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  
•       •       •

5011 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


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

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 526 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | 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