Archive

MI becomes a right to work state

  • derek bomar
    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/11/15842456-michigan-passes-anti-union-right-to-work-measure-over-protests-of-thousands?lite

    Pretty symbolic that the birthplace of the UAW is going to right-to-work. I love it. Also loved the fact that in the article is stated several schools shut down because teachers didn't show up for work in order to protest. SMFH.
  • gut
    LMAO...giving people the option not to be part of the union and not pay dues is "anti-union".

    Truth be told, I bet a large % of union workers don't feel they are getting a very good return on their membership dues. I have a suspicion if they stopped fleecing their members to overpay union leaders and pad politician coffers that more people would buy-in to collective bargaining.
  • sleeper
    Good. I hope the elimination of unions happens in my lifetime.
  • fan_from_texas
    Only 61% of union dues go to representing the interests of the workers. Per an article I read today, fully 39% covers "administrative overhead." No wonder union workers are pissed at their leadership.
  • BoatShoes
    It doesn't help that the "Right-to-Work" language really works against the union cause.

    Even in an Agency Shop in non-right-to-work states where there is a union security agreement in place, a bold, self-reliant individual can approach his employer and say "I am more talented these folks and I don't have clear and identifiable "community" interests with them and I demand that I don't be considered part of the bargaining unit in collective bargaining negotiations and would like to bargain for my own contract."

    In every state you already have the right to bargain for your own separate contract outside of the union contract even if there is a union security agreement that requires non-union members to pay agency fees if they're covered by the union contract. You can't have union security agreements that require all employees, even those not covered by the contract, to pay agency fees because that would be a closed shop and those were outlawed when Harry Truman was president.

    It seems to me to be a bit ironic that people invoke freedom of contract to make it illegal for employers to enter into certain types of contracts (union security agreements) :confused: Maybe a better approach might be to amend the the NLRA to require employers to post notices in shops with unions that tell employees that they have the right to approach the employer to bargain on their own behalf:confused:


    Thus, the "right-to-work" language is incorrect but it seems to be effective politics.

    It looks like the strategy of trumping the "right-to-work" works better than framing it as making collective bargaining illegal for certain groups (i.e. SB5).

    I expect Ohio will follow suit.
  • jhay78
    Predictably, opponents of right-to-work legislation being civil:

    http://www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-steven-crowder-punched-in-the-face-by-union-thugs-in-michigan/
  • Abe Vigoda
    fan_from_texas;1340567 wrote:Only 61% of union dues go to representing the interests of the workers. Per an article I read today, fully 39% covers "administrative overhead." No wonder union workers are pissed at their leadership.
    You just painted a broad stroke and provided no linked resources. Very unlike you.
  • vball10set
    sleeper;1340520 wrote:Good. I hope the elimination of unions happens in my lifetime.
    Make that two of us.
  • Footwedge
    gut;1340497 wrote: Truth be told, I bet a large % of union workers don't feel they are getting a very good return on their membership dues. I have a suspicion if they stopped fleecing their members to overpay union leaders and pad politician coffers that more people would buy-in to collective bargaining.
    Gut... gotta give credit where credit is due. Your point here is spot on.... A lot of union people share this view regarding their "management" team.
  • Classyposter58
    As a union guy I'm not a fan of it for the simple reason that you get all of the same union benefits while not paying dues. I mean why would I keep paying dues? There's no reason
  • sleeper
    Classyposter58;1340695 wrote:As a union guy I'm not a fan of it for the simple reason that you get all of the same union benefits while not paying dues. I mean why would I keep paying dues? There's no reason
    Exactly. Bye bye union!
  • Classyposter58
    sleeper;1340717 wrote:Exactly. Bye bye union!
    Bad idea. I've got a quick example of why they're good. Many of my friends chose to work at UPS as well as other college kids, which is union instead of local fast food places. You start at $9 and get a $1 raise every year you work there, incredible benefits, paid holidays and weeks of paid vacation. Because of this I've heard that a few local businesses have actually raised their wages to try and compete.

    Also FedEx has been trying to buy off their employees currently since they're not union and see UPS employees making a heck of a lot more cash, as well as benefits and job security that they can't even imagine. They're threatening to unionize hoping that this leads to a better deal for them. I know many people hate unions, but they definitely drive up wages
  • queencitybuckeye
    Classyposter58;1340739 wrote:Bad idea. I've got a quick example of why they're good. Many of my friends chose to work at UPS as well as other college kids, which is union instead of local fast food places. You start at $9 and get a $1 raise every year you work there, incredible benefits, paid holidays and weeks of paid vacation. Because of this I've heard that a few local businesses have actually raised their wages to try and compete.

    Also FedEx has been trying to buy off their employees currently since they're not union and see UPS employees making a heck of a lot more cash, as well as benefits and job security that they can't even imagine. They're threatening to unionize hoping that this leads to a better deal for them. I know many people hate unions, but they definitely drive up wages
    And at a level above "I got mine", how is driving up wages artificially a good thing?
  • Shane Falco
    Classyposter58;1340695 wrote:As a union guy I'm not a fan of it for the simple reason that you get all of the same union benefits while not paying dues. I mean why would I keep paying dues? There's no reason
    Ahh! Please see tax payer vs non taxpayer. You know .......the "47%" that dont pay but then expect to see tge same benefits as the payers. Hummm... intesting now isnt it?
  • Classyposter58
    queencitybuckeye;1340743 wrote:And at a level above "I got mine", how is driving up wages artificially a good thing?
    Artificially? Why do you think the rust belt states still are wealthier than down South?
  • Classyposter58
    Shane Falco;1340745 wrote:Ahh! Please see tax payer vs non taxpayer. You know .......the "47%" that dont pay but then expect to see tge same benefits as the payers. Hummm... intesting now isnt it?
    I don't really know where you're going with this?
  • queencitybuckeye
    Classyposter58;1340749 wrote:Artificially? Why do you think the rust belt states still are wealthier than down South?
    Because wages are being driven up. Why do you think the jobs are moving South?
  • tk421
    so, what I'm getting is giving people a choice to join a union or not is a BAD thing? The party of choice doesn't want a person to be able to CHOOSE?
  • believer
    queencitybuckeye;1340753 wrote:Because wages are being driven up. Why do you think the jobs are moving South?
    this
  • sleeper
    Classyposter58;1340739 wrote:Bad idea. I've got a quick example of why they're good. Many of my friends chose to work at UPS as well as other college kids, which is union instead of local fast food places. You start at $9 and get a $1 raise every year you work there, incredible benefits, paid holidays and weeks of paid vacation. Because of this I've heard that a few local businesses have actually raised their wages to try and compete.

    Also FedEx has been trying to buy off their employees currently since they're not union and see UPS employees making a heck of a lot more cash, as well as benefits and job security that they can't even imagine. They're threatening to unionize hoping that this leads to a better deal for them. I know many people hate unions, but they definitely drive up wages
    Hmm and ever wonder why jobs are being shipped overseas? It's good until you lose your job entirely. Also, $9 sounds great for unskilled labor, but how many dollars of that gets deposited right into the union's bank account?
  • Classyposter58
    sleeper;1340815 wrote:Hmm and ever wonder why jobs are being shipped overseas? It's good until you lose your job entirely. Also, $9 sounds great for unskilled labor, but how many dollars of that gets deposited right into the union's bank account?
    $10 a week
  • Classyposter58
    sleeper;1340815 wrote:Hmm and ever wonder why jobs are being shipped overseas? It's good until you lose your job entirely. Also, $9 sounds great for unskilled labor, but how many dollars of that gets deposited right into the union's bank account?
    Well that's because individual companies signed unsustainable deals. What the Big 3 did was insane as far as a CBA goes
  • BoatShoes
    tk421;1340773 wrote:so, what I'm getting is giving people a choice to join a union or not is a BAD thing? The party of choice doesn't want a person to be able to CHOOSE?
    They already had the choice not to join a union. This law makes it illegal for employers and employees to engage in a certain type of contract called a "union security agreement" which would require non-union employees to pay an agency fee to a union that negotiated it's employment contract. Now, those people can get the benefits of that negotiation without paying for it.

    However you feel about this issue or unions...it needs to be understood that it is already the law in all 50 states that you cannot be compelled to join a union.
  • majorspark
    BoatShoes;1340870 wrote:They already had the choice not to join a union. This law makes it illegal for employers and employees to engage in a certain type of contract called a "union security agreement" which would require non-union employees to pay an agency fee to a union that negotiated it's employment contract.
    This is a distinction without a difference.
    BoatShoes;1340870 wrote:Now, those people can get the benefits of that negotiation without paying for it.
    Only if the employer allows it. Or it could be more or could be less.
    BoatShoes;1340870 wrote:However you feel about this issue or unions...it needs to be understood that it is already the law in all 50 states that you cannot be compelled to join a union.
    And now you can't be compelled to pay them.
  • tk421
    sounds good to me, all 50 states should be right to work.