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 11:08:05 PM
Leeds
It could support what management says it could support.

*plonk*
 
2012-12-11 11:29:32 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't you go ahead and make up that list? Surely it would trivial for you to provide countless examples of something you apparently think happens quite often.


Check out the trucking industry. Why do the Teamsters' union lose so many members? Very simply: Many of the companies the union has unionized cannot compete in a competitive market.

Take, for example, the trucking industry.

"In 1980, the United States Congress passed the Motor Carrier Act, which was signed into law by Democrat President Jimmy Carter.

The Motor Carrier Act deregulated interstate trucking. Government control of the trucking industry stopped and non-union competition increased. Price fixing went the way of the dinosaurs.

Deregulation of the trucking industry brought more competition because the costly process of government control of competition was eliminated. Most of the major union carriers in business prior to 1980 were not able to adapt to changes in the marketplace brought on by deregulation. Consequently, most major union carriers have gone out of business.
 
2012-12-11 11:36:47 PM

get real: Very simply: Many of the companies the union has unionized cannot compete in a competitive market.


It's hard to compete with competition that exploits its workers.
Right now there's a trucker shortage because they can't find people who want to make $35K to spend 90% of their time away from home in a large dangerous machine.
 
2012-12-11 11:54:24 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.


And just in time for a new Democratic president not to give into them and to basically make them look bad over the next four years. The Republicans are asking for another bruising. Be funny if Obama somehow repealed Right to Work laws at a federal level.
 
2012-12-11 11:56:13 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: get real: Very simply: Many of the companies the union has unionized cannot compete in a competitive market.

It's hard to compete with competition that exploits its workers.
Right now there's a trucker shortage because they can't find people who want to make $35K to spend 90% of their time away from home in a large dangerous machine.


Not to mention pay the high price it takes to run a truck. Repairs due to poor road conditions and high gas prices make that 35k vanish very quickly.
 
2012-12-11 11:59:26 PM

zappaisfrank: Serious Post on Serious Thread: beta_plus: KellyX: jst3p: slayer199: So much for peaceful protesting:

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

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

Wow, that was uncalled for.

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

The party of peace and tolerance strikes again!

Nah, we recently got together and had a vote. We're now the party of "Shut the Fark Up You Crybaby Coservavictim Teatarded Loser Assholes Because Everyone Is Sick of Your Trite Contrived and Appallingly Boring Bullshiat So Go Choke on a Bag of Dicks"

That has a nice ring to it...I like it!

Watching Conservatism die by it's own hand...a joyous sight to behold.


It does doesn't it? Props due to David Cross & King Missel for some borrowed phrasing.
 
2012-12-12 12:04:31 AM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: zappaisfrank: Serious Post on Serious Thread: beta_plus: KellyX: jst3p: slayer199: So much for peaceful protesting:

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

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

Wow, that was uncalled for.

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

The party of peace and tolerance strikes again!

Nah, we recently got together and had a vote. We're now the party of "Shut the Fark Up You Crybaby Coservavictim Teatarded Loser Assholes Because Everyone Is Sick of Your Trite Contrived and Appallingly Boring Bullshiat So Go Choke on a Bag of Dicks"

That has a nice ring to it...I like it!

Watching Conservatism die by it's own hand...a joyous sight to behold.

It does doesn't it? Props due to David Cross & King Missel for some borrowed phrasing.


er, Missile

farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrk
 
2012-12-12 01:49:41 AM

o5iiawah: Serious Post on Serious Thread: So you openly admit that unions provide a collective good for all of society,

If a group of people want to collectively bargain for their wages, healthcare, pensions and working conditions and an employer, acting absent of any coercion or government interference desires to take the union into his shop as his source of labor, what does it matter either way what my opinion is? In this instance, the Union operates for the good of its members and those who wish not to be a part of it should be able to bargain with management for their own wage if they desire.

The notion that a faceless worker owes a pound of flesh to the Local is nonsense and you know it. There is no "ownership" of labor aside from that which is willingly relinquished by the shop owner.

Again, I argue that if Union labor is better and safer than nonunion, why do employers need to be coerced and picketed into hiring union labor? If Union membership is better than being nonunion, why are dues compulsory and if an individual doesn't want to join, they have to pay some sort of "protection" fee?

Progressivism - Ideas so good, they have to be mandatory


Supply and demand. Companies demand labor. Labor collectively supplies it. If all the qualified/available workers unite they can raise their standard of living. Its not about the company. Its about middle class standard of living.

