• 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!

House votes: Michigan is going to become a 'right-to-work' state for all

Dickieboy said:
Tsk...tsk, have you even read the 1956 GOP Platform? I expected you to return with this:



Which was also included in the platform and union officials referred them to 'slave-labor' acts...now which is your point?

...damn! it seems I'm arguing with myself...:lamo
Click to expand...

They were very pro union in the 1952 stance and still pro union in 1956... The divide started getting larger then. And MUCH MUCH larger in the 1980's. Now days the GOP is anti-union 100% and it has nothing to do with the economy but only to do with trying to destroy a large portion of the Democratic base. They couldn't give a **** about our economy. They are a shrinking, dying party bent to maintain control by not expanding their base but by destroying their opposition's base.
 
poweRob said:
They were very pro union in the 1952 stance and still pro union in 1956... The divide started getting larger then. And MUCH MUCH larger in the 1980's. Now days the GOP is anti-union 100% and it has nothing to do with the economy but only to do with trying to destroy a large portion of the Democratic base. They couldn't give a **** about our economy. They are a shrinking, dying party bent to maintain control by not expanding their base but by destroying their opposition's base.
Click to expand...

You have moved from a specific point in 1956 to a generalization covering the next 50 years. How would you propose a cogent reply? I cannot argue that Unions have not become unpopular over that period nor that the GOP has had a hand in this. But I am also of the opinion that the Unions themselves bear some responsibility for this unpopularity as well. There decline cannot be borne solely by the GOP considering the parity in both state and federal government throughout the last 50 years.
 
Dickieboy said:
You have moved from a specific point in 1956 to a generalization covering the next 50 years. How would you propose a cogent reply? I cannot argue that Unions have not become unpopular over that period nor that the GOP has had a hand in this. But I am also of the opinion that the Unions themselves bear some responsibility for this unpopularity as well. There decline cannot be borne solely by the GOP considering the parity in both state and federal government throughout the last 50 years.
Click to expand...

I don't put it all on the GOP but this is a political forum and this is what we are talking about. I don't think all unions are great. They are a people institution and therefore can be flawed. They tend to go rotten when you have big membership and little participation from the membership and then an oligarchy ensues. But the politics of the downfall is right to work bills. They are the deathknell of unions and the GOP's tool for doing all they can to take them down.
 
poweRob said:
If making me the topic of the thead is what gets your rocks off. Go for it. All I'm just saying is that this move is an obvious foreshadowing of a reaction to come.
Click to expand...

Your sexual inuendo won't help you here.
 
poweRob said:
I don't put it all on the GOP but this is a political forum and this is what we are talking about. I don't think all unions are great. They are a people institution and therefore can be flawed. They tend to go rotten when you have big membership and little participation from the membership and then an oligarchy ensues. But the politics of the downfall is right to work bills. They are the deathknell of unions and the GOP's tool for doing all they can to take them down.
Click to expand...

I just don't see the RTW as that damaging as others do. MANY unions exist in RTW states. Is the free rider an issue? It can be. I am currently in a discussion in another thread based on the suppostion that the free rider is capable of negotiating a better benefit package than that of the Union's negotiation. This would certainly negate any 'something for nothing' argument and would appear advantageous to the employer...

Ultimately I believe that RTW will force the Unions to sell themselves better, which shouldn't be that hard to do. There is a certain reliable percentage of the workforce who simply do not want to negotiate benefits themselves and prefer others to ‘just take care of it for me’. I predict that once enough pressure is upon them they will excel and Union participation will explode.

And to be clear I have no pro/anti position on Unions. If a majority wants to organize, fine with me. I hope it works out for you! (euphemistically of course…)
 
Dickieboy said:
I just don't see the RTW as that damaging as others do. MANY unions exist in RTW states. Is the free rider an issue? It can be. I am currently in a discussion in another thread based on the suppostion that the free rider is capable of negotiating a better benefit package than that of the Union's negotiation. This would certainly negate any 'something for nothing' argument and would appear advantageous to the employer...

