Michigan - Unions will no longer run our state

[umbrella39]

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.

Awwww poor dumb ass who thinks only in black and white... I am not pro union as stated here before. They had their place in Michigan decades ago. I am pro telling the truth and pro not lame ducking BS on the fly like this is being rammed down our throats by one party without including the other. Up until a couple of days of ago I thought Rick was doing a fairly good job of running the State. He has even told members of his own party to go to hell a few times this year. And just like I stated up until a couple of days ago it wasn't a blip on his radar until Dick DeVos made it or the GOP wouldn't even be pushing this because they knew he wouldn't sign it. NOW he will. That fact is lost on you. I am not pro union but I am certainly not pro big business nuthugger either. Their IS a happy medium...

 

[buckshot24]

Well, yeh, except that wages as a % of GDP have fallen-

Yeah, because family sizes have gotten smaller and people wait longer to get married.

All the usual blather about Freedom!

I see, you're for tyranny then.

& so forth from that sector flies in defiance of reality- the reality that workers have no power as individuals, only as a group.

They are still free to form. What they aren't going to be free to do is force those who don't want to join to join and libs are throwing a hissy fit.

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.

So you want to force people to join a group and to give to an organization that they may not agree with?

As far as management & ownership is concerned, the only freedom you have is the freedom to starve.

Yup, business owners want their workers to starve and die of cancer in the streets. You've got them figured out there.

 

[Slammy1]

I'll preface this by saying I'm in a union.

I think it's all about economic distribution. Upper management has its share, dropping the struggle to middle management and labor. In a union shop equivalent compensation (if you worked that much OT) labor beats middle management due to contract history. It's hard to negotiate a reduction in benefits, which is the same problem as the upper manager who may actually have a vote in their compensation.

It's difficult to discuss this all without sounding socialist. Profiteering on behalf of upper management is the root problem, when we were more affluent unskilled labor was more valuable. Why should presumably more skilled labor be less compensated? Just seems a failure in business model.

 

[venkman]

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?

huh? All the economic data points to real wages stagnating. At least get your facts right.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, because family sizes have gotten smaller and people wait longer to get married.

Non-sequiter. The number of children has nothing to do with family income.

The rest? Freedumb!

 

[zsdersw]

Again, both management and unions are far too shortsighted. If everyone looked a few more moves ahead instead of just one they'd see that worker and management interests are far more aligned than it seems.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Again, both management and unions are far too shortsighted. If everyone looked a few more moves ahead instead of just one they'd see that worker and management interests are far more aligned than it seems.

Absolutely. This is what makes no sense about the wealth inequality increase in this country. Why shrink the middle class when they drive the markets and put the most money into the pockets of the ultra rich on a consistent basis? It just makes zero sense economically.

 

[NesuD]

This right to work initiative is simply put nothing more than push back. This is the result of the unions blatant attempt to entrench unionism in the states constitution this past election cycle. It was overwhelmingly rejected by the citizens of the state however the unions had opened the proverbial Pandora's box and now they are seeing it's result. They should have left well enough alone.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Yeah, because family sizes have gotten smaller and people wait longer to get married.

Its a well studied fact that incomes have fallen over the last 30 years. Also, in 1950 very few women were working once married.

They are still free to form. What they aren't going to be free to do is force those who don't want to join to join .

There are very legitimate reasons to oppose these kinds of laws.

Is there anything in these laws that stops an employer from favoring non-union over union? Because there is that danger.

In many industries employers have a disproportionate amount of power over wages and benefits. 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.

So you want to force people to join a group and to give to an organization that they may not agree with?

As others have stated, you don't have to work for an employer with unionized employees.

Yup, business owners want their workers to starve and die of cancer in the streets. You've got them figured out there.

Unfortunately the historical record shows capitalism has a very bad track record there.

If a resource can be expoited for profit, even to the detriment of that resource, then companies/individuals will do so regardless of what that resource is (human, food, mineral etc).

