Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

[HenryReardon]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michi...ry?id=17934332

Workers in Michigan will no longer have to pay tribute to union protection rackets with new law. It's a blow for worker freedom and freedom of choice.

[JayHawk]

It is indeed a blow for workers freedoms and Freedom of choice. A death blow.

[Jack Springer]

Hurrah for freedom of choice and the right to get a job.

[Rolyo85]

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

[HenryReardon]

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

Careful, your ignorance is showing.

The bill ensures that when a man applies for and accepts a job, he won't have to pay extortion to a union.
Freedom of choice - a good thing.

[Benvolio]

I thought Democrats favored freedom of choice.

[Kulindahr]

The path to servitude...

It's an interesting philosophy that allows one kind of people to join in groups to get their way and get ahead, but not another kind. We normally call that "discrimination" these days, but since in fact the privileged group earns its way by the efforts of the unprivileged group, the normal name for it historically is "serfdom": the workers do the labor, but those who command the workers are the only ones who get any input on what the workers will keep from their labor.

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.

[JayHawk]

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?

The reason most supply is that when Unions are the primary force in obtaining benefits that non union members receive then those non union members essentially get the pluses for no cost or for free.

It is really not of super consequence since most of the things accomplished by unions are codified into laws these days. Unions were very important in achieving those rights but now that healthcare is going to be law and pensions have already been forfeited there really is no reason to contribute and more unions will die off.

The only way unions will regain power is for people on the lower economic scale to rise up and demand collective rights again. Until it gets bad enough they will fail to get behind such ideas.

- - - Updated - - -

The path to servitude...

It's an interesting philosophy that allows one kind of people to join in groups to get their way and get ahead, but not another kind. We normally call that "discrimination" these days, but since in fact the privileged group earns its way by the efforts of the unprivileged group, the normal name for it historically is "serfdom": the workers do the labor, but those who command the workers are the only ones who get any input on what the workers will keep from their labor.

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.

If the job descriptions are the same then the company would be sued for bias.

[maxpowr9]

I thought Democrats favored freedom of choice.

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

[Rolyo85]

Careful, your ignorance is showing.

The bill ensures that when a man applies for and accepts a job, he won't have to pay extortion to a union.
Freedom of choice - a good thing.

No, what it ensures, is that an EMPLOYER doesn't need to hire the man whom he has to pay more, and instead can hire the one he can pay less. I am a union musician and I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, unlike you who regurgitate what you heard on right wing radio.

Freedom for employers to not abide by any rules for minimum payment - a bad thing.

[Laufey]

I'm always amazed at how after 2008 there are still millions of people who believe more corporate freedom will improve their quality of life.

If you are rich it might... and the lower and middle class end up paying for it.

[HenryReardon]

The path to servitude...

..

Oh, puhleeze - union workers are already in servitude - to the unions.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm always amazed at how after 2008 there are still millions of people who believe more corporate freedom will improve their quality of life.

Perhaps it's because corproate freedom had little to do with the crisis in 2008.

[JayHawk]

It is fairly amazing to have the completely poor arguing aggressively for the reduction of their benefits and rights.

[HenryReardon]

. I am a union musician and I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, .

Like union musicians who are paid to sit around and do nothing in Broadway non-musical plays because the producers are forced to hire them anyway?

[JayHawk]

Perhaps it's because corproate freedom had little to do with the crisis in 2008.

Yup it had to do with government not doing it's job and corporations paying to remove laws that would have made creating a fictitiously based product and then marketing it to the world as AAA a crime.

Meanwhile the poor continue to buy the talking points and mouth the words for republicans and corporations. It is rather sad that only way to get a fair shake is to join the military and thereby get collective bargaining and representation in Washington... or of course be a serf like most of the republican base.

- - - Updated - - -

Like union musicians who are paid to sit around and do nothing in Broadway non-musical plays because the producers are forced to hire them anyway?

