Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Michigan set to become Right To Work State

  1. -1
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Domestic Michigan set to become Right To Work State

    http://news.yahoo.com/protesters-mar...054656984.html



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


    Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,857
    vCash:
    5324
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    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...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    jared81's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,797
    vCash:
    1097
    Loc:
    orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    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...
    all this does is allow employees the OPTION to not have to be in a union. unions are important (even though i disagree with their tactics of intimidation and politics), but people shouldnt have to be part of a union. as a conservative person, why would i want to be forced to be in a union, if i know they are going to turn around and give my money to causes i dont support? this just makes unions more accountable with who they support and more careful with their dues.

    also, this is very telling of the times we are in. one month ago you would of thought the republican party was dead after being bitch slapped in the election. here we are a month later and the REPUBLICAN governor and house in michigan (one of the biggest union supporting states) is going to put an end to much of the teeth unions have. this just proves that the country is far more conservative than the pundits would have you believe.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    Valandui's Avatar
    Lumberjack Batman

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2008
    Posts:
    9,726
    vCash:
    13015
    Loc:
    Lakeland, FL
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    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...
    I disagree. Going RTW isn't going to force unions to close down, but union membership shouldn't be required to have a job in the first place. I agree that they most likely won't come down in prices on their products (although Ford has actually adapted well in this situation), but the union stranglehold on that state is a big part of why they are in the mess they're in.

    Valandui's Weekly Music Video

    The Devin Townsend Project: Kingdom (Live)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jZjziohaPc
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,170
    vCash:
    37480
    Thanks / No Thanks
    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.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    jared81's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,797
    vCash:
    1097
    Loc:
    orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    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.

    nobody is denying that unions play an important part on workers (especially industrial) in this country. however, employees shouldnt be required to be in a union. unions have evolved in the last 50 years. they have become political organizations who by and large look out for the union boss's and not the employees. as an employee, i should have the OPTION to be in a union or not.

    public employee unions are a different story, i dont think employees that are funded by taxpayers should be allowed to hold the taxpaying citizen hostage.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,170
    vCash:
    37480
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by jared81 View Post
    nobody is denying that unions play an important part on workers (especially industrial) in this country. however, employees shouldnt be required to be in a union. unions have evolved in the last 50 years. they have become political organizations who by and large look out for the union boss's and not the employees. as an employee, i should have the OPTION to be in a union or not.
    But the reason you don't have the option to join or not in some places is because unions have enough power to force the companies they work for to accept certain conditions. They have the leverage and exert it, just as companies exert their power when they have leverage. It's pure capitalism.

    Also, from the union's point of view, why should you benefit from the fee increases and workplace improvements they negotiate for without paying for it? Lawyers, negotiators and lobbyists aren't free.

    public employee unions are a different story, i dont think employees that are funded by taxpayers should be allowed to hold the taxpaying citizen hostage.
    Why should the employees of the government be afforded less rights than anyone else?
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,154
    vCash:
    7625
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Nothing beats having the ability to fire people.





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    jared81's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,797
    vCash:
    1097
    Loc:
    orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    But the reason you don't have the option to join or not in some places is because unions have enough power to force the companies they work for to accept certain conditions. They have the leverage and exert it, just as companies exert their power when they have leverage. It's pure capitalism.

    Also, from the union's point of view, why should you benefit from the fee increases and workplace improvements they negotiate for without paying for it? Lawyers, negotiators and lobbyists aren't free.



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


    Why should the employees of the government be afforded less rights than anyone else?
    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. 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.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Why should the employees of the government be afforded less rights than anyone else?
    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.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. vBookie :: Michigan @ Michigan State
    By JCane in forum College Sports Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-14-2011, 12:45 AM
  2. Get the WR From Michigan State!!!
    By Gardenhead in forum NFL Draft Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-26-2008, 06:39 PM
  3. Michigan State has their coach
    By ChambersWI in forum College Sports Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-27-2006, 09:53 AM
  4. Michigan State @ Northwestern
    By Pennington's Rocket Arm in forum College Sports Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-21-2006, 04:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •