<p>“A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a Right to Work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be”</p>
<p>??? Rtowork laws ban union shops - they prevent a union and employer from signing a contract that makes union membership a condition of employment. They do not prevent the employer from firing you cause he doesnt like the cut of your jib. Thats an example of a VERY narrow limit on employment at will.</p>
<p>Hunt- but you asked the queston: Don’t people who support the OCR letter think there should be a lot more punishments than there are? Isn’t that the very reason that you’d want to go to a more lenient standard of proof?
I don’t think a more lenient standard of proof leads to “a lot more punishments.” I agree it sounds like it could. But, the DCL does not change the manner in which the decisions are considered: subjective, in the context of college behaviors. The committee is being given a lower standard, not told what consitutes preponderance in the committee’s eyes. Eg, the committee could say being seen drunk 4 hours earlier was insufficient. (Or, that two phone calls is insufficient to prove harassment and a “hostile climate.”) There is still no consistency in how the actual college decisions are made, no matter what the bar.</p>
<p>** we’re talking about where there is no tangible proof- no letters, recordings, perhaps no witnesses, etc.</p>
<p>Hmmmm as I remember Right to Hire and Right to Work back in the 60s had no meaning connected to unions so either the meaning has changed or I’m “mis-remembering.” I remember it as only referencing whether you had recourse if you were let go or if the employer had the right to fire at will. Thanks for the clarification.</p>
<p>“One last thing, I’m used to the expressions “right to work” (meaning more protection for the worker” and “right to hire” (meaning more protection for the empoyer). I thought that some states (including Washington) were still right to work or has that all changed now? "</p>
<p>The supporters of right to work claim its more protection for the worker - more protection from them evil union bosses. </p>
<p>"The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, established in 1968, is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by abuses of compulsory unionism. "</p>
<p>Getting off topic here so I’ll make this quick. Being one of the first women admitted to the union in my field back then I was proud of my membership and am at a loss to remember any “abuses” connected to my union membership. Yeah, I had to pay union dues but I was also finally getting paid a very substantial wage and getting benefits. If it weren’t for unions, IMO, we’d all still be working 7 days a week, 10 hours or more a day.</p>
<p>I think though perhaps I had the terminology mixed up because I thought it was under “right to work” laws that a woman I knew years ago became on the first to successful sue a company for equal pay/equal work. I guess my memory’s going. I’ll stay on topic now.</p>
<p>That may be true, but now things have gone to the other extreme, where unions are often a very destructive influence in our economy. This in turn hurts job prospects for union workers as well non-union ones. It can no longer be easily argued that unions benefit the worker. Sometimes yes, but often no.</p>
<p>It makes sense to view how businesses handle harassment complaints. Colleges are businesses. It is not a stretch. Businesses have very firm plans, even if they are don’t necessarily show up in handbooks about how they handle complaints. They have the obligation to protect the accuser, protect the business and to ascertain what to do with the accused. Businesses and colleges have to proceed cautiously and they have to document, they have to protect the involved parties and they have to protect themselves from lawsuits. </p>
<p>The ND link from that college is a very good prototype and follows a similar path to what a business would do. Anyone, college student or employee, who thinks they will walk in and 24 hours later someone will be gone is probably mistaken. If someone is gone in 24 hours there is a good chance there is an actual criminal potential prosecution lurking behind the scenes. Filing a Title IX complaint is an alternative in cases they could potentially be construed as criminal in my opinion and colleges and businesses will be cautious rather than swift and hammer down. There could potentially be “more punishments” but I’m not sure that is a valid metric especially if the punishment is moving the accuser or the accused to a different dorm.</p>
<p>With some trepidation about resurrecting this thread, I thought you all might be interested in this nearly eight year old letter from the DC regional OCR office (“Metro”) to Georgetown U. on the issue of preponderance of evidence in sexual harassment complaints. </p>
<p>“That may be true, but now things have gone to the other extreme,”</p>
<p>Union membership as a percent of the work force has been declining for decades, and unions that do still exist have been making concessions for some time. Maybe in 1955 or 1960 we were at the other extreme, but not now. </p>
<p>The decline of unionism is one of the things we have to thank for the increased inequality of incomes in the USA. </p>
<p>There is also no “forced unionism” in the USA. Union shops where you are required to join a union are illegal. In non right to work states, agency shops are legal - you may be required to pay dues, but you do not have to join the union.</p>
<p>For all those parents who insist that their sons would never do anything approaching sexual impropriety:
You should see what is considered ‘dancing’ at a party today. It involves grinding at the very least, and often a few extra bases. </p>
<p>To my utter bewilderment (I’m a straight male, btw), it’s common convention at parties for a guy to simply come up behind a girl and start ‘dancing’ without even asking her. Typically, if a girl isn’t interested, she simply moves away. However, this may be difficult for a girl who is significantly smaller than her suitor, especially in a jam-packed room with ear-blasting dance beats. It just boggles my mind that it’s standard practise for this sort of blatantly conduct to occur without so much as a word exchanged.<br>
Personally, I just don’t feel right doing that sort of thing without even talking to a girl, so I always ask (and receive permission) before dancing with her or, um, advancing a runner. But for whatever reason, this seems to be unusual behaviour, and the usual behaviour doesn’t seem to meet much outward objection from the girls… </p>
<p>Point is that this sort of behaviour is very common, and it’s quite possible that your sons participate in it, even if you think you raised them better, and even if they genuinely do have an appropriate respect for women. I’m willing to bet that in any given 30-second interval at a typical frat party in full swing, at least a dozen acts occur which could be subject to disciplinary action if prosecuted. That’s just the way we are these days, I guess.</p>
<p>In California, it is against the law for underaged girls (<18) to have sex. An 18 year old guy could be prosecuted for having consensual sex with a 17 year old girl. It’s a law that is selectively applied and, consequently, subject to great abuse. My point is that if the govt wanted to micromanage all sexual exchanges between people, they could probably fill our prisons many times over. We need to exercise some common sense in the application of laws to sexual behavior which may be inappropriate or offensive, but hardly a crime.</p>
<p>IBfootballer: I’m really curious as to why you think this is the way kids are generally behaving these days?</p>
<p>Re: unions and this comment
“That may be true, but now things have gone to the other extreme,”</p>
<p>I refrained from responding to this comment because we are off topic. However in support of brooklyndad’s response I will add just this information. I would like to point out that upper level incomes appear to have increased in similar manner as CEO.</p>
<p>Statistically and realistically while we each hope otherwise, most of our kids will probably fall closer to the “average” category during their working lives.</p>
<p>In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker. this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989.
In 1970, CEO salary and bonus packages were typically about $700,000 - 25 times the average production worker salary
In 1978 CEO salary grew to 35% more
In 1989 to 71% more.
In 2000, CEO salaries had jumped to almost $2.2 million on average, 90 times the average salary of a worker, according to a 2004 study on CEO pay by Kevin J. Murphy and Jan Zabojnik.
In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.
Last year, 2010 the average CEO earned 343% more than the average employee.</p>
<p>U.S. corporate profits surged 87 percent from the third quarter of 2001 to the end of 2003, while wages and salaries grew only 4.5 percent.</p>
<p>I don’t have exact figures for corporate profits compared to wages and salaries for 2010 but I think we can all assume they are reflective of 2001-2003.</p>
<p>To everyone on who dares suggest that only young men of questionable upbringing would find themselves in this situation, shame on you!</p>
<p>I am Caleb’s mother, a high school teacher, leader in my profession, my church and my community. Caleb’s upbring had nothing to do with this case. Any person could find themselves in this situation. I am appalled by the constant assumption of guilt in these cases. No crime is okay. Sexual assualt is most definately not okay, but neither is accusing someone of a felony in order to cover your whereabouts to your boyfriend. It is not okay to have a few people as collateral damage in order to err on the side of protecting other victimes. There are reasons why due process laws exist. It is unfortunate that universities are not compelled to follow a different process when a student has been accused of a felony.</p>
<p>The damages of this young woman’s decision go far beyond my son’s very real life-long consequences. Her lies have planted seeds of doubt in the minds of many people, making it so much more difficult for actual victims of assault to find justice. Her lies have muddied the water for real victims. Shame on her. Because the charge against her is for a misdemeanor she can live her life freely, without ever facing prosecution, as long as she is not found and identified in North Dakota by North Dakota law enforcement. Wow!</p>