Wisconsin to be 25th RTW state!

[bshole]

Meh, unions have been dying a death of a thousand cuts already. The unions lost this battle years ago when they were unable to prevent the legislation that allowed the hollowing out of America's manufacturing sector via labor exportation. That was the deciding battle of the labor war. The union FAILED and proven that it is ineffective at preserving the jobs of labor. This is just sticking a knife into the quivering corpse. The wealthy have reclaimed the kind of economic rapist status that they held in 1900. At the rate they are going, they will soon reach an wealth/income inequality unparalleled in American history..... it could very well happen in our lifetime.

Scott Walker, the nutter, thinks this will give him the presidency. He's butt-fuck crazy. He has as much charisma as a dead rat.

On a side note: when the hell can I see an Indian doctor who actually lives in India at slave labor rates? Shit we have the technology to do that now, why can't we start using it?

 

[werepossum]

Illegals are cheaper than union labor though. If Wisconsin and other RTW state workers want to compete with illegals by working more for less pay, it is good for us consumers, and we should not discourage it.

The vast majority of consumers are also wage earners. I guarantee that every single American has a number of people worldwide who are ready, willing and able to do his or her job cheaper. Do we really want a race to the bottom? Even assuming my job is more difficult than most to offshore or fill with an illegal, can I enjoy my lower prices if they are at my neighbor's expense? I'd be a pretty bad person if I supported things that were good for me individually without even considering their effect on others.

All you have to do is opt-out. That's a right guaranteed to EVERY union employee in California...even you state employees. Once you fill out that form every year, the union will no longer use one penny of your union dues for political purposes...

Unions are a good thing for America...when they're managed right and actually work FOR the employees who are in them. Not all are so well managed...nor actually work for their employee members...but MOST do. MOST give good value for the dues they collect.
Having worked construction in California for 25 years, I saw the "best non-union companies" in the region...they consistently paid their workers $10-$15/hr less than their unionized counterparts...and usually with either zero benefits, of minimal benefits.
I always considered that difference in wages and benefits to be "non-union dues," because that difference is what you "pay" for not having to pay union dues.
Myself, I'll gladly pay $100/mo in union dues to make an extra $400-$600 per week...or more..plus GREAT medical benefits.

Are unions a great fit for all jobs? Fuck no...but for "manual labor" work, they're the best option for the worker.

Why would anyone bitch about the union supporting politicians who vote for policies that benefit workers? Those few $$$ out of your dues that the union uses for political purposes is spent making your life better...whether you like it or not.

My experience has been just the opposite. I see the best non-union shops pay better than union scale to keep good workers, because the trade unions do have value. They have less value to the best employees, but still some value.

Unions protect the worst, lowest skilled workers; the highest skilled, most desirable workers tend to earn more in either union or non-union shops. That said, I'm a big trade union supporter because protecting the worst, lowest skilled workers also protects the owner in construction. That worst, lowest skilled worker has to be worth union scale or the employer will drop him. In a non-union shop the employer is motivated to keep the lowest skilled workers because they must work for less, and in a low bid market I'll usually get the non-union shops with large numbers of these cheap, undesirable workers. If it was up to me I'd have only union shops because while all the union shops have a reasonably high minimum competency, many non-union shops have a very low minimum competency.

It's worth pointing out though that most of the states where I work are Right To Work states and the union shops still compete with the non-union shops.

They are not allowing two private entities to associate in whatever way they see fit. It's unquestionably a violation of freedom of association.

There's a reason why a lot of conservatives oppose right to work laws as fundamentally incompatible with conservative values.

As has been pointed out, this is based on a third party (other employees) restricting the freedom of contracting between an employee and an employer. Each employee retains an absolute right to place his preferred third party (the union) into his own personal individual interaction with his employer. The employee loses only one thing, the ability to force his preference on other employees. This is not even close to a violation of freedom of association; it's closer to redressing a violation of freedom of association.

 

[Jhhnn]

As has been pointed out, this is based on a third party (other employees) restricting the freedom of contracting between an employee and an employer. Each employee retains an absolute right to place his preferred third party (the union) into his own personal individual interaction with his employer. The employee loses only one thing, the ability to force his preference on other employees. This is not even close to a violation of freedom of association; it's closer to redressing a violation of freedom of association.

Not quite. The individual free rider employee also compromises the bargaining power of his fellow employees & thus his own. That's the whole point of "right to work".

 

[senseamp]

The vast majority of consumers are also wage earners. I guarantee that every single American has a number of people worldwide who are ready, willing and able to do his or her job cheaper. Do we really want a race to the bottom?

Wisconsin does. I won't stop them. They know their worth, and they decided they don't deserve union wages or benefits.

 

[bshole]

The vast majority of consumers are also wage earners. I guarantee that every single American has a number of people worldwide who are ready, willing and able to do his or her job cheaper. Do we really want a race to the bottom? Even assuming my job is more difficult than most to offshore or fill with an illegal, can I enjoy my lower prices if they are at my neighbor's expense? I'd be a pretty bad person if I supported things that were good for me individually without even considering their effect on others.

So you are kinda moderate/liberal on some issues and moderate/conservative on most others. You are like all over the map politically. Hard to keep a bead on you sometimes.

 

[crashtech]

I would say that it's not so much a race to the bottom as a pause while the rest of the world tries to catch up. Though anyone with knowledge of the resources required to live a Western lifestyle will know that is about the most optimistic way to spin current trends.

 

[senseamp]

Yeah, Wisconsin is just slowing down till sub-Saharan Africa catches up.

 

[berzerker60]

I also find it hilarious(ly depressing) that so many people will shout for the death of unions because some unions do a mediocre-to-poor job of protecting workers from management's exploitation, yet have nothing bad to say about the management that runs this country by exploiting the shit out of workers in so much more painful ways.

Those damned unions took $10 from my paycheck, it's awful!! What do you mean, I might find it more upsetting that I get zero maternity/paternity leave, a bare few days of vacation that I'll get pressured into taking only if/when it's convenient for the company, illegal pressure to work during lunch hours and stay late and come in on weekends without compensation, punitively fired "for cause" if I blow the whistle on something illegal or protest any of the above?

Want to undermine unions without making the world a shittier place? That's simple. Just pass worker benefits (even if it *costs jobs boohoohoo* like has been said about child labor laws, minimum wages, basic food safety standards, and every other regulation ever) that make quality of life better for the vast majority and protect workers from abuse. Then there will be no *need* for unions.

 

[crashtech]

Yeah, Wisconsin is just slowing down till sub-Saharan Africa catches up.

Either we participate in a global economy or we don't. But I suppose you should get some style points for dismissive snarkiness. High five.

 

[werepossum]

Wisconsin does. I won't stop them. They know their worth, and they decided they don't deserve union wages or benefits.

Nope. They decided that they were smart enough to decide for themselves, as free individuals, whether to represent themselves or have someone else do it for them.

So you are kinda moderate/liberal on some issues and moderate/conservative on most others. You are like all over the map politically. Hard to keep a bead on you sometimes.

Of course. No one political group has a monopoly on correct stances. Heck, on most issues there isn't even a right side and a wrong side, merely a more right/less wrong side and a slightly less right/more wrong side. If both sides didn't have good arguments on most issues, near half the nation would not follow them. The sole exception that springs to mind is gay marriage; I really see no good argument against it.

For the record, I'm a tree hugging fiscally conservative socially liberal America-first libertarian populist who accepts that the libertarian philosophy, like all political philosophies, has areas where it is not workable, much less optimal. The real question is why I'm not part of a huge crowd of like-minded individuals. Especially considering the alternatives - the Democrat and Republican Parties.

 

[werepossum]

You realize that you just claimed to be exploited by not being paid for nothing?

I also find it hilarious(ly depressing) that so many people will shout for the death of unions because some unions do a mediocre-to-poor job of protecting workers from management's exploitation, yet have nothing bad to say about the management that runs this country by exploiting the shit out of workers in so much more painful ways.

Those damned unions took $10 from my paycheck, it's awful!! What do you mean, I might find it more upsetting that I get zero maternity/paternity leave, a bare few days of vacation that I'll get pressured into taking only if/when it's convenient for the company, illegal pressure to work during lunch hours and stay late and come in on weekends without compensation, punitively fired "for cause" if I blow the whistle on something illegal or protest any of the above?

Want to undermine unions without making the world a shittier place? That's simple. Just pass worker benefits (even if it *costs jobs boohoohoo* like has been said about child labor laws, minimum wages, basic food safety standards, and every other regulation ever) that make quality of life better for the vast majority and protect workers from abuse. Then there will be no *need* for unions.

 

[senseamp]

Either we participate in a global economy or we don't. But I suppose you should get some style points for dismissive snarkiness. High five.

There are different ways to participate in the global economy.

"Participating" like RTW states, by racing to the bottom and reducing their own workers' negotiating leverage, in hopes of being more competitive than cheap labor in China, Bangladesh, etc.

