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  
•       •       •

5007 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2012 at 11:31 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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.
 
2012-12-11 02:03:53 PM  

Leeds: Anti_illuminati: 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?

Pigs follow a different tangent. They start out honest and eventually they all become corrupt. And yes, that's the police union that facilitates the downward spiral, just like with workers.


You're a terrible person troll, you know that?
 
2012-12-11 02:04:27 PM  
I thought libs were all about choice. This law would give workers the option of turning down entry into a union. What is wrong with giving them a choice?
 
2012-12-11 02:06:17 PM  

Leeds: I'm the only person on this thread who was ever forced into a union because I lived in a non-right to work state.


This sounds like it should be a major news story, please tell us more. Did they abduct you from your home, or waylay you on the highway? I assume you tried to escape, or at least send a message for help?

It looks like you've escaped your forced labor, how did that happen?

I've heard about this sort of thing happening with illegals around the Mexican border. What a terrifying thought, I hope you tell us more about your experience!
 
2012-12-11 02:07:12 PM  
Magorn: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.

Generally speaking, I prefer things like free choice, competition, effort, accountability and competence to determine who gets what. Union collectivists prefer things like cronyism, payoffs, coercion, waivers, bailouts and bullying to determine who gets what.

You are living in Karl Marx' worker's paradise if you think employer's interests should be subjugated to worker's interests. It won't end well comrade!
 
2012-12-11 02:07:55 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.


So, I take it you were asleep for the first two years of Obama's first term?

Did you miss the town halls that were systematically interrupted by coordinated efforts on the part of the Teabaggers?

It at least got a public airing for over a year. This is being rammed through without any debate or voter input whatsoever.

Swing and a miss...
 
2012-12-11 02:09:16 PM  

o5iiawah: 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.


Quality of life includes more than just how many golf courses and fishing spots there are.

Things like education and healthcare play a huge role in factoring in quality of life. Factors that RTW states tend to do abysmal in.
 
2012-12-11 02:10:23 PM  

giftedmadness: I thought libs were all about choice. This law would give workers the option of turning down entry into a union. What is wrong with giving them a choice?


The choice to be a freeloader?
 
2012-12-11 02:10:23 PM  

ReverendJasen: 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.


They already can do that by not working at a union shop.
You people make these glib arguments about freedom, when the fact is the only "freedom" lost is the right to get farked over by management. The company entered freely into an agreement with the union, and this law allows the employer and potential employee to make an end-run around that contract.
 
2012-12-11 02:11:03 PM  

Weaver95:

I honestly don't know...but whatever kicked it off, . . .


What kicked it off was Detroit and the public unions thumbing their noses at Mayor Bing and the City Council. Snyder wanted to go the emergency manager rout, Detroit wanted to try and work it out. Prop 2 was the last straw. Here you go.
 
2012-12-11 02:12:13 PM  

Leeds: That's funny, I'm the only person on this thread who was ever forced into a union because I lived in a non-right to work state. The experience was terrible.


When I turned 18 and worked for Safeway I was forced to join the Union. It was fine.
 
2012-12-11 02:13:25 PM  

Crowd outside Romney building just got tear gassed

- evale72 (@evale72) December 11, 2012
 
2012-12-11 02:14:10 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.


How did the owners and managers of the company struggle during the recession? Was their pay and benefits cut, or just yours?
 
2012-12-11 02:15:15 PM  
Leeds:Do you not remember the fact that the Republicans were only given the hundreds of pages that constituted this bill hours before they were forced to vote on it? Do you not remember Nancy Pelosi refusing to allow people to read the damn thing? Or that she said that "we have to pass this shiate today, and you have to pass it to be allowed to read it" ???

If you aren't on crack you may as well be. It might make you smarter./i>

I remember the republicans hurf-blurfing about a proposal that was essentially the same thing Mitt Romney proposed in Massachusetts and was originally put forward by the heritage foundation. But I'm a liberal so I remember "stuff that actually happened" as opposed it "BS fox news talking points." Funny that.
 
2012-12-11 02:15:30 PM  

Leeds: How quaint that you forgot that it was brought to a vote in the house by nefarious means.


Which nefarious means were these?
 
2012-12-11 02:15:53 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?


It's because the unions are responsible for the 5 feet of snow and sub-freezing temps in union states. Right-to-work eliminates that.
 
2012-12-11 02:17:31 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Crowd outside Romney building just got tear gassed- evale72 (@evale72) December 11, 2012


noraroseallendotcom.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-11 02:17:39 PM  

jst3p: poor


Poor is relative to cost of living. How much more do I have to repeat that?

When you need $90k in NY just to get by, $33k in Alabama sounds like a pittance.

bikerific: 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.


No it isn't. it is a game if lift or loaf where say 8/10 people need to lift an object to ensure passage on a road and each member knows there's a chance they could loaf without anyone knowing and still have the mission accomplished. Of course like I said earlier, the Free-Rider is a myth since people would voluntarily give to their unions if they felt they got value from them. The NRA and ACLU will spend millions of dollars in court defending the rights of people regardless of whether or not they are duespayers. As unions claim to fight for "workers rights" what they are really looking for is the right to coerce dues out of people.

/knowyourgametheory
 
2012-12-11 02:18:26 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.


Yes, and unions don't have any money and aren't able to influence elections at all in Michigan! They had their chance. The state is in a mess. The unions aren't fixing anything. Time to get over it.
 
2012-12-11 02:20:02 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.


www.censusscope.org

Why do you hate black people? Are you racist?
 
2012-12-11 02:20:24 PM  

jaybeezey: The state is in a mess.


What mess would this be that is entirely solved by eliminating collective bargaining for a certain subset of unions?
 
2012-12-11 02:21:54 PM  

Frank N Stein: 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.

[www.censusscope.org image 567x473]

Why do you hate black people? Are you racist?


Yes, it's all black people who are fat. I've never in my entire life met a fat white Southerner.
 
2012-12-11 02:22:31 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.


Please provide one single example of Union ever coming in to a company against the wishes of the employees. In absence of that, your entire post is shiat.

You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that. Just like with a corporation, financial incentive is oxygen.
 
2012-12-11 02:24:31 PM  

o5iiawah: When you need $90k in NY just to get by, $33k in Alabama sounds like a pittance.


But then you'd have to live with substandard education and health care compared to NY.

Low cost of living comes at a cost.
 
2012-12-11 02:24:56 PM  

Mrtraveler01: o5iiawah: 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.

Quality of life includes more than just how many golf courses and fishing spots there are.

Things like education and healthcare play a huge role in factoring in quality of life. Factors that RTW states tend to do abysmal in.


Yes, like FL where you can go to an in-state college and have 100% of tuition paid for by the state if you get good grades.
"Good healthcare" and "good schools" dont just grow on trees. There are trade-offs.

When both parents have to work 65+ hours per week to afford "good healthcare and the $9-12,000/yr property tax bills to fund the "good school" in many northeast Non-RTW states then is it really worth it? In RTW, a breadwinner can take home $50k while the secondary earner working part-time can take an active role in their child's education. Most of education takes place at home and under parental supervision and more and more parents are realizing that it isn't as much the so-called rating of the schools as the time they get to spend with their kids that is the most important part of education.

Or you probably just think that the millions of people leaving the northeast and CA for TX and the Southeast are just complete and abject dumbasses anyway so there's no sense in hitting you with any perspective.
 
2012-12-11 02:26:38 PM  
Job Creator:It's because the unions are responsible for the 5 feet of snow and sub-freezing temps in union states. Right-to-work eliminates that.

If bad weather is what's causing them to flee, why didn't it prevent them from setting up there in the first place?

/Also, people with productive ability are fleeing the beautiful state of California in droves
 
2012-12-11 02:26:40 PM  

qorkfiend: jaybeezey: The state is in a mess.

What mess would this be that is entirely solved by eliminating collective bargaining for a certain subset of unions?


Highest unemployment rate in the mid-west.
 
2012-12-11 02:27:38 PM  

o5iiawah: Yes, like FL where you can go to an in-state college and have 100% of tuition paid for by the state if you get good grades.
"Good healthcare" and "good schools" dont just grow on trees. There are trade-offs.

When both parents have to work 65+ hours per week to afford "good healthcare and the $9-12,000/yr property tax bills to fund the "good school" in many northeast Non-RTW states then is it really worth it? In RTW, a breadwinner can take home $50k while the secondary earner working part-time can take an active role in their child's education. Most of education takes place at home and under parental supervision and more and more parents are realizing that it isn't as much the so-called rating of the schools as the time they get to spend with their kids that is the most important part of education.


So why do you think the better performing schools are in the Northeast?

o5iiawah: Or you probably just think that the millions of people leaving the northeast and CA for TX and the Southeast are just complete and abject dumbasses anyway so there's no sense in hitting you with any perspective.


That or it's the weather. Why do you think most northerners are moving to FL? It sure isn't the laughable joke that is their public school system.
 
2012-12-11 02:28:26 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 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.


Know how I know you didn't rtfa? This bill is being passed the way it's being passed, in a lame-duck, closed door session, BECAUSE these majorities have already been voted out of office.
 
2012-12-11 02:28:37 PM  

o5iiawah: jst3p: poor

Poor is relative to cost of living. How much more do I have to repeat that?

When you need $90k in NY just to get by, $33k in Alabama sounds like a pittance.


Words mean things:

For example, for a four-person family unit with two children, the 2010 poverty threshold is $22.113. For one- or two-person family units, the poverty thresholds differ by age; the 2010 threshold for one individual under age 65 is $11,344, whereas for an individual 65 or over it is $10,458.

Link

That is broke wherever you are. It isn't "well I can have the same standard of living as someone earning 90k in NY" it is "on public assistance so I can eat".


www.veteranstoday.com

There is a clump of very broke people, and it is in the south. 

The cost of living is low in Wyoming, Utah, the Dakotas too, they aren't as red. Your argument is invalid.
 
2012-12-11 02:29:16 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: qorkfiend: jaybeezey: The state is in a mess.

What mess would this be that is entirely solved by eliminating collective bargaining for a certain subset of unions?

Highest unemployment rate in the mid-west.


Eliminating collective bargaining solves that problem in what way? Are you suggesting that businesses will hire more people than they need simply because collective bargaining has been eliminated?
 
2012-12-11 02:29:23 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Frank N Stein: 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.

[www.censusscope.org image 567x473]

Why do you hate black people? Are you racist?

Yes, it's all black people who are fat. I've never in my entire life met a fat white Southerner.


