spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
No, that would require empathy. But they do want to fool the public about it.
Michigan Passes Right to Work Law
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
So you want people to be able to take advantage of the Union's negotiating on your behalf and not pay them anything?
the government is going to lose in this endeavor.
someone MUST pay for the various legal battles that will occur.
if there isn't enough money from the paying members then it will most likely be provided through the government.
right to work.
what does it really mean?
in my opinion you cannot be refused a job you are qualified for, in other words you are hired the moment the supervisor determines that you qualify.
It’s odd that “people” wouldn’t try something that made sense, first, like better handles on an obviously dysfunctional, corrupt, and predatory executive class;
rather than something like union-busting, that had already been tried so often in the past and in other places.
“People” in general, those of the actual public, are often more sensible. Maybe the explanation should be sought in who, exactly, these “people” are who did this so quickly, with so little formal warning, and while apparently attempting to conceal the nature of their actions: seriously, “right to work” is their name for that? Wouldn’t a sane media be making a laughingstock of such language?
The observation was merely that RTW is an apparent continuation of a severe decline – more of the same, leading to a visible and miserable future. The evidence would be the apparent effects of union busting wherever it has been successful – there is plenty of that.”clusteringflux” said:
The notable fact here is that this kind of dishonesty and public betrayal can recommend itself to an elected politician – a political representative who will betray their constituency like that must be counting on powerful support from somebody, and of a kind that can reliably induce amnesia or confusion in a voting bloc.
The real reasons for RTW
I don't think that's quite the issue. Consider it this way, please: RTW advocates make a number of claims about benefitting workers that aren't true. Why, then, are they advocating RTW?
The reality is that RTW lowers workers' wages. Workers fall behind. Perhaps this seems like a typical class appeal, but I would ask you to consider another point as well: While politicians pretend to fret about profligate government spending, a large part of our societal economic problems result from profligate consumer spending.
Americans might make hay in the pub over sixteen trillion dollars in public debt, but few of the most vocal folks I've known on that point seem to care about the fifty trillion dollars in private debt Americans have racked up. (I would also note that the number is only fifty trillion because the economy melted down; otherwise that number would be higher; we first crossed the fifty trillion mark several years ago.)
One can certainly suggest that consumers ought to be more responsible, and there is certain wisdom to this in the personal consideration: Do I really need a new component stereo system? Do I really need an even bigger flatscreen? Do I really need a new twelve-core Mac Pro?
But, at the same time, our economy depends on consumer spending. We need consumer spending. So while stagnation of real wages sounds like just another left-wing litany, it does have some real effects. The economy is growing. It needs consumer spending to grow. Real wages are flat for the working classes. Whence comes the money for this huge consumer base?
It comes from credit.
And that's how we broke the economy.
Maybe people wouldn't have taken on so much credit if they had cash to spend. Or, perhaps, they would have been just as materialistic; yes, it's possible.
But RTW sinks real wages. It's a documented effect. And, yes, it also affects product quality, which affects sales, which affects employment, which affects the larger economy.
RTW isn't really about helping workers.
So what is it about?
The other dramatic effect of RTW is to stem the flow of money into unions, thus reducing their political viability.
But is that really the reason?
Well, we might use Sheldon Adelson as an example. The casino billionaire who bankrolled a whole lot of Republican politics in this last cycle actually describes himself as a social liberal who supports abortion rights, gay rights, and stem cell research. But he hates unions. And so he supports Republicans. And that's not some random connecting of asserted dots; that's his explanation.
Conservatives, generally, have opposed labor unions from the outset. Because of labor unions, bosses can't work children to death in the mines, or kill women by hiring them to work in a matchstick factory licking the sulfurous heads of matches to seal them. That horrific fire in Bangladesh last month? Those workers put garments on the rack in Sears and Wal-Mart, among others, and labor unions are the reason those kinds of fires generally don't happen here. And when they do? Well, the union isn't anywhere in sight.
Think of the eight hour work day. Think of nondiscrimination in hiring policies. Health care. Living wages. Even the Civil Rights movement. So many things we, in the twenty-first century, take for granted owe some debt to labor unions. People keep arguing that we've reached some plateau at which unions are no longer necessary, but look what has happened over the last forty years. As unions broke, and membership declined, real wages lagged, productivity demands increased, and the wealthiest in our society saw the greatest gains. In Oklahoma, for heaven's sake, RTW advocates argued that unemployment was a good thing.
There seems no end to the excrement RTW advocates will try to sell us. And it blows my mind that anyone claiming to give a damn about employment, standards of living, or the general economy of our society, believes them.
