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 79
    More: Asinine, capitols, Lansing, Michigan, Republican, appropriations, legislation, union shops, Senate passed  
•       •       •

2710 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-07 10:38:46 AM  
12 votes:

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 09:37:10 AM  
6 votes:

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 12:05:37 PM  
3 votes:
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 11:00:02 AM  
3 votes:

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.
2012-12-08 04:32:11 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-12-07 01:38:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:06:45 PM  
2 votes:
"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 01:02:33 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:01:08 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:33:41 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:28:43 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:21:07 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:09:23 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:06:48 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:03:43 PM  
2 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-07 09:22:35 AM  
2 votes:
I like how they call it "right to work" like it has something to do with a right that relates to working.
2012-12-10 05:30:45 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-12-09 08:24:54 PM  
1 votes:

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
2012-12-08 10:23:54 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-08 12:12:35 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-07 09:30:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:38:34 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:56:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:13:52 PM  
1 votes:
"Right to Fire" is more apt.
2012-12-07 04:45:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:44:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:39:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:18:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:09:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:03:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:02:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:57:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:54:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:54:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:30:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:58:58 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:39:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:33:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:28:49 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:04:10 PM  
1 votes:
" Right to work" laws eventually turn every worker into a Temp worker.
2012-12-07 01:55:16 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:46:44 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:36:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:31:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:27:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:25:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:23:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:17:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:06:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:54:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:52:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:51:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:51:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:47:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:46:39 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:46:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:46:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:45:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:41:06 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:38:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:30:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:21:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:18:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:16:20 PM  
1 votes:
Right wingers;
Can you explain to me why there's an exemption for police and fire fighters?
2012-12-07 12:15:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:14:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:11:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:02:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:00:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:58:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:54:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:53:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:49:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:49:16 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:46:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:44:13 AM  
1 votes:
Republicans in my state are assholes. Not much more to say about it than that.
2012-12-07 11:25:39 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:30:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:26:58 AM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 79 of 79 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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