Is Right-to-Work For You?

Is Right-to-Work for you? WSPD 1370 Radio Host Fred Lefebvre is working part time as a stock boy for a Speedway gas station in Sylvania Ohio. The 65 year old at-will IHeartRadio employee looks to supplement his non union radio income by working another job at minimum wage. After years of promoting conservative values and Right-to-Work on the radio we see the results of this life style. Now Right-to-Work is being pushed again for Ohio and for the Nation. If you want to work as a stock boy at age 65 then allow Right-to-Work to be the law of the land.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

perfectly illustrates this, Mr. I. Private sector union membership has plummeted in my 70 year lifetime. In an almost identical manner, both the size of the middle class and the buying power for common workers have plummeted. What we, as common folks, must ask ourselves in the 2018 election is: which political party, and which candidates really want to help the common American, and/or which ones pray at the altar of the almighty dollars so freely flung around my the giant corporations and their ideological lackeys?
It's really our choice as voters. We can choose to vote the other way and MRGA -- Make Russia Great Again.

feelings here, and seem to hate statistics -- real evidence, you know -- TRUTH!
Private sector union membership peaked in the 1940s and 1950s at around 35%. Unlike what many would have us believe, union membership was never even close to having a majority of workers as members.
Since 1983, there has been a steady decline in Union membership, especially in the private sector. In 2017, the private sector rate of union membership was 6.5%. That's about 1 worker in every 16 who was a member of a union.
Isn't it long past time to stop union bashing? How can unions be to blame for economic ills when virtually no one is in a union?
And now we have a POTUS who tweets: “ wars are good, and easy to win.”
This retort from "faithful" Republican Sen. Ben Sasse: "Make no mistake: If the President goes through with this, it will kill American jobs -- that's what every trade war ultimately does." BTW -- These quotes are from the Faux News website.
Once again, I LOVE Lyin' Don's tweets. They drive many "faithful" Republicans crazy!
As "faithful" Republican Meghan McCain stated: "But, please, continue making excuses for the inexcusable."

Labor is a long way from one size fits all. Certain industries demand union labor, and almost certainly always will. Working conditions, safety, collective bargaining, protection of certain sub-classes, job security, seniority, benefits of all sorts - all of these can be bargained for. Which is fine until the labor union leadership gets greedy and bites off too big a chunk for themselves.

Now we're closing the plant (Bye Bye Flint! Good luck with the water thing!) to Mexico, or China, or the Philippines. Because in Mexico, we've found a bunch of labor who'll be more than glad to take those jobs and work harder on them than any union worker ever has.

When I was working out at Davis-Besse (1986 or so) the rag droppers went on strike. Admiral Joe Williams was running the show, and opened labor negotiations with something like, "You're on strike? Good! I don't want you here anyway, bunch of no-good commie thieves!" Which had the expected result. From my perspective, I wasn't earning much, and I remember thinking that I could really use one of those jobs the rag droppers didn't want. I'd do it for less money, and I'd do my best. But no, no. That's impossible because the union was on strike.

If Ohio had a right to work law, I could have gone in and applied for work, then gone to work the next day at twice the pay I was getting back then. I really would have liked that job.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

If the club is so great why are people forced to join?

Just like a farmer pays fees to join the Farm Bureau to benefit from group healthcare or their lobby so should a person who joins a union should pay for their share of group benefits. Do you think the local Chamber of Commerce will let you join their organization without paying dues? I don’t think so. Without the lobby of labor no one would enjoy a clean and safe environment, not even Tea Party Fred Lefebvre.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

But no one is forced to join the Farm Bureau or the Chamber of Commerce.

So why don't you answer the man's question forthrightly?



right to not be part of a union, as long as they personally negotiated individual contracts with their employer. Once a person gets a job with a contract for wages, benefits, and working conditions already in place, bargained by a union, they have an obligation to support that union which negotiates and enforces the terms of that contract. Otherwise, the employee who wants all of the remuneration, but does not want to pay for membership in the union that makes that remuneration possible, is a "freeloader."
BTW -- With most administrators and/or owners wanting to maximize profits for themselves and/or their stockholders, do you really think that salaries and benefits would be as high as they are, even in non-union companies, if there were no unions at all? Look at what's happened while union membership has dropped to near zero. Keep pushing Right-to-Work-for-Less, and America will have more and more billionaires, and no middle class at all!
I've said before that I have been on both the employee side, and the employer side, of negotiations. There are two sides. Generally, there is no equality between employer and employee. Employers have money and power. Generally, the individual employee has neither. Unions empower employees. Their strength is numbers when they are in unity. Without unions, without unity among employees, common folks suffer. That's where we are right now!