Or participating like California, with Silicon Valley, Hollywood, aerospace, bio tech, etc, which are more competitive, despite much higher costs than rest of the world. That's the differentiation happening now, between high value add states and low cost of labor states. Wisconsin has decided their ticket to success is to be a little cheaper (but still not cheap enough) labor.

 

[berzerker60]

You realize that you just claimed to be exploited by not being paid for nothing?

I would be fine with a federal program for maternity/paternity leave paid for by taxes rather than forcing companies to pay it, but regardless, it's a standard throughout the first world. It does a lot of good things for society:
-keeps highly-skilled/educated employees from dropping entirely out of the work force to have kids because it's no longer an either/or proposition, thereby increasing economic mobility
--Corollary: Makes the company more attractive to top-level employees from around the world, increasing economic competitiveness
-Look at Japan to see the long-term problems of an aging society. We need youth to keep the economy moving, expanding, and adapting
-There are a lot of links between parental care/involvement and child welfare, with long-term benefits in forming healthy, productive citizens when the children grow up

Not having those benefits I mention is hardly the worst tragedy of all time, but they are standard in lots of other countries, including economically successful ones like Germany. Workers here work longer for far less benefits than lots and lots of other countries. I, for one, think we should strive for the best possible quality of life for Americans.

 

[Gardener]

You can continue to think it can't be done but it most certainly could be done under current regulation. Unions choose not to due to power reasons. Thier choice thus requires them to do certain things.(like represent non-members)
btw, the 2 guys are not specialists in anything really. No training, apprenticeship, etc. More of a general labor type union.

Thanks for thoughtful post on this CAD.

What you are suggesting can't be done under current regulation in any meaningful sense. If you attempted to organize a worksite outside of the system of rules in the NLRA you have no legal standing with the labor board, and management could and would simply ignore your organization, refuse to recognize it, and refuse to bargain.

I'm guessing the 2 union guys are contract workers at your company, not direct hires? Regardless, they are members of a some craft union, which is more like an association and certification program, not a direct bargaining unit with your management.

So for a site based union, all the workers are covered by the contract, and have the right to its representation. In Union Security states, if you start work at a plant that is covered by a union contract you pay dues or pay a "fair share" fee which is the cost of representation. In Right to Work states, you can opt out of paying ANY fees. However, you are still covered by the union contract, grievance procedure, and the right to union representation. And those costs are covered by a smaller pool of people, both dividing the workforce, and eroding the union.

The net result in RTW states is this: After 10 years, no one remembers what it was like before the union, and all they can see is the $30-$40 a month coming out of their checks, so they vote out the union.

Its a simple, elegant plan.

 

[werepossum]

I would be fine with a federal program for maternity/paternity leave paid for by taxes rather than forcing companies to pay it, but regardless, it's a standard throughout the first world. It does a lot of good things for society:
-keeps highly-skilled/educated employees from dropping entirely out of the work force to have kids because it's no longer an either/or proposition, thereby increasing economic mobility
--Corollary: Makes the company more attractive to top-level employees from around the world, increasing economic competitiveness
-Look at Japan to see the long-term problems of an aging society. We need youth to keep the economy moving, expanding, and adapting
-There are a lot of links between parental care/involvement and child welfare, with long-term benefits in forming healthy, productive citizens when the children grow up

Not having those benefits I mention is hardly the worst tragedy of all time, but they are standard in lots of other countries, including economically successful ones like Germany. Workers here work longer for far less benefits than lots and lots of other countries. I, for one, think we should strive for the best possible quality of life for Americans.

Good points.

I have no problems with you wanting paid maternity/paternity leave, only with you feeling exploited if you don't have it.

 

[werepossum]

Thanks for thoughtful post on this CAD.

What you are suggesting can't be done under current regulation in any meaningful sense. If you attempted to organize a worksite outside of the system of rules in the NLRA you have no legal standing with the labor board, and management could and would simply ignore your organization, refuse to recognize it, and refuse to bargain.

I'm guessing the 2 union guys are contract workers at your company, not direct hires? Regardless, they are members of a some craft union, which is more like an association and certification program, not a direct bargaining unit with your management.

So for a site based union, all the workers are covered by the contract, and have the right to its representation. In Union Security states, if you start work at a plant that is covered by a union contract you pay dues or pay a "fair share" fee which is the cost of representation. In Right to Work states, you can opt out of paying ANY fees. However, you are still covered by the union contract, grievance procedure, and the right to union representation. And those costs are covered by a smaller pool of people, both dividing the workforce, and eroding the union.

The net result in RTW states is this: After 10 years, no one remembers what it was like before the union, and all they can see is the $30-$40 a month coming out of their checks, so they vote out the union.

Its a simple, elegant plan.

A union should provide value to both parties, employer and employee. Why should government force an employer to bargain with a union? That should be the union's job, to represent employees the employer will wish to keep in order to persuade the employer to bargain.

A job is a mutually beneficial agreement between two parties. Anything that interferes with that inherently fair agreement represents a distortion of the market, and government should tread lightly when imposing those distortions to ensure only truly pressing societal needs (such as preserving individual liberty or providing a minimum wage to ensure that work is actually worth the trouble for the unskilled) are being met.

 

[Gardener]

Meh, unions have been dying a death of a thousand cuts already. The unions lost this battle years ago when they were unable to prevent the legislation that allowed the hollowing out of America's manufacturing sector via labor exportation. That was the deciding battle of the labor war. The union FAILED and proven that it is ineffective at preserving the jobs of labor. This is just sticking a knife into the quivering corpse. The wealthy have reclaimed the kind of economic rapist status that they held in 1900. At the rate they are going, they will soon reach an wealth/income inequality unparalleled in American history..... it could very well happen in our lifetime.

Scott Walker, the nutter, thinks this will give him the presidency. He's butt-fuck crazy. He has as much charisma as a dead rat.

On a side note: when the hell can I see an Indian doctor who actually lives in India at slave labor rates? Shit we have the technology to do that now, why can't we start using it?

Funny post. But the goal for the republicans now is to force the unions to spend the rest of their treasuries, and then run the table on the democrats...until the democrats become the republicans (and the republicans are raptured to hell).

Remember, the unions are the only reason the democrats still exist. The last senate election cycle Democrats were outspend 2 to 1 in competitive seats, and 5 to 1 in non-competitive seats, and that was all labor money.

Who else will fund the democrats? Gay rights groups? Environmentalists? Half-hearted gutless liberals who are really conservatives?

Once we kill labor we become China. One party, one media message, lots of consumption.

A few fun facts: Organized labor considered leaving the democratic party and forming their own party back in the late 1988. That would have stopped that Clinton and NAFTA.

People are already taking "hip replacement" vacations to India.

My Chinese American dentist told me of a patient who went to china and had his entire mouth crowned for $50 a tooth...now he's a basket case of hypersensitivity, they can barely clean his teeth using warm water....

 

[crashtech]

There are different ways to participate in the global economy.

"Participating" like RTW states, by racing to the bottom and reducing their own workers' negotiating leverage, in hopes of being more competitive than cheap labor in China, Bangladesh, etc.

Or participating like California, with Silicon Valley, Hollywood, aerospace, bio tech, etc, which are more competitive, despite much higher costs than rest of the world. That's the differentiation happening now, between high value add states and low cost of labor states. Wisconsin has decided their ticket to success is to be a little cheaper (but still not cheap enough) labor.

I find little to disagree with here, other than the fact that tech and showbiz jobs will always comprise a small minority of available work. Don't get me wrong, I am all for pushing high tech and (hopefully) difficult to outsource jobs as hard and fast as possible, and I hope it can make a significant difference, but as far as the big picture goes I am not as optimistic as you.

 

[BoberFett]

Thanks for thoughtful post on this CAD.

What you are suggesting can't be done under current regulation in any meaningful sense. If you attempted to organize a worksite outside of the system of rules in the NLRA you have no legal standing with the labor board, and management could and would simply ignore your organization, refuse to recognize it, and refuse to bargain.

I'm guessing the 2 union guys are contract workers at your company, not direct hires? Regardless, they are members of a some craft union, which is more like an association and certification program, not a direct bargaining unit with your management.

So for a site based union, all the workers are covered by the contract, and have the right to its representation. In Union Security states, if you start work at a plant that is covered by a union contract you pay dues or pay a "fair share" fee which is the cost of representation. In Right to Work states, you can opt out of paying ANY fees. However, you are still covered by the union contract, grievance procedure, and the right to union representation. And those costs are covered by a smaller pool of people, both dividing the workforce, and eroding the union.

The net result in RTW states is this: After 10 years, no one remembers what it was like before the union, and all they can see is the $30-$40 a month coming out of their checks, so they vote out the union.

Its a simple, elegant plan.

If nobody can remember what it was like before the union, is the union really earning its dues?

 

[berzerker60]

Ugh, Scott Walker is such a disgusting cancer on Wisconsin.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com...ers-object-to-scott-walker-proposal/22863235/

Wants to strip the board of the Department of Natural Resources of any binding decision-making power so he can have that power himself, and also fire all of their scientists so he can hire "consultants" to do research on these topics.

The Republican governor's state budget proposal calls for transforming the board into an advisory panel, ending its ability to set policy for the DNR. That would allow the governor to control the agency directly through Secretary Cathy Stepp, a Walker appointee, with no checks or balances.
...
Besides the board proposal, Walker's budget also would eliminate 66 positions in the DNR's science bureau in lieu of hiring consultants to conduct the agency's studies

 

[sportage]

Again, the confusion.
RTW has little to do with unions BECAUSE most people are not in a union.
But... RTW does and will have major impact on non-union workers and their legal relationship to the employer.

You need not be in a union to get screwed by the employer.
But, you do need a state without RTW to play fair with the employer.

What always happens is, and TAKE NOTE, and exactly what will happen in Wisconsin, that after RTW passes, every and all business will search the law books tooth and nail to discover new ways to screw their employees, legally thanks to RTW.
Employers will fully examine just what that employer can now get away with.
And every employer will then put in place new rules and regulations to benefit the employer, and never the employee.

What usually happens in a RTW state, when employees are screwed out of overtime or wages or benefits or unfair unjustified firings to ensure new employee replacements earn the minimum basic wage rather than pay the seasoned loyal long termed employee a decent wage, what always happens is the wronged employees filing a CLASS ACTION law suit to remedy the RTW injustice.

And if you check out all those many many MANY class action law suits by harmed employees, you will find more often than not, the class action lawsuit wins in court.
The employee(s) win in the end thru class action, but only after the fact.
The problem here is, that the lawyers take all the rewards and the wronged employees get very little of the reward.

RTW? You will not like it if you are an employee. No one bit. I guarantee you!!!!!
Republican, democrat, liberal, or far righty, your employer will scan the books and discover new ways to legally screw the workers.
And they have a lot of fun with doing that.
With much legal assistance to guide the employer exactly how to screw their employees for the benefit and profit of the company.

In truth, Unions have very little to do with it.
RTW changes the relationship between the employer and the employee, and never for any benefit for the employee.
The employer has everything to gain and nothing to lose.
And the employee has everything to lose. And will.

Ps.
Regardless of your politics, regardless of your ideology, all it takes is one time being cheated out of wage, overtime, fairness, advancement or lack of, fare treatment, by your employer in a RTW state.

Your gut knee jerk reaction?
"I'm going to the labor board. They can't get away with this".
And when at the state labor board?
You will be told, in every RTW state, you the employee have NO rights. Period!

Sure, maybe you worked for 15 years and were in line for that promotion, and the boss promoted the less qualified, only been there 6 months, better looking girl. That new girl that spends all her time in his office gabbing, while you work your butt off.

Or that day they called you in 2 hours early because they were short of help, but you never received overtime pay. You only received regular pay for overtime worked.

Or the time you wanted a week off for vacation, and you put in for a week off, and some other employee later puts in for the same week off, and while you asked first the boss gives the week off to the other guy, and not you.

All are examples of RTW state employers screwing of their employees.
And the labor board will not help you one little bit.
You sit back, and lose out on all the promotions, on all the fairness, on all the wages while the new guy reaps all the employer benefits. And just because he, like the boss, plays golf. Or likes the Mets. Or their kids go to the same pre-school together. Or they both frequent the same bar.

THAT is the hard cold reality of RTW.
.
.

 

[senseamp]

There is nothing that says the electorate should be happier or better off as a result of their own stupidity. Wisconsinites elected Walker and a Republican legislature, they are going to get what's coming to them as a result.

 

[Darwin333]

So you are kinda moderate/liberal on some issues and moderate/conservative on most others. You are like all over the map politically. Hard to keep a bead on you sometimes.

That's because he, along with a rather small group of people, actually consider issues one at a time and judge them on the merits instead of towing some bullshit party line or mindlessly following a group.

 

[bshole]

That's because he, along with a rather small group of people, actually consider issues one at a time and judge them on the merits instead of towing some bullshit party line or mindlessly following a group.

I myself prefer to find out what the official Democratic line is on position so I know what is the correct thing to believe. I loathe all the independent thinkers who refuse to tow/toe the party line.

 

[crashtech]

I think the official party line of either side is to make sure and get extra hysterical and foamy at the mouth when characterizing the other side as enemies of everything we hold dear. Maybe a step above flinging feces, but not as big a step as we imagine.