It is a valid point.
 
2012-12-11 02:29:40 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Yes, it's all black people who are fat. I've never in my entire life met a fat white Southerner.


It's just... everyone always rags on the South. Everyone there is stupid, everyone there is fat etc. I just can't help but feel there's a tinge of racism in these accusations.
 
2012-12-11 02:31:14 PM  

qorkfiend: Zeb Hesselgresser: qorkfiend: jaybeezey: The state is in a mess.

What mess would this be that is entirely solved by eliminating collective bargaining for a certain subset of unions?

Highest unemployment rate in the mid-west.

Eliminating collective bargaining solves that problem in what way? Are you suggesting that businesses will hire more people than they need simply because collective bargaining has been eliminated?


That and Ohio is not a right to work state and has a lower unemployment rate than Indiana which is a right-to-work state.

Can't explain that!
 
2012-12-11 02:31:31 PM  

Frank N Stein: Mrtraveler01: Yes, it's all black people who are fat. I've never in my entire life met a fat white Southerner.

It's just... everyone always rags on the South. Everyone there is stupid, everyone there is fat etc. I just can't help but feel there's a tinge of racism in these accusations.


"Stupid" and "fat" are now racist epithets?
 
2012-12-11 02:32:35 PM  

Mrtraveler01: qorkfiend: Zeb Hesselgresser: qorkfiend: jaybeezey: The state is in a mess.

What mess would this be that is entirely solved by eliminating collective bargaining for a certain subset of unions?

Highest unemployment rate in the mid-west.

Eliminating collective bargaining solves that problem in what way? Are you suggesting that businesses will hire more people than they need simply because collective bargaining has been eliminated?

That and Ohio is not a right to work state and has a lower unemployment rate than Indiana which is a right-to-work state.

Can't explain that!


So you are saying that a business that meets current demand with its current workforce will hire more people without an increase in demand? Why do you believe this to be true?
 
2012-12-11 02:32:40 PM  

Frank N Stein: Mrtraveler01: Yes, it's all black people who are fat. I've never in my entire life met a fat white Southerner.

It's just... everyone always rags on the South. Everyone there is stupid, everyone there is fat etc. I just can't help but feel there's a tinge of racism in these accusations.


It isn't racist to point out that the south is generally poor, more obese and less educated and also has a higher concentration of African Americans. It's just factual.
 
2012-12-11 02:32:46 PM  

Frank N Stein: Mrtraveler01: Yes, it's all black people who are fat. I've never in my entire life met a fat white Southerner.

It's just... everyone always rags on the South. Everyone there is stupid, everyone there is fat etc. I just can't help but feel there's a tinge of racism in these accusations.


Racism does have quite a history in the South. 

But I've been to the South (recently places like LA, TN, AR, and MS).

And you still couldn't pay me enough money to move to these states.
 
2012-12-11 02:33:52 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!


I have him on ignore, but he's typical of glib libertarians. He think his labor is so special and valued when the fact is that his boss (if he's in a large organization at least) doesn't even know he exists. If he does, he'll take the chance that some Russian or Mexican will be more desperate to produce the extra value and will riff Leeds without even a thought.
 
2012-12-11 02:34:11 PM  

qorkfiend: Mrtraveler01: qorkfiend: Zeb Hesselgresser: qorkfiend: jaybeezey: The state is in a mess.

What mess would this be that is entirely solved by eliminating collective bargaining for a certain subset of unions?

Highest unemployment rate in the mid-west.

Eliminating collective bargaining solves that problem in what way? Are you suggesting that businesses will hire more people than they need simply because collective bargaining has been eliminated?

That and Ohio is not a right to work state and has a lower unemployment rate than Indiana which is a right-to-work state.

Can't explain that!

So you are saying that a business that meets current demand with its current workforce will hire more people without an increase in demand? Why do you believe this to be true?


No, I'm just adding onto the argument that RTW will increase job growth in MI all by itself.

But you're right, unless there's additional demand, there's no need for those additional jobs.
 
2012-12-11 02:35:02 PM  

GAT_00: 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.


You really are a troll. Last week you accused me of only siding with the GOP in the first Michigan RTW thread. When I posted every post in the last 2 months where I bashed the GOP you went silent in the thread.

As for the stats, you can look it up yourself as I'm at work in my highly paid non-union job and I can be terminated for any reason. The point is was making is that you can't really correlate success or failure based on the statistics from the BLS website. People can and will spin the stats either way to fit their goals. There's some cases to be made for RTW and some cases against RTW based on the stats. Because the stats don't clearly line up in one way or another, you can't say it will be a definite success or a failure.
 
2012-12-11 02:36:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: No, I'm just adding onto the argument that RTW will increase job growth in MI all by itself is an incredibly stupid notion to have.


FTFM
 
2012-12-11 02:37:35 PM  
Wow, seems like the FARK independents are done mourning their Romney loss and have returned in this thread. Good for them. Your philosophy is sill dying though and things like this are just hastening the demise. Have fun until a referendum reverses it.
 
2012-12-11 02:39:36 PM  

amiable: Wow, seems like the FARK independents are done mourning their Romney loss and have returned in this thread. Good for them. Your philosophy is sill dying though and things like this are just hastening the demise. Have fun until a referendum reverses it.


Yeah, I don't see how Snyder is going to get reelected now after pretending to be a moderate for the past few years.
 
2012-12-11 02:42:07 PM  

qorkfiend: Zeb Hesselgresser: qorkfiend: jaybeezey: The state is in a mess.

What mess would this be that is entirely solved by eliminating collective bargaining for a certain subset of unions?

Highest unemployment rate in the mid-west.

Eliminating collective bargaining solves that problem in what way? Are you suggesting that businesses will hire more people than they need simply because collective bargaining has been eliminated?


That's just silly.

Michigan tax payers get a break. The state becomes more competitive in the fight for new businesses.

Are you suggesting that Michigan owning the mid-west crowns for Unemployment and Unionization is a coincidence?
 
2012-12-11 02:43:13 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Are you suggesting that Michigan owning the mid-west crowns for Unemployment and Unionization is a coincidence?


Ohio has an unemployment rate of 6.9% which is lower than Indiana which is a right-to-work state.

How do you explain that?
 
2012-12-11 02:43:56 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: qorkfiend: Zeb Hesselgresser: qorkfiend: jaybeezey: The state is in a mess.

What mess would this be that is entirely solved by eliminating collective bargaining for a certain subset of unions?

Highest unemployment rate in the mid-west.

Eliminating collective bargaining solves that problem in what way? Are you suggesting that businesses will hire more people than they need simply because collective bargaining has been eliminated?

That's just silly.

Michigan tax payers get a break. The state becomes more competitive in the fight for new businesses.

Are you suggesting that Michigan owning the mid-west crowns for Unemployment and Unionization is a coincidence?


Unless you can prove a strong correlation between the two, yes, it remains coincidental.
 
2012-12-11 02:46:48 PM  

Leeds: I don't know if anyone' has pointed it out yet, but it's a done deal.

Workers' rights have been restored in Michigan.
Workers have the right to mooch off of the Union in Michigan


FTFY ;)
 
2012-12-11 02:47:24 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: 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.


Like the Affordable Care Act?
 
2012-12-11 02:49:13 PM  

Job Creator: 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!

I have him on ignore, but he's typical of glib libertarians. He think his labor is so special and valued when the fact is that his boss (if he's in a large organization at least) doesn't even know he exists. If he does, he'll take the chance that some Russian or Mexican will be more desperate to produce the extra value and will riff Leeds without even a thought.


This what kills me about people like him. They truly believe the world works in a way it just doesn't and when that world screws them over they blame all the wrong people. Let's just suppose the best case scenario: that the work he does somehow manages to let him obviously differentiate his effort and productivity from that of his peers. And let's further even grant him the notion that a benevolent manager will identify his hard work and reward him for it with higher pay, benefits, whatever.

Even in that best case scenario, all he's managed to do is become a nail sticking out of the company org chart. Someone several level above the factory flaw will create a spreadsheet showing labor costs per unit of production and note this better-compensated employee is an anomaly that adds an average of 1/10th cent of extra labor cost to each unit shipped. He doesn't know about his man's sterling qualities, heroic productivity and incredible gumption and dedication, he just sees a generic unit of workforce that can be replaced with a cheaper one.

So a couple calls get made, hero-worker gets canned just before his retirement options vest and replaced with a kid just out of school with nominally the same qualifications he had but who is willing to work a lot cheaper. The middle manager gets a pat on the back from the CEO, and the worker who was fired for doing such a great job is calling into Rush Limbaugh saying how the Obama Administration's health Care plan cost him his job and it was OBVIOUSLY affirmative action that caused the company to replace him with a Hispanic kid half his age who clearly wasn't as qualified as him...
 
2012-12-11 02:49:23 PM  

Il Douchey: Job Creator:It's because the unions are responsible for the 5 feet of snow and sub-freezing temps in union states. Right-to-work eliminates that.

If bad weather is what's causing them to flee, why didn't it prevent them from setting up there in the first place?

/Also, people with productive ability are fleeing the beautiful state of California in droves


Ever heard of air conditioning? Your name is apt by the way.
 
2012-12-11 02:51:02 PM  

Mrtraveler01: 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.


The thing you hate about RTW is the entire farking point, and WHY conservatives and business want to pass RTW.
 
2012-12-11 02:52:17 PM  
So if RTW is the only way to lower unemployment, how come non-RTW states like Minnesota (5.8%), Deleware (6.8%), Ohio (6.9%), Massachusetts (6.6%), Maryland (6.7%) and Colorado (7.9%) have lower unemployment than RTW-states like Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama?

Link
 
2012-12-11 02:53:09 PM  

giftedmadness: I thought libs were all about choice. This law would give workers the option of turning down entry into a union. What is wrong with giving them a choice?


Choice is only for killing babbys.
 
2012-12-11 02:53:36 PM  

RminusQ: Mrtraveler01: 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.

The thing you hate about RTW is the entire farking point, and WHY conservatives and business want to pass RTW.


I know, and the fact that supporters try to shy away from that aspects says it all.
 
2012-12-11 02:53:52 PM  

giftedmadness: I thought libs were all about choice. This law would give workers the option of turning down entry into a union. What is wrong with giving them a choice?


I know this lib is just fine with giving workers the choice of whether or not to join a union.

What I'm not fine with is forcing the union to provide their services to that person free of charge should they choose not to pay dues.
 
