• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Michigan - Unions will no longer run our state

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,189
4,841
136
Just because something has a certain historical origin doesn't mean times haven't changed. I am very grateful for some of the benefits every worker (union or not) enjoys because of what unions did in the past. That doesn't mean they are still beneficial/useful/needed today.
So you don't think that what is going on in the Republican statehouses is not a coordnated effort to chip away at the ability of people who acutally work for a living (not collecting dividends) to have any control over working situations i.e. collectively bargain. And don't give me this narcissitic "I am the best their is in my profession and I should be able to bargain my own wages as I see fit" shit.

In the real world numbers count. If working people can't organize which is power, all you going to see is the continuing erosion of the middle class.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
So you don't think that what is going on in the Republican statehouses is not a coordnated effort to chip away at the ability of people who acutally work for a living (not collecting dividends) to have any control over working situations i.e. collectively bargain.
That's quite a leap of logic to equate not forcing someone to join a union if they don't want to (what a concept, make your own choices!) with some coordinated vast right wing conspiracy to destroy the middle class. Now if they were passing laws banning unions, I'd agree with you, but that's simply not the case.

You still refuse to acknowledge the core issue: if the union added overall benefit, why would you need to force people to join one when they don't want to?
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Tennesee is a right to work state. Every few years the UAW tries to get Nissan employees to become unionized. Each time a vote is taken by the employees they have given the UAW a thumbs down. The management of Nissan has no say in it. The employees are the ones making the decision.

Nissan would have probably never opened a very large north American manufacturing facility here in the state if they knew that anyone they hired would be required to join a union.
Do those workers make as much money as a UAW worker?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
Should we generalize that all management is bad like OP is claiming about Unions then?
If management is bad and runs the company into the ground, that's up to them and the owners. They are paid to run the company. The workers are paid to do a certain set of tasks, not run the company. See the difference?
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
If management is bad and runs the company into the ground, that's up to them and the owners. They are paid to run the company. The workers are paid to do a certain set of tasks, not run the company. See the difference?
Yeah it's obvious but what I am pointing out is the OP's Flamebait generalizations. ;) The only reason the GOP has a hard on about Unions is because of Election funding. We did see in the last Election that the GOP backed Citizen's united victory did squat for the GOP since a lot of Democratic Candidates who won were outspent 10-1. Look no further than my Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. ;)
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
1
0
The root of the problem.. with both company management and employees.. is the refusal to look further down the road; to see a few moves ahead on the chessboard. If both management and employees did that, there would be no abuse of employees and no idiotic refusal to accept cuts when times are tight. In other words, everything would work better.

Management would see that you can't keep a company afloat with workers who are unhappy and mistreated.

Employees would see that driving a company into bankruptcy by refusing to accept cuts in pay/benefits when they're necessary is only going to result in everyone losing their jobs.

There is middle ground, in every scenario. Looking ahead; seeing past immediate gratification... makes it more urgent to find that middle ground.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,304
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Gee, we have very similar backgrounds. The difference is I realize why the people are paid for holidays, overtime, and double time. Clue, it has nothing to do with management.

Read a history book once in a while.
Sure some of what is done today is due to what unions work for in the past though many things now are dictated by labor laws.

The company for whom I work pays the union mechanics (in the states that require the use of union hands) the same wages as the non-union mechanics. The union hands see less take home pay due to paying dues out of their wages.

No, the union hands did not come first and set the standard for pay, they have been added as the business expanded to the states where their use is required.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,708
1
0
Ronald Reagan: "They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."

Ronald Reagan: "they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights—the right to belong to a free trade union."

Yeah, you guys are great Republicans. lol


http://shoqvalue.com/ronald-reagan-where-collective-bargaining-is-forbidden-freedom-is-lost

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/25/146460/flashback-reagan-union-right/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Topping it off with thinkprogress links is just great...
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,708
1
0
So you don't think that what is going on in the Republican statehouses is not a coordnated effort to chip away at the ability of people who acutally work for a living (not collecting dividends) to have any control over working situations i.e. collectively bargain. And don't give me this narcissitic "I am the best their is in my profession and I should be able to bargain my own wages as I see fit" shit.

In the real world numbers count. If working people can't organize which is power, all you going to see is the continuing erosion of the middle class.
RTW in no way prevents people from organizing; it merely removes the coercion of people that don't want to be part of it (ie taking money out of their pay check).

There's nothing stopping unions from creating exclusive contracts, so that if you want union benefits you actually have to join and pay. They realize, though, that without being able to coerce people into it, they'll only get people that would make less money other wise - high performers would choose to skip the union for better pay. In a way it's a big involuntary wealth redistribution scheme.
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Ronald Reagan: "They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."

Ronald Reagan: "they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights—the right to belong to a free trade union."

Yeah, you guys are great Republicans. lol


http://shoqvalue.com/ronald-reagan-where-collective-bargaining-is-forbidden-freedom-is-lost

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/25/146460/flashback-reagan-union-right/
Reagan was refering to the workers in Poland on strike against their communist rulers. That is a far cry from the BS the unions in the US are doing.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,088
494
126
Reagan was refering to the workers in Poland on strike against their communist rulers. That is a far cry from the BS the unions in the US are doing.
Remember these are the same type of people in Wisconsin who were comparing their struggles for excessive benefit packages with people in Egypt trying to not be crushed by dictatorship in 2011.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Remember these are the same type of people in Wisconsin who were comparing their struggles for excessive benefit packages with people in Egypt trying to not be crushed by dictatorship in 2011.
Sounds about right.
 

Gardener

Senior member
Nov 22, 1999
492
106
116
RTW in no way prevents people from organizing; it merely removes the coercion of people that don't want to be part of it (ie taking money out of their pay check).

There's nothing stopping unions from creating exclusive contracts, so that if you want union benefits you actually have to join and pay. They realize, though, that without being able to coerce people into it, they'll only get people that would make less money other wise - high performers would choose to skip the union for better pay. In a way it's a big involuntary wealth redistribution scheme.
What you are saying is, unfortunately, not true. Under the NLRA, Unions are required to represent the non-dues paying workers just as if they were members. Also note that they get the full benefit of the contracted wages, benefits, and the right to have a union representative at any discipline hearing.

Case law, from the AFL-CIO's website:

A private sector union operates under a legally enforceable "duty of fair representation," that is, the union must “fairly and equitably…represent all employees..., union and nonunion.” International Assn. of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 761 (1961). This means a union cannot discriminate or act arbitrarily toward any employee due to the nature of his relationship with the union, and all employees are equally entitled to the union’s fair and vigorous representation. All members and non-members must receive the fruits of the union’s bargaining – wages, benefits and all other rights and protections – and enjoy full access to the grievance and arbitration process that is established to redress adverse or improper actions by the employer. 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(2); Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 204 (1944); Bowman v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 744 F. 2d 1207, 1213-14 (6th Cir. 1984). This right to full and fair individual treatment by the union is legally enforceable in court and before the NLRB. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S.171 (1967); Plumbers Local 32 v. NLRB, 50 F. 3d 29, 31-32 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 974 (1995).
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Did he not say that or did he?

What is great is seeing all you right wing douchebags piling up on each other in an orgy of way to go congratulations when your own idol said that this is a bad thing.
He said it, but he was refering to workers in Poland opposing Communist rulers (Government Opression), not unskilled labor trying to earn $70K/year or people trying to demand higher wages out of a bankrupt company.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
He said it
Exactly, and he didn't make any amendments to his statement. It was a broad sweeping generalization that unions are a necessity, yet here are the "Republicans" in this forum talking about the "evil unions" destroying America. It's pathetic.

As for your assertions that unskilled laborers shouldn't be making $70k a year, that is total bullshit. Most of those people have been working at those companies FOR DECADES and certainly deserve a decent middle class wage.

And with respect to the unions demanding more money from a company, I have to assume you are talking about Hostess. I would also assume that you knew those workers took a pay cut and loss of benefits just several years before that all happened.

Just because you and your friends want to turn America into a third world country does not mean the rest of us are going to sit around and let it happen. Take your businesses to other countries, since you're so fucking smart, and we can start over.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
Did he not say that or did he?

What is great is seeing all you right wing douchebags piling up on each other in an orgy of way to go congratulations when your own idol said that this is a bad thing.
He absolutely said no such thing. Unions are not being banned and people can organize into a union just fine. What's changing is that people there would no longer be FORCED into unions when they don't want to join one. RR would not have any issue with this. Also, you hacks try to take his comments out context -- he was talking about Polish unions who were fighting communist oppression.
 

Gardener

Senior member
Nov 22, 1999
492
106
116
The root of the problem.. with both company management and employees.. is the refusal to look further down the road; to see a few moves ahead on the chessboard. If both management and employees did that, there would be no abuse of employees and no idiotic refusal to accept cuts when times are tight. In other words, everything would work better.

Management would see that you can't keep a company afloat with workers who are unhappy and mistreated.

Employees would see that driving a company into bankruptcy by refusing to accept cuts in pay/benefits when they're necessary is only going to result in everyone losing their jobs.

There is middle ground, in every scenario. Looking ahead; seeing past immediate gratification... makes it more urgent to find that middle ground.
The most short-sighted being a corporate culture that wants to sell their goods here in the US, but wants to shave production costs buy moving their plants to China, etc.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
Most of those people have been working at those companies FOR DECADES and certainly deserve a decent middle class wage.
So if I pay someone $8.75 per hour to sweep the floor, and they've been sweeping that same floor for 50 years the same way I need to pay them $60 per hour instead because they "deserve" it? Are you truly that stupid?

Just because you and your friends want to turn America into a third world country does not mean the rest of us are going to sit around and let it happen.
Yes, no longer forcing people to join a union they don't want to join (hey, what a concept, people get to make their own decisions!) is now "turning America into a third world country" :rolleyes: Idiot.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
41,448
4,247
136
The root of the problem.. with both company management and employees.. is the refusal to look further down the road; to see a few moves ahead on the chessboard. If both management and employees did that, there would be no abuse of employees and no idiotic refusal to accept cuts when times are tight. In other words, everything would work better.

Management would see that you can't keep a company afloat with workers who are unhappy and mistreated.

Employees would see that driving a company into bankruptcy by refusing to accept cuts in pay/benefits when they're necessary is only going to result in everyone losing their jobs.

There is middle ground, in every scenario. Looking ahead; seeing past immediate gratification... makes it more urgent to find that middle ground.
Sounds too much like common sense.


What, if anything, is stopping workers from joining/forming unions if conditions go down the toilet like predicted? One downside for the workers could be an excessive number of people needing work or willing to work for less. Spanish anyone?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY