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 73
    More: Amusing, Democrats, John Dingell, Muslims and Jews, Michigan Republicans, union shops  
•       •       •

4995 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-11 09:21:53 AM
7 votes:

jbuist: Klippoklondike: People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.

I don't understand this argument. The RTW stuff has been lobbied for for at least a year or two. It was not a new idea. They put any work on hold when Prop 2 hit the ballot because that would have made RTW unconstitutional. So, when Prop 2 failed they whisked RTW on through.

I'm not sure what people wanted. Another year to debate the merits of such a law? *shrug*


Several things:

First, it's a lame duck session trying to ram it through before the session is up, which rankles people.
Second, they passed it as a spending bill which means that it can't be brought up as a public referendum, which enrages people.

They're basically telling the people "Fark you, we're doing this and you can't stop us." It's pretty typical GOP tactics where they drop a turd in the punch bowl and the Democrats have to waste time fishing it out.
2012-12-11 11:10:34 AM
4 votes:

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


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

Every day I get more and more annoyed at liberals who sat out the 2010 elections to "send a message". Message received morons.
2012-12-11 11:52:08 AM
3 votes:
I'm fine with right to Work, as long as the non-union employees are fine negotiating for their own salaries, their own sick days, vacations, benefits, and employment. They get no help from the union, and don't get union wages by default.
/no free rides.
2012-12-11 11:50:18 AM
3 votes:

Cythraul: That might be a good thing.


In Germany worker's rights are written into their Constitution. German automakers (nearly all of which are unionized) earn twice what their American counterparts make and yet, as if by magic, these German firms are still quite profitable.

When you cooperate and collaborate with your workers it becomes a race to the top and everyone wins, as they have in Germany. In the states it has become a race to the bottom. What a surprise, then, that wages have been stagnant for 30 years while wealthiest have more money then god. What a surprise, then, that the middle class has no damn money left to purchase things beyond necessities, and our economy is sputtering along with little aggregate demand to support it.
2012-12-11 01:40:43 PM
2 votes:

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 01:29:53 PM
2 votes:

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 12:25:19 PM
2 votes:
The most ironic thing about all of this is that the "Party of Personal Responsibility" is encouraging workers to mooch off the union and be freeloaders.
2012-12-11 12:18:25 PM
2 votes:

Il Douchey: Michigan isn't prohibiting unions, it's just allowing workers to decide if they want to belong to them. Of course unions want the power to compel membership, it's so much easier than having to persuade people that voluntarily joining is in their best interest.

/Don't just demand union allegiance, earn it. -Good luck with that


No, that's not what rtw does. It mandates that unions have to offer their collective bargaining services free of charge.

It such a law were targeting any other group, we'd call it what its really is: government mandated slavery.
2012-12-11 12:14:24 PM
2 votes:
jst3p: verbaltoxin: People keep going, "RTW are dumb, hurr," but Nebraska is showing on those charts to be both successful (Lower unemployment % than the national average for the last 2 years at least), is competently literate compared to blue states, and is right to work.

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


---------------

Nebraska does well economically thanks to Con Agra, who is poisoning America with HFCS.
2012-12-11 11:40:09 AM
2 votes:

Mrbogey: Mentat: As usual, it will be the Democrats who are left to clean up the mess.

Out of curiosity, can you name some cities where Dems have cleaned it up?


Austin, Seattle, and Denver come to mind. Ann Arbor is also a technically a city, although a tiny ass one.
2012-12-11 10:37:38 AM
2 votes:

Snarfangel: If you piss them off now, they'll vote twice as hard in the next election.


But the idea is to cripple them financially. The largest financial supporters of conservative candidates are billionaires, Karl Rove types, and other conservative PACs. The largest financial supporters of liberal candidates are unions. Cripple the unions, and you can drown out the liberal voices. Republicans aren't playing to win the next election, they're playing to win every election for the next 30 years.
2012-12-11 10:17:48 AM
2 votes:

Mentat: Cythraul: Can someone post a graph that shows the economic prosperity state-by-state in regards as to which states have what in the ways of labor laws?

I'm willing to bet the right-to-work states are the poorest.

Economists: Right-to-work states have lower-income residents, poor labor relations


I'm shocked! Maybe someone should remind the good people of Michigan that this is what they're fighting for.
2012-12-11 09:55:19 AM
2 votes:

Cythraul: Can someone post a graph that shows the economic prosperity state-by-state in regards as to which states have what in the ways of labor laws?

I'm willing to bet the right-to-work states are the poorest.


Economists: Right-to-work states have lower-income residents, poor labor relations
2012-12-11 09:40:53 AM
2 votes:

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


so you're pro-choice, pro-gay marriage AND pro-legalization of cannabis?

huh. go figure.
2012-12-11 09:31:09 AM
2 votes:
Can someone post a graph that shows the economic prosperity state-by-state in regards as to which states have what in the ways of labor laws?

I'm willing to bet the right-to-work states are the poorest.
2012-12-11 09:22:54 AM
2 votes:

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


So you're on board with abortion rights and gay marriage?

Noted.
2012-12-11 09:21:15 AM
2 votes:

jbuist: I'm not sure what people wanted. Another year to debate the merits of such a law? *shrug*


Governor Snyder urged the unions not to push forward on Prop 2. When they did it anyway and Prop 2 was defeated, the political backlash moved RTW to the front of the line. The GOP has significant majorities in the state house, state senate, a majority on the State Supreme Court, and the Governorship...in a state that's been blue for Presidential elections since 1992 and has 2 Democratic Senators.. Basically, they'd never have another shot at this where everything aligns in their favor. Additionally, polling puts 51-54% of Michigan citizens in favor of RTW.
2012-12-11 09:07:17 AM
2 votes:
Michigan isn't prohibiting unions, it's just allowing workers to decide if they want to belong to them. Of course unions want the power to compel membership, it's so much easier than having to persuade people that voluntarily joining is in their best interest.

/Don't just demand union allegiance, earn it. -Good luck with that
2012-12-12 05:43:31 PM
1 votes:

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 11:01:54 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-11 10:36:20 PM
1 votes:

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
2012-12-11 07:57:24 PM
1 votes:
I worked for a union shop in Kansas (right to work) and it was a mess. The people that did payroll hated the right to work thing because they had to keep track of who to take union dues out and who not to. The part that really pissed the union people off is the non members did absolutely nothing to stand up for themselves and not even paying dues, if there was a grievance, the union had to fight for them. As far as I'm concerned, these people are parasites. Cry when they have trouble, screw their fellow worker.
2012-12-11 07:30:07 PM
1 votes:

DeathByGeekSquad: To clarify - are you suggesting that it will decrease the overall job market in MI?


You'll need to define the phrase "overall job market". If you tell me that you'll lose a thousand skilled manufacturing jobs and replace them with ten thousand retail jobs at big box stores, I'd call that a net loss.
2012-12-11 06:46:35 PM
1 votes:
They've at least learned to omit cops and firefighters... for now.
2012-12-11 06:41:11 PM
1 votes:
Will this law effect the shining beacon of industry that is Detroit?
2012-12-11 05:51:04 PM
1 votes:

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


Now the lawyers get involved.
2012-12-11 05:42:59 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


Or you are gullible and believe everything the company PR department tells you.
2012-12-11 05:27:22 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Leeds: Are you saying that I couldn't make my case to my employer that I could create more wealth for the company than a lazy union member and thus I am worthy of a higher salary than the union members that they have a contract with?

Yes, I think it's hysterical that you think you can bargain for a wage higher than a union worker in the same occupation as you.


They'd laugh at him and tell him to go away.
2012-12-11 05:00:29 PM
1 votes:

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

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

You union scum really make me sick.


yay! Let's dehumanize each other!

Farking idiots.