2012-12-11 02:57:06 PM  
ITT: Conservatives don't understand the free-rider concept and why using "worker choice" is a thinly veiled excuse to get rid of unions. No ampunt of explaining will help them understand, they don't want to.
 
2012-12-11 02:58:27 PM  

Leeds:
You and I both know that employers will offer people more money to join as a worker than as a union member. I have seen no evidence that the union contract has to serve as a cap for the benefits offered to someone who wants instead to be a good worker.


See "the 19th Century" and read "The Jungle." FFS have you even read a history book?
 
2012-12-11 02:58:32 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Zeb Hesselgresser: Are you suggesting that Michigan owning the mid-west crowns for Unemployment and Unionization is a coincidence?

Ohio has an unemployment rate of 6.9% which is lower than Indiana which is a right-to-work state.

How do you explain that?


Link

It's Historical, the leads me to believe it's something in the water.
 
2012-12-11 03:03:10 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So if RTW is the only way to lower unemployment, how come non-RTW states like Minnesota (5.8%), Deleware (6.8%), Ohio (6.9%), Massachusetts (6.6%), Maryland (6.7%) and Colorado (7.9%) have lower unemployment than RTW-states like Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama?

Link


And 9 out of the top 11 states with the lowest unemployment are RTW states. See you can spin the numbers however you like. You have a bunch of states with high unemployment that are RTW as well. It's not definitive no matter how you slice it. I was looking for some clear cut numbers one way or another and there's just nothing that I found definitive (though some may state that jobs are growing faster in RTW states, I couldn't find a good source to validate that.

What this boils down to (IMHO) is nothing more than politics. The GOP sees that union dues are funding Democrats...and they're in a position to weaken that advantage.
 
2012-12-11 03:04:45 PM  

jst3p: o5iiawah: jst3p: poor

Poor is relative to cost of living. How much more do I have to repeat that?

When you need $90k in NY just to get by, $33k in Alabama sounds like a pittance.

Words mean things:

For example, for a four-person family unit with two children, the 2010 poverty threshold is $22.113. For one- or two-person family units, the poverty thresholds differ by age; the 2010 threshold for one individual under age 65 is $11,344, whereas for an individual 65 or over it is $10,458.

Link

That is broke wherever you are. It isn't "well I can have the same standard of living as someone earning 90k in NY" it is "on public assistance so I can eat".


[www.veteranstoday.com image 763x610]

There is a clump of very broke people, and it is in the south. 

The cost of living is low in Wyoming, Utah, the Dakotas too, they aren't as red. Your argument is invalid.


Whether individual, single-family, or retiree your graph still doesn't adjust for cost of living.

A person making $40k in NY is for all intents and purposes poor but isn't labeled as such and (doesn't) enjoy(s) the same quality of life as someone in Alabama making $12k who is labeled as poor.

They are probably affording just enough to get by, or arent getting by. and probably need public assistance when it comes to transportation passes and energy credits.

Mrtraveler01: That and Ohio is not a right to work state and has a lower unemployment rate than Indiana which is a right-to-work state.


Probably has nothing to do with the terms of the auto bailout stipulating that businesses in Ohio get preferred bailout funds over less blue states like Indiana, right?

Mrtraveler01: That or it's the weather. Why do you think most northerners are moving to FL? It sure isn't the laughable joke that is their public school system.


Again, you're ignoring the fact that the so-called "Great" schools up north come at a price -
I have friends and family all over NY and NJ. Their property taxes are more than my mortgage for the same sized home.
The funny thing about the schools is parents can make them better if they arent at work all day and night trying to pay their taxes and afford COL
 
2012-12-11 03:05:48 PM  

slayer199:

What this boils down to (IMHO) is nothing more than politics. The GOP sees that union dues are funding Democrats...and they're in a position to weaken that advantage.


and it has nothing to do with the taxpayers? really?
 
2012-12-11 03:06:02 PM  

Leeds: amiable:

Perhaps this is why you and I aren't seeing eye to eye. You are stuck in the 1800's and I'm dealing with the hear and now.

Look up OSHA, minimum wage, standardized work hours, the ADA, etc. That should catch you up.


You literally just cited a litany of social changes that would not have happened but for unions. /facepalm
 
2012-12-11 03:07:02 PM  

Leeds: Why is it that the liberal viewpoint about labor is always focused entirely on production line workers at mega-factories?


Possibly because it's the production line workers at mega-factories that stand to gain the most - notably wages, benefits, and job security - from unionization.
 
2012-12-11 03:07:11 PM  

giftedmadness: I thought libs were all about choice. This law would give workers the option of turning down entry into a union. What is wrong with giving them a choice?


It's cute that you think the corporations are going to let their workers unionize after this passes.
 
2012-12-11 03:08:27 PM  

amiable: Leeds:Do you not remember the fact that the Republicans were only given the hundreds of pages that constituted this bill hours before they were forced to vote on it? Do you not remember Nancy Pelosi refusing to allow people to read the damn thing? Or that she said that "we have to pass this shiate today, and you have to pass it to be allowed to read it" ???

If you aren't on crack you may as well be. It might make you smarter./i>

I remember the republicans hurf-blurfing about a proposal that was essentially the same thing Mitt Romney proposed in Massachusetts and was originally put forward by the heritage foundation. But I'm a liberal so I remember "stuff that actually happened" as opposed it "BS fox news talking points." Funny that.


I chortled at "hurf-blurfing".
 
2012-12-11 03:09:04 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: and it has nothing to do with the taxpayers? really?


Your point?
 
2012-12-11 03:09:22 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So if RTW is the only way to lower unemployment . . .


Who said this? Whar?
 
2012-12-11 03:11:04 PM  

Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."


Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.
 
2012-12-11 03:11:31 PM  

mrshowrules: Education has a sharp negative correlation with States with right-to-work laws and a clear positive correlation to States who support union rights.


Which is interesting, as outside of tenured academics, very few educated people are in unions in this country.

/college grad
//pro union
 
2012-12-11 03:13:38 PM  

o5iiawah: Whether individual, single-family, or retiree your graph still doesn't adjust for cost of living.

A person making $40k in NY is for all intents and purposes poor but isn't labeled as such and (doesn't) enjoy(s) the same quality of life as someone in Alabama making $12k who is labeled as poor.

They are probably affording just enough to get by, or arent getting by. and probably need public assistance when it comes to transportation passes and energy credits.


You could have just asked jst3p to explain what the poverty line and poverty rate are since you are completely clueless about them. He seems like a decent guy, I'm sure he would have helped you out.
 
2012-12-11 03:15:14 PM  
Meh, fark em. Any state (including my own NC) that choose to put republicans in charge of both houses and governorship deserve what they get. The ONLY way these dumbass trailerpark crackers are going to learn to stop voting against their self-interests is to rub their noses in shiat for a decade or two.
 
2012-12-11 03:18:28 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: mrshowrules: Education has a sharp negative correlation with States with right-to-work laws and a clear positive correlation to States who support union rights.

Which is interesting, as outside of tenured academics, very few educated people are in unions in this country.

/college grad
//pro union


I think it's because jobs requiring high levels of personal expertise are less prone to the problems - low wages and benefits, poor working conditions, job security - that provide the impetus for unionization in the first place.
 
2012-12-11 03:18:44 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.


So you would be in favor of a union contract that gurantees the company will have a huge incentive to go out of their way to hire non-union workers? I always thought union people were dumb, I just didn't realize the extent of the problem.
 
2012-12-11 03:20:51 PM  

amiable: ITT: Conservatives don't understand the free-rider concept and why using "worker choice" is a thinly veiled excuse to get rid of unions. No amount of explaining will help them understand, they don't want to.


Correct. "Worker choice" isn't an organic argument, it's right out of think tank focus groups. No one with a working brain really believes that nonsense.
 
2012-12-11 03:21:45 PM  

amiable: Leeds:
You and I both know that employers will offer people more money to join as a worker than as a union member. I have seen no evidence that the union contract has to serve as a cap for the benefits offered to someone who wants instead to be a good worker.

See "the 19th Century" and read "The Jungle." FFS have you even read a history book?


History has a well-known liberal bias, as it's a record of what actually happened.
 
2012-12-11 03:22:37 PM  

udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.


Make up a list of all businesses that closed because the union demands were to much and they went out of business. Going from $xx to zero is definitely a descrease in wages/bennies/conditions. I'm sure the unions don't count those businesses, though. It might make them look bad.
 
2012-12-11 03:25:49 PM  

OgreMagi: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Make up a list of all businesses that closed because the union demands were to much and they went out of business. Going from $xx to zero is definitely a descrease in wages/bennies/conditions. I'm sure the unions don't count those businesses, though. It might make them look bad.


I'll make that list:

/end
Businesses go out of business not because of unions, but because their products and services aren't competitive in the market.
 
2012-12-11 03:25:56 PM  

amiable: Uh.. obama ran on implementing Obamacare


Uh.. no, he ran against the things that eventually became Obamacare. He didn't need any "Republican ideas" in it because not a single Republican voted for it.
 
2012-12-11 03:26:31 PM  

OgreMagi: Make up a list of all businesses that closed because the union demands were to much and they went out of business.


Alright, go ahead and get started, we're listening...

Hint - if your opening includes "Hostess", you're in for a surprise.
 
2012-12-11 03:26:34 PM  

OgreMagi: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Make up a list of all businesses that closed because the union demands were to much and they went out of business. Going from $xx to zero is definitely a descrease in wages/bennies/conditions. I'm sure the unions don't count those businesses, though. It might make them look bad.


Why don't you go ahead and make up that list? Surely it would trivial for you to provide countless examples of something you apparently think happens quite often.
 
2012-12-11 03:30:16 PM  
Right to work laws, combined with the federal requirement for unions to represent all workers, allow free riders. Free riders reduce the ROI to unions from lawful negotiation. Reducing ROI effectively decreases demand for lawful means of negotiation, but without reduction of the underlying demand for negotiating social utility. Since there is a positive cross-elasticity of demand between unlawful means and lawful means, decrease in ROI for lawful implies a ceteris paribus consequence of union members increasingly resorting to violent thuggery.

Yeah, this seems likely to end poorly.
 
2012-12-11 03:30:27 PM  

jigger: amiable: Uh.. obama ran on implementing Obamacare

Uh.. no, he ran against the things that eventually became Obamacare. He didn't need any "Republican ideas" in it because not a single Republican voted for it.


Sense. Make some.
 
2012-12-11 03:34:18 PM  
If the Democrats did this, I would be forced to listen how the Dems are "UnAmerican". When the party of whining does it, it's suddenly awesome that Union members are getting maced.

/The modern GOP is a disgrace to this country. Go to hell, Snyder.
 
2012-12-11 03:35:07 PM  
people have been pepper sprayed and otherwise restrained on the Capitol ground today. reports indicated that the crowd outside the Romney building was tear gassed, but contemporaneous pictures lead me to believe maybe that did not happen. one way or another, they will need to clear a way for the Governor to get out of the building and over to the Capitol if he's going to sign these bills today.

Detroit Free Press
 
2012-12-11 03:36:09 PM  

Leeds: Magorn: Job Creator: 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!

I have him on ignore, but he's typical of glib libertarians. He think his labor is so special and valued when the fact is that his boss (if he's in a large organization at least) doesn't even know he exists. If he does, he'll take the chance that some Russian or Mexican will be more desperate to produce the extra value and will riff Leeds without even a thought.

This what kills me about people like him. They truly believe the world works in a way it just doesn't and when that world screws them over they blame all the wrong people. Let's just suppose the best case scenario: that the work he does somehow manages to let him obviously differentiate his effort and productivity from that of his peers. And let's further even grant him the notion that a benevolent manager will identify his hard work and reward him for it with higher pay, benefits, whatever.

Even in that best case scenario, all he's managed to do is become a nail sticking out of the company org chart. Someone several level above the factory flaw will create a spreadsheet showing labor costs per unit of production and note this better-compensated employee is an anomaly that adds an average of 1/10th cent of extra labor cost to each unit shipped. He doesn't know about his man's sterling qualities, heroic productivity and incredible gumption and dedication, he just sees a generic unit of workforce that can be replaced with a cheaper one.

So a couple calls get made, hero-worker gets canned just before his retirement options vest and replaced with a kid jus ...


Why do you assume we are? Look around your cube farm. You may have a degree hanging on your "wall" but to the people at the top of your org, you are just as faceless and interchangeable as the factory worker. In your case it will be somebody from India with an H-1B visa rather than a machine, but I assure you, if there is a way they can get your job done cheaper, even if not as well, they are already working on it. Hell, I'm a lawyer, and I've even seen attempts (largely disastrous thank god) to Ship MY kind of Job to india where they can get an English-speaking "Lawyer" to work for $5/hr instead of (under) paying a New lawyer in the US $35/hr to do the same work (lowest rung of the legal ladder to be sure, but still something that requires a law degree, which in the US is a $100,000 investment)

Look at the mass layoffs Citigroup and Dell did recently. Do you suppose they individually evaluated all 11,000 people they fired and dropped the chaff and kept the good ones? Or do you think somebody drew a line on a salary chart and said "everybody making more than X doing job Y goes"?
 
2012-12-11 03:37:01 PM  

Leeds: udhq: giftedmadness: I thought libs were all about choice. This law would give workers the option of turning down entry into a union. What is wrong with giving them a choice?

I know this lib is just fine with giving workers the choice of whether or not to join a union.

What I'm not fine with is forcing the union to provide their services to that person free of charge should they choose not to pay dues.

You and I both know that employers will offer people more money to join as a worker than as a union member. I have seen no evidence that the union contract has to serve as a cap for the benefits offered to someone who wants instead to be a good worker.


Once again, as with most of this thread, your gut feeling on this is not supported by reality. On average, employees are willing to pay $4.95 more per hour for a unionized worker than for a non-union worker.

Do you honestly want to try and make the argument that companies do this out of the goodness of their hearts? No, it's because union labor IS more valuable, higher-quality labor.
 
2012-12-11 03:39:44 PM  
Who is demanding that employees pay for union membership in Michigan? If the government doesn't want to continue that requirement of its employees, fine. Why is it the government's business to tell GM that they cannot agree upon such an arrangement with the UAW though?
 
2012-12-11 03:40:48 PM  

OgreMagi: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Make up a list of all businesses that closed because the union demands were to much and they went out of business. Going from $xx to zero is definitely a descrease in wages/bennies/conditions. I'm sure the unions don't count those businesses, though. It might make them look bad.


If a company closes because they can't afford to pay their employees what they're worth, then that responsibility falls squarely on poor management.
 
2012-12-11 03:42:03 PM  

Magorn: Leeds: Magorn: Job Creator: 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!

I have him on ignore, but he's typical of glib libertarians. He think his labor is so special and valued when the fact is that his boss (if he's in a large organization at least) doesn't even know he exists. If he does, he'll take the chance that some Russian or Mexican will be more desperate to produce the extra value and will riff Leeds without even a thought.

This what kills me about people like him. They truly believe the world works in a way it just doesn't and when that world screws them over they blame all the wrong people. Let's just suppose the best case scenario: that the work he does somehow manages to let him obviously differentiate his effort and productivity from that of his peers. And let's further even grant him the notion that a benevolent manager will identify his hard work and reward him for it with higher pay, benefits, whatever.

Even in that best case scenario, all he's managed to do is become a nail sticking out of the company org chart. Someone several level above the factory flaw will create a spreadsheet showing labor costs per unit of production and note this better-compensated employee is an anomaly that adds an average of 1/10th cent of extra labor cost to each unit shipped. He doesn't know about his man's sterling qualities, heroic productivity and incredible gumption and dedication, he just sees a generic unit of workforce that can be replaced with a cheaper one.

So a couple calls get made, hero-worker gets canned just before his retirement options vest and replaced with a k ...


And the fact that he is "a nail sticking out of the company org chart" (though I think probably not so much) makes it more likely that he'll be the first to go- can't have someone making more than other people with the same job description.
 
2012-12-11 03:47:15 PM  

lennavan: o5iiawah: Whether individual, single-family, or retiree your graph still doesn't adjust for cost of living.

A person making $40k in NY is for all intents and purposes poor but isn't labeled as such and (doesn't) enjoy(s) the same quality of life as someone in Alabama making $12k who is labeled as poor.

They are probably affording just enough to get by, or arent getting by. and probably need public assistance when it comes to transportation passes and energy credits.

You could have just asked jst3p to explain what the poverty line and poverty rate are since you are completely clueless about them. He seems like a decent guy, I'm sure he would have helped you out.


Eh, people that don't want to understand something rarely ever will.
 
2012-12-11 03:51:21 PM  

amiable: jigger: amiable: Uh.. obama ran on implementing Obamacare

Uh.. no, he ran against the things that eventually became Obamacare. He didn't need any "Republican ideas" in it because not a single Republican voted for it.

Sense. Make some.


Well, at least you make it obvious you don't know WTF you're talking about.
 
2012-12-11 03:52:10 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?


Is the concept of "leverage" entirely foreign to morons like you?
 
2012-12-11 03:54:24 PM  

o5iiawah: A person making $40k in NY is for all intents and purposes poor but isn't labeled as such and (doesn't) enjoy(s) the same quality of life as someone in Alabama making $12k who is labeled as poor.

They are probably affording just enough to get by, or arent getting by. and probably need public assistance when it comes to transportation passes and energy credits.


And you are completely ignoring that the south is more red than other areas with comparably low costs of living, like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho. I understand that you don't want to believe that poverty isn't a bigger issue in the South than most other parts of the nation. I can only assume it is because you are from the south and take umbrage with my assertion that "Fat, dumb, and poor, seem to be Southern virtues." Unfortunately the facts don't care if you believe it. There is more obesity, illiteracy and poverty (given the fact that there is a correlation between poverty and obesity and one between poverty and illiteracy, this isn't at all surprising) in the south than in most other parts of the nation. There just is.
 
2012-12-11 03:55:09 PM  

amiable: 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.


I forget is that the law that doesn't include a tax but is constitutional because the 'not a tax' is really tax?
 
2012-12-11 03:56:43 PM  

Lt_Ryan: I forget is that the law that doesn't include a tax but is constitutional because the 'not a tax' is really tax?


It's a penaltax. Get it straight.
 
2012-12-11 03:59:22 PM  

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

IMO


The real reason Bob King is pissed about this (President of the UAW) he was going to spend the week sucking management dick and making concessions, this whole thing means he won't get Ford's dick in his ass until post Xmas.

/the UAW has been toothless for awhile, the state house finally figured it out
 
2012-12-11 04:00:21 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?


If a person has to state that they are not lazy, then it can be pretty much accepted they are.
 
2012-12-11 04:05:19 PM  

spif: 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.


I'm not so sure. I'm in the film industry and unions and guilds have proven invaluable to us. Also, in an interesting comparison, some positions in the industry are non-union and I've seen some very sketchy treatment of those workers.
 
2012-12-11 04:06:13 PM  

jst3p: o5iiawah: A person making $40k in NY is for all intents and purposes poor but isn't labeled as such and (doesn't) enjoy(s) the same quality of life as someone in Alabama making $12k who is labeled as poor.

They are probably affording just enough to get by, or arent getting by. and probably need public assistance when it comes to transportation passes and energy credits.

And you are completely ignoring that the south is more red than other areas with comparably low costs of living, like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho. I understand that you don't want to believe that poverty isn't a bigger issue in the South than most other parts of the nation. I can only assume it is because you are from the south and take umbrage with my assertion that "Fat, dumb, and poor, seem to be Southern virtues." Unfortunately the facts don't care if you believe it. There is more obesity, illiteracy and poverty (given the fact that there is a correlation between poverty and obesity and one between poverty and illiteracy, this isn't at all surprising) in the south than in most other parts of the nation. There just is.


Yes, but 99.6% of Southerners have refrigerators so ergo they aren't poor.

/brain on FoxNews
 
2012-12-11 04:11:28 PM  
As someone who was just fired without warning or reason in California last Friday, I'm getting a real kick outta this...

/goes to fill out unemployment application
 
2012-12-11 04:13:03 PM  

Job Creator: jst3p: o5iiawah: A person making $40k in NY is for all intents and purposes poor but isn't labeled as such and (doesn't) enjoy(s) the same quality of life as someone in Alabama making $12k who is labeled as poor.

They are probably affording just enough to get by, or arent getting by. and probably need public assistance when it comes to transportation passes and energy credits.

And you are completely ignoring that the south is more red than other areas with comparably low costs of living, like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho. I understand that you don't want to believe that poverty isn't a bigger issue in the South than most other parts of the nation. I can only assume it is because you are from the south and take umbrage with my assertion that "Fat, dumb, and poor, seem to be Southern virtues." Unfortunately the facts don't care if you believe it. There is more obesity, illiteracy and poverty (given the fact that there is a correlation between poverty and obesity and one between poverty and illiteracy, this isn't at all surprising) in the south than in most other parts of the nation. There just is.

Yes, but 99.6% of Southerners have refrigerators so ergo they aren't poor.

/brain on FoxNews


I think poverty is a serious problem and as I indicated it leads to many other issues. The frustration I have is that the south votes for the party who's economic policies have been systematically eliminating the middle class and driving up poverty rates for the last 30 years. And they vote for them "because Jesus".

This is what tax cuts, unpaid for wars and expanding social programs leads to:

i2.cdn.turner.com

I find it hilarious that "tax and spend liberal" is used as an insult when the alternative is "borrow and spend".

/I will note that I am aware that Obama has been very much "borrow and spend". So long as we don't have another recession I am willing to give him 4more years before judging him
 
2012-12-11 04:13:23 PM  

Leeds: Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.


I think we can all agree that a poorly run union is bad for everyone. Unfortunately the arguments of the anti-union crowd are based on the idea that unions are predominantly badly run. This is not as common an occurrence as you think. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of locals in North America that work with management to balance the needs of the company with the needs of the workers. Those negotiations, however, never make the news.
 
2012-12-11 04:13:49 PM  

skullkrusher: Who is demanding that employees pay for union membership in Michigan? If the government doesn't want to continue that requirement of its employees, fine. Why is it the government's business to tell GM that they cannot agree upon such an arrangement with the UAW though?


That's a ridiculous statement that has no basis in reality.

The UAW won't for a second entertain a CBA proposal that allows for open shop Union rules...they never have and they never will.
 
2012-12-11 04:14:52 PM  

Mercutio74: spif: 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.

I'm not so sure. I'm in the film industry and unions and guilds have proven invaluable to us. Also, in an interesting comparison, some positions in the industry are non-union and I've seen some very sketchy treatment of those workers.


There's a few high personal expertise segments where unionization makes inroads. Could it be a holdout from the old days, when the personal expertise of guys like DPs and key grips was not as valuable as it is now?
 
2012-12-11 04:15:34 PM  

Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.


Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?
 
2012-12-11 04:15:55 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: mrshowrules: Education has a sharp negative correlation with States with right-to-work laws and a clear positive correlation to States who support union rights.

Which is interesting, as outside of tenured academics, very few educated people are in unions in this country.

/college grad
//pro union


I say correlated because the main issue is investment in education. States that pay less for workers in public institutions frequently propose things like right-to-work legislation. Poorly paid teachers. That causes (IMHO) poorly educated students.

Less investment in public services causes less pay for public workers and in parallel less support for union labour (e.g., right to work legislation).

Poorly paid public workers means poorly compensated police, teachers, bus drivers which results in shiatty police services, teaching and bus driving.
 
2012-12-11 04:16:57 PM  

qorkfiend: Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?


In before "TWINKIES!!!! HERP DERP"
 
2012-12-11 04:17:28 PM  

Coach_J: skullkrusher: Who is demanding that employees pay for union membership in Michigan? If the government doesn't want to continue that requirement of its employees, fine. Why is it the government's business to tell GM that they cannot agree upon such an arrangement with the UAW though?

That's a ridiculous statement that has no basis in reality.

The UAW won't for a second entertain a CBA proposal that allows for open shop Union rules...they never have and they never will.


so you're saying that the private auto manufacturer entered into a private agreement with a private union yet you want the government to intervene?
 
2012-12-11 04:18:31 PM  

Mercutio74: Leeds: Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

I think we can all agree that a poorly run union is bad for everyone. Unfortunately the arguments of the anti-union crowd are based on the idea that unions are predominantly badly run. This is not as common an occurrence as you think. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of locals in North America that work with management to balance the needs of the company with the needs of the workers. Those negotiations, however, never make the news.


My father retired as management for a large unionized company and made the point that the union makes labor management easier- they provide a grievance procedure and often a roster of qualified employees when hires need to be made. It makes getting rid of employees because they fark the boss' daughter or because they don't go to the boss' church harder though.
 
2012-12-11 04:21:21 PM  

qorkfiend: Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?


If a company can't provide a competitive product or service while at the same time providing fair wages and benefits the market will put that company out of business while giving more competitive businesses more market share.
 
2012-12-11 04:22:06 PM  

Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.


Unions don't close plants, management does.

Business continuity is solely the responsibilities of management. If your plant closes because you are unable to meet your employees demands and you are unable to find replacement workers who will work for cheap enough, then that %100 falls under bad management.
 
2012-12-11 04:25:16 PM  

skullkrusher: Coach_J: skullkrusher: Who is demanding that employees pay for union membership in Michigan? If the government doesn't want to continue that requirement of its employees, fine. Why is it the government's business to tell GM that they cannot agree upon such an arrangement with the UAW though?

That's a ridiculous statement that has no basis in reality.

The UAW won't for a second entertain a CBA proposal that allows for open shop Union rules...they never have and they never will.

so you're saying that the private auto manufacturer entered into a private agreement with a private union yet you want the government to intervene?


Uh, no...I said nothing remotely close to that.

What I did say is that the scenario outlined above has no basis in reality and can't be used as some sort of "rationale" one way or another.

I've been part of LR agreements with the UAW for years (from the sidelines, I've never chaired a UAW agreement) and have worked side-by-side with people who have worked on UAW and CAW CBAs for decades and open shop CBAs are a non-starter with ANY UAW or CAW this isn't a debatable point.
 
2012-12-11 04:26:29 PM  

Coach_J: I've been part of LR agreements with the UAW for years (from the sidelines, I've never chaired a UAW agreement) and have worked side-by-side with people who have worked on UAW and CAW CBAs for decades and open shop CBAs are a non-starter with ANY UAW or CAW this isn't a debatable point.


so? The employer agrees to only hire union workers. Period. Why is this an issue that you think government should prevent?
 
2012-12-11 04:27:22 PM  
IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!
 
2012-12-11 04:28:40 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?



Are you seriously claiming that you don't understand that a union of many people acting together may have stronger negotiating power than if they each negotiated individually?

Putting aside a theoretical discussion, are you aware at all of the last century so of history?

Maybe read the Grapes of Wrath?

/I have not read the Grapes of Wrath.
 
2012-12-11 04:29:44 PM  

qorkfiend: There's a few high personal expertise segments where unionization makes inroads. Could it be a holdout from the old days, when the personal expertise of guys like DPs and key grips was not as valuable as it is now?


Actually, at least in Canada, it seems to be the opposite. Talented employees realized that they were being played against each other to the detriment of pay and working conditions, so they decided that since their knowledge and skills allowed the industry to operate, collective bargaining would create a situation where the workers would be compensated fairly for their performance.

Union participation is growing still. For example, in Toronto, production office staff has been unionized with IATSE for less than 20 years (that being said, there were theatre related unions in the city dating back to the 1800s).

The fact of the matter is, unions are developing more of a presence in the industry here rather than less, which suggests that the need is growing and it's not a vestigial organ left from more exploitative days. No one wants to unionize if they don't have to. And, god bless the producers, they do pinch pennies. We just want to make sure that the pinching is done somewhere other than our families' dinner tables.
 
2012-12-11 04:32:50 PM  

Leeds: qorkfiend: Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?

The year: 1998
The Company: Caterpillar
The City: York PA
The Union: United Auto Workers


The pattern is familiar: Even after an 18-month strike by 8,000 workers that ended three months ago, Caterpillar reported record profits last year -- $1.14 billion -- then boosted the base pay of CEO Donald V. Fites by 20 percent, to $1 million -- plus about $1.5 million in bonuses and other compensation.

Totally unions fault, can't be greed.
 
2012-12-11 04:34:19 PM  

Mercutio74: qorkfiend: There's a few high personal expertise segments where unionization makes inroads. Could it be a holdout from the old days, when the personal expertise of guys like DPs and key grips was not as valuable as it is now?

Actually, at least in Canada, it seems to be the opposite. Talented employees realized that they were being played against each other to the detriment of pay and working conditions, so they decided that since their knowledge and skills allowed the industry to operate, collective bargaining would create a situation where the workers would be compensated fairly for their performance.

Union participation is growing still. For example, in Toronto, production office staff has been unionized with IATSE for less than 20 years (that being said, there were theatre related unions in the city dating back to the 1800s).

The fact of the matter is, unions are developing more of a presence in the industry here rather than less, which suggests that the need is growing and it's not a vestigial organ left from more exploitative days. No one wants to unionize if they don't have to. And, god bless the producers, they do pinch pennies. We just want to make sure that the pinching is done somewhere other than our families' dinner tables.


Good for them! The reality is that the jobs of most "knowledge workers" has been as standardized and commoditized as the stereotypical assembly line worker. We tell working drones at Initech that they are "white collar" employees so that they will work long hours on salary but the fact us they (we) need union protections too.
 
2012-12-11 04:37:43 PM  

jst3p: Leeds: qorkfiend: Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?

The year: 1998
The Company: Caterpillar
The City: York PA
The Union: United Auto Workers

The pattern is familiar: Even after an 18-month strike by 8,000 workers that ended three months ago, Caterpillar reported record profits last year -- $1.14 billion -- then boosted the base pay of CEO Donald V. Fites by 20 percent, to $1 million -- plus about $1.5 million in bonuses and other compensation.

Totally unions fault, can't be greed.



Also, seems to me that Caterpillar is still in business- they closed down one plant but opened another somewhere else. No jobs lost, just displaced with scabs, probably from down South or outside the country. But unions are destroying American business donchano.
 
2012-12-11 04:38:18 PM  

skullkrusher: Coach_J: I've been part of LR agreements with the UAW for years (from the sidelines, I've never chaired a UAW agreement) and have worked side-by-side with people who have worked on UAW and CAW CBAs for decades and open shop CBAs are a non-starter with ANY UAW or CAW this isn't a debatable point.

so? The employer agrees to only hire union workers. Period. Why is this an issue that you think government should prevent?


I don't. I'm not for RTW, just like I'm not for people using creative fiction to try to make their POV.

If you want to talk about the merits for or against RTW, that's fine...but inventing some Union negotiation freedom when CBAing with the UAW that doesn't exist, I have a problem with.
 
