• 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

Samhain said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the US should become a 'right to live' country, where you are not forced to pay dues.
 
TaraAnne said:
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!
Click to expand...

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."
 
Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly, an employee can choose whether to negotitate direcltly with their employer, or pay the union to represent them.
 
Samhain said:
Proposition 2, defeated 58% - 42% last month.
Click to expand...

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.

The official ballot text read as follows:

"PROPOSAL 12-2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

This proposal would:
Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.

Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.

Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.

Define “employer” as a person or entity employing one or more employees.


Should this proposal be approved?
YES __
NO ____ "
 
Bronson said:
Dem Rep. Doug Geiss threatens from house floor "THERE WILL BE BLOOD" - YouTube

Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor | WashingtonExaminer.com



Bring it on Union Thugs
Click to expand...

Right-to-work laws have nothing to do with an actual right to work. Everyone always has the ability to work for anyone who hires him/her, including in states that don't have so-called "right to work" laws.

The only thing the laws do is prohibit union-security agreement contracts, which simply state that if an employer hires a union member, that employer is required to only hire other members of that same union.

In other words, it's a voluntary agreement, not a mandatory one. A firm can always decide not to hire any union worker in a non-right-to-work state, and then that firm will be subject to no agreement.

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.
 
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The amendment didn't say you had to have a union, just enshrining the fact that you could, and it still got shot down by almost a 2-1 margin.

Now its law that you don't have to join a union or pay dues as condition of employment. You can still join a union or pay dues. The employee now has a choice, which is better than being forced.
 
solletica said:
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.
Click to expand...

You cannot agree to a contract that contains illegal provisions. Well....you can agree to it, but it's not enforceable. All contracts between individuals and organizations should not be allowed.
 
justabubba said:
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]
Click to expand...

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.
 
Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

the individual can have access to the union negotiated agreement for purposes of information gathering about what management finds reasonable
the union should have access to what management finds acceptable in regard to negotiating contracts for its represented employees when compared to other similarly situated employees. it's a 'good faith bargaining' expectation
 
jonny5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The poor do pay for medicare and Social security, if they have jobs.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The poor do pay for medicare and Social security, if they have jobs.
Click to expand...

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.

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
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
MaggieD said:
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."
Click to expand...

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!
 
TaraAnne said:
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!
Click to expand...
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.

P.S. We also have some of the highest tax rates and are currently bleeding jobs because of it.
 
TaraAnne said:
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!
Click to expand...

Yet you chose to remain in TX. Why did you not move from Ft. Worth to Detroit and enjoy higher wages, better education and better healthcare? Get real!
 
One thing I never understood is the need for public sector unions. It is not like the government is concerned with efficiency and/or making money and might try to short change the workers for profit. If anything the governmemt is too generous with other people's money. Are the unions there to better share the gravy with the more connected people within the public sector?

I can see in the private sector needing unions, since any business would like to minimize expenses, which might mean short changing worker rights and benefits. But when the public sector boss can wastefully borrow and spend other people's money, and then tax or print more money, and has no reason to be efficient or frugal, what is the need? Is it a bigger share of the looted booty?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is the easy way out, call taxes taxes and ignore their intent. It is easy calling for increased taxes on the rich when the majority in this country don't understand what FIT funds. Too many fall into that trap and that is exactly what Obama and liberals want.
 
TaraAnne said:
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!
Click to expand...

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?
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...


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?
 
winston53660 said:
At eight bucks an hour?
Click to expand...

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?
 
YoungConserv said:
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?
Click to expand...


Uhmm people don't pay union dues to the State government.
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...


Go home carpet bagger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom