A union *DOESN'T* control your local schools; an elected school board does.

So a Hollis teacher doesn't have to join the union NOR pay a screwball "agency fee"? If the answer is NO go sell crazy somewhere else. The NEA and ATF have ruined America.

BTW, I dont have "tenure" at my job and where I work the math majors get paid more than the english and education majors. The real world doesn't exist inside of education BECAUSE OF THE UNIONS.

The people had their say in 2012 when we threw out MOST of the scummy teanuts and returned N.H. to sanity. I can't wait until 2014 when we throw out the few remaining nut-bags.

"L'EMPEREUR du POLE NORD"

That is the funniest posting name I have ever seen. I wonder if Jan Schmidt would object to this poster not using their real name (I am assuming it is not a real name)?

You need to go back to Mass where you came from and take your liberal a.. attitude and brain with you.

Hey Mehy, what kind of simpleton leaves a comment about an article 2 months after the story. You sound a bit slow in the comprehension area. Do you take the short bus to school. People like you are why people laugh at teanuts.

You appear to be a very angry, low self esteem person. Did you not get enough love and stimulation in you life? Are you missing out on something? I truely feel for you.

Well said Jack, I also wonder if this Santa has a family and has read some of the so called intelligent remarks he makes of TeaNutter Society and members of the House. He also must be in favor of defeating the Right to Work Bill. What happen to the good NH people who always lived by Live Free or Die.

William Goldthwaite

There still here William ,but unfortunately today we are out numbered by the commiecrats that have invaded our state from the left wing strongholds of mass ,vt ny etc etc to get away from the s**t holes they created in the previous states where they resided and infested

JIM:

> There still here William ,but unfortunately today we are out numbered
> by the commiecrats...

Ain't democracy great, JIM? ;-)

(By the way, it's "They're still here", as in "They are still here".)

Hey L'EMPEREUR du POLE NORD, all jibberish liberal talk. Got anything original or mentally stimulating? Did not think so,lol.

you should know what your talking about before you open your mouth. Union are what got you your 40 hr work week, bennifit, and retirement. What non-union got you was a 32 hr work week so they don't have to pay you health care or any another bennifits, so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer

And the dum git dummer.

Yes, that is right. Those pushy low live Mass liberals will always spread their lies and manipulate others to get what they want. Funny how all those Mass liberals make big bucks but live in NH to avoid certain taxes and live cheaper.

Ashley F McDonald, if you had a brain you would be dangerous.

Ray,

You do not need unions for any of those things. Nor did they help create many of those benefits. I speak from the experience as both a former union president and a private sector employee:

Medical benefits: I had them as a union member, have them as a private sector employee. The difference is as a private sector employee I have more flexibility as to which company I want to use, and we have an advisory board that works with of healthcare providers. I did not have that in the union.

Safe working conditions are determined by Sate and Federal entities. Granted 100 years ago unions drove that process, but the government (through our elected officials) carry that burden now.

Unions do not drive training, the companies and professional certifications drive career development. My police department was international accredited to adhere to certain standards such as level of training, proper amount of hours work, staffing size, community relationships, and pathway to advancement. The union never involved themselves in those matters.

Unions really only address pay and benefits, it is the communities that set the standards If the union were to go away, those high standards would still exist.

You truly believe that without US Unions we would be like China.... ...ridiculous. But typical..state an extreme point of view that is false, and claim that is what would happen without unions.

NH Perspective.

I respectfully disagree.

Unions are not obsolete, and yes, corporations would drive down wages as low as they could. Without union pressure, the gains of the past would be lost.

And many unions do drive training. They work with employers, I've seen it in the electrical workers union.

Professional employment might not need unions for bnefits, but many working people, who are not professionals need unions to negotiate for them decent benefits and wages.

Safe working conditions are still driven via union pressure.

My point of view is not extreme, nor is it false.

So if I want a job and don't want to join the union, I am now forced to do so. I miss the old NH when it was a lot more Live Free or Die.

Ray, never said unions are obsolete. This law would not have prevent unions from continuing or starting up. MY concern is not with the union members, but with the national leadership, they are causing an adversarial environment between workers and employers. I saw it first hand, and it created a terrible work environment. There is a great book called Shawdowbossess. If you get a chance read it. It does not bash unions, but points to why so many want to leave unions...national leadership is disconnected.

