Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

[Rolyo85]

Another lie.

If you were consistent in the reasoning you use here, you'd realize it was a lie: you don't have to take a job where there's a union... any more than you "You're under... compulsion to accept a $35 gig. If you don't like it, look for something better"....

Yes, exactly. There are union jobs, and non-union jobs. The union jobs are better paid because the unions have fought for that. You can be in a union and get a better paid union job, or be outside the union and get a worse paid job. Nobody is forcing you either way. However, with no unions to fight for better payment, why should employers have that?

And the trouble with the $35 per service gigs is that those services take exactly the same amount of time as a union-gig which would pay $80 per service. And so I need to do twice the work for barely the same amount of money. And when you already need five of those just to pay your bills, it ends up in a situation where you just can't fit them in a month. And bills don't get paid. And I don't do less or lower level work at the $35 gig...

[jackoroe]

It takes a real lack of logic and sense to read those and conclude that smoking pot and drinking while at work represent union policy. If you're going to maintain that they are, please give citations from union documents telling their workers that such things are recommended.

Who said it was union policy? The indisputable fact is these workers were seen going into liquor stores, buying booze and drinking and smoking pot prior to going back into the plant to make cars. The union position should have been that this reckless behavior put these workers lives in jeopardy, the workers who weren't drunk/stoned and the American motoring public. Do you really want to be driving a car manufactured by drunken workers!? The union's defense of these people is tacit approval of their behavior and should be condemned as such.

[Kulindahr]

Who said it was union policy? The indisputable fact is these workers were seen going into liquor stores, buying booze and drinking and smoking pot prior to going back into the plant to make cars. The union position should have been that this reckless behavior put these workers lives in jeopardy, the workers who weren't drunk/stoned and the American motoring public. Do you really want to be driving a car manufactured by drunken workers!? The union's defense of these people is tacit approval of their behavior and should be condemned as such.

You're blaming the union for doing its job and following the established procedures, when the problem lies with some short-circuit-brained arbitrator. I suppose the union leaders could have told their lawyers not to do what the contract calls for, but that could have been awkward.

What's needed is an appeal from the arbitration process.

[eastofeden]

The people who want to bust the unions and force people to work for very little with no benefits are the same people who do not want any form of universal health care. They dont' want to say it so I will..They want to enslave people to line their pockets with $$$ and when their slaves get sick...they just die? Not really hard to understand why so many people accurately assess the party as evil.

Bottom line...when 90% of the people own 10% of the wealth...and 10% of the people own 90% of the wealth...there is this little thing called revolution. Unions were the buffer. The greed of the Republican Party will eventually kill capitalism...maybe sooner than later.

[Kulindahr]

The people who want to bust the unions and force people to work for very little with no benefits are the same people who do not want any form of universal health care. They dont' want to say it so I will..They want to enslave people to line their pockets with $$$ and when their slaves get sick...they just die? Not really hard to understand why so many people accurately assess the party as evil.

Bottom line...when 90% of the people own 10% of the wealth...and 10% of the people own 90% of the wealth...there is this little thing called revolution. Unions were the buffer. The greed of the Republican Party will eventually kill capitalism...maybe sooner than later.

It's going to take either ballots, or bullets -- and I've gotten to where I no longer much care which. I wouldn't grieve a bit if someone shot Romney and all his plundering class friends who revel in their unearned income.

[NCAA Umpire]

Yep. Employers can FINALLY hire people they can pay less! Hurray for freedom!

So is it better to have fewer jobs that pay slightly higher wages, or many more jobs that pay slightly less?

[NCAA Umpire]

You don't know what you're talking about. Right to work is a right to freeload. You enjoy all the perks of being in a union, but you don't pay dues. It's bullshit, unless you're a DeVos, Koch Brother, or one of the 1%. Clue in.

That is not an accurate statement. Pursuant to a decision by the Supreme Court, nonunion members can be forced to pay that portion of union dues which go toward the collective bargaining costs incurred for the protection of all workers, while nonunion members cannot be forced to pay the portion of the dues that go toward union expenses like politicking, etc.

IMHO, that's a fair scenario.

