• 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!

Michigan House passes right-to-work law

Born Free said:
Lets see, Hostess liquidated because it was a profitable company. No it was competition in the market place and the higher cost of 18,000 workers was the reason it closed. As for any golden parachutes the owners are out of a business, don't know what a kind of a parachute that is, when you go out of business sounds like that parachutes had big holes in it.

Maybe you can tell me why unions have been losing membership for decades. Never mind I already know, bad ****ing management.
Click to expand...

Watch there, Born. You may be standing on your on dick there, mate.

The predator investors who bought Hostess borrowed millions to upgrade their equipment, which they didn't do, and they transferred the debt to Hostess which was already in trouble. There was no way Hostess could survive. Then the predators investors asked the workers for concessions to help "save" the company. Then the predator investors went back a second time and asked the workers to cut benefits and pensions. All this while little was being invested in Hostess. Salaries for top management increased and golden parachutes were given to top management to keep them on board while the predators raided Hostess for all they could get.
 
Risky Thicket said:
It's interesting, isn't it? From the same people who want to control women's bodies! If it weren't for unions women would all be at home, barefoot and pregnant. That, ironically, is where many wrong minded ultra-conservatives would like women to be.
Click to expand...

This is the "unwilling to think for yourself" quote I was mostly referring to. Nobody believes this crap except maybe a dawg. Well there you go.
 
Risky Thicket said:
You're pissing on the wrong tree, code. Apparently you are the kind of Conservative who needs to find a reason to be offended. Get a grip on yourself and try to unhissy fit for just a second. If you will notice I did not say ALL Conservatives. I didn't even say Conservatives. So unless you represent wrong minded ultra-conservatives you are not the dog in this fight.

I know and work with many conservatives. Most of them are good people who are normal mainstream folks. Some are extremely conservative socially and fiscally and while their positions don't align with even most conservatives, they are aware of that. They work, as most Americans, to have their views represented more in legislation. Then there is the cabal of ultra-right religionists, whom by the way, I referred to in an earlier post, which you apparently avoided in your haste to become immediately offended.



These mouthy group of malcontents seek to impose their limited world view on the rest of us. I don't like them for doing that. It's fine with me until they try to impose their twisted beliefs on the rest of us via legislation and social engineering. Santorum, Perry and Beck - as I mentioned in a previous post you chose to ignore or missed in your rush to be a victim - people of that ilk and Akin and Bachmann and the people who support them are the conservatives I'm talking about. The conservatives who give conservatism a bad name. These kinds of people, who are small in number, but conservatives none the less are the reason I left the GOP. Until most conservatives can remove these ultra-right crazies from the neck of the GOP, the conservative crazies will continue to suck the life out of conservatism until it is dead.
Click to expand...


If you had said "religionists" instead of Conservatives, apparently what you meant, there would have been no confusion. I'm not crazy about ANYONE who has a better idea on how to live my life than I do forcing me to listen to it. On that, it seems, we are in perfect agreement.

However, that extends in both directions on the political spectrum. I don't like any nut job telling me I need to change the way I do things because they know the Truth.

I wasn't offended, by the way. Just amused.

I get offended when a group of know nothing thieves is given the power to take my money and waste it on things that I wouldn't waste it on myself and then tell me that they know better when every shred of evidence from the long and painful record of history says they don't. That's offensive.

I agree with you. I don't necessarily connect every comment with every poster and maintain a catalogue for reference, so, for me, every comment pretty much stands on its own merit.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061225537 said:
It appears his post was an attempt to denigrate your choice of higher education.
Click to expand...

This comes from a guy who confuses Auburn with higher education. :roll:
 
Risky Thicket said:
This comes from a guy who confuses Auburn with higher education. :roll:
Click to expand...


Don't worry, we'll be sure to exploit the holes in defense you exposed in bama's defense and lay a little payback smackdown on them for ya in the orange bowl....heh, heh
 
code1211 said:
Let's see... Non-union jobs vs no jobs at all.

It's been my experience that something beats nothing every time.

Are there any Hostess Former Bakers who are making more now than when they had jobs?
Click to expand...

It's that attitude that CEOs count on to keep wages low.

"At least you have a job."

A job that doesn't pay a living wage isn't that worth having. Those are supposed to be the jobs for learning how to work, developing work ethic, and improving your skills.

Sadly, those are the jobs that adults are still filling, leaving teens and young adults out of the workforce.

Simply put, the longer a graphic designer or computer engineer is working at Whole Foods as a cashier, the worse it is not just for them - but for all of us. The longer people are out of career-oriented work, the lower the wages in those fields go and as wages lower and/or stagnate it cause damage economy wide. Some of this is natural (some industries simply become outdated - being a whaler is not a particularly hot skill anymore); but some of it is manipulated and blame misplaced.

