• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

Looks like good thread for this guide to be in.:2wave:

But ... but ... but ... then all the liberals will be cut out of the discussions and the reasonable folks won't talk to them.
 
They provide HI to less than 44% of their employees, and on average 25% of their employees use state HI programs, which is higher than nearly all other employers.

You really need to get much better data than the BS you have been laying out.

You, my dear, need to provide links for your supposed expert knowledge.

Link: That WalMart provides health insurance for only 44% of its employees.
Link: That 25% of WalMart employees use state healthcare.
Link: That this % is higher than others.

Come on. Just because you say it's so, it ain't.
 
Further on this point, are employees not reviewed individually regardless of union affiliation or not? Why? Is this not equally ‘impractical, if not impossible’?

What in God's name are you blathering about? We are not talking about job interviews. We are talking about legally binding contracts regarding salary, benefits, job description, discipline and grievance procedures, etc., etc.. There are teams of lawyers and accountants involved. Apparently, you have never read such an employment contract. It is not nearly the same thing as a job interview. A company the size of GM or Walmart is not going to negotiate a custom-tailored employment contract for each and every one of their employees. Your suggestion that they do, or ever would, in so-called RTW states or anywhere else is patently false. You do not know what you are talking about.

What is more, the whole point of collective bargaining is to manifest a unified front from which the individual worker can negotiate salary and benefits more effectively. Therefore, your suggestion of individually negotiated contracts, even in fantasyland, would be entirely antithetical to such purposes.

You have already exposed your gross ignorance in regards to the subject of RTW and collective bargaining. The correct thing to do now is to amend your ignorance by educating yourself on the subject. The incorrect thing to do is to continue your failed argument from your present state of ignorance.
 
So what? Unions use legislative means to cripple the influence of employers and get higher wages. Why is one better than the other?

That's a good question, Jonny. Why is one better than the other?

The answer, of course, is that neither are necessarily "better" than the other. They are naturally opposing forces held together by a common interest, namely, the procuring of profits through the sale of company product on the market. The job of company executives (among other things) is to maximize profits for the share holders. The job of the union executives (among other things) is to maximize profits for the employees. Together, they form a peculiar symbiotic relationship, a classic thesis + antihesis = synthesis manifestation.

That being said, the so-called "Right to Work" concept needs to be recognized for what it is: a clever ploy by company executives to break-up the union and end the aforementioned symbiotic relationship for the total benefit of the share holder, and not for any benefit of the employee, though the deceitful choice of words "Right to Work" are inclined to beguile the naive into believing the contrary.
 
What in God's name are you blathering about? We are not talking about job interviews. We are talking about legally binding contracts regarding salary, benefits, job description, discipline and grievance procedures, etc., etc.. There are teams of lawyers and accountants involved. Apparently, you have never read such an employment contract. It is not nearly the same thing as a job interview. A company the size of GM or Walmart is not going to negotiate a custom-tailored employment contract for each and every one of their employees. Your suggestion that they do, or ever would, in so-called RTW states or anywhere else is patently false. You do not know what you are talking about.

What is more, the whole point of collective bargaining is to manifest a unified front from which the individual worker can negotiate salary and benefits more effectively. Therefore, your suggestion of individually negotiated contracts, even in fantasyland, would be entirely antithetical to such purposes.

You have already exposed your gross ignorance in regards to the subject of RTW and collective bargaining. The correct thing to do now is to amend your ignorance by educating yourself on the subject. The incorrect thing to do is to continue your failed argument from your present state of ignorance.


this is true enough, however, it is arguably the union collective bargaining over the years, which has displayed greed, and near RICO like mob behavior that is bankrupting companies to the point in which they are relocating either to the south, or overseas altogether...
 
Just a guess, but, I suspect many of those minimum wage and below jobs are found in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, an area dominated for decades by democratic politicians. Do a google on Loyd Bentsen and his father and the Yturria family starting with Francisco. Fausto is also interesting. Those two families control a lot of wealth in the Valley. Cheap labor is sometimes a foundation for great financial empires. And the fact is, cheap labor, including illegals, has always been a player in the Valley. Not too many unions there either. Surprising as the democrats, of course, support unions. Not really, the Bentsens and the Yturrias run the show.

Lloyd Bentsen Sr., 95, the Father Of Texas Senator, Killed in Crash - NYTimes.com

"Mr. Bentsen was a nearly legendary figure in South Texas, where he arrived almost penniless in 1917 and amassed a fortune in real estate, oil and cattle with an estimated worth of $50 million to $100 million."

Yturria

The domain of Fausto Yturria Jr. Brownsville, Texas. Businessman, Rancher, Philanthropist, Art and Music Lover

Fausto is a republican...some irony.
 
this is true enough, however, it is arguably the union collective bargaining over the years, which has displayed greed, and near RICO like mob behavior that is bankrupting companies to the point in which they are relocating either to the south, or overseas altogether...

That is just total nonsense. These companies relocate elsewhere or overseas in order to increase shareholder value by escaping U.S. government regulations (i.e: OSHA, EPA, etc.), taking advantage of vulnerable governments and highly venal (and a great deal cheaper) corrupt government officials, taking advantage of cheaper real estate and lower taxes, and taking advantage of unorganized and desperately indigent labor markets. It has little to do with their going bankrupt and everything to do with greed on one side of the shareholder vs employee equation.

Are you sure you want to entertain the subject of "near RICO like mob behavior?"
 
That is just total nonsense. These companies relocate elsewhere or overseas in order to increase shareholder value by escaping U.S. government regulations (i.e: OSHA, EPA, etc.), taking advantage of vulnerable governments and highly venal (and a great deal cheaper) corrupt government officials, taking advantage of cheaper real estate and lower taxes, and taking advantage of unorganized and desperately indigent labor markets. It has little to do with their going bankrupt and everything to do with greed on one side of the shareholder vs employee equation.

Ok, please lay out the current Union bargained contract, with the wages and benefits for the average line worker in the UAW in Lansing Mi, for us then....Let us judge...

See, I am not sure so I won't be absolute in what I am about to say, but I did hear that a union auto worker on the line average makes about $80 per hour, plus bene's.....Is that true?

Are you sure you want to entertain the subject of "near RICO like mob behavior?"

Abso 'freakin' loutly.......The Union is really nothing more than the mob, protected by liberal politicians.
 
Ok, please lay out the current Union bargained contract, with the wages and benefits for the average line worker in the UAW in Lansing Mi, for us then....Let us judge...

See, I am not sure so I won't be absolute in what I am about to say, but I did hear that a union auto worker on the line average makes about $80 per hour, plus bene's.....Is that true?

I don't know. Why don't you come back when you know what you are talking about?

Abso 'freakin' loutly.......The Union is really nothing more than the mob, protected by liberal politicians.

I repeat, why don't you come back when you know what you are talking about?
 
I don't know. Why don't you come back when you know what you are talking about?



I repeat, why don't you come back when you know what you are talking about?


So you answer twice that "I don't know...." But then tell me to come back when I know what I am talking about? Don't waste my time pal.
 
What in God's name are you blathering about? We are not talking about job interviews. We are talking about legally binding contracts regarding salary, benefits, job description, discipline and grievance procedures, etc., etc.. There are teams of lawyers and accountants involved. Apparently, you have never read such an employment contract. It is not nearly the same thing as a job interview. A company the size of GM or Walmart is not going to negotiate a custom-tailored employment contract for each and every one of their employees. Your suggestion that they do, or ever would, in so-called RTW states or anywhere else is patently false. You do not know what you are talking about.

First, the point was employee REVIEW as in annual reviews for wage adjustment but interviews is applicable. Are not potential employees INTERVIEWED individually?...further I have read MANY employee contracts. Most are boiler plate in the larger companies and extend from the initial application through hiring where the employee signs each. Your implication is that EACH MUST be custom-tailored. Not so in fact they can be (and typically are) forms that describe 'salary, benefits, job description' where these individual items are filled in per new hire. The balance, 'discipline and grievance procedures, etc., ' have been already prepared by 'teams of lawyers and accountants' and are merely agreed upon by the new hire by signature. Your assertion that it is impossible or impractical is purely false as MOST of each employees information is handled individually, even in union shop workplaces.

BTW, the Wagner act delineates obligations of both parties for 'at-will' hiring that covers most of your concerns...
 
Exactly, this is about choice by the individual and it seems that the liberals only accept choice that supports their point of view. This is total arrogance in believing that the American people aren't smart enough to choose wisely when it comes to their employment, wage, and benefits opportunities and thus need union leadership to decide what is best for them.

Unions have outlived their usefulness as evidenced by the small percentage of the labor force now unionized. We have laws on the books now to protect workers many of which came from union efforts but those efforts are no longer needed as the laws protect the workers so enforce the laws.

Do either of you two know the difference between private sector unions and public sector unions? Do you realize that for me to join the Ironworkers I had to go through a 4 hour aptitude test and interview process... No one FORCED me to do anything. I chose to take those tests because I wanted to be a member. NOT ONE of any Ironworker / Pipefitter / Carpenter / Laborer / Steamfitter has ever been Forced to join their unions.. They did it by choice.

The problem with conservatives is you are spoon fed your hatred for unions so much that you dont even know what the **** you are talking about anymore.


For conservatives it isn't about being given the choice to join or not... Its about how you just got your asses handed to you by organized labor in the last election, and you want to disassemble that thinking it will give you the upper hand.
 
Do either of you two know the difference between private sector unions and public sector unions? Do you realize that for me to join the Ironworkers I had to go through a 4 hour aptitude test and interview process... No one FORCED me to do anything. I chose to take those tests because I wanted to be a member. NOT ONE of any Ironworker / Pipefitter / Carpenter / Laborer / Steamfitter has ever been Forced to join their unions.. They did it by choice.

The problem with conservatives is you are spoon fed your hatred for unions so much that you dont even know what the **** you are talking about anymore.


For conservatives it isn't about being given the choice to join or not... Its about how you just got your asses handed to you by organized labor in the last election, and you want to disassemble that thinking it will give you the upper hand.


Now that is funny....The last election was considering the numbers that voted, a pretty narrow victory for Obama...Certainly not "asses handed" in any way...And not by unions, but more by young voters that repubs underestimated turn out for.

But, to the main point, by your post about those willingly joining unions, let me ask, If I want to go to work at any of the GM plants in Lansing, and am qualified to do the job, can I work at the GM plant without joining the UAW?
 
Your implication is that EACH MUST be custom-tailored.

Actually, it was your implication that EACH COULD be custom-tailored. Did you forget? I am simply recognizing that your implication is quite ridiculous and fantastical.

BTW, the Wagner act delineates obligations of both parties for 'at-will' hiring that covers most of your concerns.

Do us both a favor: Stop typing and start reading, slowly this time.
 
Now that is funny....The last election was considering the numbers that voted, a pretty narrow victory for Obama...Certainly not "asses handed" in any way...And not by unions, but more by young voters that repubs underestimated turn out for.

But, to the main point, by your post about those willingly joining unions, let me ask, If I want to go to work at any of the GM plants in Lansing, and am qualified to do the job, can I work at the GM plant without joining the UAW?

No but you can go work for the Hyundai plant in Georgia.. why the hell would you want to move to Michigan.

And yes, if you were in management position you could go work for a GM plant..
 
So you answer twice that "I don't know...." But then tell me to come back when I know what I am talking about? Don't waste my time pal.

You are asking me to do your homework for you. Sorry, I don't do that, so don't waste your time asking me.

Come back when you have some idea of what you are talking about. This way, you won't be wasting my time.

...while you're at it, learn how to count.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it was your implication that EACH COULD be custom-tailored. Did you forget? I am simply recognizing that your implication is quite ridiculous and fantastical.

Yes, I did and you have failed to present how it is in fact ridiculous or fantastical when it is quite common...no not individually custom tailored but in fact employment agreements (contracts if you will) for like work is similar enough that 'tailor fitting' is quite easy. Further in non-union AND union workplaces individual workers are addressed individually AND collectively. Consider across the board COLA's and/or individual raises for progress/attendance/etc. Would you agree that these are quite common in both workplaces? If not how are these benefit adjustments commonly made?

Do us both a favor: Stop typing and start reading, slowly this time.

Ok, so you want to quit this discussion?...fine as you have not have made any substantive point except something similar ‘no they can’t’ or ‘that’s impossible’…quit replying then
 
Yes, I did and you have failed to present how it is in fact ridiculous or fantastical when it is quite common...

So, now you are back to suggesting that such custom-tailored contracts are possible; and, what is worse, you are back to suggesting that such practice is "quite common." Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about since you keep reversing yourself, over and over and over again.


Ok, so you want to quit this discussion?...fine as you have not have made any substantive point except something similar ‘no they can’t’ or ‘that’s impossible’…quit replying then

I will continue this discussion only if it is taken to the basement because I will no doubt receive an infraction for what I have left to say to you.

BTW: Have you got a grip on the Wagner Act yet? Here is some advice: Never mind concerning yourself with RTW (Right to Work). Your real concern should be RIF (Reading is Fundamental).
 
But ... but ... but ... then all the liberals will be cut out of the discussions and the reasonable folks won't talk to them.

That's odd,I was thinking that the opposite was/is true.:mrgreen:
 
That's odd,I was thinking that the opposite was/is true.:mrgreen:

I was afraid of that, but didn't want to insult you by suggesting it... :mrgreen:
 
No but you can go work for the Hyundai plant in Georgia.. why the hell would you want to move to Michigan.

And yes, if you were in management position you could go work for a GM plant..


And that is the absurdity of the union claim. I grew up in Lansing, and had many, many friends that worked for GM. They are what is called a 'closed shop' which means that if you get hired into GM you have NO choice but to join the union, or don't take the job. How is that fairness? I would think if the union is so great they wouldn't need such coercive measures. So, why not open it up to choice....
 
