Writerbuckeye;859845 wrote:I don't understand why states like Ohio don't try to become at-will states so it won't matter if unions are there. People can then decide for themselves if they want to support the unions without being coerced into paying dues even if they're opposed.

Ohio is too far north. Remember...we "won" the Civil War.

Writerbuckeye;859845 wrote:I don't understand why states like Ohio don't try to become at-will states so it won't matter if unions are there. People can then decide for themselves if they want to support the unions without being coerced into paying dues even if they're opposed.

Like the South, where the non-us car companies set up shop. It is crazy that the North would not want these kind of companies moving in. Toyota, BMW, Subaru, HondaJet, etc.

Ohio is an "at will" state. Are you thinking of "right to work"?

queencitybuckeye;862662 wrote:Ohio is an "at will" state. Are you thinking of "right to work"?

Yup. That is what I meant.

^^^ This is correct.

There is the concept right to work, and those that aren't (you can use whatever term for that). Regardless of the term those that aren't are still at-will states. At-will means that unless you have an employment contract that dictates the terms of your release (whether it is personal or via collecting bargaining) your employment can end for any or no reason - by either side. The concept of right to work which is more prevalent in southern states is that if you have a collective bargaining agreement you cannot be prevented from employment for failing to agree to said agreement, i.e. you can't be forced to join the union or pay dues.

Ugh...I knew better. I guess I was a bit out of it when I posted that.

I obviously meant right to work, based on what I wrote, but had switched the names in my head.

Getting older sucks canal water.