If you can market yourself then go for it. Union isn't for you.

For a lot of tradesmen and factory workers with families or people who just arent that good at school, it raises their living wage.

History has shown that large companies will shake down the working man. Unions protect against that.

Grandpa was a union carpenter. Made $36/hour.

Dad was non union.
Never got above $20.

Unions make a difference for the working man.
 
2012-12-12 05:26:51 AM

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

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

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

They had their chance this past election:

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

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

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


'Rights should not be put up to a popular vote. That's because they are rights.' - Rachel Maddow, might be slightly paraphrased.
 
2012-12-12 08:33:35 AM
To be fair to the conservatives in this thread, the people of Michigan voted to elect these folks, knowing full well (or should have known) what their agenda would be. If they don't like the outcome there is another election in 2 years and they could express their displeasure then. Or put it on the referendum. I don't like the outcome but that really is the people of Michigan's call.

Of course conservatives needed a win because they have been getting thumped pretty hard lately, so i don't blame folks for showing some triumphalism in this thread. However, I think the smart ones among them are aware that in the long run they are farked.
 
2012-12-12 08:38:27 AM

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


Nobody is ever compelled to join a union in non-right to work states. However, RTW does initiate the use of government force to place the union shop relationship off limits. RTW diminishes employer and employee freedom by placing a particular contractual arrangement off limits.
 
2012-12-12 08:42:55 AM
I know enough union jerks that I definitely have my reservations about unions in general, but I support collective bargaining as well so I'm a bit upset about the passing of right to work here in MI. I work nearly across the street from the Capitol and after the passing of these bills everyone is spewing "Recall" after the bills were signed. If Wisconsin has taught us anything it is how expensive and difficult a recall campaign is so I propose instead up to 2 referendums that I would think are rightly referendum topics for state constitutional changes unlike most in our recent election.

1. Make Legislature and Governor pay decided by referendum. Reduce their current salaries and force the elected officials choose from the same benefits packages available to any other state employee, all plans negotiated with providers at the same time so no Cadillac plans for elected officials and table scraps for everyone else. If they want a raise it needs to again go to referendum for the people to decide if they deserve a raise, not for themselves.

2. Since they spend more time on recess than in session, make the state legislature part time instead of full time.

I'd say that most people would support the first option, I'm not sure about the 2nd one which is why I'd separate them as I don't know if they'd pass if combined. Here is a more realistic way of "getting back" in a way that is more likely to pass than individual recalls, especially how districts were gerrymandered this last cycle. Go after a reform that would be more popular on both sides of the aisle than going after an individual which would be too polarizing.
 
2012-12-12 11:01:54 AM

Leeds:
I respect the fact that you "support collective bargaining," but why does that cross over to you supporting making that mandatory for all people?

This bill didn't do a damn thing with respect to the ability for people to unionize or to pursue collective bargaining agreements. All it does is say that people can't be forced into those progra ...


It's called the "free rider" problem and it exists in many context where you have collective action to achieve a benefit for everyone. For example: insurance. If you could by insurance AFTER you got sick then it would be in your individual interest not to by insurance until that point, because prior to that you are paying into the system without getting benefit. The problem arises when everyone does this because the system can't maintain itself.

The same reasoning applies to collective bargaining. If a non-union member can reap all the benefits the union provides (negotiated higher pay, better, benefits, more vacation) while not paying into the union, they have a strong incentive to do so on an individual basis, because why pay if you get all the benefits. The problem is over time it the union would cease to exist for lack of support and then individual workers will be on their own to negotiate their employment contract. Without the power of a group of workers acting collectively in their own interest and individual worker has extremely limited bargaining power expect in rare circumstances (perhaps they possess a unique or social skill). Most workers will get farked.
 
2012-12-12 12:25:16 PM

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

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

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

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

/I voted against Lee Terry in 2010.
//Voted against Jeff Fortenberry last month.
///Didn't change sh*t.


Same here. Omaha mentality is way behind the times :(
 
2012-12-12 12:29:02 PM

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

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


That's what I used to think before I moved here. But then learned that's what they want you to think, to keep out the easily impressionable types.

Dunno about "industrialized", but modern economy, definitely. There's so much bandwidth and finance moving through this town you'd be surprised.
 
2012-12-12 12:31:43 PM

amiable: Leeds:
I respect the fact that you "support collective bargaining," but why does that cross over to you supporting making that mandatory for all people?

