Michigan: "Right to Work" Pending Law

[behindmydesk]

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...

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?

Ok but that is free choice. And most union members that I talked to in Indiana said they will gladly pay there dues. Almost all teachers still pay there dues at the local school my sister and sister in law teach at. Now my sister and sister in law do not because they decided to not join the union even before right to work. I sat with them and actually said are you sure you want to do this. If you get accused of doing something wrong you will not have the union lawyers to help you out. Same with people who decline to join the union at any company. Also while you say it's a free lunch there are many things everyone takes advantage of that they didn't fight for. Also there is free lunches for everyone in the lower tax bracket as well. You are very correct saying there is free lunches


Also def not against licenses it has nothing to do with unions. You have to be licensed to cut hair and I know most aren't unionized.

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.

Correct, it works both ways, the democrats encourage unions as they can garner a lot of votes very easily and get a lot and I mean a lot of donations from unions. Republicans as a part dont' want unions to help get votes (but I honestly believe on both sides especially my side the republican side that it's ancillary part and minute)

[Patsfan56]

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.

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.

But I could argue it actually strips a workers rights, especialy when it comes to making the decision on whether they want to join a union for them. What if the union isn't good at protecting a worker's rights? What if they are just interested in pocketing dues and doing a half assed job at "protecting" their constituency?I just can't bring myself that coercing union membership is something we should be supporting, whether or not the intended effect is benevolent

I liike people having choices. I like self determination. Threre has to be a better way than forcing people to join an organization that may or may not just take their money and use it at their own discretion.

Its also a really convenient way for democratic popliticians to generate income to their coffers whether or not voters approve of them.

EDIT: I meant to say compel, not coerce. I need sleep.

[gcoll]

If being acurate is an embarassment then Ive been embarrased every time Ive posted here, so you need once again to be corrected?

I didn't make any claim about the economic impact of right to work laws. So, why would I need to be corrected?

But, since you brought the topic up, wages decreasing is not necessarily inefficient.

See, you're assuming that wages going up is a good thing. But that also might mean less jobs. That's actually what unions do. They try to keep people out of the market.

So, unions might increase wages. . . for the few people who are lucky enough to be in the market. They're a cartel. Cartels can increase prices. They just restrict the supply. The way unions restrict supply is through intimidation and coercion of other workers. Like I said, I'm part of the group that was kept out of the market through intimidation. So, you look at unions as these people who fight corporate overlords for fairness. I look at unions as the group that beats immigrants and slashes tires in order to keep other workers out of the market.

So, the issue with right to work and unions in general might be a choice between: 1) higher wages but less jobs; or 2) lower wages but more jobs.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/michi...o-works-impact

[stephkyle7]

Defenders of right-to-work laws argue that they improve a state’s economy by creating more jobs. But an exhaustive study by economist Lonnie K. Stevans of Hofstra University found that states that have enacted such laws reported no increase in business start-ups or rates of employment. Wages and personal income are lower in those states than in those without such laws, Stevans concluded, though proprietors’ incomes are higher. In short, right-to-work laws simply redistribute income from workers to owners.

Why, then, are such laws being enacted? The gap between U.S. capital income and labor income hasn’t been this great since before the New Deal; why widen it still more? The answer, in Lansing no less than in Beijing, is political. The Republicans who took control of the Michigan statehouse in 2010 understand that Democrats’ foot soldiers come disproportionately from labor. GOP efforts to reduce labor’s clout help Republicans politically far more than they help any Michigan-based businesses or local governments. (The legislation, which Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed into law Tuesday evening, establishes right-to-work requirements for the public sector, too.)

Those who doubt that the intent of Michigan’s laws is more political than economic should consider the two kinds of unions exempted from its reach: police and firefighter unions. Their contracts are among the costliest that local governments confront: Police and firefighters generally (and rightly) retire earlier than do other public employees, with relatively generous pension benefits. But in Michigan, police and firefighter unions often endorse Republicans. Shrinking their treasuries and political power by subjecting them to right-to-work strictures would only damage Republicans’ electoral prospects (and may well play poorly to voters).

With Snyder’s signature, Michigan becomes the second state in the once-heavily unionized, industrial Midwest to adopt such a statute; hitherto, such laws had largely been confined to states in the South, the Plains and the Mountain West. The United Auto Workers (UAW) was once the colossus of Michigan politics, but the union’s membership has shrunk to 381,000 — roughly one-quarter of its size 35 years ago — a casualty of globalization and the legal and cultural obstacles the UAW has encountered to organizing new members.

Michigan Republicans have seen a chance to weaken the UAW and labor’s power at election time. Doing so further diminishes the number of workers who can bargain for a raise. It’s nice that conservatives are finally acknowledging that workers’ incomes are stagnating. But workers don’t get raises if they can’t bargain collectively, and all the hand-wringing about our rising rates of inequality will be so much empty rhetoric unless we insist — in Lansing and Beijing — on workers’ right to form powerful unions.

meyersonh@washpost.com

[stephkyle7]

this is historical, documented fact.
Unions increase the standards of living,
when unopposed, management runs out of operational or technological ways of increasing quality and efficiency at a rate that continues to support 3-5% growth rates.

What is left?
payroll, Benefits, workers.
That is the only hidey hole left for them to take from to increase profits.
Those that say That is simply the way of the free market fail to accept the documented societal impact of this behaviour, it is not an opinion,it is historical documented fact as well.
Concentration of wealth causes more health problems, more crime, more drug abuse, more mental Illness....tell me...who PAYS FOR ALL OF THAT?

WE DO. you champion for greater freedoms for Buisness and less government, and less unions, and the result is the people whos bidding you are doing re write the laws so as to reward themselves and pass the costs of feeding, and caring for, and supporting, and healing the problems they are causing by their averice BACK ON TO YOU, THE TAX PAYER!!!,Then they blame the same people who they have victimized by their behaviour ,for the problems they face trying to get by on half a salary...

[behindmydesk]

I didn't make any claim about the economic impact of right to work laws. So, why would I need to be corrected?

But, since you brought the topic up, wages decreasing is not necessarily inefficient.

See, you're assuming that wages going up is a good thing. But that also might mean less jobs. That's actually what unions do. They try to keep people out of the market.

So, unions might increase wages. . . for the few people who are lucky enough to be in the market. They're a cartel. Cartels can increase prices. They just restrict the supply. The way unions restrict supply is through intimidation and coercion of other workers. Like I said, I'm part of the group that was kept out of the market through intimidation. So, you look at unions as these people who fight corporate overlords for fairness. I look at unions as the group that beats immigrants and slashes tires in order to keep other workers out of the market.

So, the issue with right to work and unions in general might be a choice between: 1) higher wages but less jobs; or 2) lower wages but more jobs.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/michi...o-works-impact

To add further to a wonderful summery, don't forget about the higher prices that are a result of the product made by union hands. Now if a company captures every dollar they save by non unions as profit the outcome will be the product is the same price at market. But that will almost never happen due to competition. If there is an excess profit and we allow competition the excess profit will evaporate. Think about a bidding process for a road. Now the government requires that we have X amount of contracts go to unions. But if we didn't have that, we would increase the competition for said contract. More bidders will drive the price down, and thus the net gain is the public's.
Or look at the automotive. The unions were fine until shipping of cars became cheaper and the ability for foreign companies to set up shop here and build cars brought the market place down. Wonderful net outcome, we can get a wide variety of cars at a cheaper price. Competition is a wonderful thing, and it's something unions do there best to restrict.

[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.

I don't see the problem then. Adding more choices is always the best course of action. I know a lot of workers who don't support unions due to various reasons. Someone shouldn't be made to join on if one wishes not too. Sounds like more political banter to me really.

[stephkyle7]

To add further to a wonderful summery, don't forget about the higher prices that are a result of the product made by union hands. Now if a company captures every dollar they save by non unions as profit the outcome will be the product is the same price at market. But that will almost never happen due to competition. If there is an excess profit and we allow competition the excess profit will evaporate. Think about a bidding process for a road. Now the government requires that we have X amount of contracts go to unions. But if we didn't have that, we would increase the competition for said contract. More bidders will drive the price down, and thus the net gain is the public's.
Or look at the automotive. The unions were fine until shipping of cars became cheaper and the ability for foreign companies to set up shop here and build cars brought the market place down. Wonderful net outcome, we can get a wide variety of cars at a cheaper price. Competition is a wonderful thing, and it's something unions do there best to restrict.

hmmm, so a PHD in economics and statistics that heads a entire department at a Nationally recognized university does a indepth exhaustive study of the effects of the law, but some local TV channel sites one think tank that by their own admission hasnt studied the matter with much depth ,and they are right....Then you wonder why I LOL.

