[magellan]

Originally Posted by michigan83

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.

Of course it would make it harder and messier. That's called democracy. It may have given a chance to craft Right to Work in a way that benefits the entire State, or at least was more fair. Instead, again, it's weighed totally in favor of business owners and CEO's (who are bound by law to only one thing: shareholder return). Instead of weakening the unions, the Republicans are trying to completely usurp our voting rights. Talk about turning back the clock to the early 1900's.

This was the biggest BS move too, removing the Michigan citizens' ability to even vote on it afterward:

"Sen. John Gleason said the laws were referendum-proof -- voters could not overturn them -- because they were put in a million-dollar appropriations bill.

"If you dedicate funds to legislation, it can't be overturned by the public," he said. "They're just ramming it through with no public involvement. They locked the state Capitol down. Every way they could, they shut the people out of the process.""

Michigan passes 'right-to-work' measures - CNN.com

[Itsapipelinething]

So to all right to work supporters get ready for you 12 hour a day $8 hour job and don't forget to sign up for welfare because you will not support a family on that money and right to work will make jobs but low paying no benefit jobs!! Have you noticed gas prices, milk prices, insurance cost? It is tough to support a family on union wages so imagine making less and working more.... Michigan has been coming out of slump slowly I know but don't jump on board with this radical bill of right to work!!!! Please call 517-373-3400 and tell Rick Snyder it's wrong for Michigan !!!! It's easy to do and all they will ask for is ur name and address and please pass number on to other opposed to right to struggle law!!!

[canudigit]

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#!

So IOW, the workers had no say in this legislation being passed.

Unless I'm missing something, how is that much different than workers being forced to join a union and give their wages to political causes that they don't support? Since when did the unions' main objective change from providing better working conditions for workers to being a huge bankroll and political machine for one political party? Funny how the all important "freedom of choice" must only apply to certain people in certain circumstances.

I am not anti-union. I am anti- being forced to financially support a political cause that you don't personally support, which is what the unions have shamelessly been doing for many, many years. That is also denying someone their rights, isn't it?

[magellan]

Originally Posted by canudigit

So IOW, the workers had no say in this legislation being passed.

Unless I'm missing something, how is that much different than workers being forced to join a union and give their wages to political causes that they don't support? Since when did the unions' main objective change from providing better working conditions for workers to being a huge bankroll and political machine for one political party? Funny how the all important "freedom of choice" must only apply to certain people in certain circumstances.

I am not anti-union. I am anti- being forced to financially support a political cause that you don't personally support, which is what the unions have shamelessly been doing for many, many years. That is also denying someone their rights, isn't it?

No, having employment is not a "right." It's apples and oranges. You can choose to work for a company that is unionized or one that is not unionized. Your voting rights aren't being violated.

But at least it sounds like you're agreeing that this move was as slimy and power-grabbing as some of the union tactics.

I have a feeling this legislation is going to be challenged in court, as it should. Give the citizens and next term's legislature the chance to debate the issues.

[canudigit]

Originally Posted by magellan

No, having employment is not a "right." It's apples and oranges. You can choose to work for a company that is unionized or one that is not unionized. Your voting rights aren't being violated.

But at least it sounds like you're agreeing that this move was as slimy and power-grabbing as some of the union tactics.

I have a feeling this legislation is going to be challenged in court, as it should. Give the citizens and next term's legislature the chance to debate the issues.

Yes, "slimy and power-grabbing" usually applies to both sides, and I can honestly see both sides of this issue. My state rep is a very conservative Republican and he voted against this legislation for some very good reasons. It would also be hypocritical of me to deny that my dh has enjoyed some perks from working at a union company over the years. My main objection is that I don't feel that the unions should give workers' dues to any one political party without their consent. I don't know too many hardline Democrats who would love knowing that they worked several hours last month to fund Mitt Romney's campaign, and it is equally distasteful from the other side of the aisle. Dues should be spent on non-partisan issues so that workers aren't forced to financially support causes that they don't believe in just to keep their jobs. I don't know exactly when this became par for the course, but it isn't right.

[zthatzmanz28]

Originally Posted by canudigit

Yes, "slimy and power-grabbing" usually applies to both sides, and I can honestly see both sides of this issue. My state rep is a very conservative Republican and he voted against this legislation for some very good reasons. It would also be hypocritical of me to deny that my dh has enjoyed some perks from working at a union company over the years. My main objection is that I don't feel that the unions should give workers' dues to any one political party without their consent. I don't know too many hardline Democrats who would love knowing that they worked several hours last month to fund Mitt Romney's campaign, and it is equally distasteful from the other side of the aisle. Dues should be spent on non-partisan issues so that workers aren't forced to financially support causes that they don't believe in just to keep their jobs. I don't know exactly when this became par for the course, but it isn't right.

This was changes quite a few years ago with the required SIGN OFF consent members had to sign to say it was OK to donate to political causes. Having the RIGHT TO BE POOR law did nothing to change political donations.

[canudigit]

Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28

This was changes quite a few years ago with the required SIGN OFF consent members had to sign to say it was OK to donate to political causes. Having the RIGHT TO BE POOR law did nothing to change political donations.

Not surprisingly, that is not even remotely being enforced.

[db77]

HAHA

Deal with it union meatheads!

[Arthur Digby Sellers]

Originally Posted by Itsapipelinething

So to all right to work supporters get ready for you 12 hour a day $8 hour job and don't forget to sign up for welfare because you will not support a family on that money and right to work will make jobs but low paying no benefit jobs!! Have you noticed gas prices, milk prices, insurance cost? It is tough to support a family on union wages so imagine making less and working more.... Michigan has been coming out of slump slowly I know but don't jump on board with this radical bill of right to work!!!! Please call 517-373-3400 and tell Rick Snyder it's wrong for Michigan !!!! It's easy to do and all they will ask for is ur name and address and please pass number on to other opposed to right to struggle law!!!

Complete nonsense.

If you are in the minority of workers that requires a union to prop up your wages, you may need to adjust to reality.

The rest of us whose wages are determined by the market will feel no effect.

[Bydand]

What I find immensely amusing in all this is that the unions are still saying this will be lower wages, lower standard of living, etc.... I must be looking at a different law, where does it state that there is no more collective bargaining? Where does it say that all union contracts are null and void? Where does it say wages will drop? Where does it say that all competition for quality workers will cease as soon as this passes?

The cry about wages dropping can't hold water; think about it for just a moment. There will still be unions, there will still be union shops, there will still be collective bargaining, there will still be union contracts, there will still be union wages under the old contracts and new ones to come. The ability of unions to take a portion of non-union employees in a union shop will stop; but if the union is that great to begin with, why are there "freeriders" as the unions call them? If RTW will break your union, just how weak is it to begin with? If the unions are still giving an advantage over non-union shops there shouldn't be any worry at all. Workers will still be able to unionize, workers will still be able to be represented by unions and have those unions enter into agreements with companies on their behalf. So what are the unions/Dems so afraid of really? If unions are still relevant to todays working environment this will have almost zero effect on them. If they are not, then the gravy train just pulled out of the station and they will be exposed for what they really stood for behind their facade of caring for the average worker.