Michigan about to be lost to republicans for a generation

[daveman]

The new jobs will be low-paying McJobs with no benefits. If the companies have their way, like Wal-Mart, the government will end up subsidising their health care, housing and food stamps. Good luck with that revenue.

Someone else made that claim in another thread. I asked for evidence.

None was given.

Now it's your turn. Prove the new jobs in RTW states are McJobs. And union website propaganda is not allowed.

I live in a right to work state (Virginia) and my county has the second highest median income in the nation. In fact, the top three highest median income counties are in my state and my state has five counties in the top ten median income counties in the nation. List of highest-income counties in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Years ago when I worked at Celanese, our main plants were in Texas (Corpus and Pampa). The labor at both plants was paid higher than their union counterparts in other non right to work states. Celanese only wanted the best and they paid them well to keep those employees.

You mean reality does not support union propaganda?

Gasp.

 

[daveman]

this is an employee's choice already, you just fail to understand this. there is no law on the books that requires all shops to be union nor is there any proposed legislation to do so. if you dont want to work for a union find a non union job.

You keep saying that...and then you object to me saying you're anti-freedom.

how is giving people the choice anti-freedom?

Because you're taking choice away from them.

You want to be an electrician, but don't want to join the union?

Then you can't be an electrician.

This is how you're anti-freedom.

 

[daveman]

How awful that people be given the freedom to choose for themselves if union membership is right for them.

They already have that freedom. Don't want to join a union? Don't look for work at a union shop.

Its that simple.

So if you work at a shop that becomes unionized you should be forced to pay dues...or leave?

That's "freedom" to Oopsie.

 

[daveman]

when a shop is looking to become a union shop the employees of that shop have a say in whether that happens. if it is in the best interest of the overall workers, it becomes majority rule.

Funny how that doesn't apply to shops that vote to reject the union, huh?

Remember...the left supports freedom of choice when the choice made is the one dictated by the left.

 

[buckeye45_73]

How awful that people be given the freedom to choose for themselves if union membership is right for them.

You mean take all the advantages of union membership without the work?

When the union fights for safer working conditions, the non-union employee benefits. Same with higher wages or protections from abusive managers.

How does a Plutocrat say, "Fuck you"? "Trust me!"

So whe did liberals dislike freeloaders?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

You keep saying that...and then you object to me saying you're anti-freedom.

how is giving people the choice anti-freedom?

Because you're taking choice away from them.

You want to be an electrician, but don't want to join the union?

Then you can't be an electrician.

This is how you're anti-freedom.

not so, there are many non union electrician shops in unionized states. it is not a requirement that you join a union in order to become an electrician.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

when a shop is looking to become a union shop the employees of that shop have a say in whether that happens. if it is in the best interest of the overall workers, it becomes majority rule.

Funny how that doesn't apply to shops that vote to reject the union, huh?

Remember...the left supports freedom of choice when the choice made is the one dictated by the left.

if the shop votes to not become a union then that is their choice. is this that hard to understand? no one is forcing them to do so.

 

[daveman]

how is giving people the choice anti-freedom?

Because you're taking choice away from them.

You want to be an electrician, but don't want to join the union?

Then you can't be an electrician.

This is how you're anti-freedom.

not so, there are many non union electrician shops in unionized states. it is not a requirement that you join a union in order to become an electrician.

That's true. I retract that objection.

 

[daveman]

when a shop is looking to become a union shop the employees of that shop have a say in whether that happens. if it is in the best interest of the overall workers, it becomes majority rule.

Funny how that doesn't apply to shops that vote to reject the union, huh?

Remember...the left supports freedom of choice when the choice made is the one dictated by the left.

if the shop votes to not become a union then that is their choice. is this that hard to understand? no one is forcing them to do so.

If 100% of the workers vote to organize, you're right.

If anything less than 100% vote to organize, those who don't want to join are being forced to join, or else lose their jobs.

This is "freedom" to you?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Funny how that doesn't apply to shops that vote to reject the union, huh?

Remember...the left supports freedom of choice when the choice made is the one dictated by the left.

if the shop votes to not become a union then that is their choice. is this that hard to understand? no one is forcing them to do so.

If 100% of the workers vote to organize, you're right.

If anything less than 100% vote to organize, those who don't want to join are being forced to join, or else lose their jobs.

This is "freedom" to you?

in a democracy its doesnt take 100% of the vote to accomplish anything.

 

[daveman]

if the shop votes to not become a union then that is their choice. is this that hard to understand? no one is forcing them to do so.

If 100% of the workers vote to organize, you're right.

If anything less than 100% vote to organize, those who don't want to join are being forced to join, or else lose their jobs.

This is "freedom" to you?

in a democracy its doesnt take 100% of the vote to accomplish anything.

Good thing this isn't a democracy, huh?

Meanwhile, I'm betting you objected to the several refereda that made gay marriage illegal. That was the majority imposing their will on the minority.

But you have no problem with the majority imposing their will on the minority when it comes to organizing workers.

Hypocrite much?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

If 100% of the workers vote to organize, you're right.

If anything less than 100% vote to organize, those who don't want to join are being forced to join, or else lose their jobs.

This is "freedom" to you?

in a democracy its doesnt take 100% of the vote to accomplish anything.

Good thing this isn't a democracy, huh?

Meanwhile, I'm betting you objected to the several refereda that made gay marriage illegal. That was the majority imposing their will on the minority.

But you have no problem with the majority imposing their will on the minority when it comes to organizing workers.

Hypocrite much?

there is a difference between voting to become a union and voting to strip away the rights of individuals. becoming a union is not a constitutionally protected right. however being treated equally in the eyes of the law is a protected right.

civil rights should not be left up to the voting public. if that were the case then blacks and women would never have had the right to vote and slavery would still be allowed.

 

[saveliberty]

there is a difference between voting to become a union and voting to strip away the rights of individuals. becoming a union is not a constitutionally protected right. however being treated equally in the eyes of the law is a protected right.

civil rights should not be left up to the voting public. if that were the case then blacks and women would never have had the right to vote and slavery would still be allowed.

Yet a public vote to form a union can strip a person of their job...seems like a civil rights violation.

 

[Nova78]

Who cares ? The country has been flushed down the toilet like a big turd,America has turned into a sewer.....

 

[daveman]

in a democracy its doesnt take 100% of the vote to accomplish anything.

Good thing this isn't a democracy, huh?

Meanwhile, I'm betting you objected to the several refereda that made gay marriage illegal. That was the majority imposing their will on the minority.

But you have no problem with the majority imposing their will on the minority when it comes to organizing workers.

Hypocrite much?

there is a difference between voting to become a union and voting to strip away the rights of individuals. becoming a union is not a constitutionally protected right. however being treated equally in the eyes of the law is a protected right.

civil rights should not be left up to the voting public. if that were the case then blacks and women would never have had the right to vote and slavery would still be allowed.

Very true. Yet a worker whose shop votes to unionize when he doesn't wish to is having his rights violated, isn't he?

 

[SniperFire]

in a democracy its doesnt take 100% of the vote to accomplish anything.

Good thing this isn't a democracy, huh?

Meanwhile, I'm betting you objected to the several refereda that made gay marriage illegal. That was the majority imposing their will on the minority.

But you have no problem with the majority imposing their will on the minority when it comes to organizing workers.

Hypocrite much?

there is a difference between voting to become a union and voting to strip away the rights of individuals. becoming a union is not a constitutionally protected right. however being treated equally in the eyes of the law is a protected right.

civil rights should not be left up to the voting public. if that were the case then blacks and women would never have had the right to vote and slavery would still be allowed.

Obviously, you know nothing about the Constitution.

The Constitutional right to form unions is found in the First Amendment which guarantees our right to peaceably assemble.


Why are you posting?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

there is a difference between voting to become a union and voting to strip away the rights of individuals. becoming a union is not a constitutionally protected right. however being treated equally in the eyes of the law is a protected right.

civil rights should not be left up to the voting public. if that were the case then blacks and women would never have had the right to vote and slavery would still be allowed.

Yet a public vote to form a union can strip a person of their job...seems like a civil rights violation.

the right to form a union is not a protect civil right. going full retard again?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Good thing this isn't a democracy, huh?

Meanwhile, I'm betting you objected to the several refereda that made gay marriage illegal. That was the majority imposing their will on the minority.

But you have no problem with the majority imposing their will on the minority when it comes to organizing workers.

Hypocrite much?

there is a difference between voting to become a union and voting to strip away the rights of individuals. becoming a union is not a constitutionally protected right. however being treated equally in the eyes of the law is a protected right.

civil rights should not be left up to the voting public. if that were the case then blacks and women would never have had the right to vote and slavery would still be allowed.

Obviously, you know nothing about the Constitution.

The Constitutional right to form unions is found in the First Amendment which guarantees our right to peaceably assemble.


Why are you posting?

peacefully assembling and forming a union are nowhere near one in the same. where did you get educated?

 

[SniperFire]

there is a difference between voting to become a union and voting to strip away the rights of individuals. becoming a union is not a constitutionally protected right. however being treated equally in the eyes of the law is a protected right.

civil rights should not be left up to the voting public. if that were the case then blacks and women would never have had the right to vote and slavery would still be allowed.

Obviously, you know nothing about the Constitution.

The Constitutional right to form unions is found in the First Amendment which guarantees our right to peaceably assemble.


Why are you posting?

peacefully assembling and forming a union are nowhere near one in the same. where did you get educated?

LOL


Good gawd.

Educate yourself.


Start here:

Freedom of assembly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Obviously, you know nothing about the Constitution.

The Constitutional right to form unions is found in the First Amendment which guarantees our right to peaceably assemble.


Why are you posting?

peacefully assembling and forming a union are nowhere near one in the same. where did you get educated?

LOL


Good gawd.

Educate yourself.


Start here:

Freedom of assembly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if forming unions is a constitutionally protected right, then states would not be able to pass legislation making them harder to form and maintain. this would be a direct violation of the 1st amendment. yet in many states this has occurred or is occurring.

did you just make the case that unions can take this to the supreme court claiming a violation of civil rights?

care to explain yourself?