Wisconsin question

It now appears certain Wisconsin will be like Indiana and Michigan in becoming a right to work state. My question is this If a PRIVATE person were to build a house there is he free to use no union labor or there still laws that prevent that. Here in Tennessee local government can bid a job and a contractor who employs non union help can do the work IF no federal government money involved. Does Wisconsin still have a prevailing wage (union) law on all jobs or just federal contacts?

In Michigan, union stuff was always big commercial stuff. You can build however you like. Question kinda surprises me?

Ya,me too. Anybody can go to the courthouse and get a DBA and some liability insurance and start whatever kind of business they want to,whether it's construction or whatever.

I guess you learn something every day. So you are saying in your state you have to be a member of a union to work in residential construction? There was a time when I built the odd home now and again. Never even heard of a union subcontractor. Always used the small local guy. Licensed, but not union.

Right-to-work laws make it illegal for a private-sector business to enter into an agreement with unions that require all workers to pay union dues.

So if the business wants to hire some who is not in a union, that employee isn't forced to join the union or not join but still pay dues.

Dave No it is the other way around here no union required if you want . I had heard that union labor was still required there in Wisconsin on ALL construction.

Spook that was my question, we were in a conversation last night with a older lady from Wisconsin and her comment was "WELL IT WON,T CHANGE ANYTHING" you still have to have union labor to build anything and I just wondered if that was the way it was up there. Sure not in Tennessee, guess she was misinformed. I am thinking here husband was a union plumber.

That's a new one on me. Plenty of construction without union labor.

The dealer we bought our van from last year built a new building and there were guys protesting by the road because "the bad evil man with the money didn't use union labor".

So to answer that part of it, I'd say union labor was never a must have for construction.

Donovan from Wisconsin

Thanks Donavan ,, I really thought the woman was wrong when she made that statement just wondered.

The whole thing was just a big flash in the pan in Michigan. All KINDS of noise and protests before Right to Work was signed in to law,but not a word about it changing a thing since. A lot of hoopla over nothing I guess.

jm.,

I also live in Tennessee. I've never been a member of any union, ever, so you very well may know the ins and outs of labor laws in Tennessee better than I do.

My understanding is that Tennessee is a "Right to Work" state that simply means that, except in unusual circumstances, you can't be forced to join a union. Teachers in the public school systems, for example, can opt out of the teachers' unions, but when they do so, they are still required to pay a reduced fee to the union. They can't participate in union meetings and they are not eligible for union benefit programs, but they don't have to pay the full annual dues.

Tennessee is also an "At Will" employment state. I understand this to mean that an employer can hire or fire anyone for any reason. Certainly, Federal anti-discrimination laws apply, but for regular old employees doing regular old work, the employer has the final say on who comes, who stays, and who goes, "At Will".

You might know much more about this, but that is my understanding.

Tom in TN

Kansas has always been a right to work state and it simply means that you cannot be forced to join a union to work in any shop that will hire you. And no shop can turn you down for employment simply because you do not belong to a union.

Any state that ever required union membership to work in residential construction should be kicked out of the US and fenced off.

Tom You have it right and I understand our law, it was the comment the lady made last night that had me confused or wondering. She has lived all her life in Wisconsin and Made that statement that it would not change anything, as a builder you still had to pay prevailing wages by law and I was just wondering if in fact she was right. Seemed strange to me and from Donavan and those guys are saying she was wrong or in error.

(quoted from post at 08:20:52 03/07/15) Kansas has always been a right to work state and it simply means that you cannot be forced to join a union to work in any shop that will hire you. And no shop can turn you down for employment simply because you do not belong to a union.

Any state that ever required union membership to work in residential construction should be kicked out of the US and fenced off.

Click to expand...

It's funny but years ago if an employer was union you had to agree to join the union to work there. Then they started passing "right to work laws" where they could not force you to join the union but you could be forced to pay "fees" to the union because you benefited from their negotiations. So you had the right to work without being forced to join anything. What they are doing now, and the unions are yelling about is making it so a person doesn't have to pay those fees. You can bet that some folks are going to opt out of the union so their paychecks are bigger. Not starting an argument over right or wrong, just stating what the deal is and what I see SOME, not all union members doing. It's going to reduce the amount of money that the unions take in and membership. But on the other hand I can see where barring someone from taking a job because they don't want to join or forcing them to pay for something they may not believe in can be wrong.

Rick

When I took a seasonal job for ups just the Christmas rush a couple hours a day loading trucks no long term commitment I still had to join a union and pay fees .now I might be wrong but why should I have to join a union to make a little Christmas money ? I live in wisc

The right to work law and paying prevailing wage is two different things.

Paying prevailing wages is usually only government contracts. I do not know of any private contracts that spell out prevailing wage requirements.

Now several states are changing their laws on allowing contractors to bid on government jobs that do not pay prevailing wages. Meaning the government are dropping the prevailing wage requirement. That has been in the news lately. I can't remember what state is was but it was just in the last few month's.

All the prevailing wage issue does is protect unions. They know darn good and well they will get beat by non union companies on bids if they had to go head to head without the prevailing wage rules.

No you don't have to use Union labor, but you need a zoning change or variance or actually want permits and a certificate of occupancy or don't want it burnt down you might want to consider using union labor because the public sector Unions are thicker than the Mafia on the honor and tribute thing and if you don't pay them their tribute it ain't going to happen. And the unionized cop you call won't do squat for you.

I worked for a Wisconsin county and on public projects over a threshold (think it was 30K) we had to have contractors paying prevailing wage (which was usually twice what the average wage was in the county I worked in) I can't remember if this was a parting gift from former Governor Jim Doyle or from the chosen one in DC we're not allowed to criticize.

The Unions need to accept some of this right to work frenzy is their fault. They are very biased in their support of political causes, to the point of exclusively nnalert. Some of the tactics they have used are to be blunt not fair or very nice. If you attack and vilify someone as well as their spouse, kids, church, any organization they are a member of and any person supporting them they should be prepared for some repercussions should they win.

The "opt out" programs are a scam, for instance if you "opt out" of union membership say over political beliefs the "reduction" of fees you pay might not even match the per capiti contribution the union makes to political causes. Or to be brief a union member pays $1,400/ year in dues, say the local and national unions make contributions to political organizations total $700/per member, your Fees paid to the union will still be might be $900-$1,000, so in effect you're forced to donate to political causes you might not approve of.

Yes I'm a little bitter about Wisconsin, just got a letter stating they're seizing my federal income tax, no reason, no documentation first correspondence I get is they have decided I owe them money they have filled out the paper work with the IRS and they're taking it period no negotiation no appeal nothing they're taking it period. By the way this notice was mailed to a non existent address, the only reason I got it is I now live in a small town in Iowa and the postman connected my last name and we used to live in Wisconsin. It appears the Wisconsin Department of Revenue isn't able to copy an address from a tax return into their data base, they were sending all correspondence to an address consisting of my former Wisconsin street address and the city and state in Iowa I live in.

In Indiana, a contractor isn't required to pay 'prevailing wage" on a job done for an individual or a corporation.

That only applies to work done for the government.

So contractors can pay their employees whatever the employees agree to work for, subject to state and federal minimum wage and overtime provisions.

HOWEVER...the best workers will seek out the companies that pay them what they're worth. So a contractor paying at or just above minimum wage will generally NOT have the most skilled people working for him.

And employees have ALWAYS had the right to work at non-union jobs. If they don't want to work for a union employer, they simply don't apply for work at an employer that has a union. It really is that simple. At a union employer, there are contractual terms that affect how, when, and why an employee can be terminated. At a non-union employer in an "at-will" state, you can be fired for ANY reason...or for NO reason. So these "right-to-work" laws, in MY view, are about killing unions, and NOT about anyone's "right" to work at a non-union employer. It's a misnomer.

