Michigan House Passes Right to Work Bill

[Carl Pickens]

Everyone on here except for Volmav thought I was crazy for making the comment about the US eventually becoming Somilia-like but all you need to do is look at Detroit and areas of Chicago and you'll see my point

 

[therealUT]

Everyone on here except for Volmav thought I was crazy for making the comment about the US eventually becoming Somilia-like but all you need to do is look at Detroit and areas of Chicago and you'll see my point

I do not see your point. There is hardly a comparison to make between Mogadishu and Detroit.

 

[Reverend Bubba Flavel]

My concern with executive representation is not with the employer side of the equation; it is on the union side of the equation.

I guess I do not understand your point. The employer is obviously on one side of the table in these negotiations. Nothing is accomplished without the employer agreeing.

What does exclusive representation have to do with the government telling employers that they cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of non-membership in an organization.
Would it be fine with you if the government made a law that says an employer cannot make hiring decisions or fire employees on the basis of membership in the Communist Party? membership in the KKK?

 

[PKT_VOL]

I guess I do not understand your point. The employer is obviously on one side of the table in these negotiations. Nothing is accomplished without the employer agreeing.

I am not sure what you don't understand. It is very simple.

1) The government should not be involved in the affairs (contracts) of private companies and individuals. I think we agree on this.

2) Everybody involved in such contract negotiations should be able to act as free agents.

3) Executive representation robs the individuals who dissent to the union (non-union members) from acting as free agents.

4) If executive representation was abolished, there would be no need for "right to work" laws. As it stands, "right to work" laws counter balance the effects of excessive representation.

What does exclusive representation have to do with the government telling employers that they cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of non-membership in an organization.

See point number four above.

Would it be fine with you if the government made a law that says an employer cannot make hiring decisions or fire employees on the basis of membership in the Communist Party? membership in the KKK?

The government ought not be able to make or enforce any laws which impede a private business from firing or hiring whomever they want for whatever reason they want. Additionally, private businesses should be able to refuse service to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. Both of the above statements include (not exclude like you mentioned earlier in this thread) race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. If a business wants to hire only KKK memebers and refuse service to anybody but white Christians, then they ought to have the right to do so.

 

[Carl Pickens]

I do not see your point. There is hardly a comparison to make between Mogadishu and Detroit.

Look 15-20 years down the road.....Detroit is already full of vacant and abandoned buildings.....lots of poverty and unemployment......high crime zones and etc. Detroit is a cesspool as is Mogadishu and I don't anticipate Detroit making a dramatic improvement ......still see no comparison?

 

[Bezdomny]

4) If executive representation was abolished, there would be no need for "right to work" laws. As it stands, "right to work" laws counter balance the effects of excessive representation.

Bingo. There is no need for RTW laws without the Wagner Act. The Taft-Hawley Act, which allows RTW laws in states, was written as a revision of Wagner.

 

[therealUT]

Look 15-20 years down the road.....Detroit is already full of vacant and abandoned buildings.....lots of poverty and unemployment......high crime zones and etc. Detroit is a cesspool as is Mogadishu and I don't anticipate Detroit making a dramatic improvement ......still see no comparison?

Having been in a handful of third-world cesspools; having been around individuals that have been in those cesspools with me and had also been to Mogadishu; having heard those individuals say that those cesspools do not even compare to Mogadishu; and, having been to Detroit, I would have to say that there is no comparison between Detroit and Mogadishu.

Have you been to Mogadishu? Have you been to Rustimiyah? Have you been to Detroit?

 

[Carl Pickens]

Having been in a handful of third-world cesspools; having been around individuals that have been in those cesspools with me and had also been to Mogadishu; having heard those individuals say that those cesspools do not even compare to Mogadishu; and, having been to Detroit, I would have to say that there is no comparison between Detroit and Mogadishu.

Have you been to Mogadishu? Have you been to Rustimiyah? Have you been to Detroit?

Yes and Detroit is a freaking toilet......do you think Mogadishu was always the shjt hole it was when you were there? The comparison I'm drawing is that Detroit is in decline.....and I think it will just get worse

 

[Reverend Bubba Flavel]

I am not sure what you don't understand. It is very simple.

1) The government should not be involved in the affairs (contracts) of private companies and individuals. I think we agree on this.

2) Everybody involved in such contract negotiations should be able to act as free agents.

3) Executive representation robs the individuals who dissent to the union (non-union members) from acting as free agents.

