In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2259
Online now 2134 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
edit: also to Gov. Snyder when he signs this
The Republican-led Michigan House has approved a contentious right-to-work bill limiting unions strength.
This post was edited by irishyoung 16 months ago
3 time POTW, member since 2006, MLWTI: 4-3
I guess it's back to 12 hour work days for $0.10/hour and being beaten by a foreman with a bullwhip without the unions.
thought it was 14 hour work days?
RTW will not mean any less unions in Michigan. It just finally holds the accountable.
While I support it, this is bad timing and makes Snyder go back on a campaign promise.
"As far as the downvotes. It's a gnat biting an lion"
-- A member of tRCMB Justice League, taking the internet WAY WAY too seriously.
Michigan Republicans have accomplished the impossible. They've actually managed to get people to stand up and cheer as they take money out of the working population's pockets. It's pretty impressive, if you think about it.
I haven't heard a good explanation on how this takes a dime out of Anyone pocket. Why are you against people having choices? If the union is good, people will join. If it isn't, people won't. This puts pressure on the unions to do a better job.
Yeah the whole idea RTW legislation is going to take money out of someones pocket or kill unions is BS. All it means is Unions dont get to sit on their ass and do nothing, all while collecting dues from workers.
Sounds like they're taking money out of the unions' pockets. But what do I know, all I did was read the article.
I'd probably be mad too if a state didn't allow my political party's campaigning/lobbying arm to force money out of people's pockets.
Unions have destroyed this country.
If you work in a union plant and aren't in the union your life is miserable and you'll be run off very quickly.
What's the incentive to get a job and pay taxes if you lose the benefits by getting a job and paying taxes?
I'm not usually a fan of posting a link without significant explanation, but frankly, this link explains it better than I can off the top of my head.
You should want lower wages, know why?
The hardest workers will get rewarded the most. The other way is the equivalent of communism. Company isn't gonna pay top dogs less or another guy will open a company and pay the best more. Crushes the competition.
Unions were a necessity in the 20's, but they're obsolete now.
i worked at a job shop in Detroit that done work for the big 3, they treated us just as good as anyone in the UAW, without all the union due's, so much so my grandfather retired from there with a very nice retirement plan.
Unions were a good thing at one time, it seems now they are worried more about the money than the well being of the worker
Unions enter into contracts with the employers, so if you are a member of the union and they get you a good contract (ie better pay and benefits), you will want to pay your dues. If you are not a member of a Union, you will not get the same benefits of the Union Contract and normally employers do not offer the same benefits to non unionize workers bc they want to save money.
RTW means the Unions will have to prove to the membership they are worth the dues they pay. If not, they can try to negotiate on their own, which normally does not work out great.
What is the difference between a monopoly or a union that requires everyone to be a member at a shop.
My son's message to Obama, Clemson, and Georgia
People are missing the point about "lower wages". In reality, it probably does mean lower wages for many union members. However, it probably means more jobs for all.
This is as non-partisan as I can make it: When you work on an assembly line of a car manufacturer and the union demands that you're paid $35/hr, plus benefits and pension. That does 2 things... it raises the price of the car and/or it limits the amount of people the manufacturer can hire. The price of an American car goes up, less people buy it and then the company has to lay-off workers. Its such an insanely simple thing to understand that I don't know how anyone can debate it.
Toyota workers say hi
There's a lot of pissed off UAW members up here right now
He's a lawyer. Not saying he works for a union, but lawyers are the people that make the most off them.
Note: I am a democrat, but also anti-union in most situations.
If I'm not mistaken, he's studying law with the aspiration to defend corporations vs the "common man" and fails to see irony in his soon to be profession.
I've got a good friend who practices that type of law, who was always left leaning, and is by far the only person with whom I'd willingly, drunkenly argue politics/religion.
This post was edited by PTCcock195 16 months ago
Uphill both ways.
“If you remember me, then I don't care if everyone else forgets.” ― Haruki Murakami
If that is the case, that law should be changed. I dont like unions but that is the main value they bring.
The majority of revenue unions take on is from employer contributions anyway. It's likely many of these CBA's will be written so that employer contributions will remain relatively consistent. The hit will come from those individuals that won't remit on their behalf. However, much less revenue is made off of individual remittances.
The biggest threat to the unions is the reduced leverage they will have with a potential of losing members. Many seem to think unions offer better wages and benefits in comparison to private employers. This just isn't true. Indiana is a great example. Many guys that are members of unions will do union work with union employers and non union work with non union employers. It hasn't really destroyed many unions in Indiana. In fact, a lot of electricians for example, have done work for foreign auto-manufacturers while also doing union work for something like a parking garage.
It's far from the end of unions. It will likely create a bit more competition for unions to get the best possible deal for their employees. It may hurt the union in the short term, but it may very well help the individuals in the long run.
To make things even more complicated. Employers pay less to the individuals to make up for union contributions. By taking money out of the employer's hands, they often have a certain amount of dues go towards funds that are kept by unions to subsidize bids on jobs. Union employers have a tough time bidding against non-union employers. To curb the competition, unions contribute to those bids to help the union employers.
Again, I think the competition will help out in the long run. People are just scared of change, even the democrats.
Who the are you to think you know me?
I'm sorry, but this is just spectacularly ignorant. Regardless of whether or not my first job is a corporate law position, it's mind-boggling that you assume you know what I aspire to do or how perceptive I am of my position in the world. What you know of me based on any online interactions barely scratches the surface of who I am as a person and what I want to do with my life.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports