Tpoppa Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Michigan workers no longer have to pay to join unionshttp://money.cnn.com/2012/12/11/news/economy/michigan-right-to-work-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_t1The House approved two bills, which the Senate already passed last week. Both chambers are dominated by Republicans. Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, has said he will sign the legislation, which would allow workers at union-represented employers to forgo paying dues. Thousands of people, many of them union workers, gathered outside the statehouse, chanting and holding signs as snow fell.At least three schools were closed as teachers traveled to Lansing to protest. There are 23 states which have right-to-work laws, mostly in the South and western plains states, where union membership is relatively weak. Nationwide, union membership stands at 11.8%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 The Chrysler guys already got their jobs back... it's too late.http://jalopnik.com/5967123/chrysler-had-to-rehire-the-workers-caught-getting-stoned-during-lunchSeriously though, it's not stopping people from joining unions... just no longer having to pay for their benefits. It's basically letting free riders get union fought benefits without paying their dues. So, I don't know how conservatives could support a measure like this that equates to worker welfare, where some don't have to pull their fair share to reap the benefits of it.Unless... it puts more wealth in the hands of the already wealthy.... which it does. So, I get THAT part of it. More money is > moochers.I'm not really a supporter of the "Right to work...for less" laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted December 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) It doesn't stop anyone from joining a union, but workers can no longer be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Edited December 11, 2012 by Tpoppa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 No more "closed shop", where all have to pay to play. Cannot be forced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 A closed shop means you get fired or transferred to another job if you refuse to join.So eliminating that is probably a decent thing to do.This isn't Communist/Socialist Russia/China anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAC Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Just means that people who don't want to be in a union or fund their political spending have some options. I am not, however, naive enough to believe that this isn't also Republicans trying to weaken a political enemy. Unions of all kinds need to take a page from the banks. Ever wonder why JP Morgan still gets to be a $2 Trillion bank? What happened to "too big to fail?" Oh wait. Yeah. Jamie Dimon is a huge Democrat supporter!Show some love, and some money, to the GOP and this all goes away. Get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gixxus Christ! Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Union busting, plain and simple. Now a minority of stalwart union guys will have to foot the bill for everyone, more free riders every year, union goes bankrupt and can no longer afford to bargain with the company, company no longer has to offer higher wages and benefits. The working man ultimately loses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted December 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 One of the few things that Michigan has going for it is a lot of experienced auto workers. Unfortunately, when foreign automakers build plants in the US they tend to build them in right to work states. They would rather build their own workforce somewhere else than take advantage of experienced auto workers in MI (or OH). Those non-union jobs are just as desirable as union jobs, despite what the UAW would want you to believe.Maybe, just maybe, Michigan can lure a foreign automakers to build some new plants there by going right to work. The working man ultimately wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gixxus Christ! Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 The company I work for built a few plants in non-union Kentucky and Mexico and outsourced a large portion of our manufacturing, assembly and shipping jobs down there. The kentuckians make about 60% of what we do, the Mexicans about 10%. Scrap rates are at an all time high, but with the money they save on labor they can afford 80% scrap rates and still profit. Mind you, before all this outsourcing started my company was making 25% clear profit on over $30,000,000 a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 If you read the back story in Michigan, it's been a political football for quite a while.Each side trying to boost or throttle back the Michigan unions.It's been going on long enough, it can't be seen who initiated the contest.But it did escalate by both sides. Crank it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Union busting, plain and simple. Now a minority of stalwart union guys will have to foot the bill for everyone, more free riders every year, union goes bankrupt and can no longer afford to bargain with the company, company no longer has to offer higher wages and benefits. The working man ultimately loses.This. And we all pay for it.Those non-union jobs are just as desirable as union jobs, despite what the UAW would want you to believe.They're desirable BECAUSE of the union fought benefits that everyone enjoys now (Holidays off, personal days, employer sponsored healthcare options, etc.). They're also desirable because it's good money for those that decided not to pursue a college education. But as those workers can no longer afford to buy many of the products they produce, they make less of a living wage and discretionary income to spend, it slowly erodes the local economy. Yes, it beats flipping burgers even at non-union rates, but that's like saying rotten food is better than starving. The latter really isn't an alternative, but the former isn't that great.20 Reasons To Thank Labor Unionshttp://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/02/20-reasons-to-thank-labor-unions/Why We Need Labor Unions After Allhttp://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-labor-unions-172114831.htmlAnd some say that unions once served a purpose, earned these benefits, and now the common working man, who takes this stuff for granted, can just be complacent and assume these are all standards for "good jobs" now. Companies HAVE to do this because they want to attract employees. No... they'll set up a revolving door of workers, use them up, and discard them for new ones, because it's more economical. As a working man, or freshout of High School or college, the bills are stacking up, most folks aren't going to wait it out to find a company that pays them a living wage if offered guaranteed immediate employment at say... 80% of what they're worth. 80% now, is better than 0%, and better than future potential. So, now that you've taken that job at 80% what your market value is... you've just reduced the market value for those with similar skill sets. Not a problem if the demand > supply, but as employers are quick to remind everyone... you're lucky to have a job and they can find someone to take your place because there are thousands unemployed like you; therefore supply is perceived to be > demand. There is also a perception that all work output is equal. Well, if you'll work for 80% and there is an perceived abundance of supply, employers will continue to drive wages and benefits down for those that are employed under the threat of replacement - earning themselves more and more profit, with no real intention of swapping headcount.Especially now, in this economy, who is benefiting most from the pool of unemployed? Corporations, because as long as that pool is there, they can make demands of employees not previously expected because they fear being replaced. Race to the bottom. /endrantTL;DR?-----vIt's like traffic tickets, when it affects you individually, it sucks but most people take it and pay... but if EVERYONE fought traffic tickets, it'd collapse the system.. That's what corporations are doing to wages and benefits. Unions attempt to stop that... Maybe, just maybe, Michigan can lure a foreign automakers to build some new plants there by going right to work. The working man ultimately wins.NIMBY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted December 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 I have said before that I think unions have done some good, however I think that good was over a while ago. With OSHA, child labor laws, local media, social media, etc workplace abuse that occured 100 years ago just doesn't happen on nearly the same scale as it once did. Unions may deserve some, but certainly not all of that credit for improving working conditions.In the last 20 years, unions have done a really good job of chasing jobs to other states and even other countries.I think labor unions are needed in places like China that are in the midst of thier Industrial Revolution. Here in the US, their time has come and gone.Isn't a labor union basically a Communist organization anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 It's a union busting measure... It will work some places, but it won't work in others...In shops where the union mentality is strong, the workers will still pay their dues. Most new workers will be convinced that it's the right thing to do, and the unions will remain strong.Places where the union is just a self perpetuating leech that can't be shaken will gradually shake it, as workers who don't see the benefits of the union will opt-out.Will it hurt some? sure... will it kill them all? I seriously doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Isn't a labor union basically a Communist organization anyway Sure. Just like Verizon, TimeWarner, or Apple are Communist orgs. They all charge a fee for benefiting from their services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted December 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Sure. Just like Verizon, TimeWarner, or Apple are Communist orgs. They all charge a fee for benefiting from their services.More in the vein of eliminating competition and redistribution of wealth http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/7/labor-unions-and-communism/Unions today loathe freedom, as Andy Stern demonstrates in his Wall Street Journal column, because unions require unfree markets in order to thrive. They love big government because unions require the government to guarantee their monopolies on labor. And it is precisely those features of unions that have contributed to their increasing unpopularity in the United States, where citizens are becoming wise to the corrupt conspiracy between unions and government to extinguish their liberties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Crazy you found an op-ed written by an author/member of the CRC funded by them Koch brothers that's anti-union. Shocking.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Research_CenterAnd while I can appreciate disagreement as long as it's based in fact, the entire oped has no links to the claims that Patterson makes. The links that ARE in the article double back upon themselves.Using your quote above, how do unions loathe freedom and love big government? The government doesn't implement unions, they just protect the right of workers to organize and assemble. Your freedom, as a worker, is to walk away from a union shop and go find a non-union job. You don't want to pay your dues to reap the benefits of the group that has organized and assembled, then don't take the job.Also, "unfree markets" really? What's unfree? People always forget these are COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED CONTRACTS with employers. The employers are free to hire scab labor and kick people out. There's nothing that forces GM, Ford, or Chrysler to deal with the UAW. They can fire everyone tomorrow (well, they could if they didn't agree to the UAW contract), but come next contract negotiation time... they can let the UAW workers strike, rehire scabs, and resume production if they want.I don't understand how people equate "unfree markets" with "contract law". Is it unfair that you have to pay your mortgage to the bank? Unfree market. If the employers don't like the contract they agreed to, then DON'T sign it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted December 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 I don't understand how people equate "unfree markets" with "contract law". A free market is a market where the price of a good or service is determined by supply and demand. Unions, by definition, are not compatible with supply and demand.In any Economics 101 class they will tell you the common exceptions in the US to a free market are...1. Minimum Wage (not necessarily a bad thing), 2. Rent Control, and 3. Union Labor. Pretty simple really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 We've never had a completely free market. Ever. If you want to go by the strict definitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) A free market is a market where the price of a good or service is determined by supply and demand. Unions, by definition, are not compatible with supply and demand.In any Economics 101 class they will tell you the common exceptions in the US to a free market are...1. Minimum Wage (not necessarily a bad thing), 2. Rent Control, and 3. Union Labor. Pretty simple really.wait wait wait...Why is number 1 "(not necessarily a bad thing)"are you implying that the other 2 are necessarily bad?and there are other exceptions... places where infrastructure limits free markets (electric companies, water treatment)in fact there are VERY few true free market environments. Edited December 12, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted December 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 We've never had a completely free market. Ever. If you want to go by the strict definitions.True. Regulation (in many forms) prevents a completely free market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Ok, so what are we debating again? I thought this was about unions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Ok, so what are we debating again? I thought this was about unions?unions are bad mmkay, they are communist by nature... and we don't need no commies in 'Murica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted December 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 unions are bad mmkay, they are communist by nature... and we don't need no commies in 'MuricaPerhaps the most sensible comment that Magz has made on OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 "United we stand, divided we fall"So, patriotism is good because we all share a sense of belonging to a society greater than any individual -- totally communist. We pay taxes as a group to support our military which protects us all -- communist principle. But, when it comes to money and markets, we want individualism under the guise of "freedom". And unions are anti-economic freedom because labor and the "common man" doesn't deserve what corporations and CEOs do.I'm beginning to feel the hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted December 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 "United we stand, divided we fall"So, patriotism is good because we all share a sense of belonging to a society greater than any individual -- totally communist. We pay taxes as a group to support our military which protects us all -- communist principle. But, when it comes to money and markets, we want individualism under the guise of "freedom". And unions are anti-economic freedom because labor and the "common man" doesn't deserve what corporations and CEOs do.I'm beginning to feel the hypocrisy.I am not following your meaning.Are you saying that unions 'bring us together?' Unions are nearly as divisive a topic as religion or even oil threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.