Unions can still function just the same as they always have, except now they have to legitimately serve their rolls. 

I think that Unions were once a great force in this country, but nowadays they are very mismanaged. Many Union members feel very...disconnected with their leadership. I still support them, but the actual members themselves need to unite and force leadership better.

One Union I feel strongly about is Walmart, or the lackthereof. They are generally known for stepping on their employees, and they employ a LOT of people and could abseloutely afford to pay decent wages without changing a single price. Two stores (one Canadian, one Stateside) Unionized, and Walmart quickly shut down the store fearing it might spread. Corporate greed is the root of their anti union stance. 

 

I guess it just seems right to have it up to the individual workers if they want to join or not.  Don't really know too much about it though. 

I used to work for HMRC (revenue and customs, civil service) and this was my first "proper job" I had no real clue what a union was about. On joining during training we had a meeting with the operations managers etc who basicallly said "You're free to join the union but they're piss artists and blowhards and please don't join the union"

Within three months the union members were on a work to rule campaign and a strike shortly after, something about pensions I reckon. I was 18 and in no way concerned about it so was only annoyed that the members were getting time off during the strike and I suppose I was a scab working away.

Now on the other hand I think if my current work had a union presence they wouldn't even think of pulling the stunts they are at the minute. About half the staff are getting sent home unpaid each shift. We're all on 35 hour contracts but are lucky if we hit 20 and when we question it we get the standard like it or lump it response. 

But yeah, it should be take it or leave it. Why would we force people to pay to have someone else tell them what their opinion is and that they need to take a hit out their wages for strike action for something they might not be bothered about.

This was a good decision.  

There are some issues in hidden in the "Right to Work" mandates that tend to go farther than just outlawing mandatory union membership. These are usually nicknamed "Right to Fire" clauses, and allow a business to terminate an employee without justification or legal ground for rebuttal. 

The famous example is when a guy who worked for a large-scale lumber company went to an environmental activist meeting, even though he didn't participate, was fired from his job in Idaho, which is a "Right to Work" state. 

Almost every state is a "fire at will" state at the core of the law, but quite a few have formed retroactive restrictions for stuff like providing legal testimony, or other stuff where a company needs to provide a bare-minimum level of justification for the firing.  

and it is ON VIDEO... Why?

Still no mention of violence. Even after the Dems/unions said "there will be blood" 

Which is inherently capitalistic. I don't like it either, I just think it's interesting that labor is often seen as this thing acting counter to capitalism because it's people trying to ramp every dollar out of a system that they can instead of a corporation. 

Supply and demand works for people doing stuff just as much as it works for stuff getting made. 

I read about this somewhere. I can't remember where though, I have a feeling it was on here somewhere. Nah the article linked in the OP is where the liberal media wants me to think I read it. 

No idea if Yahoo is deemed conservative media but considering I have read a grand total of 1 article on the subject and I am aware of the incident mentioned makes me think that you are, as you often are, flinging jobbies at the moon on this one.

haha good on  ;)

Why? 

I agree with quite a bit of what you said, but Hostess's issues were not with the BCTW-GMI. 

They were a financial disaster already, and the union and previously agreed to, and taken, wage cuts to support the company. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hostess-maneuver-deprived-pension-051400720.html" rel="nofollow - It even appears now that the board essentially sank a number of pension accounts for workers shortly before shutting down.

The Hostess brand are now back out there renamed, Mrs Freshley's makes the Twinkie clone, and quite good.

I was always more of a Little Debbie guy myself. I think that's 'cause of my southern upraisin'. 

They're a similar knockoff, but not made by former Hostess bakeries. They also have a clone of my Beloved Orange cupcakes.

Because it is the people that are affected by it the most.

I think that's every legislation ever, though. 

Getting off the union thing for a second: 

Here's the weird thing about Hostess -- it has enormous brand equity. Every snack cake maker ever has had a Twinkies clone. Little Debbie has a clone for everything Hostess makes. As does Bimbo, the Central-American company with a huge presence in the U.S. now. 

I agree with you that, if I were running the union, I'd have probably taken the negotiated pay restructure again to save that many jobs. 

But the fact that a company with that much stored brand equity was struggling is an amazing example of inept management.