4) If executive representation was abolished, there would be no need for "right to work" laws. As it stands, "right to work" laws counter balance the effects of excessive representation.

I fail to understand how your "3)" follows.

Suppose there is a factory with 100 employees. All employees are hired at-will, with no contract.
There is a vote to form a union and 80 vote to organize and 20 vote against. At that point the union becomes the exclusive negotiator for a potential contract.
What has changed for the 20 who voted against?
Nothing has changed. They still work without a contract. Same with the other 80. Its just now there is a representative negotiating.

There is also no compulsion to accept anything or to agree to anything. Only upon acceptance - by employer and union - will the at-will situation change. But, the 20 who voted against (or even the 80 who voted for) can exercise their at-will rights and end their employment before the contract comes into force. No one is forced to accept the contract.

Or, to put it another way, there can be all sorts of conditions an employer puts on at-will employees. In fact, an employer could require union membership as a condition of employment in the same way it can require no use of drugs.

There is no way the NLRA restricts the freedom of employees. And it certainly does not restrict the freedom of contract like Right to Work laws do.

 

[TheDeeble]

I fail to understand how your "3)" follows.

Suppose there is a factory with 100 employees. All employees are hired at-will, with no contract.
There is a vote to form a union and 80 vote to organize and 20 vote against. At that point the union becomes the exclusive negotiator for a potential contract.
What has changed for the 20 who voted against?
Nothing has changed. They still work without a contract. Same with the other 80. Its just now there is a representative negotiating.

There is also no compulsion to accept anything or to agree to anything. Only upon acceptance - by employer and union - will the at-will situation change. But, the 20 who voted against (or even the 80 who voted for) can exercise their at-will rights and end their employment before the contract comes into force. No one is forced to accept the contract.

So they have to quit or be part of the union? Even if they voted against it? Lol!

That's garbage right there. I'm glad that's getting tossed out.

 

[Reverend Bubba Flavel]

So they have to quit or be part of the union? Even if they voted against it? Lol!

That's garbage right there. I'm glad that's getting tossed out.

Why is it garbage? The employer agreed.

Is it garbage if the employer says all employees have to be a member of a professional organization?
Employees have to quit or become a member.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I fail to understand how your "3)" follows.

Suppose there is a factory with 100 employees. All employees are hired at-will, with no contract.
There is a vote to form a union and 80 vote to organize and 20 vote against. At that point the union becomes the exclusive negotiator for a potential contract.
What has changed for the 20 who voted against?
Nothing has changed. They still work without a contract. Same with the other 80. Its just now there is a representative negotiating.

There is also no compulsion to accept anything or to agree to anything. Only upon acceptance - by employer and union - will the at-will situation change. But, the 20 who voted against (or even the 80 who voted for) can exercise their at-will rights and end their employment before the contract comes into force. No one is forced to accept the contract.

Or, to put it another way, there can be all sorts of conditions an employer puts on at-will employees. In fact, an employer could require union membership as a condition of employment in the same way it can require no use of drugs.

There is no way the NLRA restricts the freedom of employees. And it certainly does not restrict the freedom of contract like Right to Work laws do.

Do you hear yourself?

1) Whenever you accept a job, you are entering into an agreement/contract either verbally or written. That is a contract between an employee and a employer.

2) I have zero problem with either side moving to change the contract. This includes individuals coming together and combining their individual contracts to form a cohesive workforce in hopes of negotiating a better contract.

3) However, one should never be coerced by the government to be represented or taxed without consent of the individual. Such is the case with executive representation. In your example, what makes you gloss over the rights of those twenty employees so easily? It is amazing that you jump all over "union rights via a contract with their employer" but dismiss the rights of those employees who dissented against the union. It is as if those employees don't exist. In a true free market, the union should only be negotiating for those eighty employees. If a contract is reached between the union and the employer, the contract will only be valid for those eighty employees. This also takes the "free ride" aspect out of the equation of the "free loader" problem with right to work laws. Like I stated before, if there was no such thing as forced "executive representation" by the government, there would no reason for right to work laws. They wouldn't exist.

Those other twenty employees can ban together to form another smaller union or they can stay independent.

I don't understand how you champion against the encroachment on economic freedom (union side) but are completely incapable of seeing the encroachment of economic freedom on behalf of the non-union employee. You scream "freedom" and "government encroachment" when it suits your own economic interest and dismiss it when it helps your own interest.