Again, both management and unions are far too shortsighted. If everyone looked a few more moves ahead instead of just one they'd see that worker and management interests are far more aligned than it seems.

I've argued this for years. Allow unions to share directly in the profits, and things would be very different.

 

[TeeJay1952]

The fact that union members have pension, health care and the other things that are missing in so many people's lives seems to indicate to me that Closed shop rules were good for the community in general and taxpayers in particular.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The fact that union members have pension, health care and the other things that are missing in so many people's lives seems to indicate to me that Closed shop rules were good for the community in general and taxpayers in particular.

what do pensions and healthcare have to do with "closed shop"?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

As others have stated, you don't have to work for an employer with unionized employees.

So closed shop unions limit a worker's choice of employers?

 

[TeeJay1952]

what do pensions and healthcare have to do with "closed shop"?

How do you think the people got those benefits? Do you think the employers willingly share the profits?

 

[halik]

How do you think the people got those benefits? Do you think the employers willingly share the profits?

Every place I've ever worked for shared profits in the form of my compensation...
I think you don't understand basic accounting.

 

[werepossum]

every place i've ever worked for shared profits in the form of my compensation...
I think you don't understand basic accounting.

lol +1

 

[PokerGuy]

I am pro telling the truth and pro not lame ducking BS on the fly like this is being rammed down our throats by one party without including the other.

I didn't think this was a thread about obummercare.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

How do you think the people got those benefits? Do you think the employers willingly share the profits?

It happens all the time.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Do those workers make as much money as a UAW worker?

They make a few bucks less per hour, and continue to vote against being unionized.
Very telling don't u think?

 

[PokerGuy]

How do you think the people got those benefits? Do you think the employers willingly share the profits?

Basic supply and demand. Companies will pay whatever they have to in order to attract the talent they need to maximize profits. If they don't pay enough, they won't be able to attract the workforce they want/need. If they pay too much their expenses will be too high and they'll have a tough time competing in the marketplace.

 

[OutHouse]

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.

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.

 

[marincounty]

Did you notice they exempted police and fire unions from these provisions? Here in California they are the highest paid union members and have the most ridiculous pensions.
Why did they exempt these public service unions?

 

[monovillage]

Union thugs are just thugs, street gangs and criminals with a thin veneer of legitimacy they're quickly losing. Prosecute them under RICO.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Union thugs are just thugs, street gangs and criminals with a thin veneer of legitimacy they're quickly losing. Prosecute them under RICO.

Speaking of thugs... watch this video

http://youtu.be/u_F3oev06i0

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Did you notice they exempted police and fire unions from these provisions? Here in California they are the highest paid union members and have the most ridiculous pensions.
Why did they exempt these public service unions?

Because going after police and firemen unions is a political third rail due to fear mongering and hysteria pushed by these same unions and their leaders who cozy up to politicians in charge. The same can be said about prison guard unions who also do the same to get what they want from state governments.

Image if citizens suddenly had a choice between a unionized public police, fire, or prison guard force versus private entities whose service contract is dependent on the satisfaction of the quality of service they provide to the communities they serve instead of the locked in government monopoly of public workers who currently provide these services? Maybe, just maybe then there might be more incentives for these groups to provide the "Social Justice" sought by those who cry out for it minority communities.

 

[marincounty]

Because going after police and firemen unions is a political third rail due to fear mongering and hysteria pushed by these same unions and their leaders who cozy up to politicians in charge. The same can be said about prison guard unions who also do the same to get what they want from state governments.

Image if citizens suddenly had a choice between a unionized public police, fire, or prison guard force versus a private entities whose contract is dependent on the satisfaction of the quality of service they provide to the communities they serve instead of locked in government monopoly of public workers who currently provide these service? Maybe, just maybe then there might be incentives for these groups to provide the "Social Justice" sought by those who cry for it minority communities.

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.