Ultimately I believe that RTW will force the Unions to sell themselves better, which shouldn't be that hard to do. There is a certain reliable percentage of the workforce who simply do not want to negotiate benefits themselves and prefer others to ‘just take care of it for me’. I predict that once enough pressure is upon them they will excel and Union participation will explode.

And to be clear I have no pro/anti position on Unions. If a majority wants to organize, fine with me. I hope it works out for you! (euphemistically of course…)
Click to expand...

Well in RTW states, in a union company by law the union has to represent everyone in the company... union member or not. So if a guy not paying dues to the union gets into a fight with a bossman, and the bossman comes down on him, he can insist that the union represent him. And if they union says they won't he can then sue the union. RTW hamstrings unions in so many ways. And ultimately what I think it does is pit workers against each other which is the way many big orgs fail... just like that from within.
 
poweRob said:
Well in RTW states, in a union company by law the union has to represent everyone in the company... union member or not. So if a guy not paying dues to the union gets into a fight with a bossman, and the bossman comes down on him, he can insist that the union represent him. And if they union says they won't he can then sue the union. RTW hamstrings unions in so many ways. And ultimately what I think it does is pit workers against each other which is the way many big orgs fail... just like that from within.
Click to expand...

False:

It is a compelling argument, but untrue. The National Labor Relations Act does not mandate unions exclusively represent all employees, but permits them to electively do so. Under the Act, unions can also negotiate "members-only" contracts that only cover dues-paying members. They do not have to represent other employees.

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly on this point. As Justice William Brennan wrote in Retail Clerks v. Lion Dry Goods, the Act's coverage "is not limited to labor organizations which are entitled to recognition as exclusive bargaining agents of employees … 'Members only' contracts have long been recognized."
Click to expand...

The Right-to-Freeload Myth
 
Dickieboy said:
False:



The Right-to-Freeload Myth
Click to expand...


You do realize that heritage is a Koch think-tank/organization that is and has been geared to destroy unions right?

Companies can elect NOT to represent a non-union employee and then expect to be sued by that employee for not doing so.
 
poweRob said:
You do realize that heritage is a Koch think-tank/organization that is and has been geared to destroy unions right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. But the portion I quoted was based on case law. Your postion would be more assertive if you merely provided a source to counter their point. Or should I dig up the Supreme court ruling to further solidify their conclusions?

Companies can elect NOT to represent a non-union employee and then expect to be sued by that employee for not doing so.
Click to expand...

Why would a company represent a non-union employee? Against who, themselves? Or did you mean Union? If so can you support this as it refutes my link.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
Where in that tltr thing is your supporting conclusion?
Click to expand...

There are several parts that refer to the arrangement but this states it most clearly:

We conclude …requiring the companies to cease recognizing the Brotherhood 'as the exclusive representative of their employees' stands on a different footing. The contracts do not claim for the Brotherhood exclusive representation of the companies' employees but only representation of those who are its members, and the continued operation of the contracts is necessarily subject to the provision of the law by which representatives of the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining can be ascertained in case any question of 'representation' should arise...
Click to expand...
 
Dickieboy said:
There are several parts that refer to the arrangement but this states it most clearly:
Click to expand...

I don't know anything of the case and it's tough trying to surf through that legaleze but what you bolded... that is just a reading of the Labor Board's contract. That's not the ruling on the Labor Board's contract. I believe they are just saying there in that sentence, "This is what the union contract says." They aren't saying there that they agree or disagree with it that I can see in that section.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
I don't know anything of the case and it's tough trying to surf through that legaleze but what you bolded... that is just a reading of the Labor Board's contract. That's not the ruling on the Labor Board's contract. I believe they are just saying there in that sentence, "This is what the union contract says." They aren't saying there that they agree or disagree with it that I can see in that section.
Click to expand...

The 'conclusion' was the decree from the Circuit court which in this case SCOTUS modified (in other areas) and affirmed.

Further, Their conclusion was to the Board's position that the IBEW were to represent all employees. They found that the contracts do not compel the IBEW exclusive representation of all employees but merely those who are their members. Essentially the court was contradicting the NLRB's direction to all enclusive representation that you asserted. And the SCOTUS affirmed this.
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
The 'conclusion' was the decree from the Circuit court which in this case SCOTUS modified (in other areas) and affirmed.

Further, Their conclusion was to the Board's position that the IBEW were to represent all employees. They found that the contracts do not compel the IBEW exclusive representation of all employees but merely those who are their members. Essentially the court was contradicting the NLRB's direction to all enclusive representation that you asserted. And the SCOTUS affirmed this.
Click to expand...

I hate this legaleze. If the conclusion is as you say, then why in the dissent of this does the dissenting justice say this:


While concurring in general with the conclusions of the Court in Consolidated Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. National Labor Relations Board, I find myself in disagreement with the conclusion that the National Labor Relations Board was 'without authority to require the petitioning companies [305 U.S. 197, 245] to desist from giving effect to the Brotherhood contracts, as provided in subdivision (f) of paragraph one of the Board's order.​


That kind of sounds like he's dissenting from a conclusion that is ruling against the union.
 
poweRob said:
No. It's when the Republicans decided to go against unions after the 50's (Check out the "Labor" section of the 1956 Republican platform)... So they assaulted unions every since and the union membership dropped and the economy followed it down. No?
Click to expand...

No. What happened is that in the 1950's, the US was the only major industrialized nation that wasn't a carpet-bombed rubble. We had massive room for waste and inefficiency, and waste we did. Then, the rest of the world started to recover, and Volkswagon, Toyota, and all the rest began to grow and compete. And the inefficient economic model that is unionized industry couldn't keep up. There is a reason why the auto plants in the South are doing just fine, while Detroit is a bankrupt, shuttered-in hole.
 
poweRob said:
No. It's when the Republicans decided to go against unions after the 50's (Check out the "Labor" section of the 1956 Republican platform)... So they assaulted unions every since and the union membership dropped and the economy followed it down. No?
Click to expand...

So you agree that unions cannot survive any longer without the government forcing workers to join, or at least pay for them?
 
Diogenes said:
So you agree that unions cannot survive any longer without the government forcing workers to join, or at least pay for them?
Click to expand...

There are no laws forcing workers to join a union anywhere. The "right-to-work" law doesn't add the right to work.

It merely bans the ability of employers and unions to voluntarily sign an employment security agreement.

In other words, it takes away a right.

As if it isn't already obvious, considering there's already a right to work, i. e. if an employer decided to hire someone to do a job, nothing would stop it without a government banning it, so does it make sense that a law needs to be passed in order to create it :rolleyes:
 
I'm really on the fence about this one. I like the general idea of right to work laws (i.e. no one should be forced to join a union if they don't want to). However, I also don't think that people should reap the benefits of union representation without paying for it.

And I definitely don't like the way this was rushed through a lame duck legislature without really giving the opposition time to discuss or debate the merits of the bill.
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm really on the fence about this one. I like the general idea of right to work laws (i.e. no one should be forced to join a union if they don't want to).
Click to expand...

Think--why is a law needed to create a right that already exists?

Is anyone in the other states forcing employers to hire only union members?
 
solletica said:
Think--why is a law needed to create a right that already exists?

Is anyone in the other states forcing employers to hire only union members?
Click to expand...

Yes, actually that was the way it worked in Michigan before the law passed. Businesses could be 'closed shop' which meant you had to join the union and pay dues to work there. That's not okay in my book.
 
molten_dragon said:
Yes, actually that was the way it worked in Michigan before the law passed.
Click to expand...

Nope.

molten_dragon said:
Businesses could be 'closed shop' which meant you had to join the union and pay dues to work there.
Click to expand...

No business could be a closed shop unless it voluntarily agreed, via contract to be one.

The notion that the absence of a so-called "right-to-work" law forced any employer to be a closed shop is just right wing kool-aid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom