Michigan House Passes Right to Work Bill

#2
#2
But Michigan State AFL-CIO President Karla Swift said the bill doesn't help workers at all.

"In the wake of this legislation, the only 'freedom' gained for Michigan workers will be the freedom to make less, the freedom to be disrespected at work, the freedom to struggle to pay their bills and the freedom to be left out of the American dream," she said.
Click to expand...

Not seeing how not being forced to be in a union does this.

Good for Michigan.
 
#5
#5
Never thought I would see the day. I bet Michael Moore is having a stroke right about now.
 
#8
#8
I'm not sure what the argument is from the unions as to why workers ought to have to join to work in a particular industry. I mean, I have no doubt that things like this will weaken the unions and in the long run hurt the workers -- all of them. But really, it is up to the unions to sell that notion to the workers.

I suppose the one thing I'd like to see instituted is a guarantee that those who choose non union status won't get promoted or treated any better than those who unionize. That is, if A chooses to organize with the union and can make a case that he is later passed over for promotion because of it, he ought to be able to sue and recover damages for that.
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
I'm not sure what the argument is from the unions as to why workers ought to have to join to work in a particular industry. I mean, I have no doubt that things like this will weaken the unions and in the long run hurt the workers -- all of them. But really, it is up to the unions to sell that notion to the workers.

I suppose the one thing I'd like to see instituted is a guarantee that those who choose non union status won't get promoted or treated any better than those who unionize. That is, if A chooses to organize with the union and can make a case that he is later passed over for promotion because of it, he ought to be able to sue and recover damages for that.
Click to expand...

Why don't the unions, especially the huge unions such as UAW, just take the enormous amount of capital that they have, build their own factories, share the revenues equally across the board with the labor, and provide the greatest work conditions in the world?

Oh, is it too risky to put money on such a venture...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10
#10
lawgator1 said:
I'm not sure what the argument is from the unions as to why workers ought to have to join to work in a particular industry. I mean, I have no doubt that things like this will weaken the unions and in the long run hurt the workers -- all of them. But really, it is up to the unions to sell that notion to the workers.

I suppose the one thing I'd like to see instituted is a guarantee that those who choose non union status won't get promoted or treated any better than those who unionize. That is, if A chooses to organize with the union and can make a case that he is later passed over for promotion because of it, he ought to be able to sue and recover damages for that.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't businesses be able to promote whomever they want for whatever reason they desire?
 
#11
#11
lawgator1 said:
I'm not sure what the argument is from the unions as to why workers ought to have to join to work in a particular industry. I mean, I have no doubt that things like this will weaken the unions and in the long run hurt the workers -- all of them. But really, it is up to the unions to sell that notion to the workers.

I suppose the one thing I'd like to see instituted is a guarantee that those who choose non union status won't get promoted or treated any better than those who unionize. That is, if A chooses to organize with the union and can make a case that he is later passed over for promotion because of it, he ought to be able to sue and recover damages for that.
Click to expand...

I take it you would also apply this to any minority or sex-based "quota" hires?
 
#12
#12
therealUT said:
Why don't the unions, especially the huge unions such as UAW, just take the enormous amount of capital that they have, build their own factories, share the revenues equally across the board with the labor, and provide the greatest work conditions in the world?

Oh, is it too risky to put money on such a venture...
Click to expand...

I always love the "why aren't those evil corporations/businesses sharing the profits equally with their employees since they are the ones that make company profit. The best companies are those in which there is equal profit sharing amongst all employees."

They are actually right about the efficiency of the company and happiness of the employees who are in companies that have equal profit sharing among all employees. However, what they always fail to mention is that they are all equal owners and all share equally in the risk. That is the real reason such businesses truly flourish.
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
I'm not sure what the argument is from the unions as to why workers ought to have to join to work in a particular industry. I mean, I have no doubt that things like this will weaken the unions and in the long run hurt the workers -- all of them. But really, it is up to the unions to sell that notion to the workers.

I suppose the one thing I'd like to see instituted is a guarantee that those who choose non union status won't get promoted or treated any better than those who unionize. That is, if A chooses to organize with the union and can make a case that he is later passed over for promotion because of it, he ought to be able to sue and recover damages for that.
Click to expand...

And I'd like to see union employees fired if a case can be made that they're violating workplace violence policies with union intimidation tactics against non union employees.
 
#14
#14
therealUT said:
Why don't the unions, especially the huge unions such as UAW, just take the enormous amount of capital that they have, build their own factories, share the revenues equally across the board with the labor, and provide the greatest work conditions in the world?

Oh, is it too risky to put money on such a venture...
Click to expand...

boom
 
#15
#15
working in a non-union shop means that if you spill your coke on the floor and clean it up yourself, you won't have a grievance filed against you by the union janitor who's livelihood you just destroyed.
 
#17
#17
therealUT said:
Why don't the unions, especially the huge unions such as UAW, just take the enormous amount of capital that they have, build their own factories, share the revenues equally across the board with the labor, and provide the greatest work conditions in the world?

Oh, is it too risky to put money on such a venture...
Click to expand...

Exactly. These morons have no idea of the guts it takes to create a capitalist enterprise.
 
#18
#18
utvolpj said:
I take it you would also apply this to any minority or sex-based "quota" hires?
Click to expand...


Gender and race are protected classes in certain situations and that provides them certain rights under the law. Right now, union members are not a protected class, and so in order for them to have protection against discrimination, that has to be done at the legislative level, usually the state level.

I am saying I am inclined to agree that people should not be required to join a union to work at a particular business. On the other hand, if that is the case, then neither should those that choose to do so suffer in their own careers for having made the choice.
 
#19
#19
lawgator1 said:
I'm not sure what the argument is from the unions as to why workers ought to have to join to work in a particular industry. I mean, I have no doubt that things like this will weaken the unions and in the long run hurt the workers -- all of them. But really, it is up to the unions to sell that notion to the workers.

I suppose the one thing I'd like to see instituted is a guarantee that those who choose non union status won't get promoted or treated any better than those who unionize. That is, if A chooses to organize with the union and can make a case that he is later passed over for promotion because of it, he ought to be able to sue and recover damages for that.
Click to expand...

Says the lawyer.

Unionization is up to the boss and his workers in the private sector. Unions have no place in the public sector.
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
Gender and race are protected classes in certain situations and that provides them certain rights under the law. Right now, union members are not a protected class, and so in order for them to have protection against discrimination, that has to be done at the legislative level, usually the state level.

I am saying I am inclined to agree that people should not be required to join a union to work at a particular business. On the other hand, if that is the case, then neither should those that choose to do so suffer in their own careers for having made the choice.
Click to expand...

So you're in favor of discrimination as long as the govt has deemed it acceptable?

Crazy idea here but how about companies decide for themselves who is most qualified without being hamstrung by stupid regulations that can damage their business?
 
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
Gender and race are protected classes in certain situations and that provides them certain rights under the law. Right now, union members are not a protected class, and so in order for them to have protection against discrimination, that has to be done at the legislative level, usually the state level.

I am saying I am inclined to agree that people should not be required to join a union to work at a particular business. On the other hand, if that is the case, then neither should those that choose to do so suffer in their own careers for having made the choice.
Click to expand...

Why should any worker be "protected"?

Why shouldn't a company to free to hire or fire whomever they want for whatever reason they want?
 
#22
#22
lawgator1 said:
I'm not sure what the argument is from the unions as to why workers ought to have to join to work in a particular industry. I mean, I have no doubt that things like this will weaken the unions and in the long run hurt the workers -- all of them. But really, it is up to the unions to sell that notion to the workers.

I suppose the one thing I'd like to see instituted is a guarantee that those who choose non union status won't get promoted or treated any better than those who unionize. That is, if A chooses to organize with the union and can make a case that he is later passed over for promotion because of it, he ought to be able to sue and recover damages for that.
Click to expand...

Goodness, you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
#23
#23
the right to work covers many facets of the relationship between the employer and employee.

unions are only as strong as their ability to collect thier dues - enter the "check off". the "check off" is typically one of the most contentious bargaining points in labor/union negotiations. it says that the employer must deduct said dues from the employees pay check and forward directly to the union. several unions have been busted up in this state with the loss of this bargaining point. the employer simply takes the position that "they're your dues, you collect them"; funny how "union members" tend to balk and are not as enthusiastic about paying their dues when they have to write the check themselves. it will kill a union quickly and consistently.

the takeaway is that in "closed shop" states, vis-a-vis michigan; employers don't have the right of refusal when it comes to the "check off".

by definition, unions are parasitic; they have simply outlived thier usefulness.
 
#24
#24
Michigan finally getting it.

Of course Obama was campaigning against this and made the same basic comments as the AFL-CIO dude.
 
#25
#25
PKT_VOL said:
Never thought I would see the day. I bet Michael Moore is having a stroke right about now.
Click to expand...

Nah. He'll just make a movie about it and put a few million dollars in his pocket. And then he'll continue to demonize all the evil greedy Americans that are trying to make money or run a business.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top