It's important to remember that right to work states don't outlaw unions. It just means I don't have to join the union to work at a "union shop"
Also as I read in an article that many union companies work in right to work. Southwest Airlines operates in Texas with over 95% union membership in Texas a right to work state.
It does mean that non-union workers get to enjoy the benefits of their union colleagues without having to pay for it and get to pocket the dues that would have gone to pay for the representation that they will get for free. But we all know that there is a free lunch...
Originally Posted by behindmydesk
It also means that the government will invalidate contracts that are agreed to by private parties, which is the enforcement mechanism of right-to-work.
On a side note, do those who don't favor "forced" unionization, do you also oppose the state government forcing doctors to get licenses to practice medicine?
Is this a serious question? Are You really going to compare a union job to the practice of medicine? I am in favor of right to work legislation and have no problems with licensing required for any professional occupation. Whether you belong to a union or not means nothing with regards to whether your qualified to do a specific occupation. Your comparing apples and oranges here.
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
Not all unions, but the professions certainly share many similar traits. I would wager than a good number of union jobs require some very specific training that the unions are expected to pay the cost for like maneuvering heavy equipment.
Originally Posted by hoosiercubsfan
electricians,plumbers ,masoners and others make about half in right to work states then in unionized states.
@ BMD, I just struggle to understand the obstinent nature of embracing ideas which are harmful to people who hold them.
I sincerely dont understand.
there is nothing, NOTHING truthful in what the right media, and politicians tell people that subscribe to their philosophy...Its like a bad comedy with a guy in a top hat and a handlebar mustache telling you its ok to drink the cup hes handing you as its smoking and bubbling over with green caustic bubbles...How people dont see it amaxes me.
Just yesterday Rachel Maddow researched that guy on Fox, that was telling people everyday that it was going to be Romney in a landslide.
He said it everyday..."Romney in a landslide. Romney and its not even close"Dick Morris is his name.Turns out, if you donated to his superpac, they used that money to purchase access to an email -list that he himself had generated through his personal website.....HE WAS PAYING HIMSELF WITH YOUR DONATIONS, LEGALLY.
GINGRICH DID THE SAME THING.
they get you all worked up about americas going down the toilet and all this other stuff and you send them money to support your ideals and they put it in their pockets.
Watch the video, its not propoganda, its straight forward facts....Republican Politicians are about as authentic as WWE wrestlers, and you nvote for them anyways? I just dont get it....
First off, I want to applaud this site's decorum when there is a difference of opinions, beliefs, etc. You folks research, understand, and for the most part respect one another, therefore, I keep reading. The other sites comments tend to be very "doomsday" from one side and "gleeful" from another. The debate is very emotional, and as a person who resides in said state, that was already divided and struggling economically, to say the least--this unlocked a hornets nest---but it should pass. I as an independent fiscal conservative and social liberal who works for the gubmint am torn.
When I first was hired in (years ago), I wanted to opt out of the union. They said I would still have to pay but receive no protection, therefore, I chose to "be in". That said, I work for politicians, and when it all comes down to it and they seem to be less interested in their workforce as lining their own pockets or making sure their favored contintuents (both sides) are happy.
I believe in checks and balances, as a political independent. For me, what I find disconcerting, is that the bill is referendum proof, even after meetings with my boss by the opposition....so it can never come to a vote by the people of this state Also, the politicians chose to work on this in a lame duck 3 week or so session. My gut feels like its all just a political game.
Even my dad, who doesn't like unions, generally prefers them around, at least, to be the "bad cop" to , in his thought, raise up wage competition in the private sector.
They will still exist in some shape or form but, Libbies have to worry about where their money is coming from in election cycles. Pubbies, propably have the upper hand for financing in the next decade or so, we'll see.
So what do we do here?
How do we allow for people who want to work, but not with a union? I do not think people should be compelled to join a union if they do not want to.
How can the balance be struck and still be fair for all involved?
My initial thought is to modify right to work, where union membership cannot be compelled, and unions and other employees negotiate their compensations seperately with the company. However, I also beleive there should be contingencies for limiting the terms of union negotiations to allow companies to remain competitive, without violating emplyment and safety laws.
Having never negotiated one of these compensation agreements, I admit that I have literally no idea how any of that would work, or even if it could.
With the same tough love answers that conservatives usually like to dish out: find a job somewhere else.
Originally Posted by Patsfan56
It's no different than any other aspect to a job (location, benefits plans, etc.). If you REALLY don't like it, don't work there.
Why can't I just say that to the union? That doesn't seem to approach the issue in a way that favors anyone but the union leader and his savings account.
Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men
Dude. You've been embarrassed by about 3 or 4 different posters on 3 or 4 different occasions, and you STILL won't drop this condescending attitude.
Originally Posted by stephkyle7
I want to make sure I have this right. BMD correct me where I'm wrong. All Michigan wants to do is allow people to not be forced to join a union if they don't want to?
Originally Posted by C-ross12
Correct....however there can be a political agenda, as well. I hope that money spent to "choose" an elected official is only about the Bens. That is a unions plan to put folks in power, just like others, to govern/administrate over the proletariate. I firmly believe in checks and balances, that may not evident to the general populous.
It favors worker's rights, protection and integrity of jobs. It favors movement towards a better quality of life for people. There are far more non-union jobs than union jobs, so telling unions to go somewhere else, while they're already accepted where they are isn't fair to the people those unions rep.
Originally Posted by Patsfan56
Right now they want to not force union dues, so that people already happy to pay them will stop since they don't make a lot and would likely prefer to not pay which means union reps get no money which means the unions dissolve and go away.....forever.
Not to say they aren't corrupt themselves in some areas, but to far far far lessor degrees than the companies who routinely take advantage of workers lives.
This isn't about protecting people who don't want to pay dues, this is entirely about union busting.....as if they haven't done it enough by now.
If being acurate is an embarassment then Ive been embarrased every time Ive posted here, so you need once again to be corrected?
Originally Posted by gcoll
ok my friend..here is a comprehensive study, by the Director Of Busissness research @ Hofstra University, You should like him hes actually holds a PHD in economic theory and statistics.
Oh and he actually wrote his disertation on another subjest we discussed and you were wrong THEN TOO :)
Urban Property crime and the distribution of Income
You might enjoy reading it.
so for those that dont want to read through twenty pages of a REAL economists writings, he indicates exactly what I said earlier,
wages go down, there is no income growth, there is no job growth, and the lost income is turned into profits for the owners class...its a scam....
How you Rs are so easily misled is so sad.
Oh and inregards to his published work(whats the title of your efforts?)
Like Ive attemted to get you to acknowledge before, wealth concentration through strict free market principals leads to higher crime rates, higher suicide rates, higher mental health issue rates, and higher drug adiction rates....thats a wonderful vision for america......
here is another condensed form of Stevans writings, and additionally Id like HCF,BMD,lonestar,longhorn,and any other staunchly RT. supporting poster to please read this carfully.
If you are a social conservative, I may not agree, but its YOUR right.
If you are a Racist or Bigot, guess what? Its ok...really, you are entitled to feel any way you want, I may not agree, but Who the hell am I?...nobody.
against abortions? Ok,against Homosexuality? knock yourself out...these are all issues of opinion.
If you are a Fiscal conservative...guess what..WE ALL ARE.
The idea that Ds, or Libbies, or progressives just want to give peoples money away is the GREAT LIE.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but NOT your own facts.