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

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
So instead of attacking the real problem, excessive pay and benefits for cops and firemen, let's attack the weaker unions.
Blame the politicians you voted for then if you are so outraged.

Pathetic.
I agree it is pathetic that CA's state government caves into these unions along with other public unions out of fear of losing votes and political contributions. However you can't blame the logic behind wanting to curtail the power and influence of public unions even if it is not always carried out in the most perfect and or efficient manner.

And I completely disagree with your idea of privatizing police, that will only lead to disaster.
Let me go ask all the families of those young black men brutalized by public union police officers if they think they haven't already been experiencing this "disaster" you speak of in their communities. Especially at the hand of public union police forces who have absolutely no incentive to improve their tactics outside of often too late political outrage and/or court orders.
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
So instead of attacking the real problem, excessive pay and benefits for cops and firemen, let's attack the weaker unions. Pathetic.
And I completely disagree with your idea of privatizing police, that will only lead to disaster.


It would lead us to Robocop. I don't see how that could be a bad thing.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Blame the politicians you voted for then if you are so outraged.



I agree it is pathetic that CA's state government caves into these unions along with other public unions out of fear of losing votes and political contributions. However you can't blame the logic behind wanting to curtail the power and influence of public unions even if it is not always carried out in the most perfect and or efficient manner.



Let me go ask all the families of those young black men brutalized by public union police officers if they think they haven't already been experiencing this "disaster" you speak of in their communities. Especially at the hand of public union police forces who have absolutely no incentive to improve their tactics outside of often too late political outrage and/or court orders.
I thought we were talking about Michigan?
I suggest you take a walk through Oakland, and see if you get brutalized by the police or the locals.
Who is it who has pushed for police oversight in big cities? Left wingers, certainly not right wingers.
 

GamingDaemon

Senior member
Apr 28, 2006
474
7
76
im with you. the thought of being forced to join a obsolete union and have MY MONEY taken from me as a TAX makes my skin crawl.
Never been in a union, but whole-heartedly agree. And worse still, having those dues fund the campaigns of democrats in state and federal elections! Enough to make me sick.

But wait, there's more...

After the bill was passed, you have democrats threatening that, "There will be blood."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2515629

And if that was not enough, there were some great union workers who physically assaulted a man asking them questions!!
http://youtu.be/u_F3oev06i0

This is not the America I grew up in. This is not the America that worked together to put a man on the moon. :(
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
I thought we were talking about Michigan?

I suggest you take a walk through Oakland, and see if you get brutalized by the police or the locals.


Who is it who has pushed for police oversight in big cities? Left wingers, certainly not right wingers.
You mean the Oakland PD that just barely was able to avoid having the FED's step in and take over the entire department due to overwhelmingly high amounts of instances of abuses cited by civil rights lawyers and the DoJ? That OPD??

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/12/05/oakland-police-reach-deal-to-avoid-federal-takeover/
 
Last edited:

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,746
53
91
all this happening under your lord gawd obama. Your obama has been devastating to organized labor.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,124
126
Cookie for the guy so in love with Obama he mentions him in every post. Get a fucking room already for your wanton buttsex...
 

Iron Woode

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 10, 1999
29,280
9,842
136
Never been in a union, but whole-heartedly agree. And worse still, having those dues fund the campaigns of democrats in state and federal elections! Enough to make me sick.

But wait, there's more...

After the bill was passed, you have democrats threatening that, "There will be blood."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2515629

And if that was not enough, there were some great union workers who physically assaulted a man asking them questions!!
http://youtu.be/u_F3oev06i0

This is not the America I grew up in. This is not the America that worked together to put a man on the moon. :(
http://washingtonexaminer.com/union-protesters-at-michigan-capitol-tear-down-slash-apart-conservative-groups-tent/article/2515641#.UMeEfOQ82fU
 

RFE

Member
Dec 15, 2007
71
0
61
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.
I've lived in Michigan my entire life, with the exception of six years when I was in the military, so I happen to know who Rick Snyder is.

It seems rather odd that people are so worked up over now having the right to choose if they want to belong to a union, that the union may now have to show value to all of its potential members. In Lansing there were people shouting, tearing down that large tent (with people still inside it), punching that reporter.....all over the right to choose if they want to be a member of the union at their workplace.

Rick Snyder had said that he didn't want it on his plate because it was too divisive. But, no, Bob King had to ensure that this was a front and center issue, trying to ramrod union bs into our state constitution (Proposal 2). You can thank Bob.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,124
126
No, you can thank Dick Devos and the lame ducks. Claiming it was Bob King or ANYTHING else is disingenuous at best. This is not how Lansing should work and this is not how this should have been brought forward and you know it, especially in Michigan.
 
Last edited:

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Never been in a union, but whole-heartedly agree. And worse still, having those dues fund the campaigns of democrats in state and federal elections! Enough to make me sick.

This is not the America I grew up in. This is not the America that worked together to put a man on the moon. :(
I guess you didn't grow up in America, as unions have been around for awhile. In fact, they were quite strong when America put a man on the moon. So I guess you grew up in the make believe America that only exists in the minds of ignorant rightwingers.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,083
126


\having worked under a union - not a major fan of them as they tend to become a business unto themselves...
\\also not a fan of the underhanded methods used to pass this...

What has happened is simply wrong.
 
Last edited:

GamingDaemon

Senior member
Apr 28, 2006
474
7
76
I guess you didn't grow up in America, as unions have been around for awhile. In fact, they were quite strong when America put a man on the moon. So I guess you grew up in the make believe America that only exists in the minds of ignorant rightwingers.
Oh, you're right! I clearly said unions never existed when I was young. Good catch! :)

Silly silly citizenkain...tsk tsk

Mad that I'm right? Or just mad?

Choice is freedom. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Can you try to argue my points and not do the usual liberal Saul Alinsky attack-your-opponent-because-you-have-no-argument BS?
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
10,034
1,812
126
What "right to work" comes down to is you the worker have NO / ZILCH rights.
Your employer can do whatever they want to do to you. Justice is no longer a factor.
If Bill enjoys a paid vacation, and you Jim do not, sorry fella. You live in a right to work state.

If the boss gives the pretty one, that brown noser, all the big raises and promotions and you, the one that gives 110% to the job, and never complains, works all the holidays while the pretty one never has been required to work one single holiday, if you are not the favorite brown noser then screw you fella. You live in a right to work state.

Some people believe right to work is a wondrous thing... UNTIL it bites them in the butt.
And if you are the employee, it someday will bite you in the behind.
That is how right to work was meant to function.

And then they cry to the company HR department. or more so the state labor board, and are told with a smile, "You just got fucked over fella". Tough shit. And by the way... welcome to your right to work state.

I have NEVER known one single person that disliked unions and welcomed right to work, and then later did not have some gross injustice pulled on them by their own employer, and followed by running straight to the state labor board seeking some sort of fairness and some sort of justice, only to be told "fat chance fella". This is a right to work state. Duh.

Company just eliminated your benefits? Right to work!!!
Shorted overtime hours? Right to work!!!
Hours cut? Right to work!!!
Earned vacation time zapped? Right to work!!!
Quit your job and never paid for earned vacation time? Right to work!!!
Company changing the rules in the middle of the game? Right to work!!!
Boss changing the rules in the middle of the game that affect only you? Right to work!!!
You required to work all holidays while co workers sit home enjoying a paid day off?
And by the way, not for holiday pay but simple straight time? Right to work!!!

Right to work?
You'll love the idea, until you realize it will be you and only you that pays the ultimate price in the end.
And there is not one fucking thing you can do bout it. Not one single thing.
Because lucky you, you live in a right to work state.

But don't mind me. If you are employed, you'll learn soon enough. The hard way....
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
Can someone who supports the union position in this try to articulate their objection to letting people choose? What's wrong with letting people choose for themselves as opposed to forcing them to join a union?

I know it's at least partially a political move and if unions didn't completely support democrats in every election it likely would not have happened this way, but when you strip away all the political bluster and bullshit on both sides, fundamentally I just can't see how letting people pick for themselves if they want to join an organization or not is a bad thing.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
19,552
2,381
126
Can someone who supports the union position in this try to articulate their objection to letting people choose? What's wrong with letting people choose for themselves as opposed to forcing them to join a union?

I know it's at least partially a political move and if unions didn't completely support democrats in every election it likely would not have happened this way, but when you strip away all the political bluster and bullshit on both sides, fundamentally I just can't see how letting people pick for themselves if they want to join an organization or not is a bad thing.
I don't support this, nor does my wife who is a member of a teacher's union. However I think the biggest reason RTW is not supported is fear and frustration. Michigan ranks 42nd in teacher salary changes as of 2011 and is 1 of 15 states with a salary decrease. (I expect 2012 will show similar numbers.) This doesn't include the mandatory 3% take home pay decrease state wide implemented ~2 years ago, the drastic changes to the pension\retirement health benefits this year (often requiring less take home pay to continue to participate in), and nearly state wide changes in health care offerings. Many districts are making further cuts to take home pay.

Over a 4 year span it wouldn't be surprising to see teachers dealing with a 21%+ take home pay reduction (3% state wide + 3.5% increased pension requirement + 1.5% avg statewide decrease + 3% increase health care costs + 10% future salary cuts[DPS, Madison, Taylor, West Bloomfield, Jenison and others have already agreed to are in negotiations for 10% pay cuts or higher]). Note: This does not include additional losses in spending power due to inflation

All the while, continuing education coverage is being cut forcing teachers to pay for credits out of pocket. There are numerous requirements for college level classes and we all know what has happened to college tuition. Not going to help the pocket book at all.

