• 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

Gimmesometruth said:
Overturning a law is always more difficult, especially if it requires combating a Gov veto. Note, the Gov last year stated he would not sign off on a "RTW" law.
Click to expand...

Another poster indicated that neither house is changing its basic makeup, so it doesn't matter if this legislation is taken up now or later, it still would have passed. Its probably being done now in response to the failed measure to amend the state constitution(58%-42%) with guaranteed collective bargaining rights.
 
Erod said:
God forbid someone be allowed to work without being forced to pay a union they don't want to join.

Freedom in the eyes of the Democrat party.
Click to expand...
i actually agree with you
folks should not be compelled to pay union dues
but neither should they receive union representation in the workplace
nor should they receive the things the union has already obtained for its represented workforce, such as sick leave, vacation days, family-friendly provisions, objective performance assessments, overtime pay, retirement plans, merit promotions, break facilities, grievance resolution processes, etc.
they should be able to give up paying the cost of union operations ... but to do so they have to also acknowledge their willingness to relinquish their entitlement to any and all of the benefits that have been negotiated for the workforce by that union with which they seek to have no affiliation
 
clownboy said:
I didn't refer to you specifically, and again, you misunderstood. Unless you are a member of the Michigan legislature, then I was indeed talking about you.
Click to expand...
It is not only MI reps speaking out, working against this effort by lame duck GOP reps. Watch what you write to me, bub.



No, it's not. A repeal bill requires the same vote the original bill requires and your point was the legislayive mix had changed for the new cycle. IF that is true as you assert, then it should be no problem to have the repeal bill crafted and waiting for the new majority to take office in a month.
Click to expand...
You have zero real world political experience if you really believe what you are writing.
 
justabubba said:
i actually agree with you
folks should not be compelled to pay union dues
but neither should they receive union representation in the workplace
nor should they receive the things the union has already obtained for its represented workforce, such as sick leave, vacation days, family-friendly provisions, objective performance assessments, overtime pay, retirement plans, merit promotions, break facilities, grievance resolution processes, etc.
they should be able to give up paying the cost of union operations ... but to do so they have to also acknowledge their willingness to relinquish their entitlement to any and all of the benefits that have been negotiated for the workforce by that union with which they seek to have no affiliation
Click to expand...
exactly, no freeloaders
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Only when they benefit from those Union efforts to increase pay. If they take the benefit without supporting those responsible, then they are freeloaders.
Click to expand...

Being given "benefits" they did not ask for, that makes them freeloaders? Yeah, right. This is precisely why if someone mails goods to you unasked you get to keep said goods without obligation. It's a loss leader of sorts.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Only when they benefit from those Union efforts to increase pay. If they take the benefit without supporting those responsible, then they are freeloaders.
Click to expand...

"My machine is down, and I have nothing to do. I'll go sit in the cafeteria until it's fixed. And I'm not sweeping that damned floor!! It's not my job classification!! Call my union rep!!!" Who's the freeloader?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No one is forced to join, that has been illegal for decades. You have a choice, if you don't want increased pay, then accept the lower wage without the benefit. If you want the higher pay, then support those who got it for you.
Click to expand...

You libs still don't get it.

After Romney lost, you libs were telling us we needed to go the "big tent" route and go after new sets of voters. No we are doing that, we are courting the anti-labor voters. We will have their vote in the 2014 and 2016 elections.
 
justabubba said:
i actually agree with you
folks should not be compelled to pay union dues
but neither should they receive union representation in the workplace
nor should they receive the things the union has already obtained for its represented workforce, such as sick leave, vacation days, family-friendly provisions, objective performance assessments, overtime pay, retirement plans, merit promotions, break facilities, grievance resolution processes, etc.
they should be able to give up paying the cost of union operations ... but to do so they have to also acknowledge their willingness to relinquish their entitlement to any and all of the benefits that have been negotiated for the workforce by that union with which they seek to have no affiliation
Click to expand...

You credit unions with vacations? Retirement plans? Sick Days? Break facilities? Pensions? I've got big news for you!! Those bennies are rife in nonunion workplaces.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Anyone who benefits from Union efforts in increasing pay without paying for the effort....is a freeloader.

No one is forced to join, that has been illegal for decades. You have a choice, if you don't want increased pay, then accept the lower wage without the benefit. If you want the higher pay, then support those who got it for you.
Click to expand...
How about, if you want the higher pay, get it for yourself?

Work hard, prove your value to the employer, and negotiate your own increase.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Overturning a law is always more difficult, especially if it requires combating a Gov veto. Note, the Gov last year stated he would not sign off on a "RTW" law.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think he specifically said this...but of course you are welcome to prove me wrong.
 
Union tend to vote democrat and give money support to democratic candidates and causes. When you force everyone to pay dues, everyone has to contribute to the democratic party even if your affilation is another party or no party.

The fear the union leaders and democrats have is competition, since they now have a monopoly on union dues. It is conceivable that a republican union could form, based on members of the current unions, who like being in the union, but are currently being forced to shoot themselves in the foot.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It is not only MI reps speaking out, working against this effort by lame duck GOP reps. Watch what you write to me, bub.
Click to expand...