[evanrick]

So is it better to have fewer jobs that pay slightly higher wages, or many more jobs that pay slightly less?

not exactly how the economy works. the effect right to work will have is that there will be an influx of low wages jobs, but the main goal of right to work is just to remove worker protections all workers gain through collective bargaining.

unions dont have to demand higher wages, they can protect workers in other ways that regular labor laws dont.

of course you will earn more if you are in a union, and they can afford to pay you more, but they would rather have cheap disposable labor akin to a 3rd world country.

[evanrick]

That's Libertarians. Conservatives want you to be a slave to Corporations while Liberals want you to be a slave to Government.

socialism beats capitalism all day, every day. how do I know? the happiest people in the world pay a 50% tax rate, thats a fact.

of course this kind of socialism only really works when you have a homogenous group that shares the same goals.

[Laufey]

Are you talking about Denmark?

I wouldn't say they are completely socialist though... more like somewhere between the two.

Neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism give the best life quality... rather the right mixture of the two. I think the Nordic countries have done a good job showing that.

[Ninja108]

So is it better to have fewer jobs that pay slightly higher wages, or many more jobs that pay slightly less?

The jobs in many of these right to work states don't provide enough to live on. As for the direction of this country,the 1% keep getting richer while everyone else keeps getting poorer. A country that is a plutocracy won't survive.

[jackoroe]

You're blaming the union for doing its job and following the established procedures, when the problem lies with some short-circuit-brained arbitrator. I suppose the union leaders could have told their lawyers not to do what the contract calls for, but that could have been awkward.

What's needed is an appeal from the arbitration process.

If it's the union's job to ensure that drunken stoners continue to manufacture American automobiles, they need to go the way of the dinosaur. These workers should have been fired on the spot, end of story.

[rareboy]

^ Yeah because we all know that if someone caught this nonsense on video, then it means the unions should be crushed.

I for one, have never been able to understand the idea that firemen or police or teachers or any other public service non blue collar workers were ever allowed to collectively bargain. I agree, each one should have to individually negotiate their own salary and benefits. It is ridiculous that women workers should have to be paid equally as men as a general rule. Get rid of unions and let women get paid whatever they are willing to work for too.

When my mother was a nurse, there was no union and she didn't get any benefits or protection for working night after night and extra shifts. Or even a pension plan. Served her right for getting the sack for trying to get better pay and benefits for all the nurses in her hospital instead of just herself.

[Jack Springer]

Unions have forgotten about their members needs and now use their members dues as a cash cow for liberal issues that have nothing to do with employment of their members.

After hearing about the forced re-employment of the Chrysler union members who drank booze and smoked pot in open view during their breaks, I'm even more convinced that unions have lost their way.

http://autos.aol.com/article/chrysle...gging-workers/

I'm still amazed that forced union membership has not be declared unconstitutional.

[HenryReardon]

All these companies ought to be bent over a barrel. Simply by having all their emloyees come on at the non-union rate and then join the union and demand fair pay.

Why do you automatically assume that the pay isn't fair already?

[chance1]

Morning Joe is killing it on the topic

Joe Scarborough is spot on

But the panel can't let themselves say the words

Uncomfortable that liberal minds cannot accept the idea that union dues membership political donations does not equate to people working

[chance1]

Unions much like Republicans are a dying breed as they have not refuse to

Adjust to modern day reality

Perhaps progressive minds can let that concept marinate

Boom !!!

[thewiz]

Having been a Michigan resident for most of my life and sitting on both sides of the table at bargaining sessions, what I find most distasteful about the actions that just took place in Lansing was the timing and way they occurred. If you look back at Governor Snyder's comments last year, he was emphatic that right-to-work was not on his agenda and went so far as to say he would veto legislation, should it make it through the legislature and to his desk. Why then, right after the election when Obama and the Dems blasted through Michigan and Wisconsin (the other team's "home") did the governor find right-to-work such a hot issue that it had to be rushed through and then have an appropriation attached to it so as to make it immune from being petitioned and voted on by the people (appropriations cannot be subject to voter initiatives under the Michigan Constitution)? Why was the legislation (which I have read), largely boilerplate language that has circulated from the Koch Brother's PAC?

I have read comments that unions protect slugs and others who should, from a management perspective, be tossed on their arse's. The bad thing about unions is that because they receive payment from EVERYONE in the union, they have an obligation to represent everyone who has contributed -- no matter that they might be in the wrong or stupid. As a manager, I would often be frustrated by this fact, but also know that both sides had a job to do and the union was doing its job. I also knew that if I made my case properly, the employee could still be discharged but I would have cause for the action which had been reviewed; I could not just come to work and toss someone out "be-cause." Under right to work, I need only have to fire someone -- I don't need a good reason. And if you have ever had to hire an attorney to defend yourself, imagine in the workforce if YOU have to hire one to defend you against any infraction? If you are in a union, the union pays for the attorney for you; the union has negotiated a process that assumes you are innocent until proven guilty; the union has likely created a process of progressive discipline and will ensure that all the "i's" have been dotted and "t's" crossed. As a manager, I had no problem with that process; hell, I even encouraged a group of employees to unionize. They were so individualistic and back-stabbing that I had to argue every time I met with them and as individuals they would send me notes or stop in my office to sell out another worker. When I said we negotiated as a department, they threatened a union and I never fought the application. The union rep later told me that I had "passed dirty" because they now had to educate and demonstrate that the employees "collectively" and not "individually" bargained! My life became soooo much easier.

The other problem with Michigan's law is that there is no penalty for not paying for the union. So I can freeload and take all of the benefits negotiated by the union without paying for one. I can criticize the union for supporting this or that cause -- but it is a union that governs by a will of the majority; not the minority. I too often see people more than willing to take the benefits and successes of the union all the while complaining they aren't "represented."

I also don't think unions have done a good enough job educating people about why they were and are necessary (do you enjoy set hours, overtime pay, equal treatment, grievance processes, arbitration rights, paid lunches, paid breaks, vacations, sick time, insurance, a middle class hourly wage, education benefits, workman's compensation, unemployment insurance, disability, not having your children working, health and safety at your employment -- just to name a few). From a management perspective, I never found them particularly difficult to engage. I find managers who bitch and complain the loudest usually abusive and unwilling to deal with even the most simple engagements. As a student of history, look back at the Carnegie's, Rockafellers and other giants that controlled the trusts in the early 1900's. They argued in the exact words I hear today by the Koch's and Republicans. As a former Republican, it pains me to see what the party has become...

[loki81]

So you yearn for a society where most people live in deep deprivation because the corporations have replaced humans with computers and robots in the skilled jobs?

It's those people on the bottom who need the unions. The biggest blow for justice that could be struck in the new year would be for all the Walmart employees to form a union and demand to be treated like human beings, and then for all the workers in similar situations to join them -- and then for all the workers in the country to go on strike until the minimum wage is raised to $10/hour (which would still be less than it should accounting for inflation).

again, I don't really grok how making unions non-compulsory stops people who want to from joining them... but if someone would rather surrender their collective bargaining rights and go it alone, I don't see why they should be barred from doing that and have their wages garnished against their will.

[JockBoy87]

Unions much like Republicans are a dying breed as they have not refuse to

Adjust to modern day reality

Perhaps progressive minds can let that concept marinate

Boom !!!

Modern reality?

Quality of life is not supposed to stay static when a country is experiencing steady long term economic growth. But that is a modern reality. You may have gotten used to it only because it has been that way for so long, but our predecessors in the first part of the 20th century would be shocked that nothing has changed for the middle man since then.

Modern reality is a lack of wage growth for earners such as myself over the last 40 years. Quality of education, diet, and housing has stopped improving for all but wealthy plutocrats who proudly boast yet another feather in their cap shafting the standard of living for hard working Americans everywhere. The last time I could afford a marinated steak? I think that was when I was still living with my dad, a top notch attorney in Baltimore, what a coincidence. I'm not moaning and groaning about eating beans throughout the week for dinner, but when I see trillion dollar gains in the economy and I am eating the same crap for dinner every night, seeing the same stupid kids on the street, and living in the same shithole as similar wage earners did in the 1970s, something is wrong.

Perhaps you can let that thought marinate. Thanks pops.

[Benvolio]

Modern reality?

Quality of life is not supposed to stay static when a country is experiencing steady long term economic growth. But that is a modern reality. You may have gotten used to it only because it has been that way for so long, but our predecessors in the first part of the 20th century would be shocked that nothing has changed for the middle man since then.

Modern reality is a lack of wage growth for earners such as myself over the last 40 years. Quality of education, diet, and housing has stopped improving for all but wealthy plutocrats who proudly boast yet another feather in their cap shafting the standard of living for hard working Americans everywhere. The last time I could afford a marinated steak? I think that was when I was still living with my dad, a top notch attorney in Baltimore, what a coincidence. I'm not moaning and groaning about eating beans throughout the week for dinner, but when I see trillion dollar gains in the economy and I am eating the same crap for dinner every night, seeing the same stupid kids on the street, and living in the same shithole as similar wage earners did in the 1970s, something is wrong.

Perhaps you can let that thought marinate. Thanks pops.

The reason for the lack of progress on wages is our continued policy of allowing massive immigration, legal and illegal. They are willing to work hard and cheap, so they bring the wage levels down for all but the most skilled. Legal immigrants get the benefit of affirmative action programs to get hiring preferences over Americans, and the benefit of anti-discrimination laws. It is illegal to prefer Americans.

[palemale]

I never understood compulsory union dues.

why shouldn't a worker have the option to give up any union protections and forgo the dues if that's what he really wants?

Because the law requires unions to represent the worker, whether he is a member or not. If a non-member gets fired, he has the right to file a grievance and the union is obligated to represent him. If it does not, the worker can sue in court or file a charge with the National Labor Relations Board, and the Union would lose and have to pay a shit load of money. Also, the worker gets all the benefits of being represented by a union without having to pay the costs of being in a union. Unfortunately, the law has been set up this way. So what you have is a situation now in Michigan where a union and it's members are legally compelled to represent a non-member. A union's income is almost entirely from the dues members pay. So members are compelled to pay for the representation of non-members, but non-members aren't compelled to pay for anything.

[palemale]

The union response should be to immediately make plain that when they ask for increased wages or benefits, they are asking for their members alone. That should make corporations happy, because then they could openly treat the non-union workers as the serfs they really want.

That would be unlawful. The Union has to bargain for everybody and make sure everybody gets the same wages and conditions of employment, whether they are members or not.

[palemale]

I always assumed that's how it worked.

non-union employees at private companies have to negotiate raises and benefits individually, not collectively... if I think I deserve a raise, my boss and I have a sit-down and I state my case (as opposed to my union rep sitting down and collectively negotiating everyone's raises)

This is unlawful, too. The employer cannot negotiate separately with non-members.

[Jack Springer]

Modern reality?

Quality of life is not supposed to stay static when a country is experiencing steady long term economic growth. But that is a modern reality. You may have gotten used to it only because it has been that way for so long, but our predecessors in the first part of the 20th century would be shocked that nothing has changed for the middle man since then.

Modern reality is a lack of wage growth for earners such as myself over the last 40 years. Quality of education, diet, and housing has stopped improving for all but wealthy plutocrats who proudly boast yet another feather in their cap shafting the standard of living for hard working Americans everywhere. The last time I could afford a marinated steak? I think that was when I was still living with my dad, a top notch attorney in Baltimore, what a coincidence. I'm not moaning and groaning about eating beans throughout the week for dinner, but when I see trillion dollar gains in the economy and I am eating the same crap for dinner every night, seeing the same stupid kids on the street, and living in the same shithole as similar wage earners did in the 1970s, something is wrong.

Perhaps you can let that thought marinate. Thanks pops.

Jockboy -- greed on both sides is a problem.

But since this thread is about unions. No way should anyone be paid $100/hour plus a pension and benefits for life for aligning car doors or pushing a button for a robot to paint a car.

Unions have pushed manufacturing out of the USA by greed. A recent example is the small baker's union causing 18,000 people to lose their jobs making twinkies(r) and dingdongs(r). I doubt if there is one person in the US that begrudges anyone from making a fair wage - just not an excessive one for doing little.

[HenryReardon]

The people who want to bust the unions and force people to work for very little with no benefits are the same people who do not want any form of universal health care. They dont' want to say it so I will..They want to enslave people to line their pockets with $$$ and when their slaves get sick...they just die? Not really hard to understand why so many people accurately assess the party as evil.

Bottom line...when 90% of the people own 10% of the wealth...and 10% of the people own 90% of the wealth...there is this little thing called revolution. Unions were the buffer. The greed of the Republican Party will eventually kill capitalism...maybe sooner than later.

That's complete and utter nonsense.

[HenryReardon]

That would be unlawful. The Union has to bargain for everybody and make sure everybody gets the same wages and conditions of employment, whether they are members or not.

Why should everybody get the same wages? If I can work harder and faster than someone else doing the same job shouldn't I be paid more?

[Harke the Boeotarch]

Why should everybody get the same wages? If I can work harder and faster than someone else doing the same job shouldn't I be paid more?

Because you can't possibly negotiate the kind of legal protection, political representation and workers benefits the unions provide on your own, and you prefer those over slightly higher wages.

[loki81]

Because you can't possibly negotiate the kind of legal protection, political representation and workers benefits the unions provide on your own, and you prefer those over slightly higher wages.

it's a good thing people can choose to join unions, then

[palemale]

Why should everybody get the same wages? If I can work harder and faster than someone else doing the same job shouldn't I be paid more?

The law does not permit employers and unions to treat members and non-members differently. Once workers are represented by a union, the employer cannot unilaterally set any terms and conditions of employment unless the union clearly and unequivocally waives the right to bargain over certain terms. Even if the union were to do that, the employer could not lawfully base any term and condition of employment on union membership.

[Rolyo85]

So is it better to have fewer jobs that pay slightly higher wages, or many more jobs that pay slightly less?

There is nothing - either in theory, OR history - to even vaguely suggest that busting the unions would create more jobs. Just as not taxing the rich never quite led to any real difference in job creation. And in the end, EVEN if it did create more jobs, they would pay too little, and give no benefits. And there are only so many jobs you can do in any given amount of time. I would rather work ONE job that pays all my bills, than three jobs that barely cover them. Wouldn't you?

Jockboy -- greed on both sides is a problem.

But since this thread is about unions. No way should anyone be paid $100/hour plus a pension and benefits for life for aligning car doors or pushing a button for a robot to paint a car.

Unions have pushed manufacturing out of the USA by greed. A recent example is the small baker's union causing 18,000 people to lose their jobs making twinkies(r) and dingdongs(r). I doubt if there is one person in the US that begrudges anyone from making a fair wage - just not an excessive one for doing little.

It's very easy and neat to discuss low education jobs - pushing buttons, yawn at assembly lines etc. Why don't we talk about the ones that require higher qualification? Those are also represented by unions. Is it greed that I want adequate payment for a skillset that has taken me roughly 50 000 hours to develop? That NOBODY but an equally qualified professional could do instead of me? Am I greedy to want to be able to enjoy some measure of comfort for the work I am doing? Republicans are so busy regurgitating talking points that they don't stop to think about what those points actually mean for other people.

- - - Updated - - -

So is it better to have fewer jobs that pay slightly higher wages, or many more jobs that pay slightly less?

There is nothing - either in theory, OR history - to even vaguely suggest that busting the unions would create more jobs. Just as not taxing the rich never quite led to any real difference in job creation. And in the end, EVEN if it did create more jobs, they would pay too little, and give no benefits. And there are only so many jobs you can do in any given amount of time. I would rather work ONE job that pays all my bills, than three jobs that barely cover them. Wouldn't you?

Jockboy -- greed on both sides is a problem.

But since this thread is about unions. No way should anyone be paid $100/hour plus a pension and benefits for life for aligning car doors or pushing a button for a robot to paint a car.

Unions have pushed manufacturing out of the USA by greed. A recent example is the small baker's union causing 18,000 people to lose their jobs making twinkies(r) and dingdongs(r). I doubt if there is one person in the US that begrudges anyone from making a fair wage - just not an excessive one for doing little.

It's very easy and neat to discuss low education jobs - pushing buttons, yawn at assembly lines etc. Why don't we talk about the ones that require higher qualification? Those are also represented by unions. Is it greed that I want adequate payment for a skillset that has taken me roughly 50 000 hours to develop? That NOBODY but an equally qualified professional could do instead of me? Am I greedy to want to be able to enjoy some measure of comfort for the work I am doing? Republicans are so busy regurgitating talking points that they don't stop to think about what those points actually mean for other people.

[loki81]

It's very easy and neat to discuss low education jobs - pushing buttons, yawn at assembly lines etc. Why don't we talk about the ones that require higher qualification? Those are also represented by unions. Is it greed that I want adequate payment for a skillset that has taken me roughly 50 000 hours to develop? That NOBODY but an equally qualified professional could do instead of me? Am I greedy to want to be able to enjoy some measure of comfort for the work I am doing? Republicans are so busy regurgitating talking points that they don't stop to think about what those points actually mean for other people.

if your skills are highly developed and valuable to employers, wouldn't you be able to demand your own higher salary commensurate with your skills if they're in-demand?

[chrisrobin]

REMINDER:
Does anyone remember when Captain "Sullly" set his 737 down in the Hudson River? There were no fatalities.

1. He and his assistants were union.
2. Flight attendants were union.
3. First responders were union.

All reasonably skilled positions.

[loki81]

REMINDER:
Does anyone remember when Captain "Sullly" set his 737 down in the Hudson River? There were no fatalities.

1. He and his assistants were union.
2. Flight attendants were union.
3. First responders were union.

All reasonably skilled positions.

if they were non-union, they could have asked for raises based on their awesome performance

[chance1]

Modern reality?

Quality of life is not supposed to stay static when a country is experiencing steady long term economic growth. But that is a modern reality. You may have gotten used to it only because it has been that way for so long, but our predecessors in the first part of the 20th century would be shocked that nothing has changed for the middle man since then.

Modern reality is a lack of wage growth for earners such as myself over the last 40 years. Quality of education, diet, and housing has stopped improving for all but wealthy plutocrats who proudly boast yet another feather in their cap shafting the standard of living for hard working Americans everywhere. The last time I could afford a marinated steak? I think that was when I was still living with my dad, a top notch attorney in Baltimore, what a coincidence. I'm not moaning and groaning about eating beans throughout the week for dinner, but when I see trillion dollar gains in the economy and I am eating the same crap for dinner every night, seeing the same stupid kids on the street, and living in the same shithole as similar wage earners did in the 1970s, something is wrong.

Perhaps you can let that thought marinate. Thanks pops.

Try some hot sauce with your beans - delicious

And the top notch attorney wasn't so top notch at teaching manners it appears

Unions need to live in the present and not rely on politicians to protect status that is not supported by economics or the public

Is what it is

[Rolyo85]

if your skills are highly developed and valuable to employers, wouldn't you be able to demand your own higher salary commensurate with your skills if they're in-demand?

No, because music is a small field, and there are many musicians. None of us is capable of demanding anything on our own because there will always be someone desperate enough to be willing to play for less. I could be that someone when push comes to shove. So we need a higher authority to make certain we're not taken advantage of.

Not everybody should be expected to possess bargaining skills and leverage strength in order to be paid fairly.

[NCAA Umpire]

There is nothing - either in theory, OR history - to even vaguely suggest that busting the unions would create more jobs. Just as not taxing the rich never quite led to any real difference in job creation. And in the end, EVEN if it did create more jobs, they would pay too little, and give no benefits. And there are only so many jobs you can do in any given amount of time. I would rather work ONE job that pays all my bills, than three jobs that barely cover them. Wouldn't you?

It is much better to have 100 people making $60K each than 50 people making $70K each. It helps them, and it helps the economy. It also increases tax revenue, something liberals love.

[Rolyo85]

It is much better to have 100 people making $60K each than 50 people making $70K each. It helps them, and it helps the economy. It also increases tax revenue, something liberals love.

That's faulty logic. Unions don't prevent anyone from getting a job and don't prevent anyone from CREATING one. That's just Republican propaganda, that unions somehow repress job growth. And it would not be a $60K vs $70K difference, it would be a $25K vs $70K. And $25K is simply not enough.

[NCAA Umpire]

No, it's not faulty logic; it's economic reality and common sense. Just ask the many business owners who have chosen to stay away from Michigan because of this situation. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[HenryReardon]

There is nothing - either in theory, OR history - to even vaguely suggest that busting the unions would create more jobs. le.

In point of fact the record shows that right to work states have better paying jobs and lower unemployment.

http://www.insideindianabusiness.com...rs.asp?id=1189

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...tter-wages.htm


These are merly two or the many articles I found,

[chance1]

No, because music is a small field, and there are many musicians. None of us is capable of demanding anything on our own because there will always be someone desperate enough to be willing to play for less. I could be that someone when push comes to shove. So we need a higher authority to make certain we're not taken advantage of.

Not everybody should be expected to possess bargaining skills and leverage strength in order to be paid fairly.

Not sure why musicians should have a union

If there's too many more than the demand ........

That's a free market at work

Certainly NOT the stuff of Jimmy Hoffa

Good movie btw

[JockBoy87]

And the top notch attorney wasn't so top notch at teaching manners it appears

Hypocrites was not the father of medicine.

[JockBoy87]

The reason for the lack of progress on wages is our continued policy of allowing massive immigration, legal and illegal. They are willing to work hard and cheap, so they bring the wage levels down for all but the most skilled. Legal immigrants get the benefit of affirmative action programs to get hiring preferences over Americans, and the benefit of anti-discrimination laws. It is illegal to prefer Americans.

I am a paralegal. I don't have an unskilled job, thanks.

Being bilingual in my line of work is an advantage, but being poor at complex English sentences is not.

[Rolyo85]

How about we have a Blame The Immigrants Appreciation Day every month? Let's say every first Tuesday of the month, we blame immigrants in every post we write for everything the topic is about It would be way awesome.

[Kulindahr]

So is it better to have fewer jobs that pay slightly higher wages, or many more jobs that pay slightly less?

False dichotomy.

[Kulindahr]

That is not an accurate statement. Pursuant to a decision by the Supreme Court, nonunion members can be forced to pay that portion of union dues which go toward the collective bargaining costs incurred for the protection of all workers, while nonunion members cannot be forced to pay the portion of the dues that go toward union expenses like politicking, etc.

IMHO, that's a fair scenario.

It's not unreasonable. But the non-union can't expect to have any help in any grievance process or any of the other things unions do for their members.

[Kulindahr]

If it's the union's job to ensure that drunken stoners continue to manufacture American automobiles, they need to go the way of the dinosaur. These workers should have been fired on the spot, end of story.

It's the union's job to support their members in any grievance process. It's no different than the DA's job being to try for a conviction regardless of the truth.

[Kulindahr]

Unions have forgotten about their members needs and now use their members dues as a cash cow for liberal issues that have nothing to do with employment of their members.

After hearing about the forced re-employment of the Chrysler union members who drank booze and smoked pot in open view during their breaks, I'm even more convinced that unions have lost their way.

http://autos.aol.com/article/chrysle...gging-workers/

I'm still amazed that forced union membership has not be declared unconstitutional.

Short on facts, here. I knew union leaders when I was in college who were earning the exorbitant amount of $24k/year. The only thing outrageous about that is it was twice what they were trying to get for the bottom of their union workers and 50% more than what their top earners were getting.

Yes, the wealthy unions have lost their way -- but lumping all unions together is invalid.

[Kulindahr]

Why do you automatically assume that the pay isn't fair already?

Economics.

The reason for the lack of progress on wages is our continued policy of allowing massive immigration, legal and illegal. They are willing to work hard and cheap, so they bring the wage levels down for all but the most skilled. Legal immigrants get the benefit of affirmative action programs to get hiring preferences over Americans, and the benefit of anti-discrimination laws. It is illegal to prefer Americans.

Troll.

Legal immigrants ARE Americans.

[Kulindahr]

REMINDER:
Does anyone remember when Captain "Sullly" set his 737 down in the Hudson River? There were no fatalities.

1. He and his assistants were union.
2. Flight attendants were union.
3. First responders were union.

All reasonably skilled positions.

And what got them down safely and all the passengers off alive was a pair of checklists.