[Bydand]

Originally Posted by artisan4

I did look at it, yes. Look at this one:

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/facul...Inequality.pdf

[LEFT]'Union effects on unions on nonunion workers can be motivated in several
ways. Nonunion employers may raise wages to avert the threat of
union organization (Leicht 1989). We argue that unions also contribute
to a moral economy that institutionalizes norms for fair pay, even for
nonunion workers. In the early 1970s, when 1 in 3 male workers were organized,
unions were often prominent voices for equity, not just for their
members, but for all workers. Union decline marks an erosion of the moral
economy and its underlying distributional norms. Wage inequality in the
nonunion sector increased as a result.'[/LEFT]

Lowering wages, job protections and increasing poverty are not good things for our country. It amazes me that any American can believe that income inequality, right to fire at will, no national health care system and no checks and balances on employers are good things.

You do realize that the article you are quoting is using union figures from the 70's and comparing them to union figures in the 80's correct? If so then you should also know that RTW states in the 70's were RTW states in the 60's, and 50's as well, and that in the 70's and 80's no other states passed RTW laws. Therefore the results the article mentions have to be from other causes and NOT RTW laws. Just more union spin I see.

No-one is saying to lower wages or increase poverty... and RTW will NOT do those things as proven in the only two states in the last 50 years to pass RTW laws... Idaho and Oklahoma. As for job protections, hell yes we need to get rid of most of them. Ever work with a lazy, drunk/high moron day after day and they can't get rid of him because of a union? I have - on every single union job I have been on. Workers who don't work need protections, those who actually DO the job they are being paid to do, don't need those protections. As for National Healthcare... Where did you come up with that one? Seriously, RTW has NOTHING to do with a national healthcare act, I cannot fathom how anyone could make that leap. Just another fear-mongering tactic by unions and their devotees. Income inequality - Again, really? Where exactly does RTW promote that? Nowhere. As for right to fire at will, not really. Fire someone without cause ad your unemployment rates go right through the roof and you still have to pay on them. That is one of the checks and balances that are at State and Federal labor law level, NOT something soley governed by unions. You seem to have deep union beliefs that are unfounded and simply the same retoritc unions have been pumping their people full of for decades to keep themselves in power.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Bydand

You do realize that the article you are quoting is using union figures from the 70's and comparing them to union figures in the 80's correct? If so then you should also know that RTW states in the 70's were RTW states in the 60's, and 50's as well, and that in the 70's and 80's no other states passed RTW laws. Therefore the results the article mentions have to be from other causes and NOT RTW laws. Just more union spin I see.

No-one is saying to lower wages or increase poverty... and RTW will NOT do those things as proven in the only two states in the last 50 years to pass RTW laws... Idaho and Oklahoma. As for job protections, hell yes we need to get rid of most of them. Ever work with a lazy, drunk/high moron day after day and they can't get rid of him because of a union? I have - on every single union job I have been on. Workers who don't work need protections, those who actually DO the job they are being paid to do, don't need those protections. As for National Healthcare... Where did you come up with that one? Seriously, RTW has NOTHING to do with a national healthcare act, I cannot fathom how anyone could make that leap. Just another fear-mongering tactic by unions and their devotees. Income inequality - Again, really? Where exactly does RTW promote that? Nowhere. As for right to fire at will, not really. Fire someone without cause ad your unemployment rates go right through the roof and you still have to pay on them. That is one of the checks and balances that are at State and Federal labor law level, NOT something soley governed by unions. You seem to have deep union beliefs that are unfounded and simply the same retoritc unions have been pumping their people full of for decades to keep themselves in power.

Shameful Bydand. At least throw aside your partisan bias for a minute and admit that how this all went down was shameful. We are better than this in Michigan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...v=AsI2xc_FYX0#!

[JGatti]

I work in a union plant. Although I see people who are protected who do not deserve to be protected our union does protect us ( to a degree) from a very nasty management group. This is about the only thing I like about being union where I work. Being in the industry for 13 years when I started it was hard seeing lazy people get jobs only because they have been there longer along with day shift. I can't imagine how bad things would be for us if we didn't have the union. Even with the union they jump to try and fire people for stupid mistakes, and if they don't like you for whatever reason. God help you.

Now regarding the RTW states having lower costs of living. This may very well be true. However you also have to look at the fact the cost of living was very low long before companies began to move to them. So if you look at Michigan having a higher cost of living due to unions and we would be better off without them I ask you this. Do you really think if we become a RTW state our cost of living will go down? In my 45 years I cannot honestly say I have ever heard of such a thing happening. They will still tax us the the same. I just don't see that happening. But if people are going to earn lower wages with the same cost of living, I don't see how this is going to be a good thing. It may keep some jobs here that might have been lost to a RTW state to save the company $$$. But it is not going to draw in new business. If you think it is where would it come from? Better yet, why? The RTW states took jobs and companies from union states. Like us. Who are we going to take all these new jobs from?

[JD59]

Dec 6 (Reuters) - The Michigan Senate voted to approve a right-to-work bill on Thursday that would weaken labor union power, in a move expected to spark a bitter fight with organized labor in the home of the U.S. auto industry.

Michigan state senate approves right-to-work bill to weaken unions | Reuters

[plannine]

Originally Posted by Bydand

Another 1/2 truth the unions love to spew.




NO. In non Right to work states a union may force a person to join the union for a job, or force a person to pay union dues without representation from the union to get/keep a job if the job place is unionized. Think of it as "protection money" to borrow a phrase from another "organized" group uses to describe that type of payment.

The workers can vote out a union, just like a union is voted in by the workers, so if a 'majority' of members feel it's protection money, that can easily be resolved.

[artisan4]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us...e.html?hp&_r=0

“There wasn’t a middle class in the history of the United States before the unions,” said Gerald Florkowski, a retired assembly line worker from General Motors who drove from his home near Flint when he heard about the legislative push. “It was just the rich and the poor,” he said. “Now we’re going back to the rich and the poor.”

If there's one thing Republicans love, it is a weak working class and slave wages.

[JGatti]

Originally Posted by magellan

Shameful Bydand. At least throw aside your partisan bias for a minute and admit that how this all went down was shameful. We are better than this in Michigan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...v=AsI2xc_FYX0#!

I have to agree 100% that it is shady how this came to be. That man has a bright future I think. He has passion and says it like he see's it. Thanks for sharing Magellan.

[Bydand]

Originally Posted by magellan

Shameful Bydand. At least throw aside your partisan bias for a minute and admit that how this all went down was shameful. We are better than this in Michigan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...v=AsI2xc_FYX0#!

So what party am I???



wrong! I am neither Repub, or Dem. What is "shameful" about pointing out straight out lies spewed by mainly the union backers? There are some on the pro RTW side as well. HOW this came about, I have never addressed in this thread so why are you trying to pin that on me? How it came about is shady at best, but the arguments why this will ruin the State are nothing more than union lies that are not backed by any real proof.

[Bydand]

Originally Posted by plannine

The workers can vote out a union, just like a union is voted in by the workers, so if a 'majority' of members feel it's protection money, that can easily be resolved.

Never said they couldn't. What I was saying is that forcing non-union workers in an otherwise union shop to still pay union dues or fees while not getting anything from the union is wrong. Simple.

[michigan83]

Originally Posted by magellan

As a fellow West Michigander, I can't support how this was shoved through the House and Senate in lame duck session, by a bunch of cowardly f**k-tard governor wanna-be conservatives like Dick Devos and the current Republican body in Lansing.

Rep. Bradon Dillon from West Michigan: "No committee hearings, no opportunity to debate amendments, no public input" while protestors in the capitol were kicked out, locked out, pepper sprayed and arrested. Shameful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...v=AsI2xc_FYX0#!

Unfortunately, due to the tactics that unions tend to use when they don't get their way, ramming the legislation through quickly (which I agree is a little slimy) is probably the least disruptive and destructive way to get it done. Dragging it out and holding hearings just gives the national unions time to bus in demonstrators and raise a giant stink.

Lets not pretend that holding hearings and having lots of debate at the capitol was going to make this easier or less controversial. This issue is as clear cut as an issue can get. If you are a Democrat, it threatens your funding in a big way, so you automatically oppose it, whether it is fair or not, whether it is best for the state or not. There is absolutely no way that this would ever get done in a cooperative, bi-partisan fashion. Which is sad, because there is definitely an honest debate to be had about whether right-to-work is good policy or not. But with the nature of our two-party system and where each party gets funding, there is nothing to be gained from debating it or dragging it out. Democrats automatically oppose it and there is no point in talking it over.