If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Detroit Free Press)   11AM: Michigan Republicans introduce right-to-work legislation. 9PM: After locking Capitol doors, bill forced through lame-duck sessions of both state houses. Bonus: "right to work" classified as appropriations, so voters can't overturn it   (freep.com) divider line 265
    More: Asinine, capitols, Lansing, Michigan, Republican, appropriations, legislation, union shops, Senate passed  
•       •       •

2708 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Dec 2012 at 11:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



265 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-07 08:58:41 AM
Bonus: "right to work" classified as appropriations, so voters can't overturn it

Here we have an astonishing number of "emergency" laws, which go into effect immediately and are not subject to referendum.  The courts have said the governor is allowed to veto individual non-appropriation measures improperly joined in the annual budget which is supposed to be for approproations only.
 
2012-12-07 09:09:01 AM
While I'm no fan of the GOP, I find it rather amusing that State Democrats are beside themselves especially since the unions tried to pass a referendum to the state constitution that would essentially made collective bargaining mandatory.

From what I've read the reason that the doors were locked was due to people throwing things and screaming inside the Capitol building. I've been looking for video.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-07 09:22:35 AM
I like how they call it "right to work" like it has something to do with a right that relates to working.
 
2012-12-07 09:26:58 AM
I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.
 
2012-12-07 09:27:28 AM

vpb: I like how they call it "right to work" like it has something to do with a right that relates to working.


They have just enough self-awareness to realize that they have to lie to make their ideas appear to be even slightly palatable.
 
2012-12-07 09:28:30 AM

vpb: I like how they call it "right to work" like it has something to do with a right that relates to working.


They're actually calling it "Freedom to work".

Because, freedom. Or something.
 
2012-12-07 09:30:11 AM

slayer199: While I'm no fan of the GOP, I find it rather amusing that State Democrats are beside themselves especially since the unions tried to pass a referendum to the state constitution that would essentially made collective bargaining mandatory.

From what I've read the reason that the doors were locked was due to people throwing things and screaming inside the Capitol building. I've been looking for video.


It didn't make it mandatory. It said people have a constitutional right to collective bargaining. Because they knew what the Koch bros were brewing. Also? It was up for public vote, not done behind locked capitol doors. It lost, so whatever. I just wanted to correct your interpretation.
 
2012-12-07 09:35:32 AM

Ahhh_Ennui: It didn't make it mandatory. It said people have a constitutional right to collective bargaining. Because they knew what the Koch bros were brewing. Also? It was up for public vote, not done behind locked capitol doors. It lost, so whatever. I just wanted to correct your interpretation.


And politicos and pundits alike knew that RTW would be on the table when that lost. Amending the State Constitution to make it a right was a foolish ploy on the part of unions and Democrats.
 
2012-12-07 09:36:53 AM

minoridiot: What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.


Freedom of choice? What country do you think this is?
 
2012-12-07 09:37:10 AM

minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.


Bullshiat. Right to Work would better be described as Divide and Conquer. The initial purpose is to provide a competitive alternative to unions so that workers will voluntarily give up their collective bargaining rights and weaken the unions. What you're seeing now is the end game. If they can break unions in the Rust Belt, then they no longer have to compete with the unions and then they can do whatever they want to the workers. Don't like it? Sorry, you gave up your collective bargaining rights.
 
2012-12-07 09:56:17 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: minoridiot: What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

Freedom of choice? What country do you think this is?


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-07 09:59:39 AM
Democracy!

/no, really, this is good
 
2012-12-07 10:23:29 AM

Mentat: minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

Bullshiat. Right to Work would better be described as Divide and Conquer. The initial purpose is to provide a competitive alternative to unions so that workers will voluntarily give up their collective bargaining rights and weaken the unions. What you're seeing now is the end game. If they can break unions in the Rust Belt, then they no longer have to compete with the unions and then they can do whatever they want to the workers. Don't like it? Sorry, you gave up your collective bargaining rights.


So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.
 
2012-12-07 10:38:46 AM

minoridiot: So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.


Where do you think those laws came from? And why do you think they're still on the books? And why do you think those laws will magically stay on the books if no one fights for them? Look at Wisconsin. Scott Walker is openly and blatantly trying to remove collective bargaining rights. In Wisconsin, we're seeing companies emboldened by Walker who are provoking their employees into striking so that the companies can break their unions and cut workers pay and benefits. Look at what Hostess did to their own workers. Can you honestly say that you have any faith in the law to protect workers rights when so many powerful groups are aligned to deny those rights?

As for the competition aspect, you completely ignored everything that I wrote. The ultimate goal of right-to-work is to remove competition. You provide an attractive alternative to unions in order to divide the workers and weaken the unions, but once the unions are gone, there's no incentive to maintain those high standards. Without the unions serving as a stalwart, companies will simply slash benefits and pay at will. But I guess you can hire a lawyer on your $25K salary and hope that he can outlast the multimillion dollar company's teams of lawyers.
 
2012-12-07 11:00:02 AM

minoridiot: Mentat: minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

Bullshiat. Right to Work would better be described as Divide and Conquer. The initial purpose is to provide a competitive alternative to unions so that workers will voluntarily give up their collective bargaining rights and weaken the unions. What you're seeing now is the end game. If they can break unions in the Rust Belt, then they no longer have to compete with the unions and then they can do whatever they want to the workers. Don't like it? Sorry, you gave up your collective bargaining rights.

So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.



This has nothing to do with collective bargaining. It has everything to do with Union dues going to Democratic campaigns.

Voter ID laws have nothing to do with voter fraud, everything to do with voter suppression.

The Republican party is in its last dying throes. It has admitted that to remain competitive, they have to cheat the system.

That being said, I have no problem with right to work laws (I'm in a union). But if someone decides to not pay dues, they still get all the benefits and rights as a due paying member. I'd say if you don't want to pay union dues, fine... negotiate your own wages and benefits.

If that were to happen, people would come back to the union en masse.
 
2012-12-07 11:25:39 AM
I've been catching bits of this as it unfolded via my twitter feed. apparently the local GOP types are a wee tad bitter about losing to the Democrats and aren't afraid to show it.
 
2012-12-07 11:35:31 AM

Mentat: minoridiot: So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.

Where do you think those laws came from? And why do you think they're still on the books? And why do you think those laws will magically stay on the books if no one fights for them? Look at Wisconsin. Scott Walker is openly and blatantly trying to remove collective bargaining rights. In Wisconsin, we're seeing companies emboldened by Walker who are provoking their employees into striking so that the companies can break their unions and cut workers pay and benefits. Look at what Hostess did to their own workers. Can you honestly say that you have any faith in the law to protect workers rights when so many powerful groups are aligned to deny those rights?

As for the competition aspect, you completely ignored everything that I wrote. The ultimate goal of right-to-work is to remove competition. You provide an attractive alternative to unions in order to divide the workers and weaken the unions, but once the unions are gone, there's no incentive to maintain those high standards. Without the unions serving as a stalwart, companies will simply slash benefits and pay at will. But I guess you can hire a lawyer on your $25K salary and hope that he can outlast the multimillion dollar company's teams of lawyers.


Collective bargaining is covered by Federal Law which is why the Wisconsin law was struck down in court. And the Hostess thing, the Baker's union should share in some of that blame as much as the company.

Unions have done a lot of good in the past, and continue to be a positive benefit for many employees. But it is misleading to claim that to claim that Right to Work laws will eliminate Unions. Unions continue to remain popular in Right to Work states today.

Ultimately, unions should help provide benefits to employees above and beyond what the company in alone can offer. But if the employee is not benefiting from a union membership, why should the employee remain a member?
 
2012-12-07 11:39:19 AM

minoridiot: Mentat: minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

Bullshiat. Right to Work would better be described as Divide and Conquer. The initial purpose is to provide a competitive alternative to unions so that workers will voluntarily give up their collective bargaining rights and weaken the unions. What you're seeing now is the end game. If they can break unions in the Rust Belt, then they no longer have to compete with the unions and then they can do whatever they want to the workers. Don't like it? Sorry, you gave up your collective bargaining rights.

So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.


Ah yes. Employees really do have it so good because they have the backing of government.

Oh. Wait. You're talking about American employees? My god, you're a riot. That's the funniest thing I've heard all morning.
 
2012-12-07 11:40:57 AM

Weaver95: I've been catching bits of this as it unfolded via my twitter feed. apparently the local GOP types are a wee tad bitter about losing to the Democrats and aren't afraid to show it.


Meet the new Michigan : now with less democracy.
 
2012-12-07 11:44:13 AM
Republicans in my state are assholes. Not much more to say about it than that.
 
2012-12-07 11:44:22 AM
Awesome, the party of small government strikes again. This time it inserts itself into the contract between a company and a worker's Union.

Love that party of "fiscal conservatism" and "small government".
 
2012-12-07 11:45:30 AM
The right to work for less money and less benefits. It's the Republican way.

We peons need to understand that we're the ones who have to pay for the avarice of the Wealthy Elite.
 
2012-12-07 11:46:05 AM
Republicans engaging in class warfare? What a shock.
 
2012-12-07 11:46:35 AM

minoridiot: Mentat: minoridiot: So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.

Where do you think those laws came from? And why do you think they're still on the books? And why do you think those laws will magically stay on the books if no one fights for them? Look at Wisconsin. Scott Walker is openly and blatantly trying to remove collective bargaining rights. In Wisconsin, we're seeing companies emboldened by Walker who are provoking their employees into striking so that the companies can break their unions and cut workers pay and benefits. Look at what Hostess did to their own workers. Can you honestly say that you have any faith in the law to protect workers rights when so many powerful groups are aligned to deny those rights?

As for the competition aspect, you completely ignored everything that I wrote. The ultimate goal of right-to-work is to remove competition. You provide an attractive alternative to unions in order to divide the workers and weaken the unions, but once the unions are gone, there's no incentive to maintain those high standards. Without the unions serving as a stalwart, companies will simply slash benefits and pay at will. But I guess you can hire a lawyer on your $25K salary and hope that he can outlast the multimillion dollar company's teams of lawyers.

Collective bargaining is covered by Federal Law which is why the Wisconsin law was struck down in court. And the Hostess thing, the Baker's union should share in some of that blame as much as the company.

Unions have done a lot of good in the past, and continue to be a positive benefit for many employees. But it is misleading to claim that to claim that Right to Work laws will eliminate Unions. Unions continue to remain popular in Right to Work states today.

Ultimately, unions should help provide benefits to employees above and beyond what the company in alone can offer. But if the employee is not benefiting from a union membership, why should the employee remain a member?


If the union is ineffective then the obvious solution is to fix the union.

It's like going to the doctor complaining of a persistent cough. If the doctor shrugs and says that he can't help you, the solution isn't to abandon medicine but merely find a better doctor.

Unions are the only mechanism we have to protect employees prior to legal clarification (which can take years).
 
2012-12-07 11:48:49 AM
www.sourcewatch.org

Well, it looks like the Michigan Republicans have fixed the problem of having the Capitol doors locked.
 
2012-12-07 11:49:06 AM

trotsky: Awesome, the party of small government strikes again. This time it inserts itself into the contract between a company and a worker's Union.

Love that party of "fiscal conservatism" and "small government".


They are small government when it applies to things they feel government needs to stay out of.

But not icky things like gays or women or worker peons.
 
2012-12-07 11:49:16 AM
It's OK with people when the AMA or another professional organization controls the labor and lobbies for it's members. But when the plebes do it it's suddenly baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

The working people in the country have really bamboozled by the bullshiat.
 
2012-12-07 11:49:40 AM

slayer199: And politicos and pundits alike knew that RTW would be on the table when that lost. Amending the State Constitution to make it a right was a foolish ploy on the part of unions and Democrats.


Oh well that makes it okay then.
 
2012-12-07 11:49:51 AM
Why didn't the democrat congress people just run away to another state like their brave Wisconsin compatriots did?
 
2012-12-07 11:49:59 AM

slayer199: Ahhh_Ennui: It didn't make it mandatory. It said people have a constitutional right to collective bargaining. Because they knew what the Koch bros were brewing. Also? It was up for public vote, not done behind locked capitol doors. It lost, so whatever. I just wanted to correct your interpretation.

And politicos and pundits alike knew that RTW would be on the table when that lost. Amending the State Constitution to make it a right was a foolish ploy on the part of unions and Democrats.


I like how you call an open vote foolish but don't spend one second condemning a vote rammed through without a second of public debate and in a locked down building.
 
2012-12-07 11:50:04 AM

minoridiot: I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment.


indeed, with 7 billion people on the planet it is so healthy you can pay someone a dollar a day for hard labor, race to the bottom FTL!
 
2012-12-07 11:51:15 AM
In addition to the "Right to Work" legislation they are pushing through in this lame duck session, they are also pushing through a number of other ugly bills, including one that allows health care providers to refuse coverage based on religious or moral convictions. As a minister, this pisses me off to no end.
 
2012-12-07 11:51:19 AM

PreMortem: If that were to happen, people would come back to the union en masse.


Until the unions get declared illegal. Then what do you do, smart guy?
 
2012-12-07 11:51:24 AM
I think this is a horrible law and people certainly have a right to be upset and voice their opinion, but at the end of the day, when the people vote in Republican majorities in both houses and the head of the executive branch, this isn't unexpected.

Using proocedural tricks like classifying non-budget items as appropriations should probably be challeneged in court though. I've always wondered if maybe we need to start doing upfront judicial review before a bill can be voted on, but I imagine that might lead to complete and utter gridlock.
 
2012-12-07 11:51:25 AM
I see that the law would exempt police and firefighter unions. Didn't a Federal judge put the kibosh on the Wisconsin law that did the same thing?

/something, something...14th
 
2012-12-07 11:52:38 AM

Bontesla: Weaver95: I've been catching bits of this as it unfolded via my twitter feed. apparently the local GOP types are a wee tad bitter about losing to the Democrats and aren't afraid to show it.

Meet the new Michigan : now with less democracy.


granted, i'm not up on all the details around what's happening here but...it seems to me that this situation was not helped by passing legislation behind closed doors. that's not wise, and it needlessly provokes an 'active' response from protesters. if my local GOP kicked everyone out of the capital building, locked the doors and then went into session....I'd suspect they were about to f*ck up royally and do something I wasn't gonna like.
 
2012-12-07 11:53:56 AM

minoridiot: Mentat: minoridiot: So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.

Where do you think those laws came from? And why do you think they're still on the books? And why do you think those laws will magically stay on the books if no one fights for them? Look at Wisconsin. Scott Walker is openly and blatantly trying to remove collective bargaining rights. In Wisconsin, we're seeing companies emboldened by Walker who are provoking their employees into striking so that the companies can break their unions and cut workers pay and benefits. Look at what Hostess did to their own workers. Can you honestly say that you have any faith in the law to protect workers rights when so many powerful groups are aligned to deny those rights?

As for the competition aspect, you completely ignored everything that I wrote. The ultimate goal of right-to-work is to remove competition. You provide an attractive alternative to unions in order to divide the workers and weaken the unions, but once the unions are gone, there's no incentive to maintain those high standards. Without the unions serving as a stalwart, companies will simply slash benefits and pay at will. But I guess you can hire a lawyer on your $25K salary and hope that he can outlast the multimillion dollar company's teams of lawyers.

Collective bargaining is covered by Federal Law which is why the Wisconsin law was struck down in court. And the Hostess thing, the Baker's union should share i ...


Union membership in America is at it's lowest point since the 1930s.

"Another factor that has pushed down unionization, he said, is that companies have grown more ideologically opposed to unions and more aggressive about resisting organizing drives."
 
2012-12-07 11:54:17 AM

cabbyman: Why didn't the democrat congress people just run away to another state like their brave Wisconsin compatriots did?


Seeing as the Michigan Republicans have been willing to simply ignore headcount and declare supermajorities that do not exist, the hell does it matter? They took the place in a goddamned coup d'etat and this is the vindictive fark-you they're giving the people of Michigan on their way out.
 
2012-12-07 11:55:08 AM
Now that Detroit is profitable again -Republicans either want to:

1) Claim responsibility for it
-or-
2) Shut it down
 
2012-12-07 11:56:01 AM
yes, it was those evil unions that created derivatives trading and mortgage backed securities, and gave out trillions in loans without verifying anything. Damn unions! And poor people!
 
2012-12-07 11:58:00 AM

pacified: yes, it was those evil unions that created derivatives trading and mortgage backed securities, and gave out trillions in loans without verifying anything. Damn unions! And poor people!


And paid out multiple millions in salary and bonuses to the executives of Hostess while blaming the failure of the company on the bakers union that they were demanding take a paycut. Oh those greedy laborers!
 