But, it is only MI reps that can vote on the matter and that is what we were talking about. As for that last, KMA, this is a discussion board and the only control you have in the discussion is over what YOU post.

Gimmesometruth said:
You have zero real world political experience if you really believe what you are writing.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but since you haven't a clue what my experience is, it's foolish to make such a statement. Especially considering I'm correct. Are you sticking with the assertion that a repeal bill takes more votes than the original bill did? Or are you just covering for the fact you mis-spoke and the change in legislative mix is so slight as to be a non-factor here.
 
MaggieD said:
You credit unions with vacations? Retirement plans? Sick Days? Break facilities? Pensions? I've got big news for you!! Those bennies are rife in nonunion workplaces.
Click to expand...
they are 'rife' as you put it, because unions led the way in getting them, and non union shops had to offer them to compete.
 
Well said:
Union tend to vote democrat and give money support democratic candidates and causes. When you force everyone to pay dues, everyone has to contribute to the democratic party even if your affilation is another party.

The fear the union leadersand democrats have is competition, since they now have a monopoly. It is conceivable that a republican union could form, based on members of the current unions who like being in the union but are forced to shoot themselves in the foot.
Click to expand...
you may want to re-think the second part of your post.
 
clownboy said:
Being given "benefits" they did not ask for, that makes them freeloaders? Yeah, right. This is precisely why if someone mails goods to you unasked you get to keep said goods without obligation. It's a loss leader of sorts.
Click to expand...
So your argument is to compare continuing benefit you receive without any effort from you....to a one time address error?

Keep digging that hole.
 
randel said:
they are 'rife' as you put it, because unions led the way in getting them, and non union shops had to offer them to compete.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure all those other businesses like banks and hospitals and investment companies and customs companies and car repair shops and ad infinitum had to offer those benefits to compete for people who work on the line at an assembly plant.
 
randel said:
they are 'rife' as you put it, because unions led the way in getting them, and non union shops had to offer them to compete.
Click to expand...
A bit like how states like Michigan are having to make changes in order to compete with RTW states in attracting companies.
 
randel said:
they are 'rife' as you put it, because unions led the way in getting them, and non union shops had to offer them to compete.
Click to expand...

Except that's not true. There are many non-union companies companies that have no union competitive pressure that also offer said benefits. In fact, before the public sector unions were even in play in Wisconsin the state already had a law creating these benefits for public service employees.
 
Taylor said:
A bit like how states like Michigan are having to make changes in order to compete with RTW states in attracting companies.
Click to expand...
you mean 'right to work for less money, less benefits, and less workplace safety'? yeah, thats a hell of a way to compete.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So your argument is to compare continuing benefit you receive without any effort from you....to a one time address error?

Keep digging that hole.
Click to expand...

Keep on with the lack of comprehension, it exposes the weakness in your position.
 
clownboy said:
Except that's not true. There are many non-union companies companies that have no union competitive pressure that also offer said benefits. In fact, before the public sector unions were even in play in Wisconsin the state already had a law creating these benefits for public service employees.
Click to expand...
trying to be nice here, but you and maggie need to do some homework...all these 'bennies' didnt just come from the 'good hearts' of these businesses....40hr week, time and a half for overtime, vacation days, sick days, child labor laws...you can thank unions for them.
 
clownboy said:
But, it is only MI reps that can vote on the matter and that is what we were talking about.
Click to expand...
No, it was not what I (me) was talking about. Here you are talking about "comprehension", total hypocrisy.
As for that last, KMA, this is a discussion board and the only control you have in the discussion is over what YOU post.
Click to expand...
Reported.



Perhaps, but since you haven't a clue what my experience is, it's foolish to make such a statement. Especially considering I'm correct. Are you sticking with the assertion that a repeal bill takes more votes than the original bill did? Or are you just covering for the fact you mis-spoke and the change in legislative mix is so slight as to be a non-factor here.
Click to expand...
Now you have gone into putting words into my mouth, along with the insults and hypocrisy on "comprehension".

The MI house is a very small GOP majority, even less so with the Nov elections. IF a repeal bill did get through the House next session, there is no way it would get through the Senate....since it is very securely held by the GOP.
 
clownboy said:
Keep on with the lack of comprehension, it exposes the weakness in your position.
Click to expand...
If you can't defend your silly comparison, it isn't me with the "weakness".
 
randel said:
trying to be nice here, but you and maggie need to do some homework...all these 'bennies' didnt just come from the 'good hearts' of these businesses....40hr week, time and a half for overtime, vacation days, sick days, child labor laws...you can thank unions for them.
Click to expand...

What have they done for us lately? In other words, the purpose of their organizations' founding has long since been lost and its goals are based on greed of the union itself to survive and remain relevant.
 
randel said:
you mean 'right to work for less money, less benefits, and less workplace safety'? yeah, thats a hell of a way to compete.
Click to expand...
Beats standing around in Janesville, staring at the ground with your hands in your pockets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom