Anyone else here tickled fifty shades of grey today knowing that Michigan just formally flipped off its pro-union citizenry today?

Seems even though our nation on the whole is content to head the wrong direction, the states are starting to wake up

Won't hold through the elections.

Eh maybe, maybe not, we shall see. The same was said of Scott Walker, but he proved them wrong.

stebo0728 wrote:Eh maybe, maybe not, we shall see. The same was said of Scott Walker, but he proved them wrong.

Well not of some of the state reps. I believe they lost 2 seats in the recall.

Heard from some of my fam up north, people didn't vote Walker out because he didn't do anything wrong. But will have to see . . .

So you think Michigan has done something wrong, or nefarious?

Legally, no.

link to story please.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... explained/

Sorry, forgot your google finger was broken

No, you forgot i am a job creator. I just gave you two minutes of employment.

bigbadberry3 wrote:Won't hold through the elections.

+1

Telcoman

Really?

That means employers in Michigan will no longer be able to require workers to belong to a union in order to keep their jobs.

You lefties would support requiring people join a union and pay dues in order to keep their jobs? Really?

What happened to the liberal mindset of less rules, personal freedoms, and the attitude of "don't tell me what to do"?

Howie, you don't even know what "right-to-work" means, you just know that the nuts you swing from oppose it.

Right-to-work laws don’t affect the rights of employees to form unions or engage in collective bargaining. The only difference is employees can choose not to join the union and pay dues.

Pathetically hypocritical. No surprise to those of us who don't need a Daddy to think for us.

AZhitman wrote:Really?

That means employers in Michigan will no longer be able to require workers to belong to a union in order to keep their jobs.

You lefties would support requiring people join a union and pay dues in order to keep their jobs? Really?

What happened to the liberal mindset of less rules, personal freedoms, and the attitude of "don't tell me what to do"?

Howie, you don't even know what "right-to-work" means, you just know that the nuts you swing from oppose it.

Right-to-work laws don’t affect the rights of employees to form unions or engage in collective bargaining. The only difference is employees can choose not to join the union and pay dues.

Pathetically hypocritical. No surprise to those of us who don't need a Daddy to think for us.

Not much to argue with here.

Will wait and see how well the non union members do in negotiation after a couple of years. I am anticipating a large bump for non union employees to try and entice some union members out but after that period, I expect to see a general decline in non union pay wages.

Unlikely. Detroit will attract new business. They're gonna need workers. Those workers have a choice. They can bolt. How do you keep the good ones in-house? Pay them more (or compensate them with better benefits, more time off, tuition reimbursement, a corner office, etc).

AZhitman wrote:Really?

That means employers in Michigan will no longer be able to require workers to belong to a union in order to keep their jobs.

You lefties would support requiring people join a union and pay dues in order to keep their jobs? Really?

What happened to the liberal mindset of less rules, personal freedoms, and the attitude of "don't tell me what to do"?

Howie, you don't even know what "right-to-work" means, you just know that the nuts you swing from oppose it.

Right-to-work laws don’t affect the rights of employees to form unions or engage in collective bargaining. The only difference is employees can choose not to join the union and pay dues.

Pathetically hypocritical. No surprise to those of us who don't need a Daddy to think for us.

So now you are in favor of "free stuff"

Employees, where a union is certified as the bargaining agent by a majority of employees should receive the benefits a union negotiates with their employer without paying the cost of running the union?

Surprised at you Greg


Where have I heard the term "free stuff" before?

Telcoman

I thought this was an interesting correlation. However, there is no causation.



Oh, because Eleanor is BA...

telcoman wrote: Surprised at you Greg

No more surprised that you and your ilk scream:

It's none of your business what I do in my bedroom
You can't force your religious beliefs on me
I should be free to ingest what I want
You shouldn't mandate who I can marry
Stay out of my womb
Quit limiting my choices

...but support being required to pay dues to keep a job. Hypocrisy much?

Why are you so opposed to freedom? Why don't you think workers are capable of making up their own mind? Why do you insult people by thinking the union is the only voice they have?

AZhitman wrote:

telcoman wrote: Surprised at you Greg

No more surprised that you and your ilk scream:

It's none of your business what I do in my bedroom
You can't force your religious beliefs on me
I should be free to ingest what I want
You shouldn't mandate who I can marry
Stay out of my womb
Quit limiting my choices

...but support being required to pay dues to keep a job. Hypocrisy much?