I was deprived the opportunity to make more money because of an outdated model. Right to work would have allowed me to stay in a job I loved.

As to your point regarding private sector unions...you are right. That is where the real benefit can be achieved. But a person should still have the opportunity to choose what works best for them - union rep. or private representation.

What many people do not realize is that NH had a strong labor association compact many years ago. This was the ability for employees to easily form a local labor relationship, selecting their own leaders, the ability to collect dues, and negotiate wages – benefits-working conditions. It was recognized by the State and the courts. It was awesome. Do you know what happen to this institution that work so well, without causing conflict, national labor lobbyist managed to weaken it to the point they disappeared. Too bad.

Ray,
If Unions prove they can benefit employees in all the ways you mention then people will voluntarily join them. The law wouldn't stop you from paying into a Union if you wanted to.
It would have given people CHOICE. Don't Democrats claim to be the party of choice or does that only count when murdering the unborn?

under right to to work no one can be prevented or fired for joining a union they simply can't be forced to join a union, if they feel the union is beneficial to their employment they are free to join or not, if unions are so great what are they afraid of.

@wm - The problem is, those who choose not to join the union would still reap all the benefits negotiated between the union and the employer without contributing towards the union's expenses. The goal of Right to Work (for less) is to sabotoge the unions - they will still incur the expenses of negotiating contracts but won't collect the revenue required to do so effectively. There is no incentive for employees to voluntarily join the union if they can reap the benefits without paying to do so. I might be OK with people choosing not to join a union if they agree not to accept any of the employer's benefits (health, dental, life, and disability insurance, paid vacation, holiday and sick time, salary increases, etc. etc.). If this were made part of the law, I might reconsider my position.

JP - but would it not behoove the union to then make the dues reasonable enough that people don't mind paying them?

Case in point - I took a PT job at UPS this past fall to pick up a little extra cash for Christmas. My union dues were a $200 initiation fee and $10 / week. Why would I feel the need to join the union? However, if I was going to work there longer, I'd have no problem joining the union as they would be representing my interests.

Provide value, I'll gladly pay. If I'm forced to pay, there's no reason for them to provide equivalent value.

I would agree that part-timers shouldn't have to join the union, provided they aren't receiving any benefits. But full time, permanent employees who do receive benefits should be supporting the union who negotiates these benefits rather than "freeloading."

If you are willing to work for $3 an hour, it's because you probably deserve it. Unions assure a home for mediocrity; where performance is secondary to contract concessions and the costs of that labor are ultimately subsidized by everyone, including non-members.

I know, corporations are so evil. I guess your Utopia would be 100% government run businesses. Yup, that'll work just fine.

NH Perspective, you are 100% right. Too bad that liberals constantly spin it the other way to get around it and deceive people.

That's what this bill was all about, having the ability to opt out. Currently If I want employment I can opt out of the benefit package that's offered but I'm not allowed to opt out of paying union dues/fees. Employees should have the right to opt out of all programs/benefits/protection being offered to include being a union member and or being charged union fees or dues

I agree with you Ms. Patton. Mr. Hatch, you may be missing the point. Ms. Patton is saying that if one decides to opt out of joining a union and paying the fee, they should be REQUIRED to forego ALL of the benefits the employer provides (including health, dental and life insurance, paid vacations, holidays and sick time, contributions to pension funds, tuition reimbursement, salary increases, etc. etc.). If the bill included these provisions, you'd likely see a change in its number of supporters!

Lenore,

I left the public sector just because of that. I did not want to belong to a union, nor did I want them to negotiate for me. I was one of the highest performers for not only my agency, but for the state. Prior to being forced into the union, I had negotiate for myself for years. In the union I made the same amount as less educated and poorer performers. But our salaries were the same because our job title and number of years were the same. And do not get me started on people with more seniority who made more money but performed far worse than me. How is that fair. So yes, if I choose not to belong to the union, I will negotiate for myself. And because of that, make no mistake I would have been paid more and received more merit incentives. Eventually if everyone on my team left the union and did what I did, a majority would have been paid better (based on merit), professionalism would be extremely high, and the rest would have been let go because they were substandard.

