UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (6) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 90257  
Subject: Michigan right to work Date: 12/7/2012 3:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Right-to-work bills pass in Lansing
www.detroitnews.com/article/20121207/POLITICS02/212070366

The birthplace of the nation's modern-day labor movement moved closer to becoming the nation's 24th right-to-work state after bills Gov. Rick Snyder vowed to sign into law passed their first hurdles in the Republican-controlled Legislature on Thursday.

The House and Senate each passed bills on the same day they were introduced that give private and public sector workers the right to avoid paying union dues in an organized workplace. Only police officers and firefighters would be exempt.

The package can't reach final completion until at least Tuesday because of procedural rules that require a five-day layover for two of the bills before they can be voted on in the other chamber.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
Author: steve203 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 90013 of 90257
Subject: Re: Michigan right to work Date: 12/7/2012 5:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
The Governor and legislators like to posture that this is an "individual rights" issue. Just seems to me that people have the right to decline to work in a union shop, if they don't want to join the union. If they work in the union shop, and receive the same pay and benefits that the union negotiated for, then they should pay union dues for the value received.

The most obvious remedy would be for union members to receive their contract pay and benefits, while the non-union workers standing beside them receive $6-8/hr less, with much more expensive medical coverage, no pension, and no means of redress of grievences. 'course that would backfire, for the employees, as management would find some excuse to fire every union member and replace them with non-union workers.

Odd how the workers that cheer this kind of infringement of the worker's right to "peaceably assemble", never seem to notice that the states with the lowest household incomes tend to be the "right to work" states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

And the "right to work" laws, and lower incomes didn't save "jobs" in the southern textile and furniture industries, did they?

Steve

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PuddinHead42 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 90015 of 90257
Subject: Re: Michigan right to work Date: 12/9/2012 4:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Just seems to me that people have the right to decline to work in a union shop, if they don't want to join the union

You could also decline to work in a work place that allowed men to post girlie pictures, or a work place that made everyone pray, or a work place that promised to pay women less, or a place that declines to provide free day-after pills with their insurance.


The most obvious remedy would be for union members to receive their contract pay and benefits, while the non-union workers standing beside them receive $6-8/hr less, with much more expensive medical coverage, no pension, and no means of redress of grievances.


There are a lot of people that would love the opportunity for a job like that. $24 per hour vs $30 per hour for assembly line work looks mighty sweet to a lot of people.


Odd how the workers that cheer this kind of infringement of the worker's right to "peaceably assemble", never seem to notice that the states with the lowest household incomes tend to be the "right to work" states


It would be interesting to see the incomes normalized against cost of living. The non-right-to-work status tend to have the big cities with big salaries and big expenses.

here are right to work states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

here is the unemployment by state if anyone wants to try and make a correlation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_unemploy...
Highest
Nevada Right
RI no right
California no right
New Jersey no right
N. Carolina right
Michigan no right (yet)
Connecticut no right

You can go here and see state debt as a percentage of GSP
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2...
NY no righ
Mass no right
Kentucky no right
Kansas right
RI no right
Penn no right
SC right
NJ no right


So hard to say what all the correlations are.


My favorite clip from the Michigan protests was hearing the union cheer "hey hey, ho ho, the right to work has got to go!".

Not the best choice from a PR point of view ;-)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: steve203 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 90016 of 90257
Subject: Re: Michigan right to work Date: 12/9/2012 7:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
You could also decline to work in a work place that allowed men to post girlie pictures, or a work place that made everyone pray, or a work place that promised to pay women less, or a place that declines to provide free day-after pills with their insurance.

Correct. And you forgot all the armtwisting that goes on at some companies to extort donations to the United Way. And the companies that force people to work off the clock, run errands in their private car without mileage compensation, refuse to pay overtime, refuse to allow people to use earned vacation time, and more. It's all happened to me, and without a union, there is no way to address grievances short of complaining to the government.

My favorite clip from the Michigan protests was hearing the union cheer "hey hey, ho ho, the right to work has got to go!".

Not the best choice from a PR point of view ;-)


Yup, doesn't sound quite right in the usual MSM 10 second sound bite.

$24 per hour vs $30 per hour for assembly line work

'course, new hires at the big three make mid teens, not $30, so a non-union worker would be making little better than minimum wage, if he received significantly less than union members, and not earning any union pension or retiree medical insurance.

No doubt the mob doesn't see it that way tho. They figure they'll get all the pay and benefits the union members receive, without paying anything and without having to walk a picket line from time to time.

Typical "something for nothing" thinking that is rampant in the US now.

Steve...can't ever imagine the Teamsters cutting pension checks to scabs that never paid a nickle in dues

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 90018 of 90257
Subject: Re: Michigan right to work Date: 12/12/2012 9:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
never seem to notice that the states with the lowest household incomes tend to be the "right to work" states.

But let's look at another metric, economic growth. Using 'Gross State Product' for 2002 and 2012
www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2002pZ0a...
I calculated the economic growth over the last ten years of the 22 right to work states and the 27 other states. Indiana was excluded because it switched during this period.

10-yr growth
Right-to-work 61%
Union shop 47%

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: steve203 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 90019 of 90257
Subject: Re: Michigan right to work Date: 12/12/2012 12:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
But let's look at another metric, economic growth.

It's easier to grow from a lower base.

If you compare household poverty rates:

-right to work states: 13.29%

-states that allow union shops: 11.24%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_...

Recall that, when Governor Perry was running for POTUS, there was some discussion of how the largest right to work state, Texas, with it's blessings of oil and gas resources, had one of the highest poverty rates, lowest public health rates, highest teen pregnancy rates and one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country.

Having read the two Michigan bills, they at least still allow collective barganing.

Eight years ago, as I was constructing the "General Rants", which included a projection for a national "right to work law", I read several of the "right to work laws" in force at that time, and most not only outlawed union shops, they outlawed collective barganing by prohibiting a "third party" negotiating wages and benefits on behalf of an employee.

Steve

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (6) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement