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

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,670
271
126
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.
What does this have to do with my comments about union violence?
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
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?
So you were too stupid to follow what I posted then. Also, you have to make a point to have something worth attacking.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,706
49
91
payroll deducted union dues is nothing more then a money laundering racket for the DNC.
 

Y00perTr00per

Junior Member
Dec 12, 2012
3
0
0
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've lurked this forum since the late 90's and I sure as heck didn't think my first post would be to P&N, that's for sure. Anyhow...

Currently (by that I mean before RTW) if you apply for and get a job at a "union shop", you are not required to join the union if you do not wish to. However, you do have to pay a reduced fee that covers the administrative costs of bargaining the contracts that are in place that you are covered under which spell out your pay, benefits, working conditions, and the like. You wouldn't get all of the rights a full union member has, like voting for leadership or ratifying a contract.

Under RTW, if you do not want to join the union, you do not even have to pay the reduced administrative fee, but you still get all of the benefits that were bargained for the members. So while the legislature is saying that it's "pro worker, not anti-union", they hope that slowly the unions will just bleed out money covering those who choose to take the benefits and not pay for them. They even turned down an amendment that would make it so if you choose not to join the union then you would not be covered under the negotiated contracts, you would have to negotiate your own deal with management.

So they are basically forcing the unions into an unsustainable business model.

Sorry about the wall of text, tl;dr, etc...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
I've lurked this forum since the late 90's and I sure as heck didn't think my first post would be to P&N, that's for sure. Anyhow...

Currently (by that I mean before RTW) if you apply for and get a job at a "union shop", you are not required to join the union if you do not wish to. However, you do have to pay a reduced fee that covers the administrative costs of bargaining the contracts that are in place that you are covered under which spell out your pay, benefits, working conditions, and the like. You wouldn't get all of the rights a full union member has, like voting for leadership or ratifying a contract.

Under RTW, if you do not want to join the union, you do not even have to pay the reduced administrative fee, but you still get all of the benefits that were bargained for the members. So while the legislature is saying that it's "pro worker, not anti-union", they hope that slowly the unions will just bleed out money covering those who choose to take the benefits and not pay for them. They even turned down an amendment that would make it so if you choose not to join the union then you would not be covered under the negotiated contracts, you would have to negotiate your own deal with management.

So they are basically forcing the unions into an unsustainable business model.

Sorry about the wall of text, tl;dr, etc...
Forcing them into a business model not propped up by govt forced monopoly over labor. Sorry if I dont shed a tear for unions.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
So they are basically forcing the unions into an unsustainable business model.
If their business model depends on the coercion of people to join organizations they don't want to join, then it was a failed model anyway. Now Michigan workers are free to choose if they want to join or not.

Of course the dims are upset, they had a nice little racket going for a long time.
 

GamingDaemon

Senior member
Apr 28, 2006
474
7
76
So you were too stupid to follow what I posted then. Also, you have to make a point to have something worth attacking.
So he's as much a liar as you are, how interesting.
Good to know that you continue to call folks on here names and attack them, rather than discuss any of their ideas. Suggestion: instead of your drive-by attacks on folks who are contributing to this discussion, why not try to be part of the discussion yourself?

To everyone else: I am enjoying the healthy back and forth debating. Great job :)
 

Y00perTr00per

Junior Member
Dec 12, 2012
3
0
0
If their business model depends on the coercion of people to join organizations they don't want to join, then it was a failed model anyway. Now Michigan workers are free to choose if they want to join or not.

Of course the dims are upset, they had a nice little racket going for a long time.
Everyone has always had the right to not work at a place that is unionized... Only 17% of Michigan's workforce is unionized, so you seemingly have to try to seek out a unionized job to then be "forced" into paying dues.
 

GamingDaemon

Senior member
Apr 28, 2006
474
7
76
If their business model depends on the coercion of people to join organizations they don't want to join, then it was a failed model anyway. Now Michigan workers are free to choose if they want to join or not.

Of course the dims are upset, they had a nice little racket going for a long time.
Correct. The marketplace is what free enterprise is about. It gives folks the right to make choices, which is what makes this country so special. Unions are another form of marketplace. I have always worked as a professional for companies that could fire me for no reason at all. And I live in a country where if they fire me, I have the opportunity to sue them if I think the firing was unfounded. It's not perfect. It's not always fair. But it's the best thing out there.

