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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Mich. Democrats: If you pass this, you will not reason with us, you cannot control us. There shall be chaos in the streets. Cats and dogs living together. Muslims and Jews breaking bread. Chaos, utter chaos   ( tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, Democrats, John Dingell, Muslims and Jews, Michigan Republicans, union shops  
•       •       •

5016 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2012 at 11:31 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



526 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-12-11 08:12:24 AM  
Right to work laws in Michigan?

That's not gonna end well.
 
2012-12-11 08:28:00 AM  
You'll get over it.
 
2012-12-11 08:29:19 AM  

BillCo: You'll get over it.


No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.
 
2012-12-11 08:33:20 AM  

Klippoklondike: No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.


Doesn't matter, the GOP has the power in the state and they're going to take advantage of it.
 
2012-12-11 08:38:11 AM  

slayer199: Klippoklondike: No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.

Doesn't matter, the GOP has the power in the state and they're going to take advantage of it.


You are right. People will have to let their votes be heard next election cycle.
 
2012-12-11 08:45:45 AM  

slayer199: take advantage


So they will.
 
2012-12-11 09:05:43 AM  

Klippoklondike: People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.


I don't understand this argument. The RTW stuff has been lobbied for for at least a year or two. It was not a new idea. They put any work on hold when Prop 2 hit the ballot because that would have made RTW unconstitutional. So, when Prop 2 failed they whisked RTW on through.

I'm not sure what people wanted. Another year to debate the merits of such a law? *shrug*
 
2012-12-11 09:07:17 AM  
Michigan isn't prohibiting unions, it's just allowing workers to decide if they want to belong to them. Of course unions want the power to compel membership, it's so much easier than having to persuade people that voluntarily joining is in their best interest.

/Don't just demand union allegiance, earn it. -Good luck with that
 
2012-12-11 09:18:48 AM  
Democrats: People don't deserve the right to choose!
 
2012-12-11 09:21:15 AM  

jbuist: I'm not sure what people wanted. Another year to debate the merits of such a law? *shrug*


Governor Snyder urged the unions not to push forward on Prop 2. When they did it anyway and Prop 2 was defeated, the political backlash moved RTW to the front of the line. The GOP has significant majorities in the state house, state senate, a majority on the State Supreme Court, and the Governorship...in a state that's been blue for Presidential elections since 1992 and has 2 Democratic Senators.. Basically, they'd never have another shot at this where everything aligns in their favor. Additionally, polling puts 51-54% of Michigan citizens in favor of RTW.
 
2012-12-11 09:21:53 AM  

jbuist: Klippoklondike: People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.

I don't understand this argument. The RTW stuff has been lobbied for for at least a year or two. It was not a new idea. They put any work on hold when Prop 2 hit the ballot because that would have made RTW unconstitutional. So, when Prop 2 failed they whisked RTW on through.

I'm not sure what people wanted. Another year to debate the merits of such a law? *shrug*


Several things:

First, it's a lame duck session trying to ram it through before the session is up, which rankles people.
Second, they passed it as a spending bill which means that it can't be brought up as a public referendum, which enrages people.

They're basically telling the people "Fark you, we're doing this and you can't stop us." It's pretty typical GOP tactics where they drop a turd in the punch bowl and the Democrats have to waste time fishing it out.
 
2012-12-11 09:22:54 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats: People don't deserve the right to choose!


So you're on board with abortion rights and gay marriage?

Noted.
 
2012-12-11 09:31:09 AM  
Can someone post a graph that shows the economic prosperity state-by-state in regards as to which states have what in the ways of labor laws?

I'm willing to bet the right-to-work states are the poorest.
 
2012-12-11 09:38:49 AM  

BillCo: You'll get over it.


I don't think so. this law bypassed the normal process of democracy and the local GOP has been extremely heavy handed about passing it. the Republicans have already damaged their brand in this fight. passing that law will tell Democrats (and third parties) that the GOP isn't interested in democracy anymore, they're just in it for the money and power.
 
2012-12-11 09:40:53 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats: People don't deserve the right to choose!


so you're pro-choice, pro-gay marriage AND pro-legalization of cannabis?

huh. go figure.
 
2012-12-11 09:42:50 AM  

Weaver95: BillCo: You'll get over it.

I don't think so. this law bypassed the normal process of democracy and the local GOP has been extremely heavy handed about passing it. the Republicans have already damaged their brand in this fight. passing that law will tell Democrats (and third parties) that the GOP isn't interested in democracy anymore, they're just in it for the money and power.


Yeah, I have to admit I'm of mixed minds on right-to-work. But the way this was done is offensive. Let the people choose.
 
2012-12-11 09:49:59 AM  

Diogenes: Weaver95: BillCo: You'll get over it.

I don't think so. this law bypassed the normal process of democracy and the local GOP has been extremely heavy handed about passing it. the Republicans have already damaged their brand in this fight. passing that law will tell Democrats (and third parties) that the GOP isn't interested in democracy anymore, they're just in it for the money and power.

Yeah, I have to admit I'm of mixed minds on right-to-work. But the way this was done is offensive. Let the people choose.


even if you agree with the theory behind the law you STILL have to admit that the GOP's implementation of it was NOT proper. they rushed it through, locked civilians out of the state capital and shut down any attempts to debate its merits. this thing was pushed through last minute and in a very questionable manner. it's smash mouth politics, and its going to piss voters off.
 
2012-12-11 09:55:19 AM  

Cythraul: Can someone post a graph that shows the economic prosperity state-by-state in regards as to which states have what in the ways of labor laws?

I'm willing to bet the right-to-work states are the poorest.


Economists: Right-to-work states have lower-income residents, poor labor relations
 
2012-12-11 10:05:45 AM  
Here are the bottom 10, worse States in the US for Math and Science education:

Arkansas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Nevada
Arizona
New Mexico
Alabama
Louisiana y

West Virginia
Mississippi 

Any guesses what the ones in bold have in common?
 
2012-12-11 10:08:53 AM  
Here are the 10 best States for math and sciences education in the US:

Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New York

Virginia
Maryland
Connecticut

Indiana
Maine 

Any guesses what they bolded States have in common?
 
2012-12-11 10:11:35 AM  

mrshowrules: Here are the bottom 10, worse States in the US for Math and Science education:

Arkansas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Nevada
Arizona
New Mexico
Alabama
Louisiana y
West Virginia
Mississippi 

Any guesses what the ones in bold have in common?


Not to deny the point you're making, but I find it interesting that Florida isn't on that list. One, because it's a right-to-work state. And two...because it's Florida.
 
2012-12-11 10:13:39 AM  
If you piss them off now, they'll vote twice as hard in the next election.
 
2012-12-11 10:17:48 AM  

Mentat: Cythraul: Can someone post a graph that shows the economic prosperity state-by-state in regards as to which states have what in the ways of labor laws?

I'm willing to bet the right-to-work states are the poorest.

Economists: Right-to-work states have lower-income residents, poor labor relations


I'm shocked! Maybe someone should remind the good people of Michigan that this is what they're fighting for.
 
2012-12-11 10:37:38 AM  

Snarfangel: If you piss them off now, they'll vote twice as hard in the next election.


But the idea is to cripple them financially. The largest financial supporters of conservative candidates are billionaires, Karl Rove types, and other conservative PACs. The largest financial supporters of liberal candidates are unions. Cripple the unions, and you can drown out the liberal voices. Republicans aren't playing to win the next election, they're playing to win every election for the next 30 years.
 
2012-12-11 10:39:24 AM  

mrshowrules: Here are the bottom 10, worse States in the US for Math and Science education:

Arkansas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Nevada
Arizona
New Mexico
Alabama
Louisiana y
West Virginia
Mississippi 

Any guesses what the ones in bold have in common?


Those sort of lists are silly because they imply some sort of correlation. The funny thing is if you look at a similar list of top ten states for occupational fatalities (can be found at bls.gov), it is predominatly those states that do not have Right to Work laws. Additionally, you could draw up a list of states by unemployment (again at bls.gov), and the states with the lowest unemployment are generally those with Right to Work laws and those with the highest unemployment are those mostly those without the Right to Work laws. The fact of the matter is that those sort of issues are much more complex than a simple Right to Work law which only provides choices, not restrictions.
 
2012-12-11 10:43:43 AM  

Diogenes: mrshowrules: Here are the bottom 10, worse States in the US for Math and Science education:

Arkansas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Nevada
Arizona
New Mexico
Alabama
Louisiana y
West Virginia
Mississippi 

Any guesses what the ones in bold have in common?

Not to deny the point you're making, but I find it interesting that Florida isn't on that list. One, because it's a right-to-work state. And two...because it's Florida.


Actually it is 11th in math and sciences. No doubt the space program in that State has some influence.
 
2012-12-11 10:44:01 AM  

mrshowrules: Here are the 10 best States for math and sciences education in the US:

Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New York
Virginia
Maryland
Connecticut
Indiana
Maine 

Any guesses what they bolded States have in common?


They begin with the letters M, N or C? (Apparently missing the BS)
 
2012-12-11 10:47:21 AM  

minoridiot: mrshowrules: Here are the bottom 10, worse States in the US for Math and Science education:

Arkansas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Nevada
Arizona
New Mexico
Alabama
Louisiana y
West Virginia
Mississippi 

Any guesses what the ones in bold have in common?

Those sort of lists are silly because they imply some sort of correlation. The funny thing is if you look at a similar list of top ten states for occupational fatalities (can be found at bls.gov), it is predominatly those states that do not have Right to Work laws. Additionally, you could draw up a list of states by unemployment (again at bls.gov), and the states with the lowest unemployment are generally those with Right to Work laws and those with the highest unemployment are those mostly those without the Right to Work laws. The fact of the matter is that those sort of issues are much more complex than a simple Right to Work law which only provides choices, not restrictions.


Why is it a leap to assume that teachers with higher salaries and better benefits, are better teachers. This does not take a leap of faith to understand.

Occupational fatalities would obviously be more closely linked more to types of occupation.
 
2012-12-11 10:53:54 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: mrshowrules: Here are the 10 best States for math and sciences education in the US:

Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New York
Virginia
Maryland
Connecticut
Indiana
Maine 

Any guesses what they bolded States have in common?

They begin with the letters M, N or C? (Apparently missing the BS)


Education has a sharp negative correlation with States with right-to-work laws and a clear positive correlation to States who support union rights.
 
2012-12-11 11:02:12 AM  
This past weekend, I pulled a number of stats off the bls.gov website. The stats are not conclusive either way...though people will spin the stats in favor of their position. My conclusion is that it won't be the panacea for Michigan's economy that the GOP thinks it will be, nor will it be the end of western civilization that the unions/Democrats think it will be. Time will tell.
 
2012-12-11 11:04:02 AM  

Diogenes: jehovahs witness protection: Democrats: People don't deserve the right to choose!

So you're on board with abortion rights and gay marriage?

Noted.


I always have been. You should pay closer attention.
 
2012-12-11 11:05:14 AM  

Weaver95: jehovahs witness protection: Democrats: People don't deserve the right to choose!

so you're pro-choice, pro-gay marriage AND pro-legalization of cannabis?

huh. go figure.


Yes. NEXT...
 
2012-12-11 11:08:44 AM  
Didn't Marx see most of this coming?
 
2012-12-11 11:10:34 AM  

slayer199: This past weekend, I pulled a number of stats off the bls.gov website. The stats are not conclusive either way...though people will spin the stats in favor of their position. My conclusion is that it won't be the panacea for Michigan's economy that the GOP thinks it will be, nor will it be the end of western civilization that the unions/Democrats think it will be. Time will tell.


It's not intended as a panacea for the economy. The 2010 elections allowed the GOP to take the war against unions to the unions' home turf. The GOP is going to do as much damage as possible before they get thrown out. As usual, it will be the Democrats who are left to clean up the mess.

Every day I get more and more annoyed at liberals who sat out the 2010 elections to "send a message". Message received morons.
 
2012-12-11 11:14:16 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Didn't Marx see most of this coming?


no, but Machiavelli sure did.
 
2012-12-11 11:16:36 AM  
Look at this map:
www.union1.org

It's clear that right-to-work legislation causes hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, supervolcanoes, and potatoes.
 
2012-12-11 11:32:55 AM  

slayer199: This past weekend, I pulled a number of stats off the bls.gov website. The stats are not conclusive either way...though people will spin the stats in favor of their position. My conclusion is that it won't be the panacea for Michigan's economy that the GOP thinks it will be, nor will it be the end of western civilization that the unions/Democrats think it will be. Time will tell.


I, uh, I did a whole bunch of number crunching using my own math NO YOU CAN'T SEE IT NOBODY CAN SEE IT and it's clear, uh, that we'll all be better if anyone in a union died in a fire.
 
2012-12-11 11:33:51 AM  
Maybe if they hadn't tried to ram it through in a lame-duck session, Michigan Democrats and the unions wouldn't be so upset.

Why is it that whenever the Republicans do stuff like this, they have to resort to legislative trickery, suppression of opposition, and lame-duck sessions to get it done?
 
2012-12-11 11:35:47 AM  

minoridiot: Those sort of lists are silly because they imply some sort of correlation.


No, they display correlation. The word you're looking for is causation.
 
2012-12-11 11:37:19 AM  

slayer199: Klippoklondike: No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.

Doesn't matter, the GOP has the power in the state and they're going to take advantage of it.


In hindsight, attempting to enshrine collective bargaining in the state constitution at this time was a stupid farking move. It failed miserable, showed weakness, and the Republicans jumped on it. The unions should have waited till they at least either enough Dems in the legislature to protect them from blowback or a Dem governor to veto it.

The big problem with Dem strategists in Michigan is they all think they're still living in the glory days of unions and can do whatever they want and then go get rubber stamped at the polls. In reality~16% of this state is unionized and union discipline isn't as strong as it once was.

When the Dems stay moderate they have no issues winning elections, but when they get lazy we end up with Republican governors and the like.

/Stabenow actually was just far enough to the left she was on course for an ass kicking this election cycle
//until the Republicans nominated Hoekstra and Stabenow suddenly became awesome in comparison to that farkhead
 
2012-12-11 11:38:08 AM  
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

Deny the private sector (unions) the ability to reduce income inequality and you'll force the government to do it.
 
2012-12-11 11:38:20 AM  

Mentat: As usual, it will be the Democrats who are left to clean up the mess.


Out of curiosity, can you name some cities where Dems have cleaned it up?
 
2012-12-11 11:38:34 AM  
Why is this called "right-to-work?" It sounds like the sickest twisting of words considering what it does.
 
2012-12-11 11:40:09 AM  

Mrbogey: Mentat: As usual, it will be the Democrats who are left to clean up the mess.

Out of curiosity, can you name some cities where Dems have cleaned it up?


Austin, Seattle, and Denver come to mind. Ann Arbor is also a technically a city, although a tiny ass one.
 
2012-12-11 11:41:23 AM  
Did anyone else read that "Muslims and Jews breaking bad"? I thought maybe with RTW passed they're going to start cooking meth. Oh wait, it's Michigan, they already do.
 
2012-12-11 11:42:05 AM  
Silly 'merikuh! You can't go back on the teat of slave-labour years after you weaned off of it.
 
2012-12-11 11:42:22 AM  

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

Deny the private sector (unions) the ability to reduce income inequality and you'll force the government to do it.


That might be a good thing.
 
2012-12-11 11:43:01 AM  

mrshowrules: Here are the bottom 10, worse States in the US for Math and Science education:

Arkansas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Nevada
Arizona
New Mexico
Alabama
Louisiana y
West Virginia
Mississippi 

Any guesses what the ones in bold have in common?


shiatholes that I would never want to live in?
 
2012-12-11 11:43:01 AM  

Bloody William: Why is this called "right-to-work?" It sounds like the sickest twisting of words considering what it does.


Because conservatives are master con-artists? Example: calling themselves "pro-life" as if anyone was "anti-life" other Darkseid from Superman.
 
2012-12-11 11:43:09 AM  

Leeds: qorkfiend: Maybe if they hadn't tried to ram it through in a lame-duck session, Michigan Democrats and the unions wouldn't be so upset.

Why is it that whenever the Republicans do stuff like this, they have to resort to legislative trickery, suppression of opposition, and lame-duck sessions to get it done?

And you think that this is a republican thing?

Obamacare for the win.


Uh.. obama ran on implementing Obamacare, there was absolutely zero surprises/chicanery here. he went out of his way to incorporate Republican ideas in his plan.
 
2012-12-11 11:43:42 AM  
Am am pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-gay marriage and pro-RTW -

I do not believe that ones decision to consent to a contract between themselves and an employer should require an additional contract between themselves and a labor union.

They should fully be allowed to enter than contract with the union if they choose, and their employer should not be able to discriminate against that employee because of that association. A laborer has a right to organize with his peers, but should not be made to -
 
2012-12-11 11:44:27 AM  

Mrbogey: Mentat: As usual, it will be the Democrats who are left to clean up the mess.

Out of curiosity, can you name some cities where Dems have cleaned it up?


Pittsburgh, PA.

/next question
 
2012-12-11 11:44:41 AM  
I hear it's getting a little heated in Lansing...

Apparently Americans for Prosperity had their tent ripped down. I'm sure we'll see videos of these "Union Thugs" for months to come.
 
2012-12-11 11:45:28 AM  

ha-ha-guy: Mrbogey: Mentat: As usual, it will be the Democrats who are left to clean up the mess.

Out of curiosity, can you name some cities where Dems have cleaned it up?

Austin, Seattle, and Denver come to mind. Ann Arbor is also a technically a city, although a tiny ass one.


Can you elaborate on how the democrats cleaned up a Republican mess in Denver?
 
2012-12-11 11:45:50 AM  
Anything that pisses off labor bosses is great fun.
 
2012-12-11 11:47:15 AM  

jsteiner78: Am am pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-gay marriage and pro-RTW -

I do not believe that ones decision to consent to a contract between themselves and an employer should require an additional contract between themselves and a labor union.

They should fully be allowed to enter than contract with the union if they choose, and their employer should not be able to discriminate against that employee because of that association. A laborer has a right to organize with his peers, but should not be made to -


The thing I hate about RTW is that it essentially drains the power from the unions because people would be able to enjoy the same perks that the union provides without having to pay dues. That is until they get so weak and powerless that they essentially fade out leaving employers in total control. 

It really should be called "Right-To-Be-A-Freeloader but then again that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
 
2012-12-11 11:47:22 AM  
If this passes, the tears of liberal butt hurt shall be most delicious.
 
2012-12-11 11:48:08 AM  
FTFA: "setting off a long legal and political fight with labor and Democrats."

If I read the law correctly, the police and firefighters' unions will be exempt from the right to work provisions. How can this be constitutional? And isn't that provision what got a Federal judge to set aside Wisconsin's law last year?
 
2012-12-11 11:48:19 AM  

Klippoklondike: BillCo: You'll get over it.

No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.


Democracy is underhanded when it passes things that Liberals don't like.
 
2012-12-11 11:48:32 AM  

Bloody William: Why is this called "right-to-work?" It sounds like the sickest twisting of words considering what it does.


Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, ... and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.
 
2012-12-11 11:49:39 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mentat: As usual, it will be the Democrats who are left to clean up the mess.

Out of curiosity, can you name some cities where Dems have cleaned it up?

Pittsburgh, PA.

/next question


How'd the Republicans mess up Pittsburgh?
 
2012-12-11 11:50:11 AM  

Leeds: qorkfiend: Maybe if they hadn't tried to ram it through in a lame-duck session, Michigan Democrats and the unions wouldn't be so upset.

Why is it that whenever the Republicans do stuff like this, they have to resort to legislative trickery, suppression of opposition, and lame-duck sessions to get it done?

And you think that this is a republican thing?

Obamacare for the win.


Yes, a bill that was debated for over a year and passed in broad daylight in normal session by both Houses of Congress is exactly the same as a bill passed in a lame-duck session overnight with no debate.
 
2012-12-11 11:50:18 AM  

Cythraul: That might be a good thing.


In Germany worker's rights are written into their Constitution. German automakers (nearly all of which are unionized) earn twice what their American counterparts make and yet, as if by magic, these German firms are still quite profitable.

When you cooperate and collaborate with your workers it becomes a race to the top and everyone wins, as they have in Germany. In the states it has become a race to the bottom. What a surprise, then, that wages have been stagnant for 30 years while wealthiest have more money then god. What a surprise, then, that the middle class has no damn money left to purchase things beyond necessities, and our economy is sputtering along with little aggregate demand to support it.
 
2012-12-11 11:50:25 AM  

Klippoklondike: slayer199: Klippoklondike: No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.

Doesn't matter, the GOP has the power in the state and they're going to take advantage of it.

You are right. People will have to let their votes be heard next election cycle.


They had their chance this past election:

Proposal 2, would have enshrined union collective bargaining powers in the state constitution

Proposal 2 was decisively defeated on Election Day, 58 percent to 42 percent

Right or wrong, the people spoke. In a state that Obama carried 50.7 to 47.6
 
2012-12-11 11:50:36 AM  

Desquamation: I hear it's getting a little heated in Lansing...

Apparently Americans for Prosperity had their tent ripped down. I'm sure we'll see videos of these "Union Thugs" for months to come.


I keep hoping Snyder will just sack up and veto this sucker. In a sense i'm glad the bill passed as kind of a slap across the nose of the unions not to stick their shiat in our state constitution. The SEIU needed a smack upside their head for the whole attempted forced assimilation of health care workers. Actually passing this goes too far and if Snyder signs he's assuring that when the time comes I vote for the Dem candidate as this is a third rail issue. Odds are he signs it though.

Although frankly I'm sure if this bill can survive. It was passed in such a manner as to be immune to referendum, which no matter which side you're on should show itself as a clear attempt to circumvent democracy. I could see the Supreme Court killing this whole thing. If they do pass the bill in a form where it can be hit via ballot initiative, it won't live past the next election. The polls seem to be showing most Michiganders don't want collective bargaining enshrined in the constitution, but we also dislike the idea of being right to work.
 
2012-12-11 11:51:16 AM  

beta_plus: Klippoklondike: BillCo: You'll get over it.

No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.

Democracy is underhanded when it passes things that Liberals don't like.


Based on your posts in this thread you appear to only like it because it pisses off those who oppose you politically, and in my opinion that makes you a very pathetic person.
 
2012-12-11 11:52:08 AM  
I'm fine with right to Work, as long as the non-union employees are fine negotiating for their own salaries, their own sick days, vacations, benefits, and employment. They get no help from the union, and don't get union wages by default.
/no free rides.
 
2012-12-11 11:52:14 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Klippoklondike: slayer199: Klippoklondike: No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.

Doesn't matter, the GOP has the power in the state and they're going to take advantage of it.

You are right. People will have to let their votes be heard next election cycle.

They had their chance this past election:

Proposal 2, would have enshrined union collective bargaining powers in the state constitution

Proposal 2 was decisively defeated on Election Day, 58 percent to 42 percent

Right or wrong, the people spoke. In a state that Obama carried 50.7 to 47.6


Declining to enshrine collective bargaining into the Constitution does not mean the GOP has a mandate to make it illegal.
 
2012-12-11 11:52:55 AM  
Oh and for the record, I just pulled up a video from Youtube and got a 30 second clip from some PAC supporting the right to work bill. I spent all of Sept-Nov getting Hoekstra and Romney ads, now I get this shiat. fark that. As a Michigan resident I'm now ready to burn some shiat down, get the campaign ads off my Youtube.
 
2012-12-11 11:52:55 AM  

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mentat: As usual, it will be the Democrats who are left to clean up the mess.

Out of curiosity, can you name some cities where Dems have cleaned it up?

Pittsburgh, PA.

/next question

How'd the Republicans mess up Pittsburgh?


Republicans didn't mess up the city, it just fell victim to globalization when the steel industry there went belly-up. Afterwards, more was being invested into schools and hospitals there to the point that health care and education and technology dominate the Pittsburgh economy in what was formerly Steel Country. 

Most cities are run by Democrats anyway so I don't see your point in that question.
 
2012-12-11 11:53:03 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Klippoklondike: slayer199: Klippoklondike: No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.

Doesn't matter, the GOP has the power in the state and they're going to take advantage of it.

You are right. People will have to let their votes be heard next election cycle.

They had their chance this past election:

Proposal 2, would have enshrined union collective bargaining powers in the state constitution

Proposal 2 was decisively defeated on Election Day, 58 percent to 42 percent

Right or wrong, the people spoke. In a state that Obama carried 50.7 to 47.6


Most of the people I know were against amending the state constitution for any reason... It's why all three of the ballot proposals aimed at amending the constitution didn't pass.
 
2012-12-11 11:53:05 AM  
This law doesn't apply to policeman and firemen does it? 9/11 and all that stuff...blah blah...never forget...
 
2012-12-11 11:54:16 AM  
You know, Loyalist Tories lived here, among us, before the Revolution.

And we recognized them for what they were, burned their farms to the ground and drove musket balls through their Tory faces.

Just because it lives in America doesn't make it American.

The enemy of our country is right here, among us. And it is the GOP, who represent the interests of corporations and banks that owe no allegiance to any flag. The GOP does not represent America, they are the enemy of America and should be dealt with as such.

Musket balls.

Faces.
 
2012-12-11 11:54:57 AM  
Remember, it's OK for Liberals to force you to do things that you don't want to do, because they are good, but bad for Conservatives to not give you stuff that they don't want to give you because they are all racist fascists.
 
2012-12-11 11:55:12 AM  

Mentat: slayer199: This past weekend, I pulled a number of stats off the bls.gov website. The stats are not conclusive either way...though people will spin the stats in favor of their position. My conclusion is that it won't be the panacea for Michigan's economy that the GOP thinks it will be, nor will it be the end of western civilization that the unions/Democrats think it will be. Time will tell.

It's not intended as a panacea for the economy. The 2010 elections allowed the GOP to take the war against unions to the unions' home turf. The GOP is going to do as much damage as possible before they get thrown out. As usual, it will be the Democrats who are left to clean up the mess.

Every day I get more and more annoyed at liberals who sat out the 2010 elections to "send a message". Message received morons.


We didn't all sit out. Some of us actually voted that year. It's just our votes didn't matter if we lived in certain states.

/I voted against Lee Terry in 2010.
//Voted against Jeff Fortenberry last month.
///Didn't change sh*t.
 
2012-12-11 11:55:56 AM  

Desquamation: Most of the people I know were against amending the state constitution for any reason... It's why all three of the ballot proposals aimed at amending the constitution didn't pass.


Yup. The only ballot proposal that actually had a place on that ballot was on the emergency manager law. In that Snyder ran on that idea, was elected, got it passed, and then the courts killed it. So putting it to popular vote was a fair way to put it to rest. The union ones, the tax supermajority one, green energy one, and the bridge one had no farking place on the ballot or the state constitution.
 
2012-12-11 11:56:33 AM  

qorkfiend: Declining to enshrine collective bargaining into the Constitution does not mean the GOP has a mandate to make it illegal.


I'm pretty sure RTW doesn't make collective bargaining illegal, it just makes it illegal to require an employee to participate in the "collective".
 
2012-12-11 11:56:57 AM  

Snarfangel: Look at this map:
[www.union1.org image 830x524]

It's clear that right-to-work legislation causes hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, supervolcanoes, and potatoes.


Don't forget racism, unlike racist free non-right-to-work Massachusetts:

blog.mywonderfulworld.org
 
2012-12-11 11:57:31 AM  

Snarfangel: Look at this map:
[www.union1.org image 830x524]

It's clear that right-to-work legislation causes hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, supervolcanoes, and potatoes.


www.union1.org

That map looks familiar....

www.eaves.ca

www.missourieconomy.org

tcftakingnote.typepad.com


Fat, dumb, and poor, seem to be Southern virtues.
 
2012-12-11 11:57:41 AM  

Leeds: Bloody William: Why is this called "right-to-work?" It sounds like the sickest twisting of words considering what it does.

No, that's the literal interpretation.

Way back when, if you sought a job and the company offered it to you and you accepted it, you had that job. Then a few decades ago unions granted themselves the ability to keep you from your job if you refused to pay them money (to join their ranks). You literally could be offered a job, accept that job, then be barred from working at your job because some union somewhere needed you to pay them for the privilege of working at a job you already have.

Right to work legislation makes it illegal for an outside group to block you from working if you and your employer have come to an employment agreement.


Police unions still think that is a good policy.
 
2012-12-11 11:57:56 AM  

beta_plus: Remember, it's OK for Liberals to force you to do things that you don't want to do, because they are good, but bad for Conservatives to not give you stuff that they don't want to give you because they are all racist fascists.


You're ready to enjoy some liberal butthurt. Seems like you need some Prep H for your own.
 
2012-12-11 11:58:48 AM  

Stone Meadow: FTFA: "setting off a long legal and political fight with labor and Democrats."

If I read the law correctly, the police and firefighters' unions will be exempt from the right to work provisions. How can this be constitutional? And isn't that provision what got a Federal judge to set aside Wisconsin's law last year?


9/11.
 
2012-12-11 11:58:55 AM  

verbaltoxin: beta_plus: Remember, it's OK for Liberals to force you to do things that you don't want to do, because they are good, but bad for Conservatives to not give you stuff that they don't want to give you because they are all racist fascists.

You're ready to enjoy some liberal butthurt. Seems like you need some Prep H for your own.


Seems more like flailing around because everyone has the known troll on ignore or marked such.
 
2012-12-11 11:59:20 AM  

beta_plus: Remember, it's OK for Liberals to force you to do things that you don't want to do, because they are good, but bad for Conservatives to not give you stuff that they don't want to give you because they are all racist fascists.


I think that if the GOP keeps going this route, it will end badly for them.
 
2012-12-11 12:00:04 PM  
We must stop this legislation or our greatest city, Detroit, will be destroyed:

i.huffpost.com
 
2012-12-11 12:05:36 PM  
Nothing new to see here and no surprises for anyone who has kept up on the issue. It has been discussed for years and they are now just finally getting around to it. Meh.
 
2012-12-11 12:06:17 PM  

Klippoklondike: slayer199: Klippoklondike: No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.

Doesn't matter, the GOP has the power in the state and they're going to take advantage of it.

You are right. People will have to let their votes be heard next election cycle.


or we could go back to the old union tactics of the 60's and 70's
some politicos might get the message then.
 
2012-12-11 12:06:43 PM  
jst3p: Fat, dumb, and poor, seem to be Southern virtues.


-----------


After a couple of decades in GA, I can confirm this. My ex's family is from 'round here, and average a divorce a year, a marriage a year and see it as normal that their 14 year old girls date men in their 20s. I get why people fark 14 year old girls from GA, because in just a few years they will be morbidly obese.
 
2012-12-11 12:07:40 PM  

Klippoklondike: slayer199: Klippoklondike: No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.

Doesn't matter, the GOP has the power in the state and they're going to take advantage of it.

You are right. People will have to let their votes be heard next election cycle.


Exactly. Hey Michigan idiots, stop voting for these assholes.
 