So, now you are back to suggesting that such custom-tailored contracts are possible; and, what is worse, you are back to suggesting that such practice is "quite common." Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about since you keep reversing yourself, over and over and over again.

No, I have never suggested that they were not impossible. It was you who has repeatedly stated my proposal was ‘impossible’ all the way to 'fantasyland'. I have not reversed myself yet, which is your duty to attempt. It was my (and has been) assertion that individuals can (and commonly do) negotiate their individual employment compensation package. This should be overly obvious as currently the union maintains merely +/-7% of the total workforce. How do you suppose the employment compensation package for the other +/-93% are secured? Further it was my assertion that an individual maintaining employment in a union shop can secure a better employment compensation package than the union does (CAN not DOES or WILL). You have stated that this would be impossible and impractical but the current arrangement in +/-93% of the workforce proves otherwise…where am I wrong?
 
Hey Union supporters, seems the UAW is already in the process of selling you down the river....

In most of his 32-year career as a Michigan autoworker and union leader, Frank Hammer never imagined the United Auto Workers agreeing to major concessions when it came to core principles: equal pay for equal work, job security and generous pensions.

But an erosion of those key values has arrived and at a rapid pace over the past several years: Enter a two-tiered salary system. Beginning in 2007, the UAW has drafted contracts with the Detroit Three automakers aimed at rebuilding a struggling American auto industry and preventing thousands of American jobs from moving overseas. One of the key changes in the contracts allowed for a two-tiered salary system, letting entry-level workers earn far less than traditional workers while also forgoing pensions and more generous health plans.

As a result, roughly 13 percent of General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Group hourly workers, or about 15,000 employees, are now in those lower-paid positions, shows a recent study from the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Before the UAW agreed to the new salary structure, the average worker cost GM about $79 per hour in wages and benefits. Today, that figure is down to $58, largely because of the growing number of entry-level positions coming into the system, says Kristin Dziczek, a director at the Center for Automotive Research. Typical entry -level workers earn about $19 per hour, with workers in warehousing and distribution positions making less than $15 per hour, she says.

The new salary structure has taken a toll on all autoworkers, undermining the ability of workers to live a decent wage and quality of life, says Hammer, who retired in 2006 and is now a leader of The Autoworker Caravan, a Michigan-based advocacy group formed in 2008 for unionized autoworkers.

"The morale of workers in the plants is not at all what it used to be," Hammer says. "You face situations where a mother and son can be working on two different sides of the assembly line doing the same job, but one is working at half the wage of the other."

But Dziczek says many new autoworkers are happy to take the jobs, even at drastically lower salaries, because the depressed job market offers them few other opportunities.

"Traditional workers really feel these [new] people have gotten a raw deal," she says, "but entry-level workers are looking at it differently, figuring, 'If I stick around long enough, I'll get the wage you got.' They understand the bargain."

GM spokesman Bill Grotz says the contract negotiated in 2007 has resulted in about 9 percent of the automaker's current workforce being entry level, and it's working well. "Overall, it was a pretty innovative labor agreement. ... It helped us stay competitive, open more plants and provide more opportunities for more jobs," he says.

Two-Tiered Pay Scale for Autoworkers Raises Debate - Featured Article - Workforce
 
And that is the absurdity of the union claim. I grew up in Lansing, and had many, many friends that worked for GM. They are what is called a 'closed shop' which means that if you get hired into GM you have NO choice but to join the union, or don't take the job. How is that fairness? I would think if the union is so great they wouldn't need such coercive measures. So, why not open it up to choice....

With the considerably violent and unjustly repressive opposition which organized labor endured from the beginning of the labor movement in the mid 19th century and far into the 20th century, continuing to this very day in the second decade of the 21st century (though in much more politically sophisticated form), it should be of no surprise to see union members exert pressure upon their co-workers to sign up. Their very livelihoods depend upon maintaining a collective front in order to maintain a union wage.
 
Hey Union supporters, seems the UAW is already in the process of selling you down the river....

So whats your point?From your link.

<"Traditional workers really feel these [new] people have gotten a raw deal," she says, "but entry-level workers are looking at it differently, figuring, 'If I stick around long enough, I'll get the wage you got.' They understand the bargain.">


<"These are still good jobs. They still pay benefits," Schwartz says. "The health care is extremely good. ... We're talking about an industry that's competing very hard in a global marketplace, where they tend to have a labor-cost advantage. This is one way of trying to overcome it without damaging anybody who's already there.">

When the economy kicks in (when the obstructionism in the house gets kicked to the side of the road) they will get brought back up to scale.Why the hatred for working folk trying to help bring work and wages back to the home county?:(
 
Back
Top Bottom