2012-12-07 11:58:11 AM

Ahhh_Ennui: slayer199: While I'm no fan of the GOP, I find it rather amusing that State Democrats are beside themselves especially since the unions tried to pass a referendum to the state constitution that would essentially made collective bargaining mandatory.

From what I've read the reason that the doors were locked was due to people throwing things and screaming inside the Capitol building. I've been looking for video.

It didn't make it mandatory. It said people have a constitutional right to collective bargaining. Because they knew what the Koch bros were brewing. Also? It was up for public vote, not done behind locked capitol doors. It lost, so whatever. I just wanted to correct your interpretation.


Don't we have Freedom of Association already?

Can't ban unions, but can't force you to join one either.

//Yeah, my interpretation isn't exactly one backed up by case law, is it?
 
2012-12-07 11:59:30 AM
We have got to get rid of Snyder.
He'll go down for this. I hope.
 
2012-12-07 12:00:52 PM

minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.


Even in a non-right-to-work state, employees have freedom of choice whether to join a union or not. Even in closed shops, nobody forces anyone to work a union job. Don't want to join the union? Go work at Wal-Mart or McDonald's where you'll be treated exactly as you want.
 
2012-12-07 12:01:55 PM

meat0918: Can't ban unions, but can't force you to join one either.


Given that right-to-work bans closed/union shops, that's what right-to-work is. As far as I can tell, right-to-work doesn't ban unions.
 
2012-12-07 12:02:17 PM

meat0918: Can't ban unions, but can't force you to join one either.


Nobody in America is ever "forced" to join a union, right-to-work, or not. There are plenty of non-union jobs to work, even in non-right-to-work states.
 
2012-12-07 12:03:43 PM

meyerkev: meat0918: Can't ban unions, but can't force you to join one either.

Given that right-to-work bans closed/union shops, that's what right-to-work is. As far as I can tell, right-to-work doesn't ban unions.


Right. So in reality, they deprive workers of the choice to bargain for closed shops. They are anti-freedom of choice.
 
2012-12-07 12:04:29 PM

Bontesla: Meet the new Michigan : now with less democracy.


As someone that actively dislikes both parties, I find these types of comments nonsensical and amusing coming from either side. Basically it amounts to one side whining about the other side taking advantage of their majority. Guess what? The democratically elected leadership gets to make the laws. The GOP has the state house, senate, state Supreme Court, and the governorship.

When HCRA was passed, the rallying cry was "Elections have consequences!" It was not popular with a majority of the population but it was rushed through as well (to much GOP whining and dismay).

To get back on topic, this isn't going to be the boon to business that the GOP claims it will be...nor will it be the end of western civilization the way the Democrats/Unions claim either. I pulled a lot of stats from the bls.gov website last night which bears that out (unfortunately I left the spreadsheet on my home computer).
 
2012-12-07 12:04:41 PM
Remember who the real unelected power brokers are in Michigan...the DeVos family...hard core Republican AND hard core evangelical. They made their fortune by creating the original pyramid scam/scheme (Amway) and are very influential in state politics. This and the other bills that are trying to be snuck through the lame duck session have their fingerprints all over them.

Follow the money....
 
2012-12-07 12:05:37 PM
From 1973 to 2007, private sector union membership in the United States declined from 34 to 8 percent for men and from 16 to 6 percent for women. During this period, inequality in hourly wages increased by over 40 percent. We report a decomposition, relating rising inequality to the union wage distribution's shrinking weight. We argue that unions helped institutionalize norms of equity, reducing the dispersion of nonunion wages in highly unionized regions and industries. Accounting for unions' effect on union and nonunion wages suggests that the decline of organized labor explains a fifth to a third of the growth in inequality-an effect comparable to the growing stratification of wages by education. Link
 
2012-12-07 12:05:52 PM

slayer199: As someone that actively dislikes both parties


Both sides are bad, never blame Republicans.
 
2012-12-07 12:06:06 PM

Carn: And paid out multiple millions in salary and bonuses to the executives of Hostess while blaming the failure of the company on the bakers union that they were demanding take a paycut. Oh those greedy laborers!


There's no excuse for the Hostess leadership...then again, the unions passed on a 25% stake in the company and 2 seats on the Board so they're not innocent either.
 
2012-12-07 12:06:28 PM

Baz744: meat0918: Can't ban unions, but can't force you to join one either.

Nobody in America is ever "forced" to join a union, right-to-work, or not. There are plenty of non-union jobs to work, even in non-right-to-work states.


I don't really understand why you would want to risk lower pay and worse benefits and lessened protection against employer abuses by not joining a union.

Why do we have such a love hate relationship with unions anyways? Besides the whole "OMG socialist!" thing?
 
2012-12-07 12:06:48 PM
When a lame duck legislation locks the doors and starts to pass "appropriation bills" they are not acting in the interests of the people.
 
2012-12-07 12:08:22 PM

minoridiot: But if the employee is not benefiting from a union membership, why should the employee remain a member?


When I was a teenager, I worked part-time for a retail store that was a closed-shop represented by the Teamsters. The union was able to negotiate my position's pay to 75¢ over minimum wage.

The first problem was that union dues were the same for people working part time or full time. The second problem was that the Teamster's dues were excessive - my dad and I compared dues, and his aerospace engineering union charged him less than half the dues the Teamsters charged me, even though my dad made 10× my salary.

If I ended up with 16 hour weeks as opposed to 20 hour weeks, my union dues actually drove my pay back down to near minimum wage levels.


/not anti-union
//but the Teamsters can burn in hell with Hoffa
 
2012-12-07 12:09:23 PM

slayer199: nor will it be the end of western civilization the way the Democrats/Unions claim either.


Nobody is claiming right-to-work is the end of western civilization. They are claiming it will drive down worker wages and undermine worker rights. Which it will.
 
2012-12-07 12:11:17 PM

vpb: "I like how they call it "right to work" like it has something to do with a right that relates to working."



"A right-to-work law is a statute in the United States of America that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring."

Yes, it very much DOES have to do with a right that relates to working. Right-to-work protects my right to trade my labor for money without having to enter into a forced contract with a third-party political entity (and yes, it is political) that does not employ me.

Further, this directly protects my right to work in cases where a union that I would otherwise be forced to join declares a strike, and would -- if I were a member of it -- contractually forbid me from making a living.
 
2012-12-07 12:11:25 PM

error 303: when the people vote in Republican majorities in both houses and the head of the executive branch, this isn't unexpected.


This. What did you think would happen if you put a GOP Governor and a GOP legislature in charge of a traditionally blue state? Why are you surprised when they start moving against their political opponents once in power? This story is repeated in several states - Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania - and the only objective is to weaken the Democrats electorally by limiting the abilities of pro-Democratic outside groups to contribute and advocate for candidates, gerrymandering Congressional districts to guarantee Republican control of the House, or splitting electoral votes.
 
2012-12-07 12:12:46 PM

GAT_00: Both sides are bad, never blame Republicans.


GAT, you're so small-minded that there's only the Democrats and everything else is wrong. I know it's hard for you to understand but on some issues I may agree with the GOP and on some with the Democrats. That I may side with the GOP on this issue does NOT mean I like the GOP (on the contrary, I really dislike them more than the Democrats because they've learned nothing from the national election and continue on their religious right path).

Apparently you don't read any threads where I've attacked the GOP for their foreign policy, the War on Drugs, the anti-gay bs, the religious nutbaggery, abuse of police powers, etc. But feel free to try to paint me as sympathetic to the GOP overall if it helps you sleep at night.
 
2012-12-07 12:12:49 PM
I'm not in a Union and I get paid great with good benefits. No pointless Union dues.

Suckers!
 
2012-12-07 12:13:54 PM

spmkk: Yes, it very much DOES have to do with a right that relates to working. Right-to-work protects my right to trade my labor for money without having to enter into a forced contract with a third-party political entity (and yes, it is political) that does not employ me.


Is someone forcing you to accept a job under those conditions? Are you prevented for working someplace else that does not have those requirements?
 
2012-12-07 12:14:33 PM

slayer199: GAT_00: Both sides are bad, never blame Republicans.

GAT, you're so small-minded that there's only the Democrats and everything else is wrong. I know it's hard for you to understand but on some issues I may agree with the GOP and on some with the Democrats. That I may side with the GOP on this issue does NOT mean I like the GOP (on the contrary, I really dislike them more than the Democrats because they've learned nothing from the national election and continue on their religious right path).

Apparently you don't read any threads where I've attacked the GOP for their foreign policy, the War on Drugs, the anti-gay bs, the religious nutbaggery, abuse of police powers, etc. But feel free to try to paint me as sympathetic to the GOP overall if it helps you sleep at night.


Funny, I've never seen you side against the Republicans or with the Democrats. You can claim you're independent all you want, but your words speak for themselves.
 
2012-12-07 12:15:15 PM

slayer199: Bontesla: Meet the new Michigan : now with less democracy.

As someone that actively dislikes both parties, I find these types of comments nonsensical and amusing coming from either side. Basically it amounts to one side whining about the other side taking advantage of their majority. Guess what? The democratically elected leadership gets to make the laws. The GOP has the state house, senate, state Supreme Court, and the governorship.

When HCRA was passed, the rallying cry was "Elections have consequences!" It was not popular with a majority of the population but it was rushed through as well (to much GOP whining and dismay).

To get back on topic, this isn't going to be the boon to business that the GOP claims it will be...nor will it be the end of western civilization the way the Democrats/Unions claim either. I pulled a lot of stats from the bls.gov website last night which bears that out (unfortunately I left the spreadsheet on my home computer).


Please. You should know that we're not a truly Democratic society so pretending that Democracy explains why the elected officials enact laws that the majority of residents tend to oppose is a bit silly.

Further, any degree of Democracy we enjoyed is being eroded by things like the reduced educational funding, voter ID laws, gerrymandering, and the ability to purchase more "speech" politically merely by being wealthier.

This isn't about a fair process that results in unpopular decision making. This is about the erosion of fairness.
 
2012-12-07 12:16:16 PM

slayer199: Apparently you don't read any threads where I've attacked the GOP for their foreign policy, the War on Drugs, the anti-gay bs, the religious nutbaggery, abuse of police powers, etc. But feel free to try to paint me as sympathetic to the GOP overall if it helps you sleep at night.


in the guy's defense it appears like you are comparing the way this was passed with the way the health care law was passed as similar, something you might expect a fark independent to do to proclaim both sides are bad using false equivalency.
 
2012-12-07 12:16:20 PM
Right wingers;
Can you explain to me why there's an exemption for police and fire fighters?
 
2012-12-07 12:17:55 PM

red5ish: When a lame duck legislation locks the doors and starts to pass "appropriation bills" they are not acting in the interests of the people.


it seems to be needlessly antagonistic. are they TRYING to kick off a riot?!
 
2012-12-07 12:18:24 PM
This is what you get for siding with the AFL.

My sympathy is gone.
 
2012-12-07 12:18:25 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: spmkk: Yes, it very much DOES have to do with a right that relates to working. Right-to-work protects my right to trade my labor for money without having to enter into a forced contract with a third-party political entity (and yes, it is political) that does not employ me.

Is someone forcing you to accept a job under those conditions? Are you prevented for working someplace else that does not have those requirements?


On flip side, what prevents you from moving to a non-right-to-work state or joining the union? If the pay is too low because it is non-union, what is forcing you from finding another company or higher paying union job?

Having a right to work state gives the employee more choices, IMO. While I don't think the legislature went about it correctly, I agree with the outcome.
 
2012-12-07 12:18:55 PM

meyerkev: meat0918: Can't ban unions, but can't force you to join one either.

Given that right-to-work bans closed/union shops, that's what right-to-work is. As far as I can tell, right-to-work doesn't ban unions.


It's economic warfare against unions, breaking them by denying them membership dues.
 
2012-12-07 12:18:56 PM

Weaver95: red5ish: When a lame duck legislation locks the doors and starts to pass "appropriation bills" they are not acting in the interests of the people.

it seems to be needlessly antagonistic. are they TRYING to kick off a riot?!


No. They know that not enough people care enough to riot.
 
2012-12-07 12:19:17 PM
This is why the GOP won't win in 2014 or 2016... they're clinging to their last vestiges of power and doing their best to usurp the will of the people... this isn't something you can campaign on. They hate unions, they hate working people... they hate the working poor, they hate this group and that group... they legislate that hate with what little power they have left... and soon when even that power is taken away from them, they'll hate all the people who do it. Hate is what they have filled their abject lack of leadership ability with.
 
2012-12-07 12:20:14 PM

qorkfiend: Weaver95: red5ish: When a lame duck legislation locks the doors and starts to pass "appropriation bills" they are not acting in the interests of the people.

it seems to be needlessly antagonistic. are they TRYING to kick off a riot?!

No. They know that not enough people care enough to riot.


you can start a riot with about 200 people.
 
2012-12-07 12:21:07 PM

firefly212: This is why the GOP won't win in 2014 or 2016... they're clinging to their last vestiges of power and doing their best to usurp the will of the people... this isn't something you can campaign on. They hate unions, they hate working people... they hate the working poor, they hate this group and that group... they legislate that hate with what little power they have left... and soon when even that power is taken away from them, they'll hate all the people who do it. Hate is what they have filled their abject lack of leadership ability with.


We need the exact opposite of 2010 to happen, though. The reason all these assbags ended up in power is because Democrats and liberals sat at home on Election Day; this cannot happen again.
 
2012-12-07 12:21:35 PM

spmkk: vpb: "I like how they call it "right to work" like it has something to do with a right that relates to working."


"A right-to-work law is a statute in the United States of America that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring."

Yes, it very much DOES have to do with a right that relates to working. Right-to-work protects my right to trade my labor for money without having to enter into a forced contract with a third-party political entity (and yes, it is political) that does not employ me.

Further, this directly protects my right to work in cases where a union that I would otherwise be forced to join declares a strike, and would -- if I were a member of it -- contractually forbid me from making a living.


RTW states are very appealing to employees at the beginning of a relationship because employers do like the appearance that they're competing with unions. However, there are perks like termination procedures that offer more protection to employees when there's a union involved. Hence, new employees think they're getting comparable opportunities but one will cost them union dues while the other won't. This is intentional.
 
2012-12-07 12:21:41 PM

joness0154: Having a right to work state gives the employee more choices, IMO.


Objectively, right-to-work deprives the employee of choices, since it bans the freedom within that jurisdiction to work a closed shop job. Closed shops do not require workers to leave the jurisdiction to find employment on terms they agree with. Right-to-work does.
 
2012-12-07 12:21:41 PM
Right to work is not the end of the world, I live in a right to work state and it's just fine. However, I don't think the right to work laws are appropriate for every state because the industries each state depends on are different. States that depend more on blue collar jobs are going to be affected more drastically than states with more white collar jobs. Right to work might be appropriate in California or Massachusetts but not so much in Ohio or Michigan.
 
2012-12-07 12:23:08 PM

joness0154: Philip Francis Queeg: spmkk: Yes, it very much DOES have to do with a right that relates to working. Right-to-work protects my right to trade my labor for money without having to enter into a forced contract with a third-party political entity (and yes, it is political) that does not employ me.

Is someone forcing you to accept a job under those conditions? Are you prevented for working someplace else that does not have those requirements?

On flip side, what prevents you from moving to a non-right-to-work state or joining the union? If the pay is too low because it is non-union, what is forcing you from finding another company or higher paying union job?

Having a right to work state gives the employee more choices, IMO. While I don't think the legislature went about it correctly, I agree with the outcome.


It doesn't give the employee a single additional choice. They employee always has the choice of seeking non-union employment. This only limits the employees right to negotiate a certain type of contractual agreement with their employer.
 
2012-12-07 12:24:54 PM

spmkk: where a union that I would otherwise be forced to join


You will never be forced to join a union, even in a non-right-to-work state. However, in a right-to-work state, you will have the government forcibly deprive you of the freedom to work a closed shop job.
 
2012-12-07 12:25:50 PM

Weaver95: red5ish: When a lame duck legislation locks the doors and starts to pass "appropriation bills" they are not acting in the interests of the people.

it seems to be needlessly antagonistic. are they TRYING to kick off a riot?!


They are not doing it to be antagonistic, they are doing it because they are trying to get away with passing legislation that serves the special interests that bankroll them. This type of behavior is why businesses have security walk employees out of the building after they've been laid off.
 
2012-12-07 12:26:24 PM

minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.


You've put your finger on why RTW laws are opposed: giving people a choice is the last thing a union wants. If it wants to keep collecting dues, it has to provide something workers want and are willing to pay for, not just upend them and shake the money out of their pockets, and apparently that's a tough sell.
 
2012-12-07 12:28:06 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: joness0154: Philip Francis Queeg: spmkk: Yes, it very much DOES have to do with a right that relates to working. Right-to-work protects my right to trade my labor for money without having to enter into a forced contract with a third-party political entity (and yes, it is political) that does not employ me.

Is someone forcing you to accept a job under those conditions? Are you prevented for working someplace else that does not have those requirements?

On flip side, what prevents you from moving to a non-right-to-work state or joining the union? If the pay is too low because it is non-union, what is forcing you from finding another company or higher paying union job?

Having a right to work state gives the employee more choices, IMO. While I don't think the legislature went about it correctly, I agree with the outcome.

It doesn't give the employee a single additional choice. They employee always has the choice of seeking non-union employment. This only limits the employees right to negotiate a certain type of contractual agreement with their employer.


Conversely, in a right-to-work state, the employee always has the choice of seeking union employment. An employee, even in a non-union job believe it or not, can always negotiate a contractual agreement with their employee. I have one and I'm a non-union employee. If I don't like it, I am free to leave and find another job (union or not) under terms that I agree with.

The unions that provide good benefits for their employees will survive this. This may force the crappy ones to actually provide a benefit to their membership to stay alive...as it should be.
 
2012-12-07 12:28:07 PM

jjorsett: You've put your finger on why RTW laws are opposed: giving people a choice is the last thing a union wants.


They want workers to have the freedom to negotiate a closed shop. You, by contrast, want to use government force to dictate to them that they cannot. The last thing you want is to give workers freedom of choice.
 
2012-12-07 12:28:41 PM

slayer199: While I'm no fan of the GOP, I find it rather amusing that State Democrats are beside themselves especially since the unions tried to pass a referendum to the state constitution that would essentially made collective bargaining mandatory.

From what I've read the reason that the doors were locked was due to people throwing things and screaming inside the Capitol building. I've been looking for video.


Yup. Unions started this fight with two of the props on this year's ballot. The SEIU powergrab in the form of a state constitutional amendment was just disgusting and likely resulted in this blow back. This isn't even that bad of a right to work law as far as I can tell. I've only had to time to parse some of it, but basically it is "You don't have the join the union." Poor unions, now they'll actually have to provide a service the workers feel is worth paying for.

I find it amusing to see the union get a smack on the nose after their ballot proposals from Nov.
 
2012-12-07 12:28:43 PM

qorkfiend: error 303: when the people vote in Republican majorities in both houses and the head of the executive branch, this isn't unexpected.

This. What did you think would happen if you put a GOP Governor and a GOP legislature in charge of a traditionally blue state? Why are you surprised when they start moving against their political opponents once in power? This story is repeated in several states - Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania - and the only objective is to weaken the Democrats electorally by limiting the abilities of pro-Democratic outside groups to contribute and advocate for candidates, gerrymandering Congressional districts to guarantee Republican control of the House, or splitting electoral votes.


MI got a Republican legislature because Detroit is about 85% Democrat, while the rest of the state is about 55% Republican, which means that it totals Democrat, but aggregates Republican (if that makes any sense). And gerrymandering doesn't help.

MI got a Republican governor because:
A) Kwame was a big issue. Every time the rest of the state hears about Detroit, corruption thereof, fiscal doom thereof, crime thereof, etc., Republicans get extra votes.
B) The Democratic candidate was a slimy, corrupt thug (or at least that's the perception I had as a first-time voter).
C) Rick Snyder was a smart, energetic businessman with private sector experience from the Detroit suburbs who wasn't owned by Amway, and wasn't a social nutter.
D) The economy sucked in 2010, and the Democrats were incumbents. Not Granholm's fault (to an extent greater than other governors for the last 30 years anyways), just bad timing.
E/D2) The auto companies had just collapsed, the unions were getting splattered with a surprisingly large portion of the blame, and the jobs bank (where a "fired" employee got paid 90+% of their salary to sit on their behind all day) played surprisingly poorly amongst a certain working-class section of the electorate. So auto collapse was probably a net negative for Democrats (at the time, for that election).
 
2012-12-07 12:28:46 PM

spmkk: Yes, it very much DOES have to do with a right that relates to working. Right-to-work protects my right to trade my labor for money without having to enter into a forced contract with a third-party political entity (and yes, it is political) that does not employ me.

Further, this directly protects my right to work in cases where a union that I would otherwise be forced to join declares a strike, and would -- if I were a member of it -- contractually forbid me from making a living.


This, if anything, is an unintended consequence of a law designed to break unions.
First of all, get over yourself. Your labor is not vastly more valuable than your peers.
Second of all, by yourself you have far, far, far less leverage against an organized entity like a corporation. You're only doing yourself a disservice by removing yourself from the only support you're going to get. You're much less likely to hang together than to hang separately.
 
2012-12-07 12:29:01 PM

jjorsett: minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

You've put your finger on why RTW laws are opposed: giving people a choice is the last thing a union wants. If it wants to keep collecting dues, it has to provide something workers want and are willing to pay for, not just upend them and shake the money out of their pockets, and apparently that's a tough sell.


BINGO
 
2012-12-07 12:30:11 PM

joness0154: Conversely, in a right-to-work state, the employee always has the choice of seeking union employment. An employee, even in a non-union job believe it or not, can always negotiate a contractual agreement with their employee. I have one and I'm a non-union employee. If I don't like it, I am free to leave and find another job (union or not) under terms that I agree with.


In a right-to-work state, you've no choice to work a closed-shop job. In a non-right-to-work state, you do have the choice to work a closed-shop job, or a non-closed shop job.
 
2012-12-07 12:30:21 PM

joness0154: Philip Francis Queeg: joness0154: Philip Francis Queeg: spmkk: Yes, it very much DOES have to do with a right that relates to working. Right-to-work protects my right to trade my labor for money without having to enter into a forced contract with a third-party political entity (and yes, it is political) that does not employ me.

Is someone forcing you to accept a job under those conditions? Are you prevented for working someplace else that does not have those requirements?

On flip side, what prevents you from moving to a non-right-to-work state or joining the union? If the pay is too low because it is non-union, what is forcing you from finding another company or higher paying union job?

Having a right to work state gives the employee more choices, IMO. While I don't think the legislature went about it correctly, I agree with the outcome.

It doesn't give the employee a single additional choice. They employee always has the choice of seeking non-union employment. This only limits the employees right to negotiate a certain type of contractual agreement with their employer.

Conversely, in a right-to-work state, the employee always has the choice of seeking union employment. An employee, even in a non-union job believe it or not, can always negotiate a contractual agreement with their employee. I have one and I'm a non-union employee. If I don't like it, I am free to leave and find another job (union or not) under terms that I agree with.

The unions that provide good benefits for their employees will survive this. This may force the crappy ones to actually provide a benefit to their membership to stay alive...as it should be.


The solution isn't to eliminate bad unions leaving employees to fend for themselves.

You don't quit medical care because one physician refused to look at your persistent cough. You merely change physicians to one that keeps your interests in mind.
 
2012-12-07 12:30:38 PM

jjorsett: You've put your finger on why RTW laws are opposed: giving people a choice is the last thing a union wants. If it wants to keep collecting dues, it has to provide something workers want and are willing to pay for, not just upend them and shake the money out of their pockets, and apparently that's a tough sell.


You're ignoring the crux of the issue: the free rider problem.
Anything the unions fights for will end up being provided for those not in the union. So why join?
 
2012-12-07 12:31:12 PM

Baz744: jjorsett: You've put your finger on why RTW laws are opposed: giving people a choice is the last thing a union wants.

They want workers to have the freedom to negotiate a closed shop. You, by contrast, want to use government force to dictate to them that they cannot. The last thing you want is to give workers freedom of choice.


A good union would have no problem attracting members (and essentially creating a closed shop) if they provide a benefit to the members.
 
2012-12-07 12:32:03 PM
Most critics who opposed RTW when it first passed years ago in my area have admitted that it works pretty well. When both sides knows the choices are there, the conversations become much more constructive.
 
2012-12-07 12:32:04 PM

vpb: I like how they call it "right to work" like it has something to do with a right that relates to working.


It's the right to work without being forced into a union.
 
2012-12-07 12:33:41 PM
German automakers, nearly all of which are unionized, make twice what their American counterparts make. As yet, as if by magic, these firms are still quite profitable.

The German constitution includes the Works Constitution Act, which provides for the creation of the Works Council in each factory. This ensures management must work with employees, union or not, on issues affecting working conditions, safety, and compensation.

In Germany it has become a race to the top. Here it's a race to the bottom. How shocking that our middle class has been struggling for decades.
 
2012-12-07 12:33:45 PM

joness0154:

The unions that provide good benefits for their employees will survive this. This may force the crappy ones to actually provide a benefit to their membership to stay alive...as it should be.


So it's not about providing employees choice. It's that you think employees are incapable of making the choice whether an open or closed chop is best for them and need to be legally prevented from making that choice for their own good.

Thank goodness those poor, helpless souls have you out there to look out for them. You really should be management so that your paternalistic wisdom can help them even more.
 
2012-12-07 12:33:59 PM

joness0154: Baz744: jjorsett: You've put your finger on why RTW laws are opposed: giving people a choice is the last thing a union wants.

They want workers to have the freedom to negotiate a closed shop. You, by contrast, want to use government force to dictate to them that they cannot. The last thing you want is to give workers freedom of choice.

A good union would have no problem attracting members (and essentially creating a closed shop) if they provide a benefit to the members.


Which must why you want to use government force to prevent them from providing the benefits that come with a closed-shop.
 
2012-12-07 12:34:16 PM

red5ish: Weaver95: red5ish: When a lame duck legislation locks the doors and starts to pass "appropriation bills" they are not acting in the interests of the people.

it seems to be needlessly antagonistic. are they TRYING to kick off a riot?!

They are not doing it to be antagonistic, they are doing it because they are trying to get away with passing legislation that serves the special interests that bankroll them. This type of behavior is why businesses have security walk employees out of the building after they've been laid off.


I guess I just expected legislators to behave themselves and/or act honorably. yeah, yeah...I know. stupid of me.
 
2012-12-07 12:36:17 PM

meyerkev: D) The economy sucked in 2010, and the Democrats were incumbents. Not Granholm's fault (to an extent greater than other governors for the last 30 years anyways), just bad timing.


No, noh, Granholm gets extra blame. Despite the facts that:

1. We're part of the Rust Belt
2. We have Detroit
3. She claimed she was all buddy-buddy with Washington Dems (she was begging for a Supreme Court or DOJ job for awhile)

Granholm sucked terribly at getting us any kind of federal funding for reconstruction projects in Detroit or federal attention to the fact a good part of the Detroit metro area was circling the drain. She also did little to address corruption issues on the Detroit city council despite having control the State Police and their investigative arm.

We've had other bad governors, but Granholm definitely goes down as one of the more impotent ones in Michigan history. Snyder has his flaws, but at least he's managed to get some projects funding and matching funds from the feds. Grahnholm just kind of wrung her hands and acted like Toyota opening a 200 job tech center in Washentaw County was a big farking accomplishment.
 
2012-12-07 12:36:23 PM

joness0154: Baz744: jjorsett: You've put your finger on why RTW laws are opposed: giving people a choice is the last thing a union wants.

They want workers to have the freedom to negotiate a closed shop. You, by contrast, want to use government force to dictate to them that they cannot. The last thing you want is to give workers freedom of choice.

A good union would have no problem attracting members (and essentially creating a closed shop) if they provide a benefit to the members.


This is an ignorant argument. Non-union employees who work in union markets benefit from unions too. In union markets, non-union employers are pressured to raise their wages and benefits to compete with the unions.
 
2012-12-07 12:38:49 PM

mittromneysdog: joness0154: Baz744: jjorsett: You've put your finger on why RTW laws are opposed: giving people a choice is the last thing a union wants.

They want workers to have the freedom to negotiate a closed shop. You, by contrast, want to use government force to dictate to them that they cannot. The last thing you want is to give workers freedom of choice.

A good union would have no problem attracting members (and essentially creating a closed shop) if they provide a benefit to the members.

This is an ignorant argument. Non-union employees who work in union markets benefit from unions too. In union markets, non-union employers are pressured to raise their wages and benefits to compete with the unions.


It's a kind of "freeloader effect." Why join the union, when other people pay for it, and you benefit from it? Which is why unions bargain for closed-shops.
 
2012-12-07 12:39:58 PM
Good for Michigan.
 
2012-12-07 12:40:11 PM

Mentat: You provide an attractive alternative to unions in order to divide the workers and weaken the unions


That, unfortunately, is the outcome of free choice.

The workers are free to make bad choices.

If the unions are so great, then why would workers not join them?
 
2012-12-07 12:41:06 PM
Dumbass working class people never learn. If you want to vote for Republicans because of the guns and the gheys you might want to look at their plans for you.
 
2012-12-07 12:41:53 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: "spmkk: Yes, it very much DOES have to do with a right that relates to working. Right-to-work protects my right to trade my labor for money without having to enter into a forced contract with a third-party political entity (and yes, it is political) that does not employ me.

Is someone forcing you to accept a job under those conditions? Are you prevented for working someplace else that does not have those requirements?"



Uh...yeah. If "someplace else" doesn't have a position open, I am forced to accept a job under those conditions. In a RTW state, every place would not have those requirements, so (provided there are openings in the job market at all) I would never be faced with a choice between accepting forced union membership/dues and not being allowed to earn a living. And, as I said before, I would never be faced with a strike situation where, despite my membership in the union, I would still be denied the right to earn a living.


Baz744: "You will never be forced to join a union, even in a non-right-to-work state."


Right - not unless I want to, say, get a job or something.


Baz744: "However, in a right-to-work state, you will have the government forcibly deprive you of the freedom to work a closed shop job."


What is this I don't even
 
2012-12-07 12:42:21 PM

lohphat: The workers are free to make bad choices.


As long as that choice is to work under a closed shop union contract.
 
2012-12-07 12:43:18 PM

ha-ha-guy: Granholm sucked terribly at getting us any kind of federal funding for reconstruction projects in Detroit or federal attention to the fact a good part of the Detroit metro area was circling the drain. She also did little to address corruption issues on the Detroit city council despite having control the State Police and their investigative arm.


Granholm was horrible for the state. 'In 5 years you'll be blown away." Yeah, right Jen...along with all the jobs and the tumbleweeds rolling through the state.

Democrats defending her come off as loons...it's almost as bad as Republicans defending Bush.
 
2012-12-07 12:44:00 PM

Baz744: It's a kind of "freeloader effect." Why join the union, when other people pay for it, and you benefit from it? Which is why unions bargain for closed-shops.


Yet the Unions also exploit people. For example my niece works as a Starbucks kiosk in Meijer. She pays union dues due to it being a Meijer and the agreements Meijer has, but her wages ar not hire than if she was just made coffee at the mall Starbucks. Actually they're lower in that the union takes off the top.

The union ignores the needs of all the teenagers who work in Meijer because they know they're a transient workforce who will go off to college or the like and they have no need to get long term loyalty out of them. They have it set up to the point where she can't even vote because the rule is need to be there for X period of time to vote.

At the end of the day a closed shop also allows in an inner cadre of long term workers to fund their lobbying for benefits off the back of temporary/season/etc workers who are forced to pay into the union fund. The union doesn't have to do anything for them because in a year turnover will have replaced them.
 
2012-12-07 12:45:16 PM

lohphat: Mentat: You provide an attractive alternative to unions in order to divide the workers and weaken the unions

That, unfortunately, is the outcome of free choice.

The workers are free to make bad choices.

If the unions are so great, then why would workers not join them?


Because in RTW states they get the benefits the union fights for without having to pay the dues...
 
2012-12-07 12:45:34 PM
I don't see what the big deal is... I started teaching part time at a community college a year ago and had to become a member of the union (MCCC). Dues are reasonable and I even got a raise this year. So far, I have no complaints about the union.

I've been self-employed for so long, I'm actually enjoying being part of a union. In fact, I'm going to pick up a few more classes to teach next year.
 
2012-12-07 12:46:09 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: I'm not in a Union and I get paid great with good benefits. No pointless Union dues.

Suckers!


Until your boss come to you and says you get to train your new H1B visa replacement. Then with no union to back you
up you lose your job. Sucker.
 
2012-12-07 12:46:26 PM

Undermining the ability of private orgs like unions to address income inequality forces Americans to allow the govt to do it. Surprise!

- David Waldman (@KagroX) November 30, 2012
 
2012-12-07 12:46:39 PM
Good god people...

Union dues help fund democratic campaigns.

That is all these laws are about.

And it all is because of the gheys and abortion. Thank religion.
 
2012-12-07 12:47:03 PM

spmkk: Uh...yeah. If "someplace else" doesn't have a position open, I am forced to accept a job under those conditions.



No you aren't. You do not have to accept that job. You may chose to accept it as the least bad option available to you, but that is true of a myriad conditions on employment, such as wages, hours and benefits.
 
2012-12-07 12:47:19 PM

minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.


Its like vaccines... if a few people choose not to be in a union, they still receive most of the benefit of the union, without being in it. If a large percentage of people choose not to be in them, then the union is no longer effective.

currently, if you work a union job, but want to not be in a union - that is allowed - there is just no financial incentive for it.

You really want it to be right to work - then companies need to start paying the people who aren't in unions less and give them less healthcare, since they aren't working for it. Not being in a union but still expecting to get all the benefits of a union is just freeloading.
 
2012-12-07 12:47:27 PM

ha-ha-guy: At the end of the day a closed shop also allows in an inner cadre of long term workers to fund their lobbying for benefits off the back of temporary/season/etc workers who are forced to pay into the union fund. The union doesn't have to do anything for them because in a year turnover will have replaced them.


No one ever said unions didn't have problems.
Getting rid of them entirely isn't the answer. "Right to Work" is exactly that, hidden beneath language designed to appeal to the bootstrappy.
 
2012-12-07 12:47:57 PM

sparkeyjames: USA Prime Credit Peggy: I'm not in a Union and I get paid great with good benefits. No pointless Union dues.

Suckers!

Until your boss come to you and says you get to train your new H1B visa replacement. Then with no union to back you
up you lose your job. Sucker.


Good thing I'm indispensable to my company. If my boss is coming to me, it's to give me a raise.
 
2012-12-07 12:49:02 PM
I think unions would be much more attractive if the actually provided a benefit to the workers instead of creating an oligarchy of power for the leaders to collude and control labor supply.

Unions should protect the integrity of the wokers' profession and not blindly protect incompetence.

I've never been a union member but would join if it was clear the company was not interested in safety or wasn't a meritocracy, i.e. a pilot's union. But even in that case, I've seen union pilots protected by their union to preserve their seniority when it's clear they shouldn't be a pilot any longer. Simply put: Don't protect morons.
 
2012-12-07 12:49:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: No you aren't. You do not have to accept that job. You may chose to accept it as the least bad option available to you, but that is true of a myriad conditions on employment, such as wages, hours and benefits.


I'm sure you've noticed.

Wal-Mart pays shiat = You don't have to work there. Find another job!
Unions labor contracts exist = I can't find a job anywhere! I'm prohibited from making a living!
 
2012-12-07 12:51:31 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: Good thing I'm indispensable to my company. If my boss is coming to me, it's to give me a raisefark you. I've got mine.


The look on your face will be priceless when your job just went to Ghopal from Bhopal.
 
2012-12-07 12:51:48 PM

lohphat: I think unions would be much more attractive if


lohphat: Unions should


lohphat: I've never been a union member but


el oh el
 
2012-12-07 12:52:11 PM

qorkfiend: lohphat: Mentat: You provide an attractive alternative to unions in order to divide the workers and weaken the unions

That, unfortunately, is the outcome of free choice.

The workers are free to make bad choices.

If the unions are so great, then why would workers not join them?

Because in RTW states they get the benefits the union fights for without having to pay the dues...


Sometimes that's how the free market works. Perhaps if the unions provided those benefits and the the company might make it more attractive, e.g. supplemental insurance, training, daycare, etc.
 
2012-12-07 12:52:19 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: sparkeyjames: USA Prime Credit Peggy: I'm not in a Union and I get paid great with good benefits. No pointless Union dues.

Suckers!

Until your boss come to you and says you get to train your new H1B visa replacement. Then with no union to back you
up you lose your job. Sucker.

Good thing I'm indispensable to my company. If my boss is coming to me, it's to give me a raise.


You mean you actually provide a benefit to your employer? Don't get me started on the union guys on the Caterpillar shop floor.

Oh you raised your voice at me? Grievance
You want me to stay a bit later today to finish that project up? WHERE'S MY STEWARD?

I have tons of great stories.
 
2012-12-07 12:52:25 PM
Wow. These assholes don't even want to pretend like this is a democracy.
 
2012-12-07 12:52:32 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: ha-ha-guy: At the end of the day a closed shop also allows in an inner cadre of long term workers to fund their lobbying for benefits off the back of temporary/season/etc workers who are forced to pay into the union fund. The union doesn't have to do anything for them because in a year turnover will have replaced them.

No one ever said unions didn't have problems.
Getting rid of them entirely isn't the answer. "Right to Work" is exactly that, hidden beneath language designed to appeal to the bootstrappy.


Bullshiat. Assuming the union competes and shows why it has value to all employees, the majority of them will sign up and support it. It wasn't that long ago my grandfather was barricaded inside a GM plant with the National Guard outside. They shut off the heat and water, so they made a fire on the line and sang Christmas Carols while the wives snuck food in. If the union could sell my family on which facing off against the National Guard was a good idea, they can sell people on reasons to give up a few percent off their paycheck.

Yes you'll have X% who freeload, but that shouldn't be enough to cripple the union. It's worth to avoid the union being able to play favorites with the workforce if they want dues from everyone . The union president moves from needing to keep 51% of his voters happier, to keeping 80+% of his shop happy if he wants to see the dues stream keep coming in.
 
2012-12-07 12:54:28 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: From 1973 to 2007, private sector union membership in the United States declined from 34 to 8 percent for men and from 16 to 6 percent for women. During this period, inequality in hourly wages increased by over 40 percent. We report a decomposition, relating rising inequality to the union wage distribution's shrinking weight. We argue that unions helped institutionalize norms of equity, reducing the dispersion of nonunion wages in highly unionized regions and industries. Accounting for unions' effect on union and nonunion wages suggests that the decline of organized labor explains a fifth to a third of the growth in inequality-an effect comparable to the growing stratification of wages by education. Link


Even more strikingly, the decline in membership in the middle class is lockstep with the decline in membership in unions.
"Right to work" - if it's labeled by a Republican, expect the results to be the direct opposite.

/See what the Republicans did when they convinced you that unions are evil and exist only to protect the lazy?
//They got you to screw yourselves and your own children, people.
///Sorry, that pun really was unintentional. Are you out there, coco e?
 
2012-12-07 12:55:56 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: lohphat: I think unions would be much more attractive if

lohphat: Unions should

lohphat: I've never been a union member but

el oh el


So far in my life I've not belonged to a union and have done fine. I've seen good unions and bad ones that offer no protection for their members. To me I think in some cases they're a must but in others the worker is in control already and one isn't needed.
 
2012-12-07 12:56:00 PM

joness0154: Oh you raised your voice at me? Grievance


My God, they demand to be treated with respect? You need to put those people in their place.
 
2012-12-07 12:59:04 PM

joness0154: I have tons of great stories.


My favorite was as a white collar engineer I'm non union. My grandfather was involved in a bunch of efforts to unionize in the GM assemblies in Flint and Saginaw. One time when the union was on strike I'm crossing the picket line into the Tech Center. Grandpa is riding shotgun and sees the union guys sitting on lawn chairs and drinking beer, signs leaned against the fence. He hops out of my car and starts screaming at them "Of course GM wants to pay you shiat, look how farking lazy and worthless you are. Drunk and sitting around like farking Soviet Communists on the picket line...back in my day...blah blah blah...The Battle of Bulls Run...blah blah blah...lazy worthless shiats". The expression on their face was priceless.

My least favorite story was when I down at a truck plant trying to diagnosis an intermittent software bug. I'm out in the lot, hooking my scan tool up to a Tahoe and some UAW guy comes out and throws a fit because we need union help to even touch the vehicles. So we end up with a guy whose job is to bolt doors onto cars and he doesn't even a GED. They pull him off the line, then call in a new guy at OT rates to cover for his shift. He is supposed to help us debug software. His only use was sending him to pick up the pizzas we ordered.
 
2012-12-07 12:59:37 PM

lohphat: So far in my life I've not belonged to a union and have done fine. I've seen good unions and bad ones that offer no protection for their members. To me I think in some cases they're a must but in others the worker is in control already and one isn't needed.


You opened with how unions don't actually provide a benefit to the worker and instead blindly protect incompetence, then admitted you've never been in one.

Now you're saying you've seen good and bad unions, and yeah maybe they do serve some purpose. This is what's known as walking it back. Next time just don't bother with the first part and you'll save yourself the trouble.
 
2012-12-07 01:00:17 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: minoridiot: What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

Freedom of choice? What country do you think this is?


They can choose to find a job with no union presence. You know, like how you say if you don't like your job you should quit and not unionize. Choices are grand.
 
2012-12-07 01:00:32 PM

GAT_00: Funny, I've never seen you side against the Republicans or with the Democrats. You can claim you're independent all you want, but your words speak for themselves.


You're either a magnificent troll, sleeping, have a selective memory, or just plain stupid.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7461009/81002173#c81002173
http://www.fark.com/comments/7459747/80989614#c80989614
http://www.fark.com/comments/7452451/80910556#c80910556
http://www.fark.com/comments/7440526/80780215#c80780215
http://www.fark.com/comments/7435985/80717009#c80717009
http://www.fark.com/comments/7429007/80633292#c80633292
http://www.fark.com/comments/7425839/80581489#c80581489
http://www.fark.com/comments/7424496/80569755#c80569755
http://www.fark.com/comments/7421936/80531438#c80531438
http://www.fark.com/comments/7417929/80482330#c80482330
 
2012-12-07 01:01:08 PM
My SO is an auto tech in a RTW shop. They are paid by the job, so if no work - no pay. There RTW means you have the right to work 10 hr/day -including Saturday - whether there are vehicles to work on or not. Managment has the right to take away your rotating day off and replace it with a half day that we also have the right to take away anytime we want. Good luck trying to schedule any doc or dentist appointments when you can't count on any time off. Don't like it- get a different job in an area where there aren't any. And mgmt doesn't understand why they can't keep techs.

/fark RTW
 
2012-12-07 01:01:58 PM

lohphat: To me I think in some cases they're a must but in others the worker is in control already


What cases might those be?
 
2012-12-07 01:02:33 PM

ha-ha-guy: Bullshiat.


Hardly.
Every freeloader gives the employer more ability to work around the union, further diminishing and marginalizing them. It was never anything but a way to break the union, hidden in bootstrappy language.
 
2012-12-07 01:04:21 PM
You elect Republicans to office, you get what you deserve.

/Trust me. I live in Florida
 
2012-12-07 01:06:02 PM

lohphat: Mentat: You provide an attractive alternative to unions in order to divide the workers and weaken the unions

That, unfortunately, is the outcome of free choice.

The workers are free to make bad choices.

If the unions are so great, then why would workers not join them?


Because right wing propagandists tell them the union is worse, then tell them that paying union dues decreases their paycheck, without mentioning the good stuff.
 
2012-12-07 01:06:20 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: USA Prime Credit Peggy: Good thing I'm indispensable to my company. If my boss is coming to me, it's to give me a raisefark you. I've got mine.


Eh? So I'm a bad guy because I went to school, worked my ass off, and learned an indispensable trade? I didn't get "gifted" mine, I earned it in a way that anyone else could, too.
 
2012-12-07 01:06:38 PM

redheadstepchild: My SO is an auto tech in a RTW shop. They are paid by the job, so if no work - no pay. There RTW means you have the right to work 10 hr/day -including Saturday - whether there are vehicles to work on or not. Managment has the right to take away your rotating day off and replace it with a half day that we also have the right to take away anytime we want. Good luck trying to schedule any doc or dentist appointments when you can't count on any time off. Don't like it- get a different job in an area where there aren't any. And mgmt doesn't understand why they can't keep techs.

/fark RTW


If only there were some sort of organization these techs could form at their workplace if conditions are as bad as you make it seem.....?
 
2012-12-07 01:06:41 PM

redheadstepchild: My SO is an auto tech in a RTW shop. They are paid by the job, so if no work - no pay. There RTW means you have the right to work 10 hr/day -including Saturday - whether there are vehicles to work on or not. Managment has the right to take away your rotating day off and replace it with a half day that we also have the right to take away anytime we want. Good luck trying to schedule any doc or dentist appointments when you can't count on any time off. Don't like it- get a different job in an area where there aren't any. And mgmt doesn't understand why they can't keep techs.

/fark RTW


So does your SO (and his coworkers) realize that while the state may be RTW, they can still have a mass strike and union or demand concessions? Instead of just quitting one at a time and letting management replace them, all walk off at the same time.

The fact it is RTW doesn't matter here. People picket line cross or scab in union states all the time. Once the union is forced, RTW will make it have to work harder to keep membership and get new employees in the boat, but it no way, shape, or form prevents your SO and his coworkers for standing on the sidewalk with signs protesting unfair practices.

/I'm betting the fact that a lot of the techs have shiat for savings prevents them from doing that though
 
2012-12-07 01:06:45 PM
"Right-to-work" states, for some reason, have lower wages, lower standards of living, lower levels of education, and higher rates of poverty and people on government assistance.
 
2012-12-07 01:07:50 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: Eh? So I'm a bad guy because I went to school, worked my ass off, and learned an indispensable trade? I didn't get "gifted" mine, I earned it in a way that anyone else could, too.


Yes, you're a selfish prick. How do you live with yourself?
 
2012-12-07 01:07:56 PM

PreMortem: That being said, I have no problem with right to work laws (I'm in a union). But if someone decides to not pay dues, they still get all the benefits and rights as a due paying member. I'd say if you don't want to pay union dues, fine... negotiate your own wages and benefits.


All the benefits of union membership without the dues? These anti-union guys sound like real bootstrappers eh?
 
2012-12-07 01:10:15 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: joness0154: Oh you raised your voice at me? Grievance

My God, they demand to be treated with respect? You need to put those people in their place.


Respect is earned. Regularly taking 25+ minute breaks when your union only negotiated 15 minute breaks and coming in late to work is going to get you yelled at.

If you're too soft to take a little bit of "get back to work", maybe working on a shop floor isn't for you.
 
2012-12-07 01:10:18 PM
/I'm betting the fact that a lot of the techs have shiat for savings prevents them from doing that though

That exactly. The only ones who don't quit after a month or so, are the ones who can't afford to quit. No chance of a union.
 
2012-12-07 01:10:29 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: I earned it in a way that anyone else could, too.


LOL
 
2012-12-07 01:14:36 PM

Weaver95: red5ish: Weaver95: red5ish: When a lame duck legislation locks the doors and starts to pass "appropriation bills" they are not acting in the interests of the people.

it seems to be needlessly antagonistic. are they TRYING to kick off a riot?!

They are not doing it to be antagonistic, they are doing it because they are trying to get away with passing legislation that serves the special interests that bankroll them. This type of behavior is why businesses have security walk employees out of the building after they've been laid off.

I guess I just expected legislators to behave themselves and/or act honorably. yeah, yeah...I know. stupid of me.


I'm surprised that most of this thread is taken up by people discussing the pros and cons of this legislation when the real issue is the manner in which it is being pushed into law. What you characterized as "needlessly antagonistic" also qualifies as being suspiciously sleazy and anti-democratic. The Michigan Republicans have been pushing hard against democracy for the last few years - their taking over towns and appointing what amount to dictators in place elected officials comes to mind - and passing legislation behind locked doors is part and parcel of their plutocratic attitude. Michigan Republicans are actively undermining the democratic process; it's an ugly story that deserves a lot of sunlight.
 
2012-12-07 01:16:43 PM

joness0154: If only there were some sort of organization these techs could form at their workplace if conditions are as bad as you make it seem.....?


The deal is, everything is a union utopia until RTW comes along. The case totally wasn't that the union in question was some corrupt, dead wood, organization that existed solely based on inertia, accomplishments pre 1970s, and closed shop that the employees loathed only slightly less than their employer. When everyone drops the union dues it isn't the workers giving the middle finger to say Ron Gettlefinger, the former UAW head who somehow mismanaged (or embezzled) their strike fund so when they went on strike in the mids 2000s they had enough money to pay for 2 days worth of striking, it is the workers being dumb and being exploited by the capitalists.

What likely happens in Michigan, is RTW lets the UAW balkanize. King is that popular in a lot of assemblies and I bet of lot people will delist from the UAW but they still are pro Union so another one will spring up.

/Lordstown Ohio's local would love for this to be passed so they can flee the UAW en masse after it tried to fark them in favor of other assemblies during the bankruptcy
 
2012-12-07 01:17:07 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: Eh? So I'm a bad guy because I went to school, worked my ass off, and learned an indispensable trade? I didn't get "gifted" mine, I earned it in a way that anyone else could, too.


No, you're a bad guy for assuming everyone else hasn't worked as hard as you and that you don't need to care about their plight.
Like I said, the look on your face will be priceless when you're replaced by something cheaper. Probably look a shade paler than I did when it happened to me.
 
2012-12-07 01:18:22 PM

ha-ha-guy: The deal is, everything is a union utopia until RTW comes along.


No one is saying that you ignorant prole.
 
2012-12-07 01:19:35 PM

joness0154: Philip Francis Queeg: joness0154: Oh you raised your voice at me? Grievance

My God, they demand to be treated with respect? You need to put those people in their place.

Respect is earned. Regularly taking 25+ minute breaks when your union only negotiated 15 minute breaks and coming in late to work is going to get you yelled at.

If you're too soft to take a little bit of "get back to work", maybe working on a shop floor isn't for you.


So what you are saying is that you are a really terrible manager. Perhaps your company can find someone who is capable of enforcing the rules without resorting to shouting after the fact.
 
2012-12-07 01:20:50 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: USA Prime Credit Peggy: Eh? So I'm a bad guy because I went to school, worked my ass off, and learned an indispensable trade? I didn't get "gifted" mine, I earned it in a way that anyone else could, too.

No, you're a bad guy for assuming everyone else hasn't worked as hard as you and that you don't need to care about their plight.
Like I said, the look on your face will be priceless when you're replaced by something cheaper. Probably look a shade paler than I did when it happened to me.


I didn't say people don't work as hard as me. And I also didn't say I don't care about other people's plights.

I just don't agree that forcing people to join Unions in order to work at a certain business is necessarily what will help them through said plight.
 
2012-12-07 01:21:40 PM

joness0154: Philip Francis Queeg: joness0154: Oh you raised your voice at me? Grievance

My God, they demand to be treated with respect? You need to put those people in their place.

Respect is earned.


Your employees know that too. Notice how they don't respect you?
 
2012-12-07 01:23:47 PM

qorkfiend: error 303: when the people vote in Republican majorities in both houses and the head of the executive branch, this isn't unexpected.

This. What did you think would happen if you put a GOP Governor and a GOP legislature in charge of a traditionally blue state? Why are you surprised when they start moving against their political opponents once in power? This story is repeated in several states - Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania - and the only objective is to weaken the Democrats electorally by limiting the abilities of pro-Democratic outside groups to contribute and advocate for candidates, gerrymandering Congressional districts to guarantee Republican control of the House, or splitting electoral votes.


I ask my family in Michigan this all the time. When Governor Snyder was running, he was very vague with what he would do when he was in office (kind of like Romney). As soon as the took office he cut business taxes by $1.5 Billion, while cutting school funding by $900 million and raising taxes on retirees by $700 million. And people were surprised. Why?

For the last two years, the legislature has been attacking public education and teachers. They've been taking local control away from school boards and administrators and requiring their own mandates. And people were surprised. Why?

The republicans have pushed for state takeovers of cities and school districts where lawfully elected politicans were taken out of power, and instead power was vested with one single person, appointed by the governor. Contracts (mostly union contracts) were declared null and void. And people were surprised. Why?

All of these things are what led to the unions to push for a constitutional amendment to protect collective bargaining. It was defeated pretty handily, by 16 points.

Republicans are claiming that this gave them a mandate; that people didn't like unions and wanted to see them punished or eliminated. They're wrong. Polls showed that most people voted against the amendment because they didn't feel the constitution should be amended. At the same time, people were asked about their opinion on unions. Every poll showed over 60% support for unions. Not even taking into effect the shading dealings done to pass this, they're going to anger a lot of people in Michigan.

Unions will still be allowed, but they will be weakened. That's the whole point of Right to Work. Ask union members in Texas, Florida, South Carolina, etc. how their union compares to those in Michigan (up until now), Massachussettes, Minnesota, etc.

Without Right to Work, if you didn't want to belong to a union, you didn't have to. You did, however, have to pay an administrative fee to cover contract negotiations, representation, etc. In other words, you were benefiting, so you had to pay your fair share. Now, you can freeload on the union, get all the benefits, and not contribute.
 
2012-12-07 01:25:19 PM

HotWingConspiracy: joness0154: Philip Francis Queeg: joness0154: Oh you raised your voice at me? Grievance

My God, they demand to be treated with respect? You need to put those people in their place.

Respect is earned.

Your employees know that too. Notice how they don't respect you?


He really is doing a great job of illustrating the sorts of management failures that unions exist to protect the employee from.
 
2012-12-07 01:25:27 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: "Philip Francis Queeg: No you aren't. You do not have to accept that job. You may chose to accept it as the least bad option available to you, but that is true of a myriad conditions on employment, such as wages, hours and benefits.

I'm sure you've noticed.

Wal-Mart pays shiat = You don't have to work there. Find another job!
Unions labor contracts exist = I can't find a job anywhere! I'm prohibited from making a living!"



Right-to-work states generally see a pretty good balance of unionized and union-free retail establishments. Conversely, in forced-union states, there are entire markets that are closed to you if you don't join a union.

How many non-union openings do you think there are for a schoolteacher in California? And we're talking about a place where the teachers union just spent $70 of every member's mandatory dues to buy the right to continue using members' mandatory dues for political causes without those members' consent. In other words, the only way to work as a teacher in the state of California (with the razor-thin exception of private schools, most of which are religious) is to consent to giving a portion of your paycheck to an organization that has the explicit right to use it for political causes with which you may vehemently disagree. Forget the basics of freedom of association, etc...that's out-and-out legally sanctioned theft. And if you want to work anywhere in the state as a teacher, there's practically nothing* you can do about it. 

(* Yes, technically you can argue that there are complicated, partial opt-out procedures one can follow. The union still holds on to your money for the year and then gives you a rebate, and again, it's only partial.)
 
2012-12-07 01:27:23 PM

redheadstepchild: /I'm betting the fact that a lot of the techs have shiat for savings prevents them from doing that though

That exactly. The only ones who don't quit after a month or so, are the ones who can't afford to quit. No chance of a union.


So reach out to a union and ask for support in a unionization effort. Most unions have a procedure for supplying non members with limited access to a strike fund in the efforts of expanding the union.

Secondly find a media figure who would do a piece on the shop's mistreatment of labor and try to use bad PR.

Your SO isn't in this shiatty situation because of RTW. He's in a shiatty situation because those who could lead the workers forward just bail out to a better job leaving the less mobile behind. Be the change you want to see in this world and all that.
 
2012-12-07 01:27:35 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: I'm not in a Union and I get paid great with good benefits. No pointless Union dues.

Suckers!


We can't all be crack whores
 
2012-12-07 01:30:22 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: HotWingConspiracy: joness0154: Philip Francis Queeg: joness0154: Oh you raised your voice at me? Grievance

My God, they demand to be treated with respect? You need to put those people in their place.

Respect is earned.

Your employees know that too. Notice how they don't respect you?

He really is doing a great job of illustrating the sorts of management failures that unions exist to protect the employee from.


This person wasn't working for me.

It's not a management failure, some people are just poor workers and use the union as a shield. This person was one of them. His manager was willing to cut him some slack at times, but he stepped over the line on many occasions. That employee is no longer with the company, but it only took 3 or 4 months to get rid of him.
 
2012-12-07 01:31:11 PM

minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.


In other words, they allow the State to arbitrarily invalidate the right of two private entities to make contract.
 
2012-12-07 01:31:38 PM

HotWingConspiracy: They can choose to find a job with no union presence. You know, like how you say if you don't like your job you should quit and not unionize. Choices are grand.


Or they can choose to work anywhere they want and choose to or to not join the union. Oh, wait. no they can't. Lack of choices is grand.

slayer199: You're either a magnificent troll, sleeping, have a selective memory, or just plain stupid.


I'm going with D.
 
2012-12-07 01:33:02 PM

Marquis de Sod: USA Prime Credit Peggy: I'm not in a Union and I get paid great with good benefits. No pointless Union dues.

Suckers!

We can't all be crack whores


Why not? My corner's pretty busy.
 
2012-12-07 01:35:43 PM
Snyder said the recent passage of right-to-work legislation in neighboring Indiana put Michigan at risk for losing business to the Hoosier State.

Faster men, keep pulling! We'll reach the barrel's bottom faster than those hoosiers, by God!
 
2012-12-07 01:36:03 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: Sergeant Grumbles: USA Prime Credit Peggy: Good thing I'm indispensable to my company. If my boss is coming to me, it's to give me a raisefark you. I've got mine.

I earned it in a way that anyone else could, too.


Brown nosed it one rear end at a time eh?
 
2012-12-07 01:36:25 PM

spmkk: Sergeant Grumbles: "Philip Francis Queeg: No you aren't. You do not have to accept that job. You may chose to accept it as the least bad option available to you, but that is true of a myriad conditions on employment, such as wages, hours and benefits.

I'm sure you've noticed.

Wal-Mart pays shiat = You don't have to work there. Find another job!
Unions labor contracts exist = I can't find a job anywhere! I'm prohibited from making a living!"


Right-to-work states generally see a pretty good balance of unionized and union-free retail establishments. Conversely, in forced-union states, there are entire markets that are closed to you if you don't join a union.

How many non-union openings do you think there are for a schoolteacher in California? And we're talking about a place where the teachers union just spent $70 of every member's mandatory dues to buy the right to continue using members' mandatory dues for political causes without those members' consent. In other words, the only way to work as a teacher in the state of California (with the razor-thin exception of private schools, most of which are religious) is to consent to giving a portion of your paycheck to an organization that has the explicit right to use it for political causes with which you may vehemently disagree. Forget the basics of freedom of association, etc...that's out-and-out legally sanctioned theft. And if you want to work anywhere in the state as a teacher, there's practically nothing* you can do about it. 

(* Yes, technically you can argue that there are complicated, partial opt-out procedures one can follow. The union still holds on to your money for the year and then gives you a rebate, and again, it's only partial.)


It looks as if roughly one in ten students in California attends a private school, so it seems reasonable to assume that one in ten teachers does so at a private school. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you become a teacher; find another line of work if you're so goshdarn bootstrappy..
 
2012-12-07 01:36:46 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: They can choose to find a job with no union presence. You know, like how you say if you don't like your job you should quit and not unionize. Choices are grand.

Or they can choose to work anywhere they want and choose to or to not join the union. Oh, wait. no they can't. Lack of choices is grand.


They have an employment choice, you're not making any sense. Like you say, if you don't like the job then quit and find a different one.

You're also fond of telling people to move if the jobs in the area don't suit them. What's the problem here?
 
2012-12-07 01:38:00 PM

joness0154: Philip Francis Queeg: HotWingConspiracy: joness0154: Philip Francis Queeg: joness0154: Oh you raised your voice at me? Grievance

My God, they demand to be treated with respect? You need to put those people in their place.

Respect is earned.

Your employees know that too. Notice how they don't respect you?

He really is doing a great job of illustrating the sorts of management failures that unions exist to protect the employee from.

This person wasn't working for me.

It's not a management failure, some people are just poor workers and use the union as a shield. This person was one of them. His manager was willing to cut him some slack at times, but he stepped over the line on many occasions. That employee is no longer with the company, but it only took 3 or 4 months to get rid of him.


And how was the manager who was incapable of enforcing work rules without shouting at employees disciplined? How was the manager who failed to correctly estimate the work requirements of his project and expected the employees to work additional (uncompensated?) time disciplined? I'm sure management would never shield poor performers like that. In management justice is swift, brutal and uncompromising, right?
 
2012-12-07 01:38:27 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: lohphat: So far in my life I've not belonged to a union and have done fine. I've seen good unions and bad ones that offer no protection for their members. To me I think in some cases they're a must but in others the worker is in control already and one isn't needed.

You opened with how unions don't actually provide a benefit to the worker and instead blindly protect incompetence, then admitted you've never been in one.

Now you're saying you've seen good and bad unions, and yeah maybe they do serve some purpose. This is what's known as walking it back. Next time just don't bother with the first part and you'll save yourself the trouble.


Wat?

My first statement was correct -- IF they provide no benefit and protect the incompetent then why do they exist AND yes, I have seen effective unions.

Those two statements are not contradictory.
 
2012-12-07 01:39:12 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: sparkeyjames: USA Prime Credit Peggy: I'm not in a Union and I get paid great with good benefits. No pointless Union dues.

Suckers!

Until your boss come to you and says you get to train your new H1B visa replacement. Then with no union to back you
up you lose your job. Sucker.

Good thing I'm indispensable to my company. If my boss is coming to me, it's to give me a raise.


Indispensible to your....BWAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!
 
2012-12-07 01:43:16 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: Sergeant Grumbles: USA Prime Credit Peggy: Eh? So I'm a bad guy because I went to school, worked my ass off, and learned an indispensable trade? I didn't get "gifted" mine, I earned it in a way that anyone else could, too.

No, you're a bad guy for assuming everyone else hasn't worked as hard as you and that you don't need to care about their plight.
Like I said, the look on your face will be priceless when you're replaced by something cheaper. Probably look a shade paler than I did when it happened to me.

I didn't say people don't work as hard as me. And I also didn't say I don't care about other people's plights.

I just don't agree that forcing people to join Unions in order to work at a certain business is necessarily what will help them through said plight.


Yeah, yeah we get it. F*ck you, got mine.

Yawn.
 
2012-12-07 01:46:44 PM
The problem with "right to work" is that it allows people to receive the benefits associated with collective bargaining, while refusing to pay dues.

Well, that and every state in America where it has passed it has led to lower wages, lower quality of life, less access to healthcare, and more work-related injuries and deaths.

Recognize how all of those things can coexist with "increased corporate profitability", and you'll see exactly what is wrong with our current economic system. Corporate profits are just fine as long as they correlate with increased quality of life for that corporation's employees and customer base, but the second that those QOL indexes start to tick downward, what you have then is a colonial-style extractive economy, where the wealth of one people (whether it be natural, or in this case, human resources) is being stolen for the benefit of another people (the wealthy coastal and international investor class.)
 
2012-12-07 01:47:00 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: joness0154: Philip Francis Queeg: HotWingConspiracy: joness0154: Philip Francis Queeg: joness0154: Oh you raised your voice at me? Grievance

My God, they demand to be treated with respect? You need to put those people in their place.

Respect is earned.

Your employees know that too. Notice how they don't respect you?

He really is doing a great job of illustrating the sorts of management failures that unions exist to protect the employee from.

This person wasn't working for me.

It's not a management failure, some people are just poor workers and use the union as a shield. This person was one of them. His manager was willing to cut him some slack at times, but he stepped over the line on many occasions. That employee is no longer with the company, but it only took 3 or 4 months to get rid of him.

And how was the manager who was incapable of enforcing work rules without shouting at employees disciplined? How was the manager who failed to correctly estimate the work requirements of his project and expected the employees to work additional (uncompensated?) time disciplined? I'm sure management would never shield poor performers like that. In management justice is swift, brutal and uncompromising, right?


No need to discipline a manager who asks you to get back to work. Stop being a nancy.

As for failing to estimate work requirements....I'm going to assume you've never held a production job? There are many reasons equipment may be delayed coming down the line that are out of your control. Lack of parts because logistics screwed up or someone used too many, a slowdown on the line previous to yours, engineering changes, a whole myriad of reasons. Their overtime certainly is compensated, and very well at that.
 
2012-12-07 01:48:04 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Republicans in my state are assholes. Not much more to say about it than that.


As a fellow Michigander, I can confirm this is true. 100% true.
 
2012-12-07 01:48:24 PM

HotWingConspiracy: They have an employment choice, you're not making any sense.


If they don't want to join a union their choice is limited...by law. Just grand, isn't it?
 
2012-12-07 01:52:22 PM

joness0154: No need to discipline a manager who asks you to get back to work. Stop being a nancy.

As for failing to estimate work requirements....I'm going to assume you've never held a production job? There are many reasons equipment may be delayed coming down the line that are out of your control. Lack of parts because logistics screwed up or someone used too many, a slowdown on the line previous to yours, engineering changes, a whole myriad of reasons. Their overtime certainly is compensated, and very well at that.


So you accept your supervisor shouting at you in front of your coworkers, right? When he or she does that you meekly says "Yes, thank you I deserved that., I am so very sorry It will never happen again." right Nancy?

So the logistics manager was disciplined for his screw up, right? Or was it the engineer? Surely you think managers should receive the same swift punishment without any defense for their failures that you think union employees should be subject to.
 
2012-12-07 01:52:31 PM
I believe in "Right To Work"..

If you are applying for a job at a company that already has a union contract when you apply for that job, you have the "right to work" someplace else if you don't like it.

Pretty simple, eh?

I have no idea why people think they should get special treatment in that regard.
 
2012-12-07 01:52:47 PM

verbaltoxin: USA Prime Credit Peggy: Sergeant Grumbles: USA Prime Credit Peggy: Eh? So I'm a bad guy because I went to school, worked my ass off, and learned an indispensable trade? I didn't get "gifted" mine, I earned it in a way that anyone else could, too.

No, you're a bad guy for assuming everyone else hasn't worked as hard as you and that you don't need to care about their plight.
Like I said, the look on your face will be priceless when you're replaced by something cheaper. Probably look a shade paler than I did when it happened to me.

I didn't say people don't work as hard as me. And I also didn't say I don't care about other people's plights.

I just don't agree that forcing people to join Unions in order to work at a certain business is necessarily what will help them through said plight.

Yeah, yeah we get it. F*ck you, got mine.

Yawn.


I'm a Registered Democrat that voted for Obama (and straight ticket D).

You are an idiot who has reading comprehension problems or are just willfully ignorant.
 
2012-12-07 01:55:03 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: They have an employment choice, you're not making any sense.

If they don't want to join a union their choice is limited...by law. Just grand, isn't it?


No, it's limited by the contract that the employer chose to sign with the union.

However, in a "right to work" state their choice to work in a union closed shop establishment is limited by law.
 
2012-12-07 01:55:16 PM
The solution to the right to work dilemma is simple:

"You're hired. Now, at this point you have a choice: You can pay the $0.25/hour union dues and participate in the collectively-bargained contract at $19/hour with full medical and paid vacation, or you can opt out and take home $14/hour, and peruse our collection of pamphlets from private health insurers."

In the absence of that choice, it becomes clear that they left the words "for less" off the end of name of these bills.
 
2012-12-07 01:57:51 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: They have an employment choice, you're not making any sense.

If they don't want to join a union their choice is limited...by law. Just grand, isn't it?


More by the employer. But again, if you find the laws in such places unbearable, you can move. You know, like you council people to do when they lose collective bargaining rights.
 
2012-12-07 02:04:10 PM
" Right to work" laws eventually turn every worker into a Temp worker.
 
2012-12-07 02:04:38 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: They have an employment choice, you're not making any sense.

If they don't want to join a union their choice is limited...by law. Just grand, isn't it?


Curious how right wingers reconcile their economic policies with the fact that red states have higher levels of poverty and preventable disease. You would think that fact would give them some pause there...
 
2012-12-07 02:05:57 PM

Bontesla: If the union is ineffective then the obvious solution is to fix the union.

It's like going to the doctor complaining of a persistent cough. If the doctor shrugs and says that he can't help you, the solution isn't to abandon medicine but merely find a better doctor.

Unions are the only mechanism we have to protect employees prior to legal clarification (which can take years).


I am not sure how one would "fix" a union. Since unions are employee groups, how does one protect employees from themselves? Legislation could be unnecessarily repressive, so an alternative is to allow the employees to choose whether they would like to associate with a union.

And unions are not the only thing protecting employees from their employer. All employers in the US are required to post at least 6 notices in plain view for their employees notifying them of their rights. Those notices also spell out the what the employee should do if their rights are violated. In some cases, the response is immediate, but the cases that are resolved outside of litigation do not last more than a few months. 

I don't agree with how they have forced this law through. They should at the very least allow a referendum.
 
2012-12-07 02:10:01 PM

Headso: Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: They have an employment choice, you're not making any sense.

If they don't want to join a union their choice is limited...by law. Just grand, isn't it?

Curious how right wingers reconcile their economic policies with the fact that red states have higher levels of poverty and preventable disease. You would think that fact would give them some pause there...


They think those things are benefits.
 
2012-12-07 02:16:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: No, it's limited by the contract that the employer chose to sign with the union.


HotWingConspiracy: More by the employer


Let's recap. Employees unionize and threaten to strike unless employer signs on. Employer does so. Law states that any other employees...union or not must pay union for the privilege of working there. Sorry guys. No matter how bad you want to wish it otherwise, it's the government restricting an individuals choice.

Headso: Curious how right wingers reconcile their economic policies with the fact that red states have higher levels of poverty and preventable disease.


So if I work in a union shop, I won't get sick or be poor?

Fark, I've been doing it wrong all these years.
 
2012-12-07 02:21:21 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Law states that any other employees...union or not must pay union for the privilege of working there.


Nope, the law does not say that. That is a possible condition of the contract that the employer and union agree to. It is NOT mandated by law.
 
2012-12-07 02:22:13 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Philip Francis Queeg: No, it's limited by the contract that the employer chose to sign with the union.

HotWingConspiracy: More by the employer

Let's recap. Employees unionize and threaten to strike unless employer signs on. Employer does so. Law states that any other employees...union or not must pay union for the privilege of working there. Sorry guys. No matter how bad you want to wish it otherwise, it's the government restricting an individuals choice.


mmhmm

They can choose to go work elsewhere or move. Like you council union members that have lost collective bargaining rights, or pretty much anyone that sues or complains about their employer. Have you changed your mind on that?
 
2012-12-07 02:22:17 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: Curious how right wingers reconcile their economic policies with the fact that red states have higher levels of poverty and preventable disease.

So if I work in a union shop, I won't get sick or be poor?

Fark, I've been doing it wrong all these years.


That's not what I said, I said how do you reconcile your beliefs on what economic policy is good when the reddest states are the poorest states and they continue to get poorer and have higher levels of preventable disease? It's an overall thing, not necessarily just this one issue although this is part of it.
 
2012-12-07 02:24:57 PM

trotsky: Awesome, the party of small government strikes again. This time it inserts itself into the contract between a company and a worker's Union.

Love that party of "fiscal conservatism" and "small government".


Really it just exactly the opposite of what you said. Maybe you should read up on the subject.
 
2012-12-07 02:28:49 PM
Workplace Fairness and Equity Act

Why is it that when a Republican sponsors a bill, it actually does the opposite of what it is named?
 
2012-12-07 02:33:16 PM

minoridiot: And the Hostess thing, the Baker's union should share in some of that blame as much as the company.


elaborate plox.

I'm not sure "I can get this 'great deal' anywhere else doing anything. You wanna cut my pay by 20 to 30 percent per year and cut benefits while keeping your 1.5 million dollar compensation? Well, compensate this, Rayburn." is blame-worthy.

Think of it if there weren't a union. You go up to management and ask for a raise. You haven't seen a raise in about 5 years, and when they told you two years ago that everyone was tightening their belts to make it through, you accepted a 20% paycut, like a loyal company-man. Every year, your bosses pay goes up though, which is weird. Eventually, the news comes through the pipe that the company is failing! WTF you say, I've been making twinkies, and it's not my farking job to sell them. Frankly, twinkies sell themselves. How in the fark are we going bankrupt? I'm being paid less, there are fewer people like me working here than before, and sales are UP. We should be raking in money hand over fist. Clearly there is an organization issue. Still the CEO's pay grows by 10% a year while yours falls by at least that amount. You are told that you will need to pay more into your health insurance next year. You are told you will have to pull extra hours next quarter. You are told you will have to work through lunch to meet deadlines and you are told there is a hiring freeze until further notice. And still that CEO keeps getting paid more each year.

And then that CEO gets on stage in front of your company and tells you once more that times are tight and we all have to make sacrifices. and...

Sooner or later, you quit. You eventually recognize the futility of your dead end job and move on. That's not your fault, that's management's fault. They mismanaged the funds. They failed to move product. They failed to provide compelling reasons to stay loyal.

Except it's a union so it collectively bargains, and instead of having no impact on the business, it's ruinous for the business.

At a certain point I have to figure it's part of the process. People will lose and suffer and toil and fail to find employment and fail to land on their feet. It's terrible. But Greg Rayburn was playing with fire when he threatened to go Chapter 11 if the union didn't take yet another round of pay cuts as part of the next contract. And when you play with fire, you don't get to complain when you get burned. The union called his bluff. Turns out he's a spiteful twat and would rather crush "his" company and fire 18.5k employees than cut his own pay in solidarity.
 
2012-12-07 02:33:19 PM

Citrate1007: Workplace Fairness and Equity Act

Why is it that when a Republican sponsors a bill, it actually does the opposite of what it is named?


Because they're full of shiat. And they know it well.
 
2012-12-07 02:38:09 PM

ZAZ: Bonus: "right to work" classified as appropriations, so voters can't overturn it

Here we have an astonishing number of "emergency" laws, which go into effect immediately and are not subject to referendum.  The courts have said the governor is allowed to veto individual non-appropriation measures improperly joined in the annual budget which is supposed to be for approproations only.


Let's be clear - those politicians who started those laws and are pulling this bullshiat were elected in. The Michigan voters are not powerless here. I can think of a really simple and obvious way to change things if the Michigan voters want.
 
2012-12-07 02:39:09 PM

Headso: Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: Curious how right wingers reconcile their economic policies with the fact that red states have higher levels of poverty and preventable disease.

So if I work in a union shop, I won't get sick or be poor?

Fark, I've been doing it wrong all these years.

That's not what I said, I said how do you reconcile your beliefs on what economic policy is good when the reddest states are the poorest states and they continue to get poorer and have higher levels of preventable disease? It's an overall thing, not necessarily just this one issue although this is part of it.


States that sabotage unions are also states with unhealthy, underpaid, legally-illiterate labor pools?

what a bewildering coincidence...
 
2012-12-07 02:39:32 PM

Gosling: PreMortem: If that were to happen, people would come back to the union en masse.

Until the unions get declared illegal. Then what do you do, smart guy?


If the supreme court is 5-4 Liberal: Appeal to the supreme court on the grounds that that would violate the first amendment which guarantees a right to peaceably assemble.

Otherwise, start sharpening the guillotines.

Easy peasy.
 
2012-12-07 02:41:55 PM

BeesNuts: Gosling: PreMortem: If that were to happen, people would come back to the union en masse.

Until the unions get declared illegal. Then what do you do, smart guy?

If the supreme court is 5-4 Liberal: Appeal to the supreme court on the grounds that that would violate the first amendment which guarantees a right to peaceably assemble.

Otherwise, start sharpening the guillotines.

Easy peasy.


Except they're not prohibited from assembling.
 
2012-12-07 02:42:14 PM

meat0918: Baz744: meat0918: Can't ban unions, but can't force you to join one either.

Nobody in America is ever "forced" to join a union, right-to-work, or not. There are plenty of non-union jobs to work, even in non-right-to-work states.

I don't really understand why you would want to risk lower pay and worse benefits and lessened protection against employer abuses by not joining a union.

Why do we have such a love hate relationship with unions anyways? Besides the whole "OMG socialist!" thing?


Because in reality, unions spend a lot of money for political causes that the rank and file have no say in. Unions should spend their dues on educating their workers so they will have a stronger position next time they collectively bargain.

Instead, all unions care about are getting more and more money for their members that are dumber and dumber. Worse yet, union members just plain don't care most of the time because they cannot be fired.

As a consumer of laber (which a company is), I should have the RIGHT to shop around for the best possible workers (union or not). Unions have it in their hands to sell the abilities of their workers and state their case... yet they rarely do because a union is only as smart as its dumbest member.

Anyhow, I would rather see every company operated like this one...http://www.conservit.net/history.asp
 
2012-12-07 02:45:44 PM

dwrash: meat0918: Baz744: meat0918: Can't ban unions, but can't force you to join one either.

Nobody in America is ever "forced" to join a union, right-to-work, or not. There are plenty of non-union jobs to work, even in non-right-to-work states.

I don't really understand why you would want to risk lower pay and worse benefits and lessened protection against employer abuses by not joining a union.

Why do we have such a love hate relationship with unions anyways? Besides the whole "OMG socialist!" thing?

Because in reality, unions spend a lot of money for political causes that the rank and file have no say in. Unions should spend their dues on educating their workers so they will have a stronger position next time they collectively bargain.

Instead, all unions care about are getting more and more money for their members that are dumber and dumber. Worse yet, union members just plain don't care most of the time because they cannot be fired.

As a consumer of laber (which a company is), I should have the RIGHT to shop around for the best possible workers (union or not). Unions have it in their hands to sell the abilities of their workers and state their case... yet they rarely do because a union is only as smart as its dumbest member.

Anyhow, I would rather see every company operated like this one...http://www.conservit.net/history.asp


Yours is a point worth making, but don't overgeneralize.
 
2012-12-07 02:58:58 PM
If only there were some massive pool of people willing to work in horrid conditions for below poverty-level wages, who neither had nor asked for any basic human rights on or off the worksite, and who could be made to disappear with a simple phone call if they made trouble.....

Republicans would be ecstatic about bringing in THOSE people, right?

Right?
 
2012-12-07 03:22:48 PM
Okay, done trolling, and now I'm going to ask a real question.

Background: I'm a democrat who leans on the more liberal side (lower left quadrant of the Political Compass). I've never been a pro Union guy (also never have been a 'ban all the guns' guy).

In this thread alone, I see some decent examples of both sides of the coin... with the pro-Union folks going a bit further in their rhetoric ("WELP YOUR BOSS JUST FIRED YOU LOL! SHOULDA JOINED A UNION").

I just don't see that sort of thing happening in the real world. Do companies that hire only Union workers never lay off people? Aren't there sufficient laws protecting employees now, so if there were shenanigans in the workplace, they'd be compensated (via lawsuit)?

Trying to understand here.
 
2012-12-07 03:25:28 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: minoridiot: What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

Freedom of choice? What country do you think this is?


They're free to find a job that doesn't have a union if that's what they want. I hear Wal*Mart is hiring.
 
2012-12-07 03:30:39 PM

dwrash: As a consumer of laber (which a company is), I should have the RIGHT to shop around for the best possible workers (union or not).


You have that right today in all 50 states.

This law *removes* your right to choose to make your business a closed, Union-only shop. If a Union approaches you with a deal that was *the* best for your business and that deal involved an exclusive agreement, it is now *illegal* for you to make that deal. That was was legal before this law, it is illegal now (assuming Snyder signs it).

Not a single freedom or right is being created/strengthened by this law, and freedom and rights are being restricted. Where is the libertarian brigade to condemn this?
 
2012-12-07 03:32:20 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: I just don't see that sort of thing happening in the real world. Do companies that hire only Union workers never lay off people? Aren't there sufficient laws protecting employees now, so if there were shenanigans in the workplace, they'd be compensated (via lawsuit)?


Union workers do get laid off. However the union can negotiate things like severance pay and retraining benefits. They can fight so that fewer workers are eliminated. They can negotiate protections for those who remain.

Getting compensated via lawsuit for shenanigans in the work place is a long, expensive and ultimately risky proposition for the lone employee. Can they afford an attorney to go up against the company's legal department with their own resources? In many cases, no. And isn't it better to head off the shenanigans before they take affect by having your union intervene on your behalf?
 
2012-12-07 03:34:39 PM

ryarger: dwrash: As a consumer of laber (which a company is), I should have the RIGHT to shop around for the best possible workers (union or not).

You have that right today in all 50 states.

This law *removes* your right to choose to make your business a closed, Union-only shop. If a Union approaches you with a deal that was *the* best for your business and that deal involved an exclusive agreement, it is now *illegal* for you to make that deal. That was was legal before this law, it is illegal now (assuming Snyder signs it).

Not a single freedom or right is being created/strengthened by this law, and freedom and rights are being restricted. Where is the libertarian brigade to condemn this?


LOL. Show me a company that would love to be a closed shop.
 
2012-12-07 03:34:47 PM

ryarger: Where is the libertarian brigade to condemn this?



jso2897: minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

In other words, they allow the State to arbitrarily invalidate the right of two private entities to make contract.


remind me again, how many in a brigade? we're a little light I think :/
 
2012-12-07 03:38:16 PM

joness0154: BeesNuts: Gosling: PreMortem: If that were to happen, people would come back to the union en masse.

Until the unions get declared illegal. Then what do you do, smart guy?

If the supreme court is 5-4 Liberal: Appeal to the supreme court on the grounds that that would violate the first amendment which guarantees a right to peaceably assemble.

Otherwise, start sharpening the guillotines.

Easy peasy.

Except they're not prohibited from assembling.


How else are you going to "declare unions illegal"?

A union is a free assembly of workers. If union busting is going on Pinkerton style, that's an obvious violation of the law, but if the law itself is changes to make that assembly illegal, then it could easily be made into a first amendment issue. Hell, if Citizens United (also coming to us via unions btw) made it through on the grounds of free speech, than unions themselves being protected on the grounds of free assembly is self evident.

I'm probably misunderstanding your point though. No, unions are not prohibited from assembly. But if they were prohibited from assembly by law, then ... they would be.
 
2012-12-07 03:39:44 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: USA Prime Credit Peggy: I just don't see that sort of thing happening in the real world. Do companies that hire only Union workers never lay off people? Aren't there sufficient laws protecting employees now, so if there were shenanigans in the workplace, they'd be compensated (via lawsuit)?

Union workers do get laid off. However the union can negotiate things like severance pay and retraining benefits. They can fight so that fewer workers are eliminated. They can negotiate protections for those who remain.

Getting compensated via lawsuit for shenanigans in the work place is a long, expensive and ultimately risky proposition for the lone employee. Can they afford an attorney to go up against the company's legal department with their own resources? In many cases, no. And isn't it better to head off the shenanigans before they take affect by having your union intervene on your behalf?


I've been laid off before, and I was compensated very well for it (again, non Union job). Isn't that generally the rule? Isn't there a law requiring it, even?

I see your point on the attorney thing... But if you own a company, you don't want to treat your workers bad! In this day and age, that shiat gets on Twitter, Facebook, the news, and reflects poorly on your company to your customers (who in turn might choose not to be your customer anymore). Right?
 
2012-12-07 03:47:04 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: I've been laid off before, and I was compensated very well for it (again, non Union job). Isn't that generally the rule? Isn't there a law requiring it, even?


Nope. They have no obligation to you beyond paying you for the time you already worked and benefits accrued.

USA Prime Credit Peggy: I see your point on the attorney thing... But if you own a company, you don't want to treat your workers bad! In this day and age, that shiat gets on Twitter, Facebook, the news, and reflects poorly on your company to your customers (who in turn might choose not to be your customer anymore). Right?


I think you need to open your eyes and look around a bit. Social media hasn't brought on the workers paradise. Many companies continue to treat their employees poorly. Look at recent stories about Walmart, or Darden Restaurants complaining about having to give employees healthcare coverage and sick days.
 
2012-12-07 03:51:06 PM
We continue to get the government we deserve.
 
2012-12-07 03:52:05 PM

Philip Francis Queeg:
USA Prime Credit Peggy: I see your point on the attorney thing... But if you own a company, you don't want to treat your workers bad! In this day and age, that shiat gets on Twitter, Facebook, the news, and reflects poorly on your company to your customers (who in turn might choose not to be your customer anymore). Right?

I think you need to open your eyes and look around a bit. Social media hasn't brought on the workers paradise. Many companies continue to treat their employees poorly. Look at recent stories about Walmart, or Darden Restaurants complaining about having to give employees healthcare coverage and sick days.


I also see stories about Costco and how well their non-Union workers are treated. Meh.
 
2012-12-07 03:54:26 PM

BeesNuts: joness0154: BeesNuts: Gosling: PreMortem: If that were to happen, people would come back to the union en masse.

Until the unions get declared illegal. Then what do you do, smart guy?

If the supreme court is 5-4 Liberal: Appeal to the supreme court on the grounds that that would violate the first amendment which guarantees a right to peaceably assemble.

Otherwise, start sharpening the guillotines.

Easy peasy.

Except they're not prohibited from assembling.

How else are you going to "declare unions illegal"?

A union is a free assembly of workers. If union busting is going on Pinkerton style, that's an obvious violation of the law, but if the law itself is changes to make that assembly illegal, then it could easily be made into a first amendment issue. Hell, if Citizens United (also coming to us via unions btw) made it through on the grounds of free speech, than unions themselves being protected on the grounds of free assembly is self evident.

I'm probably misunderstanding your point though. No, unions are not prohibited from assembly. But if they were prohibited from assembly by law, then ... they would be.


Unions aren't being prohibited from forming in RTW states.
 
2012-12-07 03:54:33 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: I also see stories about Costco and how well their non-Union workers are treated. Meh.


thinkprogress.org
meh
 
2012-12-07 03:54:54 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: Philip Francis Queeg:
USA Prime Credit Peggy: I see your point on the attorney thing... But if you own a company, you don't want to treat your workers bad! In this day and age, that shiat gets on Twitter, Facebook, the news, and reflects poorly on your company to your customers (who in turn might choose not to be your customer anymore). Right?

I think you need to open your eyes and look around a bit. Social media hasn't brought on the workers paradise. Many companies continue to treat their employees poorly. Look at recent stories about Walmart, or Darden Restaurants complaining about having to give employees healthcare coverage and sick days.

I also see stories about Costco and how well their non-Union workers are treated. Meh.


So since one company treats it employees well, unions aren't required by employees of other companies?
 
2012-12-07 03:55:44 PM

Mentat: minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

Bullshiat. Right to Work would better be described as Divide and Conquer. The initial purpose is to provide a competitive alternative to unions so that workers will voluntarily give up their collective bargaining rights and weaken the unions. What you're seeing now is the end game. If they can break unions in the Rust Belt, then they no longer have to compete with the unions and then they can do whatever they want to the workers. Don't like it? Sorry, you gave up your collective bargaining rights.


I am thinking more and more that we will be seeing things like the River Rouge and Everett Massacres as people realize that they have lost huge protections.
 
2012-12-07 03:57:06 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: USA Prime Credit Peggy: Philip Francis Queeg:
USA Prime Credit Peggy: I see your point on the attorney thing... But if you own a company, you don't want to treat your workers bad! In this day and age, that shiat gets on Twitter, Facebook, the news, and reflects poorly on your company to your customers (who in turn might choose not to be your customer anymore). Right?

I think you need to open your eyes and look around a bit. Social media hasn't brought on the workers paradise. Many companies continue to treat their employees poorly. Look at recent stories about Walmart, or Darden Restaurants complaining about having to give employees healthcare coverage and sick days.

I also see stories about Costco and how well their non-Union workers are treated. Meh.

So since one company treats it employees well, unions aren't required by employees of other companies?


But you would think it would be an example to other companies in how to treat its employees... it's also one of the reasons I shop at Costo and the people are way more friendly than say walmart.
 
2012-12-07 03:57:41 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: But if you own a company, you don't want to treat your workers bad! In this day and age, that shiat gets on Twitter, Facebook, the news, and reflects poorly on your company to your customers (who in turn might choose not to be your customer anymore). Right?



I'll spare you the sarcasm and just tell you that clearly is not the case if you look at WalMart.

USA Prime Credit Peggy: I've been laid off before, and I was compensated very well for it (again, non Union job). Isn't that generally the rule? Isn't there a law requiring it, even?



Nope.

Let me give you a concrete example of why a union exists. I was on a hiring panel for a college that needed a science teacher to teach 3 classes. Teachers there were in a union and each taught 3 classes and that was full time. We interviewed three people and the panel made a unanimous recommendation for one of them. The college ignored us and hired all three, part-time, and each taught one class. Three part time teachers are paid less, receive no benefits and have no protections. It's much cheaper. I contend that situation is "bad." But the union could not fight it. This was a new position opening up so the union had to stuff it and be happy there were three new part time workers. A few years later a full-time teacher retired. That was a union protected job. That job can be eliminated if there is no need for it but it cannot be replaced with three part-timers. So the college hired someone full-time to fill it. It's not hard to imagine, if the union were gone, as each teacher retired they would be replaced with three part-time teachers. I contend this would be "bad."

I also have stories of how unions are bad. But none of them compare to how bad things would be without unions.
 
2012-12-07 03:58:35 PM

dwrash: Philip Francis Queeg: USA Prime Credit Peggy: Philip Francis Queeg:
USA Prime Credit Peggy: I see your point on the attorney thing... But if you own a company, you don't want to treat your workers bad! In this day and age, that shiat gets on Twitter, Facebook, the news, and reflects poorly on your company to your customers (who in turn might choose not to be your customer anymore). Right?

I think you need to open your eyes and look around a bit. Social media hasn't brought on the workers paradise. Many companies continue to treat their employees poorly. Look at recent stories about Walmart, or Darden Restaurants complaining about having to give employees healthcare coverage and sick days.

I also see stories about Costco and how well their non-Union workers are treated. Meh.

So since one company treats it employees well, unions aren't required by employees of other companies?

But you would think it would be an example to other companies in how to treat its employees... it's also one of the reasons I shop at Costo and the people are way more friendly than say walmart.


It doesn't seem to have much effect on the other companies though, does it?
 
2012-12-07 04:01:01 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: dwrash: Philip Francis Queeg: USA Prime Credit Peggy: Philip Francis Queeg:
USA Prime Credit Peggy: I see your point on the attorney thing... But if you own a company, you don't want to treat your workers bad! In this day and age, that shiat gets on Twitter, Facebook, the news, and reflects poorly on your company to your customers (who in turn might choose not to be your customer anymore). Right?

I think you need to open your eyes and look around a bit. Social media hasn't brought on the workers paradise. Many companies continue to treat their employees poorly. Look at recent stories about Walmart, or Darden Restaurants complaining about having to give employees healthcare coverage and sick days.

I also see stories about Costco and how well their non-Union workers are treated. Meh.

So since one company treats it employees well, unions aren't required by employees of other companies?

But you would think it would be an example to other companies in how to treat its employees... it's also one of the reasons I shop at Costo and the people are way more friendly than say walmart.

It doesn't seem to have much effect on the other companies though, does it?


Time will tell. You have to start somewhere.

I also tend to think people get the treatment they deserve.
 
2012-12-07 04:02:25 PM

joness0154: Unions aren't being prohibited from forming in RTW states.


Step 1) Offer all non-union employees $1/hour more, changing your work force entirely to non-union.
Step 2) With no union to fight back, eliminate benefits and reduce wages.
Step 3) Profit. No really, profit.

You're right, no one prohibited a union from forming, yet we are able to successfully destroy and trample the workers. What a perfect idea.
 
2012-12-07 04:03:24 PM

dwrash: I also tend to think people get the treatment they deserve.


The domestic violence victims had it comin thread is elsewhere on the page.
 
2012-12-07 04:07:49 PM

lennavan: dwrash: I also tend to think people get the treatment they deserve.

The domestic violence victims had it comin thread is elsewhere on the page.


Nothing to do with domestic violence.

If you drop out of highschool or college and don't work to get ahead and are satisfied working a union job on an assembly line... then you deserve to live at the poverty line.
 
2012-12-07 04:09:29 PM

joness0154: ryarger: dwrash: As a consumer of laber (which a company is), I should have the RIGHT to shop around for the best possible workers (union or not).

You have that right today in all 50 states.

This law *removes* your right to choose to make your business a closed, Union-only shop. If a Union approaches you with a deal that was *the* best for your business and that deal involved an exclusive agreement, it is now *illegal* for you to make that deal. That was was legal before this law, it is illegal now (assuming Snyder signs it).

Not a single freedom or right is being created/strengthened by this law, and freedom and rights are being restricted. Where is the libertarian brigade to condemn this?

LOL. Show me a company that would love to be a closed shop.


Because corporations are people, my friend, amirite?
 
2012-12-07 04:10:55 PM
There was one a time and a place for unions. Here in America, their time has passed.
 
2012-12-07 04:11:53 PM

dwrash: lennavan: dwrash: I also tend to think people get the treatment they deserve.

The domestic violence victims had it comin thread is elsewhere on the page.

Nothing to do with domestic violence.

If you drop out of highschool or college and don't work to get ahead and are satisfied working a union job on an assembly line... then you deserve to live at the poverty line.


Yep, making the products that you desire really is worthy of punishment. People who labor are icky.
 
2012-12-07 04:12:58 PM

Merkin Ball: There was one a time and a place for unions. Here in America, their time has passed.


There was one a time and a place for corporations. Here in America, their time has passed.
 
2012-12-07 04:13:56 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: dwrash: lennavan: dwrash: I also tend to think people get the treatment they deserve.

The domestic violence victims had it comin thread is elsewhere on the page.

Nothing to do with domestic violence.

If you drop out of highschool or college and don't work to get ahead and are satisfied working a union job on an assembly line... then you deserve to live at the poverty line.

Yep, making the products that you desire really is worthy of punishment. People who labor are icky.


Nothing like that at all... and all those jobs will be lost to robotics in the near future.

Who said anything about punishment?... you are only worth the value you can provide to your employer.
 
2012-12-07 04:15:14 PM

dwrash: lennavan: dwrash: I also tend to think people get the treatment they deserve.

The domestic violence victims had it comin thread is elsewhere on the page.

Nothing to do with domestic violence.


It was a joke more to mock the stupidity of your "people get the treatment they deserve" comment.

dwrash: If you drop out of highschool or college and don't work to get ahead and are satisfied working a union job on an assembly line... then you deserve to live at the poverty line.


Funny, the people I was discussing above in the thread who were taking part time jobs with no benefits because the union couldn't protect them had PhDs and decades of experience. But you're right, all union jobs are for high school drop out factory workers on an assembly line.
 
2012-12-07 04:17:42 PM

BeesNuts: minoridiot: And the Hostess thing, the Baker's union should share in some of that blame as much as the company.

elaborate plox.

I'm not sure "I can get this 'great deal' anywhere else doing anything. You wanna cut my pay by 20 to 30 percent per year and cut benefits while keeping your 1.5 million dollar compensation? Well, compensate this, Rayburn." is blame-worthy.


Plus, this baker's union thing is SO last week. Apparently Rush and Fox are now pushing it was the Teamster's fault Hostess went under.
 
2012-12-07 04:18:11 PM

dwrash: Nothing like that at all... and all those jobs will be lost to robotics in the near future.

Who said anything about punishment?... you are only worth the value you can provide to your employer.


Right. People have no intrinsic value, they are tools to be used and tossed away. A worker shouldn't be considered with any more concern than you have for a hammer. Don't get me going about the useless cogs like the disabled and elderly.
 
2012-12-07 04:19:34 PM

dwrash: Who said anything about punishment?... you are only worth the value you can provide to your employer.


I could not agree more. Yet you are paid the very least your employer can get away with while still providing that value. Would you believe some people see a flaw in this system?

If a person does not find a job, they go hungry, they go homeless and their kids/family does as well. If a business does not hire the best employee, they lose out on some profits. So there is a hell of a lot more pressure to take a job that compensates you less than you are worth than there is to offer a job that compensates someone what they are worth. Would you believe some people see a flaw in this system?
 
2012-12-07 04:19:36 PM

lennavan: dwrash: lennavan: dwrash: I also tend to think people get the treatment they deserve.

The domestic violence victims had it comin thread is elsewhere on the page.

Nothing to do with domestic violence.

It was a joke more to mock the stupidity of your "people get the treatment they deserve" comment.

dwrash: If you drop out of highschool or college and don't work to get ahead and are satisfied working a union job on an assembly line... then you deserve to live at the poverty line.

Funny, the people I was discussing above in the thread who were taking part time jobs with no benefits because the union couldn't protect them had PhDs and decades of experience. But you're right, all union jobs are for high school drop out factory workers on an assembly line.


Not at all... but by definition a professional gets ahead by their own wits and savy. Someone with a PhD in a union must have been a very poor PhD candidate that practically no one wanted. Or they chose a PhD in a field that wasn't marketable.

Those that get ahead and succeed in life are those who think about working outside the corporate mess. The MBA's have ruined this country in so many ways..
 
2012-12-07 04:23:12 PM

lennavan: dwrash: Who said anything about punishment?... you are only worth the value you can provide to your employer.

I could not agree more. Yet you are paid the very least your employer can get away with while still providing that value. Would you believe some people see a flaw in this system?

If a person does not find a job, they go hungry, they go homeless and their kids/family does as well. If a business does not hire the best employee, they lose out on some profits. So there is a hell of a lot more pressure to take a job that compensates you less than you are worth than there is to offer a job that compensates someone what they are worth. Would you believe some people see a flaw in this system?


The flaw is that people are not motivated and do not sell themselves.. and lay down like sheep for the slaughter.

I've been laid off a couple of times and never had a hard time making ends meet till the right job came along.
 
2012-12-07 04:27:09 PM

dwrash: The flaw is that people are not motivated and do not sell themselves.. and lay down like sheep for the slaughter.

I've been laid off a couple of times and never had a hard time making ends meet till the right job came along.


Not everyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

dwrash: The flaw is that people are not motivated and do not sell themselves.. and lay down like sheep for the slaughter.


All workers add $X value to their employer, where each workers' X might be different. If employers paid each of those workers exactly what they were worth, the employer would make exactly $0 in profit. The flaw in our system is we have accepted maximization of profits is not only okay but indeed optimal. Take a guess where those profits come from? That's the flaw.
 
2012-12-07 04:28:07 PM

crab66: We continue to get the government we deserve.


No we farking don't. I don't vote for assholes who support this shiat.
 
2012-12-07 04:28:21 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Merkin Ball: There was one a time and a place for unions. Here in America, their time has passed.

There was one a time and a place for corporations. Here in America, their time has passed.


Wow, I actually agreed with you for once.
 
2012-12-07 04:32:15 PM

Headso: USA Prime Credit Peggy: I also see stories about Costco and how well their non-Union workers are treated. Meh.

[thinkprogress.org image 460x329]
meh


You know you can't just state it, you also need to prove correlation and causation. I can make a graph where as countries who built the shiat out of them in the 1940s rebuildtand modernized their infrastructure, the American demand for factory jobs that paid middle class wages went to hell due to skilled labor increasing in supply. I might not be right, but I can make the lines work on a graph without having to fudge their slopes.
 
2012-12-07 04:34:16 PM

joness0154: LOL. Show me a company that would love to be a closed shop.


So it's OK for governments to ban things just because people might not like them? If a company would not want to enter into a contract with a Union that includes closed shops, they don't have to, do they?

Why should the government dictate what contracts a business can and cannot enter into?
 
2012-12-07 04:39:46 PM

PreMortem: That being said, I have no problem with right to work laws (I'm in a union). But if someone decides to not pay dues, they still get all the benefits and rights as a due paying member. I'd say if you don't want to pay union dues, fine... negotiate your own wages and benefits.


THIS. Publicans seem just fine with free riders when they're free riding on the evil Union Thugs.
 
2012-12-07 04:44:49 PM

ha-ha-guy: Headso: USA Prime Credit Peggy: I also see stories about Costco and how well their non-Union workers are treated. Meh.

[thinkprogress.org image 460x329]
meh

You know you can't just state it, you also need to prove correlation and causation. I can make a graph where as countries who built the shiat out of them in the 1940s rebuildtand modernized their infrastructure, the American demand for factory jobs that paid middle class wages went to hell due to skilled labor increasing in supply. I might not be right, but I can make the lines work on a graph without having to fudge their slopes.


If they didn't lead to higher wages then the GOP wouldn't be trying to bust them.
 
2012-12-07 04:45:54 PM

ha-ha-guy: Headso: USA Prime Credit Peggy: I also see stories about Costco and how well their non-Union workers are treated. Meh.

[thinkprogress.org image 460x329]
meh

You know you can't just state it, you also need to prove correlation and causation. I can make a graph where as countries who built the shiat out of them in the 1940s rebuildtand modernized their infrastructure, the American demand for factory jobs that paid middle class wages went to hell due to skilled labor increasing in supply. I might not be right, but I can make the lines work on a graph without having to fudge their slopes.


1. Put up or shut up. Link the data.
2.a) Now graph workforce membership in unions and membership in the middle class over the same time period.
b) Now do the same for northern european countries.
3. Now make that bullshiat globalization claim and explain the european "anomaly."
 
2012-12-07 04:52:21 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: ha-ha-guy: Headso: USA Prime Credit Peggy: I also see stories about Costco and how well their non-Union workers are treated. Meh.

[thinkprogress.org image 460x329]
meh

You know you can't just state it, you also need to prove correlation and causation. I can make a graph where as countries who built the shiat out of them in the 1940s rebuildtand modernized their infrastructure, the American demand for factory jobs that paid middle class wages went to hell due to skilled labor increasing in supply. I might not be right, but I can make the lines work on a graph without having to fudge their slopes.

1. Put up or shut up. Link the data.
2.a) Now graph workforce membership in unions and membership in the middle class over the same time period.
b) Now do the same for northern european countries.
3. Now make that bullshiat globalization claim and explain the european "anomaly."


Try rereading the post where I never claimed it to be correct, in fact I think it is wrong in that such a graph would be correlation, not causation. I merely accused Headso of posting the same kind of graph.

/we're in a race to the bottom because we don't have proper controls on goods in place to punish companies from exploiting cheap overseas labor and cheap transit costs to get the goods here
//well that and Americans are dumb enough to buy those goods
/the minute our manufacturing sector got into a fight with the third world, it lost. There is no winning move except to freeze them out
 
2012-12-07 04:52:50 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Republicans in my state are assholes.

 
2012-12-07 05:04:12 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Merkin Ball: There was one a time and a place for unions. Here in America, their time has passed.
There was one a time and a place for corporations. Here in America, their time has passed.


There was once a time and a place for worrying about if employees were treated humanely and paid fairly for their work. Here in America, that time has passed.
 
2012-12-07 05:09:17 PM

lennavan: If employers paid each of those workers exactly what they were worth, the employer would make exactly $0 in profit.


I want to subscribe to your newsletter.

So I can laugh at it.
 
2012-12-07 05:13:52 PM
"Right to Fire" is more apt.
 
2012-12-07 05:56:57 PM

minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.


Right to work states have the highest unemployment, 53% more work related deaths, lower income, etc.....so they aren't so great.
 
2012-12-07 06:38:34 PM
RTW advocates come in two Varieties, divided by income level.

Parasites who want all the benefits a union fights for, without the responsibilities of actually being in the union. They want better pay, better hours and such, but don't want to sacrifice anything for it, and the greedy executive types who just want unions weakened and eventually powerless, so they can fark the workers however they please to earn a little extra profit.
 
2012-12-07 06:46:33 PM

lennavan:
Step 1) Offer all non-union employees $1/hour more, changing your work force entirely to non-union.
Step 2) With no union to fight back, eliminate benefits and reduce wages.
Step 3) Profit. No really, profit.
Step 3)If the benefit and wage reduction is greater than the $1 bonus for being non-union, the workers unionize.

FTFY.

 
2012-12-07 07:18:26 PM

LordJiro: RTW advocates come in two Varieties, divided by income level.

Parasites who want all the benefits a union fights for, without the responsibilities of actually being in the union. They want better pay, better hours and such, but don't want to sacrifice anything for it, and the greedy executive types who just want unions weakened and eventually powerless, so they can fark the workers however they please to earn a little extra profit.


There is a third variant: people who believe anti-union propaganda and gleefully shoot themselves in the foot because clever marketing made it seem like a prudent career move.
 
2012-12-07 07:47:11 PM
Labor and Democrats were pushing back hard against the Workplace Fairness and Equity Act

I had a witty comment, but meh
 
2012-12-07 08:09:39 PM
As a proud scab, I wish to point at you union cocksucker and laugh.
Seriously, fark you guys.
 
2012-12-07 08:27:28 PM

PepperFreak: As a proud scab, I wish to point at you union cocksucker and laugh.
Seriously, fark you guys.


0/10
 
2012-12-07 09:30:13 PM

lohphat: Mentat: You provide an attractive alternative to unions in order to divide the workers and weaken the unions

That, unfortunately, is the outcome of free choice.

The workers are free to make bad choices.

If the unions are so great, then why would workers not join them?


Again, you're ignoring what RTW is all about. You first offer the workers a deal where they get all of the benefits of being in a union without the costs. Of course people are going to take that choice. At the same time, you pass legislation to weaken the unions or use firms like Bain Capital to destroy unionized companies. With the unions sufficiently weakened, they can no longer compete with the benefits RTW workers get, which further divides the workforce. When the unions are broken, however, there is no longer a need to provide competitive benefits. At that point, the companies are free to do whatever they want to the workers who will suddenly discover that they've given away all of their rights and there's no one left to fight for them.
 
2012-12-07 10:36:49 PM

Stone Meadow: I see that the law would exempt police and firefighter unions. Didn't a Federal judge put the kibosh on the Wisconsin law that did the same thing?


The only way ALEC can win is if they divide the cops and firefighters from everyone else. When they don't, you get states like Ohio that steamroll things.

That said:
Now can the next session's legislature repeal it? If ALEC doesn't like giving the people a say, all they're doing is moving any coercion over to the business.


ryarger: This law *removes* your right to choose to make your business a closed, Union-only shop


Does not apply to employers' unions such as staffing agencies. They can still run a closed shop with contractors.
 
2012-12-07 10:40:50 PM

Mentat: minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

Bullshiat. Right to Work would better be described as Divide and Conquer. The initial purpose is to provide a competitive alternative to unions so that workers will voluntarily give up their collective bargaining rights and weaken the unions. What you're seeing now is the end game. If they can break unions in the Rust Belt, then they no longer have to compete with the unions and then they can do whatever they want to the workers. Don't like it? Sorry, you gave up your collective bargaining rights.


People still have the right to join a union. If the Union improved the workers lives then wouldn't they still join? Or should people be forced to give part of their earnings to a group that may or may not do anything to improve wages, benefits, or conditions?

The people of Michigan have a choice in who to elect to office, now they will have a choice on whether they give part of their pay to a union official.
 
2012-12-07 11:17:46 PM
Mentat
At that point, the companies are free to do whatever they want to the workers who will suddenly discover that they've given away all of their rights and there's no one left to fight for them.

Workers never got anything because they were given a "right" to it. They got it by using their power.

/could also change "workers" to "people"
 
2012-12-08 12:12:35 AM

Lt_Ryan: People still have the right to join a union. If the Union improved the workers lives then wouldn't they still join? Or should people be forced to give part of their earnings to a group that may or may not do anything to improve wages, benefits, or conditions?


I've already answered this twice in this thread.
 
2012-12-08 02:58:59 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Right wingers;
Can you explain to me why there's an exemption for police and fire fighters?


Simply put: Emergency workers already don't have the right to strike. It's in the public interest of safety, after all. Police and fire unions are largely for legal fees, training, and occasionally help if someone gets injured and the cities try to weasel out of paying.
 
2012-12-08 04:32:11 AM

dwrash: meat0918: Baz744: meat0918:
Because in reality, unions spend a lot of money for political causes that the rank and file have no say in. Unions should spend their dues on educating their workers so they will have a stronger position next time they collectively bargain.


My question is why do the Republicans, who so vehemently oppose unions making political donations, have no issue with allowing corporations to make political donations? As a shareholder in a corporation, shouldn't I get to "opt out" of making such contributions? I'd MUCH rather get my cut as a dividend payment, rather than it go to lobbyists and campaigns I disagree with. Yet Republicans prevent me from asserting that right. And employees, whose labor yields the profits that a company chooses to spend making political contributions, also have absolutely no say in where those contributions go.

It's almost as though the Republican party simply wants to deny workers any attempt at equal bargaining power, while at the same time depriving the Democrats of a major funding source. In this "jaded" view of the party, they might also oppose any and all measures to limit their own funding sources, and even oppose simple disclosure rules so that everyone could at least know who it was that was spending so much money on their campaigns and causes.

// But I AM Jaded, so I'm sure it's all totally innocent and merely a coincidence. In fact, CLEARLY the Republicans care very much for the FREEDOMS of employees, while not wanting to give unnecessary protections to evil capitalist shareholders. Yeah, that must be it.
 
2012-12-08 06:01:35 PM

PreMortem: That being said, I have no problem with right to work laws (I'm in a union). But if someone decides to not pay dues, they still get all the benefits and rights as a due paying member. I'd say if you don't want to pay union dues, fine... negotiate your own wages and benefits.


That's not very realistic either... And still leads to abuse..The company negotiates great deals with all who come to them, thus destabilizing the union and in the end eliminating it

Canada dealt with this issue in the 40's.... Rand formula
 
2012-12-08 06:51:26 PM

Mentat: "Again, you're ignoring what RTW is all about. You first offer the workers a deal where they get all of the benefits of being in a union without the costs. Of course people are going to take that choice. At the same time, you pass legislation to weaken the unions or use firms like Bain Capital to destroy unionized companies. With the unions sufficiently weakened, they can no longer compete with the benefits RTW workers get, which further divides the workforce. When the unions are broken, however, there is no longer a need to provide competitive benefits. At that point, the companies are free to do whatever they want to the workers who will suddenly discover that they've given away all of their rights and there's no one left to fight for them."



Are you under the impression that if this were to actually happen, the poor, abused workers wouldn't promptly re-unionize and restore their bargaining advantage? Because that seems to be your justification for advocating so strongly against the emergence of (heaven forbid!) a non-union environment that is favorable to workers.

Apparently it needs to be said again: Not requiring someone to join a union before they can get a job is NOT the same as outlawing unions. If policies become such that workers' conditions are disadvantageous, it will take zero effort by agitators to unionize them. If those conditions are truly intolerable, there won't be enough workers who opt out of union membership to allow the company not to improve them. In other words, so long as forming a union remains legal (which it always will), there exists a self-maintaining balance where the solution is built into the problem. Anything beyond that -- i.e. forced union membership -- is nothing more than legal sanctioning of a labor monopsony.
 
2012-12-08 10:23:54 PM

spmkk: Are you under the impression that if this were to actually happen, the poor, abused workers wouldn't promptly re-unionize and restore their bargaining advantage? Because that seems to be your justification for advocating so strongly against the emergence of (heaven forbid!) a non-union environment that is favorable to workers.


Tell that to a Wal*Mart worker in the US. You sound like you need a good spit-bath.

I'll address this utter twaddle when my laughter isn't leaving me breathless.

spmkk: Anything beyond that -- i.e. forced union membership -- is nothing more than legal sanctioning of a labor monopsony.


The formation of unions is what gave labor enough power to create a middle class. Given the relative power of the players, a labor monopsony is the only way to balance the scales.
 
2012-12-09 07:48:52 AM

minoridiot: Collective bargaining is covered by Federal Law which is why the Wisconsin law was struck down in court. And the Hostess thing, the Baker's union should share in some of that blame as much as the company.


I can see how you'd think something like this if you were a complete idiot moron.
 
2012-12-09 08:24:54 PM

dwrash: lennavan: dwrash: I also tend to think people get the treatment they deserve.

The domestic violence victims had it comin thread is elsewhere on the page.

Nothing to do with domestic violence.

If you drop out of highschool or college and don't work to get ahead and are satisfied working a union job on an assembly line... then you deserve to live at the poverty line.


The Just-World Fallacy
 
2012-12-10 03:10:16 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: HotWingConspiracy: joness0154: Philip Francis Queeg: joness0154: Oh you raised your voice at me? Grievance

My God, they demand to be treated with respect? You need to put those people in their place.

Respect is earned.

Your employees know that too. Notice how they don't respect you?

He really is doing a great job of illustrating the sorts of management failures that unions exist to protect the employee from.


You are all being somewhat unfair. I have spent the majority of my career managing labor relations in union shops, and the fact is that people respond poorly to the us/them mentality created by organised labor. Of course management starts yelling at labor. After spending a year or two watching a small percentage of your employees take advantage of union protections to be lazy, ineffectual, rude, or flat out corrupt, even the most well meaning of management will eventually snap and throw respect to the wind. Employees act like that, but why shouldn't they? All they hear about from their union is how management is out to get them and take away money, rights, benefits, hours, perks, etc... Then someone has a bad day, and everything each sode thinks about the other becomes true.

The union stirs the pot. The management gets stirred. Us Vs Them mentality grabs hold, and it all goes to hell with self fulfilling prophecy.

I'm not a fan of unions, but even I understand that unions existed to protect employees from certain behaviors that may or may not exist in their current working environments. I have worked places that were Union for very good reasons, and the management was truly horrible to deal with. I have worked other places that had no need for Unions, but the the Union has so indoctrinated its membership that all they can see is the opportunities for entitlement and advantage over Management that could be gained. In both cases, the Union isn't working tho protect the employee from abuse as much as it is there to keep itself in business.

Most of my employees are great, union and non union both. Its that bottom 8% that take advantage of their position as management or union that create problems for the the rest of the group.

To continually place situations in one camp or another (constantly pro/anti-union) shows a level of naivety that i find distressing. To constantly assume the behaviors of all based on isolated examples without fuly looking at the situation or circumstances is pure ignorance.

/nonsensical rant off
 
2012-12-10 05:30:45 PM
it's astounding how much bad information is in this thread.

- under Michigan's current law (that is, pre-RTW), no one can be forced to join a union, even in a "closed shop." if you work in such a place, though, you are in a bargaining unit that is represented by a union when it comes time to negotiate a contract, so you pay representation fees (to pay for lawyers and stuff). the bone of contention is that some people do not believe that that's what the representation fees are used for. as a union supporter and RTW opponent, i will admit that rarely but occasionally, this is the case.

- Right to Work (RTW) proposals in Michigan would make it so that a worker in a closed shop bargaining unit can choose not to pay representation fees. this means unions (who do the negotiating) would have fewer resources with which to negotiate with management, and in those rare cases when representation fee money is misused, less money for whatever they use it for.

- RTW introduces a huge new freerider problem. as it is, fee-payers do not pay union dues, so they are - to a small extent - freeriding. the difference is small though. after RTW, however, a worker can avoid the ENTIRE representation fee, meaning they have a MUCH larger incentive to freeride. simple economics indicates that this will lead to a lot less money in the unions' hands, which they use almost all of to negotiate. therefore, contracts that are less advantageous for workers will be negotiated - to disagree with this is to disagree with the most basic ideas behind collective action. you can't go to a Tea Party rally expecting political change AND back RTW laws without some cognitive dissonance, i don't think.
 
2012-12-10 07:00:15 PM
I work in the auto industry, having taken a job that I didn't know was UAW controlled. I found it amusing that my union steward introduced himself to me today. I've been there since May.
 
Displayed 265 of 265 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report