2012-12-11 12:08:29 PM  
and it's not just right to work.
they passed a law banning mandatory dues.
this isn't just about sucking corporate cock
it's about cutting the Dems off at the knees financially
in the wake of Citizen's United it's akin to a fascist coup
 
2012-12-11 12:08:35 PM  

jst3p: Snarfangel: Look at this map:
[www.union1.org image 830x524]

It's clear that right-to-work legislation causes hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, supervolcanoes, and potatoes.

[www.union1.org image 830x524]

That map looks familiar....

[www.eaves.ca image 470x371]

[www.missourieconomy.org image 550x350]

[tcftakingnote.typepad.com image 500x398]


Fat, dumb, and poor, seem to be Southern virtues.


People keep going, "RTW are dumb, hurr," but Nebraska is showing on those charts to be both successful (Lower unemployment % than the national average for the last 2 years at least), is competently literate compared to blue states, and is right to work.

I came from a strongly pro-union family, so I'm one of the last you'll see favoring union-busting, but I do think making RTW this huge evil is overblown. Let's float some ideas here: in RTW states, some - but not all - of the states have had historically poorer working conditions, worse employment trends, lower pay and benefits, and weak unionization. Nebraska and those higher up the scale can't be ruled outliers though. Nebraska, like other RTW states, has a strong agrarian economy, but it also has a growing finance and tech industry (Not to mention a major Air Force base), other industries unkind to unionization. Those states with greater union participation enjoyed a long period of industrial ecomony, industries which have contracted and been slowly replaced by tech jobs. Tech jobs don't have a lot of unions. So unions have lost ground among America's middle class in what were historically union strongholds.

In the South, new manufacturing have sprung up, but they've been sans unionization; take the Subaru, BMW, Toyota and other foreign car plants present there. These Japanese firms offer equivalent pay and benefits without the union. So it goes these workers assume they don't need to unionize. Thus anti-union sentiment continues.

At least that's my take on it.

/Yes I'm aware of the gains unions have made for our working force. Reread my first sentence, I don't need a history lesson.
//And yes, I'm aware RTW diminishes the group impact unions have on a workforce; nonunion workers benefit from union presence on a jobsite.
 
2012-12-11 12:08:58 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: jst3p: Fat, dumb, and poor, seem to be Southern virtues.


-----------


After a couple of decades in GA, I can confirm this. My ex's family is from 'round here, and average a divorce a year, a marriage a year and see it as normal that their 14 year old girls date men in their 20s. I get why people fark 14 year old girls from GA, because in just a few years they will be morbidly obese.


What is a Georgia virgin?

An ugly fifth grader that can out run her older brother.
 
2012-12-11 12:09:17 PM  

beta_plus: Remember, it's OK for Liberals to force you to do things that you don't want to do, because they are good, but bad for Conservatives to not give you stuff that they don't want to give you because they are all racist fascists.


Also, being born with an underdeveloped brain stem really sucks.
 
2012-12-11 12:11:19 PM  

Leeds: qorkfiend: Leeds: qorkfiend: Maybe if they hadn't tried to ram it through in a lame-duck session, Michigan Democrats and the unions wouldn't be so upset.

Why is it that whenever the Republicans do stuff like this, they have to resort to legislative trickery, suppression of opposition, and lame-duck sessions to get it done?

And you think that this is a republican thing?

Obamacare for the win.

Yes, a bill that was debated for over a year and passed in broad daylight in normal session by both Houses of Congress is exactly the same as a bill passed in a lame-duck session overnight with no debate.

You couldn't be more wrong. I suspect that you need to rrview the cspan tapes if you have forgotten how it went down.


Look I'm sorry you were asleep and missed everything.
 
2012-12-11 12:11:25 PM  

verbaltoxin: People keep going, "RTW are dumb, hurr," but Nebraska is showing on those charts to be both successful (Lower unemployment % than the national average for the last 2 years at least), is competently literate compared to blue states, and is right to work.


Because when I think thriving industrialized and modern economy, I think "Nebraska"!
 
2012-12-11 12:11:35 PM  
Seems to me if I were the Union leaders, I'd just make sure in the next contract that all union workers get X% more than workers that aren't part of the union, that would encourage them to join and pay their dues.
 
2012-12-11 12:12:37 PM  
I'm sorry, I can't hear liberal fear mongering over how awesome the Texas economy is.
 
2012-12-11 12:13:16 PM  
Just accept your corporate masters and everything will be fine. They only want what's best for you.
 
2012-12-11 12:14:24 PM  
jst3p: verbaltoxin: People keep going, "RTW are dumb, hurr," but Nebraska is showing on those charts to be both successful (Lower unemployment % than the national average for the last 2 years at least), is competently literate compared to blue states, and is right to work.

Because when I think thriving industrialized and modern economy, I think "Nebraska"!


---------------

Nebraska does well economically thanks to Con Agra, who is poisoning America with HFCS.
 
2012-12-11 12:14:53 PM  

jst3p: verbaltoxin: People keep going, "RTW are dumb, hurr," but Nebraska is showing on those charts to be both successful (Lower unemployment % than the national average for the last 2 years at least), is competently literate compared to blue states, and is right to work.

Because when I think thriving industrialized and modern economy, I think "Nebraska"!


Because you didn't bother to read the following 3 paragraphs!

/Berkshire Hathaway, Valmont, ConAgra, TD Ameritrade, Security National, Woodman of the World, Mutual of Omaha, Union Pacific - all based in Nebraska.
 
2012-12-11 12:15:38 PM  

Free_Chilly_Willy: I'm sorry, I can't hear liberal fear mongering over how awesome the Texas economy is.


I wanted to find a graphic to rebut you, but I must concede Texas looks pretty strong. I will only gloat that this was another instance of "it is difficult to find an infographic that makes Colorado look bad"

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-11 12:16:07 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: jst3p: verbaltoxin: People keep going, "RTW are dumb, hurr," but Nebraska is showing on those charts to be both successful (Lower unemployment % than the national average for the last 2 years at least), is competently literate compared to blue states, and is right to work.

Because when I think thriving industrialized and modern economy, I think "Nebraska"!


---------------

Nebraska does well economically thanks to Con Agra, who is poisoning America with HFCS.


You mean the same ConAgra that's taking it out of their products, and announcing so on their packaging? Pick up a bottle of Hunt's ketchup sometime.

/Seriously, it's not hard to look this stuff up.
 
2012-12-11 12:16:35 PM  

jst3p: Because when I think thriving industrialized and modern economy, I think "Nebraska"!


You're right. They have a pretty low unemployment rate. That is rather unusual for the modern economy.
 
2012-12-11 12:16:59 PM  

Diogenes: Weaver95: BillCo: You'll get over it.

I don't think so. this law bypassed the normal process of democracy and the local GOP has been extremely heavy handed about passing it. the Republicans have already damaged their brand in this fight. passing that law will tell Democrats (and third parties) that the GOP isn't interested in democracy anymore, they're just in it for the money and power.

Yeah, I have to admit I'm of mixed minds on right-to-work. But the way this was done is offensive. Let the people choose.


The people DID choose. And the republicans they CHOSE to oust in the last election told them to go fark themselves softly with a barbed wire dildo.
 
2012-12-11 12:17:20 PM  

verbaltoxin: jst3p: verbaltoxin: People keep going, "RTW are dumb, hurr," but Nebraska is showing on those charts to be both successful (Lower unemployment % than the national average for the last 2 years at least), is competently literate compared to blue states, and is right to work.

Because when I think thriving industrialized and modern economy, I think "Nebraska"!

Because you didn't bother to read the following 3 paragraphs!

/Berkshire Hathaway, Valmont, ConAgra, TD Ameritrade, Security National, Woodman of the World, Mutual of Omaha, Union Pacific - all based in Nebraska.


Fair enough, but I challenge this assertion:


In the South, new manufacturing have sprung up, but they've been sans unionization; take the Subaru, BMW, Toyota and other foreign car plants present there. These Japanese firms offer equivalent pay and benefits without the union. So it goes these workers assume they don't need to unionize. Thus anti-union sentiment continues.


Have a cite for that? Logic dictates that it isn't very likely.
 
2012-12-11 12:17:51 PM  

Bloody William: Why is this called "right-to-work?" It sounds like the sickest twisting of words considering what it does.


It's the slickest twist of words since the "Death Tax."
 
2012-12-11 12:17:52 PM  

Cythraul: Can someone post a graph that shows the economic prosperity state-by-state in regards as to which states have what in the ways of labor laws?

I'm willing to bet the right-to-work states are the poorest.


Not just poorer, also more dangerous. RTW states have higher on the job injuries and fatalities, as workplace safety's not a concern when you don't have a union to fight you.
 
2012-12-11 12:17:57 PM  

pkellmey: jst3p: Because when I think thriving industrialized and modern economy, I think "Nebraska"!

You're right. They have a pretty low unemployment rate. That is rather unusual for the modern economy.


Bazinga!
 
2012-12-11 12:18:25 PM  

Il Douchey: Michigan isn't prohibiting unions, it's just allowing workers to decide if they want to belong to them. Of course unions want the power to compel membership, it's so much easier than having to persuade people that voluntarily joining is in their best interest.

/Don't just demand union allegiance, earn it. -Good luck with that


No, that's not what rtw does. It mandates that unions have to offer their collective bargaining services free of charge.

It such a law were targeting any other group, we'd call it what its really is: government mandated slavery.
 
2012-12-11 12:18:57 PM  

verbaltoxin: Insatiable Jesus: jst3p: verbaltoxin: People keep going, "RTW are dumb, hurr," but Nebraska is showing on those charts to be both successful (Lower unemployment % than the national average for the last 2 years at least), is competently literate compared to blue states, and is right to work.

Because when I think thriving industrialized and modern economy, I think "Nebraska"!


---------------

Nebraska does well economically thanks to Con Agra, who is poisoning America with HFCS.

You mean the same ConAgra that's taking it out of their products, and announcing so on their packaging? Pick up a bottle of Hunt's ketchup sometime.

/Seriously, it's not hard to look this stuff up.


Our putting it back in: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Market/ConAgra-switches-back-to-HFCS- in-Hunt-s-ketchup-citing-lackluster-demand

/something about looking things up
 
2012-12-11 12:19:16 PM  

Leeds: Right to work legislation makes it illegal for an outside group to block you from working if you and your employer have come to an employment agreement.



While still allowing you the reap the benefits that unions have obtained.

For a little while, anyway.
 
2012-12-11 12:19:49 PM  

LectertheChef: Cythraul: Can someone post a graph that shows the economic prosperity state-by-state in regards as to which states have what in the ways of labor laws?

I'm willing to bet the right-to-work states are the poorest.

Not just poorer, also more dangerous. RTW states have higher on the job injuries and fatalities, as workplace safety's not a concern when you don't have a union to fight you.


And as I demonstrated above fat, illiterate, poor and RTW have a lot of overlap. Sure there are outliers like Nebraska but I see a lot of commonality.
 
2012-12-11 12:20:34 PM  

bikerific: Leeds: Right to work legislation makes it illegal for an outside group to block you from working if you and your employer have come to an employment agreement.


While still allowing you the reap the benefits that unions have obtained.

For a little while, anyway.


How does that work in practice? Don't the union employees naturally have more leverage?
 
2012-12-11 12:23:06 PM  
verbaltoxin: Insatiable Jesus: jst3p: verbaltoxin: People keep going, "RTW are dumb, hurr," but Nebraska is showing on those charts to be both successful (Lower unemployment % than the national average for the last 2 years at least), is competently literate compared to blue states, and is right to work.

Because when I think thriving industrialized and modern economy, I think "Nebraska"!


---------------

Nebraska does well economically thanks to Con Agra, who is poisoning America with HFCS.

You mean the same ConAgra that's taking it out of their products, and announcing so on their packaging? Pick up a bottle of Hunt's ketchup sometime.

/Seriously, it's not hard to look this stuff up.

-------------------

You do realize that Con Agra is more than a manufacturer of condiments, right?

A huge portion of the HFCS that ends up in everybody's products comes through them.
 
2012-12-11 12:24:22 PM  
so lets say the GOP does this. suppose they ram this unpopular legislation through and sign it into law during a lame duck session, and basically give the voters a nice big 'f*ck you' on their way out the door.....what happens when the Democratic party adopts similar tactics to push THEIR legislation through congress? Do you suppose the GOP will sagely nod and accept getting railroaded?

what the Republicans did here is needlessly create a toxic environment, this is only going to make it extremely difficult to trust them to reach any sort of bipartisan legislation or support. NOBODY will deal with the GOP after this. why would they? the Republicans are just going to screw you over and do their own thing....this will prove to everyone in that state that you cannot trust the GOP to behave like adults.
 
2012-12-11 12:24:34 PM  

BeesNuts: The people DID choose. And the republicans they CHOSE to oust in the last election told them to go fark themselves softly with a barbed wire dildo.


The 2013 MI House will be 59-51 Republican-Democrat, compared to 63-47 now.
 
2012-12-11 12:24:51 PM  
Link

According to MEA union documents, "representational activities" (money spent on bargaining contracts for members) made up only 11 percent of total spending for the union.

Spending on "general overhead" (union administration and employee benefits) comprised of 61 percent of the total spending. 

It will be interesting to see how this changes when the union becomes voluntary for teachers.
 
2012-12-11 12:25:19 PM  
The most ironic thing about all of this is that the "Party of Personal Responsibility" is encouraging workers to mooch off the union and be freeloaders.
 
2012-12-11 12:27:38 PM  

jsteiner78: Am am pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-gay marriage and pro-RTW -

I do not believe that ones decision to consent to a contract between themselves and an employer should require an additional contract between themselves and a labor union.

They should fully be allowed to enter than contract with the union if they choose, and their employer should not be able to discriminate against that employee because of that association. A laborer has a right to organize with his peers, but should not be made to -


They should not be compelled to organize, but they also shouldn't have access to the collectively-bargained benefits if they choose not to pay for that service.
 
2012-12-11 12:29:39 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats: People don't deserve the right to choose!


Republicans: interfering with the free labor market for their corporate benefactors.
 
2012-12-11 12:29:43 PM  
In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members. Rather they should be paid the average non-union wage for that field as determined by the non-union labor market, and anything more they would have to negotiate as an induvidual with no leverage since the boss can fire them without a given reason.

If anything, it would let the "right to work law" supporters know quicky the ramifications of their actions. The whole purpose of "right to work laws" are to lower all wages and eliminate worker's rights across the board, in order to pad corporate profits at the expense of the worker.
 
2012-12-11 12:30:02 PM  

JokerMattly: I'm fine with right to Work, as long as the non-union employees are fine negotiating for their own salaries, their own sick days, vacations, benefits, and employment. They get no help from the union, and don't get union wages by default.
/no free rides.


Are you fine with the company offering incentives to employees for not joining the union?

There's a reason the law says that an NLRB recognized union has to negotiate on behalf of all workers at a site. It's a bad system... but all the other ones we've tried are worse.
 
2012-12-11 12:30:16 PM  

KellyX: Seems to me if I were the Union leaders, I'd just make sure in the next contract that all union workers get X% more than workers that aren't part of the union, that would encourage them to join and pay their dues.


They do this already.
 
2012-12-11 12:30:37 PM  

jst3p: verbaltoxin: jst3p: verbaltoxin: People keep going, "RTW are dumb, hurr," but Nebraska is showing on those charts to be both successful (Lower unemployment % than the national average for the last 2 years at least), is competently literate compared to blue states, and is right to work.

Because when I think thriving industrialized and modern economy, I think "Nebraska"!

Because you didn't bother to read the following 3 paragraphs!

/Berkshire Hathaway, Valmont, ConAgra, TD Ameritrade, Security National, Woodman of the World, Mutual of Omaha, Union Pacific - all based in Nebraska.

