Samhain
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,939
- Reaction score
- 2,131
- Location
- Northern Ohio
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Which one would that be?
Proposition 2, defeated 58% - 42% last month.
Which one would that be?
I was just thinking about this angle. Its comical to see the role reversal between this thread and ones about federal entitlements. The same argument applies, the hard work of some is being poached by freeloaders. Pretty funny stuff.
The majority of Michigans population does not want right to work. But the Koch brothers do! This has nothing to do with workers this has everything to do with a bunch of spineless Rethugs keeping their cushy jobs!
They shouldn't receive any union representation if they don't pay dues, but whatever pay and benefits they negotiate with the company on their own has nothing to do with the union, nor is it any of the union's business.
Proposition 2, defeated 58% - 42% last month.
Because it would have amended the Michigan constitution.
A lot of the Michigan people did not want the Michigan constitution admened but still suported the unions.
So, in a nutshell, right-to-work laws (totally misnamed) are an affront to a free market, because in a free market, all contracts between individuals and organizations should be allowed.
can't agree
if they disassociate with the union and negotiate their own terms, those terms must be made available to the union
who the hell do they think they are, the NFL owners [/s]
It makes no sense that the individual, non-union employee's terms of employment be made available to the union. They had nothing to do with it, and if the individual shouldn't benefit from union efforts, then neither should the union benefit from the efforts of an individual they don't represent. Fair is fair, after all.
Lets do that at the federal level then and eliminate benefits for anyone who doesnt pay taxes. Anyone who benefits from the countires efforts without paying for it...is a freeloader. You have a choice. If you dont want to pay for benefits, then you dont get them. So, if you are poor, you dont get medicare, social security, welfare, unemployment checks, food stamps, etc.
The poor do pay for medicare and Social security, if they have jobs.
Expenses
Defense
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce/Housing Cr
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health
Income Security
Veterans Benefits
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest
SS and Medicare have been going into the general fund since the "Great Society" of the '60s. That money has been used for everything from welfare to wars, leaving a big pile of IOUs, and hand wringing about how we now need to "reform" those programs as they are starting to yield a negative cash flow.I don't understand the disconnect here as SS and Medicare were created as a retirement supplemental and the funds were never intended to fund the Federal Government operating expenses. The fact that working poor do pay into SS and Medicare is irrelevant as they get that money back when they retire or shouldn't they have to pay anything for that retirement and healthcare?
The Federal Operating expenses are funded by the Federal Income taxes. Included in those expenses is the debt service on the debt. Here again are the line items in the Federal Budget that are funded by Federal Income Taxes. Almost half the country pay nothing for those expenses. These are the expenses that Obama wants to pay for by increasing taxes on the rich. Raising those taxes back to Clinton levels only generates 80 billion a year if there are no consequences for that tax increase. That money will not fund the govt. for 8 days.
So let's be real here and start talking about expenses, what taxes fund what expense, and what expenses does the Federal Govt. really need. we also cannot forget state taxes and what those taxes fund either. Seems a lot of people do not understand taxes and continue to buy the Obama rhetoric.
Really? What proof do you have of this? Right-to-work states have an unemployment rate average somewhere in the 6% range. Michigan is a freakin' mess. Their cities are set to self-destruct. Collective bargaining rights remain in tact in this bill. This legislation simply means that unions will have to compete for their customers...you know, like everybody else in business. When cities/towns/states are falling apart...when a state's unemployment rate is 9.3%, extreme measures -- thinking outside the box -- needs to happen. Union members say, "We've got ours....the rest of you can go to hell in a handbasket." This legislation says, "Let's see if we can bring in more jobs."
Minnesota is a right to work state. The healthcare is tops in the nation. So is education. I'm not really sure about wages, but I know the standard of living is among the best.Right to work states have lower wages, bad healthcare, bad education ! That is a fact it is not right to work it is called right to fire. I guess you support CEo's gutting compaines and paying hirer wages to themselves and then filing for bankruptcy and blaming the workers. Texas has created the most minimum wage jobs in the country!
Right to work states have lower wages, bad healthcare, bad education ! That is a fact it is not right to work it is called right to fire. I guess you support CEo's gutting compaines and paying hirer wages to themselves and then filing for bankruptcy and blaming the workers. Texas has created the most minimum wage jobs in the country!
SS and Medicare have been going into the general fund since the "Great Society" of the '60s. That money has been used for everything from welfare to wars, leaving a big pile of IOUs, and hand wringing about how we now need to "reform" those programs as they are starting to yield a negative cash flow.
Let's just call payroll taxes what they are, taxes.
Right to work states have lower wages, bad healthcare, bad education ! That is a fact it is not right to work it is called right to fire. I guess you support CEo's gutting compaines and paying hirer wages to themselves and then filing for bankruptcy and blaming the workers. Texas has created the most minimum wage jobs in the country!
That is typical liberal talking points and a downright lie. California has over a million more on minimum wage than TX but it is California minimum wage of $8 an hour. Right to work states are creating jobs, union states are losing jobs. Would you prefer no job to having a job?
At eight bucks an hour?
The law doesn't say unions can't exist just that the state government will no longer collect union dues through with holding now the union has to make its case to each member as it collects their dues why it's important to be in the union. So how is a less intrusive government and unions more beholden to their members a bad thing?
You try living in California for $8 an hour. Further what I would expect someone like you from TX to understand is how is getting those minimum wage jobs here as once again you buy the liberal spin and ignore reality. Fortune 500 companies don't pay minimum wage and they are moving to TX in droves. The medical facilities in TX don't pay minimum wage and they are moving here as well.
It does seem that you really hate this state. Could it have something to do with the fact that you haven't lived in others?