2012-12-11 04:41:58 PM  

Coach_J: skullkrusher: Coach_J: I've been part of LR agreements with the UAW for years (from the sidelines, I've never chaired a UAW agreement) and have worked side-by-side with people who have worked on UAW and CAW CBAs for decades and open shop CBAs are a non-starter with ANY UAW or CAW this isn't a debatable point.

so? The employer agrees to only hire union workers. Period. Why is this an issue that you think government should prevent?

I don't. I'm not for RTW, just like I'm not for people using creative fiction to try to make their POV.

If you want to talk about the merits for or against RTW, that's fine...but inventing some Union negotiation freedom when CBAing with the UAW that doesn't exist, I have a problem with.


I have no idea wtf you're talking about.
What "creative fiction" are you referring to?
 
2012-12-11 04:42:23 PM  

beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!


Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.
 
2012-12-11 04:49:05 PM  

udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.


Yea, but the more they cheer destruction of worker protections, the more chance the Koch' will let them in the big house.

/not likely
//maybe if they do a little softshoe when massa comes by
 
2012-12-11 04:53:36 PM  

udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.


I love how he, once more, treats it like his team is winning. This is why most "conservatives" are ridiculed outside their own little bubble. They come across as know-nothing little play ground bullies who run to nanny government the minute their bootstraps break.

Small Government Conservationism, what's that?


/Goldwater rolls in his grave.
 
2012-12-11 04:53:55 PM  
Right-to-workers are lazy parasites who want the benefits the union negotiates, without the responsibilities.
 
2012-12-11 04:55:19 PM  

Leeds: jst3p: Leeds: qorkfiend: Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?

The year: 1998
The Company: Caterpillar
The City: York PA
The Union: United Auto Workers

The pattern is familiar: Even after an 18-month strike by 8,000 workers that ended three months ago, Caterpillar reported record profits last year -- $1.14 billion -- then boosted the base pay of CEO Donald V. Fites by 20 percent, to $1 million -- plus about $1.5 million in bonuses and other compensation.

Totally unions fault, can't be greed.

That's a great article you linked. I appreciate you digging it up.

From your article:

And in the process, 1,100 workers who earn an average of about $17 an hour will become economic fatalities in a war of wills between management and union, a five-year dispute bogged down in accusations, fear and fury.

But the company insists that the plant would have stayed open, at least through September 2001[ the article was from 1996], if only the union had accepted its offer, including wages averaging $16.89 per hour and full health care coverage.

So they wanted bigger raises that the plant could support and instead of keeping their $16.89 per hour jobs, they forced Caterpillar to shutter the plant and open a new one where the workers weren't greedy communists.

I think th ...



Assumes facts not in evidence.
 
2012-12-11 04:56:12 PM  

OgreMagi: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Make up a list of all businesses that closed because the union demands were to much and they went out of business. Going from $xx to zero is definitely a descrease in wages/bennies/conditions. I'm sure the unions don't count those businesses, though. It might make them look bad.


Remember kids: unions killed the twinkie
 
2012-12-11 04:56:34 PM  

skullkrusher: Coach_J: skullkrusher: Coach_J: I've been part of LR agreements with the UAW for years (from the sidelines, I've never chaired a UAW agreement) and have worked side-by-side with people who have worked on UAW and CAW CBAs for decades and open shop CBAs are a non-starter with ANY UAW or CAW this isn't a debatable point.

so? The employer agrees to only hire union workers. Period. Why is this an issue that you think government should prevent?

I don't. I'm not for RTW, just like I'm not for people using creative fiction to try to make their POV.

If you want to talk about the merits for or against RTW, that's fine...but inventing some Union negotiation freedom when CBAing with the UAW that doesn't exist, I have a problem with.

I have no idea wtf you're talking about.
What "creative fiction" are you referring to?


When you reference a company's ability to enter into an Open Shop CBA agreement with the UAW when we all KNOW that has NEVER been possible...that's creative fiction.

It has no basis in reality and should not be taken as such.
 
2012-12-11 04:57:22 PM  

jst3p: So they wanted bigger raises that the plant could support and instead of keeping their $16.89 per hour jobs, they forced Caterpillar to shutter the plant and open a new one where the workers weren't greedy communists.

I think th ...


Assumes facts not in evidence.


Nah, I think it's clear the billion-dollar multinational can't afford higher wages at a single factory.
 
2012-12-11 04:59:50 PM  

Coach_J: skullkrusher: Coach_J: skullkrusher: Coach_J: I've been part of LR agreements with the UAW for years (from the sidelines, I've never chaired a UAW agreement) and have worked side-by-side with people who have worked on UAW and CAW CBAs for decades and open shop CBAs are a non-starter with ANY UAW or CAW this isn't a debatable point.

so? The employer agrees to only hire union workers. Period. Why is this an issue that you think government should prevent?

I don't. I'm not for RTW, just like I'm not for people using creative fiction to try to make their POV.

If you want to talk about the merits for or against RTW, that's fine...but inventing some Union negotiation freedom when CBAing with the UAW that doesn't exist, I have a problem with.

I have no idea wtf you're talking about.
What "creative fiction" are you referring to?

When you reference a company's ability to enter into an Open Shop CBA agreement with the UAW when we all KNOW that has NEVER been possible...that's creative fiction.

It has no basis in reality and should not be taken as such.


whether GM has the ability to convince the union of it or not has nothing to do with anything. I just used GM as an example of a large union employer in MI. Whether the union used its collective power to pressure GM to concede union shop status in their plants via negotiations has farkall to do with the point.
 
2012-12-11 05:00:29 PM  

Leeds: LordJiro: Right-to-workers are lazy parasites who want the benefits the union negotiates, without the responsibilities.

No, we want to be able to work our jobs without having to pay the mafia for the privilege of going to work every day.

You union scum really make me sick.


yay! Let's dehumanize each other!

Farking idiots.

/plural
 
2012-12-11 05:00:35 PM  

udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.


He's just clutching for something... anything after the major thumping his party and their platform took earlier in November. To Republicans, it's all just a football game. Winning is everything, even if it means destroying the country.
 
2012-12-11 05:01:18 PM  

Coach_J: That's a ridiculous statement that has no basis in reality.

The UAW won't for a second entertain a CBA proposal that allows for open shop Union rules...they never have and they never will.


Why does GM have to deal with the UAW? I'm sure if they refused their contract, another organization would offer open shop rules, or GM could go entirely non-union.
 
2012-12-11 05:05:02 PM  

Leeds: jst3p: So they wanted bigger raises than the plant could support and instead of keeping their $16.89 per hour jobs, they forced Caterpillar to shutter the plant and open a new one where the workers weren't greedy communists.

I think th ...


Assumes facts not in evidence.


It could support what management says it could support. "What the plant can support" is purely subjective and the only one who can make the subjective call is management. Clearly they found that moving the plant elsewhere was better for Caterpillar once the UAW decided they were going to straight arm the company for more than they were worth. (And that part, "more than they were worth" is not subjective because in the end they did move the plant to avoid the UAW).


There is a big difference between "what the plant can support" and "what management is willing to support" and you know it. Are those goalposts heavy?
 
2012-12-11 05:06:15 PM  

OgreMagi: 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.

So you would be in favor of a union contract that gurantees the company will have a huge incentive to go out of their way to hire non-union workers? I always thought union people were dumb, I just didn't realize the extent of the problem.


Wouldn't know, never been in a union.

And yes, they go out of their way to hire non-union that employee finds out by joining the union he automatically gets a X% raise and access to other benefits the union provides.

/something something something people dumb, something something didn't realize extent of the problem.
 
2012-12-11 05:13:27 PM  
Anybody who thinks that you can "negotiate" with your employer without having a union to back you is a farking moron. You'll have a bullseye on your back so fast it'll make your head spin.
 
2012-12-11 05:15:07 PM  

pornopose: Anybody who thinks that you can "negotiate" with your employer without having a union to back you is a farking moron. You'll have a bullseye on your back so fast it'll make your head spin.


well, except those people for whom such a thing is a pretty common occurrence
 
2012-12-11 05:16:46 PM  

trotsky: udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.

I love how he, once more, treats it like his team is winning. This is why most "conservatives" are ridiculed outside their own little bubble. They come across as know-nothing little play ground bullies who run to nanny government the minute their bootstraps break.

Small Government Conservationism, what's that?


/Goldwater rolls in his grave.


Wait a second. You honestly think that RTW is a big government thing? Because last I looked unions have all sorts of federal protections. All RTW does is allow someone the right to decide if they would like to be a union member. If unions are as awesome as everyone says they are then its a no brainer that people will still decide to be in them. What are you guys even worried about?
 
2012-12-11 05:16:47 PM  

pornopose: Anybody who thinks that you can "negotiate" with your employer without having a union to back you is a farking moron. You'll have a bullseye on your back so fast it'll make your head spin.


You know how I know you aren't considered "skilled labor" with a skill set that is in demand?


/lunix, solaris storage and vmware admin
//I am well taken care of but if I weren't and I found a better offer they would match it
 
2012-12-11 05:21:13 PM  
So much for peaceful protesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0&feature=player_embedded

I predict this will be looked upon favorably by fark libs and assailed by fark conservatives.
 
2012-12-11 05:22:03 PM  

jst3p: pornopose: Anybody who thinks that you can "negotiate" with your employer without having a union to back you is a farking moron. You'll have a bullseye on your back so fast it'll make your head spin.

You know how I know you aren't considered "skilled labor" with a skill set that is in demand?


/lunix, solaris storage and vmware admin
//I am well taken care of but if I weren't and I found a better offer they would match it


They still use commodore 64s where you work?
 
2012-12-11 05:23:04 PM  

spif: 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.


That must be why there aren't any service employee unions. Oh wait there are. You're a Moran.
 
2012-12-11 05:23:16 PM  

I alone am best: jst3p: pornopose: Anybody who thinks that you can "negotiate" with your employer without having a union to back you is a farking moron. You'll have a bullseye on your back so fast it'll make your head spin.

You know how I know you aren't considered "skilled labor" with a skill set that is in demand?


/lunix, solaris storage and vmware admin
//I am well taken care of but if I weren't and I found a better offer they would match it

They still use commodore 64s where you work?


They don't pay me to spell shiat right!
 
2012-12-11 05:26:35 PM  

slayer199: So much for peaceful protesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0&feature=player_embedded

I predict this will be looked upon favorably by fark libs and assailed by fark conservatives.


Wow, that was uncalled for.
 
2012-12-11 05:27:22 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.


They'd laugh at him and tell him to go away.
 
2012-12-11 05:29:28 PM  
The minute you let the Republicans claim the words "right to work" from the labor movement, you lost that war.
 