So, now that I have agreed to your demands (why I need your permission to work where I want and how I want is beyond me), can I please work as I see fit and negotiate based on my skill set, and not be lumped in with those that do substandard work, and are just 'are just getting by?' Do I have your permission to do the job I love and be free from union entanglements?

So NH perspective, you did what every employee has the right to do!
Just love people that find a great job that is great because of the people that get the job to be what is right for them and free loaders that want to get their foot in the door and then under cut the people that work there. Scabs!
If you can do better go and start your own company!

how many of the top 100 companies to work for are union. answer zero

No Longer interested, your defense on Unions is sad. No Union has ever contributed or produced anything of value. In fact they have done nothing but gained financial support amongst themselves from the sweat and tears of hard working people. If you do not realize that by now you never will. Good luck and continue to live in denial.
I feel for you.

The key is to be able to be free to choose. If anyone out there does not get that then they deserve what they get. Because if we are all free to choose, then there would be no issue. The ones that want to work for a Union and pay them get to choose to do so and the ones that do not want to do that have the option not to. Now why is that such a problem? Not sure why Unions do not like that? Hm, maybe because they can not control everyone? Hm, maybe they will not get enough moeny to live and squander as much as they want?

You are correct. Truth be told, the democrat party subjugates taxpayers and pays off unions.

Even though I support this bill I also find it hard to believe that companies are holding off plans to relocate or start up in NH until it's a right to work state

where is are garment or steel industry they disappeared the last time the unions had absolute political support.

There are plenty of nonunion jobs to go for. They want the union jobs because of the pay and benefits.
If nonunion jobs are so great go get one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That and better English education in our schools. I'm distraught about the right-to-work not being passed. I used to work a shoe-shine at the race track and that was under the table. I had so much fun and shined so many shoes.
Tips were often great and I only made $2.75 an hour.
Slap me in there for a night and I was off the street no longer doing drugs and working my way up with my superiors.
It didn't matter how much I made there but it paid the bills and I had some extra to treat my lady every so often.

Ashley, define rich...and do you know who some of the highest paid memebers in our society are? Union bosses. While their base was being laid off, and GM and Chrysler were begging for taxpayer handouts, they continued to take expensive junkets, build large union facilities, and grant themselves raises and bonus. What the excutives at AIG did was wrong (but it was approved by the Obama Administration), but the corruption within the unions at a national level is beyound criminal. As their memebers were laid off and told to collect unemployment, the union bosses misused the union dues. Know who the enemy is Ashley, and stop watching MSNBC.

Yes in most unions you can withdraw but in many if you do so you're still required to pay the dues/fee.

Jeff Hatch, you are only require to pay a portion. It is bull that you are required! If you don't like the way the company is run go some where else.
There are plenty of nonunion jobs to go for. They want the union jobs because of the pay and benefits.
If nonunion jobs are so great go get one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't understand how Patriot can say that payment is not required but then cheer defeat of "Right To Work". The bill was to prevent REQUIRED payment of union fees. The unions cannot leave the choice to workers because they know how much they would lose in dues and fees. They realize that they can only survive in the modern economy by force and government-enforced garnishment of wages.

@Tom Grinley, I think you have to pay a percentage of the cost to negotiate the contract. I am not positive what the law requires but it is less than a union member has to pay. And I believe federal law mandates that the union has to represent all employees.
It would be nice to Know these points before reading all the misinformation.

Well put, Crash.

So it was the employees fault, so let us retreat to 100 years ago then employees can start all over again. Makes perfect sense!

There are plenty of nonunion jobs to go for. They want the union jobs because of the pay and benefits.
If nonunion jobs are so great go get one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Conflict of interest much, alderman ?

Diane,

NH benefits not from strong unions, but from a strong small business base – an entrepreneural spirit

However, you must remember that 20% of our workforce leaves NH every day to work. That is not an indicator of a strong economy, but a nice place to live.

As to the States that have approved RTW, you need to look at the 20 year model, they are the States that are seeing the greatest increases in wages, the largest infusion of investment capital, a better standard of living than they were 20 years ago.

We are lucky in NH, but right to work would do nothing to destroy the NH economy, but it would help return a manufacture base that was decimated by government intervention.

But let us look, or why don't you research the states with the greatest union influence. Tell me where they are at in terms of unemployment, under unemployment, people who have fled the State looking for work, big government, and public debt to individual liability. Michigan, Illinois, and California.

our economy is based on the jobs in Ma, VT and Me without them we'd be screwed

Don't blame employees when you have no idea what the CEO's did to the finances.

Yeh, it did work out real well for 100 years--dedicated employees maybe??? Maybe just a case of incompetent management???

Regardless of Patriot's fully expected attempt to place the blame anywhere but the unions, read the unbiased international coverage of the Hostess debacle. Because of competing union contracts, they were forced to work with less efficiency in an economy that demands efficient production. Each product had to be shipped to the same store in different trucks. Preserving union jobs was more important than efficiency and it killed the company. If you want unbiased views, go out of this country for decent news coverage.

@Tom Grinley, I don't know what you expect but to be honest you do not know the dynamics and finances of Hostess.
Definition of 'Corporate Raider'
An investor who buys a large number of shares in a corporation whose assets appear to be undervalued. The large share purchase would give the corporate raider significant voting rights, which could then be used to push changes in the company’s leadership and management. This would increase share value and thus generate a massive return for the raider.

The country is loaded with good paying minimum wage jobs. Go get one, job security!

Because to be in one means your wages are tied to every other employees wages. Your employer may be able to pay you more money and may be happy to do so. But to have to increase pay for all employees because you are performing above basic requirements is something that they cannopt afford. So you would be stuck earning the same as the worst employee doing the same job you are. No thank you.

Well, a majority of the people voted these democrats into office, presumably knowing and agreeing with their positions on this and other issues. Therefore I would say that they ARE representing a majority of the citizens of NH.

Did they vote for Democrats, or did they vote against republicans?

Either way, the result is the same. Either they agreed with the Democrats' positions or disagreed with the Republicans' positions.

Steve:

> Did they vote for Democrats, or did they vote against republicans?

It doesn't matter; more people cast ballots that elected Democrats. And elections have consequences.

The consequence of electing democrats are higher taxes. End of story

"redstate" huh? Nice source.

It doesn't change the facts...
Did you read the article/sources or did you let that big Liberal wall around your mind get in the way?? :-)

Well at least you recognize your source is ridiculous.

FTP,
Do you doubt this is true? You can't find one other link that you may trust that supports it?
Do you know how to use a computer search engine?

1) Internet search engine. You're welcome.
2) I think the original point was you are going to an unsourced article with a brass knuckle as your headline on a blatantly slanted website and presenting it as fact.
3) The author does not present any facts in their own, but cherry picks a few select quotes where it fits the slant.

sorry , meant pissed at repubs. Hell Ive done it myself in prior elections. Dont for a minute think I actualy beleived John Kerry would be a great president, I just hated king George.

That is your choice, and I'm glad it has worked out well for you. The reason many private employers provide benefits and decent working conditions is that employees would seek other employment if they didn't - and the businesses with unions would be likely choices. Take the unions away, and salaries, benefits and working conditions would deteriorate for EVERYONE.

unions are dinosaurs with broken noses.

Who are you quoting? What is the source of this statistic?

jp; seamus is quoting a wmur recent poll, not exactly a station known for suporting the right. mayby you can get someone from the whitehouse to tell them they will regret it.

wm:

A poll by WGOP! Well that explains it!

May God Bless Bob Woodward!

"Who are you quoting? What is the source of this statistic?"

It is in the article above. Scroll up...

Here is the UNH poll:
http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/gsp2012_spring_legiss042712.pdf

While the only poll that counts, of course, is the one at the ballot box, I wonder if there are any polls that show that NH people are against right to work?

ya steve all those people at apple, google, micosoft on and on ect. ect. are getting the shaft what union in that industry is keeping them inline.

their needed in china,.oh that's right they already have one it's now their government.

News:

And your poll comes from where?

And what tests were used to prove that the respondents understood what the oh-so-cleverly-named "Right to work" means?

Atlant,

Good point! If no explanation was provided as to what "Right to Work" really means, many of the respondents may not have known what they were voting on. Also - we don't know how many responses there were to the poll - probably nowhere near enough to be statistically valid.

Better than doing Nancy Pelosi's every bidding. Hint, she is not from new hampshire.

atlant only read pravda or the huffington rag.

Rick aka UNION SPOKESMAN