If the farmer doesn't join the Farm Bureau he doesn't get the discounted healthcare that can make or break a farmer. He doesn't get the lobby that gives them all the taxbreaks that none of us enjoy. You know like cheap farm plates, cheaper truck insurance and cheaper Ag real estate taxes. You think these just happen cause one farmer protests? No this is the benefits of the Farm Bureau. Also the Chamber of Commerce lobbys to promote its interests that small business now gets to pay NO TAXES on the first $300,000 earned in Ohio. Is that fair to the powerless average taxpayer? Don't think so. So these associations have benefits.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Being forced to do something is black and white.

If the farmer doesn't join the Farm Bureau he doesn't get the discounted healthcare that can make or break a farmer. Again the farmer has the choice to not join. Same with the CoC.

So again, I will repeat the question.

Why should someone be FORCED to join?


Nothing but crickets

Taking all of the remuneration one signs up for when one gets a job, and NOT joining the organization which negotiated that contract and enforces it for the common worker is plain and simple -- freeloading!
Let the common worker who wants total independence enter a company front office, go in, talk to the owner and/or supervisor, and negotiate terms of a working agreement, and that person needs no union. Who has the power in that scenario? The company -- DUH! Yes. The worker can walk out of the office and leave. And where is that worker going to get a decent wage and work environment?
THAT'S what we have in America today. How's that working out for common folks? How many new billionaires does America need? How much more pain can the American economy suffer because wages are losing out to inflation? How much smaller must our middle class get?
It IS relevant that as union membership has shrunk in the private sector, the middle class and remuneration to work for companies, has shrunk as well. The shareholders have money. The workers have each other. As Benjamin Franklin once said of the members of the Continental Congress: "We must, indeed, all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately!" Common folks are being hanged here. But stick to your guns, Mikey and BN. You're winning!

Unions can be good or bad. Are most common folks better off now than we were when union membership was higher? Shouldn't we be in the position of improving wages and benefits for workers everywhere, rather than lowering American wages and benefits so that our middle class disappears all together?
As of December, 2017, the average CEO in America makes the same as 265 common workers. In Norway and Austria the average CEO makes the same as 20 common workers. BTW -- the second greatest disparity between what a CEO makes and what a common worker earns is in India. A CEO in India makes about what 229 common workers earn.

In a nutshell, MJ and BN, I respect your right to disagree with me, but with all due respect, I find you two to be focused on the wrong people. It's not common workers who are the problem economically, it's CEOs! America grossly overcompensates our CEOs! Unions are disappearing with all of their flaws, and the middle class that unions supported, is disappearing too. I ask again, has this improved the life of common folks?
BTW -- In 1987, America had 41 billionaires. By 2017 that number was 563!

Just because it has improved life doesn't mean anyone should be forced to join. Freedom of choice should be paramount in a country where freedom of association is a Constitutional right

include negotiating an individual salary and benefit package with an entity. Once the package is negotiated, what's wrong with paying a small share of one's compensation to fund an organization to negotiate periodically, and enforce rules on a daily basis? As a union member, I paid less than 2% of my salary to get these services. In 2018, unions are a non-factor anyway!
The horse is dead, BN. Declare victory and move on! You are STILL focusing on the common worker, instead of the corporate bloodsuckers at the top of the remuneration ladder.

I'm all for voluntary union membership

Right to work is a natural right. It is the future. The unions cannot prevent it.

Dale, you asked me what policies of the President I disagree with. Well this week came another. I am against tariffs. I am in favor of Free Trade.

Tariffs are a method of failure we have already tried. They will only hurt the US economy in the long run for short term gains.

Free trade makes us partners with other countries. It makes doing business easier. It also means we're less likely to be enemies because free trade makes us do business as equal partners whereas tariffs unlevel the playing field and create more animosity.


Hi Mike. Haven't heard from you in a while on here. How is everything out in Cal?

Hope I didn't offend anyone!

Hi DH, I'm great!

California is slowly starting to fall apart and I have a front row seat to the chaos. It's glorious.

It has brought back the shanty towns of old which brings with it the natural problems you should expect. The politicians have no answers and are content with ignoring it hoping it goes away. What it's doing is creating a new mass exodus out of newly renovated areas in SF, SD, and LA (just the places I can personally attest to).


a logical position, you disagree. You would be correct on this, if the "free trade" you advocate were actually "free."
In order to truly be free, international trade MUST also be FAIR!! What's "free" or "fair" about China subsidizing steel manufacturing and dumping steel in America at a price which is below the price at which steel can be produced, while concurrently placing tariffs and quotas on American goods coming into China?
Yes. I agree with the Michelin Man -- at least in principle -- on this one. Trade should be both free AND FAIR!!
And, I also agree with you, that free trade enriches all. But, the trade must truly be "free."

Fair and Free are not one in the same.

Fair is a subjective term. Free is not. Free is a zero sum.

We can never ever have Fair trade because each side has a different idea of what is fair. We can however have free trade with each side.

My position is logical as well but my position only relies on that which parties can reasonably agree.


that Communist China subsidizes the steel industry, among others, then uses its monopolistic abilities as a communist dictatorship, to dump steel in America at ridiculously low prices and put entire American companies out of business, and put their employees out of work!
Yep! Typical "faithful" Republican, you are, Mikey! Eh, is NEVER free if it is not fair! Will we ever have pure "free trade?" No! Can we do better than allowing communist and other dictatorships to dump illegally subsidized products in America, killing our companies with good-paying jobs for common folks? YES!
BTW -- Our own, local member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Marcy Kaptur, is soon to become the longest serving woman to ever be in Congress. Marcy has consistently opposed NAFTA and other unfair so-called, self-proclaimed "free trade" agreements. She is more knowledgeable on this topic than anyone I have ever heard speak about it. Maybe her stance on trade is one reason she keeps winning re-election every two years. Hmmm...

" is NEVER free if it is not fair!'

Using subjective terms doesn't move your argument any further.

So I will try to objectify it with you. What is your definition of "fair trade"? By putting limits on a subjective term we can then work within it's framework.


buddy. Is it "fair" that the U.S. has a 2 1/2% tariff on autos imported from Communist China, and Communist China has both a much higher tariff AND severe quotas upon how many cars can be imported from the U.S. to Communist China?
BTW, Mikey -- do you support Communism, too? Dictatorships in general? It seems as though you are gravitating from supporting our serial marrying and serial philandering POTUS, to supporting the trade practices of Communist China.

"U.S. trade negotiators see trade as a friendly contest between competing companies, overseen by national governments that have agreed to rules of FAIR CONDUCT [emphasis added]. Once this level playing field has been established, the government steps back and lets the best companies and products win."
"Unfortunately, China has zero interest in free, FAIR [emphasis added] and reciprocal trade. It sees international economic competition as war by other means – and intends to win in any way it can."
Here's a link to the entire article:

You see, Mikey. "Free" trade can be a subjective term also. What the Communist Chinese describe as "free" trade is not identical to what you or I describe as "free" trade. And Faux News purports that trade must be fair in order to be truly free. Good for you, Mikey. You now have someone else to debate on this topic. Enjoy debating the editorial board at Faux News.

Here's a link to an article which tells us much about what happens to common workers when they are not united against a giant corporation. They have NO company pensions. They get NO severance! This is the non-union "paradise" so many LOVE. How's that working out for the common folks?
Right-to-Work-for-Less strikes again!

Here's what I say, for whatever it's worth. Do I trust big unions? No! But I trust big employers EVEN LESS! I see unions as a tool to be used by common folks to offset the power employers have compared to common folks who want to work for them.
Those who favor Right-to-Work-for-Less trust the big employers. Many even HATE unions. I do NOT hate employers. As I have stated before, I have been on BOTH SIDES of the bargaining table. Common workers need to unite. And workers can control the unions to which they belong. I did see a powerful local union leader, (the largest teacher local in Ohio at the time), defeated in a union election. It can happen!

This is a genuine tragedy for the estimated 31,000 employees who have given a few to many years of their lives to an organization they thought was being run efficiently and effectively, especially with the savings Toy R Us garnered from low remuneration of thousands of its common workers! I'm just using this issue as an example that unionism is dead, and is NOT a cause of most of the pain suffered by common folks in America today. And I am using this issue as an example that Right-to-Work-for-Less is NOT a panacea for America's economic woes. To me, Right-to-Work-for-Less, exacerbates a bad situation for common workers, and helps to shrink the middle class under the fallacious guise of "independence." Unions protect workers. And if union leaders do not do what their members want them to do, these leaders can be turned out of office at an election.

Now I see why Fred Lefebvre is working at Speedway stocking shelves. Well IheartRadio has filed bankruptcy. This leaves Fred without a secure future. I can image at age 65 and no union pension his future prospects are limited with radio in decline.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Senior Class: America's Unequal Retirement
One of the cruelest manifestations of widening inequality happens in life's final quarter.

By Teresa Ghilarducci

"In addition, many blue-collar and service-sector workers, especially those in unionized jobs that required hard physical and tedious labor, like miners, autoworkers, truckers, and nurses, had bargained for defined-benefit plans, many of them so-called 30-and-out plans. They could retire at a substantial fraction of their final earnings after 30 or so years on the job. But today, most workers have lost the traditional pensions that once covered about half the workforce. Meanwhile, the affluent are more likely to be healthier as well as wealthier in their golden years—all of which adds up to the elderly rich being able to control their quality of life to a far greater degree than middle-class and poor elders."

So Right-to-Work means poverty in your senior years.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

one's life in poverty and, too often, in sickness too! A huge (or is it yuge) price is paid in the name of so-called "freedom."
In negotiations, workers have no leverage as individuals negotiating with owners/supervisors, except when united together for COLLECTIVE BARGAINING!! Personally, in the 35 years I worked under a union-negotiated contract, I NEVER paid the union who negotiated and enforced those contracts more than 2% of my pay for the union's services. That was a bargain for me!

WSPD Fred Lefebvre emailed me with the news he received a pay raise at Speedway Gas Station. Stocking shelves at 65 is one way to pay for your old age. I still say Right-To-Work is an attack on non union people like Fred who never get to retire.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Have you seen that commercial of people in their 80s who still cannot afford to retire? Now, if one WANTS to work until one dies, that's a choice, and its their choice to make. However, if one is working simply to bring home enough money to pay one's bills, especially if one is old and sick, that's profoundly sad. And working beyond the years that one desires to work is the true legacy of Right-to-Work-for-Less.
We can also make the argument that working beyond the "normal" retirement age is bad for the overall economy. I have some friends who retired via the State Teachers Retirement System, and went back to work, full-time, as education professionals. In some cases, they are filling a need in an area of shortage. However, in too many cases, they are simply taking jobs away from younger Americans who qualify for those positions and want them. reason given in the 1930s for the creation of Social Security was to get older Americans to retire earlier so that younger Americans, often with young families to support, could move into those jobs from which the older Americans retired.

I've lived in the Greater Toledo area my whole life. Remember a time when having a pension was common place. The average guy could work 30 years and retire to his cabin on the lake or the sun of Florida. What it took was a union job and a work ethic. Now that's not the case since union membership has reduced from a high of over 30% in the sixities to less than 8% today. Now we have economic insecurity where many never are able to retire completely. We have rigged trade agreements and Right-to-work schemes that rob workers of a fair deal. WSPD has promoted RTW and Republican "ideals". Sad that the real story isn't told where their employees live in near poverty while being forced to repeat the corporate daily memo of policies that are in direct conflict of their economic needs. Neither the morning host nor the afternoon WSPD host is able to afford a home, both rent. We've heard the horror story of Sinclair Broadcasting. IHeartMedia and Cumulus Broadcasting are no different.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.