Right-To-Work Wage Myth

[Barb]

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.

Because to survive against the government and the Pinkerton thugs they had to be:

Telling Secrets Out of School: Siringo on the Pinkertons

In the following passage from Two Evil Isms, Siringo (who, even when alienated from the Pinkertons, never displayed any sympathy for the labor movement) described how he infiltrated and undermined miners' unions in northern Idaho during the 1892 Coeur d’Alene strike.

Pinkerton Detective Agency


And they aren't history, by any means:

"Pinkertons at the CPA" by Matthew Harwood

On Jan. 4, labor union leader Hadi Saleh returned to his Baghdad home after work. Five masked men laid in wait. After he entered, they jumped him, blind-folded him, and bound his hands and feet. The intruders beat and burnt Saleh on his torso and head and then choked him to death with an electrical cord. Before they left, the men strafed Saleh's body with bullets. His membership files were ransacked. This wasn't everyday violence. Saleh was, at the time of his death, international secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) and a strong player in Iraq's born-again labor movement once crushed by Saddam Hussein. The labor leader's killers are widely suspected to be remnants of Hussein's secret police, the Mukhabarat. Saleh's slaying was the most high-profile attack on Iraqi labor officials, many of whom continue to be kidnapped and killed with impunity by the insurgents. In recent months, two more trade unionists have been murdered, one while he was walking home with his children.

In 1912 Charlie Siringo published a book, A Cowboy Detective: A True Story of Twenty-Two Years With A World-Famous Detective Agency, where he claimed that James McParland had ordering him to commit voter fraud in the re-election attempt of Colorado Governor James Peabody. This view is supported by historian Mary Joy Martin who argued in The Corpse On Boomerang Road (2004): "McParland would stop at nothing to take down (unions such as the Western Federation of Miners) because he believed his authority came from "Divine Providence." To carry out God's Will meant he was free to break laws and lie until every man he judged evil was hanging on the gallows. Since his days in Pennsylvania he was comfortable lying under oath. In the Haywood trial and the Adams trials, he lied frequently, even claiming he never joined the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Documents showed he had."

Charlie Siringo, who had worked for more than twenty years under James McParland in the Pinkerton's western division based in Denver, claimed that the agency had been guilty of "jury tampering, fabricated confessions, false witnesses, bribery, intimidation, and hiring killers for its clients... Documents and time sustained many of his assertions."

In the summer of 1917, Frank Little was helping organize workers in the metal mines of Montana. This included leading a strike of miners working for the Anaconda Company. In the early hours of 1st August, 1917, six masked men broke into Little's hotel room in Butte. He was beaten up, tied by the rope to a car, and dragged out of town, where he was lynched. A note: "First and last warning" was pinned to his chest. No serious attempt was made by the police to catch Little's murderers. It is not known if he was killed for his anti-war views or his trade union activities.

Copper Trust to the Press: "It's all right, pal; just tell

them he was a traitor." Solidarity (11th August, 1917)

Under today's laws, and hopefully those will be a sad and shameful footnote in our history, the labor unions that gave us and our children SO much would be considered terrorists. Why? because then, like now, they challenged the "people" who WROTE the fucking law. During the Great Depression the American people were brought to understand in no uncertain terms WHAT caused and profited from their misery. Because of that time the founders original cautions against conglomerate power of government were remembered, and corporations had to wage a PR campaign (helped by government infrastructure and funding) to retool their image as a public GOOD.

They weren't mind you.
They STILL aren't.

 

[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.

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!

Jesus Christ, really?

The graphic is an illustration of what happens when corporations are given free reign, but you knew that.

And does Michigan's Rick Snyder ring any bells?

Hell, are you familiar with Ronald Reagan and PATCO?

"end of unions"

Is a disingenuous "quote," as you aren't really "quoting" it from anywhere. Unions are damned near toothless since PATCO as it is, and in a "right to work" state, they're doubly so.

Reagan used to be fond of saying that he was a union member, but he was no friend to labor. In August of 1981, his most enduring legacy to American labor and collective bargaining was to cut them off at the knees. The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) failed to negotiate a new contract for a raise and a shorter workweek. There was a law from 1955, not enforced in some time, which outlawed government employees from striking. When PATCO went on strike, Reagan cited that law and some hyperbole about "a peril to national safety" then went on air to tell some couple thousand striking air traffic controllers that they had 48 hours to get back to work or they could find another job.

Reagan not only replaced them, he tried to make sure they‘d never work in the industry again. There used to be a few ―gentleman‘s rules‖ regarding negotiations that broke down to the point of a strike, and in one flip of his wand, the Gipper rendered them invalid.

Reagan not only replaced them, he tried to make sure they‘d never work in the industry again. There used to be a few ―gentleman‘s rules‖ regarding negotiations that broke down to the point of a strike, and in one flip of his wand, the Gipper rendered them invalid.178
Those who believe that government would run better as a business resist the idea that government employees should be guaranteed rights to carry out their own capitalist activity and contract negotiations through collective bargaining. They don‘t view civil servant pay and benefits packages in the same rosy glow that they see CEO compensation, although that CEO compensation not only drives up costs, it also drives down service because of the expense. CEO‘s are administrators; you pay for administration in the market just as you pay for it in government agencies. The only difference is that you pay vastly more in the market.

The idea that contracted benefits of government, local, and state employees are an obscenity is swallowed whole in the same breath that that excuses, even applauds, private industry for raising your prices based on the last dime the largest demographic has to spend.

And good luck with all of that - it's worked out SO well so far.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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 in ANY right to work state?? Thanks!

Jesus Christ, really?

The graphic is an illustration of what happens when corporations are given free reign, but you knew that.

And does Michigan's Rick Snyder ring any bells?

Hell, are you familiar with Ronald Reagan and PATCO?

"end of unions"

Is a disingenuous "quote," as you aren't really "quoting" it from anywhere. Unions are damned near toothless since PATCO as it is, and in a "right to work" state, they're doubly so.

Reagan used to be fond of saying that he was a union member, but he was no friend to labor. In August of 1981, his most enduring legacy to American labor and collective bargaining was to cut them off at the knees. The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) failed to negotiate a new contract for a raise and a shorter workweek. There was a law from 1955, not enforced in some time, which outlawed government employees from striking. When PATCO went on strike, Reagan cited that law and some hyperbole about "a peril to national safety" then went on air to tell some couple thousand striking air traffic controllers that they had 48 hours to get back to work or they could find another job.

Reagan not only replaced them, he tried to make sure they‘d never work in the industry again. There used to be a few ―gentleman‘s rules‖ regarding negotiations that broke down to the point of a strike, and in one flip of his wand, the Gipper rendered them invalid.

Reagan not only replaced them, he tried to make sure they‘d never work in the industry again. There used to be a few ―gentleman‘s rules‖ regarding negotiations that broke down to the point of a strike, and in one flip of his wand, the Gipper rendered them invalid.178
Those who believe that government would run better as a business resist the idea that government employees should be guaranteed rights to carry out their own capitalist activity and contract negotiations through collective bargaining. They don‘t view civil servant pay and benefits packages in the same rosy glow that they see CEO compensation, although that CEO compensation not only drives up costs, it also drives down service because of the expense. CEO‘s are administrators; you pay for administration in the market just as you pay for it in government agencies. The only difference is that you pay vastly more in the market.

The idea that contracted benefits of government, local, and state employees are an obscenity is swallowed whole in the same breath that that excuses, even applauds, private industry for raising your prices based on the last dime the largest demographic has to spend.

And good luck with all of that - it's worked out SO well so far.

And I applauded Reagan for firing their them. Municipal unions (or ANY governmental union) is the downfall of services to citizens of this country, as are teacher's unions. PATCO had a no strike clause in their contract and ignored the court order compelling them to return to work. Again, Thank you Ronald Reagan.

One has only to look to California, and the way municipal unions are holding that state hostage, to understand how dangerous they are. They do NOT negotiate with their employers, they negotiate with each taxpayer. Remember the national story of the Lifeguard in Santa Monica who retired at 51 years of age and would receive a pension of nearly $100,000 per year FOR LIFE!?!

Or the Police Chief in California (I can't remember the city-but just outside LA, a city of around 30,000 people) where he had given himself raises to an annual salary of over $400,000!?! and, when the case went before the courts, upheld his annual retirement of nearly $250,000 per year, based on his "illegal" salary because the union stood up for him!?!

Sorry, but I receive a pension from my union in the amount of $35,000 per year and I think it as very fair for my years of service. Not one taxpayer is on the hook for me. Mine comes from a private union, paid for by union members.

Nope, I completely agree with the warning that FDR made about public sector unions and why they should NOT be allowed.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Yes I am and if you would bother to read the posts I have already made you would actually understand why. Simply put, because you seem to have failed to read already, government ALREADY has a hand in dictating those contract by giving the current unions legal protections. Those legal protections are a good thing but allowing these type of contracts to come out of them is not. You do not get to claim that the government enforcing the bargaining and requiring these companies to deal, protecting the workers' rights to collectively bargain is somehow not socialism but then not allowing these same protected entities forcing closed shops is socialism.

Then there is always the fact that NO ONE wants a pure capitalist system. There are protections that are needed, just not to the current extent that unions enjoy.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

Yes I am and if you would bother to read the posts I have already made you would actually understand why. Simply put, because you seem to have failed to read already, government ALREADY has a hand in dictating those contract by giving the current unions legal protections. Those legal protections are a good thing but allowing these type of contracts to come out of them is not. You do not get to claim that the government enforcing the bargaining and requiring these companies to deal, protecting the workers' rights to collectively bargain is somehow not socialism but then not allowing these same protected entities forcing closed shops is socialism.

Then there is always the fact that NO ONE wants a pure capitalist system. There are protections that are needed, just not to the current extent that unions enjoy.

I never once said it wasn't socialism. But that doesn't change what this law is. This law is the government inserting itself into the free market, directing private industry and labor how they will do business. That is socialism. If you support the notion that this is an appropriate function of the government, you are a socialist. Ain't life grand?

God I love this law.

 

[chikenwing]

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

They have the choice. They could work somewhere else. If business owners felt so strongly, they wouldn't have accepted closed shop deals.

BTW, I know of no one who is in a trade that would choose not to work for union wages and benefits.

Me!! I would never work under a union again ever! I know of many more just like me.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[initforme]

Its simply all about getting rid of any voice workers have and simply accepting the wages and conditions of an employer. SLowly but surely safety rights, yes, RIGHTS, (to say anything other is for those ANTI HUMAN, YES, ANTI HUMAN). Case closed. Please send an argument against what I have posted. It is worker VERSUS employer. That is the way the foudning fathers saw it. Give me evidence that I am wrong. I DARE you.

 

[SniperFire]

Its simply all about getting rid of any voice workers have and simply accepting the wages and conditions of an employer. SLowly but surely safety rights, yes, RIGHTS, (to say anything other is for those ANTI HUMAN, YES, ANTI HUMAN). Case closed. Please send an argument against what I have posted. It is worker VERSUS employer. That is the way the foudning fathers saw it. Give me evidence that I am wrong. I DARE you.

Quit whining. Nobody is shutting down unions.

Will they have to change their ways to be more attractive to incoming employees?

Sure. Adapt of die.

A good place to start is to stop giving out half a billion in union dues to elect Democrat politicians.

 

[Lakhota]

Its simply all about getting rid of any voice workers have and simply accepting the wages and conditions of an employer. SLowly but surely safety rights, yes, RIGHTS, (to say anything other is for those ANTI HUMAN, YES, ANTI HUMAN). Case closed. Please send an argument against what I have posted. It is worker VERSUS employer. That is the way the foudning fathers saw it. Give me evidence that I am wrong. I DARE you.

Quit whining. Nobody is shutting down unions.

Will they have to change their ways to be more attractive to incoming employees?

Sure. Adapt of die.

A good place to start is to stop giving out half a billion in union dues to elect Democrat politicians.

That's pretty dumb. But it's okay for management to spend big money on Republican politicians. By law, union employees have a "choice" regarding political activity.

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

 

[Lakhota]

Michigan's New Union-Busting Law Will Undermine Workers' Health Benefits | ThinkProgress

 

[SniperFire]

Media Matters?

ROTFL

 

[Lakhota]

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that right-to-work will cost all Michigan workers — not just those in unions — an average of $1,500 a year, and that there is “no relationship” between right-to-work laws and employment rates.

Michigan Governor Can't Explain How Union-Busting Boosts Job Growth

 

[Lakhota]

Media Matters?

ROTFL

Yep, with lots of proof. Prove the NLRB wrong...if you can...

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Yes I am and if you would bother to read the posts I have already made you would actually understand why. Simply put, because you seem to have failed to read already, government ALREADY has a hand in dictating those contract by giving the current unions legal protections. Those legal protections are a good thing but allowing these type of contracts to come out of them is not. You do not get to claim that the government enforcing the bargaining and requiring these companies to deal, protecting the workers' rights to collectively bargain is somehow not socialism but then not allowing these same protected entities forcing closed shops is socialism.

Then there is always the fact that NO ONE wants a pure capitalist system. There are protections that are needed, just not to the current extent that unions enjoy.

I never once said it wasn't socialism. But that doesn't change what this law is. This law is the government inserting itself into the free market, directing private industry and labor how they will do business. That is socialism. If you support the notion that this is an appropriate function of the government, you are a socialist. Ain't life grand?

God I love this law.

*sigh*

Apparently you don't even understand what socialism is. I am tired of trying to reach you when all you can do is parrot the same bullshit over and over and over again without ever addressing a single point made. I have made several paragraphs outlining where you went totally wrong and the best you can do is a single one liner that blankets this law into socialism when you don't even understand the meaning of the word.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Koios]

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

Because not enough people are voluntarily joining unions and wanting the jobs.

So by using trap doors in bars and opium dens down by the docks and other seedy parts of town, drunks are shanghaied, and forced to work for higher wages and great benefits, completely against their will.

And yet the MSM ignores the insidious practice. Please, Geraldo, do an expose!!

 

[Lakhota]

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

Because not enough people are voluntarily joining unions and wanting the jobs.

So by using trap doors in bars and opium dens down by the docks and other seedy parts of town, drunks are shanghaied, and forced to work for higher wages and great benefits, completely against their will.

And yet the MSM ignores the insidious practice. Please, Geraldo, do an expose!!

You're my hero! I salute you!