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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 265 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report