login
Right to work states - MI
-
No new posts
|
 2012-12-11 12:21 PM |
Pro  4675     Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro |  Subject: Right to work states - MIEducate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? |
| 2012-12-11 12:41 PM in reply to: #4530772 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 1:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? You aren't. It's politics. Unions (union management) are overwhelmingly pro-Democratic. They are also "anti-corporation" and "anti-rich". It's a match made in heaven considering Obama is a one note "tax the rich" song. When you take away the REQUIREMENT to pay dues then there are lots of people who will NOT pay dues. The unions then lose power (and money). Michigan has both the highest unionization and unemployment rates in the Midwest. And they are fighting to keep it this way? More signs of Rome crumbling. |
| 2012-12-11 12:41 PM in reply to: #4530772 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? |
| 2012-12-11 12:47 PM in reply to: #4530816 |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:41 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? :-) I said educate me on why its such a big deal. Didn't say I didn't know anything about it. Average worker salary in right to work states = roughly $49k....non-right to work states = $42k |
| 2012-12-11 1:04 PM in reply to: #4530836 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:47 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:41 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? :-) I said educate me on why its such a big deal. Didn't say I didn't know anything about it. Average worker salary in right to work states = roughly $49k....non-right to work states = $42k It makes illegal a requirement that says as an employee of Company X or Firehouse Y has to pay union dues. That reduces the amount unions will have to lobby for whatever it is they want to lobby for such as better wages, better pensions, so on and, some say, their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members. Despite TriR's anti-Obama world-is-coming-to-an-end rant, unions were formed to protect the right of the workers in the 1800s. Without them we'd not have laws governing worker safety and fair wages and the power to set wages and hire/fire etc etc etc at will would rest with the company owners. Now, some may say that's a good thing but absolute power corrupts. Personally I think unions are too powerful, but not completely unnecessary, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. |
| 2012-12-11 1:09 PM in reply to: #4530868 |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:04 PM Personally I think unions are too powerful, but not completely unnecessary, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I agree. |
| 2012-12-11 1:14 PM in reply to: #4530868 |
Extreme Veteran 787 The Woodlands/Magnolia, TX. | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:04 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:47 PM It makes illegal a requirement that says as an employee of Company X or Firehouse Y has to pay union dues. That reduces the amount unions will have to lobby for whatever it is they want to lobby for such as better wages, better pensions, so on and, some say, their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members. Despite TriR's anti-Obama world-is-coming-to-an-end rant, unions were formed to protect the right of the workers in the 1800s. Without them we'd not have laws governing worker safety and fair wages and the power to set wages and hire/fire etc etc etc at will would rest with the company owners. Now, some may say that's a good thing but absolute power corrupts. Personally I think unions are too powerful, but not completely unnecessary, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:41 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? :-) I said educate me on why its such a big deal. Didn't say I didn't know anything about it. Average worker salary in right to work states = roughly $49k....non-right to work states = $42k God forbid that happen. it would be a shame for union employees be held accountable for poor performance just like the non-union employee. |
| 2012-12-11 1:16 PM in reply to: #4530899 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:14 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:04 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:47 PM It makes illegal a requirement that says as an employee of Company X or Firehouse Y has to pay union dues. That reduces the amount unions will have to lobby for whatever it is they want to lobby for such as better wages, better pensions, so on and, some say, their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members. Despite TriR's anti-Obama world-is-coming-to-an-end rant, unions were formed to protect the right of the workers in the 1800s. Without them we'd not have laws governing worker safety and fair wages and the power to set wages and hire/fire etc etc etc at will would rest with the company owners. Now, some may say that's a good thing but absolute power corrupts. Personally I think unions are too powerful, but not completely unnecessary, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:41 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? :-) I said educate me on why its such a big deal. Didn't say I didn't know anything about it. Average worker salary in right to work states = roughly $49k....non-right to work states = $42k God forbid that happen. it would be a shame for union employees be held accountable for poor performance just like the non-union employee. You have a very narrow view of the world, don't you? |
| 2012-12-11 1:28 PM in reply to: #4530903 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:16 PM antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:14 PM You have a very narrow view of the world, don't you?mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:04 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:47 PM It makes illegal a requirement that says as an employee of Company X or Firehouse Y has to pay union dues. That reduces the amount unions will have to lobby for whatever it is they want to lobby for such as better wages, better pensions, so on and, some say, their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members. Despite TriR's anti-Obama world-is-coming-to-an-end rant, unions were formed to protect the right of the workers in the 1800s. Without them we'd not have laws governing worker safety and fair wages and the power to set wages and hire/fire etc etc etc at will would rest with the company owners. Now, some may say that's a good thing but absolute power corrupts. Personally I think unions are too powerful, but not completely unnecessary, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:41 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? :-) I said educate me on why its such a big deal. Didn't say I didn't know anything about it. Average worker salary in right to work states = roughly $49k....non-right to work states = $42k God forbid that happen. it would be a shame for union employees be held accountable for poor performance just like the non-union employee. ... sort of like "idiots with hand guns"... just sayin' |
| 2012-12-11 1:32 PM in reply to: #4530868 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:04 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:47 PM It makes illegal a requirement that says as an employee of Company X or Firehouse Y has to pay union dues. That reduces the amount unions will have to lobby for whatever it is they want to lobby for such as better wages, better pensions, so on and, some say, their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members. Despite TriR's anti-Obama world-is-coming-to-an-end rant, unions were formed to protect the right of the workers in the 1800s. Without them we'd not have laws governing worker safety and fair wages and the power to set wages and hire/fire etc etc etc at will would rest with the company owners. Now, some may say that's a good thing but absolute power corrupts. Personally I think unions are too powerful, but not completely unnecessary, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:41 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? :-) I said educate me on why its such a big deal. Didn't say I didn't know anything about it. Average worker salary in right to work states = roughly $49k....non-right to work states = $42k Ah yes, the ever popular Reductio ad absurdum... I too agree in the 1800s unions were necessary. However now labor laws takes care of a VAST majority of the issues that caused unions to be created in the first place. They no longer have a useful place in the US economy. Why can Toyota and VW and Hyundai be just as (if not more) successful with their non-union plants as GM and Ford are with their unions plants? Seems to prove that the unions are really not necessary (at least in the automotive world). |
| 2012-12-11 1:32 PM in reply to: #4530772 |
Veteran 940 Citrus Heights, CA | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI I've been following this thread and news stories about this with interest, as I work for an entity that has both union and non-union folks within it. I confess I don't know a huge amount about what they do--from what I see, if you are union, you get paid better than non union, you usually get a great pension, and it takes an act of congress to be fired....Obviously, I might be mistaken, but this is what I see at my job....Rant aside, if unions were started to protect the workers by enacting labor laws, etc; now that we have a great deal of labor laws, do we truly still need the unions??? |
| 2012-12-11 1:32 PM in reply to: #4530903 |
Extreme Veteran 787 The Woodlands/Magnolia, TX. | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:16 PM antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:14 PM You have a very narrow view of the world, don't you?mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:04 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:47 PM It makes illegal a requirement that says as an employee of Company X or Firehouse Y has to pay union dues. That reduces the amount unions will have to lobby for whatever it is they want to lobby for such as better wages, better pensions, so on and, some say, their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members. Despite TriR's anti-Obama world-is-coming-to-an-end rant, unions were formed to protect the right of the workers in the 1800s. Without them we'd not have laws governing worker safety and fair wages and the power to set wages and hire/fire etc etc etc at will would rest with the company owners. Now, some may say that's a good thing but absolute power corrupts. Personally I think unions are too powerful, but not completely unnecessary, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:41 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? :-) I said educate me on why its such a big deal. Didn't say I didn't know anything about it. Average worker salary in right to work states = roughly $49k....non-right to work states = $42k God forbid that happen. it would be a shame for union employees be held accountable for poor performance just like the non-union employee. hardly. i happen to agree unions were necessary in the industrial age when miners and mill workers needed protection from employers that forced them to work 25hr days in dangerous conditions for slave labor. if you haven't noticed, we've evolved a bit since then and don't need unions like we used to. times have changed, so should unions. |
| 2012-12-11 1:37 PM in reply to: #4530965 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:32 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:16 PM antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:14 PM You have a very narrow view of the world, don't you?mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:04 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:47 PM It makes illegal a requirement that says as an employee of Company X or Firehouse Y has to pay union dues. That reduces the amount unions will have to lobby for whatever it is they want to lobby for such as better wages, better pensions, so on and, some say, their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members. Despite TriR's anti-Obama world-is-coming-to-an-end rant, unions were formed to protect the right of the workers in the 1800s. Without them we'd not have laws governing worker safety and fair wages and the power to set wages and hire/fire etc etc etc at will would rest with the company owners. Now, some may say that's a good thing but absolute power corrupts. Personally I think unions are too powerful, but not completely unnecessary, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:41 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? :-) I said educate me on why its such a big deal. Didn't say I didn't know anything about it. Average worker salary in right to work states = roughly $49k....non-right to work states = $42k God forbid that happen. it would be a shame for union employees be held accountable for poor performance just like the non-union employee. hardly. i happen to agree unions were necessary in the industrial age when miners and mill workers needed protection from employers that forced them to work 25hr days in dangerous conditions for slave labor. if you haven't noticed, we've evolved a bit since then and don't need unions like we used to. times have changed, so should unions. I don't disagree with you. If you'd have read the entire post instead of reading til you got angry you'd know that. If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? |
| 2012-12-11 1:38 PM in reply to: #4530772 |
Extreme Veteran 799 | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI I think this is one of those times where some politicians (and in this case union reps) believe they know what's best for people and the people should accept that. In this case I see the workers as customers of the unions. The workers pay the union to increase the benefits they receive for working for a firm. If this does pass, then workers will have the ability to decide if the union's services are worth the cost. If enough people don't want to pay, then that particular union goes away. The politicians and union reps against this, believe that a large number of workers will choose the short term gain of saving a few bucks on union dues and aren't able to comprehend what they lose in the long term by not having the union services. |
| 2012-12-11 1:42 PM in reply to: #4530949 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI powerman - 2012-12-11 1:28 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:16 PM antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:14 PM You have a very narrow view of the world, don't you?mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:04 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:47 PM It makes illegal a requirement that says as an employee of Company X or Firehouse Y has to pay union dues. That reduces the amount unions will have to lobby for whatever it is they want to lobby for such as better wages, better pensions, so on and, some say, their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members. Despite TriR's anti-Obama world-is-coming-to-an-end rant, unions were formed to protect the right of the workers in the 1800s. Without them we'd not have laws governing worker safety and fair wages and the power to set wages and hire/fire etc etc etc at will would rest with the company owners. Now, some may say that's a good thing but absolute power corrupts. Personally I think unions are too powerful, but not completely unnecessary, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:41 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? :-) I said educate me on why its such a big deal. Didn't say I didn't know anything about it. Average worker salary in right to work states = roughly $49k....non-right to work states = $42k God forbid that happen. it would be a shame for union employees be held accountable for poor performance just like the non-union employee. ... sort of like "idiots with hand guns"... just sayin' You don't live in Chicago. |
| 2012-12-11 1:42 PM in reply to: #4530772 |
| Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? That you live in Wisconsin and care about Michigan?? |
| 2012-12-11 1:42 PM in reply to: #4530978 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:37 PM antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:32 PM I don't disagree with you. If you'd have read the entire post instead of reading til you got angry you'd know that. If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:16 PM antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:14 PM You have a very narrow view of the world, don't you?mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:04 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:47 PM It makes illegal a requirement that says as an employee of Company X or Firehouse Y has to pay union dues. That reduces the amount unions will have to lobby for whatever it is they want to lobby for such as better wages, better pensions, so on and, some say, their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members. Despite TriR's anti-Obama world-is-coming-to-an-end rant, unions were formed to protect the right of the workers in the 1800s. Without them we'd not have laws governing worker safety and fair wages and the power to set wages and hire/fire etc etc etc at will would rest with the company owners. Now, some may say that's a good thing but absolute power corrupts. Personally I think unions are too powerful, but not completely unnecessary, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:41 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? :-) I said educate me on why its such a big deal. Didn't say I didn't know anything about it. Average worker salary in right to work states = roughly $49k....non-right to work states = $42k God forbid that happen. it would be a shame for union employees be held accountable for poor performance just like the non-union employee. hardly. i happen to agree unions were necessary in the industrial age when miners and mill workers needed protection from employers that forced them to work 25hr days in dangerous conditions for slave labor. if you haven't noticed, we've evolved a bit since then and don't need unions like we used to. times have changed, so should unions. My CEO already has the right... it hasn't happened yet... the company would go under in a year. |
