Reagan: "the RIGHT to belong to a free trade union...

[Truthseeker420]

There should be a right to join a union. And a right not to join a union and if you don't join a union, you shouldn't have to pay union dues.

There is not a single state in this country which requires you join a union.

 

[g5000]

Oh, No. they have thrown down the golden calf.
All hell will break loose in the right wing nut factory.
ronnie reagan is not their hero now.

Please see the two posts before yours.

55 and 56.

.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, that is actually false. Such decisions are not simply made by the business because the workers have the right to unionize. That right is protected by laws and businesses HAVE to respect that right. Such negotiations are NOT one sided. The business simply does not decide to be a closed shop. The union demands that as a condition and the businesses usually have to bend.

In that regard, the unions have special considerations under the law that gives them this power. Right to work states have simply went the other direction here. No longer does the union have the ability to demand that all future workers need to pay or join the union. I can guarantee that NO business has decided to be a closed shop because they want to. They do that because it is part of the agreement that the government has coerced them into with union legal protection.

With that said, the unions (really the workers) NEED those protections or companies would threaten and fire people when they unionized BUT that should not allow those agreements to force future workers into the contracts if they choose not to participate.


So far, not one person that is against right to work can give me a real reason that you should be forced to pay an entity that you do not want to be a part of. There is no other way to express this than servitude. It is not socialism to reign BACK some of the legal protections that unions have garnered over the years. Indeed, it needs to happen.

Socialism is precisely what it is. I am not arguing against it, by the way. I think it is proper for the government to set the rules of business and if Michigan thinks it appropriate, they should. I am not objecting to the new law. But that does not make it any less socialism. All you are saying is that you like socialism - when you perceive it to be in your favor.

Precive it as in my favor? I have no idea what you mean by that as I am not going to get a cookie for these laws. It is better for society in general, perhaps that is what you mean.

Anyway, if you are labeling this as socialism you're way off base anyways. The cornerstone of socialism is rooted in the communal ownership of property, something that RTW laws have nothing to do. These contracts are government enforced in the first place, dictated by existing government laws and built around current labor law. Everything in them is a matter of government already. What you are trying to claim is that a process protected by the government, instigated by the government and demanded by the government is somehow not socialism BUT it magically becomes so because you altered some of the precepts around them. That is not true. Unions are no more or less socialist in a RTW state as they are in a non RTW state.

Stop throwing around the buzzword socialist. It does not fit in this case.

It fits precisely in this case because that is exactly what it is. Unions were not instigated by the government. At best, laws were passed which prevent employers from preventing unions from organizing. And that only happened after outbreaks of serious violence. They simply grew and became a political power, just as business did. What we have now is the government stepping in to control the free market, to insert itself in the free trade of labor. That's what makes it socialism. Saying it isn't just because you approve of the results changes nothing. It is no different than in preventing a single company from creating a monopoly. That too has been called socialism, and rightly so.

I can't tell you how amusing it is to see so many people I have seen scream about SOCIALISM on this board feeling all proud of this little law, not even realizing they are supporting socialism. It's really perked up my day.

 

[g5000]

There should be a right to join a union. And a right not to join a union and if you don't join a union, you shouldn't have to pay union dues.

There is not a single state in this country which requires you join a union.

I see what you did there.

"Union security agreements are explicitly mentioned in the labor laws of many countries. They are highly regulated by law and court rulings in the United States".

Union security agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


They were protected by law. And now in Michigan, they are no longer.

.

 

[g5000]

In most Western European countries, the closed shop (one form of the union security agreement) is banned, while other forms go unregulated in labor law.[8][12] But this is not a uniform conclusion, and law may vary widely. For example, in Germany both the right to join a union and the right not to join a union are equally protected by law and the courts, and all forms of union security agreements are banned.[6] The law in Belgium has similar provisions.[8] Still, since participation in the unemployment insurance system is compulsory and only unions have the right to administer this system, union membership in Belgium remains high.[5]

Union security agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

 

[PratchettFan]

In most Western European countries, the closed shop (one form of the union security agreement) is banned, while other forms go unregulated in labor law.[8][12] But this is not a uniform conclusion, and law may vary widely. For example, in Germany both the right to join a union and the right not to join a union are equally protected by law and the courts, and all forms of union security agreements are banned.[6] The law in Belgium has similar provisions.[8] Still, since participation in the unemployment insurance system is compulsory and only unions have the right to administer this system, union membership in Belgium remains high.[5]

Union security agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

I see. So you are arguing the foreign law should take precedent over US law? We should look to Europe in how we run our society? Cool. Those countries also have nationalized health systems. You got my vote.

 

[LoneLaugher]

"I wholeheartedly support Right to Work legislation and would like to see more states adopt such laws. The man who founded the American Federation of Labor, probably the greatest labor statesman this country’s ever known, Samuel Gompers, said that the right of a man to choose whether he should belong to a union or not, that was his right, and that no matter how wrong you thought he might be for not belonging or joining your union, it was his right to make that decision. The rank and file union members in the country today would support Right to Work. They feel their leadership has removed itself too far from them and is no longer representing their interests.”

Ronald Reagan

.

Read this. See if the phrase "right to work" still works for you.

Not Safe For Work Corporation | You Hate "Right To Work" Laws More Than You Know. Here's Why

 

[robertataft2.0]

Read this. See if the phrase "right to work" still works for you.

The article mentions FDR, who spoke out against public-sector unions.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Read this. See if the phrase "right to work" still works for you.

The article mentions FDR, who spoke out against public-sector unions.

You ought to apply for a job at Cliff's Notes.

Way to pick something smaller than a cherry. Like the stupid pitt, perhaps?

 

[robertataft2.0]

Read this. See if the phrase "right to work" still works for you.

The article mentions FDR, who spoke out against public-sector unions.

You ought to apply for a job at Cliff's Notes.

Way to pick something smaller than a cherry. Like the stupid pitt, perhaps?

Well, to quote John Adams, "facts are stubborn things."

 

[Avatar4321]

So.... Whats your point? Everyone has the right to form a union here, Now in MI we have the right not to be forced to join a union....Lech Walesa supported Romney not Obama

Are you lying or are you uninformed?

The people of Michigan have always had the right NOT to be forced to join a union.

What percentage of workers innMichigan are, in fact, union members? Was this number 100% before their butthurt GOP legislators fucked them?

If that was true, the Right to work laws wouldn't be controversial.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So.... Whats your point? Everyone has the right to form a union here, Now in MI we have the right not to be forced to join a union....Lech Walesa supported Romney not Obama

Are you lying or are you uninformed?

The people of Michigan have always had the right NOT to be forced to join a union.

What percentage of workers innMichigan are, in fact, union members? Was this number 100% before their butthurt GOP legislators fucked them?

If that was true, the Right to work laws wouldn't be controversial.

You don't pay attention, do you? I do not make declarative statements unless I know that I am correct. You are not even in my league.

Are you sure you want to use "was" and not "were" in your comment?

 

[Jroc]

True. But the decision as to whether or not to be a union shop was not made by the union, it was made by the business. There was no law requiring the business be a union shop. So now the government is telling the business how they must operate.

I notice in your tag line you have a quote from Reagan about a limited government. How does this fit in with that quote?

No, that is actually false. Such decisions are not simply made by the business because the workers have the right to unionize. That right is protected by laws and businesses HAVE to respect that right. Such negotiations are NOT one sided. The business simply does not decide to be a closed shop. The union demands that as a condition and the businesses usually have to bend.

In that regard, the unions have special considerations under the law that gives them this power. Right to work states have simply went the other direction here. No longer does the union have the ability to demand that all future workers need to pay or join the union. I can guarantee that NO business has decided to be a closed shop because they want to. They do that because it is part of the agreement that the government has coerced them into with union legal protection.

With that said, the unions (really the workers) NEED those protections or companies would threaten and fire people when they unionized BUT that should not allow those agreements to force future workers into the contracts if they choose not to participate.


So far, not one person that is against right to work can give me a real reason that you should be forced to pay an entity that you do not want to be a part of. There is no other way to express this than servitude. It is not socialism to reign BACK some of the legal protections that unions have garnered over the years. Indeed, it needs to happen.

Socialism is precisely what it is. I am not arguing against it, by the way. I think it is proper for the government to set the rules of business and if Michigan thinks it appropriate, they should. I am not objecting to the new law. But that does not make it any less socialism. All you are saying is that you like socialism - when you perceive it to be in your favor.

Individual liberty in the opposite of Socialism...Idiot

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagan was president of the Screen Actor's Guild.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a non union employee is working at that job, it's not a union job is it? The unions were taking money right out of the paychecks of non union workers. Without their consent. That's stealing. No unions should not have that right. Then, if that's not bad enough, the unions used that money to support politicians that the employees didn't themselves support. The unions cut their own throats by marrying the politicians. If unions were prohibited from supporting politicians this would never have happened. If unions represented union members rather than their own little unholy alliances, the unions would still be relevant.

The employee consents when he takes the job. No one is forced to work at a union shop.

So now the left is using the - go work somewhere else - excuse.

LOL, never thought I'd see the day.

Psssst. Some career field do not even have that option and even others are stuck when the company becomes union. I guess they should be forced to quit or join because rights and well, ya that's what were calling a right these days.

You don't get to do as you please when you take a job. Your employer agrees that a union will represent the workers in contract negotiations. The employer agrees that the workers will have a fee levied on them to compensate their agreed to representative. The employer collects the fee.

That is the employer's decision. You want to work there, you accept the terms of your employment as stipulated by your employer.

 

[francoHFW]

Reaganism- a total disaster- not to mention its propaganda disgrace...

"Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--December 6, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts