Michigan voting on "right to work", what is the controversy here?
 

Curently in Michigan, many industries require you to belong to a union. You cannot work there unless you belong to the union.

They are likely to pass a "right-to-work" law, which makes union membership voluntary. Liberals are going berserk, and even Obama campaigned against the law while he was in Michigan.

Can someone please tell me, why anyone would oppose a law that gives me the right to choose whether or not to belong to a labor union? Unions are extremely political - they give huge $$ to Democrats and to liberal causes. Here in CT, my brother was a public schoolteacher. When he found out his union dues were going to Planned Parenthood, he successfully sued to get out of the union.

How can ayone support the notion that an employer can force employees to join an organization, whose stated goals you may be opposed to?

I'm sorry, I don't see the argument in favor of forced union membership. I get why unions are against it (they will lose membership dues). But what gives unions the right to force people to join and support them with dues?

Anyone?

I would imagine that the people freaking out over this are in unions. Personally, I think unions are the main reason so many jobs have been exported and wouldn't mind seeing them go away. A car assembler shouldn't make $75 an hour IMO.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is what Obama had to say about "right to wok" laws, which - GASP! - allow the worker to choose whether or not to join the union...

"What they're really talking about is they're giving you the right to work for less money," he said.

Tell that to the Hostess workers who paid union dues and who, courtesy of their union, are soon to be unemployed by the thousands. Did their union make them better off?

Wisconsin passed a "right to work law", and aproximately 50% of the workers who were in labor unions, opted to leave the union. So it's not clear to me that workers perceive union membership as consistent with their best interests.



Read more: Obama slams Michigan Republicans over union bill ahead of protests, votes | Fox News

Also, in 2 Michigan school districts, so many teachers called in sick to protest the laws, that the schools were shut down. Yes, it's all about the kids.

I don't agree with Obama here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A union will run a business into bankruptcy before they would ever take a minor pay cut.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or at least many of them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I would imagine that the people freaking out over this are in unions."

I'm sure you're right. But why are they feraking out? If the Republicans were trying to abolish the union, they have reason to freak out. But why freak out over a law that alloows me to choose whether or not I want to join the union? By what divine right can the unions force me to join and give them dues? Everyone who chooses to remain in the union, can do so.

'Personally, I think unions are the main reason so many jobs have been exported "

Bingo.

And when teachers, cops, etc see that their pensions are all bankrupt in 15 years, they'll start to wonder what the unions really did for them. Bribing crooked politicians to give members benefits that can never be paid for, is not helping those worlers in the long run.

Unions had their day. So did the dinosaurs.

Sounds very much like Obama
willing to run the country into bankruptcy before he would ever take a minor tax cut.

just sayin



I don't see how unions are good for this country, more negatives than positives for sure

I had to leave a job because of F'n unions. I made people look bad because I did my job the way I felt it should be done. Constant harassment from fellow workers and a couple of verbal warnings from the union president finally topped off by the union president calling me in his office telling me, "$25 bucks worth of crack goes a long way in Brockton", I asked what does that mean and he replied "you could get conched in the head, just sayin". Unions protect the slackers.

uh, yeah... thats why IT, finance, etc has way higher wages than manufacturing.
Why is it I have never worked for a union shop yet have great benefits, vacation, sick, holiday, etc?
Whenever I argue with a liberal on unions I always bring up Apple Computers. Every liberal I met has an iphone, ipad, ipod. I tell them they would be using an old dial up, buying their music at Strawberries, and browising on their pc is apple was unionized. No union shop has ever show creativity or entreupreunership

And you left out the best part, they'd be paying way more for that ancient product...

But this issue isn't even about whether or not you like unions. It's about whether you shuold be forced to join, or be able to choose to join. How can anyone defend the notion that you should not have the freedom to choose not to join?

I personally believe the Catholic Church is awesome. That doesn't mean I think anyone should be forced to give money to the church.

I don't get it...can't begin to comprehend why anyone would be opposed to laws giving employees the right to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union.

