Poll: Where do you stand on “right-to-work” legislation?

What was largely (not completely – thank you to several callers, writers, and Keesha Gaskins) left out of the discusion on Voter ID at 9 a.m. March 13 is the fact that it is NOT “just a photo ID”, it is a very specific set of requirements for a specific type of identification.

Additionally, photo voter ID is the proverbial “tip of the iceberg” of Representative Kiffmeyer’s bill(s); there are numerous other requirements, restrictions, costs, and hoops the bill(s) will put in place and no one spends time on these issues.

A few other observations:

* You CAN get on a plane WITHOUT a current photo voter ID…and you can also use a passport, which I do not see noted as a sole valid document in the Kiffmeyer and companion vills.

* Could you imagine there are people who are here illegally or who intend to impersonate who would go in and vote if we implemented the electronic poll book requirements if they knew they would have to smile for the camera? I don’t think so – quite a risk.

* How will voting by felons before their voting rights are restored be stopped by the proposed legislation? That would presume that these felons were not only ineligible to vote because their enfranchisement was not yet restored, but that when they voted, they voted as someone else (e.g., false name or impersonation). Do we know that to be true? Not from what I’ve read.

Finally, when Hans von Spakovsky and others tout on the wonderful workings of photo voter ID requirements in other states, they neglect to note that these other states include several exeptions, whereas the Minnesota proposals DO NOT INCLUDE SUCH EXCEPTIONS.

I am disappointed and dismayed that the focus is on the ID itself and not on the implications and whether the law will fix the fraud that has been shown in MN and other states (primarily felons voting when they should not, not impersonation). We need to discuss the hurdles, the cost, the lack of exceptions, the restrictions, the increased requirements. Please, please, MPR, discuss these important nuances.

I have a major problem with any group FORCING me to join their organization and pay their dues. However, I have been a part of way too many companies who are willing to in strong-arm or intimidate people away from unions. Unions have a right to be and organize without the company aggressively fighting it, but I have the right not be a part of a Union (or pay ANY fees to a Union).

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this situation, this is something that should be legislated apart from the constitution. So many amendments are being proposed for this fall that it’s hard to keep track of them. By all means, try to pass a bill for your issue of choice, but leave the constitutional amendments for really serious issues.

The fact remains that ALL workers in “Right to Work (for Less)” states have lower average salaries and higher unemployment rates than states like MN. Unions bring up the wages of all workers, not just union members. Aside from lower wages, “Right to work for less” states also have higher rates of violent crime and have lower rates of high school graduation and lower rates of people going on to college after high school. Unions are the last bastion of hope for the middle class…don’t let the propaganda from the right sway your decision. Look at the facts, Right to Work is wrong for everyone.

i am a union member, as a teacher we are also protected by the union when issues arise in addition to bargaining for benefits,salaries, etc, it feels as though we need to let each person decide for themself if the choose to have a job that is represented by a union, this should not be an addition to our state’s contitution.

As a member of the state teachers’ union, we were NOT required to join the union. But by law, the union has the right to “fair share” us as a way to require non-members to pay for the services from the union from which they benefitted, for example bargaining, representation, workshops, etc. My local union did not fair share for many years, but changed that policy because of the costs of contract negotiations and filing grievances. All employees benefitted from the union’s work. Of course there were always people who thought they should benefit without paying! What is $400-$500 in union dues compared to improved benefits and better working conditions???

My experience with “fair share” members is that they have never negotiated a contract for themselves nor have they chosen to involve themselves in contract negotiations. They think that management would give them a good deal if no union existed and they are sorely mistaken.

I have been a manager in both union and non-union offices. The best management training I was ever given was in the union shops. They held me to a much higher standard as far as employee rights go. When I managed a non-union office, I was constantly reminded to fire at will. Friends of upper management always made more than others, I was not expected to coach to better results.

Everyone’s pay goes up when there are union shops in the area. I worked for a non-union company moving to a new city in MN. That city had 3 strong unions in place, our pay was based on the range of the union wages, even though we were not union. Pay was not the issue for the company, a good freeway system and educated work force was the key in re-locating.