MI right-to-work vote - Page 10 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 10th, 2012, 05:39 PM   #181
cj65
Senior Member
 
cj65's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-07-07
Location: 48174
Posts: 3,947
iTrader: (19)
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw View Post
Which means looking out for #1 (themselves as usual) and not the children.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/T...z/-/index.html
All I can say is that union teachers have to have a degree. A friend of mine is a teacher at a charter school and only has a GED. And charter schools are non union.
cj65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old December 10th, 2012, 06:56 PM   #182
SS
Doing stuff...and things.
 
SS's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-12-05
Location: 48309
Posts: 12,157
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 55 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cj65 View Post
All I can say is that union teachers have to have a degree. A friend of mine is a teacher at a charter school and only has a GED. And charter schools are non union.
Seriously man. Just stop. You are starting to absolutely REEK of desperation with every new post.

Nothing in this legislation does ANYTHING but give the WORKER the choice to be a member of the union or not. If the unions experience a mass exodus of members it's because they did a shit ass job representing their workers. If the only thing keeping a specific union alive is FORCED membership then it needs to be allowed to die. It's obvious they aren't doing their jobs.


So once again...


NOTHING IN THIS LEGISLATION DOES ANYTHING TO LIMIT THE BARGAINING POWER OF UNIONS, WORK TO DESTROY THEM OR ATTACKS WAGES OR BENEFITS. STOP ACTING LIKE IT DOES.
__________________
-Jer

SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:21 PM   #183
hosejockey4506
Visiting Admin
 
hosejockey4506's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: fenton
Posts: 8,855
iTrader: (43)
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SS View Post
Seriously man. Just stop. You are starting to absolutely REEK of desperation with every new post.

Nothing in this legislation does ANYTHING but give the WORKER the choice to be a member of the union or not. If the unions experience a mass exodus of members it's because they did a shit ass job representing their workers. If the only thing keeping a specific union alive is FORCED membership then it needs to be allowed to die. It's obvious they aren't doing their jobs.


So once again...


NOTHING IN THIS LEGISLATION DOES ANYTHING TO LIMIT THE BARGAINING POWER OF UNIONS, WORK TO DESTROY THEM OR ATTACKS WAGES OR BENEFITS. STOP ACTING LIKE IT DOES.


well said
hosejockey4506 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:31 PM   #184
silveradoboy
Sam Brown
 
silveradoboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-28-12
Location: Waterford/Cheyboygan
Posts: 1,941
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook. I hate the unions but I have to agree it doesnt makes a ton of sense. I thought Conservatives were for a smaller government?

"The problem is - government is sticking its head where it shouldn't. The company and the union already have a deal worked out. Both sides already agreed to that deal - otherwise there wouldn't be one. Now, the government is putting itself between the two and telling them how to do things. There are many different kinds of shops that the union and company can agree upon (and they obviously already have). This is the same as if the government came in and told people they could still be in a fraternity, and the fraternities could still rush, and the fraternities were still (legally) required to host social/philanthropic events for campus, but they were no longer able to force their members to pay dues.

Also, state laws cannot override federal laws. This will not affect any federal-level infrastructure projects. Also, the state uses Prevailing Wages, so it's not any more-or less-advantageous to use a unionized vs. non-unionized workforce at the state and local level infrastructure sites."
silveradoboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:38 PM   #185
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,509
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveradoboy View Post
A friend of mine posted this on Facebook. I hate the unions but I have to agree it doesnt makes a ton of sense. I thought Conservatives were for a smaller government?

"The problem is - government is sticking its head where it shouldn't. The company and the union already have a deal worked out. Both sides already agreed to that deal - otherwise there wouldn't be one. Now, the government is putting itself between the two and telling them how to do things. There are many different kinds of shops that the union and company can agree upon (and they obviously already have). This is the same as if the government came in and told people they could still be in a fraternity, and the fraternities could still rush, and the fraternities were still (legally) required to host social/philanthropic events for campus, but they were no longer able to force their members to pay dues.

Also, state laws cannot override federal laws. This will not affect any federal-level infrastructure projects. Also, the state uses Prevailing Wages, so it's not any more-or less-advantageous to use a unionized vs. non-unionized workforce at the state and local level infrastructure sites."
Wow, the government is looking out for the guy that doesn't want to be bullied by the Union . . . crazy since most agree that this is fine when they step in to stop other bullies.
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:40 PM   #186
MonkeyBiz
Master Cocksman
 
MonkeyBiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Whitehall
Posts: 8,612
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Send a message via Yahoo to MonkeyBiz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveradoboy View Post
A friend of mine posted this on Facebook. I hate the unions but I have to agree it doesnt makes a ton of sense. I thought Conservatives were for a smaller government?

"The problem is - government is sticking its head where it shouldn't. The company and the union already have a deal worked out. Both sides already agreed to that deal - otherwise there wouldn't be one. Now, the government is putting itself between the two and telling them how to do things. There are many different kinds of shops that the union and company can agree upon (and they obviously already have). This is the same as if the government came in and told people they could still be in a fraternity, and the fraternities could still rush, and the fraternities were still (legally) required to host social/philanthropic events for campus, but they were no longer able to force their members to pay dues.

