• 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

you mean 'right to work for less money, less benefits, and less workplace safety'? yeah, thats a hell of a way to compete.

Workplace safety is regulated by the state and the feds, by legislation, it's not a union thing. But yes, it means I have the option of taking a job in my chosen field for less pay and/or less benefits if it suits me. It also means I can take a job for more pay and benefits than are offered in the union shop. Or different benefit/pay mixes that suit me.
 
This is a GREAT DAY!!!! :clap:
Destroy State Unions! Greed is BAD for tax payers and the economy!
 
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.

Most of that came through legislation and applies to all, union and non-union business. Take your own advice - do some homework.
 
American unions have such a proud history and tradition of honesty, integrity and treating their members with great respect much like the mafia and Noreth Korean police.
 
If you can't defend your silly comparison, it isn't me with the "weakness".

Still dodging that you mis-spoke (to put it gently) regarding the lame duck/legislative mix change. This bill passage is not being done in lame duck session because it couldn't be done in the new legislature as you assert. The new legislature is still on the side of the RTW law.
 
Most of that came through legislation and applies to all, union and non-union business. Take your own advice - do some homework.
Too funny! You tell someone to research the history of these laws while you try to infer that union efforts had no connection with those laws.

Wow!
 
Still dodging that you mis-spoke (to put it gently) regarding the lame duck/legislative mix change. This bill passage is not being done in lame duck session because it couldn't be done in the new legislature as you assert. The new legislature is still on the side of the RTW law.
You are asserting that the new Dems (4) are on the "side" of RTW?

The burden of proof is yours.
 
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.
your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled, as wrong as it may be...everyday, there are lobbyists in washington, and the various state houses, groups like ALEC, crossroads gps(oh, don't let me forget the likes of grover norquist and the koch brothers) trying to weaken labor laws, work place safety rules, ....unions like the one i belong to, the UAW, are there to counter them....republicans can't stomach the fact that they are opposed on this. hence there attempts gut and destroy labor...it really is that simple....destroy labor, and destroy the only viable opposistion to republicans. that is the purpose behind 'right to work' for less money, less benefits, less workplace safety, and no voice in the workplace, and it has nothing to do with the terms 'right' or as governor snyder has been saying 'freedom', and everything with installing a failing republican party in the whitehouse and state houses for the next several elections.
 
Most of that came through legislation and applies to all, union and non-union business. Take your own advice - do some homework.
legislation that was pushed by unions, educate yourself.
 
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.
Well, sort of. A lot of this was introduced in the Fair Labor Standards Act - passed amidst growing public anger over labor violence and sit down strikes. Unions were not doing a good job of dealing with these issues, so the government stepped in.
 
Too funny! You tell someone to research the history of these laws while you try to infer that union efforts had no connection with those laws.

Wow!

Do a little research into OSHA and the bills that formed it and then choose what flavor crow you'd like to ingest. The unions aren't all that interested in workplace safety that they did not author. Why, same as the loss leader tactic, the change when not dependent upon them makes them dispensible.

I'd much rather be protected by legislation than a union. I'm already paying government to represent me in these matters, don't need a huckster middleman.
 
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.

yes, because they had to offer those same things the union negotiated for and won in order to compete for employees

so, those employees who object to paying union dues should insist on working in non-union shops where there will be no expectation for them to pay union dues
 
Still dodging that you mis-spoke (to put it gently) regarding the lame duck/legislative mix change. This bill passage is not being done in lame duck session because it couldn't be done in the new legislature as you assert. The new legislature is still on the side of the RTW law.
better check that, this would not have happened in january....the repubs lost seats in the house, and several repubs would have voted with the dems in the house....this would have gone nowhere.
 
You are asserting that the new Dems (4) are on the "side" of RTW?

The burden of proof is yours.

More problems with comprehension. You asserted there was a significant enough change in the legislative mix that the RTW bill could only pass in the lame duck session, before the new legislature takes office. Turns out that's not the case. Keep ducking and weaving.
 
Last edited:
better check that, this would not have happened in january....the repubs lost seats in the house, and several repubs would have voted with the dems in the house....this would have gone nowhere.

One question then, come this January, do the republicans (we're making the, perhaps mistaken, assumption here that all republicans will vote for RTW and all democrats against) have the majority in the house to pass the bill onto the senate?
 
Do a little research into OSHA and the bills that formed it and then choose what flavor crow you'd like to ingest. The unions aren't all that interested in workplace safety that they did not author. Why, same as the loss leader tactic, the change when not dependent upon them makes them dispensible.

I'd much rather be protected by legislation than a union. I'm already paying government to represent me in these matters, don't need a huckster middleman.
Your argument is absolutely nutty. Unions have always been interested in protecting their members well being and pay. To argue otherwise, and to somehow infer that laws protecting workers is not "something unions are interested in" is one of the greatest examples of self delusion I have ever seen.
 
Last edited:
More problems with comprehension. You asserted there was a significant enough change in the legislative mix that the RTW bill could only pass in the lame duck session, before the new legislature takes office. Turns out that's not the case. Keep ducking and weaving.
I'm sorry where did you show otherwise? Please...link?
 
Your argument is absolutely nutty. Unions have always been interested in protecting their members well being and pay. To argue otherwise, and to somehow infer that laws protecting workers is not "something unions are interested in" is one of the greatest examples of self delusion I have ever seen written.

Unions prefer legislation that comes from them, otherwise they're just not that interested - they need relevance to continue to collect dues.

On January 23, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson submitted a comprehensive occupational health and safety bill to Congress.[9] Led by the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, the legislation was widely opposed by business.[14] Many labor leaders, including the leadership of the AFL-CIO, did not fight for the legislation, claiming workers had little interest in the bill.[14] The legislation died in committee.[7]

Source
 
One question then, come this January, do the republicans (we're making the, perhaps mistaken, assumption here that all republicans will vote for RTW and all democrats against) have the majority in the house to pass the bill onto the senate?
democrats gained seats in the house, and enough republicans have said that they would have continued to vote no, so this wouldnt have gotten out of the house.
 
democrats gained seats in the house, and enough republicans have said that they would have continued to vote no, so this wouldnt have gotten out of the house.

Real good reason for term limits. Legislators will vote their conscience instead of worrying about being re-elected.
 
I'm sorry where did you show otherwise? Please...link?

Oh c'mon. Try google, or try here. The republicans will still have a clear majority in the Michigan house when the new legislature takes seat.
 
Back
Top Bottom