What surprises me most about the people posting in favor of unions is their outcry for equal outcomes, fairness, everyone getting the same slice of pie. My parents taught me at a very young age, life's not fair. The sooner you incorporate that idea, not just in your mind, but in your heart, you will live a happier life.

This country was always the shining beacon to others because of the ability for someone who has nothing to better themselves. Equal opportunity. Now, it wasn't always so equal. But we have come a long way, and are still better at equal opportunity than any other country out there.

But no one in the U.S. has ever promised equal outcomes. For that, there are numerous socialized and communist countries out there to choose from. That's their promise. Equal outcomes...equal least-common-denominator outcomes.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Last edited:

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
Everyone has always had the right to not work at a place that is unionized... Only 17% of Michigan's workforce is unionized, so you seemingly have to try to seek out a unionized job to then be "forced" into paying dues.
The work to be done has nothing to do with the union. I should be able to do whatever work I am qualified to do without being forced into a union. If I want to join a union I have the option of doing that. If not, then not. Unionistas seem to have a hard time with the concept of freedom to choose.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,325
126
Who is forcing them? If they don't like it or agree with the dues what's stopping them from hitting the road?
On the flip side, if you don't like or agree with the wages and/or benefits what's stopping them from hitting the road?
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
On the flip side, if you don't like or agree with the wages and/or benefits what's stopping them from hitting the road?
Your argument has nothing to do with my post....You rightists are saying these people are being "forced" to pay. If you don't want to be "forced" to pay then hit what's stopping you from finding another job?

Republicons don't give a fuck about people getting ripped off the only reason why they have a hard on for unions is because of their funding of the Democratic machine. I personally don't think the hit monetarily will harm the Democrats because as we saw in the last Election the Republicons spending for many races were more than 2 to 1 and they still got their asses handed to them because their policies suck.
The only downside I can see coming from this is the Unions influence on policy matters.
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,325
126
Under RTW, if you do not want to join the union, you do not even have to pay the reduced administrative fee, but you still get all of the benefits that were bargained for the members. So while the legislature is saying that it's "pro worker, not anti-union", they hope that slowly the unions will just bleed out money covering those who choose to take the benefits and not pay for them. They even turned down an amendment that would make it so if you choose not to join the union then you would not be covered under the negotiated contracts, you would have to negotiate your own deal with management.
So you are ok with a private entity being able to force you to pay for a service that you neither asked for nor desired by someone other than your employer just so you can work for said employer?

Would you be ok with an employer forcibly taking 5% of their employees wages to use as political donations to the candidates of the employers choosing? How about just for charitable donations?

So they are basically forcing the unions into an unsustainable business model.
If their business model requires people being forced to pay for services they didn't request or desire, yes and rightfully so in my opinion.

Sorry about the wall of text, tl;dr, etc...
Bah, that was rather short for P&N.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,670
271
126
The work to be done has nothing to do with the union. I should be able to do whatever work I am qualified to do without being forced into a union. If I want to join a union I have the option of doing that. If not, then not. Unionistas seem to have a hard time with the concept of freedom to choose.
The only freedom of choice the dems seem to care about is abortion. Other than that, they're perfectly happy to force their will on the rest of us.
 

Naeeldar

Senior member
Aug 20, 2001
854
1
81

Y00perTr00per

Junior Member
Dec 12, 2012
3
0
0
So you are ok with a private entity being able to force you to pay for a service that you neither asked for nor desired by someone other than your employer just so you can work for said employer?

Would you be ok with an employer forcibly taking 5% of their employees wages to use as political donations to the candidates of the employers choosing? How about just for charitable donations?
In Michigan, unions can't use dues money for political activity. Members can choose to give additional money to a PAC if they really want to, but they certainly aren't required to do so. I agree that nobody should be forced to join a union, but if you don't want to join a union then why should you get the benefits the union bargained for?

I keep getting State tax taken from my paycheck every week, and I don't agree with everything it's used for.

Edit: I can't believe I've survived this long in P&N, I just wanted to try to give an answer to Double Trouble. I'll go back to my regularly scheduled lurking... I'll be back in 13 - 15 years!
 
Last edited:
Jul 10, 2007
12,060
3
0
Your argument has nothing to do with my post....You rightists are saying these people are being "forced" to pay. If you don't want to be "forced" to pay then hit what's stopping you from finding another job?

Republicons don't give a fuck about people getting ripped off the only reason why they have a hard on for unions is because of their funding of the Democratic machine. I personally don't think the hit monetarily will harm the Democrats because as we saw in the last Election the Republicons spending for many races were more than 2 to 1 and they still got their asses handed to them because their policies suck.
The only downside I can see coming from this is the Unions influence on policy matters.
False. I'm not a registered Republican but I lean right and me being anti-union has nothing to do with which party gets funding or votes.
It's about morals and personal freedoms and work ethics; concepts that are foreign to union supporters as evidenced by your statement.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
The work to be done has nothing to do with the union. I should be able to do whatever work I am qualified to do without being forced into a union. If I want to join a union I have the option of doing that. If not, then not. Unionistas seem to have a hard time with the concept of freedom to choose.
Isn't the problem that it's an incredibly specific "freedom to choose"? I mean aside from union dues, in what other respect do you have the right to conditionally agree to certain requirements of your employment? You'd be laughed out of the room if you said to your employer "I'll work for you, but I choose not to show up at 9:00 AM like everyone else." or "I'll work for you, but I choose to have you return my share of profits going to your lobbying/political donation efforts." But somehow refusing to pay union dues, while still benefiting from the employment contracts they negotiated, seems reasonable?

The freedom to choose your employer is a perfectly reasonable one. If you don't like some aspect of a particular job, you're free to pick a different one. There are some caveats for things like worker safety and civil rights, but it's hard to see where paying union dues in a union company plays a part of that.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
False. I'm not a registered Republican but I lean right and me being anti-union has nothing to do with which party gets funding or votes.
It's about morals and personal freedoms and work ethics; concepts that are foreign to union supporters as evidenced by your statement.
As far as I can see, unions have basically the same morals and work ethic as corporations, yet the overlap of people who are anti-one or the other is minimal. The job of the union is to get the best possible deal for the workers, and everyone else can go pound sand. The job of the corporation is to get the best possible deal for the corporation, and everyone else (including the workers) can go pound sand. Yet one receives an incredible level of hatred from the right while the other gets nothing but praise. The positions might be somewhat reversed on the left, but nowhere near as strongly (rare is the liberal who would openly argue for killing corporations). It seems absolutely ridiculous to me, to be honest, and is one of the more honestly puzzling things about right-wing economics if you ask me.

Edit: To be clear...I think the idea union world would be where they have to do little work for huge pay and benefits. But the idea corporate world is where they take all your money and give you nothing in return. Except corporations and their advocates are WAY more open about those goals.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Isn't the problem that it's an incredibly specific "freedom to choose"? I mean aside from union dues, in what other respect do you have the right to conditionally agree to certain requirements of your employment? You'd be laughed out of the room if you said to your employer "I'll work for you, but I choose not to show up at 9:00 AM like everyone else." or "I'll work for you, but I choose to have you return my share of profits going to your lobbying/political donation efforts." But somehow refusing to pay union dues, while still benefiting from the employment contracts they negotiated, seems reasonable?

The freedom to choose your employer is a perfectly reasonable one. If you don't like some aspect of a particular job, you're free to pick a different one. There are some caveats for things like worker safety and civil rights, but it's hard to see where paying union dues in a union company plays a part of that.
:rolleyes:

The freedom is from a 3rd party getting between a worker and their employer. If a person wants that 3rd party then fine, very few have a problem with that. It's when people loose the choice of employment at the employer of their choice without 3rd party interference that it becomes a problem.

Oh, and a person does have the freedom to try to negotiate start times and other things you mention. They may not get them due to how the company operates but they do have the freedom to ask. Employment is an agreement between a worker and the employer. Restricting freedoms by forcing the insertion of a 3rd party is not choice, it's legalized theft which RTW helps eliminate.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY