Michigan Governor Close To Signing Unpopular Union Busting L

[Reality]

"It's really about freedom to choose," he said. "It's about sticking up for the workers in our state. We need workplace equality and fairness, and that's what this legislation is about."

Isn't "equality and fairness" the core principle of dem philosphy. So why are the dems against this. Share the wealth, share the job. What's the difference?

http://autos.aol.com/article/michigan-r ... d%3D243348

[O Really]

The "union shop" has always been for the purpose of assuring that everyone in a company that has voted in a union pays for the representation and resultant pay and benefits they get; and, of course, to have a solid inflow of dues from all people working in the company that voted in a union.

"Right to Work" laws are and always have been a method of reducing union power by cutting off at least part of their revenue and encouraging discord between union members and those receiving the union benefits without paying dues.

In states where unions have traditionally been strong, such as Michigan, "union shops" are legal. In states where unions have not been strong and the legislatures want to do whatever they can to keep it that way, "right to work" laws are in effect.

Fighting unions from an employer standpoint is an issue of control in the workplace. Fighting unions in the legislature is a political issue driven by Republicans who don't typically get much union money.

Non-union Dems often support union causes because most unions can be counted on to support Dem candidates and causes.

Interesting that in Michigan, like Wisconsin, police and firefighters are exempt from the changes in the law, showing without question that it's politically motivated, having nothing to do with "sticking up for the workers in our state" nor anything to do with "workplace equality and fairness." Simple political economics. You guys don't give us any campaign money, we're going to try to shut you down.

[Reality]

So O'Really, what's your explanation for the surge in right to work states. If unions are that great for the workers, why the change? If skilled based wages and saftey were the only issues involved I think there would be more support for unions but their greed has gone to far.

Haven't government labor laws replaced a lot of what the unions used to force on employers?

[O Really]

So O'Really, what's your explanation for the surge in right to work states. If unions are that great for the workers, why the change? If skilled based wages and saftey were the only issues involved I think there would be more support for unions but their greed has gone to far.

Haven't government labor laws replaced a lot of what the unions used to force on employers?

Labor laws have improved working conditions in many ways, but probably more important is that employers have learned over the years that if they manage better, they can avoid having a union. So the percentage of union employees is down to about 11% from about 50% in the 50's. Union avoidance isn't rocket surgery, but it does take some effort. The companies who make that effort will remain non-union.

Whether unions are good for employees is a matter of what company or industry you have. In progressive companies, unions wouldn't add much value, and would contribute to an unnecessarily adversarial relationship. In some industries, however, who apparently haven't gotten the memo that indentured servitude isn't the way to go, unions can get a foothold and, if voted in, can make a positive difference. Executives get a lawyer to negotiate a contract on their behalf. You hire a real estate agent to sell your house or find one for you. Why is it inherently evil for employees to be represented if their situation calls for it?

In industries that have a long history of unionism, such as the auto industry, there is more than just a labor-management issue. It's more of a culture matter - both from the point of view of the company as well as the employees. If my ol' man and his ol' man before him were union men, I'm not going to be easily swayed to vote out an existing union - although I might not necessarily vote for one if starting from a blank page.

No need to get onto a "greed" direction. It's all economic and control. A union is a corporation, just like the corporations in which its members work. That means they're "persons" I guess, but in any case are entitled to seek as much income/profit as any other corporation.

[Colonel Taylor]

Unions were the greatest thing this country ever had for workers! But they ruined it for them self by becoming their own entity and they no longer represent anything but their own dollar. Anyone who has been involved with the working end of unions for the last 20 plus years can see this. Skilled labor should be treated just as that and will for the most part be fine, but there's to many who get way over paid for unskilled work putting a burden on others. Not every job is a career and that's what union employees want. I've seen unions talk dishwashers and housekeeping folk into striking for a lousy .10 cents per hour. They should have been asking for $2.00 per hour more then talked strike. It's all about the unions not the members. The last two places I was involved in had unions and they made much less then the non-union stores/buildings.

So O'Really, what's your explanation for the surge in right to work states. If unions are that great for the workers, why the change? If skilled based wages and saftey were the only issues involved I think there would be more support for unions but their greed has gone to far.

Haven't government labor laws replaced a lot of what the unions used to force on employers?

Labor laws have improved working conditions in many ways, but probably more important is that employers have learned over the years that if they manage better, they can avoid having a union. So the percentage of union employees is down to about 11% from about 50% in the 50's. Union avoidance isn't rocket surgery, but it does take some effort. The companies who make that effort will remain non-union.

Whether unions are good for employees is a matter of what company or industry you have. In progressive companies, unions wouldn't add much value, and would contribute to an unnecessarily adversarial relationship. In some industries, however, who apparently haven't gotten the memo that indentured servitude isn't the way to go, unions can get a foothold and, if voted in, can make a positive difference. Executives get a lawyer to negotiate a contract on their behalf. You hire a real estate agent to sell your house or find one for you. Why is it inherently evil for employees to be represented if their situation calls for it?

In industries that have a long history of unionism, such as the auto industry, there is more than just a labor-management issue. It's more of a culture matter - both from the point of view of the company as well as the employees. If my ol' man and his ol' man before him were union men, I'm not going to be easily swayed to vote out an existing union - although I might not necessarily vote for one if starting from a blank page.

No need to get onto a "greed" direction. It's all economic and control. A union is a corporation, just like the corporations in which its members work. That means they're "persons" I guess, but in any case are entitled to seek as much income/profit as any other corporation.

[O Really]

No surprise the Colonel has had unhappy experiences with unions. Wouldn't want to break the never-ending chain of woe, would we? Retail owners, government offices, post offices, repair workers - I guess "they see him coming."

[Colonel Taylor]

Leaving aside your opinions -

...Anyone who has been involved with the working end of unions for the last 20 plus years can see this...

- is a lie. We're used to it.

Says the forum liar.

Colonel Taylor wrote:
LOL I am not or never was either of those posters and Banni I'm sure can verify that by the addresses.

Vrede wrote:
They have the same IP address as "Colonel Taylor", plus there's the telltale illiteracy. Do you really think we don't talk about it when you try to be sleazy and then whine about others using aliases?

[O Really]

BTW, Colonel, I've been involved with "the working end" of unions for over 20 years, 90% representing management, and I don't "see this" that "they no longer represent anything but their own dollar."

As to the "unions talk dishwashers...into strike over .10 an hour" I'm sure your recall is as accurate as ever. But if they did that, I'd agree it was a pretty rotten union. Strikes are hardly ever over wages, because strikers in an "economic strike" can be permanently replaced. Strikers in an "unfair labor strike" cannot be permanently replaced. So unless the union was totally and irretrievably incompetent, there were probably more issues involved than the dime an hour. And if they were all that incompetent, it sorta eliminates them being puppet masters enriching themselves on the backs of the workers, doesn't it?

[O Really]

What - I'm not reasonable?

[Reality]

Another thread trashed!

[rstrong]

Here's a good column on the issue. It doesn't pull any punches against the unions either.
Neil Macdonald: The right to work for less

[O Really]

It is an interesting article, but not entirely accurate in some aspects. The "employment at will" provisions do indeed say that an employer can terminate an employee for any reason or no reason, but there is a caveat attached that says "as long as it's not an illegal reason." So the "fair" part in the Maryland law doesn't actually apply to a true violation of the NLRA, but applies to a more generic concept of "fair." And yes, you could theoretically fire someone for "no reason" but most juries don't believe you'd actually do that so if the claim is that you fired him for his race, age, disability, etc., you won't get far with a defence that ONLY says "no reason."

Part of the reason the real "Norma Rae" south is mostly gone is that companies such as "Norma Rae's" JP Stevens are no longer there. The textile and clothing industries were the worst offenders (at least in places that didn't have coal mines) and now they're largely gone and in many instances replaced with more progressive employers. Without unions and/or the threat of unions, a lot of companies would still be like JP Stevens. While the actual existence of a union within a given employer is a good thing or not can be debatable, but their value as a deterrent to excessively autocratic management in undeniable.

[O Really]

10,000 people protesting futilely at the Michigan statehouse. All this union-busting has probably drawn more favorable attention to unions than anything in the last 20 years. But what were these people expecting when they elected enough Republicans to be a majority? All light and cheer and good tidings to all? Coal in their stockings is what they should have expected and what they're getting.

[Supsalemgr]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-1 ... dues-bills

The thugs have arrived . Not a peaceful protest at all and tore down a tent Americans For Prosperity had set up.

[O Really]

From the link... "Bill Bagwell, a 55-year-old UAW member from Westland, said the measure would create friction at his General Motors Co. (GM) plant in Ypsilanti. Members who pay union dues would detest those who enjoy the benefits of the contract but don’t contribute, he said.

“It’ll create civil war,” Bagwell said."

Exactly what the Republicans hoped to accomplish.

[Supsalemgr]

Nice rationalization. So destroying someone else's property is just fine with Vrede.

[Reality]

O'really said "All this union-busting has probably drawn more favorable attention to unions than anything in the last 20 years."

“It’ll create civil war,” Bagwell said." Favorable attention O'Really?

O'really said in response to Bagwell's comment "Exactly what the Republicans hoped to accomplish." Talk about a wing nut comment and none of this could be the union's fault. Nope, if it's not Bush's fault it's the republican's fault. O'really, in your mind is anything ever a democrat's fault.



SSM said "So destroying someone else's property is just fine with Vrede." You bet SSM. Protest and civil unrest has been her life's work.

[Supsalemgr]

Nice rationalization.

Nice dodge. It wasn't a rationalization, it was a response to your, "thugs...Not a peaceful protest".

More "twist & shout" BS from Vrede.

So destroying someone else's property is just fine with Vrede.

To be accurate (I know you hate that), your article doesn't say the tent was destroyed, it says "tearing down" and "the tent went down". As for signs at a rally of over 10,000 union supporters saying, “Stop feeding the union pigs,” what the hell do you expect? Would you not punch someone in the nose that called you a "pig" in front of your family?

...Protest

And lobbying, education, "regular" activism, and healthcare.

and civil unrest

Never managed that one.

has been her life's work.

What have you done for your country that you weren't being paid for?

I think such actions are counter-productive, hence the appearance in the article, but I'm also not "fine" with the Koch assault on livelihoods, or with Republicans not campaigning on what they intended to do, enacting lame duck legislation without hearings (!) after suffering losses at the polls, and deliberately crafting legislation so it cannot be overturned by referendum. Are all these things "fine" with you guys?

[Reality]

Vred said to me "What have you done for your country that you weren't being paid for?" Depending on the situation it wasn't enough but...

..the next time I see my squadron mates that spent over 6 years as a POW, I'll ask them. The same question to the 3 that didn't come back will have to wait.

[rstrong]

Not a peaceful protest at all and tore down a tent Americans For Prosperity had set up.

Not that I condone that sort of thing, but Americans For Prosperity is a law-abiding organization only in the sense that the Hell's Angels are a law-abiding organization. It's simply a long series of misunderstandings when they sent absentee voter applications in Democrat-controlled swing-states instructing voters to return the paperwork two days late, or to the wrong address, or when they repeatedly violate their tax-exempt status.

Their business is to tell the lies and play the dirty tricks that Republican politicians don't want to get their own hands dirty with. I'll shed as many tears for them as I would for the Hell's Angels, KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church or the old Teamsters at their worst.