Killing unions is a little harsh Buzzman.
Trimming back some of their power, yes but killing them no.
I see both sides of the union debate and do hate to see unions get beat up so hard. If they had kept their noses out of politics or at least hadn't gone so far over the to the left they wouldn't have made so many enemies. They are mearly getting their comeuppance for all those years of weighing in so heavily to one side.
Not since the Nixon years has any of the big Internationals endorsed much of anyone on the nnalert side. It's the pendulum thing...

(quoted from post at 08:02:54 03/07/15) The dealer we bought our van from last year built a new building and there were guys protesting by the road because "the bad evil man with the money didn't use union labor".
Donovan from Wisconsin

Click to expand...

Local TV station looked into that. Turns out the people holding the signs were NOT union people. Labor union hired non-union people to stand by the sign.

Contractors do not have to be union to bid on any project anywhere; however they have to pay union scale to their employees as if they were. I know this from first hand experience.

Buzzman you have the "right to work" for less figured out correctly. It is just a huge hit on the working man or women out there, union or nonunion, and has nothing do do about "freedom of employment" as all the nnalert are claiming. The big money boys have their hands so deep in our elected officials pockets that it is going to get harder and harder to maintain a middle class. I just wish more people could see what the right to work laws really are.

My uncle was put on a job with prevailing wage. By the time he got done contributing to the retirement fund, buying insurances (which he already had through my aunt, who is a school teacher),and several other things, he was taking home almost $2/hr less than if he was on a regular job with his company.

The truth is, if you don't want to work for a company that has a union, don't APPLY for a job at a company that has a union.

And if you already work at a place where the workers vote in a union, and you don't want to join, nobody's holding a gun to your head. You can quit and go to work for one of the many non-union employers out there.

It really is that simple.

The part I don't understand is: If you don't want be in a union you don't have to pay the fees. Fine, but you are still represented by the union, rather than the company. For example, if you have a complaint you take it to the union same as before rather than the company's HR dept.

I don't see how someone can claim to be non-union if the union represents them. I also don't see how the government can require the union to represent someone who does not pay fees.

Now if right to work means, I don't pay fees,the union does not represent me, does not set my pay grade and the company hires and fires. Then I think right to work makes sense to say you don't have to join (be part of) a union. In this case the employe has the option of selecting from the union or the company.

The proponents of the euphemistically named right to work laws have no interest in the rights of workers. But they are very much interested in stemming the tide of union political contributions. Right to work laws are very effective at cutting this money off at its source.

(quoted from post at 15:11:25 03/07/15) Contractors do not have to be union to bid on any project anywhere; however they have to pay union scale to their employees as if they were. I know this from first hand experience.

Click to expand...

You dont know that from first hand experience because its not true. They dont pay union scale, they have to pay prevailing rate (also known as white sheet). Thats just a fancy way of saying the average pay rate for a given area. In many areas, because most jobs are done by union contractors, the prevailing rate is close to the union wage but not in all areas is that the case. Some area just dont have a strong union presence so the prevailing rate is a lot lower than union rate.

(quoted from post at 20:20:54 03/07/15) The truth is, if you don't want to work for a company that has a union, don't APPLY for a job at a company that has a union.

And if you already work at a place where the workers vote in a union, and you don't want to join, nobody's holding a gun to your head. You can quit and go to work for one of the many non-union employers out there.

It really is that simple.

Click to expand...

Here's one for you: Starting tomorrow in Wisconsin, if you want to work someplace, you can. If you want to join the union you can.... but you dont have to. Unlike your vision, a person dont have to up and quit, its so much easier to just keep working if a person wants to. And it aint to complicated, a person dont have to avoid anyplace just because its union. Now, even if its union, apply anyway and if you feel the union is worth it, join. If you feel the union is not worth it, dont join.

NOW, it really is that simple.... starting tomorrow that is.

And?
I take it you didn't have an issue with unions confiscating dues from nnalert members and giving it to nnalert candidates?
And I suppose you didn't mind muzzling corporations but not giant unions as was settled by the Citizens United case at SCOTUS?
Those high handed tactics that were practiced by the left - for many, many years - are finally being abolished. And now that you have to play on a level playing field you are crying about it.
I am a scab and proud of it. But I know that Unions have done and still do a lot of good in this country.
But politically they have played by some very unfair rules and downright thuggery.
It's time to clean up their act.

Right to work laws have nothing to do with working for less. It is all about shutting down the money printing operations of the nnalert Party.

What businessman in his right mind would pay someone more than necessary to get him to work for him? Take that thought back to pre-union and ask yourself where would the average worker be now? Henry Ford only upped his workers wages because he felt he [i:a01e84f785]had[/i:a01e84f785] to. Do you think Buffet would pay anyone more that $10/hr if he didn't have to (or $5, or $2 for that matter)? He's an admired and astute businessman.

Ok, unions are definitely not perfect but on the other hand politicians of today seem to score about 95% on the 'evil' scale - unions maybe 50%. Meaning time may be better spent prioritizing our concerns.

All of this may not play out in our lifetimes but if it keeps going, sooner or later, your children/grandchildren will have the same standard of living as an average Chinese or Zimbabwean, and will be working for the upper class elite of China and Zimbabwe.

Whether or not I agree with unions spending dues in support of positions with which their rank and file members disagree (I don't) doesn't change the facts. Proponents of right to work laws are not in the least bit motivated by the interests of non-union works.

And by the way, I agree with John McCain that the Citizens United decision was a travesty of justice.

(quoted from post at 19:14:24 03/08/15) Whether or not I agree with unions spending dues in support of positions with which their rank and file members disagree (I don't) doesn't change the facts.

Click to expand...

Thats not surprising at all other than the fact that you have tried denying being a flaming abundant in the past and are now admitting it.

(quoted from post at 19:14:24 03/08/15)Proponents of right to work laws are not in the least bit motivated by the interests of non-union works.

Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. Since RTW has been talked about here in WI, I have heard a million reasons that people support it. Its not black and white like you claim. Although I do understand Alinski tells you to define your opponent, real life dont work that way. If you want to set up strawmen, thats fine but it dont make it true...

(quoted from post at 10:33:55 03/07/15) In Indiana, a contractor isn't required to pay 'prevailing wage" on a job done for an individual or a corporation.

That only applies to work done for the government.

So contractors can pay their employees whatever the employees agree to work for, subject to state and federal minimum wage and overtime provisions.

HOWEVER...the best workers will seek out the companies that pay them what they're worth. So a contractor paying at or just above minimum wage will generally NOT have the most skilled people working for him.

And employees have ALWAYS had the right to work at non-union jobs. If they don't want to work for a union employer, they simply don't apply for work at an employer that has a union. It really is that simple. At a union employer, there are contractual terms that affect how, when, and why an employee can be terminated. At a non-union employer in an "at-will" state, you can be fired for ANY reason...or for NO reason. So these "right-to-work" laws, in MY view, are about killing unions, and NOT about anyone's "right" to work at a non-union employer. It's a misnomer.

Click to expand...

Buzz, you are incorrect. MN back in the early 70's law was if it's a union shop they could refuse to hire you or let you go if you didn't join the union. I know. I applied for work at a place that refused to hire anyone not willing to join the union. I also remember when MN became a right to work state.

Rick

Hey Rich, a "million reasons" don't buy votes in the state legislature. Campaign contributions do.

(quoted from post at 05:30:46 03/09/15) Hey Rich, a "million reasons" don't buy votes in the state legislature. Campaign contributions do.

Click to expand...

Actually they do Mark and you just seen the results today. Remember, your "campaign contributions" theory cuts both ways. If people were against the bill like you wish they were, that would translate to money and the bill would have been voted down, and you seen how it turned out, didnt you Mark?