Also, state laws cannot override federal laws. This will not affect any federal-level infrastructure projects. Also, the state uses Prevailing Wages, so it's not any more-or less-advantageous to use a unionized vs. non-unionized workforce at the state and local level infrastructure sites."
Your friend is an idiot. Existing contracts won't change. They are grandfathered. The Government is simply telling the unions they they can't FORCE employees to pay them as a condition of employment. If the union members want to keep things 'status quo' nothing will change. The only difference is they can choose to stay in the union.
__________________
In bed, according to prophesy.
MonkeyBiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:43 PM   #187
Tie Dyed
O.G.
 
Tie Dyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 4,201
iTrader: (28)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Tie Dyed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SS View Post
Seriously man. Just stop. You are starting to absolutely REEK of desperation with every new post.

Nothing in this legislation does ANYTHING but give the WORKER the choice to be a member of the union or not. If the unions experience a mass exodus of members it's because they did a shit ass job representing their workers. If the only thing keeping a specific union alive is FORCED membership then it needs to be allowed to die. It's obvious they aren't doing their jobs.


So once again...


NOTHING IN THIS LEGISLATION DOES ANYTHING TO LIMIT THE BARGAINING POWER OF UNIONS, WORK TO DESTROY THEM OR ATTACKS WAGES OR BENEFITS. STOP ACTING LIKE IT DOES.

Here is the thing, short term it does not change anything.

However, look at the long term side of things. You and I hire into the same job. I join the union, you do not. The union collectively bargains for my wage and benefits. You get the same wage and benefits that the union has bargained for, without paying dues. Over time, people that we work with start saying, hey, SS isn't paying union dues, but gets the same pay and bennies, and they drop out of the union. Less people paying dues equals less money they have to pay for the lawyers to negotiate the contract. Over time, the pay and bennies start going down, because the union can not hire people to negotiate.
__________________
2000 XJ with a 3 inch body lift
Tie Dyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:44 PM   #188
sheehan
Member
 
sheehan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-19-12
Location: decatur indiana
Posts: 50
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

the right to work ha you get no rights and no work




FUCK The R T W UNION BUY CHOICE
sheehan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:48 PM   #189
Tie Dyed
O.G.
 
Tie Dyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 4,201
iTrader: (28)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Tie Dyed
Default

I will re-state what I said earlier. This should be decided by the people. Not is some lame duck session. If the voters as a whole vote it down, then it is truly what the people want. I see now that one of the RTW is added it to an appropriations bill, so it is not able to go to a state-wide vote.

We are supposed to elect our representatives to represent what we want. However, this has been lost over the years. It has turned into the representatives looking out for what they want, and how they can set themselves up for the time that they leave office.

Tomorrow will be very interesting.
__________________
2000 XJ with a 3 inch body lift
Tie Dyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:49 PM   #190
silveradoboy
Sam Brown
 
silveradoboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-28-12
Location: Waterford/Cheyboygan
Posts: 1,941
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tie Dyed View Post
Here is the thing, short term it does not change anything.

However, look at the long term side of things. You and I hire into the same job. I join the union, you do not. The union collectively bargains for my wage and benefits. You get the same wage and benefits that the union has bargained for, without paying dues. Over time, people that we work with start saying, hey, SS isn't paying union dues, but gets the same pay and bennies, and they drop out of the union. Less people paying dues equals less money they have to pay for the lawyers to negotiate the contract. Over time, the pay and bennies start going down, because the union can not hire people to negotiate.
That is assuming companies are going to pay you and SS the same wage. The union guy may make more money than you, you want more money so you join the Union and nothing will change.

I am on the fence about this still. It doent really make sense to me but I still have a deep hatred for the unions.
silveradoboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:51 PM   #191
Tie Dyed
O.G.
 
Tie Dyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 4,201
iTrader: (28)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Tie Dyed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatty Matty View Post
I agree on all the above.

I find it disheartening that he's been very clear that he wasn't going to touch it. I can count at least 3 or 4 statewide emails to state employees in the past year where he stated he wasn't going to touch it...then he blows it through in a week.

He actually had been doing a good job of encouraging sacrifice for the good of all in the state system. "Hey, I got some candy if you help me find my puppy". Oh shit, we jumped in the van...guess what?

