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

[Jim in CT]

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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

...

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

.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Every liberal I met has an iphone, ipad, ipod. I tell them they would be using an old dial up...if apple was unionized.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

perhaps more jobs granted, but not the kind that will accumulate wealth for the workers.



-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???

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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 contractors you speak of are in China and are under the Chinese Communist Party's model of manufacturing, not under the control of Apple. When Apple said it was going to invetigate the conditions, the workers were miraculously given a pay raise by Foxconn, the contractor. The conditions are horrible compared to American standards (of both American union and non-union manufacterers), but among the best in China. Also, Foxconn produces products for several other companies, not just Apple. The suicide rate at Foxconn, by the way is lower than for the Chinese national average, and lower than that in all 50 U.S. states. A Forbes article points out that what is happening at Foxconn is indicative of what is happening in China because of its rise as a manufactoring magnet, as well as its Communist party's control. The Assumption that the suicide rate at Foxconn is because of non-unionization does not correlate to reality. To begin with, the Foxconn workers have the government puppet union (the only one allowed in China) to represent them, which, of course, is a farce. But, are we to assume that union labor in the U.S. does not participate in our higher suicide rate than Foxconn's? A unionized French factory had 60 suicide attempts of which half resulted in deaths over the last three years.

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.

The innovators at Apple are white collar and historically speaking wouldn't have been unionized anyway given the nature of their skill set.

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

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.

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.

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

Don't know--that assumes that they must still exist.

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.

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.

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

-spence

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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.

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

Any why I qualified Manufacturing jobs.

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...

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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

"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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

Apple is an odd example to cite. -spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

-spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

[Tagger]

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 .

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Tagger

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 .

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Tagger

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Tagger

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 .

"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.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Sgt Striper]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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