2012-12-11 05:29:50 PM  
I'll just leave this here.

yafh.com
 
2012-12-11 05:30:42 PM  

Leeds: jst3p: Leeds: qorkfiend: Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?

The year: 1998
The Company: Caterpillar
The City: York PA
The Union: United Auto Workers

The pattern is familiar: Even after an 18-month strike by 8,000 workers that ended three months ago, Caterpillar reported record profits last year -- $1.14 billion -- then boosted the base pay of CEO Donald V. Fites by 20 percent, to $1 million -- plus about $1.5 million in bonuses and other compensation.

Totally unions fault, can't be greed.

That's a great article you linked. I appreciate you digging it up.

From your article:

And in the process, 1,100 workers who earn an average of about $17 an hour will become economic fatalities in a war of wills between management and union, a five-year dispute bogged down in accusations, fear and fury.

But the company insists that the plant would have stayed open, at least through September 2001[ the article was from 1996], if only the union had accepted its offer, including wages averaging $16.89 per hour and full health care coverage.

So they wanted bigger raises that the plant could support and instead of keeping their $16.89 per hour jobs, they forced Caterpillar to shutter the plant and open a new one where the workers weren't greedy communists.

I think this is an excellent example of unions killing a factory.


Why is it "greedy communism" when workers pursue their own economic self-interests, but just capitalism as usual when management does?
 
2012-12-11 05:30:47 PM  

Leeds: LordJiro: Right-to-workers are lazy parasites who want the benefits the union negotiates, without the responsibilities.

No, we want to be able to work our jobs without having to pay the mafia for the privilege of going to work every day.

You union scum really make me sick.


Your talking points are half a century old. Time to get new ones.
 
2012-12-11 05:33:15 PM  

slayer199: So much for peaceful protesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0&feature=player_embedded

I predict this will be looked upon favorably by fark libs and assailed by fark conservatives.


that's some high quality union thuggery right there
 
2012-12-11 05:33:58 PM  

udhq: Leeds: jst3p: Leeds: qorkfiend: Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?

The year: 1998
The Company: Caterpillar
The City: York PA
The Union: United Auto Workers

The pattern is familiar: Even after an 18-month strike by 8,000 workers that ended three months ago, Caterpillar reported record profits last year -- $1.14 billion -- then boosted the base pay of CEO Donald V. Fites by 20 percent, to $1 million -- plus about $1.5 million in bonuses and other compensation.

Totally unions fault, can't be greed.

That's a great article you linked. I appreciate you digging it up.

From your article:

And in the process, 1,100 workers who earn an average of about $17 an hour will become economic fatalities in a war of wills between management and union, a five-year dispute bogged down in accusations, fear and fury.

But the company insists that the plant would have stayed open, at least through September 2001[ the article was from 1996], if only the union had accepted its offer, including wages averaging $16.89 per hour and full health care coverage.

So they wanted bigger raises that the plant could support and instead of keeping their $16.89 per hour jobs, they forced Caterpillar to shutter the plant and open a new one where the workers weren't greedy communists.

I think this is an excellent example of unions killing a factory.

Why is it "greedy communism" when workers pursue their own economic self-interests, but just capitalism as usual when management does?


A real American capitalist would have moved the plant to China.
 
2012-12-11 05:42:09 PM  
The cry I hear from Rightwingistan residents concerning unions and RTW is "why should I be forced to join a union, aka a DEMONCRAT special interest group just to get a job???? T'aint fair!"

Let me answer that question with a question...

"What is so farking special about you that you should get special dispensation over a legally binding agreement between a labor union and a company that has been in place long before your pasty ass came knocking on the door?"

Talk about a sense of "entitlement!"
 
2012-12-11 05:42:59 PM  

Leeds: udhq: Leeds: I think this is an excellent example of unions killing a factory.

Why is it "greedy communism" when workers pursue their own economic self-interests, but just capitalism as usual when management does?

It's "greedy communism" if you can prove that they were asking for more benefits than the market can bear.

And if you wonder what the amount is that the "market can bear" it's just shy of what would cause the plant to close.

If they ask for more than that and the plant closes (like the Caterpillar discussion upthread) then you can say with certainty that the unions were being greedy.


Or you are gullible and believe everything the company PR department tells you.
 
2012-12-11 05:44:59 PM  

Fart_Machine: Leeds: udhq: Leeds: I think this is an excellent example of unions killing a factory.

Why is it "greedy communism" when workers pursue their own economic self-interests, but just capitalism as usual when management does?

It's "greedy communism" if you can prove that they were asking for more benefits than the market can bear.

And if you wonder what the amount is that the "market can bear" it's just shy of what would cause the plant to close.

If they ask for more than that and the plant closes (like the Caterpillar discussion upthread) then you can say with certainty that the unions were being greedy.

Or you are gullible and believe everything the company PR department tells you.


DINGDINGDINGDINGDING....
 
2012-12-11 05:45:09 PM  

sonnyboy11: udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.

He's just clutching for something... anything after the major thumping his party and their platform took earlier in November. To Republicans, it's all just a football game. Winning is everything, even if it means destroying the country.


You lost. Get over it.

Sweet, delicious liberal tears. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA! !!!!
 
2012-12-11 05:46:12 PM  

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.


Same thing in Wisconsin. We may have went blue for Obama but the GOP has the House and the Senate (state offices, obviously). They are trying to pass all the crap they can while they can.
 
2012-12-11 05:46:24 PM  

trotsky: udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.

I love how he, once more, treats it like his team is winning. This is why most "conservatives" are ridiculed outside their own little bubble. They come across as know-nothing little play ground bullies who run to nanny government the minute their bootstraps break.

Small Government Conservationism, what's that?


/Goldwater rolls in his grave.


You lost. Get over it. It's time to move on.
 
2012-12-11 05:48:43 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


not quite, but good spin
 
2012-12-11 05:49:29 PM  

beta_plus: sonnyboy11: udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.

He's just clutching for something... anything after the major thumping his party and their platform took earlier in November. To Republicans, it's all just a football game. Winning is everything, even if it means destroying the country.

You lost. Get over it.

Sweet, delicious liberal tears. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA! !!!!


It doesn't matter to you that these laws plunge millions of middle class people into poverty, the only thing that matters is that your team won the spitting contest today.

Why do you even live in a country you openly hate so badly?
 
2012-12-11 05:49:58 PM  

beta_plus: trotsky: udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.

I love how he, once more, treats it like his team is winning. This is why most "conservatives" are ridiculed outside their own little bubble. They come across as know-nothing little play ground bullies who run to nanny government the minute their bootstraps break.

Small Government Conservationism, what's that?


/Goldwater rolls in his grave.

You lost. Get over it. It's time to move on.


You're right. Tit for tat. Enjoy your Obamacare bill!
 
2012-12-11 05:50:16 PM  
It's done. Snyder signed the legislation.
 
2012-12-11 05:51:04 PM  

slayer199: It's done. Snyder signed the legislation.


Now the lawyers get involved.
 
2012-12-11 05:51:22 PM  
beta_plus: You lost. Get over it. It's time to move on.

We will move on once the GOP corpse stops twitching.

What you fools just did in Michigan is make a good percentage of the folks who voted for you sorry that they did. Good luck with that next cycle. The Party of Pure Evil needs to be put down. One man at a time if necessary.
 
2012-12-11 05:52:24 PM  

qorkfiend: slayer199: It's done. Snyder signed the legislation.

Now the lawyers get involved.


It's very sad to watch people actively work against their own self-interest.
 
2012-12-11 05:53:25 PM  

Leeds: pornopose: Anybody who thinks that you can "negotiate" with your employer without having a union to back you is a farking moron. You'll have a bullseye on your back so fast it'll make your head spin.

So you have no idea how 88.6% of public sector workers function.

Want to brag about being ignorant on any other topics while you're at it?


I've had plenty of jobs in the public sector there buddy. None of them union. I have yet to run across a company that actually cares about their workers other than very very small operations with personal relationships between management and the workers (ie family owned and operated). If you don't have a union to back you up when you start bringing workplace conditions and benefits up to management, your days will be numbered. OSHA didn't just appear out of nowhere y'know. If you're not in a union you take what they give you. If you don't like it, you find another job. If the job market is weak, you're farked.

Labor is a supply that businesses demand. The working class in this country realized this basic fact and unionized. Supply and demand, it's that simple. It only works when all the workers unite though. You should read the grapes of wrath sometime, not factual but a good window into the pre-union United States.
 
2012-12-11 05:56:29 PM  

beta_plus: trotsky: udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.

I love how he, once more, treats it like his team is winning. This is why most "conservatives" are ridiculed outside their own little bubble. They come across as know-nothing little play ground bullies who run to nanny government the minute their bootstraps break.

Small Government Conservationism, what's that?


/Goldwater rolls in his grave.

You lost. Get over it. It's time to move on.


You don't understand. To you, this is a game, but to millions of union workers, this a matter of whether they can afford to send their children to college.

The middle class is not ever going to "move on" and resign itself to a life of working poverty. This is like Vietnam; its picking a fight with an enemy who literally cannot afford to lose.
 
2012-12-11 05:57:23 PM  

mcreadyblue: 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.


Taft-Hartley. What you just said the unions are doing has been illegal since 1947 and the unions have not been doing it. Right to work means you get the benefits of the union contract and don't have to pay the dues. You know, like what RW's think 47% of Americans are like.
 
2012-12-11 06:01:27 PM  

partisan222: mcreadyblue: 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.

Taft-Hartley. What you just said the unions are doing has been illegal since 1947 and the unions have not been doing it. Right to work means you get the benefits of the union contract and don't have to pay the dues. You know, like what RW's think 47% of Americans are like.


not necessarily. There's nothing precluding a union in a RTW state from negotiating union wages, benefits, promotion and raise schedules etc which only apply to its members. Sure there are certain aspects that can't be excluded from non-payers like noise levels on the factory floor and that sort of thing but a goodly bit of things of that nature are OSHA regulated anyway
 
2012-12-11 06:13:09 PM  

jst3p: pornopose: Anybody who thinks that you can "negotiate" with your employer without having a union to back you is a farking moron. You'll have a bullseye on your back so fast it'll make your head spin.

You know how I know you aren't considered "skilled labor" with a skill set that is in demand?


/lunix, solaris storage and vmware admin
//I am well taken care of but if I weren't and I found a better offer they would match it


Most of my jobs were low-skills set factory work. I'm from rural Illinois. The warehouses didn't look very kindly upon union talk. There are lots of people out of work there so nobody wants to shake things up when you have rent to pay.

