Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

Details

Closed to new replies
December 11, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 184

Michigan Anti-Union Bill?

:iconalevan:
Alevan Dec 11, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I suppose since I'm not in Michigan and I've worked in non-union jobs for so long, I don't get the exact... big deal, I suppose?

I see tens of thousands of people protesting of it on the news. 'Anti-Union!' 'The Destruction of the Unions!' 'Limitation of the PEOPLE!'

... and yet all I seen is it eliminates the fee the Union charges people for the right to be better represented or something of that nature. It opens it up for more people who might not be able to afford that fee and everyone gets the right to be part of the union.

How is this a bad thing? Is there more to the bill I'm not understand? It looks to me like a GOOD thing and it opens up more doors.

Considering I've looked at..... biased news stations and the comments on said articles provided as much information as trololols and 'YOU MONSTER!' So anyone can present the pros and cons on this whole thing?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Dec 23, 2012
i dont get it either. screw unions i hate payin them
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Dec 17, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
yes. you have it right.

these people are making a big stink over almost nothing. RTW states still have unions, it's not killing them, it's hardly even taking any power away from them either...

the only real differense is if a worker in a RTW state wants out of the union they can have out. they won't get a chunk of their paycheck taken away and/or used for things they may or may no agree with.
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Dec 17, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
also ths will be good for Michigan :D I hear VW wanted to but didn't build a factury there because they didn't want to deal with the UAW. they choose instead to build in a RTW state down south.
Reply
:iconstaple-salad:
Part of the issue, at least in my opinion, is that people have a TON of workers rights thanks to unions. Whether you work for a company that has unions or not. Whether you are in a union or not. Everyone has a bunch of stuff to thank unions for, like fair wages, not being able to be forced to pretty much kill yourself on the job, the 40 hour workweek, weekends, etc. All of that you have unions to thank for.

Paying dues to a union which is in some way protecting you is a good thing. If people naively opt out of paying dues (likely corrupted by the anti-union groups), then the union gets less funding, less power, and falls apart. Unions are the primary thing we have protecting our worker rights.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Dec 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Unions don't protect everybody. Ask women during the women's liberation movement, when unions were fighting to prevent women from entering the workforce. Ask the Irish. Ask black people. Ask Mexicans.

Even child labor laws were less about protecting children and more about protecting workers from competition.

Only a fool looks at the history of unions and thinks that they're automatically a good thing. They are at best the enemy of your enemy.

Additionally, their meddling in politics has some really fucked up ramifications. Every Republican working at a UAW union shop with an agency agreement is effectively forced to donate $30 to the Democratic party. Imagine the outcry if companies forced their employees through any other means to donate money to political parties.
Reply
:icontrorbes:
Imagine the outcry if companies forced their employees through any other means to donate money to political parties.

You mean almost like when employers were threatening to (or did) fire their workers if Romney failed to be voted in? When supporters of these businesses argued this was not only completely legal but perfectly ethical as failing to elect Romney would have had serious repercussions on their ability to run a business? Like that?


PS: Unions may have have a dark past, but there's no point in pretending capitalists are sinless even in comparison.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Dec 18, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
That something can be interpreted as a threat doesn't make it one.

Some business owners probably intended to sway votes with that threat. I expect the majority, however, were warning their employees that their jobs were at risk. I consider warnings ethical, especially compared to the alternative.

And very few business owners are capitalists.
Reply
:icondannimondesigns:
DannimonDesigns Dec 12, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
By the end of this decade, all unions will be gone. They say by 2030 but I say by the end of this decade, every union public and private will be all gone and labor laws will change to benefit employers.

The Second Gilded Age is upon us.
Reply
:iconnovuso:
The Gilded Age was not a good time to be worker. There were too many abuses and that is the why unions came about in the first place. Unions are still needed especially in the lowest paid segment of society.
Reply
:iconalphamale1980:
I live in Michigan. What many on this board don't understand is that this bill went directly against the stated wishes of the people of the state Michigan. Governor Snyder even ran on a policy of dealing with the fiscal and job issues of this state. Even going so far as to repeatedly state that divisive polarizing issues such as union laws, abortion, and the like would not be a priority, and wouldn't even be put forward by his administration. Unfortunately the people of this state bought the argument that he was a problem fixer and not an idealogue.

However at his first opportunity (the current lame duck session where a high number of republican congress-people won't be going back due to term limits) he is ram-rodding several idealogically based proposals through a republican controlled congress. Both of these union busting bills, along with curbs on abortion and even welfare requirements are now being passed without debate, and due to a ridiculous law which forbids the public from holding a referendum on spending bills the people won't be able to remove it since the congress has added completely non-related spending attachments to these laws.
Reply
Add a Comment: