• 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 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 8, 2012
18,877
4,059
136
There is nothing more sad and pathetic as a state that allows unions to dictate shit. I just can't imagine a more sad goal than getting a great job, all to be told after getting it ...

"Ok, you have to join this group of people"
-But what if I don't want to? I can work just fine?
"No, you have to join. You are guilty by association!"
-What the fuck man, I signed for a job, not a group of slackers and a butt-brigrade of moronic people that think they have leverage.
"Yeah, well sucks to be you. Oh yeah, in addition to tax, social security, medicare, and health care, 15% of your paycheck goes to the union dues"
- JEEBUS CHRIST! WTF
 
Nov 8, 2012
18,877
4,059
136
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/
Fun Fact Tiem!

DID YOU KNOW? You can create a group of people that will protest in unison without having dirt bags that want a cut of your paycheck, "leaders" that sit on their ass, promote laziness, and in general - a complete waste of time and money with plenty of corruption? Yes, groups of people IS possible. It's called social activity. You should try it! :thumbsup:

Retards.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
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.
Where have you ever seen unions promising equal outcomes for everyone? Unions have a simple goal, to help protect the worker against the company. How is "hey, we aren't working until conditions improve" in anyway equatable with what you are talking about? Unions help equate the power gap between the employer and employee, as employers have long abused their position at the expense of the worker.

Fun Fact Tiem!

DID YOU KNOW? You can create a group of people that will protest in unison without having dirt bags that want a cut of your paycheck, "leaders" that sit on their ass, promote laziness, and in general - a complete waste of time and money with plenty of corruption? Yes, groups of people IS possible. It's called social activity. You should try it! :thumbsup:

Retards.
Oh look, the opinion of a child.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,741
13,864
136
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...
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.
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!
Thank you.

RTW statutes force union members to provide free services to free-rider non-members, plain & simple.

If you want to make your own deal with management, fine, but demanding & receiving union protection in the process is unreasonable, which is why Repub legislatures love it so much- it weakens unions by forcing them to take care of non-members free of charge.

In truth, Unions often fight harder to preserve the jobs of free-riders than they do for members, just to avoid the possibility of misrepresentation lawsuits. It's a great way for moochers to have their cake & eat it, too.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
"Liberals" only exist in your mind. How can anyone argue with someone who blames a group that doesn't exist?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. shadow9d9 the fucked up in the head lefty insists that there's no such thing as a liberal, or a lefty, but he believes in unicorns and rainbows.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,670
271
126
It addresses the fact that you blame a phantom menace... hence you can't exactly be taken seriously.
So there's no union violence? Are you delusional? Tell that to the governor of MI. He's getting death threats against him and his family.

And you never provided proof that my claims were false, so it's you who shouldn't be taken seriously.
 
Last edited:

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
RTW statutes force union members to provide free services to free-rider non-members, plain & simple.
Wrong. That's just factually and irrefutably wrong, it's a lie spread by unionistas to pretend they're being unfairly asked to support even those who don't belong.

Unions have the option of establishing contracts for exclusive representation or not. If they choose to establish the contract for exclusive representation, then they become the ONLY entity that the employer can negotiate with on behalf of any employee (union or non-union), and thus, the non-union employees also receive the benefits of whatever the union negotiates. They union has the option of not having exclusive representation, in which case they do not have to represent anyone not in the union, and anyone not in the union doesn't have to get the same wages/benefits/representation union members get.

They can either choose exclusive representation and have to deal with free riders, or choose non exclusive representation and not have free riders.

If you want to make your own deal with management, fine, but demanding & receiving union protection in the process is unreasonable,
Again, nobody is demanding union protection without paying for it. The union itself mandates that issue because of exclusive representation contracts.

Stop spreading lies.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
I am thinking not many here ever did piece work. Something the old REAL union brought in . Its was process were you get paid for what you do . I loved it . It was great If you worked hard you made good money . The Unions got rid of piece work Because Lazy freeloaders weren't making the same money as the hard workers . Unions now become a havean for low quality workers who dragged down the Hard workers by removing their incentivies to work hard . The History of Unions tells the True story . This younger generation believes that 2 people can work side by side one doing 50% more work than the other . The Unions say NO to that All workers get payed = . They say not everyone is capable of working that hard so its not fair to give harder workers more pay.

So what happened after = pay for all members no matter who put in more effort? The American workers production level fell and new better ideas were slower incoming . All facts that can easily backed up . Screw unions They destroy productivity as we have seen in our school system . Man I dislike the gooberment union free loaders
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,325
126
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?
I am simply pointing out that the exact same argument can be used to support RTW. If you want to work in a place where the employer is so bad that you feel you need a union to protect you from them you are still free to do so. No one is forcing you to not work in a union shop.
 

Darwin333

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

RTW statutes force union members to provide free services to free-rider non-members, plain & simple.

If you want to make your own deal with management, fine, but demanding & receiving union protection in the process is unreasonable, which is why Repub legislatures love it so much- it weakens unions by forcing them to take care of non-members free of charge.

