what is the big deal with Michigans right to work vote - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Mark Rapier · #16 12-11-2012, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by engatwork

What is the big deal with this? In my opinion, every worker should have the option to not to be a member of the union if they do not want to be a member. Other than the loss of the union dues (to keep the union officials Gulfstreams flying) what is the big deal?

The unions racketeers tried to ammend the Michigan State Constitution with proposals #2 and #4 in the November election and the electorate by a wide margin defeated both measures. The newly passed RTW laws are the reaction by the legislature responding to the recent vote of their constituents to reign in the power of organized labor by denying it the right to extort funding from non union members.

Labor had become too powerful and too arrogant wielding its power and the citizens/taxpayers and their elected representatives recognised that and have taken the steps to thwart such power and to thwart the future abuse of power by diminishing it.

"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

Benz Fan · #17 12-12-2012, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Rapier

The unions racketeers tried to ammend the Michigan State Constitution with proposals #2 and #4 in the November election and the electorate by a wide margin defeated both measures. The newly passed RTW laws are the reaction by the legislature responding to the recent vote of their constituents to reign in the power of organized labor by denying it the right to extort funding from non union members.

Labor had become too powerful and too arrogant wielding its power and the citizens/taxpayers and their elected representatives recognised that and have taken the steps to thwart such power and to thwart the future abuse of power by diminishing it.

"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

Phil! How've you been?!? What are you giving Anne for Christmas?

PM me if you're interested in how you gave yourself away - again.

retmil46 · #18 12-12-2012, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

My personal example was when the union shop charged me more than twice to do a job because they needed 2 people since the length of the pipe was over a certain number by a foot or two. $750 to the non union $350 bid. Both had the same footage and materials. The union shop told me outright that because it was over that number, it took 2 people so I should pay for twice the pipe foot rate. Didn't take me long to tell him "Thanks but I'll go with the first quote.".

Saw the same thing happen my last shore duty tour in the Navy.

I was at Bangor Sub Base in WA state, in the Radiological Controls Division, all military personnel. 1 1/2 years into it, a political deal was made allowing union civilian workers from Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton to be in charge of and perform any work associated with such, most of us military types were reassigned to other shops. The cost to the command for performing any particular evolution more than TRIPLED overnight.

Before that even happened, there was one particular major evolution we performed on one ship, that required rotating 12 on 12 off shifts for 2 or 3 weeks. The officer in charge of planning the evolution was also the head of the Nuclear Repair Division - which contained a goodly number of union civilian workers.

At the main briefing for the evolution, said officer announced that the shift times would be 3 AM to 3 PM and vice versa. The CO of the ship the work was being performed on - a full bird Captain (one step below Admiral) - asked flat out "why the f*** did you pick THOSE stupid a$$ times?"

For many seconds there was an awkward silence, then a young enlisted petty officer in the back of the room spoke up and said "so the civilians on both shifts can get mid shift differential pay".

And he was absolutely right. By the base union rules, mid shift was offically from 11 PM to 7 AM, and if any civilian union worker worked for four hours of that time period, then he would be entitled to the mid shift pay rate for his ENTIRE 12 HOUR SHIFT.

The briefing officer (an O-3 Lieutenant) turned beet red, and the full bird Captain of said ship proceeded to give him an epic public butt chewing right then and there, letting him know in no uncertain terms what a BS idea he thought that was - that while the Looey might have his civilian workers come in at 3 AM, they'd be doing nothing but sitting around with their thumbs up their posteriors until 6 AM until HIS people showed up for HIS SHIP'S normal muster time, THEN the shift briefing would occur.

Let's just say that for my part, it was one of the more enjoyable moments in my 20 years.

whunter · #19 12-12-2012, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Rapier

The unions racketeers tried to amend the Michigan State Constitution with proposals #2 and #4 in the November election and the electorate by a wide margin defeated both measures. The newly passed RTW laws are the reaction by the legislature responding to the recent vote of their constituents to reign in the power of organized labor by denying it the right to extort funding from non union members.

Labor had become too powerful and too arrogant wielding its power and the citizens/taxpayers and their elected representatives recognized that and have taken the steps to thwart such power and to thwart the future abuse of power by diminishing it.

"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

FYI:

Michigan has one of the worst economies in the U.S.

The unions tried to force through state constitution amendments that would have crippled Michigan government and business.

Extreme Union arrogance backfired when the constitutional amendments FAILED.
These where funded - pushed by union money...
* Proposal 2: failed at the polls Result: Yes:41% No:59%.
* Proposal 4: failed at the polls Result: Yes:42% No:58%
The State News :: All Michigan ballot proposals fail in election

Too many people here have direct negative union experience.
Here is a boringly common example of the local unions.
Chrysler Had To Rehire The Workers Caught Getting Stoned During Lunch

Note: The POTUS came in working as a union activist trying to crush "Right To Work"..

2011 House Bill 4003: Extend "right-to-work" law to government and school employees - Michigan Votes

Michigan Is a Right-to-Work State [Michigan Capitol Confidential]

.

Jim B. · #20 12-12-2012, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by engatwork

What is the big deal with this? In my opinion, every worker should have the option to not to be a member of the union if they do not want to be a member. Other than the loss of the union dues (to keep the union officials Gulfstreams flying) what is the big deal?

