Hell breaking loose in Michigan over right to work

the actual specifics of the case, possibly not. I concede i am not familiar with what THIS body did which was abnormal to what they typically do...BUT...

In the U.S. congress, at a minimum, tacking on an unrelated provision to a bill guaranteed to pass in order to get through an unpopular measure happens in EVERY session and likely several times in every session.

And in VERY few cases do the people realized there was hijinks involved.

I can't say for certain that such actions are done without the committee process being involved but otherwise, that which was described in the post I quoted was essentially just another day at the office in Congress.

Just in case anyone wasn't aware, you cannot be forced to join a union in any of the 50 states. The "right to work laws" only change whether or not you're required to pay dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining.

http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

I'm not certain, but isn't the oil exploration supply business of the (in)famous Koch brothers of right wing politics fame out of Kansas privately held?

How does it compare to a Fortune 500 company?

They have ZERO impact on my salary. When I signed on, it was for X dollars. I've never gotten (nor heard of anyone getting) a pay stub that showed a political contribution deducted from the agreed salary.

Union leadership. The folks with a vested self interest in milking every last dollar out of the membership.

Hmmm. Well, maybe you lot do want them fired?[/QUOTE]

Wrong on several counts.

1. I'm not "right forge" (and less so by the year)
2. As long as they employ their legal rights to be off work, then bully for them.
3. the point was not whether they should be fired but that you had reversed the terms under which a right winger would likely call for it.
4. since no one in this thread has voiced such a call, even the assertion you intended to make turns out not to be true.

How well, or badly, unions are run is a different topic. These are still voluntary agreements.

Do you use the same principle to judge employer contributions to UI, SS, Medicare, etc?

A difference which makes no difference....

I have two choices:
1. i can give you $200 a month to be a member of your nifty club, and come to your clubhouse and eat great snacks.
2. i can give you $200 a month and NOT be a member of your nifty club and be barred from your clubhouse.

Which would i most likely choose?

Is that accurate? I know in CO the agency fee for teachers is significantly lower than union dues.

Not the same situation at all.

Those are part of the total cost of employing me and are benefits (government-mandated and of questionable quality, but benefits nonetheless) FOR ME. My value to the employer INCLUDES his payment of those. So, unless you think he pays those out of the goodness of his heart, my salary would increase if they did not exist.

A political contribution by my employer is something altogether different. I do not have ANY claim to the money whether my employer (1) gives money to some political cause or (2) gives money to NO political cause. It's HIS money.

Obama's got this right..,."right to work" is a euphemism for "right to work for less than you're worth, and right to take all the abuse your boss feels like giving you." We're heading back to the 19th century where life was shorter, nastier and lacking in dignity.
Whenever that happens, it's not long before people rise up and say "no more." Judging by the crowd in Lansing that day has arrived...

There is a stigma involved as well.

I agree that they did it wrong -- in fact, one Republican senator voted no initially and told Patch.com that he didn't have a problem with the bill, he just wouldn't vote for something he hadn't been given time to read -- but I think you're wrong about it not passing otherwise.

A month ago, voters rejected labor's position on Proposals 2 and 4 by a landslide margin and re-elected a Republican majority in the House. They had plenty of opportunities to repudiate Snyder, and didn't. They had plenty of chances to say "you know what, we want labor to have more power again," and didn't.

The Republicans could have skipped passing the law themselves, put Right-to-Work on the ballot, and it probably would have passed.

Why must a person join and support a third party to "balance out" another entity's power? I don't recall being asked if unions were how *I* would "balance out" corporate power.

I mostly agree with this.

Given those two choices, absolutely I'd prefer the former than the latter.

if the difference is big enough I'd concede the point.

Only by the loosest possible definition of the word.

Who has the nuclear option in the public sector?

The government who can furlough staff at will to cut wages regardless of contract?

Or the employees who can't legally strike?

Just like Obama-care.


But really, I really am glad to live in a right to work state. As such, I can also report that the fallacy others have posted about as far as unions completely disappearing under those conditions is completely false, as there are still unions in my state, it's just that people can't be forced to join them as a condition of employment or be compelled to give part of their pay to an industry's union.

Bullshit. Unions love to use these overblown scare tactics, acting like because they were involved in the passage of modern labor laws, failure to give in to everything they want will result in all of those things being rolled back.

It's like saying that because Republicans pushed through the 13th Amendment, not voting Republican means slavery will be legal again.

Actually, it's more like you get to come to the clubhouse and eat snacks either way. You just don't get to vote for club president or decide which snacks we eat if you choose only to pay the agency fee. Even if you are not a member of the union, the union is still legally required to represent you. You get covered under the same collective bargaining agreement, and if you get in trouble with management, the union will be there to advocate for you.

And as Anc pointed out, the agency fee is lower than normal dues as you cannot be required to contribute to the union's political activities.

Please...... enough with the bullshit.......

We aren't going to ever go back to the days of Rockerfeller and Carnegie and JP Morgan!

No matter how much your messiah tells you otherwise.......

Not true.

Government employees can strike depending on the state and the job.

I as a LEO can not strike but the nurses at the hospital could if they wanted to.

Anyway there is no need for a public union to use the nuclear option in most cases because the unions are buddy-buddy with most politicians and especially buddy-buddy if those politicians are Democrats.

It's only not true when the contract is structured in a way that virtually no union contract is. The union is required to represent every member of the bargaining unit, member or not. What's the point of having a union if it's not the exclusive bargaining entity?

And the contract can't be written differently because ...?

After all, unions are usually the ones who insist on being the sole agents.

If they're not the sole agents, they don't have any leverage. Management could just say, "Okay, we're giving the non union guys raises," as a means to break up the union.

Where I work if you are not part of the union you get zero representation in the event anything happens to you. As a courtesy the union will direct you to non-union lawyers who specialize in working with LEOs.

Wow, that would be terrible -- people getting raises! But ... I thought that never happened under Right-to-Work!

I resent the implication that I am scum just because I am from Michigan.

I have worked very hard over a period of many years to become first-class scum!

And that's Mr. Scum to you!