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 526
    More: Amusing, Democrats, John Dingell, Muslims and Jews, Michigan Republicans, union shops  
•       •       •

5001 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2012 at 11:31 AM (2 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 526 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report