Talk:Right-to-work law/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Scare quotes in first sentence

I have repeatedly removed quotation marks around the article's title. I would ask any who support adding quotation marks to provide a reference to wiki style guides that suggest putting quotation marks around article titles in regard to legislation. --DrCruse (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The question is why **you** busy yourself with repeatedly removing them. They are there to highlight the fact (clearly stated as well in the article) that such statutes have nothing whatever to do with a right to work. If the title referred to a specific piece of legislation, you would be correct in removing the quotes. But this article refers to a general class of deliberately misnamed legislation, so the quotes are appropriate and essential. — Aldaron • T/C 15:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that these laws are "deliberately misnamed" is your opinion. It's fine if that's in the article under criticisms, but it is not a matter of fact that these laws are "deliberately misnamed". Until you demonstrate why as a matter of fact or wiki policy this needs to be done, I am going to keep the quotes off. --DrCruse (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Aldaron put bold tags around the word "repeatedly" in my post above. I'm not sure why s/he would do this. Also has continued to revert the article without engaging here on the talk page. --DrCruse (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about the tags ("repeatedly" is your word). And the engagement here has been sufficient: your assertion that the deliberate misnaming of these statutes is merely an opinion was dismissed without comment. — Aldaron • T/C 12:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As you can see in this edit you put bold around a word I used. Not sure why. You are in no position to dismiss what I'm asking for "without comment". Please act in good faith and provide an actual reason beyond just "I don't like how this legislation is named". --DrCruse (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If you see a need to describe it as deliberately misnamed, you must cite a source that shows it is misnamed. Simply "knowing" that it's misnamed makes your edit constitute original research, which is against guidelines. Even if one assumes the name is intentionally misleading, the quotes would still be inappropriate, as "Right-to-Work" is the common name for the type of legislation. Misleading or exaggerated names are a common tactic, but injecting quotation marks is a form of commentary, not appropriate address. Look at the Ministries of Nineteen Eighty-Four for comparison, where the ministries are all intentionally, clearly and stated by their author to be named dishonestly, but the names are the names, so no quotation marks are added. Merennulli (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wisconsin needs to be included in the graphic

As of today a federal court has reinstated the law in this state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambchowder (talk • contribs) 17:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Unemployment Insurance?

I'm not a lawyer, but I do have some familiarity with RTW laws. This section of the introductory paragraph seems irrelevant, dense, and incorrect:

"These statutes are not listed under US labor and employment laws as of May 2016, but have been operational with local employment hearing judges for over a half decade. Right-to-work laws were reported in all US states in regard to unemployment insurance hearings in which the employer was seeking to bar the employee from receiving these legal benefits after termination. Public policy exceptions have been devised by attorneys to seek to overturn the broad and unannounced sweep of these laws in the US. Local appellate judges have not indicated that they will allow public policy to be used on behalf of the former employees - most of whom were employees under their health insurance when injured (e.g., mental health parity laws)."

I'm thinking that it should be deleted, but if someone can explain it to me, I'm happy to leave it. MKil (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)MKil

I agree with "irrelevant and dense", so probably unnecessary - especially in the lead. The opening of this article in general is unclear and unreadable. I realize the topic is a contentious one in political terms, but surely these laws can be described clearly in one paragraph? Huw Powell (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

similar laws in other countries?

There should be a section about similar "right-to-work" laws in other countries (though they might not be called that). I think Germany has them. 143.167.71.128 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

New Mexico County Level Right-To-Work Laws Prohibited

On March 27th New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a law prohibiting counties from passing their own right-to-work laws. Article here: https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2019/03/29/lujan-grisham-signs-bill-invalidating-counties-right-to-work-laws/

The map needs to be updated to remove the designation of New Mexico as a state with local right-to-work laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapknof (talk • contribs) 15:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 DoneTerrorist96 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

West Virginia Right-to-Work Law Overturned

On February 28th a Circuit Court in West Virginia struck down their right-to-work law (article here: https://www.wtrf.com/news/west-virginia-headlines/west-virginia-right-to-work-law-overturned/1818674782). The map of states with right-to-work laws needs to be updated to reflect that West Virginia's law is no longer in effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapknof (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 DoneTerrorist96 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That ruling was stayed and the Right to Work law in West Virginia is still in effect. Please update the map. 98.190.223.50 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Virginia

I do believe that Democrats in Virginia (who'll be assuming the majority in the state bicameral legislature, in January 2020) have reneged on their promise to repeal 'right-to-work. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Map Shading for states with "Forced Unionization" laws

In the states that don't have a Right to Work law, some have laws on the books that explicitly permit (or in some instances...mandate) the requirement for union membership as a condition of employment, while the law in other states is silent on Right to Work and Forced Unionization. I think it would be good to add a color shading for states that have laws explicitly permitting (or mandating) "Forced Unionization," in order to distinguish from states whose laws are neutral on the subject.

For example, New Mexico recently enacted a law that 1) bans local jurisdictions from enacting Right to Work ordinances, and 2) explicitly permits collective bargaining agreements to include union membership as a requirement for employment.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.108.101 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not think this idea would improve the article. First, "forced unionism" is not a neutral term, as the article points out (see the section on "freedom of association." Second, the arrangements you seem to be referring to do not require membership. They require employees (after they are hired) to pay fees to support the administration of the collective bargaining contract. Unions generally cannot use these funds for any purpose not directly tied to administration of the contract. These arrangements are typically known as "agency fees" because the union is authorized by the state as workers' collective bargaining agent. Toby Higbie (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

I didn't flag the article for NPOV violations, because I don't want to wade into such thorny territory being a newcomer to this article... but am I crazy in thinking that the first sentence is completely biased? I don't think supporters of the law would describe its motivations as such. Instead, they typically reference freedom of speech and freedom from coercion for employees.

Then, oddly enough, the next paragraph was apparently written by supporters of the law, because it cites the Legal Defense Foundation, which explicitly supports the laws. Let's get some more neutral sources? Lrieber (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia. As it currently stands, this article is a shameful indictment of the liberal bias in numerous Wikipedia articles. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Specifics, please, so they can be corrected. --Ebyabe (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's what the cited source actually says on the subject: 27 states have banned union-security agreements by passing so-called "right to work" laws. In these states, it is up to each employee at a workplace to decide whether or not to join the union and pay dues, even though all workers are protected by the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union. I'm not sure the lede sentence that cites this source accurately reflects the content of the source, though I admit I'm at a loss on exactly how to rephrase it to better reflect the source. Particularly the statement "...all members who benefit..." is arguably not NPOV, but I don't think changing it to "...all members who potentially benefit..." more accurately reflects the source either. Basically, it looks to me like that entire sentence needs to be rewritten to more closely match what the source actually says... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't think the sentence needs to be rewritten at all. We're discussing the difference between "benefit from" and "protected by." That's splitting hairs. Toby Higbie (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's really not – "protected by" is better in NPOV terms. "Benefit from" is in the eye of the beholder. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is still extremely biased. The first two paragraphs are full of weasel words and misrepresentations. The first paragraph claims "employees are prohibited" and that is not accurate. The prohibition is against unions and employers. The second paragraph calls then "so-called right to work." The so-called is a weasel word. Can somebody clean this article up? 2601:840:8301:F940:58E6:9C27:2C5D:59A2 (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have removed "so-called" from the lead, at least. I am fairly busy with other articles so I appreciate any help here pointing things out. DN (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)