I also was an x-ray repairman for GE medical. Good pay/benefits/working conditions. No real need for a union. It was made known to us though that when we went on a factory tour during our training we better not be caught anywhere near the union people working there. Even though I didn't feel we needed to be part of a union for my particular job, it was very apparent that my job would dissapear real quick if I started bringing that subject up. The tech world I'm a part of now seems to be different animal where unions aren't necessarily needed because of the high skill/high demand.

Not everyone gets to reach that level of expertise. Maybe if there were 30 guys waiting for work that could do your job well enough to satisfy management for less than you're used to/need to make then you might sympathize with the factory worker.
 
2012-12-11 06:14:01 PM  

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


Show me the person who got forced to join a union... oh, that's right... you can't. "Right to Work" has nothing to do with a "right to work" and everything to do with increasing your employers ability to fire you, everything to do with forcing unions to let you share in their benefits without being able to charge you for their costs.... it has absolutely nothing to do with a workers ability to choose which employer to work for and everything to do with union-busting in states where the GOP encourages freeloaders to mooch off of hard working union members. I live in one of the few states smart enough not to pass "right to work" BS, and no, there's no farking crazy ass rules saying you must join a union, and employers aren't forced to hire union members unless they sign up for that.
 
2012-12-11 06:19:30 PM  

udhq: beta_plus: trotsky: udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.

I love how he, once more, treats it like his team is winning. This is why most "conservatives" are ridiculed outside their own little bubble. They come across as know-nothing little play ground bullies who run to nanny government the minute their bootstraps break.

Small Government Conservationism, what's that?


/Goldwater rolls in his grave.

You lost. Get over it. It's time to move on.

You don't understand. To you, this is a game, but to millions of union workers, this a matter of whether they can afford to send their children to college.

The middle class is not ever going to "move on" and resign itself to a life of working poverty. This is like Vietnam; its picking a fight with an enemy who literally cannot afford to lose.


My, my, what violent rhetoric you have. It's too bad that liberals are now the party of hate and violence with no respect for Democracy.

Your concerned poutrage is noted.
 
2012-12-11 06:22:25 PM  

jst3p: slayer199: So much for peaceful protesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0&feature=player_embedded

I predict this will be looked upon favorably by fark libs and assailed by fark conservatives.

Wow, that was uncalled for.


Wow, that guy was trying to force a confrontation to try to make a GOTCHA video huh?
 
2012-12-11 06:23:06 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.


There was another article floating around on CNN's website:

The average full-time, full-year worker in a right-to-work state makes about $1,500 less annually, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning organization. The rate of workers covered by employer-sponsored health insurance is 2.6 percentage points lower, while pension coverage is 4.8 percentage points lower.

Right-to-work states have done better in terms of growing jobs, according to State Budget Solutions, an advocacy group that supported the measure. Right-to-work states saw employment expand by 8.2% between 2001 and 2010, while those without the law experienced a 0.5% decrease, according to the group's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics figures.
 
2012-12-11 06:24:47 PM  

beta_plus: udhq: beta_plus: trotsky: udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.

I love how he, once more, treats it like his team is winning. This is why most "conservatives" are ridiculed outside their own little bubble. They come across as know-nothing little play ground bullies who run to nanny government the minute their bootstraps break.

Small Government Conservationism, what's that?


/Goldwater rolls in his grave.

You lost. Get over it. It's time to move on.

You don't understand. To you, this is a game, but to millions of union workers, this a matter of whether they can afford to send their children to college.

The middle class is not ever going to "move on" and resign itself to a life of working poverty. This is like Vietnam; its picking a fight with an enemy who literally cannot afford to lose.

My, my, what violent rhetoric you have. It's too bad that liberals are now the party of hate and violence with no respect for Democracy.

Your concerned poutrage is noted.


What happened in Michigan with this has nothing to do with Democracy, so your point is invalid.

You are free to keep stroking yourself thinking you scored some big victory here when the reality is you're pretending table scraps are Filet Mignon. Obama is going to take the oath again on January 20th. A piddly RTW bill that will end up in court and sit idle for a good long while and most likely be overturned is pretty small potatoes in the bigger scheme of things.
 
2012-12-11 06:29:00 PM  

KellyX: jst3p: slayer199: So much for peaceful protesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0&feature=player_embedded

I predict this will be looked upon favorably by fark libs and assailed by fark conservatives.

Wow, that was uncalled for.

Wow, that guy was trying to force a confrontation to try to make a GOTCHA video huh?


If you check his other submissions that's his shtick.
 
2012-12-11 06:31:22 PM  
So, if you look at the information I quoted earlier from the CNN article - how is this bad for Michigan? It's an honest question. They've been losing workers to Chicago-area employers for a long time now, hell, a LOT of the people I meet are Michigan transplants. It would -seem- that the statistics support RTW bringing back jobs to the state.
 
2012-12-11 06:32:07 PM  

Fart_Machine: KellyX: jst3p: slayer199: So much for peaceful protesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0&feature=player_embedded

I predict this will be looked upon favorably by fark libs and assailed by fark conservatives.

Wow, that was uncalled for.

Wow, that guy was trying to force a confrontation to try to make a GOTCHA video huh?

If you check his other submissions that's his shtick.


I didn't, but I assumed he was just one of them real life conservative trolls.

As someone in Right To Work state, I assure you, the goal isn't to prevent people from joining unions, its to prevent unions and put 100% of control into Management.

In the State of Florida, we can fire you for no reason given, we don't need to give you notice (but you sure as shiat better give your boss 2 weeks notice or expect to be on a blacklist!!)
 
2012-12-11 06:32:58 PM  

KellyX: jst3p: slayer199: So much for peaceful protesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0&feature=player_embedded

I predict this will be looked upon favorably by fark libs and assailed by fark conservatives.

Wow, that was uncalled for.

Wow, that guy was trying to force a confrontation to try to make a GOTCHA video huh?


Successfully it would seem
 
2012-12-11 06:35:09 PM  

DeathByGeekSquad: So, if you look at the information I quoted earlier from the CNN article - how is this bad for Michigan? It's an honest question. They've been losing workers to Chicago-area employers for a long time now, hell, a LOT of the people I meet are Michigan transplants. It would -seem- that the statistics support RTW bringing back jobs to the state.


I dunno, what's Michigan well known for, what took a heavy hit 4 years ago and been restructuring since practically? I can't imagine why so many people from Michigan might be looking for jobs in big cities...

Another problem I'm seeing, like in my industry, is a lot of the companies are hiring, but they're trying to find employees with experience doing the job, unfortunately after 4+ years of laying people off, those experienced people moved on, the new people out of college with the education for it aren't desired still cause they don't have the hands on experience yet...
 
2012-12-11 06:36:30 PM  

zappaisfrank: beta_plus: udhq: beta_plus: trotsky: udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.

I love how he, once more, treats it like his team is winning. This is why most "conservatives" are ridiculed outside their own little bubble. They come across as know-nothing little play ground bullies who run to nanny government the minute their bootstraps break.

Small Government Conservationism, what's that?


/Goldwater rolls in his grave.

You lost. Get over it. It's time to move on.

You don't understand. To you, this is a game, but to millions of union workers, this a matter of whether they can afford to send their children to college.

The middle class is not ever going to "move on" and resign itself to a life of working poverty. This is like Vietnam; its picking a fight with an enemy who literally cannot afford to lose.

My, my, what violent rhetoric you have. It's too bad that liberals are now the party of hate and violence with no respect for Democracy.

Your concerned poutrage is noted.

What happened in Michigan with this has nothing to do with Democracy, so your point is invalid.

You are free to keep stroking yourself thinking you scored some big victory here when the reality is you're pretending table scraps are Filet Mignon. Obama is going to take the oath again on January 20th. A piddly RTW bill that will end up in court and sit idle for a good long while and most likely be overturned is pretty small potatoes in the bigger scheme of things.


"this has nothing to do with Democracy" Really? The State Legislature of Michigan is a dictatorship?

/HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA! Apparently you don't understand the concept of Federalism. The 0bamassiah can't save you this time.
 
2012-12-11 06:38:39 PM  

KellyX: jst3p: slayer199: So much for peaceful protesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0&feature=player_embedded

I predict this will be looked upon favorably by fark libs and assailed by fark conservatives.

Wow, that was uncalled for.

Wow, that guy was trying to force a confrontation to try to make a GOTCHA video huh?


Yeah, and tubby fell for it.
 
2012-12-11 06:40:53 PM  

DeathByGeekSquad: So, if you look at the information I quoted earlier from the CNN article - how is this bad for Michigan? It's an honest question. They've been losing workers to Chicago-area employers for a long time now, hell, a LOT of the people I meet are Michigan transplants. It would -seem- that the statistics support RTW bringing back jobs to the state.


Doesn't really work that way. Right to work states tend to have lower incomes and fewer high-wage jobs. The skilled and mobile labor leaves over time to where they can obtain better wages.

I mean, you could make the argument that lots of low-paying and unskilled jobs are a good thing, but I would tend not to agree.
 
2012-12-11 06:41:11 PM  
Will this law effect the shining beacon of industry that is Detroit?
 
2012-12-11 06:41:40 PM  

Leeds: firefly212: jehovahs witness protection: Democrats: People don't deserve the right to choose!

Show me the person who got forced to join a union... oh, that's right... you can't.

Is this your way of admitting that you are posting in a thread without reading the previous comments, or did you just take existentialism 101 and now you want to debate if I can prove my own existance?

Either way I think you're out of line.


I love watching people out their own alts.
 
2012-12-11 06:42:02 PM  

jst3p: KellyX: jst3p: slayer199: So much for peaceful protesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0&feature=player_embedded

I predict this will be looked upon favorably by fark libs and assailed by fark conservatives.

Wow, that was uncalled for.

Wow, that guy was trying to force a confrontation to try to make a GOTCHA video huh?

Yeah, and tubby fell for it.


Much like if you fark with enough people one of them will get in your face about it.
 
2012-12-11 06:43:38 PM  

qorkfiend: slayer199: It's done. Snyder signed the legislation.

Now the lawyers get involved.


And unless it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court (which it won't) it will stand. The GOP also has a majority in the State Supreme Court (next 2 years as well).
 
2012-12-11 06:46:35 PM  
They've at least learned to omit cops and firefighters... for now.