a joint protest of his fellow workers, union or not.
I would imagine that a right to work state would be one that provided a guaranteed job or educational opportunities/job training for everyone, or perhaps one that ensured the victims of NAIRU a civilised minimum income. So, Sweden, somewhere like that. Ironically, it would probably have to be heavily unionised.
In fact, a 'Right to Work State' is no such thing. Many citizens of 'Right to Work' states are forced into unemployment by government fiat (NAIRU et al) without any appropriate compensation. In fact, the citizens' alleged 'right' to work is, if anything, less recognised in RTW states than elsewhere (Sweden, as I said; North Korea, the Soviet Union, 1950s Australia).
A RTW state is a state that tries to force its citizens out of trade unions by creating a Tragedy of the Commons. Just as the road networks benefit everyone and are therefore paid for by everyone, trade unions are legally obliged to represent all workers and therefore should be paid for by everyone. There's no effective way to create choice here- your right to choose is overwhelmed by your right to form a union.
Typically, people join unions in order to get paid better, just as corporations form monopolies to drive down wages (though obviously monopolies have other negative consequences as well). A union worker can expect to be paid about 10-30% more for the same work as a non-unionised worker. There are other advantages as well; unions act as a check on corporate power by pooling worker resources together in legal and other challenges, ect. The purpose of a union is to bargain collectively, since the bargaining power of an organisation is greater than the sum of its parts.
Now, that's very annoying if you'd quite like to pay your workers poorly. So, instead of competing in a fair market, most businesses would quite like the government to step in and prevent proper competition (something they always complain about whenever anyone else wants to do it). Typically, this takes the form of tacitly legalised (though de jure criminal) firings of union leaders and members during and after union elections. Something like one third of union elections end in at least one breach of the law by the employer with the intention of coercing workers no to unionise. With powers like that, it's quite surprising that anyone remains in a union, a testament to the power of collective bargaining.
Obviously, the last part of your post is just unfair nonsense. Yes, many areas of the human endeavour are flawed. Corporations, for instance, are usually law-breakers. Should we close them all down?