| 2012-12-11 1:43 PM in reply to: #4530999 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:42 PM ... sort of like "idiots with hand guns"... just sayin' You don't live in Wisconsin Edited by powerman 2012-12-11 1:44 PM |
| 2012-12-11 1:45 PM in reply to: #4531007 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI powerman - 2012-12-11 1:43 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:42 PM ... sort of like "idiots with hand guns"... just sayin' You don't live in Wisconsin If I did I'd carry a gun for sure. Badger fans are ruthless. |
| 2012-12-11 1:51 PM in reply to: #4530772 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI It's all a big pendulum. The purpose of a union isn't to make a company successful, it's to look out for the worker's interests. Not just on safety and hours in a workday, but on everything including wages, benefits, etc. If you look at what the unions have been able to win in the past you could probably argue they've been too successful for today's competitive economy, and now the pendulum is swinging back towards the companies favor. Eventually the companies will start treating the workers like cr*p again & there'll be a swing back towards the workers. There needs to be a balance between the company and the worker. What's good for one isn't always good for the other & right now globalization has thrown the old balance out of whack so it'll take some swings of the pendulum to figure out where the new equilibrium should be.
|
| 2012-12-11 1:52 PM in reply to: #4531011 |
| Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:45 PM powerman - 2012-12-11 1:43 PM If I did I'd carry a gun for sure. Badger fans are ruthless. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:42 PM ... sort of like "idiots with hand guns"... just sayin' You don't live in Wisconsin I thought they'd only cut you?? |
| 2012-12-11 1:54 PM in reply to: #4530978 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:37 PM antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:32 PM I don't disagree with you. If you'd have read the entire post instead of reading til you got angry you'd know that. If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:16 PM antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:14 PM You have a very narrow view of the world, don't you?mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:04 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:47 PM It makes illegal a requirement that says as an employee of Company X or Firehouse Y has to pay union dues. That reduces the amount unions will have to lobby for whatever it is they want to lobby for such as better wages, better pensions, so on and, some say, their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members. Despite TriR's anti-Obama world-is-coming-to-an-end rant, unions were formed to protect the right of the workers in the 1800s. Without them we'd not have laws governing worker safety and fair wages and the power to set wages and hire/fire etc etc etc at will would rest with the company owners. Now, some may say that's a good thing but absolute power corrupts. Personally I think unions are too powerful, but not completely unnecessary, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:41 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? :-) I said educate me on why its such a big deal. Didn't say I didn't know anything about it. Average worker salary in right to work states = roughly $49k....non-right to work states = $42k God forbid that happen. it would be a shame for union employees be held accountable for poor performance just like the non-union employee. hardly. i happen to agree unions were necessary in the industrial age when miners and mill workers needed protection from employers that forced them to work 25hr days in dangerous conditions for slave labor. if you haven't noticed, we've evolved a bit since then and don't need unions like we used to. times have changed, so should unions. Minimum wage should be abolished too. <ducks and runs out of room> |
| 2012-12-11 1:59 PM in reply to: #4530978 |
Extreme Veteran 787 The Woodlands/Magnolia, TX. | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:37 PM antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:32 PM I don't disagree with you. If you'd have read the entire post instead of reading til you got angry you'd know that. If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:16 PM antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:14 PM You have a very narrow view of the world, don't you?mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:04 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:47 PM It makes illegal a requirement that says as an employee of Company X or Firehouse Y has to pay union dues. That reduces the amount unions will have to lobby for whatever it is they want to lobby for such as better wages, better pensions, so on and, some say, their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members. Despite TriR's anti-Obama world-is-coming-to-an-end rant, unions were formed to protect the right of the workers in the 1800s. Without them we'd not have laws governing worker safety and fair wages and the power to set wages and hire/fire etc etc etc at will would rest with the company owners. Now, some may say that's a good thing but absolute power corrupts. Personally I think unions are too powerful, but not completely unnecessary, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:41 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? :-) I said educate me on why its such a big deal. Didn't say I didn't know anything about it. Average worker salary in right to work states = roughly $49k....non-right to work states = $42k God forbid that happen. it would be a shame for union employees be held accountable for poor performance just like the non-union employee. hardly. i happen to agree unions were necessary in the industrial age when miners and mill workers needed protection from employers that forced them to work 25hr days in dangerous conditions for slave labor. if you haven't noticed, we've evolved a bit since then and don't need unions like we used to. times have changed, so should unions. i read the whole post, and i'm not angry. i just don't think the rest was worth commenting on. my last sentence was me agreeing with you. but, i guess since i didn't bold it i must not have read the whole thing. i don't know what point you're trying to make, but yes, that would suck if my company came in and dropped my pay to min wage (you like huge exaggerations, don't you). but, regardless of whether they have that power or not, i am more than confident that the value i bring to my company would prevent them from ever doing that. |
| 2012-12-11 2:02 PM in reply to: #4530978 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:37 PM If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? This is perfectly legal is lots and lots of businesses including mine. I'd be a fool to do it as everyone would leave and I'd go under. But it's my right. What exactly is wrong with being able to set salaries and benefits as the owner sees fit? |
| 2012-12-11 2:09 PM in reply to: #4531048 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:59 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:37 PM antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:32 PM I don't disagree with you. If you'd have read the entire post instead of reading til you got angry you'd know that. If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:16 PM antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 1:14 PM You have a very narrow view of the world, don't you?mr2tony - 2012-12-11 1:04 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:47 PM It makes illegal a requirement that says as an employee of Company X or Firehouse Y has to pay union dues. That reduces the amount unions will have to lobby for whatever it is they want to lobby for such as better wages, better pensions, so on and, some say, their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members. Despite TriR's anti-Obama world-is-coming-to-an-end rant, unions were formed to protect the right of the workers in the 1800s. Without them we'd not have laws governing worker safety and fair wages and the power to set wages and hire/fire etc etc etc at will would rest with the company owners. Now, some may say that's a good thing but absolute power corrupts. Personally I think unions are too powerful, but not completely unnecessary, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 12:41 PM Birkierunner - 2012-12-11 12:21 PM Educate me on why this is such a big deal. I know why the unions oppose this. As I understand it, the right to work bill being considered in Michigan is not an attempt to diminish unions' ability to collectively bargain. So why is President Obama going to Michigan (isn't the election over?....why is it all he does is remain in campaign mode?) and saying "what we shouldn't be doing is taking away collective bargaining". Ummmm....no one is proposing to do that. Seems like he's trying to incite the crowds to make them think this bill would take away c.b. He says this is going to take away worker's rights. How is that? Doesn't it just make it illegal to compel someone to pay union dues? He says the bill isn't about the economy, its about politics. Seems like he's playing politics too. Where am I wrong? Hmm you seem to know little about something you know a lot about. If you know what they are and aren't proposing, why do you need to ask so many questions? :-) I said educate me on why its such a big deal. Didn't say I didn't know anything about it. Average worker salary in right to work states = roughly $49k....non-right to work states = $42k God forbid that happen. it would be a shame for union employees be held accountable for poor performance just like the non-union employee. hardly. i happen to agree unions were necessary in the industrial age when miners and mill workers needed protection from employers that forced them to work 25hr days in dangerous conditions for slave labor. if you haven't noticed, we've evolved a bit since then and don't need unions like we used to. times have changed, so should unions. i read the whole post, and i'm not angry. i just don't think the rest was worth commenting on. my last sentence was me agreeing with you. but, i guess since i didn't bold it i must not have read the whole thing. i don't know what point you're trying to make, but yes, that would suck if my company came in and dropped my pay to min wage (you like huge exaggerations, don't you). but, regardless of whether they have that power or not, i am more than confident that the value i bring to my company would prevent them from ever doing that. It's good that you add enough value that your company deems you necessary to keep around. My point is, I have no problem with employers demanding and getting 100 percent from their employees, but to give them absolute power over their employees is very dangerous. Take the NFL for example. Without the players union, the owners to make more money would just say `We've put a salary cap on and are expanding the season to 20 games.' So, sometimes unions are good, especially if you play fantasy football. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK