Congrats to Michigan "Right to Work"

ChinaBandit

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Posts
4,281
The 24th state to abolish the absurd requirement that one MUST join a union if said union exists at your place of employment.

Granted, there was a time when unions were of benefit to workers. That time has long past. Unions serve now only to protect the lazy and restrict economic growth.

As an example, IF a union truly wanted to protect their membership how could they allow the employer (i.e. Hostess) to go out of business? How many of those 18,000 employees thanked their union for the loss of their job? How many of those 18,000 employees wanted to shove a Twinkee up the asses of their union's leadership?
 
The 24th state to abolish the absurd requirement that one MUST join a union if said union exists at your place of employment.

Granted, there was a time when unions were of benefit to workers. That time has long past. Unions serve now only to protect the lazy and restrict economic growth.

As an example, IF a union truly wanted to protect their membership how could they allow the employer (i.e. Hostess) to go out of business? How many of those 18,000 employees thanked their union for the loss of their job? How many of those 18,000 employees wanted to shove a Twinkee up the asses of their union's leadership?

The Republican governor of Michigan was just touting 164,000 new jobs added during his term so far. How could that be possible in a heavily-unionized state? And most of those gains were in the auto sector where the unions are. If unions are such job-killers how did Michigan add a ton of new jobs after their collective bargaining agreements were all updated?

And since 92% of Hostess' union members voted to reject their company-proposed pay/benefit cuts, I'd say almost none of them were mad at their leadership. Even if their leadership wanted something different it still comes down to a vote.

Again you're exposing yourself as an extremely misinformed individual, eager to believe whatever deceitful tripe comes out of the nearest conservative propaganda outlet.
 
There's a thread about this in the top three of the first page. Why the fuck would you start another one?
 
I understand that Romney has really gained momentum since the first debate.

Think he'll win?
 
The 24th state to abolish the absurd requirement that one MUST join a union if said union exists at your place of employment.

Granted, there was a time when unions were of benefit to workers. That time has long past. Unions serve now only to protect the lazy and restrict economic growth.

As an example, IF a union truly wanted to protect their membership how could they allow the employer (i.e. Hostess) to go out of business? How many of those 18,000 employees thanked their union for the loss of their job? How many of those 18,000 employees wanted to shove a Twinkee up the asses of their union's leadership?

They didn't. Management at Hostess chose, of their own volition to shut down plants. No union has any say in how long their business stays in business.
 
The Republican governor of Michigan was just touting 164,000 new jobs added during his term so far. How could that be possible in a heavily-unionized state? And most of those gains were in the auto sector where the unions are. If unions are such job-killers how did Michigan add a ton of new jobs after their collective bargaining agreements were all updated?

And since 92% of Hostess' union members voted to reject their company-proposed pay/benefit cuts, I'd say almost none of them were mad at their leadership. Even if their leadership wanted something different it still comes down to a vote.

Again you're exposing yourself as an extremely misinformed individual, eager to believe whatever deceitful tripe comes out of the nearest conservative propaganda outlet.

You are implying that, by default, 92% of Hostess employees were also willing to see the total elimination of their jobs. Company management did NOT reach the decision to close without communication with the union. Did the union go back and address this probability with membership? The answer is no. They did not. That's a poor union!
 
They didn't. Management at Hostess chose, of their own volition to shut down plants. No union has any say in how long their business stays in business.

What reason would a company have to shut down? The answer is one word: money. Hostess management did not come to this decision in the middle of the night only to announce it at 8:00am the next day. They told union negotiators. Did these union negotiators bring this probability back to their membership for consideration? In point of fact, No. They did not. That's a poor fucking union in my estimation.
 
I understand that Romney has really gained momentum since the first debate.

Think he'll win?

It's very very possible. I don't know how Obama can sleep at night with everything stacked against him.

But you know who might know for sure? Vette and Miles.

Why, with their record of 2-0, they're like a tag-team Nostradamus and Zoltar The Great when it comes to these political prognostications.
 
Did these union negotiators bring this probability back to their membership for consideration? In point of fact, No. They did not. That's a poor fucking union in my estimation.

I assume you have some evidence of this? It's not possible that the workers decided "fuck it" I'd rather shut this place down, collect unemployment for up to 99 weeks while I get a new job?
 
How do you know they didn't go back and discuss it with them China?

Hostess employees that have been interviewed said that they followed it only on TV.

Section stewards did not even have meetings about the probability of an actual closure.

Moreover, we know that no additional (second) vote was taken by membership AFTER Hostess management said we will have to close.
 
Hostess employees that have been interviewed said that they followed it only on TV.

Section stewards did not even have meetings about the probability of an actual closure.

Moreover, we know that no additional (second) vote was taken by membership AFTER Hostess management said we will have to close.

Negotiations have been going on, on and off for over a year. You need citation for your wacky claims.
 
I assume you have some evidence of this? It's not possible that the workers decided "fuck it" I'd rather shut this place down, collect unemployment for up to 99 weeks while I get a new job?

It's possible they could have voted to say "fuck it."

All I am saying is they did not have the chance for that vote AFTER the dickheads at Hostess said the numbers just won't work. We will have to close.
 
It's possible they could have voted to say "fuck it."

All I am saying is they did not have the chance for that vote AFTER the dickheads at Hostess said the numbers just won't work. We will have to close.

When the dickheads said that all further voting was irrelevant.
 
What reason would a company have to shut down? The answer is one word: money. .

Correct. Mainly the lack thereof due to the massive amount of debt that the vulture capitalists loaded onto Hostess after the last bankruptcy.
 
Negotiations have been going on, on and off for over a year. You need citation for your wacky claims.

Sean, Hostess accepted private mediation on November 19th after announcing the probable closure. That did not work. The union brought nothing back to it's membership for consideration. One can check this on the web.

Well before that, the union also did not fight court approval for Hostess to impose wage and benefit cuts granted on November 9th. Failing to contest, allowed Hostess to reject an automatic collective bargaining agreement and impose the court order immediately. Had the union contested court action would still be going on and folks working today under collective bargaining terms.

I'm going to quote Judge Robert Drain (who over saw the court action in NY state) which anyone can easily find on the web.

"It somewhat unusual to say the least, and perhaps illogical that the union would then strike against it." He continues: "It's an odd approach", said Drain, "Before thousands of people are put out of work it would seem to me worthwhile for both the union and debtors to explore why that happened."
 
You are implying that, by default, 92% of Hostess employees were also willing to see the total elimination of their jobs. Company management did NOT reach the decision to close without communication with the union. Did the union go back and address this probability with membership? The answer is no. They did not. That's a poor union!

You're misinformed again. The company made it clear back in the summer that they'd close Hostess if the union didn't accept another round of concessions. The union members chose to reject it anyway even if it meant their jobs.

You're just making things up about what some union manager did or did not say.
 
Sean, Hostess accepted private mediation on November 19th after announcing the probable closure. That did not work. The union brought nothing back to it's membership for consideration. One can check this on the web.

You can't believe this and also say that union members were in the dark. It's simply not possible for members to be unaware of negotiations for nearly a year then continue to be unaware of them even after Hostess shut its doors and had the post-mediation vote after the 19th. When your job site is shut down usually that leads to a suspicion that your job is in peril.
 
You can't believe this and also say that union members were in the dark. It's simply not possible for members to be unaware of negotiations for nearly a year then continue to be unaware of them even after Hostess shut its doors and had the post-mediation vote after the 19th. When your job site is shut down usually that leads to a suspicion that your job is in peril.

It's the union's fault the doors shut Merc. IF they had contested the court verdict of November 9th they would be operating under collective bargaining today. What don't you understand about the oddity of the union's non-action in court per the observation of Judge Robert Drain?
 
clearly this is wrong, as workers are not smart enough to have a choice.

we must prevent workers from making any decisions
 
You're misinformed again. The company made it clear back in the summer that they'd close Hostess if the union didn't accept another round of concessions. The union members chose to reject it anyway even if it meant their jobs.

You're just making things up about what some union manager did or did not say.

You are making things up.

The company did not make it clear that they would close in the summer. In fact, Hostess went to court in order to legally impose the cuts. That's far from simply saying we are going to close the doors. IF the union had contested that decision Hostess would be working today under collective bargaining law. The fact that the union did not contest was, to quote the judge in the case, "illogical." The union fucked themselves and their members! Anyone can read between the lines of judge Drain's comments.
 
It's the union's fault the doors shut Merc. IF they had contested the court verdict of November 9th they would be operating under collective bargaining today. What don't you understand about the oddity of the union's non-action in court per the observation of Judge Robert Drain?

There was a labor agreement in place. Hostess execs said they wanted to nullify that legal agreement that they agreed to. The workers were under no obligation to agree for a third time to reduce their compensation.

Let me ask you this - at what point would concessions be too much? When they were making $12 per hour? Or minimum wage with a bare-bones retirement plan? Where do you draw the line? Because Hostess management said they'd be able to get the company back on track if the union just agreed to concessions (two times prior to this)... And each time management didn't follow through and they didn't reinvest the labor savings back into the company. No new products, no new marketing.

You're acting like if the unions conceded just one more time that Hostess would have returned to profitability. But in all likelihood they'd just be bankrupt again in a couple years just like after every other labor concession. The problem wasn't labor because labor had always agreed to renegotiate and the company still went bankrupt two or three times.
 
Last edited:
you are so irritating

The 24th state to abolish the absurd requirement that one MUST join a union if said union exists at your place of employment.

Granted, there was a time when unions were of benefit to workers. That time has long past. Unions serve now only to protect the lazy and restrict economic growth.

As an example, IF a union truly wanted to protect their membership how could they allow the employer (i.e. Hostess) to go out of business? How many of those 18,000 employees thanked their union for the loss of their job? How many of those 18,000 employees wanted to shove a Twinkee up the asses of their union's leadership?

If I had the power, I would cast you into a room with eyer, vette, blobfish, Jeninfla, busybody and a few other of the worst wingnuts here. You guys would make a pitiful noise as you bitched at each other. The rest of the world could shut the door , closing you up with all the stupidity that you are spew at one another.

Man that would be nice. If you rolled your brain down the edge of a razor blade it would look like a marble rolling down an interstate.

You have two fist, put one in your mouth and the other up your ass, when you get tired switch hands. After a while you will get to resent the taste much like we hate the sound of what you say. Shit is shit.
 
Back
Top