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

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
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.
Context!!! Once again, Reagan was refering to workers in Poland opposing Communist rulers. Actually watch the video dummy and see how many times he mentions people fighting for freedom, not fighting for wages.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,304
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
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.
LMAO!!!! As if you have the power to do anything more than piss and moan about any given situation.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
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 now, reguardless of what wet dream you are waking from nobody should be making $70K a year after getting 2 weeks training to slap plastic pieces on the front of a car. Would you pay a kid $400 to mow your lawn? Then why are Corporations forced to pay those kind of wages?
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,708
1
0
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).
Are you a labor lawyer? Looking at International Assn. of Machinists v. Street, the line the refer to
Moreover, this Court has [367 U.S. 740, 761] held that under the statutory scheme, a union's status as exclusive bargaining representative carries with it the duty fairly and equitably to represent all employees of the craft or class, union and nonunion.
Which I understand to mean that in a exclusive, non-members-only contract (the "statutory scheme" referred there) that covers all employees, the union cannot discriminate between union members and non-union members.

I thought there was a supreme court precent guaranteed the union the right to form said members-only contract (with negotiated benefits only applying to members)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=305&invol=197
and
http://www.nilrr.org/files/SKMBT_60009080411230.pdf
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,325
126
Should we generalize that all management is bad like OP is claiming about Unions then?
I don't think all unions are bad but I definitely do not believe that you should be forced to join a union and have dues taken out of your check against your will. I do find it rather ironic that both sides of the argument use the exact same argument:

"If you don't want to be in a union don't work for a union company"

"If you want to be in a union don't work for a non-union company"
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,325
126
Do those workers make as much money as a UAW worker?
On the flip side did the company they work for recently go bankrupt and require government intervention to stay afloat?

and I am not sure about the answer but I believe its rather close if memory serves
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,325
126
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.



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.
LOL! Come on with the childish word games.

OTOH, wanna see what your sides hero said about public unions? And he actually meant public unions in the United States, from his statement he agrees with most of what Gov Walker did.

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.
What relevance does that have? Unsustainable and/or un-affordable is still exactly that. So how much of a pay cut do you suppose they took instead?

As far as time on the job, you get a paycheck for showing up and doing your job. You get raises for learning more and becoming better at your job. If you can do the exact same job at the exact same pace after 10 years, other than small bumps for inflation, why do you deserve to be better compensated?
 
Last edited:

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
18,031
1,995
126
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/
They did NOT outlaw or forbid anyone from joining a union as they wish. It will make it illegal for the union to rob people that do Not want to join their shitty mafia union.
 

Vic Vega

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2010
4,537
3
0
That's a joke right?

You really ought to defend this on its merits, not with doublespeak.

Right-to-work is not enacted to protect workers from union dues, it is an end-run around the entire collective bargaining process and issue.

It is designed to encourage stable labor relations, but with minimal ability for employees to pressure employers for any changes whatsoever (pay, conditions, etc).
Yeah, it's really NOT.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Lame duck Michigan house rammed through the votes before the new reps could replace the ones Michigan voters kicked to the curb. As stated earlier this thread this ain't Wisconsin...
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,861
1
81
How is not forcing people to join a union against their will in any way an "end-run around the entire collective bargaining process"?? If people want to form a union and they see a benefit in doing so, they can do so. The only thing changing is that people are no longer forced to join the union if they decide they don't want to.

All the howling and whining from leftists over this is just smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the core issue: they want people to be forced to join unions whether the workers want to or not. If unions truly protect and benefit workers, and if they're a net benefit to everyone, then there would be no reason to have to force people to join one.
I'm not howling and whining.

And you are refusing to address the issue. Which is what I expected.

Carry on.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
I've never been able to wrap my mind around the concept of forcing someone to join a union and forcibly taking part of their paycheck just for working somewhere. I must have a misconception of what actually happens because that just seems wrong.
Unions (some or many) became the new purveyors of indentured servitude.

Only in America would you have one union (UAW) across three companies that are in competition with each other. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense when a Ford Employee and UAW member is "fighting" for some GM employee's contract/benefits.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,435
84
91
Do those workers make as much money as a UAW worker?
They do very well for themselves. Maybe they do not make as much money as a UAW worker... but then again Nissan hasn't had to lay anyone off at the plant in a while. When things were slow the workers agreed to reduce their hours instead of being laid off.
 

RFE

Member
Dec 15, 2007
71
0
61
Lame duck Michigan house rammed through the votes before the new reps could replace the ones Michigan voters kicked to the curb. As stated earlier this thread this ain't Wisconsin...
You may want to thank Bob King (UAW President), for this. He was the main cheerleader for trying to ramrod proposal 2 into the Michigan state constitution. Prior to that, this topic was of no interest to the Governor.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/gov_snyder_right-to-work_law_w.html

Michigan isn't Wisconsin? You don't say....
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Do people really think workers should be forced to join a union if they want a particular job?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,325
126
Do people really think workers should be forced to join a union if they want a particular job?
Yes, a lot of them do. Basically, most people who agree with unions think you should be forced to join one or you are welcome to find a job at a non-union company. There reasoning is that you still "benefit" from the union and its not "fair" that you reap the benefits they negotiate for free. Personally, I have always been confident in my own ability to negotiate my own wages and benefits and I have no need to pay a group (for the length of my employment with the company) for someone else to do it for me. If the other people think they do, so be it.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Yes, a lot of them do. Basically, most people who agree with unions think you should be forced to join one or you are welcome to find a job at a non-union company. There reasoning is that you still "benefit" from the union and its not "fair" that you reap the benefits they negotiate for free. Personally, I have always been confident in my own ability to negotiate my own wages and benefits and I have no need to pay a group (for the length of my employment with the company) for someone else to do it for me. If the other people think they do, so be it.
Union Fascism FTW
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
You may want to thank Bob King (UAW President), for this. He was the main cheerleader for trying to ramrod proposal 2 into the Michigan state constitution. Prior to that, this topic was of no interest to the Governor.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/gov_snyder_right-to-work_law_w.html

Michigan isn't Wisconsin? You don't say....
LMAO yeah! THAT'S why Rick took it up!!!!! Priceless! FFS, do you know who Rick Snyder even is? I'm sure you do so you also know it "wasn't on his agenda" all the way up until 2 days before this came out. Seems Rick and now you are trying to sell a barn full of horse shit.
 
Last edited:

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,861
1
81
To be fair, since there was an election only a month ago, it's clear that the voters of Michigan support this legislation. I assume it was a central theme to the Republican campaign in the state, given that it is a major change in policy.

Although I question the voters' judgement, it's hard to object to democracy in action.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,265
486
126
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.

That doesn't work anymore because of one of the seven deadly diseases, Mobility of Management, which goes against any type of long term thinking or logic except for self interest.

Deming's 7 Deadly Diseases of Management

http://info.ibs-us.com/blog/bid/49709/Quality-101-Deming-s-7-Deadly-Diseases-of-Management
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
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).
Uh, you are wrong. There is NOTHING preventing a union from forming as a non-exclusive entity. However, in their quest for power they form that way and then get to count workers as being in the union even if those workers didn't want to be in one or vote one in. It pads their coffers and numbers.

IF unions are good for people, they would join voluntarily - no? why the need for an "exclusive" setup? Hmm....
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
1
0
unions shot themselves over the years by hiring anyone that signs up and turning over that labor as often as they can. they have self-bred this organization of idiots, and there isnt enough smart people left to run anything. they treated everyone the same, then they wonder why they dont have exceptional workers. the whole thing is stupid, and the only real reason to have a union is for safety purposes. so for police, fire and medical, i get it. but for most business, unions are just a muddy middleman.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
LMAO yeah! THAT'S why Rick took it up!!!!! Priceless! FFS, do you know who Rick Snyder even is? I'm sure you do so you also know it "wasn't on his agenda" all the way up until 2 days before this came out. Seems Rick and now you are trying to sell a barn full of horse shit.
Awwwww poor butthurt union thug. Three days from now we'll be a right to work state and you're just afraid of the mass exodus of workers fleeing union tyranny. LOL. :)
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,417
3
81
I've never been able to wrap my mind around the concept of forcing someone to join a union and forcibly taking part of their paycheck just for working somewhere. I must have a misconception of what actually happens because that just seems wrong.
This!
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,802
13,944
136
Unions in the private sector havent been powerful for decades. They represent a small % of the private workforce. Yet we havent devolved into 1800s style work conditions. And wages continue to rise, not plummet to min wage. Why is that?
Well, yeh, except that wages as a % of GDP have fallen-







Meanwhile, the top 1% share of national income basically doubled.

This is directly related to the ongoing demise of Unions, whether Righties want to acknowledge that or not.

All the usual blather about Freedom! & so forth from that sector flies in defiance of reality- the reality that workers have no power as individuals, only as a group. It'd be different if workers had the same sort of resources as ownership, and if they had the same sort of mobility, but they don't. As far as management & ownership is concerned, the only freedom you have is the freedom to starve.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY