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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
*** 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? *** 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.
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.
Well, on the bad side, I suppose employers could pay crap and not give benefits and stuff and still be able to hire. (oh, wait, is that something new?)
I don't hate unions in theory. But sometimes they can be dicks. I was at a BIG art show some years ago where a union came in and insisted that the artists could not put up our own displays using 'tools' (read- anything). Almost everybody responded by totally re-working our display and booths so we could do it with zip ties and thumb tacks. Because we're not letting some random people do it for us- way to important. I lost a HUGE chunk of respect for unions right there.
#1) A lot of people are bringing up the hostess situation, It wasn't the unions fault that company went under. If the unions under hostess agreed to the terms that the heads of that company gave, it would of merely delayed the inevitable. That company was poorly managed, and was going under regardless.
#2) I agree 100% with the right to work law. If a person wants to work for a company, he should have the choice to join the union, pay dues and to strike or not.
I agree workers should have a voice, but being forced to give unions money to contribute to political candidates one may disagree with or having to forgo getting a paycheck just because the union heads decide to strike doesn't always come across as being done in the name of the workers.
One shouldn't have to quit his job just because he doesn't want to comply with what the union heads want.
A lot of Pro-Union people think that Unions are so great and get them better benefits and wages and all that. My dad has been a member of a union for the past 25+ years. He hasn't gotten a pay raise in years! He recently found out that workers at freakin' Sheets gas stations/convienence stores end up making more money than he does after a few months on the job.
Unions are crap. They force their members to pay dues and then let their administrators live it up while their workers have to beg them for scraps.
It took me nearly two years of 'temp' work and minimum wage pay -- which was below even the agency's standard for the work I did -- at my non-union job before I was hired on from scratch, probation and everything. But fuck unions, amirite?
Have you ever considered your dad's company doesn't consider him worthy enough to make beyond his current wages, perhaps because of a lack of valued skills, or maybe even his own failings? Instead of blaming the unions for not handing him life on a silver platter, maybe he should better his situation himself.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Whatever happened to not blaming others for your own actions? Isn't that the conservative rhetoric that's been floating around or something?
The company he works for has tried to out-source his department but can't find any companies that can do it for less money than what they pay their current employees. A lot of companies also refuse to take on all the responsibilities associated with servicing my dad's company. Half of his co-workers don't do squat. If the union wasn't protecting their asses, they would have been fired and my dad could have gotten a pay raise.
He looks for other work every few months, but at his age, most people don't want to hire him when they could get some young kid instead.
No, his position might not require much skill, but considering he works at place that houses severely mentally-disabled people, it does take a certain temperment to deal with the clients day in and day out.
All it does is make Michigan a "right to work" state, meaning that you can't be required to join a union in order to work at a certain place. I'm really not seeing problem with it. Union members can still get union benefits (like union lawyers and such), but union organized strikes won't be as widespread since everyone isn't required to join the union. Unions had their place...back in the early 20th century. They aren't doing a whole lot of good now days.
**And FWIW, the baker's union didn't crash Hostess, Hostess crashed themselves. Board members were idiots and drove the company into the ground, filed for bankruptcy, gave themselves raises, then ran the company into the ground again. Unions only made the death of Hostess quick and slightly less painful.
What kind of retarded, convoluted logic is that? Making a state a right to work state isn't banning unions, by any means. There are laws in place and government agencies to enforce them. Unions aren't doing much good, they're outdated.
Isn't that your logic? When someone implements a program or law, should we remove it once it achieves its effect? Unions exist to give workers a fighting chance to have their demands heard and their rights protected; why should we remove them (and don't pretend "Right to Work" status isn't just the first step in removing unionization -- a lot of people are demanding just that) because workers are able to have their rights defended? It's not like businesses will do a 180 and decide to treat their workers with respect and dignity only when they're no longer pressured to do so.
Unions are alot like the NRA; they demand money saying that they'll offer protection of your rights. In reality, they care more about padding their own pockets.
I live in a right to work state. I'm not affiliated with any union. I have a full time job, am offered healthcare, get time and a half when i work over 40 hours a week, get payed holidays, payed vacation, and payed sick days. This is an entry-level job. I'm really not seeing a problem with a state being a right to work state.
So because you have yours, who gives a fuck what others (don't) have? I live in a Right to Work state too, and I don't get paid sick days, nor did I get medical insurance or paid holidays until about two years with the company. I still don't have vacation time. And I was told my position wasn't normally offered to people who weren't already with the company, so hardly 'entry level.' Starting to see the problem?
"... 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 does the union function without an income? Union dues pay for the union administration, the lawyers that represent union members, and the staff that takes care of union members.
Yeah, I always have to laugh when the answer to companies exploiting workers is "Well, if they don't like it, they can just find another place to work!" It's like, if there were really all these tons of places paying fair wages and benefits available, everyone would be working there already and the shitty jobs would be empty.
What's funny is that these are also the people who bitch at people "abusing" unemployment by "not just taking the first available job as opposed to sitting around waiting for a good one", or telling folks like me that we should be willing to take any shitty job beneath our skill level or that pays shit, or we're "leeches".
Well, which is it, folks? We can easily choose whatever job we want to ensure we aren't exploited into being forced into shit jobs, or we should settle for being forced into shit jobs when nothing else is available, so we're not leeching?
Man, I wish my area was swimming in enough awesome jobs that I could do that. As opposed to the reality of then not being able to find work, or every other available job being just as shitty as the one I left. Oh, and I also have no money coming in because quitting disqualifies you from unemployment, making my position especially precarious.