"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
199 comments:
Take Zeus along. It'll be easier to infiltrate.
Unless he's driving in the dead of night, it'll be more than 6 hours. The route from Madison to Lansing takes him straight through Chicago, and our traffic is worse than ever during the holidays.
Aw hell yes!
You need to sample our fine grade of union agitation. We're great at disruption and mayhem!!
And stop by A2 and have a Blimpy...
So they're gathering a mob of paid protesters. That part needs a bunch of publicity.
If Meade will get more video of himself cleaning union graffiti from treasured state monuments, then it would be well worth the trip.
I didn't realize was so pro-union. Nice he wants to help out the AFL-CIO though.
These, of course, are the same people who were bused into ME, VA, and MI, among other places just a month ago, so they have plenty of practice.
This will be a nice test for the nerve of Snyder, the governor. There has been considerable speculation about his backbone.
Meade, buddy! Are you really going to spend the rest of your life shooting Ann trying to stay on a bike path or the neighbor's dogs? Seriously.
Do you know how many young and hungry kids with Go Pros strapped to their heads would give their eye teeth to have your talent and a venue to showcase it?
Don't be a damned fool, man. Get in the fucking car!
The developments in Wisconsin were surprising.
Michigan, not.
Go, Meade, go! You're a trained expert in this now.
I've worked in a Union Shop, and all I can say is they are always angry, always have a chip on their shoulder.
Since there's been, and will be a Democrat in office as president for the next four years, They have little choice except to vent their anger at the state and local level. As they face off against local law enforcement they can build some Private/Public sector union camaraderie.
I say Meade should not bother. It will be same old same old as we saw in Madison. By that I mean mostly fat, loud govt workers and bigger, louder union goons lamenting the end of their cushy world which is really "I got mine now screw you taxpayers".
It is Madison all over again. A lawsuit was filed to overturn last week's vote based on the fact that the Capitol building was temporarily closed, when a small number of protestors rushed state police inside the building and were arrested. The claim is that the state's Open Meetings Act was violated by the temporary closure. The building was soon reopened.
Sound familar, Althousians?
Next up; recalls.
Maybe once, for nostalgia.
I wouldn't want to see him get his eye punched out or his leg screwed off.
Albert King
Laundramat Blues
Meh. Been there done that.
So what is the Ians Pizza of Lansing?
Don't see the need to go - the protest will fizzle out soon enough and union protesters are likely a much rougher crowd than the anti-Walker set.
Large numbers of out-of-state protesters are expected to join those from Michigan....
Meade could do it. What do you think? You'll have to instigate and incite him.
"You're not one of those outside agitators. I hate that. I won't stand for it. I won't stand for that."
Ann will appreciate this. The "Michigan Report," borrowing its appearance from Drudge:
http://michiganreport.com/
12 hours of driving is gonna put your carbon footprint in violation of state standards.
You already know the chants and costumes. Just act it out at home, and video that.
Hey hey, ho ho, New Media Meade has got to go.
As Iowahawk tweeted, you could fix Detroit in ten years by making it a federal tax free zone.
It seems like a waste of time to me.
It's not like they're going to say anything new is it? What possible permutation or perigrination could there be that hasn't been done before? Same old, same old. Stay home and give Ann a foot rub, Rub Zues' belly, fix everyone lunch and ignore it.
Don't bother. Madison was a unique dynamic in it's own right. Seeing our alleged intellectual superiors putting their stupidity on display was a once in a lifetime event. Don't think there will be much to see in Lansing - As AJ Lynch said; mostly fat, loud govt workers and bigger, louder union goons lamenting the end of their cushy world which is really "I got mine now screw you taxpayers".
Just buy a purple SEIU tee shirt and claim: "Been there done that and have the shirt to prove it"
Don't waste your time.
Levi,
I used to live in a union town (industrial unions, not so much gov't) and have to say I agree with you. The union boys and girls are always angry. They always want more. And it was always a "lets get them" sort of attitude.
One difference....low skilled factory workers (paper mill for example) tended to be a bit lazy. Do as little work as possible.
The skilled trades...construction related, were hard workers and very talented.
The latest meme is that the MI legislature didn't have a mandate because nobody talked about union busting in the election. Next up - recall elections for every single GOP legislator and the governor too!
Garagey Boy - where is the Walker indictment?
Come on Garagey Poo we're waiting LUV!
I used to live in a union town (industrial unions, not so much gov't) and have to say I agree with you. The union boys and girls are always angry. They always want more. And it was always a "lets get them" sort of attitude.
It's a poison attitude. Instead of asking "how can we help build the company", they are just looking out for their own selfish greedy interest.
Michael K said...
This will be a nice test for the nerve of Snyder, the governor. There has been considerable speculation about his backbone.
12/10/12 10:08 AM
Go big or go home. Lets see if Synder cares enough about the rest of Michigan to insure it doesn't follow Detroit down the drain. Heh, if Synder and the legislature had brass they would send a non-binding questionnaire to every listed taxpayer in state asking if they are willing to pay more taxes to bailout Detroit or the pay higher taxes to subsidize the public sector unions.
The latest I'm reading on HuffPo is that the MI GOP did not campaign on union-busting and they will pay dearly for this.
ONCE again unions prove that they are out for themselves and not the 'greater good' as Leftists like to pretend.
And the next time I hear a public sector unionist (private sector is a different issue) - tell me that they need more more money benefits 'for the children/for better government' they are getting a huge 'FfffffffffffffUUUUUUUUU' from me.
I say don't bother. Been there. Done that. Let someone else have all the "fun".
"The latest I'm reading on HuffPo is that the MI GOP did not campaign on union-busting and they will pay dearly for this"
Uh huh.
It's not "union-busting". No one is being forced to leave a union or dissolve a union.
Elected representatives aren't required to spell-out every vote on every topic during the campaign.
Whether they "pay dearly" by losing their elective office should up to the voters of the state, when they vote in the next regular election.
Nothing gives a conservative an orgasm faster than the spectacle of big government busting unions at the end of a baseball bat.
Notice how it's always lefties who think that some people get sexual pleasure from political events? When they accuse the right of getting orgasms from - well, from anything at all in the political realm - it looks like projection to me.
Saddle up! If you don't do this, you 'll regret it. So roll out, now!
@Chuck66: One difference....low skilled factory workers (paper mill for example) tended to be a bit lazy. Do as little work as possible.
Talking about Wisconsin paper mills, by chance? Many years ago, I knew an accountant who had a cousin that retired from the military and went to work at a papermill (she was from Green Bay). He was so spooked by the union "mob" mentality that he quit. Reminds me of this:
Monfills Murder at James River Paper Mill
Tom Monfills had called police to report that a coworker intended to steal an extension cord. Monfills was found dead in the bottom of a pulp vat. Six coworkers were convicted of murder (later one of them was acquitted on appeal).
Tough crowd!
garage mahal said...
Nothing gives a conservative an orgasm faster than the spectacle of big government busting unions at the end of a baseball bat.
12/10/12 11:59 AM
Yes indeed! I just love busting criminal rackets. Don't you?
Alex said...
The latest I'm reading on HuffPo is that the MI GOP did not campaign on union-busting and they will pay dearly for this.
12/10/12 11:43 AM
So let them. Otherwise who needs them? Besides it will be interesting to see how many members dropout when they don't have to join. You think all of the dropouts are going to vote to be forced to rejoin the unions? Besides without the dues, the unions will have less loot to fund their campaigns.
Naw, all those here who say you should demure are correct, Meade--and for all the reasons listed. Save the gas money for dog treats for Zeus..
Just get a UAV drone Ann, that will save Meade gas as well as being able to 'drive' from the living room there.
KLDavis, go around Chicago on I-294 (a.k.a. the "Tri-State Tollway"). It'll cost a bit more but it'll be faster.
Garage: ...the spectacle of big government busting unions at the end of a baseball bat.
"Union-busting" then: Sending Pinkerton and the National Guard to assault peacefully protesting workers.
"Union-busting" now: Making it illegal to force workers to join a union as a condition of employment.
"...baseball bat..." just doesn't mean what it used to.
There's no mob like an out-of-state rent-a-mob.
garage mahal said...
"Nothing gives a conservative an orgasm faster than the spectacle of big government busting unions at the end of a baseball bat."
CORRECTION:
Nothing gives a conservative an orgasm faster than the spectacle of union organizers making themselves look bad by roughing up legislators, police officers and other innocent citizens, with baseball bats or the equivalent.
With Indiana going right-to-work and creating some manufacturing jobs, Michigan is in a bit of a pinch.
They should try right-to-work for a few years and see what happens. Michigan is the only state that had a net loss of people from the 2000 to the 2010 census. With a relatively skilled workforce, Michgian would be in a good position if it went right-to-work.
Garagey Porgy Boo - where are the baseball bats?
The thugs are coming to town. Hey, is there a run on crowbars and baseball bats yet?
bpm4532 said...
As Iowahawk tweeted, you could fix Detroit in ten years by making it a federal tax free zone.
Uh, how many of Detroits residents actually pay federal income tax?
Making it illegal to force workers to join a union as a condition of employment.
No one is forced to join a union as a condition of employment, by federal law.
Michigan? Oh hell, they'll be fine. Just another Jeff Daniels narrated PSA campaign away from recovery.
If Snyder goes spineless, you can forget about that state.
I wonder if Granholm just stays in L.A. If she is in MI occasionally you'd have to think that she has a lot of rotting vegetables thrown in her direction. Which is why I'm thinking she stays in L.A.
Rent a mob in action. Protesting liberty and freedom.
Will there be puppets?
There's gotta be some puppeteering grad student at Michigan ready to mix it up with the UAW.
Maybe Michael Moore will be wheeled in to give some inspiring words.
Rent a mob in action. Protesting liberty and freedom.
LOL. Freedom is the government bypassing normal legislative laws and telling private unions and their employers how they can operate, behind the threat of force. And rigging it so voters can't overturn those laws democratically. Cons have a really fucked idea of how freedom and democracy should work.
Notice the lefty garages attempt to portray a vote by an elected body of representatives to a violent criminal act. No mention of the frequent actual, violent criminal acts of unions, done on purpose.
Unions have always been quasi-criminal organizations and run little more than political and societal intimidation and shakedown operations these days. More and more people have gotten wise to it and thats why support for unions will continue to plummet.
You'll have to instigate and incite him.
LOL.
Good to see Fatty McGee came to share some of his wisdom.
According to tubby, the legislature duly elected by the citizens passing a law is "government bypassing normal legislative laws." But when Wisconsin democrats literally flee the state to subvert the legislative process thats just fine and dandy.
The unions over reached with that ridiculous amendment proposal, were shot down by the voting public, and the side you support lost. Suck it.
Also, tell us more about that "any day now" indictment of Scott Walker some more.
More and more people have gotten wise to it and thats why support for unions will continue to plummet.
That's why Tea Party nitwits like Walker and Snyder and their billionaire backers don't have the stones to actually run on that. They have sneak it through any way possible, avoiding public debates and normal legislative processes. Like most of their ideas, they are unpopular and toxic.
Eh, Lansing ain't worth a six hour drive.
Ummm, Sneak? What was the discussion between Snyder & the unions beforehand?
What do the Michigan papers say?
Is there a timeline?
--No one is forced to join a union as a condition of employment, by federal law.--
So why did the union expend cold hard cash to present a law to the voters they know they couln't enforce?
How is it good to unionize people who choose to stay home to take care of their parents?
What do the Michigan papers say?
Here is what the Detroit Free Press [who endorsed Synder] had to say.
Eh, Lansing ain't worth a six hour drive.
This right-to-work legislation is really confusing...
Are they protesting ID requirements to get a job?
Because that would make it an imigration deal... and I havent heard anything from Telemundo and Univision with Jorje Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas.
I was thrilled and inspired when you both did such excellent, vigilant reporting on the drama in Madison last year. But I was afraid for you both, too, and could not ask you to enter harm's way for our own sofa-safe edification. This will not be easier or prettier. It will be more dangerous, especially since it is not your well-known turf.
Meade and you, dear Ms. Althouse must make the call. And if he were to choose to go, for our sakes, please, do not act alone; do not go without a strong support system available there that will be able to shelter you, help with logistics and that extra hand and eye that the two of you were able to be for each other at the Capitol.
However you choose, Godspeed.
bpm4532 said...
As Iowahawk tweeted, you could fix Detroit in ten years by making it a federal tax free zone.
Wait ... how many federal tax payers do you think are in Detroit? It damn near already is a tax free zone. :-)
Most union protestors get upset because it means someone is going to make them actually work.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
According to tubby, the legislature duly elected by the citizens passing a law is "government bypassing normal legislative laws."
Of course.
Isn't it funny how this high flying capitalist with his big six figure income always flocks to the Internet to post utter bullshit in a lying, lame defense of unions?
Gee, why would that be?
Why, it is almost as if he's a unionized state employee or something.
Wow, look! Jay is back.
How are those skewed polls treating ya?
garage mahal said...
No one is forced to join a union as a condition of employment, by federal law.
I love how you keep pasting this as if it means anything.
In fact, you can be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
You fat idiot.
Bah...skip the trip to Lansing. It will be over faster than the Madison fandango...and Lansing and East Lansing are nowhere near as nice as Madison. This will be a collection of hired thugs without the dilettantish musings of Thistle & Thorns.
On second thought, if Thistle can raise crowd funding via Kickstarter (TM) (she has used it before) she and the Thorns might just show up in Lansing.
Nope, still not worth the 12 hour+ round trip.
Perhaps those union buses could go to Flint, and have themselves a big, old-fashioned sit-down strike. There’s surely plenty of places to sit. For example:
Buick Motor Division: Buick City closed in June 1999. It (and other former Buick buildings not technically part of Buick City) was demolished from 2001 to 2003.
AC Spark Plug /Delphi: Built before 1912, it replaced the original 1908 operation inside a Buick building. It closed about 1976, and was demolished shortly thereafter.
Chevrolet Motor DivisionFlint V8 Engine Plant/Flint Engine South It opened around 1953, closed around 1999 and was soon demolished.
Fisher Body Division Flint Plant #1: the plant closed in December 1987
Fisher Body Divison Flint Plant #2: Closed 1970.
Thanks for all the instigation/incitement but I've decided to take the advice of AJ, rh, Hazy Dave, and others. I'm sure there are Michiganders with flip cameras who can do anything I could. And more.
Plus, my services are needed here at home.
‘Garage Mahal’ said, “No one is forced to join a union as a condition of employment, by federal law.”
And he's correct- (technically) there’s no such thing as a “union shop” – it’s an “agency ship.”
If you’re in one:
You may be forced to pay dues (for union “representation,” even if you don’t want it).
You must accept whatever work rules and compensation the union negotiates, even if you think you could get a better deal on your own (the union becomes sole bargaining agent for all employees in the bargaining unit- even those who choose not to join the union).
Not surprisingly, ‘most everyone in an agency shop joins the union - after all, if you have to pay for the union and you must be bound by whatever it negotiates, you may as well have some say in what it does. BUT no one should have any illusion that this is a free choice.
Being forced to pay for “representation” you don’t want isn’t all that different than paying for “protection” you don’t want in that if you don’t pay, something bad will happen to you. The only real difference is that government enforces the union’s racket, but not the mobster’s.
No one is forced to join a union as a condition of employment, by federal law.
...but they can, depending upon the state, be forced to pay dues, or a fee equivalent, as a condition of employment.
Stepping-on-the-air-hose = Hitting-with-a-baseball-bat a bit of a stretch, unless one is a union political director, I guess.
It will be more dangerous, especially since it is not your well-known turf.
I don't want to overstate the danger element, but there is a significant difference between unions in Wisconsin and Michigan. Not only was the Wisconsin issue exclusively public employees it also excluded the more physical members: police and firefighters. Grad student teachers and aging hippies aren't the same as the UAW.
Michigan is the home of traditional labor unionism, and they perceive this as an existential threat. I think this is an argument for going. To see how it differs.
AFL-CIO
I fear for Mead's safety.
@Garage: "No one is forced to join a union as a condition of employment, by federal law."
I guess that's technically correct, but you do have to pay the same dues to the union whether you want to or not. My wife has to do that in order to hold on to her job. "Closed shop".
It's a distinction without a difference, Garage. Either way, you're forced to pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.
The question is who is GM really upset with, the Governor who didn't want to do this, told the unions it wasn't a wise idea to put those on the ballot, or the voters who voted against their own self-interest?
The voters closed the door.
I guess that's technically correct, but you do have to pay the same dues to the union whether you want to or not
So what? I have to agree to many conditions of my employment. I'm free to agree or to work somewhere else.
So what? I have to agree to many conditions of my employment. I'm free to agree or to work somewhere else.
Union != employer. I know you want it to be that way.
Video camera? Check.
Rags? Check.
Monument cleaner? Check.
CNN (Cruel Neutrality Network) credentials? CHECK.
Michigan awaits.
Meade:
Read up on those turnarounds called Michigan lefts - else you may never return to Madtown.
BTW, in Lansing, the location of the state capitol building is at the corner of (are you ready for this) Michigan and Capitol.
Involuntarily unioninzing people who choose to stay home and take care of their parents is different by election is different.
Well then GM would say, so what? They could choose to pay or commit their parents.
Why do I have to belong to a union to do some family tasks in my home?
The union puts itself into my home and my personal business.
These are lifestyle choices, why should those be unionized?
So if the Catholic Church came along to your job interview and said, "As part of your employment, you have to donate 1% of your pay to the Church whether you want to or not", then that would be fine, right? After all, you're free to "work somewhere else".
Hey tubby, Elections have consequences.
Tell me exactly why the Democrats ramming through the horrors of Obamacare (through reconcilliation at that) is any different than the Republicans in Michigan.
Oh, and while you are at it, tell me when that indictment is coming on Scott Walker.
I'm waiting Mr. 220 lbs. Scale don't lie.
By the way, it's this kind of attitude that's causing fewer and fewer Americans to respect and support unions.
It's not healthy, because unions are needed in the private sector to protect workers. It's public sector unionization that needs to be abolished.
I stand with George Meaney: “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
Tell me exactly why the Democrats ramming through the horrors of Obamacare (through reconciliation at that) is any different than the Republicans in Michigan.
#1 - The Democrats campaigned on it always
#2 - there was endless hysterical Faux News coverage of it.
So if the Catholic Church came along to your job interview and said, "As part of your employment, you have to donate 1% of your pay to the Church whether you want to or not", then that would be fine, right? After all, you're free to "work somewhere else".
Depends on what they were offering in return for that 1%. If it were nothing, I would work somewhere else.
Maybe the Republicans didn't make unions an issue. But the unions made unions an issue with their referendum. Snyder wasn't too sure about this, but when the unions went big with their referendum and lost, it emboldened the people who wanted Snyder to take a stronger stand against the unions' power. If the union hadn't tried to force the issue the one way, they wouldn't have set things up to have the issue forced the other way.
Incidentally, when the Detroit Free Press endorses a Republican, it doesn't mean they expect good things, just that the Democrat is so bad even they can't endorse him. When the Detroit News attacks a Republican governor, that's when the GOP worries.
Alex:
The Republican's position "evolved." Snyder gave the union thugs plenty of warning about the consequences of pushing those amendments.
The Democrats campaigned on Obamacare bringing down the cost of health care and being deficit neutral.
You don't like it? Convince the voters of Michigan to vote somebody else in next time. Or you can make a lot of noise protesting, vandalize some property, compare republican's to members of the third reich, and attempt self defeating recalls like those that occurred in Wisconsin.
Also, you out yourself as a babbling idiot by writing "faux news." Please return to the Kos closet until further notice.
Either way, you're forced to pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.
Because the union has negotiated a contract with the employer. The individual employee is subject to that contract. If they don't like the contract or the union they are free to quit or join management.
Frederer - RTW also means that an employer is no longer compelled to sign a union contract.
Love how garage thinks its ok for forced union dues as long as no one is forced to be a member. That's like saying its ok for gangsters to demand money as long as one isn't forced to join the gang.
Workers shouldn't have to pay for union representation. But forcing workers to attend anti-union meetings is perfectly acceptable.
/Republican Logic
It's amazing to see someone go from "Nobody is forced to join a union by Federal Law" to "If you don't like it, then quit", without skipping a beat.
I don't get to see goalposts moved that smoothly too often. Impressive.
Government jobs should never be union. Unions leech tax dollars better spent elsewhere.
Please lend Garage a hanky if you can.
Any moment now, I expect he'll burst into tears for the poor union bosses (oops--"bosses" hurts their feelings and sympathetic Garage hates that!)...er, officials who are "forced" to represent ungrateful workers who won't pay union dues!
Never mind that under law, union officials are free to seek "members only" contracts, and not represent those mean workers who won't pay!
So why don't union officials seek "members only" contracts, if "representing" non-dues-payers is so terrible a burden?
Freder Frederson said...
Either way, you're forced to pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.
Because the union has negotiated a contract with the employer. The individual employee is subject to that contract. If they don't like the contract or the union they are free to quit or join management.
What if I don't want to be part of some collective bargaining unit? I don't want to be part of the lowest common denominator. I'm worth more than that. I want to negotiate my own pay and benefits and work rules. I am a unique individual who can offer an employer my own unique set of skills and competencies. I want my own contract - not the union's contract.
By the way, the justification by Freder and Garage for forced-dues, as a right of the company boss, is hilarious!
Count me among those raising the fist against such bossism: I'm for workers! No forced dues for workers!
Stand up to bossism!
Notice how Freder and Garage are defending the right of companies to dictate terms to employees. Pay dues or be fired.
They're so worked up about employers not having enough power to run things their way, doncha know?
Hahahaha!
Maybe non-union employees could be cured with some kind of psychoanalytical intervention or a summer at union camp. I don't believe it has a genetic basis, and therefore it can be fixed.
Yes, what I've learned today is that it's ok when your employer extorts money from your check whether you want them to or not, because you can always just get a different job.
And I guess you shouldn't complain about it either. Unless it's not a union shop, of course. Then it's "exploitation", or something.
Let's sing:
Debout, les damnés de la terre; Debout, les forçats de la faim. La raison tonne en son cratère c'est l'éruption de la fin. Du passé faisons table rase; foule esclave, debout, debout!
For workers! Against corporate bosses imposing unfair conditions on laborers!
Any moment now, I expect he'll burst into tears for the poor union bosses (oops--"bosses" hurts their feelings and sympathetic Garage hates that!)...er, officials who are "forced" to represent ungrateful workers who won't pay union dues!
I could care less what terminology you choose. I just pointed out it's a really dumb and nonsensical choice of words.
But, it's been pointed out correctly that Michigan is getting the government they voted for. These are same authoritarian zealots that took over entire towns, throwing out elected governments and installing their hand-picked cronies after all.
It takes big government to fix big government to make it small government!
Garage:
Please answer my question.
If--as you have claimed over and over--representing workers who don't pay dues is so terrible a burden for the union officials...
Then...
Why don't union officials opt for "members only" contracts--thereby shedding themselves of this burden?
I've asked before.
Authoritarian zealots like the Chicago Public School Board who took over failing schools?
Learn something new every day.
Interesting GM wants those cities to fail even more.
How long would you suggest they be allowed to get themselves out of their messes, GM?
If--as you have claimed over and over--representing workers who don't pay dues is so terrible a burden for the union officials..
What I asked was: why do workers get to freeload off other workers and get the same representation?
Do you think the governor of the state of Michigan has a responsibility to all of the citizens of Michigan to stop the failing cities sooner or later?
Your attitude suggests sticking the taxpayer with failure.
Can Michigan afford more failure?
Detroit was the 4th largest city at 1 point and it's lost 40% of its' population.
Do you think that's healthy for the State of Michigan?
If so, why?
Garage:
Workers can't opt out of union "representation." But the union officials can.
So I answered your question, answer mine, now, please.
If its so unfair to the union officials, why don't they opt out--which they can do?
Answer, please.
Garage:
Your answer, please?
SO GM would rather have a judge oversee the bankruptcies, then?
If its so unfair to the union officials, why don't they opt out--which they can do
I don't know, that would be a good question to ask a union official, or someone in a union.
Garage:
Thank you for answering.
It seems obvious that the so-called "burden" is something the union officials want--or else they'd shed it.
So maybe we can quit shedding tears for the imposed-upon union officials.
I see that President Obama just gave a speech wherein he stated that "right-to-work" laws have nothing to do with economics, but are purely political.
This guy operates entirely with his own dictionary!
But, it's been pointed out correctly that Michigan is getting the government they voted for. These are same authoritarian zealots that took over entire towns, throwing out elected governments and installing their hand-picked cronies after all.
Detroit?
What if, like kimsch (4:15pm), "I don't want to be part of the lowest common denominator. I'm worth more than that. I want to negotiate my own pay and benefits and work rules."? I actually did that once, negotiating my own pay and benefits in a union shop, and had union dues taken out of my paycheck anyway. They did absolutely nothing for me in the way of bargaining, but still took a big slice of every paycheck.
To be specific:
Ten years ago, I taught at a public school in upstate New York. My field had a "critical shortage" (I forget the precise name), with slots unfilled even after the school year started, and the assistant principal who hired me asked me how much salary I wanted, then gave me exactly what I asked for. (He did it so quickly I figured I should have asked for more.) My salary had nothing to do with union rates, and there was not even a union representative in the room when I negotiated it. They still took a large sum out of every paycheck, and were surprised and offended that I was surprised and offended that they did so.
In short, garage mahal either doesn't know what he's talking about, or he knows the truth and knowingly falsifies it.
They should try right-to-work for a few years and see what happens.
If other states that have enacted these same kind of laws are any indication then they can expect to see workplace fatalities increase by 50% while the average worker earns $5,000 less ever year.
If other states that have enacted these same kind of laws are any indication then they can expect to see workplace fatalities increase by 50% while the average worker earns $5,000 less ever year.
Thanks for the link.
If other states that have enacted these same kind of laws are any indication then they can expect to see workplace fatalities increase by 50% while the average worker earns $5,000 less ever year.
Conservative "freedom" looks more like Bangladesh than America.
If other states that have enacted these same kind of laws are any indication then they can expect to see workplace fatalities increase by 50% while the average worker earns $5,000 less ever year.
Conservative "freedom" looks more like Bangladesh than America.
You're right. I'll just take your word for it.
FORWARD!
Maybe those stats go up because there are more people working?
If those jobs are mostly in red states, they have lower wages overall, don't they?
What kinds of jobs are they talking about?
The average worker may be able to take a $5K a year hit because their property taxes & living expenses are lower?
1. Percentage Growth in Non-Farm Private Sector Employees (1995-2005)
a. Right to Work States: 12.9%
b. Non-right to Work States: 6.0%
2. Average Poverty Rate-Adjusted for Cost of Living (2002-2004)
a. Right to Work States: 8.5%
b. Non-right to Work States: 10.1%
3. Percentage Growth in Patents Annually Granted (1995-2005)
a. Right to Work States: 33.0%
b. Non-right to Work States: 11.0%
4. Percentage Growth in Real Personal Income (1995-2005)
a. Right to Work States: 26.0%
b. Non-right to Work States: 19.0%
5. Percentage Growth in Number of People Covered by Employment Based Private Health Insurance (1995-2005):
a. Right to Work States: 8.5%
b. Non-right to Work States: 0.7%
I can throw out numbers, too!
Thanks for the link!
You're sincerely welcome!
On a nominal basis, wages are lower in Right to Work states, but proponents argue, and this paper confirms, that once the above statistic is adjusted for cost of living, real spending power is at least the same and perhaps higher in Right to Work states. For example, when the National Institute for Labor Relations Research used The Economist Magazine’s data to adjust the poverty rate in 2001 for cost of living they found that this adjusted rate was 10.8% in states with Right to Work laws as compared to 12.9% for non-RTW states (“Independent Study”). Now we will turn out attention to other studies of the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s which look at the wage issue and adjust for differences in cost of living."
Effects of Right to Work Laws
It's from 2004, so a bit outdated. Would like to find something newer that is comprehensive.
Workplace fatalities.
Workplace safety is an issue in RTW, but there needs to be a thorough investigation of whether or not the laws themselves are the sole causation, because even in non-RTW states with low union density, fatalities are higher as well.
Even geography and type of labor may be used to explain some of the variance in occupational hazards from RTW states (concentrated in Southern and Western states) to non-RTW states.
When my son got a job in a grocery store in Mississippi, a Right to Work State, he was told he had to join the Teamsters Union. When he asked his boss why, he was told because the boss did not want his store vandalized, and wanted his produce delivered before it spoiled. Years later, the same son tried to get a job in Alabama, also a Right to Work State, at a Delphi plant. He was told they were only hiring UAW members, even though they had advertised openings in the newspaper. He said OK I'll join. They said sorry we are not accepting new members.
Unions are bad news.
BTW, Garage is technically right that federal law says you do not have to join a union to work, even in a closed shop state; but you do have to pay agency fees to the union which are equal to union dues. You just don't get to vote in union elections. Hallelujah, you are not forced to join. (oops I see others have already covered this point)
purplepenquin said...
If other states that have enacted these same kind of laws are any indication then they can expect to see workplace fatalities increase by 50% while the average worker earns $5,000 less ever year.
I'd rather die and go broke than join a union!!.....?
Do you people even think about what you write?
Maybe it's best to stick with chanting...
meade, light of miner's lamp much needed in east lansing, michigan! labrador might leak on layabouts.
Assuming it is true (and I am very dubious) that RTW states have 50% more injuries per worker, they may still have fewer injuries per job done.
Remember the Hostess bankruptcy? It was widely reported, and never denied, that Hostess was forced by union rules to deliver bread and cakes in separate trucks, and to have separate workers load the trucks and drive them. That means they had four workers doing the job that a non-union shop would do with one.
It's reasonable to suppose that a man who puts in a solid 40-hour week loading one truck with bread and cakes and delivering both kinds of food to stores will be injured on the job more often than a man who stands around twiddling his thumbs 30 hours a week and spends 10 hours a week loading cakes or bread (but not both) or delivering cakes or bread (but not both). If (hypothetically) the full-time non-union guy has a 3% chance of being injured in a given period of time, and each of the other four guys has a 2% chance of being injured in the same period, PurplePenguin would say "Ah ha! That non-union factory has a per-person injury rate 50% higher than the union factory!" Of course, the union factory would actually have 167% more total injuries, and its rate only looks lower because its spread over four lazy employees instead of one energetic one. It seems to me that a factory that can deliver X million loaves of bread and Y million Twinkies with three total injuries is a Hell of lot safer than one which has eight total injuries for the same number of deliveries.
In short, lower injury rates in union shops (IF they are indeed lower) may have a lot more to do with the amount of time unionized "workers" spend standing around not working rather than any special safety rules imposed by unions.
To put it another way, it's been widely reported that the city of Detroit has a full-time union blacksmith on its payroll 40+ years after the last horse retired. I'm guessing that their blacksmith has not been injured on the job even once in all that time, unless we count wrist strain from too much computer solitaire.
In about 1970 Joliet, Illinois had the highest paid unemployed steelworkers in the United States.
Once again, the argument against Right to Work, as exemplified by the purple penguin:
Forcing workers into unions is for their own good.
Once again, I ask: why shouldn't this principle of coercion for our own good be expanded throughout society?
And what would society look like if it were organized according to the purple penguin and Garage's principle of good-for-you coercion?
Maybe there should be a political party that advertises this coercion-for-your-own-good principle? What might we call that party?
Around 1950 the "industrial" unions made up ca. 35% of the labor force. Today they make up about 5% or so, depending on who is counting. No "union busting" we have known could have accomplished this decline. It is simply a consequence of the unions' own policies, which are not seen as beneficial to their prospective members.
The other 7-8% that makes up the total unionized workforce at this time consist of people that did not even have unions 50-60 years ago. The most numerous and so providing the political "muscle" in the current AFL-CIO are the teachers' unions, NEA and AFT, and AFSCME, since that is where the money is. Mostly the SEIU provide the other kind of "muscle," which is anathema to NEA/AFT and AFSCME, but the present leadership of the AFL-CIO came from the SEIU.
Conservative "freedom" looks more like Bangladesh than America.
Union-friendly Detroit looks more like Chernobyl than America.
And what would society look like if it were organized according to the purple penguin and Garage's principle of good-for-you coercion?
There is nothing more free market than unions and union membership.
You would rather have the stronghand of the government dictate exactly how workers and employers conduct their business, whether that's what they want or not. It's the government telling the marketplace "what's good for them".
Again, we all know the intent by Republicans is to kneecap unions for political power. You will never admit it though, and you will persist with this ridiculous fucking charade that it's about worker freedom. If it were, you would leave them alone.
(Pressed the wrong key again.)
I think there is going to be unions of some kind, but I do not think that "Wagner Act" unions will survive, and I do not think that the NEA/AFT AFSCME memberships will stick with the company they presently find themselves in.
Look at this 1956 Republican Party platform flyer to see how utterly how far gone the current Republican party is.
And after 35 years of wage crushing bullshit people are wondering why so many people qualify for food stamps and Medicaid?
There are few things less free market than closed-shop unions. garage mahal thinks if he pretends not to have read my 5:22pm comment it will cease to have refuted his silly arguments. I freely negotiated a contract with no help from a union and was forced to pay them dues anyway: there are a lot things more free market than that kind of "unions and union membership", but garage mahal can't admit it.
We're also still waiting for garage mahal to come back to a previous thread and tell us how it was not utterly unjust for a Michigan union to force parents of handicapped children to pay them for the privilege of taking care of their own children at home with no help whatsoever from the unions, and no boss to organize against. Union organizers, with the help of a Democratic governor, took (=stole) almost 30 million dollars from these parents over the course of six years. Does garage mahal approve of such behavior? He sure as Hell hasn't expressed any disapproval.
Dr Weevil:
Well, Garage doesn't know the difference between "free market" and gangsters.
Unions have largely made themselves obsolete. They'll tell you that they're responsible for the 40-hour work week and overtime pay, workplace safety and more.
But these have been codified into law.
Even if the unions go away, those laws won't.
If the unions go away people won't lose weekends. They won't suddenly have to work 80 hour weeks. They won't suddenly be put into danger at work (or any more than they already are, depending on the job).
We can be glad the unions got the ball rolling - but we don't owe them in perpetuity.
Again, we all know the intent by Republicans is to kneecap unions for political power.
Actually the intent is to disable the money-laundering scheme by which taxpayer funds are converted into campaign contributions to the Democrat Party via public sector union dues...also to ensure that the taxpayers' representatives in collectI've bargaining is representing taxpayers instead of their AFSCME campaign donors.
How many teachers must call in "sick" to attend tomorrow's rallies before Meade is sufficiently agitated? Tell him his trip is for the children . . .
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Taylor-schools-to-close-Tuesday-as-teachers-head-to-Lansing/-/1719418/17720160/-/xorcq6/-/index.html
Thanks, EVIL CAPITALIST!
Union didn't give us the 40-hour week, Henry did.
On this day in 1926, Ford Motor Company becomes one of the first companies in America to adopt a five-day, 40-hour week for workers in its automotive factories. The policy would be extended to Ford's office workers the following August.
Henry Ford's Detroit-based automobile company had broken ground in its labor policies before. In early 1914, against a backdrop of widespread unemployment and increasing labor unrest, Ford announced that it would pay its male factory workers a minimum wage of $5 per eight-hour day, upped from a previous rate of $2.34 for nine hours (the policy was adopted for female workers in 1916). The news shocked many in the industry--at the time, $5 per day was nearly double what the average auto worker made--but turned out to be a stroke of brilliance, immediately boosting productivity along the assembly line and building a sense of company loyalty and pride among Ford's workers.
The decision to reduce the workweek from six to five days had originally been made in 1922. According to an article published in The New York Times that March, Edsel Ford, Henry's son and the company's president, explained that "Every man needs more than one day a week for rest and recreation....The Ford Company always has sought to promote [an] ideal home life for its employees. We believe that in order to live properly every man should have more time to spend with his family."
Henry Ford said of the decision: "It is high time to rid ourselves of the notion that leisure for workmen is either 'lost time' or a class privilege." At Ford's own admission, however, the five-day workweek was also instituted in order to increase productivity: Though workers' time on the job had decreased, they were expected to expend more effort while they were there. Manufacturers all over the country, and the world, soon followed Ford's lead, and the Monday-to-Friday workweek became standard practice.
Via Insty for GM:
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/18017
The Union ‘Free-Rider Problem’ Myth in Right-to-Work Debate
The union is the one truly taking advantage of the collective bargaining arrangement
But, it's been pointed out correctly that Michigan is getting the government they voted for. These are same authoritarian zealots that took over entire towns, throwing out elected governments and installing their hand-picked cronies after all.
I have lived in Michigan all of my life. It's obvious you don't, because you're talking out of your ass even more than usual, and boy is that saying something.
Those entire towns were drains on the state treasury to the tune of billions. They've been bailed out, and bailed out, and bailed out, and yet their financial problems kept getting worse. And in ALL of those cities' cases, they were run for centuries by the democratic party.
Look. If the cities didn't want state help, they shouldn't have fucking asked for it. If they're so sure they can handle it, then maybe they ought to either cut services or raise taxes on their own people to pay for it. And stop making those of us in the financially sound suburbs and rural areas pay for their mistakes.
Either solve your own problems, or let the state do it for you. Cities are entities chartered by the state itself, and the state has a vested interest in seeing these financial problems solved. They have every right in being fiscally responsible with MY money by making sure it doesn't go into those money pits like Detroit, Pontiac, Benton Harbor, Flint, and other urban basket cases.
Please, stick to something you know about, because this is something you obviously do not.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Dr Weevil:
Well, Garage doesn't know the difference between "free market" and gangsters.
Could of told ya that, Father.
Then there's this-
“According to union documents, ‘representational activities’ (money spent on bargaining contracts for members) made up only 11 percent of total spending for the union. Meanwhile, spending on ‘general overhead’ (union administration and employee benefits) comprised of 61 percent of the total spending.”
Either solve your own problems, or let the state do it for you
Selling cities to banks. What could possibly go wrong???
Good luck with your dictator laws. The Birchers in charge over there sound worse than Wisconsin's. Didn't think that was possible.
By "Wagner Act unions" I mean such unions as foster the attitude expressed by some good old boys from the United Rubber Workers at Firestone's Decatur, Illinois plant after the settlement Firestone made for their exploding "500" tires. These boys said they hoped that "the management" had learned something from this experience.
I do not know if Firestone's management learned anything, but then it did not really matter since the settlement broke the firm and it was bought out by the Japanese firm Bridgestone, and Bridgestone's management, at least, had learned "something," so one of the first thing they did after acquiring Firestone was to close the Decatur plant.
(Firestone could not understand it; they had plants around the world making these tires to the same design and specifications and with materials obtained from the same sources, but the unusual number of failures were all in tires from just three plants, one of them being the Decatur plant.)
I have always felt that these union boys should have been called to Washington and asked to explain their remarks.
A union job is a glorified yoke. Stick with your union job, and you will never accomplish anything more, ever. You are done. The Soma is in your veins, and it feels good, very soothing and relaxing. Now pay your dues, stand on the street when we tell you, vote how we say, and bitch a lot. That is all you ever need to do - we promise.
bagoh - unions are there to provide good paying jobs to high school graduates. Not everyone has the brain to become a professional or entrepreneur.
Republicans in Wisconsin want an increase in per diems, already not taxable. The Assembly leader wants an additional office, and our First Lady wants 500k from taxpayers to renovate her kitchen. Wisconsin lags neighboring states in job creation, but leads 33 other states in corporate welfare. Republicans latest baby, the WEDC, replaced a state program with a surplus, and "lost track" of 56 million dollars in loans sending it into the red.
Being an elected Republican might be the easiest gig in America. It's almost if fucking up things IS the plan.
Speaking of fucking up, garage mahal still hasn't answered the simple question I've repeatedly asked him: what does he think of the Michigan union that forced parents of handicapped children to pay the union nearly 30 million dollars in dues over 6 years, though the union did nothing for them, and they had no bosses they needed protection from?
Why won't he answer the question? I suspect that that bit of gross overreaching on the part of one Michigan union helped make unions in general unpopular in the state, thus setting the stage for Right-to-Work there. What does garage mahal think? Is he just another stupid troll who carefully avoids all the stronger arguments of his opponents?
Dr. Weevil - gm is a partisan hack who's only job is to create dissent and strife.
WI lags IL in job creation?
LOLOLOL
If an executive is only supposed to do what he directly campaigned on, what can Obama do in his second term besides raise taxes on millionairesandbillionaires?
He's a man who ran on nothing, so he should do nothing in his second term.
After the last string of lunatic comments by @garage mahal, there is no point in responding to him. He's not getting it after @I Callahan's clear commentary, so he is never going to get it.
Let me add to what I Callahan said, since we both live here in Michigan near Detroit, that some of the cities and school systems "taken over" were taken over under Democratic Administration. Bankruptcy is not party affiliated, but it forces a response from whomever is in power.
The same lack of knowledge vis a vis unions is obvious in @Garage Mahal, who has never worked in a union/agency shop or actually dealt with a major union in any way. I excuse his union and remarks as ignorance, for if they are not, then he'd be a liar per se. And I am saying that as a skilled trade union advocate, but one who has no use what-so-ever for SEIU, AFSMCE, NEA,NFT, or any other cake eater f'ing **service** union.
Debating ignorance plainly presented is like whizzing in to the wind. Frankly, I don't "get it" why GM insists on his stances. I thought he was smarter than that...enough to know what he doesn't know.
Damnit....I just have to respond to @Garage Mahal one more time...the error in fact is so egregious.
garage mahal said...
The Birchers in charge over there ...
Republicans in Michigan are about 80+% RINO, including most of the prominent ones like De Vos, and particularly the highest taxing industry crushing asshole of them all, born to the manor "Republican" Governor Milliken...valiant Republican who formally endorsed Kerry in 2004 and became Dem. Governor Granholm's principle tax advisor when Jenny the Dim and Little Rich Boy Bill, along with Dem Ex-gov Blanchard, conspired to retain the closeted VAT tax on business where labor expense as NOT deductible and there were no pass through credits....the perfect politicians' tax...you paid in loss years out of equity or personal savings for the privileged of being in business in Michigan.
You can count the John Birchers here on fingers and toes and still not use them all up. Michigan is notorious for being "Republicrat." It still remains to be seen if Gov Snyder can survive for two full terms in this one party state. For my part, I hope he does even though I don't always agree with him, he is not a Dem Party hack like the rest.
Again...GM hectors from a position of complete ignorance and I can't imagine how he doesn't know it.
It is like they are trying to be as unsympathetic as possible.
"P.S. Right to Work isn't."
-- Actually, it is. It promises people will not have their basic right to associate infringed upon by a powerful, political lobby. The right to work is something guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and part of that is that people are not forced to pay for the privilege to work, like many union-shops would force.
"Nothing gives a conservative an orgasm faster than the spectacle of big government busting unions at the end of a baseball bat. "
-- That is not what is happening; people are simply being told that they are free from coercion and no longer have to consent to a tax to support what are essentially political unions to work.
Nah, it's the TSA.
Leslyn never really joins in unless she has something insulting.
Their overhead is 60+%?
... that's unsustainable for pretty much any other business I can think of.
Good morning @Leslyn, you siad...
Makes me proud that we as a people provided inspiration for the Solidarity movement in Poland, which was a significant factor in the fall of communism.
Yes we did, with considerable leadership by AFL-CIO Presidnet at the time, Lane Kirkland. He was awarded the Order of the White Eagle by Poland, as well as Presidential Citizens Medal,the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Truman-Reagan Medal of Freedom by the United States under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
However, Lane Kirkland was the last of the industrial based union leadership in the AFL-CIO, being defeated for his office in 1995 IIRC by SEIU candidacy ... the very union that had advocated the issues that were wrecking the AFL-CIO. It's been all SEIU ever since. In my opinion they ought to rename the AFL-CIO as "CEIU" for Cake-Eaters' International Union.
I admit a strong prejudice vis a vis *service* unions versus skilled trades and assembly line work per se. I have no respect, however, for unions that do not hold up their end of their bargains, and comply with the law, even if they're among my favored few.
Now as for "Right to Work" in Michigan, it was never intended to come up until the cake eater unions decided to try to make Agency Shop essential a Michigan Constitutional right by referendum. It was defeated handily 06 Nov 12, and the Legislature decided to block any further attempts to subvert their rightful legislative authority, and Governor Snyder, reluctantly, did so as well....I'm fairly certain he will sign the bill this week.
The key thing to remember about Michigan RTW action: The SEIU driven unions brought it upon themselves....among other idiocy, like their 6 year run at forcing agency dues upon homemakers who cared for invalids or baby, which has been well described on this thread by a Michigan taxpayer who paid those dues.
When a state like Michigan goes RTW you just have to know something drastic caused it...and it wasn't the John Birch Society members like Garage asserts.
Leslyn:
I'm still waiting for you to provide factual support for your claim that our government was incapable of providing security to our personnel in Benghazi, due to action by Congress.
We discussed this weeks ago. Really, how long does it take you to back up what you say?
And as far as comparing the Catholic Church to a union; in this country, we have no power to force anyone to pay union dues.
So when will you provide that Benghazi information?
If not, just say so, and then it'll be clear you were making up stuff as seems to be the usual case.
I excuse his union and remarks as ignorance, for if they are not, then he'd be a liar per se.
Nothing I said was untrue. You just don't like hearing the truth: that it has nothing to do with worker freedom, and it's being bankrolled and pushed by a bunch of tea party nutjobs.
"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 want to negotiate my own pay and benefits and work rules.
Good luck with that.
Garage Mahal said ... [again]...
Nothing I said was untrue. You just don't like hearing the truth: that it has nothing to do with worker freedom, and it's being bankrolled and pushed by a bunch of tea party nutjobs.
Oh, for Gawd's sake, everything you've said about Michigan is not true. Now the John Birchers are morphed in to Tea Party nutjobs? How can you be so adamant about a place you do not know, regarding conditions, union and otherwise, not to mention political party equivalence here, that you've never experienced?
Shit, man, I've been more honestly critical of Michigan than you are...you are reading dogma crap and asserting truth without foundation. Michigan is not Wisconsin. Not in the slightest.
Leslyn said...
I think most people outside unions don't realize that many union-management relationships are generally cooperative, and that employees foster that relationship as well.
You are right in that remark. It is in the unions berst interest to work with management when it can. Sadly, some very large unions failed to do that, failed to keep their end of their contracts up (think "attendance" among other issues) and directly caused plants to close and work to move to mexico or elsewhere. My experience is similar to yours in that I've joined and paid dues to unions because I chose to do so, not because I was required to do so.
Fact is, at least here, it is not unusual for small machine/job shop owners to also be members of a skilled trade union. It supports the credibility of the trade and the apprenticeships involved.
That said...I have a huge problem with the SEIU tactics and methods to use Agency Shop criteria to suck dues from people they can't represent because there is no "employer" of record to negotiate with per se.
And I am unanimous in this... :-O
"Good luck with that" writes Freder, who can't be bothered to reply to my actual comment (5:22pm), in which I noted that I once did actually "negotiate my own pay and benefits" with an employer, and had union dues taken out of my paycheck anyway. Typical Frederly rhetoric?
Now the John Birchers are morphed in to Tea Party nutjobs?
Same people, different name. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between them.
I want to negotiate my own pay and benefits and work rules.
Good luck with that.
I haven't had any problems.
It is like they are trying to be as unsympathetic as possible.
What redress do tax-paying citizens have in situations such as this?
Note:
Some public school teachers in the City of Detroit and around the state of Michigan are reportedly taking a vacation or a sick day today to protest right-to-work legislation likely to be approved by the state legislature. Under current law, Michigan public school teachers must pay dues to the teachers’ union. If the right-to-work law is enacted, Michigan public-school teachers will be free to join the union and pay dues to it if they wish, but they will also be free not to join the union and not to pay it dues.
Of course fat garagie wants to cut teacher's pay by making them pay union dues.
Of course fat garagie is utterly silent on the fact that in Detroit on 7% of 8th graders are proficient in reading.
Of course fat garagie is a silly, ignorant idiot.
Hey garage:
How about telling us what you think about the Michigan union that made caretakers of severely handicapped relatives pay union dues for six years? I've asked you over and over, and your refusal to answer is utterly damning. You keep insisting that you haven't written anything untrue, but that is (a) a lie, and (b) cleverly evades all the things you've dishonestly refused to write about.
Leslyn:
Fr. Fox, since we disagree on the premises of discussion on Benghazi, there is nothing I can reply to.
In other words, your original claim, which you asserted was factual, in fact you cannot support.
What do we call it when people make up facts?
No, don't answer that; I'm no longer interested in what you have to say.
I've had more interesting--and certainly more honest--conversations with ATMs.
Freder Frederson said...
I want to negotiate my own pay and benefits and work rules.
Good luck with that.
I haven't had problems either(EMD above). In fact, I've negotiated at every non-union job I've held.
Remember, the premise for opposing Right to Work--as enunciated by Garage and Freder many times in this thread--is that coercion of workers is for their own good.
Some people believe that human beings are capable of freedom, and all it entails; and some don't.
Some believe people should be free to say things that are offensive, and even post videos online! Others think the government should punish them to protect us.
Some believe that folks should be able to support candidates and causes as they wish, and combine with others to be more effective. Others believe that the First Amendment should be changed so that it doesn't apply to groups of people, called "corporations."
Some believe you should pay for your own contraceptives; others believe the government must provide it, even when you don't want it. They believe religious sisters should be forced to include coverage for contraception in their health plans--conscience is a phantom.
Some believe you have a right to defend yourself--and that means being well-armed enough to stand against the aggression of others. Others believe you don't have that right, and you should just trust the government will take care of you.
The same people who don't believe in free speech, free choice, free political action, don't believe in protections against search-and-seizure, and they don't believe the President should respect due process. Their President has a kill list and can order the death of anyone, anywhere, anytime, as long as he decides that person is an "enemy combatant."
This mindset--speech must be regulated, political activity restrained, contraception forced on people, warrantless searches and kill lists--is known as "progressive."
People who favor free speech, paying their own way, and not being compelled into unions against their will, and who think the Constitution means something...
Are what Garage calls "nutjobs."
b) I find no value in engagement. As I recall, it was the latter. At least we are in agreement about that now.
However, it is dishonest of you to imply that I am a liar.
You are a liar (and an idiot) which has been demonstrated over & over here.
leslyn assumes that my result was unusual not because she has any evidence that it was unusual, but because she would lose the argument if it were usual. So which was it? 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. There must have been quite a few people hired through it, or they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of developing a system. The fact that they were surprised that I was surprised that they would take union dues out of my salary tells me that everyone (dozens? hundreds? thousands? tens of thousands? it was a big state) hired through that system was charged union dues, despite the union having done absolutely nothing for them. leslyn's objection is ridiculous.
Leslyn said...
...my belief is that "right to work" is a step on the road intended to result in employment at will.
It can be, however, Michigan will always have unions, in the future I hope more productive less self destructive ones. Now where RTW and Michigan is concerned it is rather an action to prevent lazy unions from conscripting members out of thin air and trying to make it part of the Constitution as a means to diminish the Legislature's powers, as well as the Governor's.
The union idea that merely having a government subsidy or a tax deduction makes you a de facto commercial service provider subject to Agency Shop dues collection didn't sit well with voters....nor did the effort to re-write the State Constitution. These are the same voters that voter majority for Obama by nearly 10% in the same 06 Nov 2012 election.
In short, there are times when unions deserve breaking just as there are times when companies deserve organizing.
Needless to say, Garage Mahal doesn't get this...we Michiganders are all John Birchers who voted in the large majority for Obama ya' know. :-0
EMD says he did the same, but did not address whether his was a union position.
What difference does it make?
leslyn 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.
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.
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