This bill didn't do a damn thing with respect to the ability for people to unionize or to pursue collective bargaining agreements. All it does is say that people can't be forced into those progra ...

It's called the "free rider" problem and it exists in many context where you have collective action to achieve a benefit for everyone. For example: insurance. If you could by insurance AFTER you got sick then it would be in your individual interest not to by insurance until that point, because prior to that you are paying into the system without getting benefit. The problem arises when everyone does this because the system can't maintain itself.

The same reasoning applies to collective bargaining. If a non-union member can reap all the benefits the union provides (negotiated higher pay, better, benefits, more vacation) while not paying into the union, they have a strong incentive to do so on an individual basis, because why pay if you get all the benefits. The problem is over time it the union would cease to exist for lack of support and then individual workers will be on their own to negotiate their employment contract. Without the power of a group of workers acting collectively in their own interest and individual worker has extremely limited bargaining power expect in rare circumstances (perhaps they possess a unique or social skill). Most workers will get farked.



This.

/one day I'll learn to write down what I'm thinking so it makes sense
 
2012-12-12 01:13:44 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?


Naw, he's advocating free market. A single employee can be replaced easily if they biatch about having less vacation, lower pay, higher stress and worse retirement and health plans than their union counterparts. So it would be the obvious choice for a business to cater to the union when necessary and just give anyone whos not a member the shaft. Don't like it? I can get three more of you in an afternoon. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Make sure you grab your keys, cause we're not letting you back in the building once that door closes.

It's not punishment at all. It's just common sense. You expect an employer to pay you what your worth, instead of what you'll accept? PFFFF. Call me when you move out of your mom's basement. ( I think that's what we say 'round these parts. )
 
2012-12-12 02:29:13 PM

jst3p: 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.


You get out of the Omaha/Lincoln areas, and it gets really bad in the rest of the state. But all the dummies working crap jobs out in the sticks keep voting RTW... I don't even think they are embarrassed millionaires, just brainwashed.
 
2012-12-12 03:47:08 PM

Leeds: Some idiot on this thread said that Democrats never rammed things through


It was you. You were that idiot. You had to say that so that you could then argue against it. It was all very confusing to be honest.

Point is, you're EXTRAORDINARILY MISTAKEN ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE DEBATE SURROUNDING THE PASSAGE OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

Fix that before you use it as an example of... frankly anything.
 
2012-12-12 05:43:31 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tragedy of the Commons. Look it up.


This has nothing to do with the Tragedy of the commons. ToC implies scarce resources and an "honor system" among parties to use those resources with no immediate penalty for temporary overuse.

At least try to know what you're talking about.

Sergeant Grumbles: Also stupid question. Unions have to negotiate even for non-members. There's no downside to being a free rider, and the union may as well try to get dues if they have to represent them anyway.


Again, the NRA and ACLU will spend millions of dollars in court representing those who dont pay dues. There are dozens of examples of organizations that benefit non-members and encourage those who benefit to contribute. I'm just curious as to where the "rights" of a group trumped the right of an individual to own his own labor.

pornopose: For a lot of tradesmen and factory workers with families or people who just arent that good at school, it raises their living wage.

History has shown that large companies will shake down the working man. Unions protect against that.

Grandpa was a union carpenter. Made $36/hour.

Dad was non union.
Never got above $20.

Unions make a difference for the working man


For a lot of people who are looking for work, the Union has set a wage floor where the shop cant bring someone else in unless the value of their labor meets the union wage demand. The problem with creating a wage floor is that similar to the minimum wage, you increase the pool of available labor since their skills might not merit the wage. As the pool of labor grows, the natural tendency is for wages to fall since the workers have to lower their asking price to compete with one another for scarce jobs.

Dont believe me? Look up the unemployment rate for people in Non-RTW states with low skills.
 
2012-12-12 08:42:06 PM

o5iiawah: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tragedy of the Commons. Look it up.

This has nothing to do with the Tragedy of the commons. ToC implies scarce resources and an "honor system" among parties to use those resources with no immediate penalty for temporary overuse.

At least try to know what you're talking about.

Sergeant Grumbles: Also stupid question. Unions have to negotiate even for non-members. There's no downside to being a free rider, and the union may as well try to get dues if they have to represent them anyway.

Again, the NRA and ACLU will spend millions of dollars in court representing those who dont pay dues. There are dozens of examples of organizations that benefit non-members and encourage those who benefit to contribute. I'm just curious as to where the "rights" of a group trumped the right of an individual to own his own labor.

pornopose: For a lot of tradesmen and factory workers with families or people who just arent that good at school, it raises their living wage.