Fair enough, but I challenge this assertion:


In the South, new manufacturing have sprung up, but they've been sans unionization; take the Subaru, BMW, Toyota and other foreign car plants present there. These Japanese firms offer equivalent pay and benefits without the union. So it goes these workers assume they don't need to unionize. Thus anti-union sentiment continues.


Have a cite for that? Logic dictates that it isn't very likely.


Okay.

For Honda corporate employees in the US (This includes their middle-wage workers.

For the Honda plant in Ohio

For the Honda plant in Indiana

Honda is America's 3rd largest carmaker

Glassdoor review on Honda

Glassdoor reviews on Honda salaries

Bear in mind, one of the arguments why the Japanese carmakers pay less than American ones is because they don't have unions; i.e, unions aren't there to negotiate for higher pay (Or quicker advancement, which leads me to believe it's one reason why Honda is slow to promote its workers), and there are no union dues to pay.

Biggest cons for working for Honda, based on Glassdoor: inflexible schedule, slow advancement, grueling work (It's factory work, so that's kind of a given).

Personally I think these companies take advantage of the absence of a union to enforce things like having a worker be a temp for 7 years, or making people work exhaustive shifts away from their families, and the slow promotions. I think a union can fix those things. The thing is, unions are an anathema to parts where these plants were built (Rural/Southern regions).
 
2012-12-11 12:31:35 PM  
I live and work in St. Louis, Missouri. Right to work state for as long as I can remember. It sucks. I have only pity for the wage earners of Michigan, as they are about to be trampled.
 
2012-12-11 12:32:11 PM  

Leeds: qorkfiend: Leeds: qorkfiend: Maybe if they hadn't tried to ram it through in a lame-duck session, Michigan Democrats and the unions wouldn't be so upset.

Why is it that whenever the Republicans do stuff like this, they have to resort to legislative trickery, suppression of opposition, and lame-duck sessions to get it done?

And you think that this is a republican thing?

Obamacare for the win.

Yes, a bill that was debated for over a year and passed in broad daylight in normal session by both Houses of Congress is exactly the same as a bill passed in a lame-duck session overnight with no debate.

You couldn't be more wrong. I suspect that you need to rrview the cspan tapes if you have forgotten how it went down.


I suspect that you have absolutely no god damned idea what your talking about. "c-span tapes"?

The shiatshow started when the Senate refused to debate the PPACA and instead chose to discuss a budget item already passed through the house for housing subsidies for veterans. In a COMMON like-for-like maneuver, the proponents of the bill re-wrote the distraction bill to BE the ACA, and then promptly passed it, after a brief filibuster by some guy from Nebraska who wanted more money.

In the house, you might remember the whole pro-life kerfuffle about funding abortions with ACA money. A kerfuffle that led to provisions to prevent that exact thing.

The only time we didn't get to hear the debate was when the GOP *specifically blocked any and all debate* and when they voted to end all future debate on the assumption that it didn't have enough support to pass. Further, we're not talking about passing it AFTER Scott Brown was elected on being the 41st vote to prevent cloture, but before he was actually sworn in.

No, we're talking about debate that occurred over the course of the 11th congress. It was brought up with them, debated by them, and passed by them fully 6 months before the next election.

These two situations are only analogous insofar as they are the sources of content for the press and that they are both legislative stories.
 
2012-12-11 12:32:47 PM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-11 12:32:48 PM  

beta_plus: If this passes, the tears of liberal butt hurt shall be most delicious.


And this is why mitt Romney lost: because the gop is willing to gut the middle class purely out of partisan spite.
 
2012-12-11 12:33:24 PM  

jst3p: bikerific: Leeds: Right to work legislation makes it illegal for an outside group to block you from working if you and your employer have come to an employment agreement.


While still allowing you the reap the benefits that unions have obtained.

For a little while, anyway.

How does that work in practice? Don't the union employees naturally have more leverage?


Let's go ahead and say yes. Unions have used leverage get better pay, benefit, and conditions

Are companies going to have 2 pay scales? 2 parallel health care plans? 2 parallel grievance or disciplinary processes? Probably not. So non-union employees will probably get the same benefits unions have secured. So a rational decision of a worker would be to not join a union and to get the same benefits.


However, as fewer workers join the union, that leverage is lost. Overall wages and benefits will decline. Which is exactly what has happened in "right to work" states.

It's a classic prisoners dilemma.
 
2012-12-11 12:34:08 PM  

Epoch_Zero: I live and work in St. Louis, Missouri. Right to work state for as long as I can remember. It sucks. I have only pity for the wage earners of Michigan, as they are about to be trampled.


Actually we're not a right-to-work state. Having a Democrat as Governor has been the only thing keeping MO from being a right-to-work state. If Dave Spence would've won, that probably would've been the first thing on his list.

But yeah, even though we're not a right-to-work state, our teachers are some of the lowest paid in the country. Go figure.
 
2012-12-11 12:34:34 PM  

udhq: beta_plus: If this passes, the tears of liberal butt hurt shall be most delicious.

And this is why mitt Romney lost: because the gop is willing to gut the middle class purely out of partisan spite.


the MI voters are gonna be PISSED if this gets signed into law.
 
2012-12-11 12:35:10 PM  

heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.


You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?
 
2012-12-11 12:36:49 PM  

Weaver95: so lets say the GOP does this. suppose they ram this unpopular legislation through and sign it into law during a lame duck session, and basically give the voters a nice big 'f*ck you' on their way out the door.....what happens when the Democratic party adopts similar tactics to push THEIR legislation through congress? Do you suppose the GOP will sagely nod and accept getting railroaded?

what the Republicans did here is needlessly create a toxic environment, this is only going to make it extremely difficult to trust them to reach any sort of bipartisan legislation or support. NOBODY will deal with the GOP after this. why would they? the Republicans are just going to screw you over and do their own thing....this will prove to everyone in that state that you cannot trust the GOP to behave like adults.


Right to work is actually a popular proposal in Michigan. The funny thing is that the Governor basically said he would not sign it until the unions went batchit insane and tried to pass a bunch of super pro union proposals that all failed miserably on the ballot.
 
2012-12-11 12:37:48 PM  

Il Douchey: Michigan isn't prohibiting unions, it's just allowing workers to decide if they want to belong to them. Of course unions want the power to compel membership, it's so much easier than having to persuade people that voluntarily joining is in their best interest.


NOT IT"S NOT.

You can already not join the union in Michigan if you don't want stop lying and repeating lies.

What it does it allows people to steal full union benefits without being part of the union OR paying anything at all towards that union that got you those benefits. Currently you must pay a small fee to the union (not be a member or pay member dues) because they got you those benefits.

Please stop lying about it.
 
2012-12-11 12:37:59 PM  

RminusQ: Snarfangel: If you piss them off now, they'll vote twice as hard in the next election.

But the idea is to cripple them financially. The largest financial supporters of conservative candidates are billionaires, Karl Rove types, and other conservative PACs. The largest financial supporters of liberal candidates are unions. Cripple the unions, and you can drown out the liberal voices. Republicans aren't playing to win the next election, they're playing to win every election for the next 30 years.


Don't get me wrong, I hate the role money plays in our elections as much as anybody, and I hate what the Republicans in Michigan are doing.

But think for a moment about what that money goes towards: mostly ads and GOTV (when it's not going to scams run by people like Huckabee and Gingrich). Now, since you can't literally go to a store and buy people to vote for you, don't the voters themselves bear some responsibility when money "buys" elections? If Americans weren't so feeble-minded and impressionable, the amount of money spent on campaigns wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
 
2012-12-11 12:38:56 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats: People don't deserve the right to choose!


They have the right to choose. In Michigan already you can choose to be part of the union or not. This bill isn't changing that.

Please learn what you are talking about.
 
2012-12-11 12:39:01 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Epoch_Zero: I live and work in St. Louis, Missouri. Right to work state for as long as I can remember. It sucks. I have only pity for the wage earners of Michigan, as they are about to be trampled.

Actually we're not a right-to-work state. Having a Democrat as Governor has been the only thing keeping MO from being a right-to-work state. If Dave Spence would've won, that probably would've been the first thing on his list.

But yeah, even though we're not a right-to-work state, our teachers are some of the lowest paid in the country. Go figure.


It's not helping that the changing economy in MO from industry to service, plus the brushfires of derp in that state, are eroding once-strong unions.

/My family's 3 generations union in MO.
 
2012-12-11 12:39:22 PM  

Free_Chilly_Willy: I'm sorry, I can't hear liberal fear mongering over how awesome the Texas economy is.


Oil, near-slave Mexican labor, and a high tolerance for the cancer clusters that come along with raping your environment will do that.

And that's also ignoring the fact that the Texas economy is essentially 30 billionaires and 5-10 million in crushing, desperate poverty.
 
2012-12-11 12:39:52 PM  

I alone am best:
Right to work is actually a popular proposal in Michigan. The funny thing is that the Governor basically said he would not sign it until the unions went batchit insane and tried to pass a bunch of super pro union proposals that all failed miserably on the ballot.


i'm not commenting about the legislation. my concern is HOW the Republicans forced this through the legislature. midnight sessions? lame duck retributive strike against the Democratic party. no public debate. locking voters out of the building. the GOP sure went out of their way to piss off voters.
 
2012-12-11 12:40:13 PM  

Diogenes: Weaver95: BillCo: You'll get over it.

I don't think so. this law bypassed the normal process of democracy and the local GOP has been extremely heavy handed about passing it. the Republicans have already damaged their brand in this fight. passing that law will tell Democrats (and third parties) that the GOP isn't interested in democracy anymore, they're just in it for the money and power.

Yeah, I have to admit I'm of mixed minds on right-to-work. But the way this was done is offensive. Let the people choose.


I don't mind passing RTW. I say fine, do it. I care about the way they passed it just to make it harder to get rid of as a political ploy.
 
2012-12-11 12:40:51 PM  

verbaltoxin: Personally I think these companies take advantage of the absence of a union to enforce things like having a worker be a temp for 7 years, or making people work exhaustive shifts away from their families, and the slow promotions. I think a union can fix those things. The thing is, unions are an anathema to parts where these plants were built (Rural/Southern regions).


So it would be fair to say that they offer equivalent pay and benefits on paper but there are still intangible disadvantages?
 
2012-12-11 12:40:51 PM  

bikerific: Are companies going to have 2 pay scales? 2 parallel health care plans? 2 parallel grievance or disciplinary processes? Probably not.


You're joking, right? They already do this in the UAW. It's called two-tier. The Right is doing a spectacular job of associating worker self-interest with greed, anti-patriotism and sloth in order to funnel even more riches to keepers and convincing the victims to do the dirty work. On one level it's deeply impressive.
 
2012-12-11 12:41:52 PM  

heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members. Rather they should be paid the average non-union wage for that field as determined by the non-union labor market, and anything more they would have to negotiate as an induvidual with no leverage since the boss can fire them without a given reason.

If anything, it would let the "right to work law" supporters know quicky the ramifications of their actions. The whole purpose of "right to work laws" are to lower all wages and eliminate worker's rights across the board, in order to pad corporate profits at the expense of the worker.


Yep this law will make someone who is not part of the union, does not pay any fees for contract negotation be able to get ALL the benefits of the Union.

It's BS. If they don't want to be part of the union then they should have to negotiate separately. But the Republicans know that wouldn't work, so they made this BS law.
 
2012-12-11 12:42:11 PM  
Let em rage maybe they'll knock down whats left of Detroit
 
2012-12-11 12:42:14 PM  

Leeds: qorkfiend: Maybe if they hadn't tried to ram it through in a lame-duck session, Michigan Democrats and the unions wouldn't be so upset.

Why is it that whenever the Republicans do stuff like this, they have to resort to legislative trickery, suppression of opposition, and lame-duck sessions to get it done?

And you think that this is a republican thing?

Obamacare for the win.


Obamacare was hardly a "rammed through at the dark of night" piece of legislation. It went through interminable compromises that it ended up being a washed out version of what could have been a stellar piece of legislation. The democrats gave in far too much to the GOP to earn support for the bill. It took far longer than the 8 hours that took the RTW laws to pass in Michigan. Obamacare was and is filled with compromises that most of us progressives are left holding our noses.
 
2012-12-11 12:42:21 PM  
to anybody who thinks this ACTUALLY has anything to do with somebodies "right to work", I have bad news for you. This is ONLY a play against unions, because they tend to vote Democratic. This is another version of the same bull**** that Walker pulled in Wisconsin. The Republicans know that they can't win with the current set of rules, so they know that in order to survive, they need to change the rules in as many ways as possible. Notice that they would rather change the rules than to change themselves and their policies to adapt. this is one one of the big reasons why the party failed in the 2012 election, and their future doesn't seem very bright.
 
2012-12-11 12:42:29 PM  

Leeds: When I first entered the workforce I was forced to join a union as a condition of employment.

Having suffered through that ordeal I can assure you that I'll be damned if I want anyone else to be forced into that situation.

So to be perfectly honest I am literally getting a kick out of the progress being made in Michigan.


Oh you poor dear, you had to join a union! Someone was holding a gun to your head and forced you to sign on? Isn't it the mantra of the Fark Bootstrap Brigade that if you don't like a job, or work conditions, or salary, well, you just go quit and find one to your liking??

/This is very un-bootstrappy of you
 
2012-12-11 12:42:52 PM  
I'm really starting to wonder if the shift from industrial to service economy is contributing to the growing anti-unionism of the middle class. I realize you have to factor in right wing propaganda, but there has to be set of circumstances outside Fox News which shape people's opinions. Part of it could be their economic reality: if they work a full time job with decent pay and benefits in an office, they are totally disconnected from heavily unionized industrial jobs. They're not thinking through the implications of Right to Work, because they've bought the idea that Right to Work means what it says in the title.
 
2012-12-11 12:43:32 PM  

udhq: Free_Chilly_Willy: I'm sorry, I can't hear liberal fear mongering over how awesome the Texas economy is.

Oil, near-slave Mexican labor, and a high tolerance for the cancer clusters that come along with raping your environment will do that.

And that's also ignoring the fact that the Texas economy is essentially 30 billionaires and 5-10 million in crushing, desperate poverty.


If we all had economies based on the oil industry, we'd be doing fine too.
 
2012-12-11 12:43:55 PM  
From a Republican State Rep...

i260.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-11 12:44:10 PM  

I alone am best: Right to work is actually a popular proposal in Michigan.


A popular proposal would be something that could be passed in normal session with all the necessary debate. If this is a popular proposal, why is it being passed as fast as possible and with as little debate as possible during a lame-duck session?
 
2012-12-11 12:44:11 PM  
If "right to work" laws pass in Michigan (and the fact the press calls them that is triumph of the GOP PR machine) The Mi GOP will very likely go extinct in the next ligeislative cycle. Why? because although the GOP attempted to make them "referendum proof" by attaching an appropriation to them, they apparently didn't realize that the MI Constitution, also provides for a "statutory initiative" process. Which means that the Unions can write a law and get it on the ballot with the signatures of eligible voters totalling 8% of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election. That shouldn;t be too hard for them to do in Michigan. It also means that the ballot measure will be voted at the same time as MI's gov is running for re-election. If you thought the unions had a good GOTV effort for the Obama campaign; just watch them deal with an existential threat like right to work laws
 
2012-12-11 12:44:12 PM  

wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?


Why should people be getting the benefits of the Union without participating?
 
2012-12-11 12:44:34 PM  

I alone am best:
Right to work is actually a popular proposal in Michigan. The funny thing is that the Governor basically said he would not sign it until the unions went batchit insane and tried to pass a bunch of super pro union proposals that all failed miserably on the ballot.


