• 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

Dickieboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
1,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Monroe County’s Dale Zorn, R-Ida, was one of only six Republicans to vote against the hotly debated Right-to-work legislation that passed the Michigan House Thursday.

The bill passed 58-52 in the Republican-controlled Michigan House mostly along party lines. Protesting Democrats held a temporary walkout. The bill now must sit for five days before the Senate can vote on it.

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...
 
Corporate shills, turds and idiots, every one of them.
 
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.

http://www.freep.com/article/201212...lower-income-residents-poorer-labor-relations
 
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

And yet has a higher unemployment rate and a DECLINE in population because the unions were doing SO WELL...And Granholm...SHE was a peach, wasn't she?!
 
And yet has a higher unemployment rate and a DECLINE in population because the unions were doing SO WELL...And Granholm...SHE was a peach, wasn't she?!

My point exactly blame the Unions. Not the bosses that mis-managed the company and paid themselves a ton of money to run those compaines into the ground. The fact is this country needs more Unions. I find it really odd that in Japan it is 22 to1 ratio from Ceo pay to worker and in America it is 245 to 1. Yeah right to work seems to be working real well.


Anyways its good to see a Texan!
 
My point exactly blame the Unions. Not the bosses that mis-managed the company and paid themselves a ton of money to run those compaines into the ground. The fact is this country needs more Unions. I find it really odd that in Japan it is 22 to1 ratio from Ceo pay to worker and in America it is 245 to 1. Yeah right to work seems to be working real well.


Anyways its good to see a Texan!

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.
 
My point exactly blame the Unions. Not the bosses that mis-managed the company and paid themselves a ton of money to run those compaines into the ground. The fact is this country needs more Unions. I find it really odd that in Japan it is 22 to1 ratio from Ceo pay to worker and in America it is 245 to 1. Yeah right to work seems to be working real well.


Anyways its good to see a Texan!

I didn't blame the unions for anything, I simply implied that they did not save Michigan from being brought to the brink of economic disaster. My entire family is based out of Michigan and I lived there for several years. I saw first hand how the left-leaning governor pushed businesses out of the state for damn near 10 years. I saw how union unwillingness to budge exacerbated her idiotic policies.

My entire point was that it is ridiculous to act as if right-to-work will be any more detrimental than unions were beneficial. Neither structure is perfect, and acting as if either one is inherently better than the other in the modern era is ill-supported.
 
You sure have those liberal BS talking points down... LMAO

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.
 
...Anyone on this board who is familiar with my posts knows that I truly have no political affiliation other than commonsense and equality.

It would seem to me that right-to-work would promote the equality you espouse. It does not prohibit organization but rather gives those who DON'T want to participate more 'equality'. But of course I could be wrong...

...and for reference don't 'elections have consequences'?
 
Good for Michigan. You shouldn't be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.
 
It would seem to me that right-to-work would promote the equality you espouse.

The loss of collective bargaining is going to promote and support equality for workers? How is that?

Here's a quick anecdote. In my younger days I had a pay dispute with my employer. I was not paid what I was told I would make, in writing, no less. I elected to join the union when I was hired. I did not have to join.

I like to handle my own affairs, stand-up and speak for myself. In this instance it got me nowhere. I talked to management and HR until I was blue in the face. Being new and young they were not in the least bit threatened. They had no intention of honoring their written commitment to me. I eventually swallowed my pride and contacted the union rep via phone early one morning. By the end of the workday my boss's secretary handed me an envelope with a letter of acknowledging the "mistake" and guaranteeing my new adjusted salary and a check for the backpay that was rightfully mine.

Right to Work would have helped me how?

It does not prohibit organization but rather gives those who DON'T want to participate more 'equality'.

I don't see how.

...and for reference don't 'elections have consequences'?

Yes, they are called political mandates from the electorate.
 
The loss of collective bargaining is going to promote and support equality for workers? How is that?

Yes, they are called political mandates from the electorate.

And the electorate spoke. They shot down an amendment solidifying collective bargaining rules less than a month ago 60-40.
 
The loss of collective bargaining is going to promote and support equality for workers? How is that?

How does RTW passage cause the ‘loss of collective bargaining’?

Here's a quick anecdote. In my younger days I had a pay dispute with my employer. I was not paid what I was told I would make, in writing, no less. I elected to join the union when I was hired. I did not have to join.
This has nothing to do with collective bargaining, unionization or RTW. IF your agreement was in writing as you state you had an EXCELLENT lawsuit unless there is other information regarding a legitimate reason you were not performing in compliance with said written agreement you failed to provide in you anecdote…

Yes, they are called political mandates from the electorate.
EXACTLY…hence the passage of RTW in Michigan…
 
I can't find the actual text of either version of the bill online--even on the Michigan legislatures website. I've heard mention that Union dues would be voluntary and a lot about how much unions had done re: minimum wage and 8 hour work days
 
Who is continuing, even after the election, to attempt to ramrod female reproduction control down the throats of America?

I didn't realize that there was any political party that was trying to control a females reproduction choices. Last time I checked, a woman still had the choice of whether or not to have sex, and if so, could easily obtain birth control pills. So tell me, who is trying to outlaw women from having sex, and/or trying to outlaw birth control pills, and could you please link me to the proposed legislation?

Unless you are referring to Republicans opposing the government giving out free birth control pills through Obamacare... If that's the case, then you have again shoveled more dishonest liberal talking points.


It is thus no surprise to me that these same people who would deny equal rights to women

What specific rights are Republicans denying women?


and to people who are disabled

What specific rights are Republicans denying the disabled?


would also deny rights to American workers.

What specific rights are Republicans denying American workers?
 
I hope it passes. If I want to be a police officer, public school teacher, or any other public sector employee I shouldn't have to join a union in order to get the job.

If I read the story correctly, it won't effect public sector unions.
 
The loss of collective bargaining is going to promote and support equality for workers? How is that?

Here's a quick anecdote. In my younger days I had a pay dispute with my employer. I was not paid what I was told I would make, in writing, no less. I elected to join the union when I was hired. I did not have to join.

I like to handle my own affairs, stand-up and speak for myself. In this instance it got me nowhere. I talked to management and HR until I was blue in the face. Being new and young they were not in the least bit threatened. They had no intention of honoring their written commitment to me. I eventually swallowed my pride and contacted the union rep via phone early one morning. By the end of the workday my boss's secretary handed me an envelope with a letter of acknowledging the "mistake" and guaranteeing my new adjusted salary and a check for the backpay that was rightfully mine.

Right to Work would have helped me how?



I don't see how.



Yes, they are called political mandates from the electorate.

If you have a written offer or guarantee of pay (and even if you don't) you can go to the state labor department and file a complaint against your employer. My dad did it and received what he was owed in less than 2 weeks. Once employers receive a letter from the state saying they're being investigated they usually rectify their "error".
 
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

When unions are really needed to protect workers they tend to organize whether they have special legal privileges or not. As it is today, Wagner act unionism is nothing more than legalized extortion and no longer has anything to do with protecting the workers. States rightly want to protect the general public and their own markets from such rackets.
 
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.

Well, and argument could certainly be made that a lot of the problems with our children, divorce rates, and an over saturation in the workforce has led to a continuation of lower wages, no one home to guide the children, and divorce rates over 50%. I'm not saying women shouldn't work at all, but someone needs to be home, whether the man or the woman for the kids, and both men and women from a single household certainly over saturates the workforce, which keeps wages lower, generally speaking.

Just a theory of mine. To complex with too many variables to prove, but my gut tells me a lot of the ills facing America over the last 40 years is due primarily to the breakdown of the family staple.


Tim-
 
Corporate shills, turds and idiots, every one of them.

Giving a worker the right to work, without being forced to join a union is bad?

Personally, I'm not having a problem with a man going to work and working his way up the ranks, without having the union sanction those advancements.
 
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.

Unions did that? :rofl

Right!
 
Back
Top Bottom