I can see why a reduction of nearly 1/4 of your take home pay could motivate someone to protest a weakened union

(This is not an argument for or against the changes)

So its fear about more pay cuts. Frustration at being the biggest target to balance budgets or for poor education performance. (Michigan ranks 36 in school attendance. How are you supposed to teach those who don't show up?) Frustration at all the pay cuts even though support staff has doubled since 1990. (138% support staff growth vs 60% teacher growth since 1970) Frustration over calls to de-unionize to save money even though Michigan's charter schools only save 2.5% on personnel costs vs Unionized schools (while having a lower teacher:student ratio). Tired of being the whipping boys for the states education problems

http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/NEA_Rankings_And_Estimates_FINAL_20120209.pdf
http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP201.pdf
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/~/media/Images/Reports/2012/10/bg2739/chart1750.ashx
 
Last edited:

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,670
271
126
Yoonyuns have a time-honored tradition of thuggery, corruption, and destruction of private property. One of my roommates in college bragged about his dad's stories of yoonyun violence: destroying company property, physically threatening company personnel, shooting guard dogs, etc. I worked for my brothers (construction) during college. We were remodeling a house and my bro's father in law was on site helping out. I was sent out front to do some work. Before I did, the FIL warned me that I might be accosted by a yoonyun building agent; you see, these thugs would drive around to non yoonyun construction sites and try to run off, i.e., threaten, non yoonyun workers.

It doesn't surprise me at all that the thugs cut down that tent, collapsing it on people, some of whom were elderly and a couple were in wheelchairs. It doesn't surprise me that they ganged up on the guy and beat on him. I'm sure that the usual suspects on here will celebrate the thuggery. After all, liberal violence is good violence. Liberal hate is good hate. So, lets see if the thugs are arrested for assault. Probably not.

Let the rationalizing and hypocrisy commence / continue.

I've lived in Michigan my entire life, with the exception of six years when I was in the military, so I happen to know who Rick Snyder is.

It seems rather odd that people are so worked up over now having the right to choose if they want to belong to a union, that the union may now have to show value to all of its potential members. In Lansing there were people shouting, tearing down that large tent (with people still inside it), punching that reporter.....all over the right to choose if they want to be a member of the union at their workplace.

Rick Snyder had said that he didn't want it on his plate because it was too divisive. But, no, Bob King had to ensure that this was a front and center issue, trying to ramrod union bs into our state constitution (Proposal 2). You can thank Bob.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Going after unions after corporations collapsed the entire world's economy? Brilliant. Enjoy the descent into third world status. Your republican overlords have focused your anger well!
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Yoonyuns have a time-honored tradition of thuggery, corruption, and destruction of private property. One of my roommates in college bragged about his dad's stories of yoonyun violence: destroying company property, physically threatening company personnel, shooting guard dogs, etc. I worked for my brothers (construction) during college. We were remodeling a house and my bro's father in law was on site helping out. I was sent out front to do some work. Before I did, the FIL warned me that I might be accosted by a yoonyun building agent; you see, these thugs would drive around to non yoonyun construction sites and try to run off, i.e., threaten, non yoonyun workers.

It doesn't surprise me at all that the thugs cut down that tent, collapsing it on people, some of whom were elderly and a couple were in wheelchairs. It doesn't surprise me that they ganged up on the guy and beat on him. I'm sure that the usual suspects on here will celebrate the thuggery. After all, liberal violence is good violence. Liberal hate is good hate. So, lets see if the thugs are arrested for assault. Probably not.

Let the rationalizing and hypocrisy commence / continue.
There is no 'liberal' presence in congress outside of one senator. Blaming and fighting boogeymen is an interesting concept. Amazing how many people have been fooled into fighting something that doesn't exist.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
There are very legitimate reasons to oppose these kinds of laws.
So you agree that people should be forced to join and pay dues to an organization against there will?

Is there anything in these laws that stops an employer from favoring non-union over union? Because there is that danger.
Danger? Employers can already "favor" union labor over non-union labor and vice versa.

In many industries employers have a disproportionate amount of power over wages and benefits.
Exactly how much power should an employee have over his own wages and benefits by default (just by being employed, not about performance).

Many people see these kinds of laws as end arounds to diminish the power of unions, not empower employees who dont want to join them.

And you would be lying to yourself if you think the sponsors of these laws aren't trying to do exactly that.
And the unions tried to get the old law put into the state constitution giving the unions "disproportionate amount of power"

As others have stated, you don't have to work for an employer with unionized employees.
Exact same argument can be used the other way around. You don't have to work for an employer with non-unionized employees. Isn't choice great?


I've argued this for years. Allow unions to share directly in the profits, and things would be very different.
You think the unions would directly share in the risk as well? If the company loses money the union (and therefore the employees) are responsible to pay X% of it?
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Can someone who supports the union position in this try to articulate their objection to letting people choose? What's wrong with letting people choose for themselves as opposed to forcing them to join a union?

I know it's at least partially a political move and if unions didn't completely support democrats in every election it likely would not have happened this way, but when you strip away all the political bluster and bullshit on both sides, fundamentally I just can't see how letting people pick for themselves if they want to join an organization or not is a bad thing.
Who is forcing them? If they don't like it or agree with the dues what's stopping them from hitting the road?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
So instead of attacking the real problem, excessive pay and benefits for cops and firemen, let's attack the weaker unions. Pathetic.
And I completely disagree with your idea of privatizing police, that will only lead to disaster.
Huh? Who said that was the "real problem" or the only problem? And I still haven't figured out exactly how this is an attack on unions.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY