Michigan, Workers must not have a choice! Vote Union

[koalabear]

MAybe we can convince them otherwise. I mean we apparently got through to Florida and Ohio this year, why no Michigan in a few years? I figure sooner or later all those toothless inbred rednecks in the south have got to realize that it's better to tax us spoiled Californians and Snooty New Yorkers into paying for schools and medicine for their children than it is to grow up in trailer parks. I mean at some point the love of Bible and hatred of teh blacks has to give in doesn't it?

You must not realize Mich. is full of toothless rednecks. They went up there to work in the auto plants.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You must not realize Mich. is full of toothless rednecks. They went up there to work in the auto plants.

I realize that. That's why we're gonna try to convince them too. It's a lot of country to tear through man!

 

[jeninflorida]

1. You were wrong the 1st time you said it, saying it again doesn't make it right. Unions can not inflate the value of anything. Workers don't receive a penny more than management is willing to pay. Ever. Union or not. Management gets paid the wage the owners feel they deserve.

2. You didn't answer the question. If there are so many unemployed who would love to work at the price Hostess was offering why didn't they jump at the chance to work?

3. Yes, I'm sure. If no one is willing to join the union, how do the reps make money?

wow, you really are a confused person. I feel bad for you, between the confusion and ignorance has really made you a foolish man

 

[jeninflorida]

You must not realize Mich. is full of toothless rednecks. They went up there to work in the auto plants.

wow, didn't realize what an ignorant racist SeanR is "toothless inbred rednecks"

amazing

 

[Exquisition]

wow, didn't realize what an ignorant racist SeanR is "toothless inbred rednecks"

amazing

Jen, when you're doing the weekly shop at Wal Mart, do you seethe and chunter away to yourself then find some poor down trodden worker to swear at when you lose your coupons?

Just wondered.

You;re a gift that keeps on giving sweetie. You just spout that shit at all comers regardless of whether they agree or disagrre with you.

Here, have a

 

[jeninflorida]

Jen, when you're doing the weekly shop at Wal Mart, do you seethe and chunter away to yourself then find some poor down trodden worker to swear at when you lose your coupons?

Just wondered.

You;re a gift that keeps on giving sweetie. You just spout that shit at all comers regardless of whether they agree or disagrre with you.

Here, have a

OMG, so I upset some government worker...a union thug...or a welfare abuser. oh no! please forgive me, not

 

[Boxlicker101]

MAybe we can convince them otherwise. I mean we apparently got through to Florida and Ohio this year, why no Michigan in a few years? I figure sooner or later all those toothless inbred rednecks in the south have got to realize that it's better to tax us spoiled Californians and Snooty New Yorkers into paying for schools and medicine for their children than it is to grow up in trailer parks. I mean at some point the love of Bible and hatred of teh blacks has to give in doesn't it?

Do you realize how racist and bigoted your comment is?

 

[jeninflorida]

Do you realize how racist and bigoted your comment is?

He's too ignorant to realize that. Sad.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Do you realize how racist and bigoted your comment is?

Yup. Racist against ignorant, redneck, toothless, inbred hicks. If you aren't racist against those folk there is something wrong with YOU.

 

[Exquisition]

OMG, so I upset some government worker...a union thug...or a welfare abuser. oh no! please forgive me, not

Would you get angry at the poor down trodden worker if you lost your coupons?

You avoided the question (as usual).

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have seen a couple of threads on this subject. A lot of people say eliminating the union shop is bad for workers. Bullshit. Withut the union shop, workers have a choice - join the union or not. With the union shop, they have no choice. How can greater freedom of choice be a bad thing for anybody?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I have seen a couple of threads on this subject. A lot of people say eliminating the union shop is bad for workers. Bullshit. Withut the union shop, workers have a choice - join the union or not. With the union shop, they have no choice. How can greater freedom of choice be a bad thing for anybody?

So what are the workers gaining?

 

[Liar]

I have seen a couple of threads on this subject. A lot of people say eliminating the union shop is bad for workers. Bullshit. Withut the union shop, workers have a choice - join the union or not. With the union shop, they have no choice. How can greater freedom of choice be a bad thing for anybody?

It's a nice bumper sticker sized argument, and as I said, a good idea in the abstract, but reality is as always more complex.

Why were cops and firefighters denied this freedom of choice? Therein lies part of the answer.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The main argument used by critics of right-to-work laws is that they create a what economists call “a free rider” issue. That is because since a union negotiates on behalf of all employees in a workplace, non-members also get the benefits the unions negotiates without having to pay union dues.

In an op-ed for the Detroit Free Press, Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., even said that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder was creating “a right to freeload.”

It is a somewhat compelling argument, but critics like Levin obscure an important point: unions are not in fact obligated to represent every worker in a workplace. A economist James Sherk of the conservative Heritage Foundation points out, unions can negotiate “members only” contracts with employers:

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.”

Unions prefer not to negotiate these kinds of contracts precisely because they alert workers to the fact they don’t have to belong to a union. By not being the exclusive employee representative in workplaces, the unions lose leverage with employers as well as the dues from those other workers. So, unsurprisingly, they’d rather keep the conversation focused on exclusive contracts.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-m...article/2515870?custom_click=rss#.UMsbIhzUrPy

 

[unregistered]

 

[chillywilly2]

I don't get it.
All the unions are still there.
The only thing that has changed is that the union members don't have to pay dues anymore.

skip it...just read gumps post...this is weird

 

[contrifan32]

Their freedom of choice.

Vette, help me out here...

Why is it that choice is good when they want to abort a fetus... but choice is bad when you want to decide where a portion of you hard earned income goes or what organization you wish to join in the workplace.

 

[unregistered]

 

[WantABWriter]

True Story

I worked my way through college...after military service....as a route salesman for an office coffee company. I served the United Steel Workers union hall for the Lone Star Steel Plant in Dangerfield Texas.

I was in the hall servicing a machine when I overheard a conversation between union offiicals. I guess I was easdropping but when it started I thought it was a joke.

It began "It seemes we had two men drunk and drinking in a locomotive cab. It was about 4 in the morning and close to the end of their shift. The brakeman needed to pee. He told the engineer to stop the locomotive so he could relieve himself beside the track. The brakeman stepped down and intfront of the engine. The engineer hit him with the ladder on the engine breaking the brakemans leg." Ok was looking for the humor in that.

Then they go on. "I think we can save the brakeman's job because there wasn't a pot a jon within 200 feet of where he was hit. If there had been a toilet he wouldn't have had to pee by the rail. Now the engineer....well the engine had been written up twice in the last months for poor brakes....so we can save his job....."

Now folks I don't want to work with a drunk. They officials admitted they were drinking in the cab of the engine.....they should have been fired.....the union should have wanted it that way if they are all for safety as one mentioned in the argument...

I quit a job once because I wasn't going to risk my life working on a construction project and heavy equipment with a drunk operator. The foreman liked the man so he covered for him. Don't know if there was ever an accident due to the drunk but I wasn't going to stay around to see.

So my experice with unions as not been pretty. I worked construction many years and find that the pay for union and non union here is about the same. But Texas is an open shop state...

If unions are so great why do you need laws to enforce them? People would want to join....so give the worker a choice. If you love the union be in it....if not be free to not have to join.

My thought

Jack

 

[contrifan32]

Don't be silly. The right to life trumps the right to a job in the minds of those who are still sane.

... and yet they call us extremist who are out of touch

 

[Sean Renaud]

I have seen a couple of threads on this subject. A lot of people say eliminating the union shop is bad for workers. Bullshit. Withut the union shop, workers have a choice - join the union or not. With the union shop, they have no choice. How can greater freedom of choice be a bad thing for anybody?

Because certain freedoms hurt not only the person but the surrounding community. In those cases we don't let people have freedom. It's part of living in a community.

 

[julybaby04]

Because certain freedoms hurt not only the person but the surrounding community. In those cases we don't let people have freedom. It's part of living in a community.

The United States of America....Land of The Free..... (well, apparently not any longer..... )

 

[Sean Renaud]

[/B]


The United States of America....Land of The Free..... (well, apparently not any longer..... )

It never did.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I have seen a couple of threads on this subject. A lot of people say eliminating the union shop is bad for workers. Bullshit. Withut the union shop, workers have a choice - join the union or not. With the union shop, they have no choice. How can greater freedom of choice be a bad thing for anybody?

Because certain freedoms hurt not only the person but the surrounding community. In those cases we don't let people have freedom. It's part of living in a community.

Well, duh, If a person has the freedom to kill or rape anybody he or she wants to, that would obviously be injurious to the community where that person lives. Therefore, no person has such a freedom, unless very well connected politically. But that's not what this is about. This is about an indiidual having the freedom to join an organization or refuse to join it or support it. If people believe the organization does not benefit them, they should not have to join. If people feel an organization will be acting contrary to those people's interests, they should not be compelled to support it.

However, if people believe they will benefit from membersip in the organization, they will have the freedom to join it. That part hasn't changed. Now, unions will have to show they will benefit their members, rather than themselves.