Jump to content

Talk:Right-to-work law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.190.223.50 (talk) at 20:07, 13 November 2019 (→‎West Virginia Right-to-Work Law Overturned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 DoneTerrorist96 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right-to-work_law&oldid=926024307"