2023 is the bubble burst in MA. The retirement fund will be 23 billion in the red beginning with the 2023 retirement class. The commission currently has no clue how to come up with the money. I guess they are hopeful that a lot of people just die.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BTW my wife is a teacher who has a separate retirement account so she will not have to count on her pension
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So today, the Michigan legislature approved the "right-to-work" law. Assuming it gets signed by the governor, workers will be able to choose for themselves whether or not they join a union.

Said a Democratic state representative named Douglas Geiss, who was opposed to the law: "there will be blood". Classy.

Michigan approves right-to-work legislation amid intense protests | Fox News

Hey if a private company wants to be a union shop that is their right,but state,town,fed gov jobs should not be. Im so sick of all the union whinning over this and that and running companies into the ground just like stated above. If the co wants union so be it but dont come crying to gvt looking for a bailout because your workers are selfish pricks. Im loving that Hostess is closing rather than negotiating with those terrorists!

you know, my dad was union. I remember him worrying all the time about someone "bumping" him. That would be some dolt that had more seniority in another dept that could come in and take the day shift away from him and he would go on nights. I remember that happening many times. Its nothing to do with his experience, skill, quality, etc. it was all about seniority. This created a culture similar to the survivor reality show, people working the system to get into day roles, moving to groups without layoffs, corrupt union guys giving favors. After close to 25 yrs, my dad had a nervous breakdown as his company was tanking and the day to day politics and backstabbing of the union process was too much for him to handle. Stratford, Bridgeport Ct are manufactring wastlenads due to unions. F the unions. I'll compare my salary and benefits any day to someone in a union. If given the chance to be a lion or a sheep most people will gladly join the herd and thats why unions survive

My favorite union story...my younger brother is a public schoolteacher. When he was in the union, his middle school was having trouble with fistfights among students when they were in the halls between periods. The principal asked the teachers if they would, when the bell rings at the end of a period, stand at the doorway and watch the hallways as the kids were walking to the next class. When the union found out, they sent the teachers a letter (my brother still has it) instructing the teachers to refuse. According to the union, the teachers are "on break" between periods, and if the school wants teachers "working" by observing the hallway, the town would have to pay teachers extra. Most teachers happily complied with the union's request. So taking 5 minutes to read the paper was more important than student safety.

After he sued to get out of the union, he got 15 or 20 harassing phone calls a day. He called the police, had to get an unlisted phone number.

In Michigan yesterday, a conservative group had a big tent set up at the capital building. The union mob couldn't have that, so they attacked the tent like the Nazis storming into Poland, knocking it down while women were still in there.

In Detroit, 2 school discticts had to close for the day, because all the teachers called in sick to protest the proposed law. In these districts, less than 10% of the students can read and do math at their grade level. The very last thing those kids need is an unscheduled day away from school.

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

I think what he really meant was "they want you to WORK" for your money!

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

Sounds like Obama should jump on that, fits his agenda perfectly.

BTW- where is his outrage for the violence taking place there?
As our leader, shouldn't he be speaking out on peacful demonstrations???

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?

"Is the answer to weaken the unions?"

So, you're OK with forcing workers to join a union they don't want to join, in order to bolster the union's strength? That doesn't seem a bit totalitarian to you?

Here is what liberals will not admit on this issue...this law only weakens unions, if people freely decide that they don't want to belong to the union. If no one feels the union is adding value to themselves, please tell me why we should artificially bolster the power of the unions? Spence, if the auto workers don't want to belong to the union, but you think the union is important, then YOU can sign your pay over to the union. Who the hell are you to say that an auto worker should be forced to give money to a radically liberal political organization? By what divine right does the union confiscate money from those who don't want to be associated with the union?

"Within manufacturing unions can have a positive impact."

Pricing themselves out of a job? Bribing corrupt politicians to give them pensions that can never, in a million years, be adequately funded?

"I've also yet to see any evidence that right to work laws have any measurable benefit to states"

Because you won't find that evidence at The Daily Worker's website. Here is the evidence...in those states, workers have the right to choose whether or not they want to support a labor union. They are no longer compelled by law to give money to an organization they do not wish to support. In a free society, that should be an obvious right, one that should not generate any controversy.

"Most likely they'll result in lower paying jobs'

Spence, which would you rather have? A job that is sustainable in the long-term, or a higher-paying job that will result in the bankruptcy of the company?

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

Every American with a pension or a 401(k) or an IRA is an investor.

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.

This is like giving credit to someone who set fire to a house for then begrudgingly putting the fire out.

Unions had a place back before OSHA, before worker safety laws, before exploitation laws. Now that there are employee protections, unions are completely irrelevant and do nothing but stifle productivity, benefit the lazy, foster corruption and reward the oldest guy on the job site (instead of the best guy at the job)... THAT is "assessing the issue as it is today rather than as it has been".

With your comments about Apple's manufacturing, you're referencing a country (China) that has no regard for the environment, it's workers, quality or integrity. Frankly, I'd agree that unions would play a beneficial roll to the Chinese workers. However, that also means that companies will stop sending their manufacturing to China because... Unions unquestionably result in higher costs. I'm not saying those higher costs in China aren't necessary, but there's no arguing that costs would increase.

Using China's manufacturing industry with it's lack of environment and safety laws as justification for why unions play a beneficial role in the US is bordering on lunacy and a complete detachment from perspective.


There's one question that no one that opposes "Right to Work" has ever been able to answer for me:

What is the negative to giving people 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.

Bingo, that's why I started this thread.

Or, to put it another way, which I think makes the point even more clear...how do you justify forcing someone to give their money to a political organization that they have no desire to support? How is it different from forcing someone to give money to the NRA or to the Catholic Church?

The people opposed to this law say the intent is to destroy the union, and thus un-do all the good the union has done for the workers. The reality is, the union can only be destroyed if no one chooses to stay in the union, which could only happen if no one saw the union providing any benefit.

If the workers truly value what the union does for them, it's clearly in their self-interest to continue to give the union money. Those that don't want to be in the union, will no longer be forced to financially support it.

I don't see how anyone can argue with that.

I've worked 12 yrs. non union .. No insurance,, no pension ,, If you fall your fired and have absolutely nothing to show for those 12 yrs. Drove a sht box truck and lived from hand to mouth ..

I've worked 28 yrs. union and have health benefits (blue cross) ,,dental,, pension,, annuity . and a better wage and live better ,, not rich, but doing well .. don't booze,, drug , smoke cigs or gamble .

I'm the exception .. Not many make it to the end in my line of work . Was on a job with 4 fatality's ,, A number of jobs with people maimed for life .. crushed body's,, head injuries .. lot's of people fall by the wayside with backs ,, knee's ,,other injuries .. It's a good time to bash the Union's , This has to be someone's fault .. 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 .

It is interesting that "Hostess" is mentioned here. The exec's all got thier parachutes when the company closed. It was in the millions of dollars that was paid to the white collar exec's. Thier is much more to the "Hostess Debacle" than union greed.

For one, I have always been in a union. The job I just retired from and the one prior. It wouldn't have bothered me if anyone wanted to opt out.

And Jim, its not the entire union that demands membership as in what would be considered a closed shop, it is the bosses who run the union that demand membership for a job, and trhe business owner. The business owner, once he relents, and starts to negotiate with the union, only wants to deal with one or the other. Most union members realized they don't get chit for thier dues. The one union that everyone should be concerned with is the SEIU. Everyone is on thier payroll. All the pols cater to them, and the SEIU union bosses always volunteer rank and file members for any event the pols need them for. I know a couple of people who actually sued thier unions and won damages, because they didn't rep them very well. There is power in numbers, and the only people who have power are the union officials, no one else.

Actually the execs from Hostess were being compensated to stay on through the closings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I appreciate your post but you do realize many, many people have the same benefits and have no unions? I am sure that varies by line of work, but then we have laws. There are tons of laws around the workplace. you fall on the job, your company, union or not, is responsible. We have family rights acts, discrimination laws, etc. Many of the battles fought by unions have been won and as a result we have better working conditions. But, unions, like our federal govt, have become bloated organizations that only serve to serve themselves and frequently bite the hands that feed them.

exactly, but that doesnt make good headlines