Again, it wasn't just the pro-union ballot proposals that failed. All of them failed... Nobody wanted that shiat in the constitution.
 
2012-12-11 12:46:18 PM  
The more I see of capitalism (ie rich kids falling out of the right vagina and making millions looting companies) the more I become interested in communism.


Congrats GOP and corporate socialists - you are the greatest advertisement for socialism and regulation imaginable.
 
2012-12-11 12:46:25 PM  

Onkel Buck: Let em rage maybe they'll knock down whats left of Detroit


They'll have a long walk... The protesters are about 90 miles north of Detroit.
 
2012-12-11 12:46:26 PM  

jst3p: verbaltoxin: Personally I think these companies take advantage of the absence of a union to enforce things like having a worker be a temp for 7 years, or making people work exhaustive shifts away from their families, and the slow promotions. I think a union can fix those things. The thing is, unions are an anathema to parts where these plants were built (Rural/Southern regions).

So it would be fair to say that they offer equivalent pay and benefits on paper but there are still intangible disadvantages?


Precisely, which I don't think a lot of anti-union workers see, so they assume unions don't eliminate those intangibles, or they're unaware of what unions bring to the table in regards to dealing with those intangibles. They just think unions drive up wages and make bosses outsource jobs, and that union workers are lazy and get a free paycheck. That's as far as their reasoning goes thanks to steady, right wing propadanda. Couple that with a growing service economy, which has a dearth of unions, and anti-union notions grow in states where unions are weak, but the economy is strong, like in NE and TX.
 
2012-12-11 12:46:42 PM  
So a union is like a frat? You pay for your friends to shake down the rich guy who created the job for you?
 
2012-12-11 12:47:46 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Isn't it the mantra of the Fark Bootstrap Brigade that if you don't like a job, or work conditions, or salary, well, you just go quit and find one to your liking??


You know, having been on the management side of two separate union negotiations, those paying into the union really do have extraordinary benefits over non-union employees. And idiots like Leeds just spout their ignorance from a soapbox of projections and lies.

It's quite hilarious.
 
2012-12-11 12:48:05 PM  

Il Douchey: Michigan isn't prohibiting unions, it's just allowing workers to decide if they want to belong to them. Of course unions want the power to compel membership, it's so much easier than having to persuade people that voluntarily joining is in their best interest.

/Don't just demand union allegiance, earn it. -Good luck with that


No unions are trying to prevent freeloaders from benefitting from all the work and money they spend negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, but no chpping in to make that happen. A reasonable position I think. You ever notice that "right to work" states are the ones with virtually no job protection laws for workers? You ever wonder why that is?
 
2012-12-11 12:48:40 PM  

Desquamation: Onkel Buck: Let em rage maybe they'll knock down whats left of Detroit

They'll have a long walk... The protesters are about 90 miles north west of Detroit.


FTFM.
 
2012-12-11 12:48:49 PM  
Trollomite: So a union is like a frat? You pay for your friends to shake down the rich guy who created the job for you?


-----------

Yeah, the same way the rich guy shakes your community down for labor. Value for value, Job Creators.
 
2012-12-11 12:49:40 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: The more I see of capitalism (ie rich kids falling out of the right vagina and making millions looting companies) the more I become interested in communism.


Congrats GOP and corporate socialists - you are the greatest advertisement for socialism and regulation imaginable.


The sticky part is when you try to practice communism. So far communism in practice has wound up with Leninism, Trostkyism, Maoism and Stalinism. None of it ended well for those it was supposed to uplift - the working class.

Democratic Socialism FTW, as far as I'm concerned. It ain't perfect but there are no gulags, despite whatever right wing scare tactics claim to the contrary.
 
2012-12-11 12:49:57 PM  

Corvus: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

Why should people be getting the benefits of the Union without participating?


I'm not saying they should, but if companies are going to offer those benefits to non-union workers, that's not a problem.

If the union is the entity actually paying for those benefits, then yeah, I agree with you. I have no idea how much that's the case, however. I thought the whole purpose of a union was to get the company to provide those.
 
2012-12-11 12:50:14 PM  

verbaltoxin: jst3p: verbaltoxin: Personally I think these companies take advantage of the absence of a union to enforce things like having a worker be a temp for 7 years, or making people work exhaustive shifts away from their families, and the slow promotions. I think a union can fix those things. The thing is, unions are an anathema to parts where these plants were built (Rural/Southern regions).

So it would be fair to say that they offer equivalent pay and benefits on paper but there are still intangible disadvantages?

Precisely, which I don't think a lot of anti-union workers see, so they assume unions don't eliminate those intangibles, or they're unaware of what unions bring to the table in regards to dealing with those intangibles. They just think unions drive up wages and make bosses outsource jobs, and that union workers are lazy and get a free paycheck. That's as far as their reasoning goes thanks to steady, right wing propadanda. Couple that with a growing service economy, which has a dearth of unions, and anti-union notions grow in states where unions are weak, but the economy is strong, like in NE and TX.


It is a tough debate for me as I have never really been in a position to need a union. I can see how business can hate it but given our history and working conditions around the world I can see a need.

Most of all the way this was pushed through tells my gut it isn't right.
 
2012-12-11 12:50:27 PM  
Second Amendment Solutions
 
2012-12-11 12:51:33 PM  

Magorn: Il Douchey: Michigan isn't prohibiting unions, it's just allowing workers to decide if they want to belong to them. Of course unions want the power to compel membership, it's so much easier than having to persuade people that voluntarily joining is in their best interest.

/Don't just demand union allegiance, earn it. -Good luck with that

No unions are trying to prevent freeloaders from benefitting from all the work and money they spend negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, but no chpping in to make that happen. A reasonable position I think. You ever notice that "right to work" states are the ones with virtually no job protection laws for workers? You ever wonder why that is?


Yep, Texas is RTW and an at-will employment state. They also let companies make employees sign arbitration agreements upon their hiring. So if you do get f*cked over, you get a company mediator, but not a judge, to hear your case.

Liberty, it'll trickle down, we swear!
 
2012-12-11 12:52:03 PM  

wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?


It's not punishment. It's the freedom to be able to choose whether or not to use the services of the union to bargain collectively on your behalf.

Why not allow workers to see if they can get a better deal than the union can get from management? It seems like that's the free-market solution, if the union can get a better deal than management would have otherwise offered, people will opt in, otherwise people will be free to negotiate on their own.
 
2012-12-11 12:52:12 PM  

Skid Roe v. Wade Boggs: From a Republican State Rep...

[i260.photobucket.com image 386x133]


To me it feel more like when President Hoover panicked and unleashed Gen MacArthur on a group of demonstrating veterans asking for promised VA benefits and Macarthur order then Lieutenant Patton to charge the demonstrators with a cavalry troop with sabers drawn

Fascist is as Fascist does
 
2012-12-11 12:52:38 PM  

Leeds: qorkfiend: Maybe if they hadn't tried to ram it through in a lame-duck session, Michigan Democrats and the unions wouldn't be so upset.

Why is it that whenever the Republicans do stuff like this, they have to resort to legislative trickery, suppression of opposition, and lame-duck sessions to get it done?

And you think that this is a republican thing?

Obamacare for the win.


Reality:
June 17, 2009 - Committees in congress started debating bills in congress that would form the basis of healthcare reform including a committee of 3 Rep and 3 Democrats.

March 2010 - Bill signed by Obama.

THAT'S 8 months!!! And it started with a bi-partisan committee. Only later Republicans decided to turn it into a partisan issue and refused to participate in discussion about it they were invited to.

Sorry about your BS dream land but that was the reality of it.
 
2012-12-11 12:52:40 PM  

Tarl3k: to anybody who thinks this ACTUALLY has anything to do with somebodies "right to work", I have bad news for you. This is ONLY a play against unions, because they tend to vote Democratic. This is another version of the same bull**** that Walker pulled in Wisconsin. The Republicans know that they can't win with the current set of rules, so they know that in order to survive, they need to change the rules in as many ways as possible. Notice that they would rather change the rules than to change themselves and their policies to adapt. this is one one of the big reasons why the party failed in the 2012 election, and their future doesn't seem very bright.


I heard they're also trying to change the rules for recall elections to make it hard to recall a politician...

But it's all about freedom for workers, right GOP?
 
2012-12-11 12:52:46 PM  

wxboy: Corvus: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

Why should people be getting the benefits of the Union without participating?

I'm not saying they should, but if companies are going to offer those benefits to non-union workers, that's not a problem.

If the union is the entity actually paying for those benefits, then yeah, I agree with you. I have no idea how much that's the case, however. I thought the whole purpose of a union was to get the company to provide those.


So you believe they should offer their collective bargaining for free.
 
2012-12-11 12:52:56 PM  

verbaltoxin: I'm really starting to wonder if the shift from industrial to service economy is contributing to the growing anti-unionism of the middle class. I realize you have to factor in right wing propaganda, but there has to be set of circumstances outside Fox News which shape people's opinions. Part of it could be their economic reality: if they work a full time job with decent pay and benefits in an office, they are totally disconnected from heavily unionized industrial jobs. They're not thinking through the implications of Right to Work, because they've bought the idea that Right to Work means what it says in the title.


Nope. I worked in local/state government for a while, a lot of the anti-union sentiment pretty much comes down to "My union is the only illegitimate union, its the other unions that are ruining the country!".

As for the economic reality, I doubt those railing against unions and those oblivious to Right to Work status are those sitting in an office with decent pay and benefits.

Most of us dirty liberals in support of unions here on Fark sit in an office with benefits and decent pay.
 
2012-12-11 12:54:13 PM  

Leeds: Bloody William: Why is this called "right-to-work?" It sounds like the sickest twisting of words considering what it does.

No, that's the literal interpretation.

Way back when, if you sought a job and the company offered it to you and you accepted it, you had that job. Then a few decades ago unions granted themselves the ability to keep you from your job if you refused to pay them money (to join their ranks). You literally could be offered a job, accept that job, then be barred from working at your job because some union somewhere needed you to pay them for the privilege of working at a job you already have.

Right to work legislation makes it illegal for an outside group to block you from working if you and your employer have come to an employment agreement.


And why, do you suppose, that the job the person was applying for had its higher salary, and guaranteed benefits, and recourse for employer abuse that drew said employee to the job in the first place?

Unless you are ok with the whole free-riding thing, where everyone else gets to sacrifice, potentially even strike, to ensure the benefits they earned inure to you.
 
2012-12-11 12:55:20 PM  

Magorn: Il Douchey: Michigan isn't prohibiting unions, it's just allowing workers to decide if they want to belong to them. Of course unions want the power to compel membership, it's so much easier than having to persuade people that voluntarily joining is in their best interest.

/Don't just demand union allegiance, earn it. -Good luck with that

No unions are trying to prevent freeloaders from benefitting from all the work and money they spend negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, but no chpping in to make that happen. A reasonable position I think. You ever notice that "right to work" states are the ones with virtually no job protection laws for workers? You ever wonder why that is?


So they dont want people getting benefits who with no skin in the game? Where have I heard that before?
 
2012-12-11 12:55:31 PM  

jst3p: verbaltoxin: jst3p: verbaltoxin: Personally I think these companies take advantage of the absence of a union to enforce things like having a worker be a temp for 7 years, or making people work exhaustive shifts away from their families, and the slow promotions. I think a union can fix those things. The thing is, unions are an anathema to parts where these plants were built (Rural/Southern regions).

So it would be fair to say that they offer equivalent pay and benefits on paper but there are still intangible disadvantages?

Precisely, which I don't think a lot of anti-union workers see, so they assume unions don't eliminate those intangibles, or they're unaware of what unions bring to the table in regards to dealing with those intangibles. They just think unions drive up wages and make bosses outsource jobs, and that union workers are lazy and get a free paycheck. That's as far as their reasoning goes thanks to steady, right wing propadanda. Couple that with a growing service economy, which has a dearth of unions, and anti-union notions grow in states where unions are weak, but the economy is strong, like in NE and TX.

It is a tough debate for me as I have never really been in a position to need a union. I can see how business can hate it but given our history and working conditions around the world I can see a need.

Most of all the way this was pushed through tells my gut it isn't right.


The lame duck session isn't the cleanest way, but it's not some sacred time when laws can't get passed. Politicians have and will use it to pass bills they know would hit stiff opposition in the next session. In fact just last week Republicans were trying to pull this sh*t with that disabilities treaty. The one that Bob Dole himself wheeled in to see the vote. Republicans signed some "pledge" that they wouldn't vote on treaties during lame duck sessions, so they voted down the treaty. Yet here in MI, voting through RTW is easy-peasy for the GOP. So at the US level, they were against ratiyfing something during a lame duck session. On the state level, they were okay passing RTW. Nothing's sacred.
 
2012-12-11 12:56:02 PM  

udhq: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

It's not punishment. It's the freedom to be able to choose whether or not to use the services of the union to bargain collectively on your behalf.

Why not allow workers to see if they can get a better deal than the union can get from management? It seems like that's the free-market solution, if the union can get a better deal than management would have otherwise offered, people will opt in, otherwise people will be free to negotiate on their own.


Yes, because it is So very likely that the individual worker will be able to wring from management wages or concessions on working conditions that the workers collectively just don;t have the leverage to pull off.

Just like forbidding 10-year olds from working denies them their basic rights to contract with management for their services and negotiate a fair wage, or minimum wage laws interefere with a person's freedom to negotiate thier own deal for thier labor (actual arguments once used by the US supreme court to strike down progessive and New Deal reforms)
 
2012-12-11 12:56:07 PM  

Fart_Machine: wxboy: Corvus: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

Why should people be getting the benefits of the Union without participating?

I'm not saying they should, but if companies are going to offer those benefits to non-union workers, that's not a problem.

If the union is the entity actually paying for those benefits, then yeah, I agree with you. I have no idea how much that's the case, however. I thought the whole purpose of a union was to get the company to provide those.

So you believe they should offer their collective bargaining for free.


The unions? No. But you're making it sound like union contracts cover all employees, which would make no sense if that included non-union workers. Why would a union do that?
 
2012-12-11 12:56:09 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Unless you are ok with the whole free-riding thing, where everyone else gets to sacrifice, potentially even strike, to ensure the benefits they earned inure to you.


I think you just defined the Baby Boomers quite well there... very nice.
 
2012-12-11 12:56:26 PM  

wxboy: Corvus: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

Why should people be getting the benefits of the Union without participating?

I'm not saying they should, but if companies are going to offer those benefits to non-union workers, that's not a problem.

If the union is the entity actually paying for those benefits, then yeah, I agree with you. I have no idea how much that's the case, however. I thought the whole purpose of a union was to get the company to provide those.


To UNION members. Why should unions be working for people who don't want to join or pay any fee to them at all so they can run the union?

No it's not the company is "offering them" they get them no matter what. Do you know of any agents that will work for free because "their job is to make people more money"? That's what you are saying unions should do. You are saying they should pay out of their own pockets to make people who don't want to join or pay them money for their services.

Who is going to pay the union if you get all the same benefits without having to pay? That's the point. They know people want and the union will die.
 
2012-12-11 12:57:14 PM  

udhq: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

It's not punishment. It's the freedom to be able to choose whether or not to use the services of the union to bargain collectively on your behalf.

Why not allow workers to see if they can get a better deal than the union can get from management? It seems like that's the free-market solution, if the union can get a better deal than management would have otherwise offered, people will opt in, otherwise people will be free to negotiate on their own.


Let me know how that "negotiating on your own" against management works out.
 
2012-12-11 12:57:42 PM  

wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?