Historical data do not support the alleged benefits of RTW laws. It's not so much that RTW accelerates economic decline, but, rather, that it does not live up to the reasons for its advocacy. And what, in the end, does that leave?
This is about politics, and workers are, in the Republican view, nothing more than pawns to be exploited in a dishonest attempt to break Democrats and liberals.
Clusteringflux said:
I don't think that's quite the issue. Consider it this way, please: RTW advocates make a number of claims about benefitting workers that aren't true. Why, then, are they advocating RTW?
The reality is that RTW lowers workers' wages. Workers fall behind. Perhaps this seems like a typical class appeal, but I would ask you to consider another point as well: While politicians pretend to fret about profligate government spending, a large part of our societal economic problems result from profligate consumer spending.
Americans might make hay in the pub over sixteen trillion dollars in public debt, but few of the most vocal folks I've known on that point seem to care about the fifty trillion dollars in private debt Americans have racked up. (I would also note that the number is only fifty trillion because the economy melted down; otherwise that number would be higher; we first crossed the fifty trillion mark several years ago.)
One can certainly suggest that consumers ought to be more responsible, and there is certain wisdom to this in the personal consideration: Do I really need a new component stereo system? Do I really need an even bigger flatscreen? Do I really need a new twelve-core Mac Pro?
But, at the same time, our economy depends on consumer spending. We need consumer spending. So while stagnation of real wages sounds like just another left-wing litany, it does have some real effects. The economy is growing. It needs consumer spending to grow. Real wages are flat for the working classes. Whence comes the money for this huge consumer base?
It comes from credit.
And that's how we broke the economy.
Maybe people wouldn't have taken on so much credit if they had cash to spend. Or, perhaps, they would have been just as materialistic; yes, it's possible.
But RTW sinks real wages. It's a documented effect. And, yes, it also affects product quality, which affects sales, which affects employment, which affects the larger economy.
RTW isn't really about helping workers.
So what is it about?
The other dramatic effect of RTW is to stem the flow of money into unions, thus reducing their political viability.
But is that really the reason?
Well, we might use Sheldon Adelson as an example. The casino billionaire who bankrolled a whole lot of Republican politics in this last cycle actually describes himself as a social liberal who supports abortion rights, gay rights, and stem cell research. But he hates unions. And so he supports Republicans. And that's not some random connecting of asserted dots; that's his explanation.
Conservatives, generally, have opposed labor unions from the outset. Because of labor unions, bosses can't work children to death in the mines, or kill women by hiring them to work in a matchstick factory licking the sulfurous heads of matches to seal them. That horrific fire in Bangladesh last month? Those workers put garments on the rack in Sears and Wal-Mart, among others, and labor unions are the reason those kinds of fires generally don't happen here. And when they do? Well, the union isn't anywhere in sight.
Think of the eight hour work day. Think of nondiscrimination in hiring policies. Health care. Living wages. Even the Civil Rights movement. So many things we, in the twenty-first century, take for granted owe some debt to labor unions. People keep arguing that we've reached some plateau at which unions are no longer necessary, but look what has happened over the last forty years. As unions broke, and membership declined, real wages lagged, productivity demands increased, and the wealthiest in our society saw the greatest gains. In Oklahoma, for heaven's sake, RTW advocates argued that unemployment was a good thing.
There seems no end to the excrement RTW advocates will try to sell us. And it blows my mind that anyone claiming to give a damn about employment, standards of living, or the general economy of our society, believes them.
Historical data do not support the alleged benefits of RTW laws. It's not so much that RTW accelerates economic decline, but, rather, that it does not live up to the reasons for its advocacy. And what, in the end, does that leave?
This is about politics, and workers are, in the Republican view, nothing more than pawns to be exploited in a dishonest attempt to break Democrats and liberals.
That is a lie. I was forced to join a union myself and forced to pay union dues. I can assure you that I had no desire to be in the union and certainly had no desire to pay union dues.
None of us entry level people wanted to join the union, but at the time our state was not a "right to work" state, so we had no choice. We would, however, put off joining as long as possible so that we could keep more of our minimum wage salary. Unfortunately, once the union realized that a worker hadn't joined as soon as they were eligible, the union would force them to join or be fired. Then, to add insult to injury, they would deduct "union back dues" that would go back to the earliest point at which you could have joined. I'll never forget the time a guy picked up his check for two weeks of work and got only $2. Why? The union took the rest. Dues, backdues, and initiation fees.
Damn, we hated the union. I mean, why should a person being paid the lowest salary it is legal to pay a person in the United States have money deducted from every check to pay off the "union" that negotiated that pay? What's he getting out of the deal? NOTHING.
Bullshit. Being forced to pay for something that you don't want is not "getting something for nothing".
If making unions voluntary castrates them, they deserve to be castrated. Remember, workers are still completely free to join the union should they wish to. This just makes the union voluntary, as it should have been in the first place.
I'm sure they'll remember, but that might not be a bad thing. Recall that the constitutional amendment enshrining closed shop union law in the state constitution was easily defeated in Michigan; Governor Walker easily defeated the the recall effort launched by unions after Wisconsin went right to work; and the Republican party elected a new Republican governor and elected a Republican supermajority in the state of Indiana after passing right to work legislation in that state.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Liar. No one is ever forced to join the union. That's illegal. I see you want to enjoy the benefits of the union negotiating on your behalf, getting you things like paid sick days, weekends, and vacations, but you don't want to pay for it. I call that freeloading.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
Spidergoat, I'm afraid that is untrue. I currently work for one of the best hospitals in the world, located in New Haven CT, as a registered nurse. While our nurses aren't unionized, the nursing assistants, patient transporters, and unit secretaries all belong to a "teamsters union." If you are hired into any of these positions, then you are *required* to join the union and pay union dues. There cannot be any nursing assistants, transporters, or unit secretaries that are non-union in this facility. The union dues are automatically deducted from paychecks and you have no say in the matter.
No, I didn't want them negotiating on my behalf. I didn't get paid sick days. I didn't get weekends off. In fact, I worked mostly weekends. I also didn't get any paid vacations. I did get time and a half on Sundays, but the people hired after me only got an extra dollar on Sundays, and the people hired after that got regular pay on Sundays. The union wasn't worth a shit. Every contract was worse than the one before, but they grandfathered the current workers into the old set up.
As to not being forced to join, NO ONE WANTED TO JOIN THE UNION, but after a certain period of time they begain taking money out of your check for your union initiation fee, union back dues, and union dues.
According to Wikipedia:
The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947, but permits the union shop, except in those states that have passed right-to-work laws, in which case even the union shop is illegal. An employer may not lawfully agree with a union to hire only union members; it may, on the other hand, agree to require employees to join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues to it after a set period of time.
So you don't have to join, but you do have to pay. A distinction without a difference.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
So you wanted to enjoy the benefits of the negotiation they already did, but you didn't want to pay for it? I bet your pay would have been significantly lower without the union. Were you getting more than minimum wage?
so let me get this straight your craven regard for corporate power and hatred of unions derives from you working in a company where corporate power managed to do a better job harming employees than the labor power protecting them?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
He loves the low pay and appalling working conditions. It's the American way.
Your Avatar is so distracting gross that I'm not going to read anything you write.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
But it's a sexy woman! How is that gross?
basically, how else are unions to function under these laws?
I'm really into sexy woman. Maybe I should have left gross out. So you're a sexy woman. I thought you were a dude not a dudette. It's distracting dude or dudette. I shouldn't have said anything and just put you on my growing ignore list. That space is generally for cranks and crackpots which I don't consider you to be a member of either group. Just ignore me and I'll find a way to live with your Avatar. The vote in Michigan is really disturbing.
No. At the time I was forced to join the union I was making minimum wage.
Unions aren't outlawed under right to work, the union must simply entice workers to join (and pay dues) voluntarily.
Funny how all that rightwing yak about freedom to take a job or leave it, employment being voluntary choice, working conditions being matters of free bargaining between employer and employee, yadda yadda yadda, goes right out the window when one of the conditions of employment is union dues.madanthony said:
You don't like the working conditions, you ain't getting paid enough, too many deductions from your check, you know where the door is, right? How many times have we heard that bs when it comes to minimum wage or workhour restrictions or whatever? Tuesday's truth, that was - now it's Thursday and suddenly the big bad union is forcing somebody to pay dues by threatening their job.
The Wednesday truth was the destructive effect of unions jacking wages and benefits so high the poor corporation can't compete and goes bankrupt - with disasters of capitalistic management like the Brach candy company or General Motors presented as examples. On Friday we have a different truth - unions don't do anything for employees, they don't boost wages or secure benefits or anything, they just take dues by force.
The lack of self-awareness, on top of the obliviousness to the reality of the workings of incorporated capitalism (money is allowed to form the capital equivalent of closed shop unions, that's taken for granted these days. When the US was founded, money was granted no such privileges), is stunning.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Disclaimer: image used as avatar in no way represents actual appearance.
That what I was saying!