Michigan set to become Right To Work State

[TheWalrus]

[/B]i know what you are saying, but that should be up to the employee if he wants to support the union.

So then employees who aren't in the union shouldn't benefit from the efforts of the union, right? It's fine with you if compared to their union counterparts, they're forced to work more hours for less pay, get fewer days off and a reduced pension?

many conservative people dont want to be in unions because they dont agree wtih their politics. this will keep them honest. also, dont pretend that unions are the most efficent in regards to a quality workforce.

Efficiency has nothing to do with it, for either side. It's about cutting the deal that's best for you. Capitalism only ensures that people's motives are focused on profit, which in theory helps engender efficiency. But it doesn't always work that way, especially when CEOs only stay at a company for a few years at a time. Their motivation is wholly in the short term, which can -- as we saw in 2008 -- lead to disastrous results down the road.

in most unions, if employee (A) works very hard and has only been at the plant for 4 years and only makes $20 an hour, meanwhile employee (B) has worked at the plant for 10 years and sucks at his job, yet he gets the raises and promotions because he has tenure. there are negatives on both sides, you feel like this is capitalism, i feel like it is freedom. agree to disagree.

You assume people with tenure suck at their jobs. I'm not sure why.

Anyway, what I'm describing is indeed capitalism, because the workers are using their leverage to better conditions for themselves just as management will use their leverage to maximize their own goals. Right to Work seeks to impede the worker's right to maximize their leverage.

this problem has unfolded right in front of our eyes. many unions is states like (CA, WI, ILL, etc) have promised their public employee unions pensions that the taxpayer cant pay for.

And who's fault is that?

Despite having a huge amount of leverage during WWII, the unions decided -- out of patriotism -- not to try to angle the best deal for themselves while the fighting was still going on. Instead they waited until the war was over, at which point the deal cut was this: less wages up front for more benefits on the back end.

Happy to live with a great profit margin in the short run, businesses and the government happily took the deal. But now they're not so happy, because the benefits ended up being worth a lot more over the long haul.

This is not the fault of unions. It's the fault of the people who made that deal for not being able to see five feet in front of them. But people seem content to bash the unions because they cut a smart deal rather than pressure their lawmakers negotiate better.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich's book Supercapitalism does a great job explaining the post war period in the labor movement (as well as many other interesting things). I recommend it to all.

in a private company, the company is responsible to the companies money. in a public employee situation, the elected officials will give the public unions anything they want so they can gain votes.

Which doesn't address my argument. You're seeking to restrict the rights of people because they're employed by the government and need to show some legal basis for that.

---------- Post added at 07:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 PM ----------

It's the rights of the employees vs the rights of the taxpayers. Public unions negotiate with government officials about how much of the taxpayer's money they are promised. The taxpayer is never represented in those negotiations.

Imagine two greedy people deciding how much of your future earnings they get without any concern for your ability to pay or giving you any say in the matter.

This is a republic, not a democracy. We elect representatives to do that negotiating for us.

The "say" you're referring to is called "voting."

[bigguy1381]

CWA district 3. Pension eliminated for new hires, healthcare costs are 3 times as much as they used to be, no longer have weekends off, and raises are not equal to the cost of living increases. I'm in no way complaining about any of this and I'm very blessed to have such a good job in these tough times, but I no longer pay union dues because of the fact that the employees have had to sacrifice the benefits we once had, yet the CWA is still taking the same amount of money out of our checks.

[Buddy]

Imagine two greedy people deciding how much of your future earnings they get without any concern for your ability to pay or giving you any say in the matter.

Holy crap, that just happened to me last month!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Dolphins9954]

Here's my take on unions and right to work. In my line of work not having the ability to hire and fire who I want would be a disaster. Let's say I'm a GC in Michigan and I got a lot of work that needs to be done. Forcing me to only use union workers and not allowing me the ability to hire who I want would have serious implications on how I do my job and more imporatantly the budget for doing that job. No matter what the bottom line is money and costs when it comes to investors and banks. Which make up the majority of my work. I'm not anti-union and I don't support things like the Wisconsin collective bargaining law. Which I felt went to far. Not to mention the same bill which was worse under the democrats in Massachusetts. (That got little to no media coverage) But having the power to make the decision on who does my jobs is vital to my business and finances. I support the right to workers getting together and organizing. At the same time I believe in the employer's right to hire who he wants. Unions should have to compete with the local and state markets and employers shouldn't be forced to only hire them. That's my take.

[Eshlemon]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




Only good can come from this. Especially for that corrupt political cesspool that is Detroit

I agree with this too. Employees should not be forced to join and pay union dues and welcome Michigan joining the other non-closed shop states and federal government.

[jared81]

So then employees who aren't in the union shouldn't benefit from the efforts of the union, right? It's fine with you if compared to their union counterparts, they're forced to work more hours for less pay, get fewer days off and a reduced pension

no I'm not ok with that. In every business there is dead weight and people who do more. If the union is really such a good deal, people will gladly pay the dues.

You assume people with tenure suck at their jobs. I'm not sure why.

thats your assumption, I think we can both agree that in any business (union and non union) there are people who deserve to be promoted and people who deserve to not be promoted or fired.

Anyway, what I'm describing is indeed capitalism, because the workers are using their leverage to better conditions for themselves just as management will use their leverage to maximize their own goals. Right to Work seeks to impede the worker's right to maximize their leverage.

Right to work gives people an option, which is freedom. Why is it ok to keep giving an entity money if you don't agree with their views or performance? This holds the unions accountable.

Despite having a huge amount of leverage during WWII, the unions decided -- out of patriotism -- not to try to angle the best deal for themselves while the fighting was still going on. Instead they waited until the war was over, at which point the deal cut was this: less wages up front for more benefits on the back end.

While we're talking about the past, a republican freed the slaves. Who cares what happened long ago?

Which doesn't address my argument. You're seeking to restrict the rights of people because they're employed by the government and need to show some legal basis for that.

I am not a lawyer so I won't be seeking to find legal grounds. That's what the courts are for, it appears this has been done many other times in many states.

[WVDolphan]

Unions are a natural by product of a capitalist system. If you're going to engender a society where everything is commoditized, then the worker will eventually see their own skills and labor as a commodity and look for the best leverage points to maximize their wages, or personal profit if you will.

It seems contradictory to me for laizze faire types to bemoan the influence of unions when all unions are doing is using the same strategies as those who employ them... strategies those laizze fair types endorse with a shrug and a "what can you do? It's capitalism."

Like Voter ID laws, which sound great in theory but in practice have a very different goal, the Right to Work movement is really only a tool to break the influence of unions and thus make wages and working conditions worse. I completely understand why businesses want it, but the workers who endorse it strike me mainly as a very scared and weak group of people, mostly without useful skills, who thanks to the direct efforts of their employers have come to see themselves in direct competition with workers in Mexico and China rather than having rights and power of their own. The dynamic is really not unlike a woman who sees herself as so unattractive she'll grovel at the feet of a man who beats her.

Unions have been a great boon to the people of this country and all workers, whether unionized or not, have benefited from their efforts. It's not an accident that the decrease of their influence has coincided exactly with the drop in wages adjusted for inflation.

Damn. The Walrus is correct again.

[Dogbone34]

huge difference between public and private sector unions. in one, everything is paid for by taxes. two completely different animals in terms of financial impact on the public.

[MoFinz]

I disagree. I don't think this is going to work out well at all. The last of our manufacturing jobs are protected via unions. Without them, they'd all already be overseas. What this is going to do is force out these union guys making a decent wage and getting good benefits, and allow these companies to hire less-skilled workers at much less the cost. This wouldn't be bad if it meant that the prices of their products were going to come down too, but we know that's not going to happen. All this will do is effectively increase the profit margin. Corporate greed at it's finest...

Well, using your hypothesis, quality will have to suffer as the workforce will be flooded with inferior workers, so sales will suffer and profits will suffer.

All this law does is say that if you don't want to be in a union, you don't have to be. As it stands, if you don't want to serve the union bosses, you don't work. Now, you open the work force to people previously denied opportunities. There can still be unions, but now they can't blackball someone out of a living.

I think the people of Michigan will find out what the people in Virginia and the other 23 right to work states have found out. More businesses will come to your state to do business and more people will be employed and your social programs like welfare and food stamps wont be bursting at the seams with the un and under employed.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Locke]

Well, using your hypothesis, quality will have to suffer as the workforce will be flooded with inferior workers, so sales will suffer and profits will suffer.

All this law does is say that if you don't want to be in a union, you don't have to be. As it stands, if you don't want to serve the union bosses, you don't work. Now, you open the work force to people previously denied opportunities. There can still be unions, but now they can't blackball someone out of a living.

I think the people of Michigan will find out what the people in Virginia and the other 23 right to work states have found out. More businesses will come to your state to do business and more people will be employed and your social programs like welfare and food stamps wont be bursting at the seams with the un and under employed.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So now why would anyone join a union when they can reap the benefits of their work without having to be a member? Or are employers going to pay union employees a different rate and offer a different benefits package than non-union employees? Employers are sure as hell not going to differentiate between employees, so what this pretty much does is weaken unions. That was the sole purpose of this bill.

Your chart is misleading because it doesn't matter how many new businesses come in if they are paying their workers crap wages and offering a benefits package that does nothing for them. Those businesses move to right-to-work states BECAUSE they don't have to worry about unions giving them push back for their wages and employee treatment. There is no way around it, this bill is crap and it was yet another instance of big business screwing over their employees. It's depressing how far this country has fallen...