Michigan "Right-To-Work" Legislation Is Bad Legislation!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JimofPennsylvan, Dec 9, 2012.

  1. JimofPennsylvan
    Offline

    JimofPennsylvan VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    385
    Thanks Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +83
    The one thing that really gets me about Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's grandstanding about the need for a "right to work" law is that he is so one sided in his analysis of the issue and many of the bills supporters act the same way. Governor Snyder is all over the place in front of TV cameras saying things like workers have rights they should be free to not join a Union if they so choose and workers should not be forced to join a Union. However, the public doesn't hear word one from the Governor and supporters of this bill about if this bill becomes law for these Michigan workers who chose not to join the union at their employer they will still receive the "benefits" of the union contract but "won't be paying" to maintain the union and that isn't fair, it isn't right; America doesn't stand for free loading and taking advantage of coworkers! Let's look at what will be going on if this bill is enacted into law, do you think that your going to see unionized employers pay the workers that avail themselves of this law and not join the union eighty or seventy percent of unionized wages, you think these employers will be giving these non-union workers eighty or seventy percent of vacation and sick leave days that unionized workers get, you're damn right their not going to otherwise these workers would just join the union and get the better union wages and benefits. The point here is in "right to work" states where workers of unionized employers avail themselves of the law not to join the union they are still benefiting from the union's hard work in securing wages and benefits but these workers are not paying for the cost to operate the union and negotiate the contracts their free loading their taking advantage of the union workers who make the financial sacrifice to pay union dues to maintain the union and this is unfair, unjust and outrageous!

    If the Governor and all these freedom advocates want to enshrine in the law the right not to join a union if a worker so choses so be it but don't alleviate from that worker the obligation to pay a fair share or pro rata share of the cost to maintain the union because that is plain wrong! If a person wants to claim their pro-collective bargaining rights they have to be pro giving those workers who chose to join the collective bargaining group the ability to raise revenue to operate such a group otherwise their claim isn't true, its a charade! Let's look at this "right to work" legislation from a practical standpoint, what this law does is give workers the right to opt out of paying union dues by not joining a union however due to the alternatives facing the employer these "opt out" workers still enjoy the wages and benefits gained by the union, as a practical matter if such a law is put into effect one will see a significant numbers of workers drop out of the union because they will save money on not having to pay union dues with little down side in lesser wages and benefits (human nature calls for this conclusion) so as a practical matter this weakens unions and increases the likelihood of their failure because it takes away revenue (union dues) they need to function well. So truth and honesty indicates clearly that if someone is a supporter of this Michigan "right-to-work" law their not pro-collective bargaining rights!

    The other thing that is outrageous and completely anti-union is the provisions in this Michigan "right to work" legislation providing that employers do not have to deduct union dues from workers pay who are in the union. This is outrageous because unions need these union dues to pay their staff and maintain their operations and if the employer doesn't take them out the union is left in the position of any other bill collector for that worker they send a bill for the union dues and some bills will be paid and some won't, the union will incur a significant loss of revenue and therefore its effectiveness will be impaired. For elected officials that propose or support these provisions it is very hypocritical and double standard like to make such provisions law. The law recognizes and supports other instances where an employer can remove monies from employees checks even if they haven't consented to such removal, employers remove monies from employees pay in response to court orders for child support and some employers remove monies from employees pay to pay for employer uniforms and the like. It really is completely unreasonable and unfair employers can escape such obligation to remove union dues because union activities have to deal with the employer-employee relationship they have to deal with the work and activities of the employer's business the law should view such removal of union dues as a necessary duty to fulfill their duties to their workers and the community!
     
  2. MikeK
    Offline

    MikeK Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    13,184
    Thanks Received:
    1,985
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Brick, New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +3,727
    "Right-To-Work" is euphemistic language for union busting.

    Right-To-Work enables an employer to hire what essentially are "scabs." When the employer has a sufficient number of scab workers the union is rendered impotent.

    The Right-To-Work law is enacted by corrupt legislators who are bribed by corporatists like the Koch brothers, et. al.

    The Right-To-Work law is insidious. Its intended effect is not immediately manifest, nor will it be seen until the union movement is sufficiently undermined by it. Once the unions are eliminated a progressive reduction in wages and worker benefits will commence. Where it will lead may be determined by tracing the history of the union movement to its earliest stage. Because that is where this insidious Right-To-Work policy is headed.
     
  3. OKTexas
    Offline

    OKTexas New Life Member of the NRA 12/15 Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    24,148
    Thanks Received:
    3,763
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Near Magnolia, TX
    Ratings:
    +11,280
    Poor babies, the poor little unions will have to prove their value to a worker just like any other business who wants their money. Can't have that. The only reason the left has a problem with it is the unions may lose monies they would give to leftist politicians. A union having to compete for the workers loyalty, what a freaking concept. Let the bastards EARN their dues.
     
  4. NYcarbineer
    Offline

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    96,213
    Thanks Received:
    11,272
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,300
    Right to work is just one more scheme to make Americans work for less money. It's not any more complicated than that.
     
  5. kiwiman127
    Offline

    kiwiman127 Comfortably Moderate Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    8,427
    Thanks Received:
    2,583
    Trophy Points:
    315
    Location:
    4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
    Ratings:
    +3,850
    Chart of the Day.
    In the future will our children be working for Walmart sized wages? Will it even be worse for their children?
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  6. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    Union workers have to have a union to protect their weakest element, the ordinary lazy, fat and incompetent worker that does mediocre work at best.
    The "scab" worker is smart enough to negotiate his skills HIMSELF and does not need mob rule to educate himself for the job that the market demands.
    Unions fucked themselves. They protect their weakest element, the incompetent workers in their midst.
    All workers want is a right to work without being forced to join a union. What is wrong with that?
     
  7. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    My oldest son, age 26, just bought his first house Friday at 170K.
    He does not need a union to negotiate for him. He trained and educated himself for what the market demands and makes 50K + a year.
    Unions are for low skilled bottom of the barrel workers that refuse to train and educate themselves for what the market demands in many instances.
    In many industries if a business favors having union employees for whatever reason then that is great.
    Business never sets the wages, ever. THE MARKET AND DEMAND FOR SKILLED LABOR ALWAYS SETS THE WAGES.
    Do not like the wage you make. Educate thyself for what the market demands.
    HVAC, plumbing, auto repair, marine repair, welding, tool and die and on and on and on and on of unfilled jobs that pay 36K a year to start for a 20 year old.
    No cry babies.
     
  8. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    NO, union busting is right to work.
    Get used to it. We won, you lost.
     
  9. MikeK
    Offline

    MikeK Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    13,184
    Thanks Received:
    1,985
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Brick, New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +3,727
    Succinct but right on.
     
  10. MikeK
    Offline

    MikeK Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    13,184
    Thanks Received:
    1,985
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Brick, New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +3,727
    While it is true there are union jobs for unskilled workers, such as the Building Employee's Union, which includes janitors, porters, doormen, etc., and it serves to maintain a living wage and to prevent those employees from being treated like slaves.

    As for your assertion that unions are for "low-skilled, bottom of the barrel workers" have you never heard of Carpenters' Unions, Electrical Workers' Unions, Plumbers' Unions, Bricklayers' and Masons' Unions, etc.? These unions consist of highly skilled tradesmen and they will not accept one who cannot pass a certification test.

    Contrary to what you apparently believe, without these unions, whether for skilled or unskilled workers, wages in all fields would be driven down by competitive scabbing. For example, most Americans believe the only kind of workers who "jump the fence" from Mexico are fruit pickers. Not so. Believe it or not there are skilled tradesmen in Mexico who can make three to four times as much by scabbing construction jobs in the U.S. But the unions keep them locked out. Once these union-busting "Right-To-Work" laws become prevalent the American wage standard will drop significantly below that of just about every other developed nation in the world -- and the general standard of living will be sucked right down the drain with it.

    There is a lot to dislike about unions. But there will be a hell of a lot more to dislike when they are gone. So let's be careful to avoid tossing out the baby with the bathwater.
     

Share This Page