It is the "right to work" for a whole lot less money.

aklim · #21 12-12-2012, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

It is the "right to work" for a whole lot less money.

Or the right not be be pressganged into a club you don't want to be in. Unless you ASSUME everyone wants to be in it. In which case, there is no issue since they will want to be in it.

t walgamuth · #22 12-12-2012, 07:21 AM

All these recent attacks on Unions by the political right is simply another tactic similar to the vote supression in the last election. Unions have traditionally voted D (not always) and so the political right is moving now to eleminate Unions from the national landscape.

It is all about political power.

With no Unions, the business owners can make more money.

As Jim noted though everybody (working people), not just people working in Union enviroments will make less money because the union shops set the standards for all of us. So that means every business which serves working people will face a customer with less disposable income to spend at his business.

All other benefits will be beaten back as well, insurance, sick days, vacation time, etc.

Wages are being beaten down all over the country now. At Purdue University staff is being reduced. With all the reductions happening anybody retaining a job feels lucky to have it let alone expect a raise.

Unions and WW2 brought the blue collar worker into the middle class where he bought a house, two cars, a boat and a motorcycle....appliances, furniture, etc. The economy became the engine to the world economy.

Republicans will not be happy until the working people of the country are back in the poverty class, and cannot afford any of the above.

I am sad to say it but this is all true.

MS Fowler · #23 12-12-2012, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

It is the "right to work" for a whole lot less money.

Once you consider initiation fees and dues, and income lost while on strike, MAYBE not all that much less money.

MS Fowler · #24 12-12-2012, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palangi

Sorta like 0bama Care ............

Not to hi jack this thread, but I just heard a report on the radio that it was unlikely that the "fiscal cliff " could be averted before New Years--and the reason? There wasn't time to put a deal in proper legislative language, and no time FOR THE LEGISLATORS TO READ IT!
I nearly spit my coffee on the windshield.
They passed Obamacare w/o reading it--it barely got printed. And all the defenders of that Bill pontificated that no one ever expects them to actually read what they are voting on.
Of course there is TIME to pass a Bill averting the fiscal cliff--there is no DESIRE to do it.

t walgamuth · #25 12-12-2012, 07:35 AM

I bet there are very few bills that our legislators vote on that they have read completely.

They have staff to do that. The staff gives them the big picture and most of the time, frankly, that is enough.

The right acts as if this is just the healthcare bill that did not get read.

MS Fowler · #26 12-12-2012, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I bet there are very few bills that our legislators vote on that they have read completely.

They have staff to do that. The staff gives them the big picture and most of the time, frankly, that is enough.

The right acts as if this is just the healthcare bill that did not get read.

That wasn't my take. It was the way that not having time to read the bill would prevent it from being voted on before the "cliff". They will vote how their leadership tells them, extracting whatever $$ they can for their own constituency, if their vote is deemed critical.

t walgamuth · #27 12-12-2012, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

That wasn't my take. It was the way that not having time to read the bill would prevent it from being voted on before the "cliff". They will vote how their leadership tells them, extracting whatever $$ they can for their own constituency, if their vote is deemed critical.

We are making different points. I don't disagree with your post 26.

SwampYankee · #28 12-12-2012, 07:45 AM

Typical weasel politician behavior (sliding bills in during lame-duck sessions).

That said, it's ironic that the opponents to RTW claim that it anti-worker. I'm not sure how giving an employee the choice to join a union or not is anti-worker, it gives them an option that (generally) wouldn't otherwise be there. If they think the union works for them, they can join. If they don't think the union works for them, they won't be forced against their will.

It's undoubtedly anti-union since they want every employee under their control and paying dues.

Air&Road · #29 12-12-2012, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Rapier

The unions racketeers tried to ammend the Michigan State Constitution with proposals #2 and #4 in the November election and the electorate by a wide margin defeated both measures. The newly passed RTW laws are the reaction by the legislature responding to the recent vote of their constituents to reign in the power of organized labor by denying it the right to extort funding from non union members.

Labor had become too powerful and too arrogant wielding its power and the citizens/taxpayers and their elected representatives recognised that and have taken the steps to thwart such power and to thwart the future abuse of power by diminishing it.

"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

VERY well said!

In the very early years of my career, I went to work as an electronic technician at a large plant in Dallas. When I started, the Union guy sat down with me and explained very politely and professionally that, (paraphrasing) "we have a union, and I am the steward. We would like for you to join our union (and all the reasons why I should in his sales pitch,) he said that if I elected NOT to join, if an issue came up they would support me anyway."

I politely declined to join their union and if I had ever needed their help, I would have let management escort me to the gate before I would have asked for help from an organization to which I chose not to pay dues. It would have been very unfair of me to do so.

My point? Union and non union employees CAN mix, if everyone is reasonable and professional about it.

Botnst · #30 12-12-2012, 07:56 AM

My wife was a union member for 15 years. She felt like the union was helping teachers. As time passed her views shifted as she watched her dues support politicians whom she did not support. She watched the union demand more and more from the school district to the detriment of facilities and materials for educating children. The unions were losing touch with the parents who pay them. When the value of the product does not improve while the price goes up consumers get pissed. My wife left th union.