Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

2712 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Dec 2012 at 11:41 AM (2 years 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 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?
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report