Why are you so opposed to freedom? Why don't you think workers are capable of making up their own mind? Why do you insult people by thinking the union is the only voice they have?

He's used to others creating a demand for his services FOR HIM. He's not accustomed to creating it for himself. He may even be one of those jobs that unions have to create by demanding that one man can only carry a report 50 feet down the hall, and another employee must take it the next 50 feet.

Yep. Gotta have that nipple.

That teat will never turn into a fire hose, no matter how hard they suck. I won't sell my liberty to some goon who thinks he knows what's best for me.

Looks like the Union is gonna have to quit spending all that money on political activity and use it for collective bargaining. Tighten those belts, dummies!

Here, Howie - Educate yourself:

"Right to work" is the term for laws that make it illegal to require that employees join a union or pay the equivalent of union dues to get, or keep, a job. Under such laws, employees can still form unions, engage in collective bargaining and go on strike.

AZhitman wrote:
"Right to work" is the term for laws that make it illegal to require that employees join a union or pay the equivalent of union dues to get, or keep, a job. Under such laws, employees can still form unions, engage in collective bargaining and go on strike.

How is it, with all of the RTW discussions online on TV and on radio, that there are people that want to discuss RTW without even understanding it's fundamental idea?

No clue. They're all posting from their Obamaphones.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQzF0MQIR8k&showinfo=0[/youtube]

Best response to all of this...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjGkACy57tE&showinfo=0[/youtube]

...back to your regularly scheduled topic.

But before I go, how many libs including the well educated subject of the first vid know that the Lifeline phone subsidy program was actually started by that dirty GOP'er Ronny Reagan and the cellphones came about during Dubya's time in office? Not many I imagine.

I said when the Obamaphone thing first came up, that good 'ol W was the instigator LOL - Good on ya mate!

So, basically, that lady should love Bush.

themadscientist wrote:So, basically, that lady should love Bush.

Maybe she does...she does look a little, umm - butchy.

Well, we certainly agree that Romney sucked.

Here's what's so great about this turn of events.... Remember the hardcore lefties prancing about after BO's re-election, blabbering on about "the will of the majority"?

Yeah. That just happened. Put down your sign and get back to work.

Marenta wrote:I thought this was an interesting correlation. However, there is no causation.
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-p ... 1075_n.jpg

Yeah, it's interesting....but it's also horribly misleading, imo.

I can understand at least some of the opposition for the sudden onset of Right To Work status in a formerly Unionized state. I can understand the feelings that someone else can benefit from negotiations without paying for a portion of the negotiation. There's really nothing you can do about someone taking advantage of previous actions. You can, at least I feel, reasonably deny union representation to anyone who does not pay dues to support union activity. That doesn't do anything to address a non-union person getting the same salary or benefits that the unionized employees get, without having paid for the negotiations that landed the salary and benefits. But honestly, even new union employees didn't pay for that either. They will be paying forward, and I suppose that helps. One thing you could do, is modify restrictions such that non union members have to negotiate their own salary and benefits. What I mean is, any union negotiated rates or benefit requirements go out the window for non-union workers, and they are on their own to negotiate their compensation package. You could do that, but I don't think you would be helping yourself in doing so, because if these non-union employees are willing to work at a cut rate, then that is where the company is going to go, thus you've still harmed yourself, indirectly.

I wonder, legally, could a company set themselves up as "union only" even if the state is Right to Work? As in, could the unions negotiate with the employer such that they force the employer to NOT hire anyone who refuses to join the union? An employer could of course refuse to make such negotiations, or could in fact decide to only hire "right to work" employees. I would not be opposed, at least not as of yet, to unions having this ability in negotiations, such that the employer agrees to the measure. In my mind, Right To Work only extends the right to a company to hire non union labor, should it chose to do so. I think it would be wise for a company to chose either or on this, rather than trying to juggle 2 different types of employees.

Leaving this one here for Howie to chew on:

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
-Thomas Jefferson

I thought you libbies were pro-choice? Hmmm....

Gonna be hard to re-elect all those Progressives without that fat chunk of Union cash.

stebo0728 wrote: There's really nothing you can do about someone taking advantage of previous actions.

How is this a bad thing?

Historically I believe this was one of the key concepts of our founding fathers, to leave things better for the future generations. Why do we always insist on mucking that up?