So if you are going to make outrageous statements then feel free to provide a link or a source

[Laufey]

Because the people who will be out of unions will drag everybody down... since it gives corporations access to workforce with less benefits.

Not belonging to a union will be a plus when applying for a job.

I'm pretty sure the work force has it better in countries where it's mandatory to belong to a union. The ones who gain from this change are the corporations. That the work force will have more freedom is just the package they want to sell it in... but it will not lead to the work force having it any better. The corporations on the other hand will.

There is such a thing as too much freedom. Is it good for workers to have no minimum wage for example? It's individual freedom yes... but why bother when much more people will loose from it than the ones who gain?

[JayHawk]

Hell even with union protection corporations are ruthless and greedy. Hostess failed to put a shit load of cash into the employee retirement fund as they spiraled towards bankruptcy.

[JayHawk]

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.

[Kulindahr]

Oh, puhleeze - union workers are already in servitude - to the unions.

Only if you want to assert that members of the Elks lodge are in servitude to the lodge, that members of the Nature Conservancy are in servitude to the Conservancy, that members of JUB are in servitude to JUB....

[Rolyo85]

Like union musicians who are paid to sit around and do nothing in Broadway non-musical plays because the producers are forced to hire them anyway?

No, like an orchestra not paying me an insulting $35 per service for a highly professional skillset that it takes decades to develop. Also, provide links to back that bullshit statement up, or stfu.

if unions provide benefits and negotiation power for their members, surely people will want to join them.

but why should people be compelled into joining a union and having their wages garnished as dues if they'd rather go it alone?

Paying dues is largely compensated by the better pay you received from employers. And you are free to not join a union if you don't want to. There are plenty of lower pay work places that you don't need to be a member for. Except, once union membership becomes meaningless, ALL work places will be lower pay.

[HenryReardon]

Only if you want to assert that members of the Elks lodge are in servitude to the lodge, that members of the Nature Conservancy are in servitude to the Conservancy, that members of JUB are in servitude to JUB....

Wow. Three invalid analogies in one sentence. The people you cite are voluntary members of those organizations and under no compulsion to join. It's the involuntary nature of the membership that makes it servitude.

[HenryReardon]

You're under no compulsion to accept a $35 gig. If you don't like it, look for something better.

My source for Broadway plays is a speech given by Neil Simon. I heard the speech. Cannot now find a reference, but it's right in line with typical union featherbedding practices which are well documented.

As for your last sentence: once union membership becomes meaningless, ALL work places will be lower pay.

Back it up, [Text: Removed by Moderator].

[jackoroe]

Let's not forget the idiocy that today's unions engage in. Here's a video of a bunch of Chrysler employees, who we helped bail out, taking a break and smoking pot and drinking beer before they went back to work building cars that some of you may be driving.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=XVmKy...%3DXVmKyJXHXRE

Today, thanks to unions who apparently are more about preserving the jobs of employees who like a spliff and a forty, rather than ensuring a quality product is made, got back the jobs of 13 of these party animals!

http://www.torquenews.com/106/chrysl...t-during-lunch

Now I don't know about you, but I don't think it's a good idea to build cars after drinking and smoking pot. In fact, there's a whole bunch of ways that can be considered dangerous to the employee and consumer of these cars. If unions can stand up to drunks and stoners endangering the motoring public, then they need to be destroyed by whatever means practicable.

[chance1]

Everybody knows that unions are Democratic power houses.

Therefore anything that Republicans do to undermine them is a GOP power grab.

Doesn't take a genius to see through the rhetoric.

No it just takes a dark mind

that sees everything through that dark prism

sort of a "Jews for Hitler" view

"right to work" sounds pretty good

how many states have right to work laws ? 24 ?

how is michigan doing in job creation? how are their neighboring states doing?

hmmmm

unions need to compete

just like everyone else

Happy holidays

[HenryReardon]

This is not what I was talkin about. In point of fact, it's much much worse:


http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6997,5629216


People getting paid full union scale - to do absolutely nothing. Disgusting.