I've only used the union a couple of times in 17 years and most of us just go to work and do our jobs quietly.
I really like the email that we got last week from the Governor. About how we as State workers needed to be careful. I really wanted to respond to it, Hey Governor Snyder, did your forget that the majority of State workers are in the union?
__________________
2000 XJ with a 3 inch body lift
Tie Dyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:52 PM   #192
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,586
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveradoboy View Post
This is the same as if the government came in and told people they could still be in a fraternity, and the fraternities could still rush, and the fraternities were still (legally) required to host social/philanthropic events for campus, but they were no longer able to force their members to pay dues.
No. the current system of closed shops would be like telling the students that they had to pay dues to the fraternities because the fraternities host social/philanthropic events for campus, even if the students wanted nothing to do these events.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:52 PM   #193
silveradoboy
Sam Brown
 
silveradoboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-28-12
Location: Waterford/Cheyboygan
Posts: 1,941
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tie Dyed View Post
I will re-state what I said earlier. This should be decided by the people. Not is some lame duck session. If the voters as a whole vote it down, then it is truly what the people want. I see now that one of the RTW is added it to an appropriations bill, so it is not able to go to a state-wide vote.

We are supposed to elect our representatives to represent what we want. However, this has been lost over the years. It has turned into the representatives looking out for what they want, and how they can set themselves up for the time that they leave office.

Tomorrow will be very interesting.
We are voting on it, we voted for the reps and the Governor and their agendas! So we are voting directly for it right!?


Democracy!


This is why it is so important to do your research on the candidates and dont vote for them just because they are on the republican ticket! If everyone really did their homework and voted for who they wanted (3rd party) it would send a message and this may change. If we keep going the way we are, things will never change....EVER!
silveradoboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:54 PM   #194
Tie Dyed
O.G.
 
Tie Dyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 4,201
iTrader: (28)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Tie Dyed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveradoboy View Post
That is assuming companies are going to pay you and SS the same wage. The union guy may make more money than you, you want more money so you join the Union and nothing will change.

I am on the fence about this still. It doent really make sense to me but I still have a deep hatred for the unions.

For the ease of doing benefits, I would tend to believe that they would just offer the same pay package to everyone, union or not. Better than having 500 different pay scales and benefit packages.
__________________
2000 XJ with a 3 inch body lift
Tie Dyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:57 PM   #195
silveradoboy
Sam Brown
 
silveradoboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-28-12
Location: Waterford/Cheyboygan
Posts: 1,941
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
No. the current system of closed shops would be like telling the students that they had to pay dues to the fraternities because the fraternities host social/philanthropic events for campus, even if the students wanted nothing to do these events.
I was told that closed shops were federally illegal since the Taft-Hartley Act

After some more research I found this:

"The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947, but permits the union shop, except in those states that have passed right-to-work laws, in which case even the union shop is illegal. An employer may not lawfully agree with a union to hire only union members; it may, on the other hand, agree to require employees to join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues to it after a set period of time. Similarly, while a union could require an employer that had agreed to a closed shop contract prior to 1947 to fire an employee who had been expelled from the union for any reason, it cannot demand that an employer fire an employee under a union shop contract for any reason other than failure to pay those dues that are uniformly required of all employees."
silveradoboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 08:00 PM   #196
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,586
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tie Dyed View Post
Here is the thing, short term it does not change anything.

However, look at the long term side of things. You and I hire into the same job. I join the union, you do not. The union collectively bargains for my wage and benefits. You get the same wage and benefits that the union has bargained for, without paying dues. Over time, people that we work with start saying, hey, SS isn't paying union dues, but gets the same pay and bennies, and they drop out of the union. Less people paying dues equals less money they have to pay for the lawyers to negotiate the contract. Over time, the pay and bennies start going down, because the union can not hire people to negotiate.
Then they will see that there is a benefit for them to support the union, and they will pay their dues.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 08:03 PM   #197
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,586
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveradoboy View Post
I was told that closed shops were federally illegal since the Taft-Hartley Act

After some more research I found this:

"The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947, but permits the union shop, except in those states that have passed right-to-work laws, in which case even the union shop is illegal. An employer may not lawfully agree with a union to hire only union members; it may, on the other hand, agree to require employees to join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues to it after a set period of time. Similarly, while a union could require an employer that had agreed to a closed shop contract prior to 1947 to fire an employee who had been expelled from the union for any reason, it cannot demand that an employer fire an employee under a union shop contract for any reason other than failure to pay those dues that are uniformly required of all employees."
OK, I stand corrected. Please insert "union shop" any place I wrote "closed shop".
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 08:08 PM   #198
Tie Dyed
O.G.
 
Tie Dyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 4,201
iTrader: (28)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Tie Dyed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Then they will see that there is a benefit for them to support the union, and they will pay their dues.
I would hope so. However, in this entitlement society, I see it being a problem.
__________________
2000 XJ with a 3 inch body lift
Tie Dyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 08:08 PM   #199
silveradoboy
Sam Brown
 
silveradoboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-28-12
Location: Waterford/Cheyboygan
Posts: 1,941
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
OK, I stand corrected. Please insert "union shop" any place I wrote "closed shop".
Yeah, I knew what you meant. I was under the wrong impression of how the current law was setup. I am now leaning back in favor of this law!
silveradoboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2012, 08:27 PM   #200
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,586
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tie Dyed View Post
I would hope so. However, in this entitlement society, I see it being a problem.
Then they'll get exactly what their entitled to, a pay rate and benefits that reflects the value that the employer sees in them.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:41 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.40897 seconds with 81 queries