/plural
2012-12-11 04:28:40 PM
1 votes:

Leeds: bikerific: Leeds: Right to work legislation makes it illegal for an outside group to block you from working if you and your employer have come to an employment agreement.


While still allowing you the reap the benefits that unions have obtained.

For a little while, anyway.

I never understood the line you have just parroted.

What does a union member's benefits have to do with a worker's benefits if the worker doesn't join the union but instead signs a contract with the employer?



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

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

Maybe read the Grapes of Wrath?

/I have not read the Grapes of Wrath.
2012-12-11 04:27:22 PM
1 votes:
IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!
2012-12-11 04:15:34 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?
2012-12-11 04:13:23 PM
1 votes:

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

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


I think we can all agree that a poorly run union is bad for everyone. Unfortunately the arguments of the anti-union crowd are based on the idea that unions are predominantly badly run. This is not as common an occurrence as you think. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of locals in North America that work with management to balance the needs of the company with the needs of the workers. Those negotiations, however, never make the news.
2012-12-11 04:00:21 PM
1 votes:

Leeds: Mrtraveler01: Leeds: Are you saying that I couldn't make my case to my employer that I could create more wealth for the company than a lazy union member and thus I am worthy of a higher salary than the union members that they have a contract with?

Yes, I think it's hysterical that you think you can bargain for a wage higher than a union worker in the same occupation as you.

Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary.

Is capitalism entirely foreign to commies like you?


If a person has to state that they are not lazy, then it can be pretty much accepted they are.
2012-12-11 03:40:48 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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


If a company closes because they can't afford to pay their employees what they're worth, then that responsibility falls squarely on poor management.
2012-12-11 03:37:01 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


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

Do you honestly want to try and make the argument that companies do this out of the goodness of their hearts? No, it's because union labor IS more valuable, higher-quality labor.
2012-12-11 03:36:09 PM
1 votes:

Leeds: Magorn: Job Creator: Weaver95: Leeds:
Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary./i>

so what happens when your boss decides that you cost too much? he fires you and then hires 4 or 5 H1B visa workers to do your job...but he keeps the union workers because he can't get rid of them without tanking the corporate profits for the quarter.

hey, the boss made money right? yay capitalism!

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

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

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

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


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

Look at the mass layoffs Citigroup and Dell did recently. Do you suppose they individually evaluated all 11,000 people they fired and dropped the chaff and kept the good ones? Or do you think somebody drew a line on a salary chart and said "everybody making more than X doing job Y goes"?
2012-12-11 03:26:31 PM
1 votes:

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


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

Hint - if your opening includes "Hostess", you're in for a surprise.
2012-12-11 03:06:02 PM
1 votes:

Leeds: amiable:

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

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


You literally just cited a litany of social changes that would not have happened but for unions. /facepalm
2012-12-11 02:49:13 PM
1 votes:

Job Creator: Weaver95: Leeds:
Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary./i>

so what happens when your boss decides that you cost too much? he fires you and then hires 4 or 5 H1B visa workers to do your job...but he keeps the union workers because he can't get rid of them without tanking the corporate profits for the quarter.

hey, the boss made money right? yay capitalism!

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


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

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

So a couple calls get made, hero-worker gets canned just before his retirement options vest and replaced with a kid just out of school with nominally the same qualifications he had but who is willing to work a lot cheaper. The middle manager gets a pat on the back from the CEO, and the worker who was fired for doing such a great job is calling into Rush Limbaugh saying how the Obama Administration's health Care plan cost him his job and it was OBVIOUSLY affirmative action that caused the company to replace him with a Hispanic kid half his age who clearly wasn't as qualified as him...
2012-12-11 02:29:40 PM
1 votes:

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


It's just... everyone always rags on the South. Everyone there is stupid, everyone there is fat etc. I just can't help but feel there's a tinge of racism in these accusations.
2012-12-11 02:03:53 PM
1 votes:

Leeds: Anti_illuminati: Leeds: Not everyone who joins a union is lazy, but everyone who stays in one sure is.

Like career 911 dispatchers, police officers and fire fighters?

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


You're a terrible person troll, you know that?
2012-12-11 01:51:35 PM
1 votes:

Leeds: jst3p: Leeds: Mrtraveler01: Leeds: Are you saying that I couldn't make my case to my employer that I could create more wealth for the company than a lazy union member and thus I am worthy of a higher salary than the union members that they have a contract with?

Yes, I think it's hysterical that you think you can bargain for a wage higher than a union worker in the same occupation as you.

Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary.

Is capitalism entirely foreign to commies like you?

How are you going to move the assembly line faster?

I suspect I'd start by seeing if it was driven by a VFD, if it is I'd increase the signal going to it by bumping it up a milliamp or so.

If it was belt or gear driven I'd look to change the drive ratio to increase the speed.


Thank you for your contribution, you're fired.
2012-12-11 01:40:27 PM
1 votes:

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 01:30:20 PM
1 votes:

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 01:23:05 PM
1 votes:

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 01:19:13 PM
1 votes:
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 01:17:36 PM
1 votes:
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 01:13:43 PM
1 votes:

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 01:09:37 PM
1 votes:

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 12:59:30 PM
1 votes:

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 12:48:49 PM
1 votes:
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 12:44:11 PM
1 votes:
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 12:32:48 PM
1 votes:

beta_plus: If this passes, the tears of liberal butt hurt shall be most delicious.


And this is why mitt Romney lost: because the gop is willing to gut the middle class purely out of partisan spite.
2012-12-11 12:29:43 PM
1 votes:
In my opinion if a worker chooses not to belong to the union yet work at the union shop, then their pay and benefits should not be on par with those negotiated by the union for the union members. Rather they should be paid the average non-union wage for that field as determined by the non-union labor market, and anything more they would have to negotiate as an induvidual with no leverage since the boss can fire them without a given reason.

If anything, it would let the "right to work law" supporters know quicky the ramifications of their actions. The whole purpose of "right to work laws" are to lower all wages and eliminate worker's rights across the board, in order to pad corporate profits at the expense of the worker.
2012-12-11 12:29:39 PM
1 votes:

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


Republicans: interfering with the free labor market for their corporate benefactors.
2012-12-11 12:18:57 PM
1 votes:

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

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


---------------

Nebraska does well economically thanks to Con Agra, who is poisoning America with HFCS.

You mean the same ConAgra that's taking it out of their products, and announcing so on their packaging? Pick up a bottle of Hunt's ketchup sometime.

/Seriously, it's not hard to look this stuff up.


Our putting it back in: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Market/ConAgra-switches-back-to-HFCS- in-Hunt-s-ketchup-citing-lackluster-demand

/something about looking things up
2012-12-11 12:11:25 PM
1 votes:

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


Because when I think thriving industrialized and modern economy, I think "Nebraska"!
2012-12-11 12:06:43 PM
1 votes:
jst3p: Fat, dumb, and poor, seem to be Southern virtues.


-----------


After a couple of decades in GA, I can confirm this. My ex's family is from 'round here, and average a divorce a year, a marriage a year and see it as normal that their 14 year old girls date men in their 20s. I get why people fark 14 year old girls from GA, because in just a few years they will be morbidly obese.
2012-12-11 11:53:03 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

They had their chance this past election:

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

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

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


Most of the people I know were against amending the state constitution for any reason... It's why all three of the ballot proposals aimed at amending the constitution didn't pass.
2012-12-11 11:47:15 AM
1 votes:

jsteiner78: Am am pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-gay marriage and pro-RTW -

I do not believe that ones decision to consent to a contract between themselves and an employer should require an additional contract between themselves and a labor union.

They should fully be allowed to enter than contract with the union if they choose, and their employer should not be able to discriminate against that employee because of that association. A laborer has a right to organize with his peers, but should not be made to -


The thing I hate about RTW is that it essentially drains the power from the unions because people would be able to enjoy the same perks that the union provides without having to pay dues. That is until they get so weak and powerless that they essentially fade out leaving employers in total control. 

It really should be called "Right-To-Be-A-Freeloader but then again that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
2012-12-11 11:43:42 AM
1 votes:
Am am pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-gay marriage and pro-RTW -

I do not believe that ones decision to consent to a contract between themselves and an employer should require an additional contract between themselves and a labor union.

They should fully be allowed to enter than contract with the union if they choose, and their employer should not be able to discriminate against that employee because of that association. A laborer has a right to organize with his peers, but should not be made to -
2012-12-11 11:38:34 AM
1 votes:
Why is this called "right-to-work?" It sounds like the sickest twisting of words considering what it does.
2012-12-11 11:37:19 AM
1 votes:

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

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


In hindsight, attempting to enshrine collective bargaining in the state constitution at this time was a stupid farking move. It failed miserable, showed weakness, and the Republicans jumped on it. The unions should have waited till they at least either enough Dems in the legislature to protect them from blowback or a Dem governor to veto it.

The big problem with Dem strategists in Michigan is they all think they're still living in the glory days of unions and can do whatever they want and then go get rubber stamped at the polls. In reality~16% of this state is unionized and union discipline isn't as strong as it once was.

When the Dems stay moderate they have no issues winning elections, but when they get lazy we end up with Republican governors and the like.

/Stabenow actually was just far enough to the left she was on course for an ass kicking this election cycle
//until the Republicans nominated Hoekstra and Stabenow suddenly became awesome in comparison to that farkhead
2012-12-11 11:35:47 AM
1 votes:

minoridiot: Those sort of lists are silly because they imply some sort of correlation.


No, they display correlation. The word you're looking for is causation.
2012-12-11 11:33:51 AM
1 votes:
Maybe if they hadn't tried to ram it through in a lame-duck session, Michigan Democrats and the unions wouldn't be so upset.

Why is it that whenever the Republicans do stuff like this, they have to resort to legislative trickery, suppression of opposition, and lame-duck sessions to get it done?
2012-12-11 09:49:59 AM
1 votes:

Diogenes: Weaver95: BillCo: You'll get over it.

I don't think so. this law bypassed the normal process of democracy and the local GOP has been extremely heavy handed about passing it. the Republicans have already damaged their brand in this fight. passing that law will tell Democrats (and third parties) that the GOP isn't interested in democracy anymore, they're just in it for the money and power.

Yeah, I have to admit I'm of mixed minds on right-to-work. But the way this was done is offensive. Let the people choose.


even if you agree with the theory behind the law you STILL have to admit that the GOP's implementation of it was NOT proper. they rushed it through, locked civilians out of the state capital and shut down any attempts to debate its merits. this thing was pushed through last minute and in a very questionable manner. it's smash mouth politics, and its going to piss voters off.
2012-12-11 09:38:49 AM
1 votes:

BillCo: You'll get over it.


I don't think so. this law bypassed the normal process of democracy and the local GOP has been extremely heavy handed about passing it. the Republicans have already damaged their brand in this fight. passing that law will tell Democrats (and third parties) that the GOP isn't interested in democracy anymore, they're just in it for the money and power.
2012-12-11 09:18:48 AM
1 votes:
Democrats: People don't deserve the right to choose!
2012-12-11 08:38:11 AM
1 votes:

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

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


You are right. People will have to let their votes be heard next election cycle.
2012-12-11 08:33:20 AM
1 votes:

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


Doesn't matter, the GOP has the power in the state and they're going to take advantage of it.
2012-12-11 08:29:19 AM
1 votes:

BillCo: You'll get over it.


No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.
2012-12-11 08:12:24 AM
1 votes:
Right to work laws in Michigan?

That's not gonna end well.
 
Displayed 73 of 73 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report