Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - Michigan voting on "right to work", what is the controversy here?

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)

- Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)

- - Michigan voting on "right to work", what is the controversy here? (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=80382)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tagger (Post 974634)

Maybe do a study on Labor history and see why unions came about .. Now if we can just roll back these child labor laws we could compete in the world . I think you may get your wish and see unions go .

The law isn't union-busting. The law gives people the choice to opt-out if they feel as though the union is not of personal benefit to them.

Every single person I have spoken to about this that is pro-union refuses to answer one very simple question:

What is the negative to giving workers a choice to be part of a union or not? If unions are so great and do so much good for their members, then they won't have any trouble retaining every single one of their members.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 974677)

.

Every single person I have spoken to about this that is pro-union refuses to answer one very simple question:

What is the negative to giving workers a choice to be part of a union or not? If unions are so great and do so much good for their members, then they won't have any trouble retaining every single one of their members.

Johnny, I keep asking that same exact question. No one even attempts to answer. Instead, the pro-union folks claim that you hate workers, hate the middle class, or some such nonsense. Tagger, whom I do not know, assumes that if you favor "right to work", that you must also want to roll back child labor laws.

I say it's reasonable to allow people to choose whether or not they wish to join a union. Tagger claims that's morally equivalent to advocating for child slave labor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tagger (Post 974634)

"Maybe do a study on Labor history and see why unions came about"

I know why they came about, and back then, they served a legitimate purpose. That was then. Today, we have federal laws that offer many of the same protections that unions fought for back in the day.

In the case of public unions...Tagger, are you suggesting that without unions, the general public would expect teachers to live in a trailer and eat cat food? Because I don't hear anyone saying that. What people like me are saying, is that you can't give cops a $50,000-a-year pension at age 45. We simply cannot afford to do that.

There are lots of middle class folks who are not in unions. What unions (particularly public unions) demand, hurts every single one of us.

I was in a union at my company for a couple of years and we were a closed shop so i had to pay my dues. I didnt get much for it, didnt need anything from the union as i was a good worker. Fast forward 5 years of management and i have far surpassed anything they will make and get better bennies. Funny how our union agent loved me when i was paying dues but when i went to management she became a total bitch. After observing the past couple of years i can really see that at least in my place of work the union really does protect the weak and lazy, its sad. I have guys that totally deserve a merit based raise and i would love to give it to them but cant because they all must be treated the same.

Im from michigan and have seen what the demands of the UAW have done to Flint where i was from. Its a ghost town now. Its not all the fault of the unions but they didnt help. There is a fine line where the employees get paid a decent wage for the job they do and can keep it for a long time, and being over paid and having companies shut their doors and move elsewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY (Post 974581)

ok there spency, how about Honda and Toyota, better examples to cite?

Quality, value, dependability, etc? You following me?
We've had Toyota people working with us for years on six sigma an straight through processing. I cant recall any union shops being examples of quality and ingenuity, can you?
Hmm, I guess its just a coincidence.

I believe both Toyota and Honda workers are heavily unionized in Japan. This is where LEAN Manufacturing was born, it's perhaps even more heavily used in Manufacturing in the USA than Six Sigma although many companies also employ both.

Yes, they're not unionized in North America. Many of the imported assembly plants have set up shop in areas where the average wages are lower...for them, the auto jobs are a good deal. Considering the cheap land and tax advantages used to lure them to set up shop, it's probably a good deal for the auto makers as well.

I've never asserted that unions are the ideal, but I think at times they provide a necessary counter to the power of the corporation.

I do think that a blanket move like right to work will be very disruptive to business and from what I've read the auto makers aren't that excited about it.

-spence

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 974733)

I do think that a blanket move like right to work will be very disruptive to business and from what I've read the auto makers aren't that excited about it.

-spence

Since you completely ignored my entire reply, maybe the third time I ask the question will actually get answered...

What is the negative to giving people a choice to be part of a union or not? If unions are so wonderful, nothing should change for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 974759)

Probably not going to get a reply. It's amazing, isn't it?

Spence, if you are opposed to right-to-work, you should be able to fill in the following blank...

I am opposed to letting people decide for themselves if they want to join a union. Rather, I think we should force people to join the union (and pay union dues) because ________________________.

Spence, I dare you to fill in that blank with anything that sounds reasonable.

I'm not saying unions are good or bad here. I'm saying, it's inexplicable that anyone (unless you are a fan of North Korea) would oppose the notion that individuals be able to choose on their own, whether or not they want to join.

This has nothing to do with whether or not you like unions. It has everything to do with whether or not you prefer freedom or coercion.

I was on a business trip to Detroit a few weeks back and was told by a fellow out there that if this passed and a Home Care Giver was legally on the books (even if they were careing for a family member) they would be required to join the Caregivers Union.

Not sure if that is 100% true or not but that is what this guy from Detroit told me. Anyone know if there is any truth to that? Or did he not have is facts straight?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piscator (Post 974781)

Now, I haven't read the exact law but it seems to me that RTW would do exactly the opposite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 974564)

The contractors you speak of are in China and are under the Chinese Communist Party's model of manufacturing, not under the control of Apple.

Apple is free to contract with whomever they choose and under what terms they agree to. Foxconn employees are certainly contractors of Apple.

Quote:

A telling sentence in the Forbes article: "Today, we see the social detachment, alienation and despair that are the result of an efficient--but ultimately unsustainable--system." Beware America.

Well, perhaps they're just a century or so behind.

Quote:

Many white collar jobs, especially in the public sector, are unionized.

Any why I qualified Manufacturing jobs.

Quote:

The positive impact needs to be weighed against the negative. The big concessions had to be made because of previous negative union influence. In large manufacturing situations most of the jobs are routine rather than skilled trades. How this all would have come about if unions did not exist is debatable. Unions have historically had an affect on working conditions and pay, but, historically, it was unions in large corporations, such as the auto industry which was already paying far more for its labor before the unions entered. Rather than unions being the catalyst for success, they were beneficiaries of success.

And haven't shareholders also been beneficiaries of success? Many unionized companies have done quite well...

Quote:

You may not see the evidence, others do. More jobs is a key. If the pay is somewhat lower, which is debatable that it would be, the spending power may be comparable if not better. Most right to work states have lower living costs. Lower wages, in a market system, lead to lower prices.

I've never seen any real evidence that right to work promotes jobs. Granted, it would be a hard metric to measure considering all the other variables that impact a state economy.

The idea that lower wages lead to lower prices sure doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I could see lower prices via lower quality perhaps, but not because of reduced spending power prompting sellers to charge less for items that have many fixed costs.

A broader lower income base would spend more as a % on living expenses which are lower margin commodity items.

Quote:

Yes, investors invest, whether in unionized corporations or non-unionized. And foreign investment is not a bad thing, is it? Don't Americans also invest in foreign business. Does your portfolio include any foreign investment?

Foreign investment may not be a good thing when the result is wealth being transferred abroad.

I have some money in emerging markets, but not a huge % overall.

-spence

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 974789)

Now, I haven't read the exact law but it seems to me that RTW would do exactly the opposite.

Yes, you are correct. Thanks for the correction. I had mind dyslexia going.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 974530)

Apple is an odd example to cite. The lack of labor representation has led to hazardous working conditions and dramatic suicide rates among Apple's contractors. The innovators at Apple are white collar and historically speaking wouldn't have been unionized anyway given the nature of their skill set.

Within manufacturing unions can have a positive impact. A stable workforce retains the trade skills necessary to produce a quality product.

Certainly unions have had a negative impact at times, but I think it's important to assess the issue as it is today rather than as it has been. In the auto industry for instance the unions have already made some big concessions as part of restructuring during the recession.

Is the answer to weaken the unions or to restructure them along with campaign finance reform to limit their political influence?

I've also yet to see any evidence that right to work laws have any measurable benefit to states. Most likely they'll result in lower paying jobs, perhaps more jobs granted, but not the kind that will accumulate wealth for the workers.

It will help the investors though, so many of whom are foreign entities.

-spence

Because of it Apple recently announced plans to move manufacturing back to the states

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 974793)

Apple is free to contract with whomever they choose and under what terms they agree to. Foxconn employees are certainly contractors of Apple.

Apple contracted with Foxconn not with the individual employees. Foxconn and the Chinese government have control over working conditions not Apple. Apple is not the sole company to contract with Foxconn. Apple cannot dictate on its own how Foxconn or the Chinese government create working conditions.

Well, perhaps they're just a century or so behind.

I thought China was supposed to be a model for becoming the new economical powerhouse. You seemed to speak glowingly of it in a past thread or two. Wasn't China supposed to become the greatest economic power in the next 10 years or so? China has been a stagnant, backward economic force for a lot longer than the U.S. which is why it recently has been experimenting with "capitalism." It is we who are behind them in "detachment, alienation, and despair," and in being an efficient but ultimately unsustainable system as described in the Forbes article. But we are starting to catch up to it in that regard. Which is why I said Americans beware.

And haven't shareholders also been beneficiaries of success? Many unionized companies have done quite well...

Yes both the shareholder and the union members have been beneficiaries of success. That is why folks invest in companies they hope will be successful and why successful companies can hire workers to share in that success. But neither the shareholders (who take a risk) nor the workers have to belong to a union to create that success.

I've never seen any real evidence that right to work promotes jobs. Granted, it would be a hard metric to measure considering all the other variables that impact a state economy.

There are studies that show that RTW states have on net added 1.5 million jobs between 1999 and 2009 for a gain of 3.7% in employment while non-RTW states over the same time period have lost 1.8 million jobs for a 2.3% decline. You can find contradictory conclusions by different researchers depending on their political persuasion, but it is your particular persuasion that will determine whether the evidence is "real."

But there are other metrics that are favorable to right to work states. A 2008 study by National Institute for Labor Relations Research shows that in states with 10% or more of private sector workers subject to unionization laws the cost-of-living-adjusted mean weekly wages were lower than in right to work states.

But, if that institute is not to your liking, how about the good old reliable Wikipedia? It shows that wages in RTW states are 3.2% lower than in non-RTW states, BUT it also shows that the cost of living in collective bargaining states is much higher on average then in RTW states, which results in higher real buying power in most right to work states. ALSO, in collective bargaining states unemployment rate is higher than in right to work states..

The idea that lower wages lead to lower prices sure doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I could see lower prices via lower quality perhaps, but not because of reduced spending power prompting sellers to charge less for items that have many fixed costs.

A broader lower income base would spend more as a % on living expenses which are lower margin commodity items.

That's why I specified "in a market system." Many fixed costs are due to government regulation and interference as well as government inforced rules on unionization, etc. A freer market would have a less encumbered relation to wages and prices.

The market does have a direct relation between wages and prices as well as a complex relationship.

Simplistically, an Aaronson, Grench and Mcdonald 2009 study on minimum wage found that prices rise following a wage hike.

Traditional Keynesian models say that changes in wages typically precede changes in prices. Milton Friedman, on the other hand, would say the opposite--that the price changes precede wage changes. Either way, both wages and prices progress together up or down. When productivity goes up, however, wages can go up without raising prices due to the larger volume of sales equalling a larger net income that MIMICS a rise in prices. But if wages rise above productivity, price will go up to compensate for greater labor costs.

I go by the axiom "price what the market will bear", but with the proviso that you have to include competitive factors as well as the value of your product. Competitive pricing will make products available to lower wage earners and create profit by volume (the Walmart model). Products of special value for which there is little to no competition in production and sales can charge more to a more select or limited clientele so average wage is no deterrent to pricing.

On the other hand, if your target pool of consumers is a major part of the locale, you must price, if possible, toward what spendable income the consumers have after buying all other necessary and leisure items which depends on their average wages. That is why, I suppose, more "upscale" items can be sold in more affluent communities, and why lower wages command lower prices if you wish to sell to such consumers. That's why manufacturers produce different priced models of a product--all of which are of good, reliable, quality, but which have different features. And why you will see different prices for the same product in different communities. If the national wage average was lowered, would that necessarily mean that prices would remain the same or go up? Or could prices be lowered due to the reduced cost of labor, and would sellers lower prices to maintain ample demand for their goods?

Foreign investment may not be a good thing when the result is wealth being transferred abroad.

I have some money in emerging markets, but not a huge % overall.

-spence

The "wealth" portion that is transferred abroad is that portion that Americans chose not to invest in either because they couldn't afford it or they chose not to. But Americans reap the wealth from the jobs created here, and without having to take the risk of investing in the creation of those jobs.

And finally, and most importantly, beyond the eye-glazing, mind boggling, contradictory back and forth "economic" arguments, there is a most fundamental and most important American principle to consider, as Jim in CT and others have mentioned:

The Constitutional individual guarantee of FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!

Was gone for a few days and wanted to check and see if any of the anti-Right to Work crowd answered my very simple question. As expected, no one did, likely because they can't.

Tagger or spence, without conflating completely unrelated topics like child-labor laws, US working conditions from 50 years ago or China's lack of labor laws, What is the negative to giving today's US workers a choice to be part of a union or not?

Over the weekend, three other people I was talking to brought up the ridiculousness of Michigan's RTW law, yet not one of them could answer the above question. I think I'm starting to notice a pattern here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 975177)

Tagger or spence, without conflating completely unrelated topics like child-labor laws, US working conditions from 50 years ago or China's lack of labor laws, What is the negative to giving today's US workers a choice to be part of a union or not?

In that case the employer has already negotiated with the union to provide representation.

-spence

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 975241)

In that case the employer has already negotiated with the union to provide representation.

-spence

Ah yes, another vague response that dodges the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 975251)

Ah yes, another vague response that dodges the question.

LOL JD, get in line, I'm still waiting for his answers to 5 of my unanswered questions. :hihi:
Spence is like a shrewd politician, he thinks if he waits long enuff and dances
around enuff you'll forget the question. :grins: :doh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist (Post 975290)

This isn't necessarily the case from people that I've worked with that are from RTW states. Frequently, people that opt-out have the potential to be the first cut when layoffs need to come because they do not have the same protections as the union works. Also, the company is under no obligation to keep employees that underperform who aren't part of the union.

At the same time, if you opt-out of the union, there's actually incentive to excel because the company does not have to operate raised based on indiscriminate, seniority-based pay raises.

With the good, comes the bad. You opt-out and you don't get the same job security protections. However, you also have the potential to be rewarded relative to the quality of your work.

Prolly should be in the joke thread, but what a betta place then this. :)

A union boss walks into a bar, sits down,orders a beer,and sees a guy sitting at the bar with a Romney button on and 2 beers in front of him.
The union boss thinks, "This guy is prolly drowning his sorrows, being Obama
got re- elected."
So he thinks, "I'll really rub it in" and yells to the bartender
"Drinks for the house for everyone except for the Republican."
The Republican smiles,waves at the union boss and says, "Thank You!!!"
The guy thinks WTH, that didn't get him, I'll do it again and yells out, "drinks for
the house,except for the Republican." The Republican smiles, at the union boss
and says "Thank you!!!
This infuriates the boss, so he yells out again "Drinks for the house,except for the
Republican." Again the Republican smiles at the union boss and says "Thank You".
The union boss is now out of his mind with rage and says to the bartender,
"Whats the matter with this guy, is he a crazy arse or something?"
"Nope" says the bartender,
"He owns the place."

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist (Post 975290)

This is just me, but we all hate free riders right? Illegals with free tuition, welfare abusers etc. This is just another form of it, because in a right to Work state if you work in a Union shop and you don't have to join you still reap the collective bargaining rewards that the other are paying for. Raises, vacation and sick time,bonuses and anything else that union dues are paying for to be bargained you also get, a free ride.

The comparison to illegals and welfare abusers is a false correlation. Right to workers are not illegal and they are not on welfare. They are just as legal as union workers and work for their pay as do union workers. Their relation is with the company, not the union and the company does not give them a free ride. They must, at a minimum, meet company standards or they can be fired more easily, as JohnnyD pointed out, than union workers. And the company is not obligated to pay them as much as union workers, neither is the company forbidden to pay them higher, as JohnnyD also pointed out. The union might well put up a big stink if they were paid higher. And the union would also not like it if they were given less in pay and benefits since that would encourage the company even more strongly to replace union workers with non-union workers. So the easiest way would be to pay them the same.

My major objection to collective bargaining as it is enforced by government is that it violates the Constitutional freedom of association granted to individuals. The power that unions have was granted by FDR's creation of the National Labor Relations Board and the FDR Court's acceptance of it on purely political rather than constitutional grounds; and that board's decision to favor unions by granting them the right to bargain through enforced collectives, violating individual's rights to bargain for themselves (free association). The employer's rights of association are also violated not only because he cannot bargain with individual workers according to their individual merit, he is not allowed to associate with other similar employers to form a collective resistance to union demands, while workers can be represented by large national or international unions.

It would be more equitable and reasonable if collective bargaining was between the company and those employees who chose to form an inter-company union. There would be no outside influence by representatives who have broader concerns than those most "fair" and profitable to the company and its employees. These would be voluntary unions which would not force those who didn't want to join to be part of their negotiations. As it is now, the deck is stacked and individual freedoms are abridged.

My union dues are less than $20 a week, a small price to pay for the security of a good stable job with a good wage, and great benefits.

Are you certain that your job security is a result of your union? Doesn't that depend more on the viability and profitability of your employer and his business? A substantial amount of money is collected nationwide as union dues--are you satisfied with how they are politically distributed? You seem to be not only satisfied with your union, it seems that you would rather have it than not. Wouldn't it be easy to convince others to join?

As to the notion of "free riders", aren't there some union members who get a free ride when they aren't as productive as or more disruptive than most of their fellow workers, but get away with it by being protected by the union?

After the 29th of December you might see unions at their best. That's when the longshoremen might strike and close down the port of Boston. I guess $55.00 an hour isn't enough
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 975869)

The Looming Port Strike - National Review Online

immediately reminded me of this:

"His statement was clear, I've come to the middle, look at the bigger picture...it's time for others to as well and do what's right for the people."

I guess some determine "the middle" to be wherever THEY happen to be standing at any particular moment and define compromise as "my way or the highway and you get the blame for whatever goes wrong":)