What punishment? I see no punishment at all, just "freedom of choice". The worker has the choice to either join the union and recieve the benefits of membership or reject it and enjoy the benfits of the "free market". It's all about freedom to choose and as with everything, choices do have consequences.

It's just like with "Sams Club". If you are a member you pay the price on the tag, but if not a member you can shop with a one day pass but have to pay a 10% surcharge.
 
2012-12-11 12:58:16 PM  
Will this law get rid of those stupid-assed Chrylser commercials where a car hardly anybody wants is being driven through a shiaty-looking city where hardly anybody would want to live?

If so, I'm for it.
 
2012-12-11 12:58:29 PM  

verbaltoxin: udhq: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

It's not punishment. It's the freedom to be able to choose whether or not to use the services of the union to bargain collectively on your behalf.

Why not allow workers to see if they can get a better deal than the union can get from management? It seems like that's the free-market solution, if the union can get a better deal than management would have otherwise offered, people will opt in, otherwise people will be free to negotiate on their own.

Let me know how that "negotiating on your own" against management works out.


If someone thinks it won't work, they'll join the union, won't they?
 
2012-12-11 12:59:02 PM  

mrshowrules: Here are the 10 best States for math and sciences education in the US:

Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New York
Virginia
Maryland
Connecticut
Indiana
Maine 

Any guesses what they bolded States have in common?


Asians?
 
2012-12-11 12:59:30 PM  

Trollomite: So a union is like a frat? You pay for your friends to shake down the rich guy who created the job for you?


Rich people don't create jobs, consumers do. And most of them are poor or middle class.

Corporations are not charities.
 
2012-12-11 12:59:40 PM  

Cletus C.: Will this law get rid of those stupid-assed Chrylser commercials where a car hardly anybody wants is being driven through a shiaty-looking city where hardly anybody would want to live?

If so, I'm for it.


Chrylser has commercials of cars that drive through Houston?
 
2012-12-11 12:59:50 PM  

wxboy: If the union is the entity actually paying for those benefits, then yeah, I agree with you. I have no idea how much that's the case, however. I thought the whole purpose of a union was to get the company to provide those.


No they aren't "providing the benefit" they are negotiating for the benefits for their members. Which now under this non-members get and don't have to pay anything to those who negotiated those benefits.

You believe that is worthless?

It's like if they made a law for football players saying "You can just not pay your agent if you don't want to".
 
2012-12-11 01:00:12 PM  

wxboy: Corvus: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

Why should people be getting the benefits of the Union without participating?

I'm not saying they should, but if companies are going to offer those benefits to non-union workers, that's not a problem.

If the union is the entity actually paying for those benefits, then yeah, I agree with you. I have no idea how much that's the case, however. I thought the whole purpose of a union was to get the company to provide those.


It doesn't matter if the union paid for it or not. If the company enters into a contract with a union for a wage and then the company decides to make that the compensation plan for the company then that is up to the company. The union does not own the company as much as they would like to think they do.
 
2012-12-11 01:01:23 PM  

udhq: It seems like that's the free-market solution, if the union can get a better deal than management would have otherwise offered, people will opt in, otherwise people will be free to negotiate on their own.


But that's not what this law does. It allows people to opt out of the union, pay no dues AND get ALL the benefits that Union workers who paid get.

That's why it's bullshiat.
 
2012-12-11 01:01:24 PM  

wxboy: verbaltoxin: udhq: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

It's not punishment. It's the freedom to be able to choose whether or not to use the services of the union to bargain collectively on your behalf.

Why not allow workers to see if they can get a better deal than the union can get from management? It seems like that's the free-market solution, if the union can get a better deal than management would have otherwise offered, people will opt in, otherwise people will be free to negotiate on their own.

Let me know how that "negotiating on your own" against management works out.

If someone thinks it won't work, they'll join the union, won't they?


Sure they would, if the unions had the ability to compel management to negotiate. But RTW undermines that ability, as has been explained repeatedly here, and you keep ignoring. I wonder why that is? Why would you remain obstinate in the face of facts? It's almost like you are posting variations of the same theme to get a targeted reaction....
 
2012-12-11 01:01:31 PM  
I live in a right to work state and the company I work for makes parts that the manufacturing robots use in the auto industry. Irony?

/grew up in Michigan getting kicks all day
//The union robot used to make your car is made of non union parts
 
2012-12-11 01:01:36 PM  

jst3p: Free_Chilly_Willy: I'm sorry, I can't hear liberal fear mongering over how awesome the Texas economy is.

I wanted to find a graphic to rebut you, but I must concede Texas looks pretty strong. I will only gloat that this was another instance of "it is difficult to find an infographic that makes Colorado look bad"

83% White, you should be ashamed.

 
2012-12-11 01:02:06 PM  

verbaltoxin: udhq: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

It's not punishment. It's the freedom to be able to choose whether or not to use the services of the union to bargain collectively on your behalf.

Why not allow workers to see if they can get a better deal than the union can get from management? It seems like that's the free-market solution, if the union can get a better deal than management would have otherwise offered, people will opt in, otherwise people will be free to negotiate on their own.

Let me know how that "negotiating on your own" against management works out.


I have done it all my life. It has worked out pretty well so far.
 
2012-12-11 01:02:18 PM  
Republicans do the bidding of their wealthy masters.

They can polish the turd all they want but it's always about protecting and increasing the wealth held by the aristocracy.
 
2012-12-11 01:02:45 PM  

studs up: mrshowrules: Here are the 10 best States for math and sciences education in the US:

Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New York
Virginia
Maryland
Connecticut
Indiana
Maine 

Any guesses what they bolded States have in common?

Asians?


I guess my wife single handedly bolded the state of Maine for them. Awesome.
 
2012-12-11 01:02:51 PM  

Weaver95: udhq: beta_plus: If this passes, the tears of liberal butt hurt shall be most delicious.

And this is why mitt Romney lost: because the gop is willing to gut the middle class purely out of partisan spite.

the MI voters are gonna be PISSED if this gets signed into law.


I'd call it an abortion of democracy but the MI legislature is doing their best to get rid of those too.
 
2012-12-11 01:03:48 PM  

udhq: Trollomite: So a union is like a frat? You pay for your friends to shake down the rich guy who created the job for you?

Rich people don't create jobs, consumers do. And most of them are poor or middle class.

Corporations are not charities.


But they are people, and so are unions Barry said so
 
2012-12-11 01:03:54 PM  

Corvus: wxboy: If the union is the entity actually paying for those benefits, then yeah, I agree with you. I have no idea how much that's the case, however. I thought the whole purpose of a union was to get the company to provide those.

No they aren't "providing the benefit" they are negotiating for the benefits for their members. Which now under this non-members get and don't have to pay anything to those who negotiated those benefits.

You believe that is worthless?

It's like if they made a law for football players saying "You can just not pay your agent if you don't want to".


But nobody in that scenario is forcing the company to offer those negotiated benefits to non-union workers. Sure, they probably will, but they don't have to. There is a balance somewhere in the middle between compelling union membership as part of employment and not having a union available.
 
2012-12-11 01:04:44 PM  

I alone am best: wxboy: Corvus: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

Why should people be getting the benefits of the Union without participating?

I'm not saying they should, but if companies are going to offer those benefits to non-union workers, that's not a problem.

If the union is the entity actually paying for those benefits, then yeah, I agree with you. I have no idea how much that's the case, however. I thought the whole purpose of a union was to get the company to provide those.

It doesn't matter if the union paid for it or not. If the company enters into a contract with a union for a wage and then the company decides to make that the compensation plan for the company then that is up to the company. The union does not own the company as much as they would like to think they do.


Wat

/Seriously you either don't know how unions work, or don't want to know, and are posting the same crap on purpose.
//Bets are it's the latter.
 
2012-12-11 01:04:54 PM  

Weaver95: jehovahs witness protection: Democrats: People don't deserve the right to choose!

so you're pro-choice, pro-gay marriage AND pro-legalization of cannabis?


I'm all those things, and pro-right-to-work.

People make fun of the logical disparity that many conservatives display by crying freedom while they want to ban reproductive rights. This is along the same vein.
People, workers, deserve the right to choose whether they will take part in union. They also choose to not benefit from all the protections that come with that, but it's still a choice we have the right to make on our own.
 
2012-12-11 01:05:25 PM  

Corvus: wxboy: If the union is the entity actually paying for those benefits, then yeah, I agree with you. I have no idea how much that's the case, however. I thought the whole purpose of a union was to get the company to provide those.

No they aren't "providing the benefit" they are negotiating for the benefits for their members. Which now under this non-members get and don't have to pay anything to those who negotiated those benefits.

You believe that is worthless?

It's like if they made a law for football players saying "You can just not pay your agent if you don't want to".


Woohoo, free agents!
 
2012-12-11 01:05:38 PM  

Corvus: udhq: It seems like that's the free-market solution, if the union can get a better deal than management would have otherwise offered, people will opt in, otherwise people will be free to negotiate on their own.

But that's not what this law does. It allows people to opt out of the union, pay no dues AND get ALL the benefits that Union workers who paid get.

That's why it's bullshiat.


...and it was also rammed through the legislature during a late night, lame duck session after locking the doors to keep people out. the means taken to get this law passed are highly questionable.
 
2012-12-11 01:06:16 PM  

Leeds: // "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from all of the controversy." -- Nancy the biatch Pelosi


You know, for sh:ts 'n giggles.
 
2012-12-11 01:07:03 PM  

Leeds: bikerific: Leeds: Right to work legislation makes it illegal for an outside group to block you from working if you and your employer have come to an employment agreement.


While still allowing you the reap the benefits that unions have obtained.

For a little while, anyway.

I never understood the line you have just parroted.

What does a union member's benefits have to do with a worker's benefits if the worker doesn't join the union but instead signs a contract with the employer?


Because workers who bargain collectively have more leverage and therefore get better deals.

If one worker wants to hold out for a better contract, management can afford to let him walk, he's replaceable.

If the entire workforce holds out, however, that's a site disruption to a business.

You should have the right not to participate in the service of having a union bargain on your behalf, but what rtw does is force the union to provide that service even if you refuse to pay. If that demand were made of any other industry, people would be rightfully outraged.
 
2012-12-11 01:09:37 PM  

ReverendJasen: People, workers, deserve the right to choose whether they will take part in union. They also choose to not benefit from all the protections that come with that, but it's still a choice we have the right to make on our own.


Except in this case, even if you don't join the union, you would still get to enjoy the protections and benefits that come with the union.

That's why I call it "Right-To-Be-A-Freeloader"
 
2012-12-11 01:11:32 PM  
this kind of crap is what gives unions a bad name. the law will allow people to work at a job without forcing them to join the union, and the unions are freaking out. "no! we must not let people choose! they must join us if they want a job!"

i have a nice job and i make a good paycheck for what i do, i have nice benefits and i even earn profit sharing. and my company doesn't have a union. so whenever all those union supporters cry about "not having a union to fight for them" i just don't get it. i don't have a union fighting for me, and i have a great job and couldn't be happier with my salary and benefits. so why do i need a union?

sure, i suppose a union might get me a higher salary. but a few years ago, when the economy took a crap on everyone, my company cancelled all raises and profit sharing and cut our pay. we were really cutting it close for awhile there, and some of us thought the company would go under. but we managed to stay in business, and when things picked back up, all our raises were put back in place and it all went back to normal, and now we are doing great. a union probably would have prevented the company from cutting our pay or reducing our benefits, and in doing so they might well have forced the company to close. so my higher salary and "protection" by the union could have resulted in me losing my job. thanks, but no thanks.
 
2012-12-11 01:13:10 PM  

udhq: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

It's not punishment. It's the freedom to be able to choose whether or not to use the services of the union to bargain collectively on your behalf.

Why not allow workers to see if they can get a better deal than the union can get from management? It seems like that's the free-market solution, if the union can get a better deal than management would have otherwise offered, people will opt in, otherwise people will be free to negotiate on their own.


That is what I am advocating. If they don't "opt in" let them negotiate on their own.

But those promoting the "right to work laws" do not want that to happen because then the laws would strengthen union memebrship rather than weaken it, because common sense would steer workers towards unions.

In 2002, full-time wage and salary workers who were union members had median usual weekly earnings of $740, compared with a median of $587 for wage and salary workers who were not represented by unions.

Unionized workers in blue-collar occupations averaged $18.88 per hour, compared with $12.95 for nonunion blue-collar workers. The highest paid blue-collar workers among the major occupational groups were precision production, craft, and repair workers; in this group, union workers had average hourly earnings of $23.05, compared with $16.33 for nonunion workers.

Among service occupations, union workers had average hourly earnings of $16.22, compared with $8.98 for nonunion workers.

In two white-collar major occupational groups, average hourly earnings were higher for nonunion than for union workers. The first was executive, administrative, and managerial occupations, in which nonunion earnings averaged $31.48 per hour, and union earnings averaged $26.73. The second was sales workers, among whom nonunion workers had average hourly earnings of $14.58, compared with $12.78 for their union counterparts.


They would rather remove the incentive to join until the union goes broke so in the long run they can eventually force the union into insolvency and gut everyone's pay, benefits, and worker's rights.
 
2012-12-11 01:13:43 PM  

enderthexenocide: i have a nice job and i make a good paycheck for what i do, i have nice benefits and i even earn profit sharing. and my company doesn't have a union. so whenever all those union supporters cry about "not having a union to fight for them" i just don't get it. i don't have a union fighting for me, and i have a great job and couldn't be happier with my salary and benefits. so why do i need a union?


You probably aren't in unskilled labor. Most people are pretty dumb but I think they deserve a decent standard of living too.
 
2012-12-11 01:14:14 PM  

I alone am best: verbaltoxin: udhq: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

It's not punishment. It's the freedom to be able to choose whether or not to use the services of the union to bargain collectively on your behalf.

Why not allow workers to see if they can get a better deal than the union can get from management? It seems like that's the free-market solution, if the union can get a better deal than management would have otherwise offered, people will opt in, otherwise people will be free to negotiate on their own.

Let me know how that "negotiating on your own" against management works out.

I have done it all my life. It has worked out pretty well so far.


Let me guess: tech sector? I already covered that. Just like the guy who said, "The robots were built by non-union," yes, duh. Tech sector has a dearth of unions. That's well-known and it also contributes to anti-union perceptions. Meanwhile, on the floor of the plant....
 
2012-12-11 01:15:08 PM  
Magorn: No unions are trying to prevent freeloaders from benefitting from all the work and money they spend negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, but no chpping in to make that happen. A reasonable position I think. You ever notice that "right to work" states are the ones with virtually no job protection laws for workers? You ever wonder why that is?

Workers and businesses are asking nothing but to be left alone. Unions are demanding the continued ability to coerce and force participation in a scheme that props up the worst, holds down the best and shuts out competition. You ever notice that most businesses and citizens are voluntarily moving away from big restriction states and to big freedom states? You ever wonder why that is?
 
2012-12-11 01:16:30 PM  

enderthexenocide: this kind of crap is what gives unions a bad name. the law will allow people to work at a job without forcing them to join the union, and the unions are freaking out. "no! we must not let people choose! they must join us if they want a job!"

i have a nice job and i make a good paycheck for what i do, i have nice benefits and i even earn profit sharing. and my company doesn't have a union. so whenever all those union supporters cry about "not having a union to fight for them" i just don't get it. i don't have a union fighting for me, and i have a great job and couldn't be happier with my salary and benefits. so why do i need a union?

sure, i suppose a union might get me a higher salary. but a few years ago, when the economy took a crap on everyone, my company cancelled all raises and profit sharing and cut our pay. we were really cutting it close for awhile there, and some of us thought the company would go under. but we managed to stay in business, and when things picked back up, all our raises were put back in place and it all went back to normal, and now we are doing great. a union probably would have prevented the company from cutting our pay or reducing our benefits, and in doing so they might well have forced the company to close. so my higher salary and "protection" by the union could have resulted in me losing my job. thanks, but no thanks.


Your company may not need a union, and the Union only gets to form if a majority of workers think it should, so what's the problem? Right to work put unions in a bind because either people are allowed to freeoad on their efforts for better pay or working conditions or you have towo classes of people at the same job: one uniion protected making decent pay and bennies and one getting screwed by management making less. Which one is management going to hire more of it gets the chance?
 
2012-12-11 01:17:02 PM  
incidentally, Limbaugh weighed in on the actions taken by the MI Republicans. he saw nothing wrong with how they forced this legislation through, and believes that the unions (and local democrats) are merely being whiny crybabies and should go home.
 
2012-12-11 01:17:36 PM  
The anti-union folks in this thread are only confirming what I just said about anti-union sentiment a while ago. Just because there aren't unions where you work, or you had bad experiences with a union, doesn't mean unions don't have a function, that they're all bad, and that their time has passed. You are sealing your own fate if you continue to believe there is nothing to be gained in workers organization and looking out for themselves. If anything, you are wholly dependent on the benediction of your management, or any management you seek to work for if your current position is undermined. Don't want to unionize? Fine, but don't take away the ability of those that do, and damage their ability to seek gains for their own advantage because "fark you, got mine."
 
2012-12-11 01:18:16 PM  

verbaltoxin: udhq: wxboy: heavymetal: In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members.

You're advocating punishment for choosing not to participate in a union? Why not advocate for non-union employees to have their legs broken?

It's not punishment. It's the freedom to be able to choose whether or not to use the services of the union to bargain collectively on your behalf.

Why not allow workers to see if they can get a better deal than the union can get from management? It seems like that's the free-market solution, if the union can get a better deal than management would have otherwise offered, people will opt in, otherwise people will be free to negotiate on their own.

Let me know how that "negotiating on your own" against management works out.


That's my point. Unions offer a service that can be quite valuable.

If people want to opt out of that service, usually that will be against their own self-interests, but they should be free to do so. Rtw mandates that unions must still provide their services free of charge of their customers decide they don't want to pay, and that's wrong.
 
2012-12-11 01:19:13 PM  
Dear Michiganders:

You elected Republicans to represent you and your interests. You have no one else to blame for the shiat sandwich you now have to eat.

I have no sympathy for you.

Sincerely,

Someone whose brain isn't poisoned by Fox News

P.S. Tough shiat
 
2012-12-11 01:19:18 PM  

Klippoklondike: BillCo: You'll get over it.

No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.


people are pissed that people what the right to work and that bill is passed according to the rules?

this is what the people have voted for.
 
2012-12-11 01:20:07 PM  

Leeds: The "service" you suggest that they provide free of charge is neither wanted or necessary. And once a state is a right to work state, that service is no longer forced upon people who don't want to associate with scumbag union members or their mafia-connected leaders.


And then they can mooch off of the perks and benefits provided by the union without havign to join the union right? 

Conservative hypocrisy at it's finest ladies and gentlemen.
 
2012-12-11 01:20:16 PM  

Leeds: udhq: Leeds: bikerific: Leeds: Right to work legislation makes it illegal for an outside group to block you from working if you and your employer have come to an employment agreement.


While still allowing you the reap the benefits that unions have obtained.

For a little while, anyway.

I never understood the line you have just parroted.

What does a union member's benefits have to do with a worker's benefits if the worker doesn't join the union but instead signs a contract with the employer?

Because workers who bargain collectively have more leverage and therefore get better deals.

If one worker wants to hold out for a better contract, management can afford to let him walk, he's replaceable.

If the entire workforce holds out, however, that's a site disruption to a business.

You should have the right not to participate in the service of having a union bargain on your behalf, but what rtw does is force the union to provide that service even if you refuse to pay. If that demand were made of any other industry, people would be rightfully outraged.

Unions aren't "an industry" though, perhaps that misconception is at the root of your problem.

Unions come in uninvited, force you to pay them money and then they limit your ability to negotiate with your own employer, all the while imposing rules meant to keep you less productive and inefficient lest you embarrass lazy union members.

The "service" you suggest that they provide free of charge is neither wanted or necessary. And once a state is a right to work state, that service is no longer forced upon people who don't want to associate with scumbag union members or their mafia-connected leaders.


So apparently my great-grandfather, grandfather and father are in with the mafia.
 
2012-12-11 01:20:18 PM  

verbaltoxin: The anti-union folks in this thread are only confirming what I just said about anti-union sentiment a while ago. Just because there aren't unions where you work, or you had bad experiences with a union, doesn't mean unions don't have a function, that they're all bad, and that their time has passed. You are sealing your own fate if you continue to believe there is nothing to be gained in workers organization and looking out for themselves. If anything, you are wholly dependent on the benediction of your management, or any management you seek to work for if your current position is undermined. Don't want to unionize? Fine, but don't take away the ability of those that do, and damage their ability to seek gains for their own advantage because "fark you, got mine."


Fine, except public sector unions. Since their salaries and benefits are derived from taxes citizens have every right to give their butts a boot out the door.
 
2012-12-11 01:20:27 PM  
Isn't resolving these labor vs. plutocracy issues what strikes are for?

If the UAW can't nut-up and walk on this, they might as well go out of business.
 
2012-12-11 01:21:22 PM  

verbaltoxin: So apparently my great-grandfather, grandfather and father are in with the mafia.


You never talk about the family.
 
2012-12-11 01:21:54 PM  

Weaver95: incidentally, Limbaugh weighed in on the actions taken by the MI Republicans. he saw nothing wrong with how they forced this legislation through, and believes that the unions (and local democrats) are merely being whiny crybabies and should go home.


On the issue of the way this has all gone down, I really don't understand why the Republicans are in such a rush over this. The state legislature is currently solid "R" and is not going to significantly change in 3 weeks when the new legislature comes in. They had two years to do this. Why the sudden need to get it done before then?
 
2012-12-11 01:23:05 PM  

Corvus: But that's not what this law does. It allows people to opt out of the union, pay no dues AND get ALL the benefits that Union workers who paid get.

That's why it's bullshiat.


And I think it's bullshiat that a 3rd party can prevent you from working at the company of your choice, or force you out of that company if you don't pay them.
Non-union workers do NOT get all the same benefits, especially those regarding job protection, seniority, contractual hours or wages, etc. A non-union member can't call a greviance if something happens they don't like. They don't get the steward to back them up if they get into trouble.
 
2012-12-11 01:24:48 PM  
Unions work well in environments where the worker is little more than a machine doing a specific task.

There must be a reason that unions do poorly in service industries where job duties cannot be bullet-pointed and tasked out with a punch-card.
 
2012-12-11 01:25:31 PM  
Once you give up the right to bargain collectively, the GOP will make sure that you will never get the opportunity to do so again. Wisconsin is a test tube. They are just trying to see how far they can go. Once they get this in place it will be a blueprint for the rest of the country. This is the most corrosive thing you could do to the middle class in this country.

Period.
 
2012-12-11 01:26:57 PM  

BillCo: You'll get over it.


Yeah, somehow I doubt them suddenly not having pensions and getting wage cuts because they can't protect themselves is going to fly well.
 
2012-12-11 01:27:13 PM  

wxboy: Weaver95: incidentally, Limbaugh weighed in on the actions taken by the MI Republicans. he saw nothing wrong with how they forced this legislation through, and believes that the unions (and local democrats) are merely being whiny crybabies and should go home.

On the issue of the way this has all gone down, I really don't understand why the Republicans are in such a rush over this. The state legislature is currently solid "R" and is not going to significantly change in 3 weeks when the new legislature comes in. They had two years to do this. Why the sudden need to get it done before then?


scorched earth. the GOP knows they're in trouble, that they're losing the culture war (that they started, I might add). there might not BE a next time for them, so they obviously felt that this legislation HAD to be done now, and it had to be done quick and dirty.
 
2012-12-11 01:28:33 PM  

Weaver95: wxboy: Weaver95: incidentally, Limbaugh weighed in on the actions taken by the MI Republicans. he saw nothing wrong with how they forced this legislation through, and believes that the unions (and local democrats) are merely being whiny crybabies and should go home.

On the issue of the way this has all gone down, I really don't understand why the Republicans are in such a rush over this. The state legislature is currently solid "R" and is not going to significantly change in 3 weeks when the new legislature comes in. They had two years to do this. Why the sudden need to get it done before then?

scorched earth. the GOP knows they're in trouble, that they're losing the culture war (that they started, I might add). there might not BE a next time for them, so they obviously felt that this legislation HAD to be done now, and it had to be done quick and dirty.


What seals it for me is not that it was done in a lame duck session, but it was put into an appropriations bill. That was the sneakiest tactic of all.
 
2012-12-11 01:29:20 PM  

Corvus: udhq: It seems like that's the free-market solution, if the union can get a better deal than management would have otherwise offered, people will opt in, otherwise people will be free to negotiate on their own.

But that's not what this law does. It allows people to opt out of the union, pay no dues AND get ALL the benefits that Union workers who paid get.

That's why it's bullshiat.


Right. Unions wouldn't exist if there wasn't a financial benefit to belonging to one. Just like corporations; financial incentive is the oxygen they breathe.

Rtw compels unions to give away their services for free, and that is bullshiat, and it wouldn't be accepted if it targeted any other industry.
 
2012-12-11 01:29:51 PM  

Leeds: Mrtraveler01: Leeds: The "service" you suggest that they provide free of charge is neither wanted or necessary. And once a state is a right to work state, that service is no longer forced upon people who don't want to associate with scumbag union members or their mafia-connected leaders.

And then they can mooch off of the perks and benefits provided by the union without havign to join the union right? 

Conservative hypocrisy at it's finest ladies and gentlemen.

I've said it before in this thread and judging by your inability to read, I'll likely be posing it again too:

Why do you propose that the contract I hammer out with my employer has anything to do with the one you hammered out with (in this example) the same employer???

Explain how you could make such an unfounded logical leap.


Because the way the law is designed, anything the unions bargain for also impacts the people who decide not to join.

It doesn't create two tiers between union and non-union workers. All the protections and benefits are available for everyone in the company regardless of if they are part of the union or not.

Now you tell me why is that fair?
 
2012-12-11 01:29:53 PM  

Il Douchey: Magorn: No unions are trying to prevent freeloaders from benefitting from all the work and money they spend negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, but no chpping in to make that happen. A reasonable position I think. You ever notice that "right to work" states are the ones with virtually no job protection laws for workers? You ever wonder why that is?

Workers and businesses are asking nothing but to be left alone. Unions are demanding the continued ability to coerce and force participation in a scheme that props up the worst, holds down the best and shuts out competition. You ever notice that most businesses and citizens are voluntarily moving away from big restriction states and to big freedom states? You ever wonder why that is?


or the same reason so many formerly decent American Jobs got shipped to third-world hellholes with no mimimum wage, worker protection or environmental laws? Because Corporations will always make and "immoral" decision if it also the more profitable one, and the laws that were supposed to serve as the corporation's "conscience" (Import tarrifs regulations on worker treatment etc) have been systematically dismantled over the years? You are living in a Hortio Algier bullshiat fantasy if you believe that if one broom-factory worker can excel and out-produce his fellow workers that management will notice and then spontaneously reward him for his superior efforts. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. They will simply pay him the same BS minimum wage as everyone else and book the extra profits and ascribe them to superior management technique and give themselve s a bonus
 
2012-12-11 01:30:20 PM  

Leeds: Evidently there are people here who don't understand this issue at all. Perhaps if I frame it as a religious analogy people will understand:

Imaging that you want to move to a new town. You find a house you want to buy, agree on a purchase price and prepare to move.

Then you find out that this is not a "right to habitation state" and you have to pay dues to the Mormon church just to live in your own house. When you say that you won't pay some random church for the privilege of moving into a house that you bought from the previous owners, they rip up your contract and march you out of town.

That's PRECISELY what happens with unions in states where workers don't have the "right to work."


That was a totally stupid analogy which makes no sense.

A better analogy would be you move into the house in the new town and you refuse to pay the local taxes for fire and police services, yet expect the fire and police services free of charge. Eventually if given this "choice", everyone will opt out of paying the taxes for fire and police services since they get them free anyway. Pretty soon there will be no fire and police services, leaving everyone eventually without when the fire and police services go away.
 
2012-12-11 01:31:58 PM  

heavymetal: Leeds: Evidently there are people here who don't understand this issue at all. Perhaps if I frame it as a religious analogy people will understand:

Imaging that you want to move to a new town. You find a house you want to buy, agree on a purchase price and prepare to move.

Then you find out that this is not a "right to habitation state" and you have to pay dues to the Mormon church just to live in your own house. When you say that you won't pay some random church for the privilege of moving into a house that you bought from the previous owners, they rip up your contract and march you out of town.

That's PRECISELY what happens with unions in states where workers don't have the "right to work."

That was a totally stupid analogy which makes no sense.

A better analogy would be you move into the house in the new town and you refuse to pay the local taxes for fire and police services, yet expect the fire and police services free of charge. Eventually if given this "choice", everyone will opt out of paying the taxes for fire and police services since they get them free anyway. Pretty soon there will be no fire and police services, leaving everyone eventually without when the fire and police services go away.


That was a much better analogy than the retarded one that Leeds came up with.

How come folks on the right seem to try to shy away from the freeloader aspect of RTW?
 
2012-12-11 01:33:57 PM  

verbaltoxin: Weaver95: wxboy: Weaver95: incidentally, Limbaugh weighed in on the actions taken by the MI Republicans. he saw nothing wrong with how they forced this legislation through, and believes that the unions (and local democrats) are merely being whiny crybabies and should go home.

On the issue of the way this has all gone down, I really don't understand why the Republicans are in such a rush over this. The state legislature is currently solid "R" and is not going to significantly change in 3 weeks when the new legislature comes in. They had two years to do this. Why the sudden need to get it done before then?

scorched earth. the GOP knows they're in trouble, that they're losing the culture war (that they started, I might add). there might not BE a next time for them, so they obviously felt that this legislation HAD to be done now, and it had to be done quick and dirty.

What seals it for me is not that it was done in a lame duck session, but it was put into an appropriations bill. That was the sneakiest tactic of all.


its the sort of tactic that SCREAMS desperation. everything about this tells me that the local GOP are balls out terrified that they're going to lose for the next generation. you don't pull something like this unless you plan on salting the earth behind you.
 
2012-12-11 01:34:02 PM  

Weaver95: wxboy: Weaver95: incidentally, Limbaugh weighed in on the actions taken by the MI Republicans. he saw nothing wrong with how they forced this legislation through, and believes that the unions (and local democrats) are merely being whiny crybabies and should go home.

On the issue of the way this has all gone down, I really don't understand why the Republicans are in such a rush over this. The state legislature is currently solid "R" and is not going to significantly change in 3 weeks when the new legislature comes in. They had two years to do this. Why the sudden need to get it done before then?

scorched earth. the GOP knows they're in trouble, that they're losing the culture war (that they started, I might add). there might not BE a next time for them, so they obviously felt that this legislation HAD to be done now, and it had to be done quick and dirty.


I suppose it might be that everything resets and they'd have to run it through committees again, but like I said, it's not like anything about the legislature or state gov't is about to change that would prevent this from going through then. They should have waited to avoid this kind of firestorm and the very criticism you have.

Also, Michigan state reps and senators have term limits, but only a handful were affected this time around, and most were Democrats.
 
2012-12-11 01:34:24 PM  

heavymetal: Leeds: Evidently there are people here who don't understand this issue at all. Perhaps if I frame it as a religious analogy people will understand:

Imaging that you want to move to a new town. You find a house you want to buy, agree on a purchase price and prepare to move.

Then you find out that this is not a "right to habitation state" and you have to pay dues to the Mormon church just to live in your own house. When you say that you won't pay some random church for the privilege of moving into a house that you bought from the previous owners, they rip up your contract and march you out of town.

That's PRECISELY what happens with unions in states where workers don't have the "right to work."

That was a totally stupid analogy which makes no sense.

A better analogy would be you move into the house in the new town and you refuse to pay the local taxes for fire and police services, yet expect the fire and police services free of charge. Eventually if given this "choice", everyone will opt out of paying the taxes for fire and police services since they get them free anyway. Pretty soon there will be no fire and police services, leaving everyone eventually without when the fire and police services go away.


Not to mention, Leeds must be the type of person who buys a house without finding out if there's homeowners' fees due every month. He's a HOA/Condo seller's wet dream.
 
2012-12-11 01:34:39 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Leeds: Mrtraveler01: Leeds: The "service" you suggest that they provide free of charge is neither wanted or necessary. And once a state is a right to work state, that service is no longer forced upon people who don't want to associate with scumbag union members or their mafia-connected leaders.

And then they can mooch off of the perks and benefits provided by the union without havign to join the union right? 

Conservative hypocrisy at it's finest ladies and gentlemen.

I've said it before in this thread and judging by your inability to read, I'll likely be posing it again too:

Why do you propose that the contract I hammer out with my employer has anything to do with the one you hammered out with (in this example) the same employer???

Explain how you could make such an unfounded logical leap.

Because the way the law is designed, anything the unions bargain for also impacts the people who decide not to join.

It doesn't create two tiers between union and non-union workers. All the protections and benefits are available for everyone in the company regardless of if they are part of the union or not.

Now you tell me why is that fair?


Why can't the union dictate that their members get more favorable pay and advancement? Serious question, I don't have a dog in this fight but I am wondering why it is important to compel membership. It seems to me a union would still have the ability to strong arm management for better benefits for its members.
 
2012-12-11 01:35:23 PM  

Weaver95: verbaltoxin: Weaver95: wxboy: Weaver95: incidentally, Limbaugh weighed in on the actions taken by the MI Republicans. he saw nothing wrong with how they forced this legislation through, and believes that the unions (and local democrats) are merely being whiny crybabies and should go home.

On the issue of the way this has all gone down, I really don't understand why the Republicans are in such a rush over this. The state legislature is currently solid "R" and is not going to significantly change in 3 weeks when the new legislature comes in. They had two years to do this. Why the sudden need to get it done before then?

scorched earth. the GOP knows they're in trouble, that they're losing the culture war (that they started, I might add). there might not BE a next time for them, so they obviously felt that this legislation HAD to be done now, and it had to be done quick and dirty.

What seals it for me is not that it was done in a lame duck session, but it was put into an appropriations bill. That was the sneakiest tactic of all.

its the sort of tactic that SCREAMS desperation. everything about this tells me that the local GOP are balls out terrified that they're going to lose for the next generation. you don't pull something like this unless you plan on salting the earth behind you.


I guess the Michigan legislature got a stern email from the Koch Bros' offices.
 
2012-12-11 01:35:55 PM  

ReverendJasen: Corvus: But that's not what this law does. It allows people to opt out of the union, pay no dues AND get ALL the benefits that Union workers who paid get.

That's why it's bullshiat.

And I think it's bullshiat that a 3rd party can prevent you from working at the company of your choice, or force you out of that company if you don't pay them.
Non-union workers do NOT get all the same benefits, especially those regarding job protection, seniority, contractual hours or wages, etc. A non-union member can't call a greviance if something happens they don't like. They don't get the steward to back them up if they get into trouble.


Or get re-hired after being caught on tape drinking and smoking teh dope during a break?
 
2012-12-11 01:37:39 PM  

verbaltoxin:
I guess the Michigan legislature got a stern email from the Koch Bros' offices.


I honestly don't know...but whatever kicked it off, the MI Republicans obviously felt the need to use incredibly self destructive tactics to get this legislation pushed through in a hurry. you don't do something like this unless you are extremely desperate and don't plan on returning for at least a generation.
 
2012-12-11 01:40:27 PM  

ReverendJasen: Corvus: But that's not what this law does. It allows people to opt out of the union, pay no dues AND get ALL the benefits that Union workers who paid get.

That's why it's bullshiat.

And I think it's bullshiat that a 3rd party can prevent you from working at the company of your choice ...


I've been in the workforce for 30 years, and I've never worked at the company of my choice. I've worked for whoever was hiring when I was looking. I suspect it works that way for most people.

... or force you out of that company if you don't pay them.

If the union and the company made a deal that cuts you out unless you pay union dues, it was obviously more beneficial to the company to agree to such terms rather than hold out for an open shop.

Non-union workers do NOT get all the same benefits, especially those regarding job protection, seniority, contractual hours or wages, etc. A non-union member can't call a greviance if something happens they don't like. They don't get the steward to back them up if they get into trouble.

Why should a freeloader get the benefit of other people's sacrifices?
 
2012-12-11 01:40:43 PM  

Leeds: Are you saying that I couldn't make my case to my employer that I could create more wealth for the company than a lazy union member and thus I am worthy of a higher salary than the union members that they have a contract with?


Yes, I think it's hysterical that you think you can bargain for a wage higher than a union worker in the same occupation as you.
 
2012-12-11 01:40:49 PM  

Leeds: Anti_illuminati: Not to mention, Leeds must be the type of person who buys a house without finding out if there's homeowners' fees due every month. He's a HOA/Condo seller's wet dream.

You have hit upon another passionate subject for me, my good sir.

I have never and I would never live somewhere that had a homeowners association. But I would certainly back legislation making it illegal for them to compel me to join.


I hope you live in the woods far away from neighbors, sir. If you live in a little suburban neighborhood, I'd love to see your panties get all bunched up with the majority of your small community decide to form an HOA and force you to pony up and participate or move.
 
2012-12-11 01:42:47 PM  
 
2012-12-11 01:43:04 PM  
1- Unions are awesome

2- Making it so that I MUST join your union to get a job is shiatty bullshiat bull.

I've run up against one union or another in a negative way a few times. I done fired people off a job on the spot because they were terrible workers and their union came at me hard until I showed them why I fired whatshisface. Then they were just ticked that they had to pay him off even though he was a douchenozzle.

I've also been psyched as hell to have a union in my corner of the ring when I was getting shafted by an employer so...

Vote Green?
 
2012-12-11 01:43:28 PM  

Leeds: Mrtraveler01: Leeds: Are you saying that I couldn't make my case to my employer that I could create more wealth for the company than a lazy union member and thus I am worthy of a higher salary than the union members that they have a contract with?

Yes, I think it's hysterical that you think you can bargain for a wage higher than a union worker in the same occupation as you.

Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary.

Is capitalism entirely foreign to commies like you?


How are you going to move the assembly line faster?
 
2012-12-11 01:43:44 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Leeds: Are you saying that I couldn't make my case to my employer that I could create more wealth for the company than a lazy union member and thus I am worthy of a higher salary than the union members that they have a contract with?

Yes, I think it's hysterical that you think you can bargain for a wage higher than a union worker in the same occupation as you.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Leeds is one of those bootstrappy libertarians.
 
2012-12-11 01:45:15 PM  
Career Union Representatives are just as terrible people as Career Politicians

IMO
 
2012-12-11 01:45:57 PM  

Klippoklondike: BillCo: You'll get over it.

No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.


Similar thing happened in WI a while back. Everybody's over it now.
 
2012-12-11 01:48:37 PM  

Leeds: Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company


How can you create more value for the company?

Be specific to me like you would be specific to your boss when trying to bargain for a higher salary.
 
2012-12-11 01:48:40 PM  

Leeds: Union workers are lazy


There it is!

As I said before, unions do not make workers lazy, lazy workers make workers lazy. I've been a part of unions negotiations (on the management side) for a few years in a past life, and all this rhetoric you spout about unions is complete and utter bollocks.

you know absolutely nothing about unions but what is spoon-fed to you by your ideology. plain and simple.
 
2012-12-11 01:50:41 PM  

Leeds:
Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary./i>

so what happens when your boss decides that you cost too much? he fires you and then hires 4 or 5 H1B visa workers to do your job...but he keeps the union workers because he can't get rid of them without tanking the corporate profits for the quarter.

hey, the boss made money right? yay capitalism!

 
2012-12-11 01:50:59 PM  

Reverend Monkeypants: Career Union Representatives are just as terrible people as Career Politicians

IMO


I'll give you about 7/10 of them, in my past experiences, are complete farking shills. But I've had some that has helped me get through some tough negotiations and grievances.
 
2012-12-11 01:51:35 PM  

Leeds: jst3p: Leeds: Mrtraveler01: Leeds: Are you saying that I couldn't make my case to my employer that I could create more wealth for the company than a lazy union member and thus I am worthy of a higher salary than the union members that they have a contract with?

Yes, I think it's hysterical that you think you can bargain for a wage higher than a union worker in the same occupation as you.

Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary.

Is capitalism entirely foreign to commies like you?

How are you going to move the assembly line faster?

I suspect I'd start by seeing if it was driven by a VFD, if it is I'd increase the signal going to it by bumping it up a milliamp or so.

If it was belt or gear driven I'd look to change the drive ratio to increase the speed.


Thank you for your contribution, you're fired.
 
2012-12-11 01:51:42 PM  

Weaver95: Leeds:
Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary./i>

so what happens when your boss decides that you cost too much? he fires you and then hires 4 or 5 H1B visa workers to do your job...but he keeps the union workers because he can't get rid of them without tanking the corporate profits for the quarter.

hey, the boss made money right? yay capitalism!


capitalism stole my HTML closing tag. or socialism redistributed my italics. either way...oops.
 
2012-12-11 01:52:32 PM  
Remember, boys and girls:

* Don't like your boss? TOUGH SCHITT, YOU CAN GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE.

* Don't like your union? BAD UNION THUGS! BAD! BAD! BAD!
 
2012-12-11 01:53:07 PM  

udhq: Il Douchey: Michigan isn't prohibiting unions, it's just allowing workers to decide if they want to belong to them. Of course unions want the power to compel membership, it's so much easier than having to persuade people that voluntarily joining is in their best interest.

/Don't just demand union allegiance, earn it. -Good luck with that

No, that's not what rtw does. It mandates that unions have to offer their collective bargaining services free of charge.

It such a law were targeting any other group, we'd call it what its really is: government mandated slavery.


This is totally mental.
 
2012-12-11 01:53:12 PM  

Leeds: jst3p: Leeds: Mrtraveler01: Leeds: Are you saying that I couldn't make my case to my employer that I could create more wealth for the company than a lazy union member and thus I am worthy of a higher salary than the union members that they have a contract with?

Yes, I think it's hysterical that you think you can bargain for a wage higher than a union worker in the same occupation as you.

Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary.

Is capitalism entirely foreign to commies like you?

How are you going to move the assembly line faster?

I suspect I'd start by seeing if it was driven by a VFD, if it is I'd increase the signal going to it by bumping it up a milliamp or so.

If it was belt or gear driven I'd look to change the drive ratio to increase the speed.



You miss the point. How are you going to make the other lazy union members faster?
 
2012-12-11 01:54:25 PM  

Cythraul: I'm willing to bet the right-to-work states are the poorest.


I'd be willing to be the RTW states have the lowest costs of living and better quality of life. Your typical $90k/yr Union laborer job in NY gets you a crappy apartment in queens.

The equivalent $50k in Florida, GA or SC affords one home ownership, savings and time for leisure. It costs $36 just to make a round trip across the GW.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Unless you are ok with the whole free-riding thing, where everyone else gets to sacrifice, potentially even strike, to ensure the benefits they earned inure to you.


The NRA and ACLU will willingly fight for the rights of all citizens whether or not they are duespayers so the "Free-rider" whargarbl is a myth.
The reason taxes are withheld is because people would be outraged at getting straight cash from one pay window, then going to the local, state, federal and SS windows to fork over the cash that was just in their hand. The unions know this and that is why they are demanding dues be paid before the worker even sees them.
 
2012-12-11 01:55:06 PM  

Leeds: Mrtraveler01: Leeds: Are you saying that I couldn't make my case to my employer that I could create more wealth for the company than a lazy union member and thus I am worthy of a higher salary than the union members that they have a contract with?

Yes, I think it's hysterical that you think you can bargain for a wage higher than a union worker in the same occupation as you.

Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary.

Is capitalism entirely foreign to commies like you?


I know youre a troll, but,,,

Wouldnt bargaining to get the most for your investment be the Height of Capitalism?

If I spend hard earned money to educate myself, through College or an extensive Apprenticeship program, shouldnt I try to recoup my investment in any way possible?

How much bargaining power do workers in China have?

Youre the Commie!
 
2012-12-11 01:56:08 PM  

Leeds: Not everyone who joins a union is lazy, but everyone who stays in one sure is.


Like career 911 dispatchers, police officers and fire fighters?
 
2012-12-11 01:56:55 PM  

o5iiawah: I'd be willing to be the RTW states have the lowest costs of living and better quality of life.


Cost of living, probably (since they're states that no one wants to live in and if they are places people want to live in, it's only because of the weather).

Quality of life? MS, AL, GA, SC, TX compared to places like NY, MA, MN, and WA?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
 
2012-12-11 01:57:27 PM  

Il Douchey: Michigan isn't prohibiting unions, it's just allowing workers to decide if they want to belong to them. Of course unions want the power to compel membership, it's so much easier than having to persuade people that voluntarily joining is in their best interest.

/Don't just demand union allegiance, earn it. -Good luck with that


It's a sucker's proposition. The union is providing a valuable service. If I can receive the benefits of that service without cost then what motivation is there for me to pay dues? If you're not part of a union, you should be required to negotiate the terms of your employment yourself.
 
2012-12-11 01:59:30 PM  

Snarfangel: Corvus:

It's like if they made a law for football players saying "You can just not pay your agent if you don't want to".

Woohoo, free agents!


Funniest Post of The Day
 
2012-12-11 02:01:23 PM  
I was just watching the FOX news take on this. They said that there was "extreme violence" occurring, then all they did was show some people, er I mean rioting union thugs, shouting. They also informed me that the issue here just "basically frees people from being forced to pay union dues". Yup.
 
2012-12-11 02:01:55 PM  

studs up: mrshowrules: Here are the 10 best States for math and sciences education in the US:

Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New York
Virginia
Maryland
Connecticut
Indiana
Maine 

Any guesses what they bolded States have in common?

Asians?


I think you mean Orientals.
 
2012-12-11 02:02:14 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MS, AL, GA, SC, TX


Yes, all states where people from Cali, NY, CT, NJ and IL move to because they are sick of taxes, high prices and lousy weather.
It sucks ass being able to sportfish, golf and hunt 320+ days per year. It sucks ass being able to own a home for less than $200,000. You can laugh all you want - Look up statistics on where people are moving to and where they are coming from.
 
2012-12-11 02:03:37 PM  

o5iiawah: Cythraul: I'm willing to bet the right-to-work states are the poorest.

I'd be willing to be the RTW states have the lowest costs of living and better quality of life. Your typical $90k/yr Union laborer job in NY gets you a crappy apartment in queens.

The equivalent $50k in Florida, GA or SC affords one home ownership, savings and time for leisure. It costs $36 just to make a round trip across the GW.


Up thread I posted some info graphics. There is a cluster of fat, dumb and poor in our nation. FL, SC and GA are in the thick of it.