In truth, Unions often fight harder to preserve the jobs of free-riders than they do for members, just to avoid the possibility of misrepresentation lawsuits. It's a great way for moochers to have their cake & eat it, too.
I thought that was dis-proven in this thread already? If that is in fact true then it is just as bad as forcing someone to join a union and some sort of law should be passed to protect the union from such lawsuits. They should not be forced to provide a service to someone that isn't paying for it just the same as a person should not be forced to purchase a service he doesn't desire.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
I thought that was dis-proven in this thread already? If that is in fact true then it is just as bad as forcing someone to join a union and some sort of law should be passed to protect the union from such lawsuits. They should not be forced to provide a service to someone that isn't paying for it just the same as a person should not be forced to purchase a service he doesn't desire.
See post #159. It's a complete lie.
 

GMC12

Member
Oct 6, 2012
28
0
0
Right to work shows up in Michigan

Link

Now let the cracks start showing up in all the other states
Now that michigan is wright to work state does that means the Legislators no longer have seniority in the legislators? Because the union base on seniority now the legislators has no Right to seniority . Right to work is if we don't need you we can let you go with no question ask and you out of work and you loose all you benifate.good luck.:'(
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
I am simply pointing out that the exact same argument can be used to support RTW. If you want to work in a place where the employer is so bad that you feel you need a union to protect you from them you are still free to do so. No one is forcing you to not work in a union shop.
If no one is forcing you to work in a Union shop then why are the Rightists in here "outraged" over Union dues then?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
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.
Nah, the left are worked up that other people now have the right to make a decision that might not match the one they previously forced on workers.

What happened to Republicans like this??

Um, they were shot in the back by Democrats?

LOL But you left out the part where the CEO buys the Twinkies with his saved capital. (Odd how you guys profess such disdain for capital yet spend so much time and energy trying to take it from others.)

Short story: A local furniture manufacturer (mostly know for its chairs) has a plant in my home town. A union (I forget which) attempted to organize its workers. Meeting little success, they turned to violence to intimidate the workers. Well, as attempting to intimidate hillbillies who do hard physical labor for a living is not a well-thought-out plan, it predictably met with little success as the imported thugs were usually the ones who ended up in hospital. Fast forward a few decades and we find that most if not all of those workers ended up getting screwed. The company had a lucrative retirement plan in place for thirty years' service, but in almost every case employees were fired for cause in their 27th through 29th year. Men who had built chairs for twenty-nine years were suddenly judged colorblind, or habitually late, or doing substandard work even though their rejection rates were half or a third of the required rates. Worse, the jobs changed in nature. Previously most jobs were paid by production - you were paid by the piece, with no payment for pieces rejected by quality control or the next step in production - and so those who worked hard and well made very good money. Then the company began to change, hiring mostly illegals for $10 or $12 per hour regardless of output or quality.

The moral of the story is that very little is completely good or completely bad. Had the union gone in, the standard union policy would likely have kicked in, protecting the worst workers and lowering output for everyone as well as taking a hefty cut of their salaries. The plant might well have long ago closed and production outsourced to Mexico or China. However, had the union gone in and the plant remained viable, that same union would have protected the workers against such systemic and systematic abuse. We always need to seek balance and the best possible compromise. The Michigan law, providing workers protection against the union as well as allowing them to seek union protection from their employers, seems to me the best way to avoid the worst features both of unions and of the lack of unions.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,325
126
If no one is forcing you to work in a Union shop then why are the Rightists in here "outraged" over Union dues then?

If no one is forcing you NOT to work in a union shop why is the left outraged over RTW?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,325
126
Right to work is if we don't need you we can let you go with no question ask and you out of work and you loose all you benifate.good luck.:'(
Exactly what should a company do with an employee that they no longer need?
 

SaurusX

Senior member
Nov 13, 2012
993
0
41
RTW statutes force union members to provide free services to free-rider non-members, plain & simple.
<snip>
It's a great way for moochers to have their cake & eat it, too.
I bet you support Obamaphones, don't you?
 

Gardener

Senior member
Nov 22, 1999
481
105
116
Are you a labor lawyer? Looking at International Assn. of Machinists v. Street, the line the refer to


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
Hey Halik. Thanks for your thoughful post.

Specific to your point...not a lawyer but have some familiarity with the NLRA and labor. Concerning that 10000 word decision from 1935, do you care to summarize? It appears that management was driving the employees to chose the union management preferred, which under the Act is illegal.

As for the concept of Exclusive Bargaining Agent, it is a fundamental right granted to workers by the Act.

Without exclusivity, it would be easy for a company to circumvent and crush the union. Management would favor one group over another, or non-union over union, a simple divide and conquer strategy.

Asking union workers to give up that right is the same as asking them to give up collective bargaining.

The another option, however, is the type of labor law in Australia and Western Europe, iirc, where there is industry wide representation. In that framework, there is no restriction limiting union membership to those "working at a union plant". Anyone can join or not join, regardless of where they work. Its a different system of power sharing between workers and management, and it seems logical.

As for the advocates of RTW: If they were consistent, they would be advocating freedom of choice at all work sites, including non-union sites.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY