NH House kills so-called right-to-work bill

[PETRUS]

Source: Associated Press

CONCORD, N.H.—New Hampshire's union workers cheered Wednesday after the House decided to support Gov. John Lynch's veto of legislation that would have limited their ability to collect dues, ending months of maneuvering by Republican Speaker William O'Brien to revive the measure.

The House voted 240-139 Wednesday to sustain the Democratic governor's veto of a bill that barred unions from collecting a share of costs from non-members, killing the bill. Currently, unions and businesses must negotiate whether to require the fees as part of a collective bargaining agreement.

Cheers erupted from the gallery from union workers who attended session after session to urge the bill's defeat since Lynch vetoed the so-called right-to-work bill in May...

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/11/30/nh_unions_rallying_to_support_veto/

[Riftaxe]

1. Wonder when a corporation like Bofa will catch on

to collect fees from non clients. Sounds like instant profit with no liability.

[PETRUS]

3. That's a horrible analogy.

"Right to work" laws preserve the requirement that employees be granted the benefits of whatever contract was negotiated and be offered union services but may choose not to contribute towards the effort. Even right-wingers should find these laws unacceptable as they represent government interference with both freedom of contract and with the labor market.

If you want to try to compare this to a retail customer's personal experience with financial services, I suppose it would be a little like a credit union finding themselves required by law to provide the same services at no cost to nonmembers (non depositors), e.g. free ATM services, etc.

[Riftaxe]

5. How about this one then

I show up without asking, mow your lawn and demand $100, are you obligated to pay it?

If the SEA can prove that certain state employees asked for interference in their contract negotiation, then i have no problem with their collecting dues from those who asked for their services.

But in NH the SEA is a bit sketchy at best.

BTW benefits for state positions are mandated by law here in NH.

[PETRUS]

6. That's still off.

Say I have a really, really big lawn and I own several lawnmowers. And you get a group of people together and each of you kick in $50 to retain some legal services and what not. After negotiating with me, you and your organization agree to mow my giant lawn for $20 per labor hour. But I also hire a few other people on the side and end up in a disagreement with one of them. Should the law require me to pay this person $20 an hour and for your group to provide legal services for her even though she did not contribute to your funding? That's what effect right to work laws have.

[Riftaxe]

9. I would agree but no one is negotiating

with the non SEA members...

It is a fait accompli. No one is asking those state employees who have chosen not to join SEA *if* they wanted interference in their contract negations, just like no one asked you if you wanted your lawn mowed.

Personally I would love for those non-SEA members to unionize for themselves and against SEA's heavy handed tactics.

Especially since NH SEA is in bed with so many of our overpaid state legislators...but reducing their pay by $199.99 is a different topic.

[PETRUS]

10. It's the effect of the laws.

And people should be concerned with outcomes. Also, as you've surely noticed, there are intellectually dishonest arguments advanced by anti-union conservatives.

[Riftaxe]

15. On that i would agree

but i hardly categories this one as dishonest, since it is factual.

[PETRUS]

18. Just being preemptive, knowing what arguments others use.

[Riftaxe]

19. It still does not really change the nature

of the situation as it lies.

I suppose it really takes a bit of presence of knowing both NH SEA and non SEA employees. Non of my SEA friends or relatives approve of what their NH union reps have done to put them into the current position. Sure it's rather a small sampling of 11 people, but overall on the face of it, it does smell a bit.

[PETRUS]

20. Interesting, thanks.

Would your sampling have preferred a different outcome?

[Riftaxe]

21. Hard question since it is such a small

sample, and i do not work for the NH government myself.

Do i think it is unfair to charge people for something that they have no voice or desire for an organization to do on their behalf? I would have to answer yes.

Do i wish to see the SEA gone in NH, that would be an emphatic no.

Do i wish the NH SEA would clean up their act a bit, HELL YEAH!!!!, this is only one instance of the slime they have devolved into.

Can i change the practices of the NH SEA...probably not, but some of their antic's are generating a well deserved public backlash, making it harder to explain to people who lean against the necessity of unions in the first place. On the plus side, this particular inititiave was purely driven by NH SEA leadership and not the rank and file.

*edited for clarity*

[Riftaxe]

16. wrong reply (nt)

.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

27. LOL! You sure don't know your contract law, especially when it comes to

"negotiation" between parties of vastly unequal power, such as an employer and an employee (a) always but (b) especially in time of economic recession or depression.

Don't seem to know your labor law very well, either.

And you don't seem able to tell right wing positions from left wing positions, either.

[dtexdem]

2. Woohoo, good!

Now we need to get RTW repealed in states all over the country.

[russspeakeasy]

4. Yup !

It is a misnamed, misused, musty piece of legislation.

[No Elephants]

28. The right specializes in misnaming and other manipulative uses of language.

And one of the fiercest advocates of those dishonest technigues recently pulled ahead of Willard Mitt "Even Republicans Don't Trust Me" Romney.

[Chan790]

12. Quicker, easier, dirtier.

Revoke Taft-Hartley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act

[No Elephants]

29. Not President Truman's finest moments.

[Tesha]

7. Celebrations everywhere!!!

Facebook and Twitter were humming - people were finally able to sit back and take a breath.

This issue hasn't just been the Corporate handout, ALEC written, law presented to our legislators,
its been the way the Speaker has abused his position - over and over - and over again.

NH doesn't want this, doesn't need this - and though we know he'll drag it up again next year...
at least we've held him off for now.

[Tesha]

8. The AP story makes the sense of the vote *VERY* unclear.

240 Representatives voted to override the veto and
bring the Right-to-Work-for-Less law into force.

Only 139 Representatives voted in favor of labor.

And again, the law missed being enacted by 12 votes
and the Speaker of the House promises to bring it
back next year.

Tesha

[PETRUS]

11. Thanks for clarifying.

People do need to be aware of that!

[Demit]

13. What? The article clearly states "The House voted 240-139 to SUSTAIN the Democratic governor's veto"

[Tesha]

22. Right. It requires a 2/3 vote to overturn; they just missed achieving that.

It only failed because about 40 Republicans defected
to our side.

That's why I said the AP headline mislead about what
happened; it wasn't an overwhelming victory for labor,
it was the narrowest of victories.

Tesha

[Demit]

23. Then you should change where you say "240 Representatives voted to override the veto"

You do understand the difference between sustain and override, right?

[Tesha]

24. 240 Representatives *DID* vote to over-ride the veto.

But with 139 voting to sustain the veto, those 240
votes didn't *QUITE* reach the necessary 2/3
supermajority required to over-ride the Governor's
veto.

They just barely missed.

Tesha

[Demit]

25. Ohhh. Lol, I finally get what you're saying.

The 240 votes fell short of what was needed for the override to be successful. The result, therefore, was that the veto was sustained. I now see your original point, that the language in the article was confusing. Thanks for being patient :)

[Tesha]

26. No problem!

The AP would never write a headline that deliberately
misleads or confuses us, would they? ;)

Especially if the effect were to ramp-down concerns about
how unions are being treated?

Tesha

[No Elephants]

30. Thank you for the information. And Rethugs are quite persistent.