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  
•       •       •

4996 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2012 at 11:31 AM (1 year 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 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.
 
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 »






Report