Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Kulindahr]

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.

False dichotomy.

[Kulindahr]

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,

The top article is spinning bullshit because it doesn't identify the starting conditions. Just as an illustration, as a high school freshman playing basketball I got the team's "Most Improved Player" award. One might expect that the award meant I was a great player, but at best I was mediocre -- what it actually meant was that I started off as a piss-poor joke on the court but became good enough I wasn't a total embarrassment.

Identifying starting conditions is essential.



The second article is a bit better but is short on specifics.

[HenryReardon]

Economics.

.

Define "fair" pay. I'm not at all certain that it can reasonably be done. After all, there are some, perhaps, many, jobs that are only worth so much.

[Ninja108]

Right to Work states might have more jobs but what kind? Something tells me it's of the minimum wage kind

[Centexfarmer]

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.

Or another way of looking at that is neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to see a change in that status quo.

When "Democrats" start to make some money, then they start to vote and think like Republicans; and suddenly they want to protect their own marginal incomes at any cost.

When in reality they aren't really making anything compared to the huge profits that the Corporations that they're working for get from tax subsidies, "corporate welfare," and "tax loopholes."

Wait for it:

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.

But it's okay for Corporations and groups like Bain Capital to buy companies, bust up what made them great American Companies to work for, and use those very same 'pensions and benefits' to fuck the guys who spent years trudging to work everyday working for a company that they felt was not only solvent, but was providing a product to their communities, and to their country.

Unions have pushed manufacturing out of the USA by greed.

That's the mantra from the right now isn't it?

So who's going to eventually look out for the workers in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and China?

You know, those "statistics" that we here about on the News here in America who are dieing in fires because they have no safety measures to protect their employees?

Who are being paid NOW by American Corporations to manufacture underwear with American Labels, but who refuse to spend just ten cents more per garment to ensure the safety of someone who might be taking home $30 a month.

Yes, INDEED, it's the UNION's Fault.

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.

Yes, and both of the posts that I just quoted exemplify the thinking that has brought down Modern Democracies in the past 100 years.

Martin Niemoller exemplified it best:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

So will you be standing in line at your local Walmart this Christmas, or going through the "self check out?"

Which in itself cost several non union hourly waged jobs, and saved Walmart tens of thousands of dollars in wages in benefits to close down 4 to 8 more registers.


Show me where, compared to Unions, that American Corporations have actually contributed to the Quality of Life of most of your fellow Americans.

Any link, any example beyond the superficial would be appreciated.

[palemale]

Right to Work states might have more jobs but what kind? Something tells me it's of the minimum wage kind

Seven of the ten poorest states (i.e. lowest median family income), are right-to-work for less states. Nine of the ten richest states (i.e. highest median family income) are not right-to-work for less states. Strong unions redistribute wealth to working people are create a strong middle class.

[JayHawk]

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

Because I can compare (and did compare) Non-union foreign auto workers in the south to the Detroit UAW. That idea worked well in the south because cost of living and jobs paid so much less in those red states but it does not work well in Northern states.

Let me ask you this. Why is Walmart fighting tooth and nail to Prevent it's workers from unionizing? Is it because they are so fairly paying their workers? Or is it because they would have to face a much more formative opponent when they treat workers unfairly.

I have been a huge opponent of Unions when they do things that make you scratch your head like the behavior of the above Chrysler article.

[JayHawk]

Define "fair" pay. I'm not at all certain that it can reasonably be done. After all, there are some, perhaps, many, jobs that are only worth so much.

The minimum wage cannot pay for a human being to live in a cheap apartment nor afford food. That is what is at issue with such low paying jobs.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/facts/

Facts

$10.55
How much the federal minimum wage would be if it had kept up with inflation over the past 40 years. Instead, it’s $7.25. Learn More

$15,080
The annual income for a full-time employee working the entire year at the federal minimum wage.

0
The number of states where a minimum wage worker can afford a two-bedroom apartment working a 40-hour week. Learn More

3
The number of times Congress passed legislation to increase the minimum wage in the last 30 years.

19
The number of states (including the District of Columbia) which have raised their minimum wage above the federal level of $7.25.

10
The number of states that annually increase their state minimum to keep up with the rising cost of living.

67
The percentage of Americans that support gradually raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to at least $10.00 an hour, according to an October 2010 poll.

64 in 100 vs. 4 in 100
What are the chances an adult minimum wage worker is a woman vs. the chances a Fortune 500 CEO is a woman? Learn More

76
The percentage of Missouri voters that voted to increase and index the Misourri minimum wage in the 2006 ballot initiative.

$2.13
The federal minimum wage for tipped employees, such as waiters and waitresses, nail salon workers, or parking attendants.

[Centexfarmer]

^ I worked in management for Walmart for nearly five years.

Walmart "Corporate" will be the first ones to tell you that they're not opposed to "Unions."

(Because many of the Unions are responsible for their "state of the art logistics systems," but only as contractors.)

Just like the same people who are living and dieing in the sweat shops that they contract to manufacture goods with American names use "subcontractors" keep you Saving More, and Living Better.

They just have all of their "hourly" staff convinced that Walmart's "Open Door Policy" regarding Walmart is so much more superior to having "Union Reps."

Meaning that from Walmart's perspective they can demote you, humiliate you, cut your hours, and then benefits, that as an "hourly associate" you'd be stupid to complain.

Oh, and Walmart has other measures to deal with employees who want to organize.

They're big enough to shut down an entire store.

Each time you drive past a Walmart Super Center, know that it employs (on average) 300 people.

The city that the Walmart Super Center is located in gave tens of thousands of dollars in "tax subsidies" fpr Walmart to build there; infrastructure, tax abatements, you name it. Usually for a 10 years or more "contract" with that municipality.

Walmart deciding to close, or relocate could bankrupt a local town just in legal fees alone in breaking that contract.

So most folks who think that they're getting the raw end of the deal in how they're treated as American Workers for Walmart, have other external pressures to avoid Unions.

And let's not forget the topic of this discussion; "right-to-work" laws make it possible for Corporations to continue to operate that way.

[HenryReardon]

Let me ask you this. Why is Walmart fighting tooth and nail to Prevent it's workers from unionizing? .

Because if they submit to union blackmail, Walmart will have to raise its prices to levels that are no longer competitive.
I hope they never, ever give in. I'd rather see them close their stores than go union.

Unions serve no useful purpose in today's world.

[HenryReardon]

The minimum wage cannot pay for a human being to live in a cheap apartment nor afford food. That is what is at issue with such low paying jobs.

[url]

The minimum wage doesn't serve that purpose. Do some research and you will find that most people working for minimum wage are not bread winners. Housewives, teenagers, students, etc start out at minimum wage because they can.

[HenryReardon]

^.)
."

.

They're big enough to shut down an entire store.

.

One can only hope that Walmart has the balls to stand their ground and do just that, rather than submitting to extortion.

[Centexfarmer]

One can only hope that Walmart has the balls to stand their ground and do just that, rather than submitting to extortion.

Walmart has a bevy of Lawyers who are on 24/7/365 standby to remind every City Manager, Mayor, City Council, and Local Chamber of Commerce what's at stake.

Please don't make it sound like Corporate America is "hanging by a thread" here.