Michigan signs Right to Work Bills

[ctr70]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323339704578173100435478428.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories

This is positive direction. Like the pension reform ballot victories in San Diego, San Jose and Wisconsin that happened earlier this year.

[tc]

And people wonder why this country is going down the drain.

[njtosd]

[quote=tc]And people wonder why this country is going down the drain.[/quote]

Are you saying that the new legislation is causing the country to go down the drain? Have you noticed how far down the drain Michigan has gone under the former system? The unions forced the auto industry out of the state and should be held responsible for the the results.

[Coronita]

Never understood why it would be requirement to join a union in order to be employed for a specific job.

Sounds like extortion to me.

[Arraya]

DOOM is the operative ethic

[KSMountain]

[quote=flu]Never understood why it would be requirement to join a union in order to be employed for a specific job.

Sounds like extortion to me.[/quote]

Wasn’t this even more limited than that? I’m not an expert, but I read that part of this was to remove the ability for unions to force folks to pay union dues even if they aren’t part of the union. That is crazy! Good riddance to that nonsense.

I saw some other union official in MI yesterday saying “well, these folks will benefit from our representation without paying for it”. Personally, if I want representation, I’ll choose it, hire it, and pay for it myself, thank you very much. And the teamsters probably wouldn’t be my first choice…

[Coronita]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=flu]Never understood why it would be requirement to join a union in order to be employed for a specific job.

Sounds like extortion to me.[/quote]

Wasn’t this even more limited than that? I’m not an expert, but I read that part of this was to remove the ability for unions to force folks to pay union dues even if they aren’t part of the union. That is crazy! Good riddance to that nonsense.

I saw some other union official in MI yesterday saying “well, these folks will benefit from our representation without paying for it”. Personally, if I want representation, I’ll choose it, hire it, and pay for it myself, thank you very much. And the teamsters probably wouldn’t be my first choice…[/quote]

Um that happened recently on Long Island Power Company during Sandy… A bunch of Florida power company workers went to Long Island to help, but were turned back unless they paid for union dues…

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/fla-utility-union-delayed-crews-for-lipa-1.4205898?qr=1#disqus_thread

Well, that was until public outrage at what was going on the first day the storm hit… Then obviously the union backpeddled after “assessing the severity of the storm”…

http://southampton.patch.com/articles/lipa-union-workers-not-turned-away

That “letter of assent” was dated Oct. 29, the day Hurricane Sandy first started battering Long Island, according to Newsday.

But Don Daley, business manager for local 1049, told Patch it stopped being an issue soon after the extent of the damages on Long Island became clear.

“There hasn’t been a union-non-union issue here since the severity of the storm became obvious. Our only goal right now is to restore power as quickly, efficiently and safely as possible and we welcome all the assistance we can get.”

So let me get this straight. If the storm was only mildly destructive, then non-union help would have been turned away.. But since the storm was a complete disaster, we decided after assessing the severity of the storm, that we’ll make an exception this time….

No coincident LIPA is one of the most messed up power companies in NY.

http://www.wbur.org/npr/165321973/sandy-reveals-troubled-past-for-long-island-utility

Glad i don’t live on Long Island….

[CA renter]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=flu]Never understood why it would be requirement to join a union in order to be employed for a specific job.

Sounds like extortion to me.[/quote]

Wasn’t this even more limited than that? I’m not an expert, but I read that part of this was to remove the ability for unions to force folks to pay union dues even if they aren’t part of the union. That is crazy! Good riddance to that nonsense.

I saw some other union official in MI yesterday saying “well, these folks will benefit from our representation without paying for it”. Personally, if I want representation, I’ll choose it, hire it, and pay for it myself, thank you very much. And the teamsters probably wouldn’t be my first choice…[/quote]

The unions are right about these freeloaders getting the benefit of representation without paying for it.

Let’s take teachers, for example. A person has the right to work for private non-union schools, public non-union schools (mostly charters), or public union schools. The ones who gravitate toward the union schools do so because they perceive there is a greater benefit to working there — usually better compensation or working conditions, etc. The reason the pay/working conditions tend to be superior is because unions fought for these things. Unions can only fight for workers’ rights if they have funding.

Why should the people who don’t want to join a union benefit from the pay and working conditions earned by unions and their dues-paying members? Let them work at a non-union shop and get whatever they fight for on and individual level (good luck with that!). They are totally free to work for any non-union employer they desire, but they do NOT have a right to the compensation and working conditions earned by dues-paying members. Hell no.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

CAR: No disagreement with any of your points, but I would also hasten yo add that, in California, the CTA (California Teachers Assn) is the proverbial 800lb gorilla when it comes to throwing weight and peddling influence, often on issues completely unrelated to schools and teachers.

The CTA wields enormous influence and exerts tremendous sway in Sacramento and largely due to the huge sums of money at its disposal. Where does the lion’s share of this money come from? Union dues. Does this money entitle rank-and-file members to have a say in its disposition, or what issues and causes are supported? Nope.

There are dozens of articles on the CTA and how far and where its reach extends and it is not a benevolent organization, believe me.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter]They are totally free to work for any non-union employer they desire, but they do NOT have a right to the compensation and working conditions earned by dues-paying members. Hell no.[/quote]

This really irks me. You make it sound as if it is not extortion because there are some non-unionized schools.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t extortion for the unionized schools.

Workers may not have a right to the compensation and working conditions that the unions have strong-armed their way into, but workers do have a right to work at those schools under different conditions by providing a service that competes with the unions. Giving the union monopoly power over a particular school is extortion and grants preferred status to a select set of private individuals.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter]Why should the people who don’t want to join a union benefit from the pay and working conditions earned by unions and their dues-paying members?[/quote]

First of all, the answer doesn’t matter. If people want to work and not join a union, they should be free to do so.

One answer may be – perhaps they have ethical issues paying dues to an organization that takes advantage of taxpayers the way unions do.

[barnaby33]

Why should the people who don’t want to join a union benefit from the pay and working conditions earned by unions and their dues-paying members? Let them work at a non-union shop and get whatever they fight for on and individual level (good luck with that!). They are totally free to work for any non-union employer they desire, but they do NOT have a right to the compensation and working conditions earned by dues-paying members. Hell no.

Wow CAR evincing a conservative opinion. Those non-union freeloaders getting all the benefits without paying the union costs. Kind of like entitlement programs! It’s amazing to see the same argument applied in almost the same way to two different groups.

Society is a closed system, just like a union. Why should people who don’t contribute much to the system have a right to benefits provided by the system? Apply liberally and repeatedly.
Josh

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]They are totally free to work for any non-union employer they desire, but they do NOT have a right to the compensation and working conditions earned by dues-paying members. Hell no.[/quote]

This really irks me. You make it sound as if it is not extortion because there are some non-unionized schools.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t extortion for the unionized schools.

Workers may not have a right to the compensation and working conditions that the unions have strong-armed their way into, but workers do have a right to work at those schools under different conditions by providing a service that competes with the unions. Giving the union monopoly power over a particular school is extortion and grants preferred status to a select set of private individuals.[/quote]

Is it extortion when employers demand that their employees work overtime or be fired? Is it extortion when employers demand that their employees take pay/benefit cuts or be fired? Is it extortion when employers take a greater share of the surplus value crated by labor…and threaten the workers with the loss of their jobs if they object? The list goes on and on…

“Extortion” works both ways, sdduuuude. I would rather see the benefits of labor go to those who do the work rather than see it go to those who control the system.

Nobody is forced to take a union job. I can see the logic if they initially took the job as a non-union job, and then the union took over later; but to say that they are “forced” to join a union when they apply for and accept a union job is totally ridiculous.

When you talk about a select set of private individuals having “preferred status,” are you referring to the executives and owners of large corporations who have access to some of the top leaders of the world, and who create laws that favor themselves to the detriment of others? That wealth and power is not being shared, unlike the wealth and power that is collectively shared with many others via unions, and these most powerful individuals do not care one bit about you or any other Joe Sixpack “libertarian” as they stomp on your freedoms, take from you via low wages, excessively high prices, high taxes (that go to private contractors and other special interest groups that have nothing at all to do with unions), etc.

We have to look objectively at how power, wealth, and resources are allocated and do everything we can to maintain a balance between labor and capital.

[CA renter]

[quote=barnaby33]

Why should the people who don’t want to join a union benefit from the pay and working conditions earned by unions and their dues-paying members? Let them work at a non-union shop and get whatever they fight for on and individual level (good luck with that!). They are totally free to work for any non-union employer they desire, but they do NOT have a right to the compensation and working conditions earned by dues-paying members. Hell no.

Wow CAR evincing a conservative opinion. Those non-union freeloaders getting all the benefits without paying the union costs. Kind of like entitlement programs! It’s amazing to see the same argument applied in almost the same way to two different groups.

Society is a closed system, just like a union. Why should people who don’t contribute much to the system have a right to benefits provided by the system? Apply liberally and repeatedly.
Josh[/quote]

Which “entitlement programs” are you referring to? Social Security and Medicare? In most cases, the people who benefit from these programs are the people who contributed to these programs. These benefits were earned; they are not free.

I would also add, again, that the greatest “takers” from our system are those who extract more than they put in. Just because somebody contributes say 70% of the tax revenue, if they are taking >70% of the benefits provided by the government, then they are net beneficiaries (“takers” in conservative parlance). You can pay a tiny percentage of the tax revenues yet still be a net donor if you are using very little of the infrastructure and benefits provided by the government. It’s very important that people understand this concept.

[jpinpb]

Thank you, CAR. Exetremely well said and I agree wholeheartedly.

[Author]

Posts