Right-To-Work Wage Myth

[Barb]

All labor benefits from unions - both union and non-union.

Businesses don't. It bleeds them to death. The proof of that is overwhelming.

Now STFU.

to death, you say?

 

[Barb]

 

[SniperFire]

All labor benefits from unions - both union and non-union.

Businesses don't. It bleeds them to death. The proof of that is overwhelming.

Now STFU.

to death, you say?

With union membership at record lows, you unwittingly just supported the point he made.


Not that you wittingly do anything.

 

[Katzndogz]

A state that does not have a right to work law can expect to have their businesses targeted by unions to force those companies to become unionized. The unions are protected by the obama approved card check laws which provides the union with the names and addresses of every employee that votes against unionization. The decision is nominally up to the business, does it want to be vandalized and their employees beaten? That's the decison.

 

[Barb]

Who actually gets to receive "dividends" from stocks and bonds that you don't even own.

Our conservative "friends" would ridicule the concept of getting something for nothing, but that is exactly what occurs in "right-to-work" states where those in the company, but not in the union, receive the same wages and benefits as the union members who paid for the services of lawyers and other professionals to negotiate legal and binding collective agreements.

Under any other set of circumstances, the conservatives would be venting their self-righteous indignation from the rooftops.

via AFL - CIO:

Because it wouldn't pass in January. Shameful.

And there you have it!

 

[Barb]

MSNBC Anchors Laugh As Michigan Governor Claims Union-Busting Is Good For Workers | ThinkProgress

Editorial: A failure of leadership: Snyder's about-face on right-to-work betrays voters | Editorials | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Watching Snyder explain his right-to-work reversal was disturbing on several levels.

His insistence that the legislation was designed to promote the interests of unionized workers and "bring Michiganders together" was grotesquely disingenuous; even as he spoke, security personnel were locking down the capital in anticipation of protests by angry unionists.

Snyder's contention that workers' First Amendment rights are compromised when a union they have freely elected to bargain on their behalf proposes a contract making union dues compulsory is equally specious. Employees are always free to reject such a contract or decertify the union that negotiated it, just as stockholders can force the ouster of corporate managers they deem unresponsive to their needs.

Snyder has long acknowledged that steamrolling right-to-work legislation through the Legislature would have enduring negative consequences for productive collaboration between workers and employees. His decision to embrace such legislation now destroys, in an eye blink, the trusting relationship he and his business allies have struggled to establish.

It also yokes a governor who once aspired to be seen as a new kind of Republican with the most ideological, backward-looking elements of that party -- the very people whose exclusionary vision of the country's future was rejected by voters in last month's election.

Trust betrayed

Snyder's closest brush with candor came when he suggested that his endorsement of right-to-work was less than voluntary -- a decision "that was on the table whether I wanted it to be on the table or not."

But that is less an excuse than a confession that Michigan's governor has abdicated his leadership responsibilities to Republican legislators bent on vengeance.

What reasonable person now believes that Snyder has the will or the wherewithal to deliver Michigan, or even his own party, from the failed politics of division?

Michigan voters who provided Snyder's margin of victory in 2010 feel betrayed, and they have every justification. If he was ever serious about being the governor who brought Michiganders together, Snyder has just sent himself back to Square One.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Humorous photo. Who EXACTLY is advocating the "end of unions" in Michigan? I suggest you research right to work states. Unions are still going strong in each of them. I KNOW. I worked, as a union member, in one of those states.

Unless Unions change the way they are perceived (common thugs, mafia, etc) they are becoming less and less attractive every day. Membership is NOT to blame. The Nationals and the locals bear responsibility for that.

 

[Friends]

Then why do you have to force people to join unions? Why do you have to forceably take union dues?

Every employee in a unionized company benefits from the higher wages and benefits and better working conditions that unions bring about.

Allowing some workers not to pay union dues would be like allowing some people at a given income level to avoid paying taxes, while taxing others at that income level.

 

[Barb]

Businesses don't. It bleeds them to death. The proof of that is overwhelming.

Now STFU.

to death, you say?

With union membership at record lows, you unwittingly just supported the point he made.


Not that you wittingly do anything.

You are a fucking moron, aren't you? With unemployment and (taxpayer funded) public assistance at record highs B E C A U S E of the grasping nature of big business, this shows that they are incapable of generating the jobs and the incomes that would support their very existence.

 

[Friends]

Right-wing media falsely claimed that workers at organized work places are compelled to pay dues that go toward union political activities and that so-called "right-to-work" legislation in Michigan would give workers a choice about paying for these activities. In fact, workers at unionized work places already can choose whether to pay for political activities of their union.

Right-Wing Media Are Wrong About Worker Contributions For Unions' Political Spending | Research | Media Matters for America

Aren't the unions still fuming over the decision to make them give workers enough notice when they intend to take money for political campaigns?

Unions don't like giving workers choices and that is creepy.

Unions have the choice to vote for the decisions. Once the decisions have been made by elected union officials every union member has the obligation to obey. That is the way democracy works.

 

[Barb]

Humorous photo. Who EXACTLY is advocating the "end of unions" in Michigan? I suggest you research right to work states. Unions are still going strong in each of them. I KNOW. I worked, as a union member, in one of those states.

Unless Unions change the way they are perceived (common thugs, mafia, etc) they are becoming less and less attractive every day. Membership is NOT to blame. The Nationals and the locals bear responsibility for that.

Well, lets see how non-union workers fare elsewhere in the unregulated world before we decide unions are superfluous and harmful here.

It isn't simply wages, but those do promote democracy and a sustainable society, as well as the consumer class that sustains business. Business, especially corporate business does NOTHING out of the kindness of their hearts, or even their own rational self interest. The corporation, as a legal construct, especially as those contracts are written today, has a fiduciary responsibility not to have a heart, and damned little brain past the monthly statement.

 

[Friends]

All labor benefits from unions - both union and non-union.

Businesses don't. It bleeds them to death. The proof of that is overwhelming.

Commerce Department data released today show that the share of national income going to wages and salaries in 2006 was at its lowest level on record with data going back to 1929.[1] The share of national income captured by corporate profits, in contrast, was at its highest level on record.[2]
Share of National Income Going To Wages and Salaries at Record Low in 2006 — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html?_r=0

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - Ronald Brownstein - The Atlantic

Labor unions raise wages while reducing profits. Because corporations are making record profits, and because average wages adjusted for inflation are declining, we need strong unions to force management to share their good fortune with the workers.

 

[GHook93]

LOL Lakota you always outshine your stupidity with a source like media matters!

 

[Friends]

Then why do you have to force people to join unions? Why do you have to forceably take union dues?

Because they can get all of the benifits of the union without paying dues. It would be like someone not paying income tax, sales tax, and payroll tax usIng and benifitting from everything those taxes pay for.

Then dont give them the benefits. Not really rocket science there.

But then, that's not really the reason for it. So there really isnt any need to lie about it.

A two wage scale would give management the incentive to hire employees who promised not to join the union.

 

[PratchettFan]

Here's the thing you lib morons dont seem to get.
In a RTW state the people who work hard get paid for their efforts. Those who dont.....dont.
I fail to see the issue with that.

Possibly. You would have to support that claim with hard evidence, not just claim it. However, there is one thing which is clear. When the government tells business what kind of labor contracts they can or cannot engage in and how they will conduct their hiring decisions, that is socialism. I just fine it amusing that the right is pushing a socialist agenda. Should I start calling you comrade?

I already addressed this false claim above. I noticed that you ignored it.

Perhaps you would actually like to back up your false claims instead of parroting them...

My only claim is that the government dictating to priviate industry as to what labor contracts they can negotiate, who they can negoiate with and what they can or cannot do in their hiring practices is socialism. Are you disputing that?

 

[GHook93]

All labor benefits from unions - both union and non-union.

LOL, so untrue. We all suffer because of Unions. Unions drive up costs and force entire industries to go over seas. Once those industries ship out those workers compete with other people in other industries creating an excess of workers, which drives down wages and benefits!

Unions also corrupt the public sector, putting on huge unethical demands and wasting money by the billion in effect giving rise to higher taxes, which hurts businesses, workers and consumers alike.

Union still have some place, but it should be minimal. Their day in the sun is over and they do more bad than good!

 

[Friends]

There's just one problem with this:

Unions since the Jimmy Hoffa days have been nothing more than cudgels... they're trying to fix the problems they have with their employers with brute force rather than precision.

Unions used to mean something. Now they're just weapons.

Unions were more violent in the past than they are now.

 

[Friends]

It's extortion to demand that some one pay an organization just to be able to work.

To get my most recent job I had to promise the company not to take a job with a competitor until I had been away from the company for six months. That reduced me to the status of an indentured servant. Who would hire me, but a competitor of the company I worked for? That is where my experience was.

Because I was out of work I had to take the job, but I did not like it. In negotiating salary and working conditions with a company an employee will always be at a disadvantage without a union.

 

[PratchettFan]

Humorous photo. Who EXACTLY is advocating the "end of unions" in Michigan? I suggest you research right to work states. Unions are still going strong in each of them. I KNOW. I worked, as a union member, in one of those states.

Unless Unions change the way they are perceived (common thugs, mafia, etc) they are becoming less and less attractive every day. Membership is NOT to blame. The Nationals and the locals bear responsibility for that.

I live in a rtw state as well and I would tend to agree with you. Frankly, I think this is much ado about very little - on both sides of the issue. Unions aren't going away nor lose any influence.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Humorous photo. Who EXACTLY is advocating the "end of unions" in Michigan? I suggest you research right to work states. Unions are still going strong in each of them. I KNOW. I worked, as a union member, in one of those states.

Unless Unions change the way they are perceived (common thugs, mafia, etc) they are becoming less and less attractive every day. Membership is NOT to blame. The Nationals and the locals bear responsibility for that.

Well, lets see how non-union workers fare elsewhere in the unregulated world before we decide unions are superfluous and harmful here.

It isn't simply wages, but those do promote democracy and a sustainable society, as well as the consumer class that sustains business. Business, especially corporate business does NOTHING out of the kindness of their hearts, or even their own rational self interest. The corporation, as a legal construct, especially as those contracts are written today, has a fiduciary responsibility not to have a heart, and damned little brain past the monthly statement.

Please forgive me, but I stopped my education at a BA.....what EXACTLY are you attempting to say here? Somewhere along the line, you have injected social engineering into a discussion about labor unions?

Is it you assertion that unions are (a) contributing to the overall "good" of the world or that (b) Walmart is responsible for the decline of western civilization and the socio-economic fall of 3rd world countries?

Frankly, I'll leave the health and welfare of foreign countries to their own leaders. I was usually doing well just attending monthly meetings......

Additionally, I understand that business does NOTHING out of the "kindness" of their hearts, I get it, I really do. However, when has a union ever done anything other than to serve their own self-interests as well?

And, what has this got to do with "right to work states"?? Additionally, Would you mind answering the question as to who EXACTLY is advocating the "end of unions" in ANY right to work state?? Thanks!