Michigan Anti-Union Bill?
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?
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?
Comments184
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
i dont get it either. screw unions i hate payin them
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.
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.
also ths will be good for Michigan 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Second Gilded Age is upon us.
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.
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.
I also live in Michigan. Specifically, I live in Lansing.
The "stated wishes" aren't any such thing. A narrow plurality favors RTW legislation. That's more than you can say about the PPACA (Obamacare).
It's entertaining watching the left lose its shit over this, though.
The "stated wishes" aren't any such thing. A narrow plurality favors RTW legislation. That's more than you can say about the PPACA (Obamacare).
It's entertaining watching the left lose its shit over this, though.
LMFAO where do you get your information? In a poll quoted by Mlive.com on friday (Mlive conglomerates most if not all major newspapers in the state of Michigan) 78% of the population DOES NOT WANT right to work laws in Michigan. Where is your narrow plurality?
The only poll I can find on MLive's site was from 2010, and has, in this case, a narrow majority: [link]
Do you have a public opinion poll possibly?
The polls I've found show a narrow plurality favoring RTW laws.
Well then I guess his post would be wrong then, in terms of public support. He may be right about what the governor said he'd do though... I don't know.
He's approximately correct, although he exaggerates.
Don't you know that forcing blue-collar workers to pay outrageous fees to third-party unions for the privilege of working for a company that the union doesn't care if it fails or not is really better for workers?
With this freedom, how can unions force people through fines and fees to quit working a job they are already happy with? You know...in the name of worker's rights.
With this freedom, how can unions force people through fines and fees to quit working a job they are already happy with? You know...in the name of worker's rights.
How is it when corporations abuse and exploit and treat their workers as faceless commodities existing only to make profit for the owners we're supposed to treat these owners as leaders and role models, but when a union isn't the epitome of integrity they're all immoral exploiters?
I don't recall anyone claiming people who are exploiting anyone should be role models.
A key difference in a union and a business owner, is that it is the property of the business owner. You should get to choose whether to work for that owner or not. You should not have to pay to a third party as a condition of working for what you consider is a good job with a good owner. Should you?
A key difference in a union and a business owner, is that it is the property of the business owner. You should get to choose whether to work for that owner or not. You should not have to pay to a third party as a condition of working for what you consider is a good job with a good owner. Should you?
One should not need a third party in order to work a good job, but welcome to capitalism: where luxuries such as 'living wages' and 'unlocked fire exits' are things the billionaires up top really can't afford to waste money on.
If these exploitative owners aren't role models, why are more businesses being run like Wal-Mart than Costco? Why would workers' wages stagnate while owner's wages skyrocket? Why would almost our entire industrial industry be moved into regions that look a hell of a lot like the US before unionization was legally protected?
If these exploitative owners aren't role models, why are more businesses being run like Wal-Mart than Costco? Why would workers' wages stagnate while owner's wages skyrocket? Why would almost our entire industrial industry be moved into regions that look a hell of a lot like the US before unionization was legally protected?
***
One should not need a third party in order to work a good job,
***
Nor do they.
***
where luxuries such as 'living wages' and 'unlocked fire exits' are things the billionaires up top really can't afford to waste money on.
***
Living wages depends on the lifestyle and value should determine wage.
***
If these exploitative owners aren't role models, why are more businesses being run like Wal-Mart than Costco?
***
Wal-marts are run like Wal-marts. Cheap goods sold with little skill to people who require no skilled service and cheap products. Wal-mart stores are clean and safe and offer a variety of chosen employment options. There is upward mobility even for someone with no education or even high school diploma. They are successful because they have plenty of willing workers, have a model to maximize costs to offer some of the cheapest prices to consumers.
***
Why would workers' wages stagnate while owner's wages skyrocket?
***
Because owners take the risk, determine policy, and are responsible for the health of the business. Truly exploitative employers cannot last in a competitive market. There is no responsibility to the business for a door greeter. If they fail, they are not jeopardizing the livelihood of thousands of people. I need not retain experienced door greeters to keep my business model running.
***
Why would almost our entire industrial industry be moved into regions that look a hell of a lot like the US before unionization was legally protected?
***
That sentence makes no sense nor does the opinion itself. Unionization is available, just not forced.
One should not need a third party in order to work a good job,
***
Nor do they.
***
where luxuries such as 'living wages' and 'unlocked fire exits' are things the billionaires up top really can't afford to waste money on.
***
Living wages depends on the lifestyle and value should determine wage.
***
If these exploitative owners aren't role models, why are more businesses being run like Wal-Mart than Costco?
***
Wal-marts are run like Wal-marts. Cheap goods sold with little skill to people who require no skilled service and cheap products. Wal-mart stores are clean and safe and offer a variety of chosen employment options. There is upward mobility even for someone with no education or even high school diploma. They are successful because they have plenty of willing workers, have a model to maximize costs to offer some of the cheapest prices to consumers.
***
Why would workers' wages stagnate while owner's wages skyrocket?
***
Because owners take the risk, determine policy, and are responsible for the health of the business. Truly exploitative employers cannot last in a competitive market. There is no responsibility to the business for a door greeter. If they fail, they are not jeopardizing the livelihood of thousands of people. I need not retain experienced door greeters to keep my business model running.
***
Why would almost our entire industrial industry be moved into regions that look a hell of a lot like the US before unionization was legally protected?
***
That sentence makes no sense nor does the opinion itself. Unionization is available, just not forced.
Living wages depends on the lifestyle and value should determine wage.
And fire safety is for valued employees only?
Wal-marts are run like Wal-marts.
Yes; low wages, short hours, and with the expectation that the gaps can be filled in by public assistance. People love to call these 'McJobs' because they think only teens and dropouts work them, but these are the people who usually have steady jobs themselves.
PS: The US has pretty poor upward mobility, and I can't imagine it will improve once the next generation is old enough to reap the effects of the recession. Certainly not when the only way to not live in poverty is to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a college degree and hope you land a job which earns you more than you owe in student loan debt.
Because owners take the risk, determine policy, and are responsible for the health of the business.
In other words, they're the lords of their fiefs, and can make whatever demands they please.
That sentence makes no sense nor does the opinion itself.
Then your reading comprehension and/or knowledge of US history is pretty poor.
And fire safety is for valued employees only?
Wal-marts are run like Wal-marts.
Yes; low wages, short hours, and with the expectation that the gaps can be filled in by public assistance. People love to call these 'McJobs' because they think only teens and dropouts work them, but these are the people who usually have steady jobs themselves.
PS: The US has pretty poor upward mobility, and I can't imagine it will improve once the next generation is old enough to reap the effects of the recession. Certainly not when the only way to not live in poverty is to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a college degree and hope you land a job which earns you more than you owe in student loan debt.
Because owners take the risk, determine policy, and are responsible for the health of the business.
In other words, they're the lords of their fiefs, and can make whatever demands they please.
That sentence makes no sense nor does the opinion itself.
Then your reading comprehension and/or knowledge of US history is pretty poor.
***
And fire safety is for valued employees only?
***
You have such random talking points. Fire exits should be determined by building code.
***
Yes; low wages, short hours, and with the expectation that the gaps can be filled in by public assistance.
***
Expectation for whom? Walmart should not have to pay a teen $75,000 a year to work a couple days a week and weekends running items over a scanner.
***
The US has pretty poor upward mobility
***
I disagree. The US is the easiest place for natural-born and immigrants to become wealthy.
***
In other words, they're the lords of their fiefs, and can make whatever demands they please.
***
No. Because owners take the risk, determine policy, and are responsible for the health of the business.
***
Then your reading comprehension and/or knowledge of US history is pretty poor.
***
Both have been adequate enough to maintain a great job with fantastic pay in this seemingly miserable slave-market you think the US is right now.
And fire safety is for valued employees only?
***
You have such random talking points. Fire exits should be determined by building code.
***
Yes; low wages, short hours, and with the expectation that the gaps can be filled in by public assistance.
***
Expectation for whom? Walmart should not have to pay a teen $75,000 a year to work a couple days a week and weekends running items over a scanner.
***
The US has pretty poor upward mobility
***
I disagree. The US is the easiest place for natural-born and immigrants to become wealthy.
***
In other words, they're the lords of their fiefs, and can make whatever demands they please.
***
No. Because owners take the risk, determine policy, and are responsible for the health of the business.
***
Then your reading comprehension and/or knowledge of US history is pretty poor.
***
Both have been adequate enough to maintain a great job with fantastic pay in this seemingly miserable slave-market you think the US is right now.
View all replies
Although I'm generally pro-union, I'm not quite sure if people should be required to join unions. I think that unions are still necessary, but I think that there are also some problems with them. Back in Rhode Island, the state is basically going bankrupt because they can't pay their pension obligations and the unions don't want to agree to scale back benefits. It's a little bit like the Hostess situation, but Hostess was horribly mismanaged in the first place and already likely would've been out of business within a year.