Hostess didn't shut down because of the bakers. Hostess shut down because they failed to see a changing food economy - one that is steering away from processed food, making their products less marketable.

That wasn't the bakers fault. It was the fault of leadership. The bakers simply gave them an out and a scapegoat.
 
My childhood state of Michigan will now have the chance to rebound out from under the Union yoke.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
It's that attitude that CEOs count on to keep wages low.

"At least you have a job."

A job that doesn't pay a living wage isn't that worth having. Those are supposed to be the jobs for learning how to work, developing work ethic, and improving your skills.

Sadly, those are the jobs that adults are still filling, leaving teens and young adults out of the workforce.

Simply put, the longer a graphic designer or computer engineer is working at Whole Foods as a cashier, the worse it is not just for them - but for all of us. The longer people are out of career-oriented work, the lower the wages in those fields go and as wages lower and/or stagnate it cause damage economy wide. Some of this is natural (some industries simply become outdated - being a whaler is not a particularly hot skill anymore); but some of it is manipulated and blame misplaced.

Hostess didn't shut down because of the bakers. Hostess shut down because they failed to see a changing food economy - one that is steering away from processed food, making their products less marketable.

That wasn't the bakers fault. It was the fault of leadership. The bakers simply gave them an out and a scapegoat.
Click to expand...



And yet the products with which Hostess used to compete are still being distributed. The brands that Hostess used to sell will soon be sold by others who purchase the rights.

Your examples do not change the facts. Those 18,000 had jobs and now they don't. No amount of rationalization will pay the rent without a paycheck.
 
Dickieboy said:
Michigan GOP pushes right to work; Zorn against | MonroeNews.com

It is incredible this now. I'm not sure the state is ready for this...opinions?

ps. I'm betting Haymarket's head is about to explode about right now...
Click to expand...
What this shows is that despite the liberal crowing about the Obama victory, republicans gained power at the state level. When a state like Michigan elects a republican governor and a republican legislature and is able to pass this sort of legislation, it tells you republicans should not run from their ideals and principles, but embrace those that have shown to be so successful on a state level. Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia all have republican governors and many have republican controlled legislatures. There is no reason a republican cannot win those states on a national level and take the White House.
 
Great another stomp on unions and workers rights... Great... Moving back in time i see...

I think this man said it best:
1hxc86.jpg
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Great another stomp on unions and workers rights... Great... Moving back in time i see...

I think this man said it best:
1hxc86.jpg
Click to expand...

Allowing people the right, to not associate with a union, is moving back in time?
This change in law, does not ban unions, it bans forced payment of union dues.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Allowing people the right, to not associate with a union, is moving back in time?
This change in law, does not ban unions, it bans forced payment of union dues.
Click to expand...

Limits free rider problem, a way of ensuring that all workers incur the costs of collective bargaining (e.g., join the union and pay dues) so that everyone is better off, restricts freedom of association by not allowing workers and employers to agree to contracts that include share fees and then also creates the free rider problem, lowers wages and worker health and safety is also endangered, also these kind of laws place limits on the sort of agreements individuals who act collectively can make with their employer.
 
TaraAnne said:
This is flat out wrong! I live in a right to work state and yes it is true you will get more jobs. However, most will be low paying jobs period. One of the main reasons middle class income has not gone up in over 30 years is the fact that some people have been told the lie that Unions are the reason. No it is not! This country was built on Unions. Please look at Texas most minimum wage jobs created, poor schools, and bad healthcare. I know you all have seen our disaster Rick Perry. He and his minions are behind these problems. Michigan just fell into a sink hole right to work. More like right to give corporations the right to do whatever whenever they see fit.

Economists: Right-to-work states have lower-income residents, poor labor relations | Michigan Business | Detroit Free Press | freep.com
Click to expand...

Unemployment is pretty costly. I'd rather have more people with jobs, then less people with higher paying jobs. Plus, non-unionized jobs are less of a strain on budgets, and less likely to bankrupt a company so they are more stable. It may not be as sexy, but maximizing employment takes priority over wage growth for the health of society as a whole.
 
Good study what kind of impact these laws have on workers..
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper299.pdf


  • Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
  • The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
  • The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Limits free rider problem, a way of ensuring that all workers incur the costs of collective bargaining (e.g., join the union and pay dues) so that everyone is better off, restricts freedom of association by not allowing workers and employers to agree to contracts that include share fees and then also creates the free rider problem, lowers wages and worker health and safety is also endangered, also these kind of laws place limits on the sort of agreements individuals who act collectively can make with their employer.
Click to expand...

Due pay member has it's own free rider problems to.
Those are hardly never addressed.

Example: One worker busts her/his butt, while the other does the absolute minimum.
Both are protected equally by the union, even though one clearly doesn't deserve it.

If some workers want to agree, then they are free to pay the dues.
Others are free to negotiate their own wages.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Due pay member has it's own free rider problems to.
Those are hardly never addressed.

Example: One worker busts her/his butt, while the other does the absolute minimum.
Both are protected equally by the union, even though one clearly doesn't deserve it.
Click to expand...
Bot do deserve because both pay into the union and both are part of the union.

If some workers want to agree, then they are free to pay the dues.
Others are free to negotiate their own wages.
Click to expand...
True but more often than not the only way workers gain concessions is through collective action and more often than not the collective action comes from the union and the union members.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Bot do deserve because both pay into the union and both are part of the union.
Click to expand...

Then you're making contradictory examples here.
One in my example, is a free rider, while the other is not.
Paying the same dues, while performing less work, means that someone else is doing more for your lack of work.

TheDemSocialist said:
True but more often than not the only way workers gain concessions is through collective action and more often than not the collective action comes from the union and the union members.
Click to expand...

They can still form unions, it just may not be with all workers.
It's not fair, to unionize a whole work force, when only some want to be a part of it.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Then you're making contradictory examples here.
One in my example, is a free rider, while the other is not.
Paying the same dues, while performing less work, means that someone else is doing more for your lack of work.
Click to expand...
Given that no matter what people will always outpefrom each other and often different tasks even inside of union require different amounts of work. No matter what (if i understand your example) is that some people are lazy that is part of any workplace some workers are more lazy than others. However saying that they still pay into the union and are part of the union.


They can still form unions, it just may not be with all workers.
It's not fair, to unionize a whole work force, when only some want to be a part of it.
Click to expand...
Its fair. They all benefit from the unions concessions and the unions benefits.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Given that no matter what people will always outpefrom each other and often different tasks even inside of union require different amounts of work. No matter what (if i understand your example) is that some people are lazy that is part of any workplace some workers are more lazy than others. However saying that they still pay into the union and are part of the union.
Click to expand...

Yea but one subsidizes the other.
It's just another free rider problem.


TheDemSocialist said:
Its fair. They all benefit from the unions concessions and the unions benefits.
Click to expand...

Then don't extend the extra protections and/or benefits to the non union employees.
It's pretty simple.
Make it worth the cost of joining.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Limits free rider problem, a way of ensuring that all workers incur the costs of collective bargaining (e.g., join the union and pay dues) so that everyone is better off, restricts freedom of association by not allowing workers and employers to agree to contracts that include share fees and then also creates the free rider problem, lowers wages and worker health and safety is also endangered, also these kind of laws place limits on the sort of agreements individuals who act collectively can make with their employer.
Click to expand...

No, not everyone is better off. In fact, everyone is worse off when the union bankrupts the company and everyone loses their job. If I don't want to be a part of a union that is my right. It is my right to say that the union cannot use me as extra political weight to throw around.

If you want to eliminate the "free rider" problem, just have union contracts only valid for union workers in the company. If I don't want to be a part of the union fine, but I have to negogiate my own wages. Say union dues are $2000 a year, I'll just accept a wage that is $1000 a year less than the union wage, and thus would actually make more than if I were in the union, and be cheaper for the company at the same time.

If I have a problem with how the company is being run that goes beyond compensation, I can either leave the company or forfeit that extra $1000 for negotiation power.

The point is, I'm not forced to choose either between a completely non-unionized sector, or a completely unionized sector. Dichotomies are generally a bad solution to any problem. And I'm willing to bet that unions would be more frequent under my model, because its not all or nothing. Its not 100% of the work force or 0%, so employers aren't so much life or death on the issue.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Not really. Who is continuing, even after the election, to attempt to ramrod female reproduction control down the throats of America? Even though the majority of Americans support pro-choice. Even though 50 percent of Catholics supported Obama. Who voted against ratification of a U.N. treaty that calls upon countries to ensure disabled citizens receive the same rights and freedoms as their able-bodied peers? (Because, they said, in part that it would support abortion!) The same dickwits that cannot understand that America doesn't accept the reactionary ideals of the Tea Party, Rick Santorum, Glenn Beck, Rick Perry and their ilk.

These people, this small cabal of ultra-right religionists, who are apparently hell-bent on social engineering an entire nation to conform with their twisted world view, who are intolerant and narrow minded, who are unwilling to recognize views and the wishes of the majority of citizens in this representative democracy, are doing all they possibly can to take the nation backwards. There intentions are evident in all that they say and do. It is thus no surprise to me that these same people who would deny equal rights to women and to people who are disabled would also deny rights to American workers.

Talking points? Not ****ing likely. Anyone on this board who is familiar with my posts knows that I truly have no political affiliation other than commonsense and equality. More people here seem to be leaning toward commonsense. Some continue to be predictable partisan hacks, partisan hacks who have displayed time and time and time again that they are unable and unwilling to think for themselves.
Click to expand...

That is by far the biggest Red Herring I have ever seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom