Right to work...for LESS

Dungheap said:
When were they enacted? The FLSA was enacted in 1938 and it did a lot of what you have up there: overtime laws, 44 hour work week, child labor prohibition, minimum wage. There is no federal law that I know of requiring vacation time. OSHA passed in 1970. Anti-discrimination in 1964.

So, like, unions haven't fought for that stuff since for quite a while. They fight for other things, like better wages, pensions, workplace democratization, progressive discipline, for cause termination and lots and lots of other things that are not addressed in any legislation.

It's a bad argument.





Uh, that is what happened. Also, too, no one is required to pay for the political activities of the unions and no one is forced to partake in their political activities. They just have to pay for the work the union does to secure the benefits all employees enjoy.
Click to expand...
Right, even if I resign from the union I must pay the dues, a portion of which go to the political activities of the union. While I can then file paperwork for them to take a percentage of the dues I must pay regardless of my personal union status, not before resignation though, I must still pay dues for "representation" that may be against my personal beliefs or interest, and the percentage I won't have to pay after I resign and fill out paperwork and become a "contributor" or "wallet" is based on past expenditures without regard to the fact that by simply spending more than ever before they force me to pay for their political activities. Yeah, it's like that.

I'd say your argument is partially what happened, along with the laws I spoke about improved massively over time largely taking the feel of "need" of a union from many getting jobs. While paid vacations are not mandated, some time off work is. That employers pay for it is a boon largely won by unions, but now seen as expected and not related to the union always "fighting" for that benefit.

Basically, both things happened, but largely the laws passed are, IMO, why people entering the workforce today actually seem as "baffled" by unconditional support for, and force used to make them join, unions as they are by the arguments offered by many republicans against gay marriage.
 
Damocles said:
Right, even if I resign from the union I must pay the dues, a portion of which go to the political activities of the union. While I can then file paperwork for them to take a percentage of the dues I must pay regardless of my personal union status, not before resignation though, I must still pay dues for "representation" that may be against my personal beliefs or interest, and the percentage I won't have to pay after I resign and fill out paperwork and become a "contributor" or "wallet" is based on past expenditures without regard to the fact that by simply spending more than ever before they force me to pay for their political activities. Yeah, it's like that.

I'd say your argument is partially what happened, along with the laws I spoke about improved massively over time largely taking the feel of "need" of a union from many getting jobs. While paid vacations are not mandated, some time off work is. That employers pay for it is a boon largely won by unions, but now seen as expected and not related to the union always "fighting" for that benefit.

Basically, both things happened, but largely the laws passed are, IMO, why people entering the workforce today actually seem as "baffled" by unconditional support for, and force used to make them join, unions as they are by the arguments offered by many republicans against gay marriage.
Click to expand...


Hilarious. You've got all the talking points nailed.
 
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
 
Last edited:
Everyone should know how I feel about unions.

So I'll just leave it at that, and nurse the hang over I woke up with, because of the party we had celebrating.
 
Dungheap said:
What laws are those and when were they enacted?

The better argument is that employers voluntarily giving employees benefits that unions had to fight to secure as a means of union avoidance helped to diminish the need for union representation. Also, too, Republican-controlled National Labor Relations Board for 20 of the last 32 years helped quite a bit to kill unions and unionization efforts.
Click to expand...
That and Republicans have been brilliant at using wedge and identity issues to gain support from white working class males.

I'm university educated and not working class. I'm more supportive of unions, though I'm not a member of any collective bargaining unit, then most white working class males I know. They have bought into the line of BS being thrown at them by right wing propaganda outlets and many have become quite anti-union, though it is often not in their best interest to do so. This is particularly true in rural America where rural counties have grossly disproportionate representation in State legislatures.

I know that's hugely frustrating to many of my co-city dwellers here in Ohio. For example. In Ohio we have 18 Reps in Congress. We have 7 in metro areas representing over 70% of the population of the State and 11 Reps representing less than 30% of the populaiton. Needless to say most of the rural Reps are Repubs and urban ones are Dems. The same is true at the State level. We have 99 house members. 37 are in urban districts and represent over 70% of the population and 62 reps representing less than 30% of the population. The same applies to the State Senate. He have 11 State Senators representing over 70% of the population and 22 State Senators representing less than 30% of the population. So we have these dynamic urban regions who cannot move forward cause our State government and national representation is dominated by less than 30% of the population, mostly rural conservatives who are utterly clueless about the demands and needs of urban regions. It's frustrating as hell, it's unfair as hell and it's undemocratic as hell and it has to stop.

This is what kind of a mockery of democracy gerrymandering has made of our State.
 
Several points need to be made here.

First point... Michigan did not ban or prohibit labor unions. You are still absolutely free to join a union in Michigan, if you want to. The new law allows you the freedom to make the choice. Personal liberty.

Second point... The term "labor movement" is an inaccurate misnomer. Unionized labor represents 11.6% of the labor force in America. The other 88.4% is non-union. Therefore, "labor" is represented by the overwhelming majority of non-union laborers. It is the "unionized labor" movement, and these people need to be corrected every time they refer to themselves as the "labor movement" because it's not accurate or true.

Third point... The entire "median income in RTW states" argument should be tossed. Most of these states were largely blue states until recently, and many of them just recently became RTW states. Change takes time, it doesn't happen in a year or two, and we can't look at a chart of statistics and make any sort of rational determination about this. That said, you can look at any one of the top examples the "unionists" present, and you will find the rate of growth in median income far exceeds their non-RTW counterparts. These states are booming with new business and jobs, whereas, cities like Detroit are deteriorating before our very eyes.

Fourth point... Statist Marxist Democrat government is only 'friends' to the unions because they are a source of money and power. The Democrats are the Party of Government, and will throw any union under the bus to further their agenda and protect their power. We see this today with the coal and oil industry, unionized industries that are being literally destroyed by the Democrats, in order to appease another power demographic, the environmentalists. In Poland, it was the labor union who rose up and overthrew the totalitarian government.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you have no suitable rebuttal to a solid argument. got it.
Click to expand...


What's the solid argument. Damo abandoned his original point (workers got what unions fight for through legislation) and instead pretends that there is no such thing as Beck rights and doesn't address the obvious free rider issues that "right-to-work" bring about. Not much there to rebut.
 
Damocles said:
The main force in the destruction of the Union are the laws which gave everybody the same protections without the compulsory dues. The assumption is that it was bad righties who killed the unions, but it wasn't. We don't have to fight for the protections that the unions traditionally fought for, they are encoded in legislation largely passed by lefties...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...sons-why-michigans-right-to-work-law-matters/
Click to expand...
Bullshit. That is merely the premise of this article.
The main force against unions is the Koch bros, and others like them. Don't believe me, ask Scott Walker.


From your link;

10. The essential principle behind right-to-work legislation should not get lost in the shuffle: No one should be forced to join a union against his or her will. It is antithetical to a free people to have the state invest unions with the power to collude on labor costs and take union dues against employees’ will. Liberals are in favor of forcing employees to join a union; conservatives are in favor of allowing employees to choose not to and to protect employees’ property rights against compulsory dues deduction.

The total crap of the entire article is portrayed especialy well in the failed paragraph quoted above.
No one has EVER been forced to join a union against their will, anymore than anyone is forced to take a low wage job.

Nice talking point though. It sound good, as long as you don't think about it.
 
Damocles said:
The main force in the destruction of the Union are the laws which gave everybody the same protections without the compulsory dues. The assumption is that it was bad righties who killed the unions, but it wasn't. We don't have to fight for the protections that the unions traditionally fought for, they are encoded in legislation largely passed by lefties...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...sons-why-michigans-right-to-work-law-matters/
Click to expand...

A caller to a local talk show brought up an interesting point.
Making the State a right to work one, doesn't get rid of the Unions.
If someone wants to join a Union, they still can.

Maybe it's time for the Unions to change the way their viewed and return to the idea of HELPING their members, instead of being seen as thugs.
If they inproved their image, then maybe more workers would consider joining.

When the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant was being built, someone I knew left his constuction job and went to work for them.
Since he was just starting; his first job assinment was to move a pile of used 2x4x8's from where they were piled, to a scrap pile.
He stacked 5 or 6 of them on his shoulder, as he was used to doing in construction, and started carrying them to the scrap pile.

He was stopped by a Union member and asked him, what was he doing.
He expleained that he had been told to move the 2x4's from where they were, to the scrap pile.
The Union member told him that he was making the rest of them look bad and that he should move the 2x4's, ONE AT A TIME.

I've heard plenty more stories, of things that were happening, while this was being built.

Guys would crawl deep into the framing structure, where the supervisors didn't want to crawl into, and sleep all day.

Union Members protect other Union Members and that's their first and foremost job.
 
Rune said:
Prove it. Show one person, ever, forced to join a labor union.
Click to expand...

Until they passed this law we are arguing about in Michigan, you had to join the union if you worked for a place where one existed. You did not have a choice. This is the case in any non-RTW state. That is what the issue is here. No one has banned unions! If that's what you think happened, you are an idiot who doesn't know what the hell is going on, and you're just out there parroting whatever your masters have told you to.
 
Dixie said:
Until they passed this law we are arguing about in Michigan, you had to join the union if you worked for a place where one existed. You did not have a choice. This is the case in any non-RTW state. That is what the issue is here. No one has banned unions! If that's what you think happened, you are an idiot who doesn't know what the hell is going on, and you're just out there parroting whatever your masters have told you to.
Click to expand...


No, you don't have to joint the union. You just have to pay dues to cover the costs of collective bargaining to avoid free rider problems that would otherwise arise.
 
Crashk said:
Unions don't hire workers the company does. If that person is lazy the union can only protect him for so long.

You must have been that lazy worker that the union refuses to back after you got into trouble 2 or 3 times.

The rest of your post is pure bullshit. As is your 'story'.


If we're going to have a global economy then we must have a global labor union or coalition of global unions to protect worker's rights.
Otherwise we'll all become low-wage slaves like those being produced in Right to Slave states.
Click to expand...


You have to understand.

007 and those like him don't give a shit about what happens to anyone else but themselves.

007 got his...the rest of the world can go FUCK OFF!
 
Dipshit said:
Until they passed this law we are arguing about in Michigan, you had to join the union if you worked for a place where one existed. You did not have a choice. This is the case in any non-RTW state. That is what the issue is here. No one has banned unions! If that's what you think happened, you are an idiot who doesn't know what the hell is going on, and you're just out there parroting whatever your masters have told you to.
Click to expand...

You don't have to take the job. There is no force involved.
 
I was watching Morning Joe this morning as Joe was making his arguments for what was going on in MI. I wanted to interject the real reason why so many states are going RTW ... And why republicans were supportive of it. Not one of those smart guys on his show would say it. Of course it is all politics. Let's say that I am a shop worker in a union shop. I must pay my dues in order to have my job. Those dues are used collectively to support candidates who are sympathetic to unions...ie. democrats. These same candidates happen to also support a lot of things that I oppose and support a lot of things that I oppose. Just in the last election, how much union money was spent to campaign for president Obama? IMO, that is what it all boils down to.

As to being a RTW state...and here I am talking about myself specifically...I am not a member of my professional union NEA/OEA for the reason I listed above. I am a member of an alternate professional organization in our state. I am glad we are a RTW state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top