Barb
Carpe Scrotum
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?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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?
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.
Because it wouldn't pass in January. Shameful.
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.
Then why do you have to force people to join unions? Why do you have to forceably take union dues?
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.
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.
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.
All labor benefits from unions - both union and non-union.
Businesses don't. It bleeds them to death. The proof of that is overwhelming.
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.
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...
All labor benefits from unions - both union and non-union.
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.
It's extortion to demand that some one pay an organization just to be able to work.
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.
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.