History has shown that large companies will shake down the working man. Unions protect against that.

Grandpa was a union carpenter. Made $36/hour.

Dad was non union.
Never got above $20.

Unions make a difference for the working man

For a lot of people who are looking for work, the Union has set a wage floor where the shop cant bring someone else in unless the value of their labor meets the union wage demand. The problem with creating a wage floor is that similar to the minimum wage, you increase the pool of available labor since their skills might not merit the wage. As the pool of labor grows, the natural tendency is for wages to fall since the workers have to lower their asking price to compete with one another for scarce jobs.

Dont believe me? Look up the unemployment rate for people in Non-RTW states with low skills.


Ignoring your inability to parse the application of the tragedy of the commons, yr post to pornpose is pure economic ignorance. As the labor pool grows, so does farking demand, and ability to sustain it so long as a living wage and expansion of production is possible. So unless you are literally out of a limited resource you are full of crap and have no idea what a basic understanding of elastic markets entails.
 
2012-12-12 09:42:26 PM

o5iiawah: Again, the NRA and ACLU will spend millions of dollars in court representing those who dont pay dues. There are dozens of examples of organizations that benefit non-members and encourage those who benefit to contribute.


Irrelevant. The ACLU and NRA aren't unions, and aren't confined to a specific industry. Or in the words of Morbo: UNIONS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"

o5iiawah: I'm just curious as to where the "rights" of a group trumped the right of an individual to own his own labor.


It never did. Don't like the union? Don't work there. So simple it's supposed to work for Wal-Mart employees. Or better yet, start your own business that doesn't use union labor. I'm told starting your own business is the solution to every woe.
I'm more curious why you think the government needs to step in to abrogate and forbid a contract between two private entities.
 
2012-12-12 10:12:11 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: unless you are literally out of a limited resource


I'm not sure if "out", or merely "peak" suffices. You might look into some of the speculation about the Hubbert peak on oil, and the old "Limits to Growth" stuff from the early 1970s. (Though the technical "Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World" is a better read; contrariwise,harder to find.)

Just a quibble, though.
 
2012-12-12 11:17:54 PM

abb3w: Serious Post on Serious Thread: unless you are literally out of a limited resource

I'm not sure if "out", or merely "peak" suffices. You might look into some of the speculation about the Hubbert peak on oil, and the old "Limits to Growth" stuff from the early 1970s. (Though the technical "Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World" is a better read; contrariwise,harder to find.)

Just a quibble, though.


thats a totally different issue. well, mostly dif issue, like outta land to live or build on, rare
 
2012-12-13 03:14:44 PM
Alphax
'Rights should not be put up to a popular vote. That's because they are rights.' - Rachel Maddow, might be slightly paraphrased.

So why did the unions do it?


amiable
To be fair to the conservatives in this thread, the people of Michigan voted to elect these folks, knowing full well (or should have known) what their agenda would be.

That's not an argument in favor of shutting up and going home, but an argument against electoral democracy.


beerdini
I work nearly across the street from the Capitol and after the passing of these bills everyone is spewing "Recall" after the bills were signed.

well then they are doomed.

I propose instead up to 2 referendums

Gosh, putting it up to a vote didn't work in Wisconsin... I know! Let's try putting it up to a vote!


Sergeant Grumbles
Irrelevant. The ACLU and NRA aren't unions, and aren't confined to a specific industry. Or in the words of Morbo: UNIONS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"

Maybe they should.
 
2012-12-13 06:07:33 PM

Leeds: BeesNuts: Leeds: Some idiot on this thread said that Democrats never rammed things through

It was you. You were that idiot. You had to say that so that you could then argue against it. It was all very confusing to be honest.

Point is, you're EXTRAORDINARILY MISTAKEN ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE DEBATE SURROUNDING THE PASSAGE OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

Fix that before you use it as an example of... frankly anything.

You sir are an challenged.

To back that statement up I'll point out that the "debate" surrounding the affordable care act was unrelated to the underhanded way it was rammed through. You can say whatever the hell you want about the debate that led up to Nancy Pelosi doing an end run but you can't suggest that it's the same topic.

Now go feel bad about yourself for your inability to grasp the topic you have chosen to weigh in on.


So you *are* mistaken about the nature of the debate, and you recognize that the entire topic of the debate around ACA was brought up by you.

Enjoy arguing with yourself in the future.

img845.imageshack.us
 
Displayed 26 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