[Kulindahr]

Wow. Three invalid analogies in one sentence. The people you cite are voluntary members of those organizations and under no compulsion to join. It's the involuntary nature of the membership that makes it servitude.

So someone rounded up millions of people and forced them to form unions and bring in other members?

To use a common claim your type puts forth, if they don't want to join a union, they don't have to work where there is one. In other words, by the right-to-work reasoning, union membership is 100% voluntary.

[Kulindahr]

This is not what I was talkin about. In point of fact, it's much much worse:


http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6997,5629216


People getting paid full union scale - to do absolutely nothing. Disgusting.

From 1982? Are you serious?

How about something at least recent enough that everyone here had learned to read before it happened?

[jackoroe]

So someone rounded up millions of people and forced them to form unions and bring in other members?

To use a common claim your type puts forth, if they don't want to join a union, they don't have to work where there is one. In other words, by the right-to-work reasoning, union membership is 100% voluntary.

Union membership is now 100% voluntary in Michigan. You can work wherever you like and join a union, or not at your own discretion. It wasn't the case before.

[alex0770]

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.

[HenryReardon]

So someone rounded up millions of people and forced them to form unions and bring in other members?

To use a common claim your type puts forth, if they don't want to join a union, they don't have to work where there is one. In other words, by the right-to-work reasoning, union membership is 100% voluntary.

Nobody rounded them up, but without right to work laws, they are forced to join a union in order to get a job. Try to grasp the concept.

[HenryReardon]

From 1982? Are you serious?

How about something at least recent enough that everyone here had learned to read before it happened?

It's the only cite I could find on short notice, but I'd be very surpised if anything is different to day. In fact, it's probably worse, given the stranglehold that the unions have on musical theater.

[mightbe]

HR, it's not exactly a distopian society where you absolutely must join a union to get a job. Correlation does not prove causation. Just because more people that have jobs are in unions does not necessarily mean that the membership in a union "got" them the job. It can help find them one, but joining a union does not guarantee an immediate job.

Off topic:

No, like an orchestra not paying me an insulting $35 per service for a highly professional skillset that it takes decades to develop. Also, provide links to back that bullshit statement up, or stfu..

So, you're in Chicago, are you like in the CSO?

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

title catch a ma eye

hope lands stop play sea saw game one day

so not nice

thankyou

[frankfrank]

No, like an orchestra not paying me an insulting $35 per service for a highly professional skillset that it takes decades to develop.

once union membership becomes meaningless, ALL work places will be lower pay.

You're under no compulsion to accept a $35 gig. If you don't like it, look for something better.

Union membership has become almost meaningless in states such as Alabama (to start the alphabet) and twenty-plus other states, and those states comprise much of the bottom of poor-wage listed states. If unions were to disappear, there might NOT be any choice other than the $35 gigs.

Not to mention that, without unions, EVERYTHING good would disappear: Paid vacation time, in many companies, would revert to ZERO. Retirement pensions would become entirely nonexistent. People could be forced to work on every holiday, and 90 hours a week, all for "straight" regular minimum wage pay. "Thank God" for companies larger than micro-businesses now being required to provide health care.

We're stuck with an entire political Party who would ALSO like to repeal/get rid of OSHA and all workplace safety protections, ADA, etc. I know a "Libertarian" who WANTS THE U. S. TO REPEAL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCKTARDS.

This is not what I was talkin about. In point of fact, it's much much worse:


http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6997,5629216


People getting paid full union scale - to do absolutely nothing. Disgusting.

I'm not saying that unions haven't committed their own excesses-to-the-extreme, as well. In the early 1970's, I believe that assembly line workers "in Detroit" (i.e. in the UAW-unionized industry NOT limited to the Detroit area) were paid BETTER than Medical Doctors. Once somebody else pointed out the article was from 1982, and I clicked on it, I actually thought I was going to see an article about firemen still being required on trains...which I think was still true thirty years ago...though flying-sparks-prone coal-fired steam trains had long since been retired.

Nobody rounded them up, but without right to work laws, they are forced to join a union in order to get a job. Try to grasp the concept.

If I'm in the labor market, and I'm forced to join a union so that the difference wages and benefits (compared to non-union shops) pay for my union dues two or three or eleven times over, I'll be GLAD to be forced to join a union.

[JayHawk]

Yeah loki that is what has driven Walmart to provide such vast array of benefits. That drive for talent.

[JayHawk]

Which would be typical manufacturing jobs. Except for professionals and highly skilled trades MOST employees are barely awake any damn way.... yet lack of unions will allow them to hire whomever they please.... on the other hand if you are among any of the technical skills that are currently lacking in the US then you will get a decent paying JOB but you will have zero protections from being fired. so when the market becomes saturated you can be let go easily for a younger less expensive employee.

[chance1]

some perspective on what it's really about and why it's being done - not as sexy as "repubs trying to break the union" but more accurate


http://www.politico.com/story/2012/1...now-84931.html

[Kulindahr]

Union membership is now 100% voluntary in Michigan. You can work wherever you like and join a union, or not at your own discretion. It wasn't the case before.

According to the reasoning of one of your comrades, it was already 100% voluntary.

[Kulindahr]

Nobody rounded them up, but without right to work laws, they are forced to join a union in order to get a job. Try to grasp the concept.

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"....

[Kulindahr]

Let's not forget the idiocy that today's unions engage in. Here's a video of a bunch of Chrysler employees, who we helped bail out, taking a break and smoking pot and drinking beer before they went back to work building cars that some of you may be driving.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=XVmKy...%3DXVmKyJXHXRE

Today, thanks to unions who apparently are more about preserving the jobs of employees who like a spliff and a forty, rather than ensuring a quality product is made, got back the jobs of 13 of these party animals!

http://www.torquenews.com/106/chrysl...t-during-lunch

Now I don't know about you, but I don't think it's a good idea to build cars after drinking and smoking pot. In fact, there's a whole bunch of ways that can be considered dangerous to the employee and consumer of these cars. If unions can stand up to drunks and stoners endangering the motoring public, then they need to be destroyed by whatever means practicable.

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.

[Kulindahr]

I guess I should clarify... jobs with requirements above and beyond the capacity to stay semi-conscious and swipe a barcode across a scanner, where employees aren't replaceable by any random person off the street.

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).

[Kulindahr]

some perspective on what it's really about and why it's being done - not as sexy as "repubs trying to break the union" but more accurate


http://www.politico.com/story/2012/1...now-84931.html

I see -- it's part of building a police state, where the people aren't allowed to get in to listen or protest their own legislature at work.

[Rolyo85]

1. You're under no compulsion to accept a $35 gig. If you don't like it, look for something better.

2. My source for Broadway plays is a speech given by Neil Simon. I heard the speech. Cannot now find a reference, but it's right in line with typical union featherbedding practices which are well documented.

3. As for your last sentence: once union membership becomes meaningless, ALL work places will be lower pay.

Back it up, [Text: Removed by Moderator].

1. If there are no unions to negotiate higher payment, there WON'T BE better places.

2. Oh, the world renowned "I Heard It Somewhere" source. Why didn't you start with that?!

3. If you knew anything that doesn't come from the right wing regurgitation machine, you'd know that the very reason for the unions' creation was that there was nobody to FORCE employers to provide some basic dignity to their employees. I know that in the Republican fantasy land, the "Achievers" are benevolent gods of creation that the diabolic chains of the federal government and unions are actually PREVENTING from creating Paradise on Earth, but... n**ga please

[Rolyo85]

Off topic:
So, you're in Chicago, are you like in the CSO?

Haha, of course not I'm nowhere near that level yet

[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?