• 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:
Don't tell me to stfu, and the overturning of a bill requires a greater vote than this dirty 11th hour tactic by a bunch of lame duck reps who allowed no debate on the bill.
Click to expand...

sounds like your teacher left your class to go protest..

You may want to read better...
 
I saw the movie "There will be Blood". Pretty gritty movie and sure enough, there was blood. Right after the bloody scene, a couple of old ladies walked out. If they say there will be blood, BELIEVE THEM.
 
clownboy said:
Unions prefer legislation that comes from them, otherwise they're just not that interested - they need relevance to continue to collect dues.
Click to expand...
You can keep beating on this single data point (which gives no reason as to why the AFLCIO opposed Johnson's legislation), but then people who use single point arguments to support nutty ideas are not a surprise to me, it is a technique used primarily by conservatives....who are usually divorced from reality.


Labor unions uneasy as OSHA withdraws proposed rules - The Hill
 
johnny_rebson said:
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.
Click to expand...

The "anti labor" voters?

The ones who are against labor?

That would be the people on the public dole, wouldn't it?

Or are you referring to the idle rich?
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the question, you were supposed to show that this legislation would be passed in the new legislature.

Everyone is recognizing that this legislation was being absolutely rushed through in the 11th hour of this session....because of the change in the House. Otherwise, there would be no reason to rush it through, since, under your scenario, it still would be passed next session.
 
MaggieD said:
Perhaps not to join, but they are forced to pay union dues. Same thing.
Click to expand...

Not really. The dues are to assure the non union worker is also represented.

I have to pay Homeowners Association dues even if I do not join the association.
The homehowners association represents all the homeowners in my subdivion. Not just a few.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, So you are in favor of Govt. regulating business. I thought that was bad, and now you are praising it.
 
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...

Well said.

This articles calls them free riders however.
The Republican lawmakers who supported the bills said the measures give workers the freedom to join a union or not. But that's not quite right. Workers are never required to join a union. They can, in states without right-to-work laws, be required to pay some dues to a union for representing them in negotiations with management.

That's because nonunion workers in that workplace benefit from a union-negotiated contract just like union members; the union can also be required to represent nonunion workers in a workplace conflict. In right-to-work states, nonunion workers who don't pay dues but benefit from union representation are called "free riders." Free riders drain union treasuries of money, economists have found, while shrinking union membership by 5 to 10 percent.
Click to expand...

Read more:
Michigan's Own Scott Walker-Style Showdown Is Coming | Mother Jones
 
minnie616 said:
Not really. The dues are to assure the non union worker is also represented.

I have to pay Homeowners Association dues even if I do not join the association.
The homehowners association represents all the homeowners in my subdivion. Not just a few.
Click to expand...

That is so not a valid comparison. (And, BTW, you are automatically a member of the association. There is no "joining" required.)
 
MaggieD said:
That is so not a valid comparison. (And, BTW, you are automatically a member of the association. There is no "joining" required.)
Click to expand...

Well, one thing is for certain I have to pay the dues even if do not want to be a member.
 
The Michigan Education Association spent 134 million last year, of which only 15 million was spent on representing their employees with an additional 39,000 spent on strike benefits.

6.5 million was spent on union adminsitration, 50 million on general overhead, and 4.8 million on political lobbying.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Title says Democrats.


Article says Democrat.
Click to expand...

Title directly copy and pasted

Look at the link in my post. It says "Democrats"

Checked again direct copy/paste:

Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor
Click to expand...

Fail
 
iguanaman said:
Oh, So you are in favor of Govt. regulating business. I thought that was bad, and now you are praising it.
Click to expand...

Well if you thought that was bad, from my view, you're wrong. I've never complained about government's ability to regulate business - that's the lion share of their job, regulating commerce. I do complain when the regulation is overboard or nonsensical.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That wasn't the question, you were supposed to show that this legislation would be passed in the new legislature.

Everyone is recognizing that this legislation was being absolutely rushed through in the 11th hour of this session....because of the change in the House. Otherwise, there would be no reason to rush it through, since, under your scenario, it still would be passed next session.
Click to expand...

Sorry, my crystal ball is low on batteries. :mrgreen:

But that's not what "everyone is recognizing". Some folks mention the reason is to use the momentum from the recent election (where the attempt to place anti-RTW language in the state's constitution was soundly defeated). But then I susoect you knew that, it just doesn't fit into your anti-republican narrative.
 
Samhain said:
The Michigan Education Association spent 134 million last year, of which only 15 million was spent on representing their employees with an additional 39,000 spent on strike benefits.

6.5 million was spent on union adminsitration, 50 million on general overhead, and 4.8 million on political lobbying.
Click to expand...

Are you a member of that union?
If so, then you need to talk to your fellow members if you don't like the way your union is spending your money.
If not, then what do you care how they spend their money?
 
Samhain said:
The Michigan Education Association spent 134 million last year....

50 million on general overhead, ...
Click to expand...

Yep. 61 % of the MEA's total spending was on “general overhead” which includes employee benefits.
 
minnie616 said:
Yep. 61 % of the MEA's total spending was on “general overhead” which includes employee benefits.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Disclosure laws strictly define what General overhead means, and it doesn't include Benefits. That's a separate line item, which is less than 1/2 of the General Overhead.
 
Samhain said:
Wrong. Disclosure laws strictly define what General overhead means, and it doesn't include Benefits. That's a separate line item, which is less than 1/2 of the General Overhead.
Click to expand...

From this article:

According to union documents, “representational activities” (money spent on bargaining contracts for members) made up only 11 percent of total spending for the union. Meanwhile, spending on “general overhead” (union administration and employee benefits) comprised of 61 percent of the total spending.
Click to expand...

Showdown in Michigan as legislature debates right-to-work laws « Hot Air
 
minnie616 said:
From this article:

According to union documents, “representational activities” (money spent on bargaining contracts for members) made up only 11 percent of total spending for the union. Meanwhile, spending on “general overhead” (union administration and employee benefits) comprised of 61 percent of the total spending.
Click to expand...

Showdown in Michigan as legislature debates right-to-work laws « Hot Air
Click to expand...

That's not member benefits, that's union employee benefits.
 
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...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
Congratulations, Michigan on doing the right thing. Seems liberals only like choice when it is about murdering the unborn or marrying someone of the same sex. The legal vote of the state doesn't matter when it is against the liberal agenda.

The state of Michigan outside of Detroit is a beautiful state that has been under liberal union influence for far too long. Now they can attract new businesses and new jobs. Look forward to seeing better results and better jobs in the state of Michigan as they join the other right to work states that have much better unemployment numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom