"Plates bearing Florida, Indiana and Ohio license plates were among those in the parking lot of the Michigan AFL-CIO in Lansing this morning."
We covered the pro-union protests here in Madison in 2011. They were just down the street. It's a bit of a drive over to Lansing. 6 hours. Meade could do it. What do you think? You'll have to instigate and incite him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
213 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213leslyn said...
Matthew Sablan said...
"Right to Work is not as rosy as you paint it to be, either, giving employers as it does the ability to fire workers without recourse."
-- That is incorrect and shows you don't know what you are talking about.
I added that it is code for "at will." You could go ahead and say that is incorrect too. However, my belief is that "right to work" is a step on the road intended to result in employment at will.
Hasn't that always been the case? A union just makes it harder to remove an employee for cause. Which in my opinion-and experience-makes for a bloated work force.
You are not now, nor have you ever been guaranteed a job.
leslyn said...
Happy to see you're continuing to enjoy your role as a provocateur. Haven't talked you you lately, but I've read you where I occasionally drop in, and you always give me a smile. Want me to make you a sammich? Would be like old times.
Rye, whole wheat? What kind of meat, condiments? I'm at yer command missus. That's me the house slave.
Dr. Weevil said,
All I know is that that state had developed a system for filling 'Critical Needs' or 'Critical Shortage' jobs, or whatever they called them, involving specific procedures to follow and forms to fill out.
I thought you said you negotiated your own salary and terms of work--that is, I inferred that you were already an employee. Negotiating salary and certain terms when one is hired can be done, though I still put it in the exceptional categoy which seems to be the case with you.
EMD said...
What difference does it make?
Well, it seemed to me the thread was about union employment affected by right-to-work laws, not non-union employment, which generally is employment at-will.
Alex,
BLT. On whole wheat. Lightly toasted.
But I offered to make YOU one.
Rusty said...
"A union just makes it harder to remove an employee for cause....You are not now, nor have you ever been guaranteed a job."
True...A union requires that certain procedures of due process be followed in removal for cause. If supervisors find them onerous or neglect to pursue them, that's their problem. THEN, employees believe they can game the system. Because they can.
But if due process is followed, then as day follows the night appropriate action can be taken. And upheld.
You get the work force you are willing to accept. That is true in non-union as well as union employment.
Well, it seemed to me the thread was about union employment affected by right-to-work laws, not non-union employment, which generally is employment at-will.
A distinction without a true difference.
Or can a steel worker not negotiate on his own behalf ... ever?
EMD - No the steelworker can NOT. Unions get themselves the position of the ONLY entity that negotiate. That's how they can claim free-riding. One "benefits" from the union's negotiations, but they are the only ones authorized to negotiate for ANYBODY...
What's wrong with at will employment? It gives the employee equal rights to quit at will. One can negotiate a contract with a company for terms if one wishes.
What's wrong with being let go for any reason? As long as the company isn't illegally discriminating or otherwise acting against the law (and that's covered by state and federal laws) the employer should have the right to let any employee go for any reason. Incompetence, budgetary reasons, whatever.
Because the employer will often make decisions that are personal and have nothing to do with the work or workforce.
leslyn,
"Because the employer will often make decisions that are personal and have nothing to do with the work or workforce. "
So?
And further, do you really mean to suggest that unions and governments aren't just as liable to do this?
leslyn said...
Because the employer will often make decisions that are personal and have nothing to do with the work or workforce.
This can be true, and was true in the 1930's which are famous for union/management strife in the S.E. Michigan area. One of the most famous is the "Battle of the Overpass" where Ford's corporate (Harry Bennett's) thugs battle union thugs...neither having clean hands in the affair.
Remember that Ford was the guy who doubled industrial pay and implemented the 40 hour workweek...
Kirk Parker said...
... do you really mean to suggest that unions and governments aren't just as liable to do this?
Certainly they are, and the "Battle of the Overpass" was such an instance as well...where the UAW was using the proposal of a 6 hour 30 hour workweek and a 33% wage increase as an organizing campaign, not negotiation. The UAW thugs were as violent as the Ford/Bennett thugs. The thug & unrealistic promise organizing campaigns continued across the state, and even after Bennett was fired by Henry Ford II (Hank the Deuce) in 1945.
The actions by IBEW "activists" in Lansing yesterday are more of the same, violence in furtherance of a personal cause of the union administrative leadership...it is all about dues and the compulsion to collect them for the Agency Shops. IIRC IBEW was an active proponent of Proposal 2 as well, a fundamental attempt to super cede both state and federal labor laws, and by pass the legislature, executive, judicial branches of government, not to mention the federal NLRB. A leadership decision to reach too far. Period.
As a skilled trades union with active apprenticeship programs (unless they've dropped them recently) they had no reason for this activity except the personal aims of the leadership. I find that to be an embarrassment.
Post a Comment