Right to Work

[LoneLaugher]

I see no reason to deny any employee the option to pay dues or not, without losing their job. Especially if they are not satisfied with what the union is doing with their money. Further, a company that underpays it's people pays a price in high turnover and bad public relations.

Employees have the option already. They can refuse to join the union and wil not have to pay union dues. They will be asked to pay an agency fee and will be represented by the union in contract negotiations and in the event of a dispute. This fee is minimal. There is nobody being forced to pay union dues. And...let us not forget that the existence of the union in the workplace depends upon a majority CHOICE in the first place.

This right to work bull is a transparent attempt to defund a demographic that is traditionally Democratic. That is why you find it being done by nutters. The effort is funded by the same people who fund GOP candidates.

Wise up.

 

[whitehall]

The "right to work" was so self evident that the Founding Fathers didn't even need to include it in the Bill of Rights. Radicals might be barking up the wrong tree if they attack the right to work and even the liberal media won't be able to spin it in their favor if union mob violence continues.

 

[AVG-JOE]

This "chapter" is meant to cut the pay of all working class people. And the chapter after that?

We all need to remember that the GObP has stated they want an end to minimum wage. If they get their way, all wages will fall accordingly.

And then what?

Education. Education. Education.


Learn this, Monkey... Neither side is going to 'win'.

Just like the skin is morphing from black and white into lovely shades of brown, red and blue must join to make purple. And on this issue, for this state, at this time in history, the young republican fellow is right. If Michigan remains a closed union shop it will cost the state good jobs.

Joe, doesn't this signify the loss of good fulltime jobs that did not require a college degree?

How are the college grads faring today in the job market? Not too well it would seem.

I am not so much pushing for unions but I am concerned that there is little in the way of skilled labor jobs where you can learn a trade or a particular skill. Union jobs are about 12 percent of the jobs in the US and so they are not that big of a factor and yet the job market is weak in the US.

Yes, but more jobs at fair wages is better than uncompetitive jobs in a big market.

It's up to the people of Michigan, but if they fight to keep their unions unchanged in this changing world, just for the sake of preserving the unions status quo, they're missing the point and they'll miss part of the next economic wave. Are there some companies that will need some sort of mediation and mass representation between labor and management? Of course, but nobody is forcing the unions to go away, and where they're needed, labor will choose to employ their service, and they'll be free to use that service only for as long as it's needed. Once labor and management get along, why force them to hire a marriage counselor?

Maintaining the right of labor to organize is an obligation of all governments - a government guaranteeing ANY commercial organization 100% participation by its potential client base is UnAmerican.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No such guarantees existed in Michigan yesterday.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And yet you still get the point.

Cool, ain't it?

 

[saveliberty]

Create a demand for labor first, then you may be able to demand more pay. Michigan has progressed through the first step.

 

[Avatar4321]

well thats not true, but why use facts.

What would you know about facts? We are a classless society.

 

[whitehall]

"Right to life" is constantly under assault by fascists lefties and now they are taking on "right to work". What other rights are next on their agenda? I shudder to guess.

 

[Wiseacre]

I see no reason to deny any employee the option to pay dues or not, without losing their job. Especially if they are not satisfied with what the union is doing with their money. Further, a company that underpays it's people pays a price in high turnover and bad public relations.

Employees have the option already. They can refuse to join the union and wil not have to pay union dues. They will be asked to pay an agency fee and will be represented by the union in contract negotiations and in the event of a dispute. This fee is minimal. There is nobody being forced to pay union dues. And...let us not forget that the existence of the union in the workplace depends upon a majority CHOICE in the first place.

This right to work bull is a transparent attempt to defund a demographic that is traditionally Democratic. That is why you find it being done by nutters. The effort is funded by the same people who fund GOP candidates.

Wise up.

I don't know how minimal that agency fee is, but whatever it is doesn't change the employee's right not to pay it. I understand the 'freeloader' concept, but that's the law as it was written back in the late 40s I think. FYI, the federal civil service union is RTW, you don't have to join the union and pay dues to be represented under the labor contract agreement. Last I heard, their membership is down around 30% or so, meaning 2 out of every 3 federal civil service employees do not belong to the union and do not pay dues.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I see no reason to deny any employee the option to pay dues or not, without losing their job. Especially if they are not satisfied with what the union is doing with their money. Further, a company that underpays it's people pays a price in high turnover and bad public relations.

Employees have the option already. They can refuse to join the union and wil not have to pay union dues. They will be asked to pay an agency fee and will be represented by the union in contract negotiations and in the event of a dispute. This fee is minimal. There is nobody being forced to pay union dues. And...let us not forget that the existence of the union in the workplace depends upon a majority CHOICE in the first place.

This right to work bull is a transparent attempt to defund a demographic that is traditionally Democratic. That is why you find it being done by nutters. The effort is funded by the same people who fund GOP candidates.

Wise up.

I don't know how minimal that agency fee is, but whatever it is doesn't change the employee's right not to pay it. I understand the 'freeloader' concept, but that's the law as it was written back in the late 40s I think. FYI, the federal civil service union is RTW, you don't have to join the union and pay dues to be represented under the labor contract agreement. Last I heard, their membership is down around 30% or so, meaning 2 out of every 3 federal civil service employees do not belong to the union and do not pay dues.

You understand he freeloader concept.....and it appears that you condone it.

And....NOBODY....has to join a union. The idea that anyone is forced to join and pay dues is false.

 

[jillian]

Michigan 'Right-to-Work' Laws Spark Heated Debate on Role of Labor Unions | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 10, 2012 | PBS

In this case, the young republican feller is correct.

The traditional unions have served their purpose and right to work is a fine way to phase in the role they'll play in the next chapter. States that protect the traditional unions like that are doing their kids a disservice at this stage of our evolution.

i see things differently. i see it as forcing workers to go back to the poor wages and poor conditions that existed before unionization. they're basically being told they have to choose between having low-paying jobs and having no jobs... while businesses are making record profits.

i think it's a scam. .. they've always hated unions. but the public didn't buy into their nonsense before. that only exists in this 'every person for himself' environment.

 

[Stephanie]

Michigan 'Right-to-Work' Laws Spark Heated Debate on Role of Labor Unions | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 10, 2012 | PBS

In this case, the young republican feller is correct.

The traditional unions have served their purpose and right to work is a fine way to phase in the role they'll play in the next chapter. States that protect the traditional unions like that are doing their kids a disservice at this stage of our evolution.

Two choices.

Less workers with more benefits and good pay.

More workers with less benefits and less pay.

We better keep those "food stamps" available. They're going to need them.

yeah because people are so helpless today they can't figure out to make MORE MONEY so they need to go suck off the taxpayers

 

[Bfgrn]

Michigan 'Right-to-Work' Laws Spark Heated Debate on Role of Labor Unions | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 10, 2012 | PBS

In this case, the young republican feller is correct.

The traditional unions have served their purpose and right to work is a fine way to phase in the role they'll play in the next chapter. States that protect the traditional unions like that are doing their kids a disservice at this stage of our evolution.

"With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than any other organization of men that ever existed"
Clarence Darrow

Really? You say 'traditional unions have served their purpose'. Has human nature suddenly changed Joe?

'Right to Work' for Less

Extremist groups, right-wing politicians and their corporate backers want to weaken the power of workers and their unions through so-called "right to work" laws. Their efforts are a partisan political ploy that undermines the basic rights of workers. By making unions weaker, these laws lower wages and living standards for all workers in the state. By many measures, the quality of life is worse in states with "right to work" laws. Wages are lower, poverty and lack of insurance are higher, education is weaker—even infant mortality and the likelihood of being killed on the job are higher.

States with "Right to Work Laws Have:

Lower Wages and Incomes

• The average worker in states with "right to work" laws makes $1,540 a year less when all other factors are removed than workers in other states.1

• Median household income in states with these laws is $6,437 less than in other states ($46,402 vs. $52,839).2

• In states with "right to work" laws, 26.7 percent of jobs are in low-wage occupations, compared with 19.5 percent of jobs in other states.3

Less Job-Based Health Insurance Coverage

• People in states with "right to work" laws are more likely to be uninsured (16.8 percent, compared with 13.1 percent overall; among children, it’s 10.8 percent vs. 7.5 percent).4

• They’re less likely to have job-based health insurance than people in other states (56.2 percent, compared with 60.1 percent).5

• Only 50.7 percent of employers in states with these laws offer insurance coverage to their employees, compared with 55.2 percent in other states. That difference is even more significant among small employers (with fewer than 50 workers)—only 34.4 percent of them offer workers health insurance, compared with 41.7 percent of small employers in other states.6

Higher Poverty and Infant Mortality Rates

• Poverty rates are higher in states with "right to work" laws (15.3 percent overall and 21.5 percent for children), compared with poverty rates of 13.1 percent overall and 18.1 percent for children in states without these laws.7

• The infant mortality rate is 15 percent higher in states with these laws.8

Less Investment in Education

• States with "right to work" laws spend $3,392 less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than other states, and students are less likely to be performing at their appropriate grade level in math and reading.9

Higher Rates of Death on the Job

• The rate of workplace deaths is 36 percent higher in states with these laws, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.10

1 Economic Policy Institute.
2 U.S. Census Bureau, Table H-8. Median Household Income by State.
3 CFED, Asset and Opportunity Scorecard.
4 Kaiser Family Foundation.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Census Bureau, POV46: Poverty Status by State: 2010, related children under 18; Table 19. Percent of Persons in Poverty, by State: 2008, 2009 and 2010.
8 Kaiser Family Foundation.
9 National Education Association, Rankings & Estimates–Rankings of the States 2011 and Estimates of School Statistics 2012, December 2011; CFED, Asset & Opportunity Scorecard.
10 AFL-CIO, Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect, April 2012.

 

[saveliberty]

You forgot butt hurt is near 100% for liberals in right to work states.

 

[Wiseacre]

Employees have the option already. They can refuse to join the union and wil not have to pay union dues. They will be asked to pay an agency fee and will be represented by the union in contract negotiations and in the event of a dispute. This fee is minimal. There is nobody being forced to pay union dues. And...let us not forget that the existence of the union in the workplace depends upon a majority CHOICE in the first place.

This right to work bull is a transparent attempt to defund a demographic that is traditionally Democratic. That is why you find it being done by nutters. The effort is funded by the same people who fund GOP candidates.

Wise up.

I don't know how minimal that agency fee is, but whatever it is doesn't change the employee's right not to pay it. I understand the 'freeloader' concept, but that's the law as it was written back in the late 40s I think. FYI, the federal civil service union is RTW, you don't have to join the union and pay dues to be represented under the labor contract agreement. Last I heard, their membership is down around 30% or so, meaning 2 out of every 3 federal civil service employees do not belong to the union and do not pay dues.

You understand he freeloader concept.....and it appears that you condone it.

And....NOBODY....has to join a union. The idea that anyone is forced to join and pay dues is false.

I do condone it, nobody should be forced to pay dues or an agency fee as a condition of employment.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Michigan 'Right-to-Work' Laws Spark Heated Debate on Role of Labor Unions | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 10, 2012 | PBS

In this case, the young republican feller is correct.

The traditional unions have served their purpose and right to work is a fine way to phase in the role they'll play in the next chapter. States that protect the traditional unions like that are doing their kids a disservice at this stage of our evolution.

i see things differently. i see it as forcing workers to go back to the poor wages and poor conditions that existed before unionization. they're basically being told they have to choose between having low-paying jobs and having no jobs... while businesses are making record profits.

i think it's a scam. .. they've always hated unions. but the public didn't buy into their nonsense before. that only exists in this 'every person for himself' environment.

If we see sweat shops, child labor, etc. take hold in Michigan after this, I promise that I'll eat this thread.

 

[Bfgrn]

Michigan 'Right-to-Work' Laws Spark Heated Debate on Role of Labor Unions | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 10, 2012 | PBS

In this case, the young republican feller is correct.

The traditional unions have served their purpose and right to work is a fine way to phase in the role they'll play in the next chapter. States that protect the traditional unions like that are doing their kids a disservice at this stage of our evolution.

i see things differently. i see it as forcing workers to go back to the poor wages and poor conditions that existed before unionization. they're basically being told they have to choose between having low-paying jobs and having no jobs... while businesses are making record profits.

i think it's a scam. .. they've always hated unions. but the public didn't buy into their nonsense before. that only exists in this 'every person for himself' environment.

If we see sweat shops, child labor, etc. take hold in Michigan after this, I promise that I'll eat this thread.

So that is the threshold Joe? WOW, I thought you were an intelligent person.

But I'm sure David Koch thinks you are brilliant...

Join the club Joe...

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey Joe, I'm sure those Republican legislators in Michigan had the working folks best interests at heart here.

Isn't it amazing that right wing slime who like to preach less government and say they detest government overreach have ZERO problems with the fact Republicans in Michigan introduced the bills in both chambers and then rammed them through in a matter of hours?

 

[saveliberty]

I think a few of the union guys forgot the right to get sued in civil court.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Michigan 'Right-to-Work' Laws Spark Heated Debate on Role of Labor Unions | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 10, 2012 | PBS

In this case, the young republican feller is correct.

The traditional unions have served their purpose and right to work is a fine way to phase in the role they'll play in the next chapter. States that protect the traditional unions like that are doing their kids a disservice at this stage of our evolution.

i see things differently. i see it as forcing workers to go back to the poor wages and poor conditions that existed before unionization. they're basically being told they have to choose between having low-paying jobs and having no jobs... while businesses are making record profits.

i think it's a scam. .. they've always hated unions. but the public didn't buy into their nonsense before. that only exists in this 'every person for himself' environment.

you can compare all this to the repeal of Glass Steagall. the GOP argued that the law was no longer needed as banks and financial institutions would be able to regulate themselves which would create more wealth and a booming economy. well... we all know how well that worked out.

the same can be said for unions. when median wages begin to drop will the GOP concede that the elimination of unions is a root cause for this? or will they (just as they did when Dodd Frank came about to replace Glass Steagal) put their heads back in the sand and refuse to listen to reason?