[behindmydesk]

hmmm, so a PHD in economics and statistics that heads a entire department at a Nationally recognized university does a indepth exhaustive study of the effects of the law, but some local TV channel sites one think tank that by their own admission hasnt studied the matter with much depth ,and they are right....Then you wonder why I LOL.

You keep saying the same thing Local Fox news.

You know how many times I've watched Fox news in the past year? Once on election night mixed with CNBC and MSNBC and then local CBS for local coverage. But you know lol you know what I watch StephNielsonratingsKyle.

[stephkyle7]

I didn't make any claim about the economic impact of right to work laws. So, why would I need to be corrected?

But, since you brought the topic up, wages decreasing is not necessarily inefficient.

See, you're assuming that wages going up is a good thing. But that also might mean less jobs. That's actually what unions do. They try to keep people out of the market.

So, unions might increase wages. . . for the few people who are lucky enough to be in the market. They're a cartel. Cartels can increase prices. They just restrict the supply. The way unions restrict supply is through intimidation and coercion of other workers. Like I said, I'm part of the group that was kept out of the market through intimidation. So, you look at unions as these people who fight corporate overlords for fairness. I look at unions as the group that beats immigrants and slashes tires in order to keep other workers out of the market.

So, the issue with right to work and unions in general might be a choice between: 1) higher wages but less jobs; or 2) lower wages but more jobs.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/michi...o-works-impact

wrong.again.
the only thing that effects production is demand.
as long as a buisness model has proven sustainable,they only thing that affects hiring is demand.
what is being paid in taxes, what is being spent on rent, or advertising or anything else is absorbed by demand as long as it exists.

flooding the market with cheaper goods, forces buisnesses to adapt their Model to reflect the cost structures of their competition, when that competition can lower costs by paying workers 10 cents and hour and dumping untreated raw sewage like is done in the 3rd world, the only way to compete is to lower wages and regulations to the same non-standard.
Now you have more options, cheaper products, but you can afford LESS, then before becasue the cost savings came from your pocket, for someone who claims indepth knowledge of economics I find your lack of understanding alarming.
Once again you are locked into a text book interpretation that doesnt stand up to the scutiny of REALITY.
this dynamic effects macro growth through increased GDP, but it rots the core of the economy by the exact dynamic which caused the great depression, and almost every single governmental collapse in the history of Mankind, yet you refuse to see it
.http://www.google.com/url?q=http://e...WPJIHwWR79SFnQ

This is a paper from the dept of Economics @ UC Berkley that explains clearly the cyclical nature of wealth concentrations..
and here is an article from the NY times siting Harvard Scool of economics professors as well as SIR Michael Mormount whos works have been published in the American medical Association siting how wealth concentrations, force people into emergency rooms, which the tax payer absorbs, or into poor eating habits , which we also pay for with additional stress on our provider systems, more crime, whiich we pay for through court and law enforcement costs, and encarceration costs, More drug addiction which we pay for through lost production and all the above...WE PAY FOR IT ALL, so the Buisness doesnt have to

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...FXBBg6Mq5pOIBw

I appreciate the effort you have put into education, but your world view needs to be expanded to achivee a greater underatnding of how these dynamics effect each other, economic theory doesnt exist in a book, it must prove true in a practical application, and time and time again, the policies you espouse have led to ruin.

Once again I encourage you to read.

@ BMD, I said that one time BMD. Once....My problem with Fox is with their national news and entertainers, who I just provided you a few posts ago in a documented factual finding that they lie to the viewers like snake oil salesmen and pocket your donaltions, Newt, Huckabee,Beck,Limbaugh,Hannity,they all make up the craziest sh.. and sell it to hateful angry people and then solicit donations to "help the cause" and get rich while they do absolutely nothing for you...How often you watch Fox is irrelevant, if you are seeking out a RT leaning source they are funded by and through the same circus, smoke and mirror,pyramid scheming SOBs.
I love conservative philosophy, THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS OUT THERE.
Conservatives would decriminalize Drugs, they are JUST now figuring that out.
Conservatives would understand the cost/benefit analysis of paying welfare or imprisoning non violent criminals.
Take away their "free stuFF' and what do they do?
THEY STEAL.
Then what?
Well we pay a police department more money for more police, and we pay the courts for more clercks and lawyers and judges and court houses, and the we pay to build more prisons, and then we pay to feed them three meals a day, and clothe them, and provide medical and health services, and by the time we are all done it has cost us an initial investment of over 100k per inmatre and an anual cost of 50k to maintain them in prison.
But that seems to make more sense to "conservatives" then giving them 500 dollars a month....I dont get it....

[gcoll]

Now you have more options, cheaper products, but you can afford LESS, then before becasue the cost savings came from your pocket, for someone who claims indepth knowledge of economics I find your lack of understanding alarming.

I don't claim an in depth knowledge. I claim knowledge of a few basic concepts.

the only thing that effects production is demand.

Demand is impacted by price. And price is impacted by costs of production.

Once again you are locked into a text book interpretation that doesnt stand up to the scutiny of REALITY.

The reality is that our standard of living continues to increase.

The reality is that we continue to be able to afford more and better goods at cheaper prices.

[GGGGG-Men]

But I could argue it actually strips a workers rights, especialy when it comes to making the decision on whether they want to join a union for them. What if the union isn't good at protecting a worker's rights? What if they are just interested in pocketing dues and doing a half assed job at "protecting" their constituency?I just can't bring myself that coercing union membership is something we should be supporting, whether or not the intended effect is benevolent

I liike people having choices. I like self determination. Threre has to be a better way than forcing people to join an organization that may or may not just take their money and use it at their own discretion.

Its also a really convenient way for democratic popliticians to generate income to their coffers whether or not voters approve of them.

EDIT: I meant to say compel, not coerce. I need sleep.

The same corrupt actions apply tenfold to companies, but sometimes workers have to take that for the sake of working. Unions, like any business, want to profit, but they still work for the good of the employees. Do they want to avoid unions and get screwed over by the company or get high fees from unions but have a better quality of life.

Simple thing is, you can't have the option of paying dues or not, b/c ultimately (especially in these times) people choose not which puts the unions out of business and then you once again swing the pendulum back in overwhelming favor of profit over people.

[stephkyle7]

I don't claim an in depth knowledge. I claim knowledge of a few basic concepts.


Demand is impacted by price. And price is impacted by costs of production.

The reality is that our standard of living continues to increase.

The reality is that we continue to be able to afford more and better goods at cheaper prices.

production costs are relatively fixed. The cost of Raw steel on the market is the same for anyone who intends to use it , as is petroleum, as is most every commodity, the fluctations in pricing do not dramatically effect the business model.
Gas doesnt shoot up a dollar or two and back over night.
the only significant controllable expense that a buisness can manipulate is payroll and benefits.
I run a business. I know I have to achieve a 35% margin after all costs are accounted for, to continue my profit and growth.
If I trend below 35% margin, I cant negotiate new prices for my goods, I cant lower my rent, If I want to be competitive I cant just play with prices, so all I can do is lower benefits and payroll to maintain that 35%.
Now becasue it is a small operation, and I only have a few employees ,it is easy to absorb the lower margins I see from time to time without hurting my employees, but I do so at my discretion.
The same holds true with Huge companies as well.
addition doesnt change becasue you add 10 zeros, it always the same.
the difference between what I do ,and what you seem to be supporting buisnesses be able to do is pass all the "pain" from poor sales, or fluctations on to the workers.
what that does in fact is force them into the public safety nets for things they can no longer afford.
Once again who is paying for that? YOU and I.
why is that so difficult a concept to embrace?
Your insistence in quality of life increasing is also a matter of perspective.
You look at GDP and PER capita, I look at real income and wealth.
Why? becasue income determines what you can afford, you seem to feel that having disposable utensils means we are living better.

It takes Two incomes to support what one used to, again why do you struggle with that undestanding.

and once again, you refuse to acknowledge any information provided you like a child plugging their ears and saying Laa,laa, laa, I dont hear you.
why do you refuse over and over to address the studies and reports Ive provided you for months?

lastly, two thing would be needed for your economic model to work,one an absence of corruption, which we have about 2000 years of history proving that ,that will never happen, people lie, people cheat, people commit frauds, commit larceny , commit insider trading, rig prices, gouge, and a whole list of other things which throw your model out of whack, insisting that somehow we can correct all of that when we havent been able to for...ever, is manical.

second, as ive pointed out to you, at least 10 times, and youve yet to address it with any coherent dispute,
If you are selling a item and you are being undersold,and all things being equal, raw material costs, shipping costs, overhead, inventory carrying, apr on the loans youve taken, then how are they underselling You?

Is it the shoemakers elves coming in over night and spinning gold for you?

No, it is through payroll costs.
so when China, or India are paying .50 cents an hour, to be competeitive only two thing can happen, our wages go down, or theirs go up...thats it.
and that is what we are on the way to so explain to me why it is good for america for all the pain to fall on the workers while the owners lie cheat and steal their way to prosperity?

Wealth disparity has grown geometrically, and through out this recession profits have grown and the 1% have increased their holdings...

[stephkyle7]

we have acces to CHEAPER products, not neccessarily better.
some things improve through evolution, others do not.I have an electric Iron my grandmother use to own from 1896 that is still working,and working better then any other ive ever owned..Ive been through at least 10, with steam or sprays or auto timers on and on, they all suck compared to this huge chunk of iron that once its hot lays down a perfect press in one pass.

[behindmydesk]

production costs are relatively fixed. The cost of Raw steel on the market is the same for anyone who intends to use it , as is petroleum, as is most every commodity, the fluctations in pricing do not dramatically effect the business model.
Gas doesnt shoot up a dollar or two and back over night.
the only significant controllable expense that a buisness can manipulate is payroll and benefits.
I run a business. I know I have to achieve a 35% margin after all costs are accounted for, to continue my profit and growth.
If I trend below 35% margin, I cant negotiate new prices for my goods, I cant lower my rent, If I want to be competitive I cant just play with prices, so all I can do is lower benefits and payroll to maintain that 35%.
Now becasue it is a small operation, and I only have a few employees ,it is easy to absorb the lower margins I see from time to time without hurting my employees, but I do so at my discretion.
The same holds true with Huge companies as well.
addition doesnt change becasue you add 10 zeros, it always the same.
the difference between what I do ,and what you seem to be supporting buisnesses be able to do is pass all the "pain" from poor sales, or fluctations on to the workers.
what that does in fact is force them into the public safety nets for things they can no longer afford.
Once again who is paying for that? YOU and I.
why is that so difficult a concept to embrace?
Your insistence in quality of life increasing is also a matter of perspective.
You look at GDP and PER capita, I look at real income and wealth.
Why? becasue income determines what you can afford, you seem to feel that having disposable utensils means we are living better.

It takes Two incomes to support what one used to, again why do you struggle with that undestanding.

and once again, you refuse to acknowledge any information provided you like a child plugging their ears and saying Laa,laa, laa, I dont hear you.
why do you refuse over and over to address the studies and reports Ive provided you for months?

lastly, two thing would be needed for your economic model to work,one an absence of corruption, which we have about 2000 years of history proving that ,that will never happen, people lie, people cheat, people commit frauds, commit larceny , commit insider trading, rig prices, gouge, and a whole list of other things which throw your model out of whack, insisting that somehow we can correct all of that when we havent been able to for...ever, is manical.

second, as ive pointed out to you, at least 10 times, and youve yet to address it with any coherent dispute,
If you are selling a item and you are being undersold,and all things being equal, raw material costs, shipping costs, overhead, inventory carrying, apr on the loans youve taken, then how are they underselling You?

Is it the shoemakers elves coming in over night and spinning gold for you?

No, it is through payroll costs.
so when China, or India are paying .50 cents an hour, to be competeitive only two thing can happen, our wages go down, or theirs go up...thats it.
and that is what we are on the way to so explain to me why it is good for america for all the pain to fall on the workers while the owners lie cheat and steal their way to prosperity?

Wealth disparity has grown geometrically, and through out this recession profits have grown and the 1% have increased their holdings...

Um if you run a business you shouldn't be saying half of this. While the price of fuel doesn't go up 1-2 bucks over night it does over a month. The price of steel can go up and down 10-30% in a matter of days.

When you talk about rent you should also you know talk about fixed costs being spread over more production and thus reduces fixed costs.

You also got to remember when paying people 50 cents an hour there is a huge shipping cost to get it here. It takes up quite a chunk of the wage gap. And of course you forget that regardless of unions if we can get it cheaper overseas we will.

That's just the highlights of correcting your ramblings.