MI Now Right To Work State!

[firefightentaz]

Ok, I work in a union shop, in Michigan. We have employees who are not Union, their choice. They do pay a yearly fee to the union to protect their job when they are disciplined, fight for their benefits, and fight for their pay. So employees are not forced to be Union. It is a choice. To agree with durphee, it is different enviroments in each and every state. So to compare Michigan to other RTW states is not even on the same playing field.

 

[catalac]

Wait till the union go's to vote on a new contract and the non union guys don't get to. "what are you going to vote for?" "Do you think that we will get that wage increase?" "How come you didn't vote for this or that?" Well, you chose to stay out of it didn't you? Sorry.
I think our union does pretty good for us. I don't pay any medical for me or my family.
Not to many people can say that anymore.
Oh yeah. The company isn't hurting at all. They made over three billion last quarter!

 

[Deleted member 10829]

you cant really compare states just on union vs non union, that doesn't really say much. State taxes, environmental laws, credit rating, workforce education, location to resources, infrastructure, and other legalities are major factors. Even within a state, not every company faces the union vs non union situation. This law reversal maybe too little too late, depends on what the public does. Do you buy American made products? Apple announced they will build certain products in the US and not China now, will you purchase it? Does that even enter your mind when buying a product? Buy American, support union and non union products.

Ok, let's compare the biggest states in our nation then, Texas and California. They couldn't be more different on issues like unions etc. Texas is doing very well financially and California is near bankruptcy! California has everything going for it, yet it continually struggles and people and companies are leaving that state in big numbers. There are more reasons for CA's failure, but we need to keep politics out of this the best we can.

 

[Deleted member 10829]

Ok, I work in a union shop, in Michigan. We have employees who are not Union, their choice. They do pay a yearly fee to the union to protect their job when they are disciplined, fight for their benefits, and fight for their pay. So employees are not forced to be Union. It is a choice. To agree with durphee, it is different enviroments in each and every state. So to compare Michigan to other RTW states is not even on the same playing field.

The issue is having to pay the union dues at all! Do they have a choice to pay the fee? Unions spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the last election, with over 95% going to a certain candidate. Is it fair that someone's money that doesn't support that candidate is being given to them? I think not. It's hilarious to say that someone is charged the union fees but isn't a member. Thank goodness MI doens't tell us we have to buy a trail sticker every year but can't ride the trails! LMFAO

And as far as the union protecting their job etc., that we know is true. Heck, you can be caught on camera smoking pot and drinking on your lunch break and get re-instated with back pay etc. I'm sure you all remember the UAW workers caught doing this, well, they got their jobs back this week!

While I'm at it, someone mentioned Hostess above. The unions were the reason 18,500 people lost their jobs. Here is an example why. The unions made it so Hostess bread and Twinkies could not be hauled in the same truck! Then, when the product arrived at the store, the driver could not unload it, there had to be another union worker there to unload it and bring it in to the store. Now, as if that wasn't bad enough, there had to be a separate person to unload the bread and one to unload Twinkies. So, instead of 1 person being able to handle the entire job no problem, they had to hire 4. Does that make any sense to anyone reading this?

There is a reason union membership was at 20% in 1983 and is under 11% today.

 

[cobalt_502]

the issue is having to pay the union dues at all! Do they have a choice to pay the fee? Unions spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the last election, with over 95% going to a certain candidate. Is it fair that someone's money that doesn't support that candidate is being given to them? I think not. It's hilarious to say that someone is charged the union fees but isn't a member. Thank goodness mi doens't tell us we have to buy a trail sticker every year but can't ride the trails! Lmfao

and as far as the union protecting their job etc., that we know is true. Heck, you can be caught on camera smoking pot and drinking on your lunch break and get re-instated with back pay etc. I'm sure you all remember the uaw workers caught doing this, well, they got their jobs back this week!

While i'm at it, someone mentioned hostess above. The unions were the reason 18,500 people lost their jobs. Here is an example why. The unions made it so hostess bread and twinkies could not be hauled in the same truck! Then, when the product arrived at the store, the driver could not unload it, there had to be another union worker there to unload it and bring it in to the store. Now, as if that wasn't bad enough, there had to be a separate person to unload the bread and one to unload twinkies. So, instead of 1 person being able to handle the entire job no problem, they had to hire 4. Does that make any sense to anyone reading this?

There is a reason union membership was at 20% in 1983 and is under 11% today.

Spot on!!!

 

[moen_lake]

Illinois and Wisconsin are still this way, they are not right-to-work states. (And look what great (sarcasm) shape Illinois is in.)

X2

 

[xsledder]

you cant really compare states just on union vs non union, that doesn't really say much. State taxes, environmental laws, credit rating, workforce education, location to resources, infrastructure, and other legalities are major factors. Even within a state, not every company faces the union vs non union situation. This law reversal maybe too little too late, depends on what the public does. Do you buy American made products? Apple announced they will build certain products in the US and not China now, will you purchase it? Does that even enter your mind when buying a product? Buy American, support union and non union products.

Northwestern University economist Thomas Holmes, now at University of Minnesota, compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.[SUP][7][/SUP]

Source: Wikipedia

They already taken some of what you claim into consideration and removed those factors when doing the study.

 

[durphee]

mspease,

as with your example of Texas and California, unfortunately politics (the way they run their state) is the reason for the failure. So by keeping politics, which is how the states operate, out of the discussion is keeping the real issues out of the debate. I am neither Rep or a Dem, I think they both do a bad job so you won't hear me carrying any political line. In my post, people pick one small point within a much larger issue and blame that one point for all the success or failures. I try to see the larger picture.
As far as Hostess you missed one big reason for their failure,( there were many such as union regulations, terrible management, etc) the consumer significantly slowed down buying their product. Union or not, Hostess sales were down and it was eventually going under. So the blame goes to Americans, and others, for eating healthier!

 

[durphee]

Don't worry xsledder, i read that article and several other economists rebuttals to the study, i cover my basis.

 

[Deleted member 10829]

Hostess could have made it with restructuring they were doing through the bankruptcy court, but the union wouldn't approve it. Plus, there are companies worldwide lined up to buy Hostess, they don't do that for companies that will go under. Hostess would make it if not for the union demands. You don't think requiring 4 people to do 1 person's job had anything to do with it? We will be eating hostess brands for many years to come!

More facts, which I know some don't like to hear, but Indiana became a RTW state not long ago and since has added 13,900 manufacturing jobs. During the same time period, Michagan has lost 7,000 jobs! These states border each other.

 

[durphee]

Don't worry xsledder, i read that article and several other economists rebuttals to the study, i cover my basis. But you didn't read the entire article. If stated right after that "However, given the study design, Holmes points out "my results do not say that it is right-to-work laws that matter, but rather that the 'probusiness package' offered by right-to-work states seems to matter".[8] Moreover, as noted by Kevin Drum and others, this result may reflect business relocation rather than overall enhancement of economic growth, since "businesses prefer locating in states where costs are low and rules are lax. Due to other similarities between states that have passed right-to-work laws, it is difficult to analyze these laws by comparing states; for instance, right-to-work states often have a number of strong pro-business policies, making it difficult to isolate the effect of right-to-work laws." So it goes back to the politics of how the area or the deals that can be struck with an area, hence a TIF or other means also, as i stated earlier.

One thing, I am not arguing for Unions, just pointing out the vast issues involved.

Also read "Studies of Economic Impact" below your citation. Lastly, although we are using it here, Wikipedia is not exactly a good site to use as a source.

 

[whaler]

This will be my last exchange on this topic. I originally started a thread on this last Thursday evening and it was promptly taken down. I believe because I stated that neither I nor my friends would spend a dime in any business,city or town that supproted RTW. I also think the rules dictate nothing political, so I am somewhat amused that this thread continues. That said I have been a member of a Union for 36 yrs. they have served me well as I have also served them well. I work hard for the pay I receive and I believe the co. I work for knows this. As far as the question on being able to opt out, that has always been available to a member as some religions do not condone membership in such organizations. The National Labor Act took this into consideration. The problem with this bill is you get the benefit without the price, could you join the NRA receive the benefit without paying your dues? I think not. If you work for a company that has collective bargaining and you opt-out then you should have to make your own deal, good luck with that. Thats said, I hope that the caustic remarks I have seen on both sides of the issue stop. It's done, it is what it is and time will tell whether this experiment works or not. In the end we all want the same basic things Life- for us and our family, Liberty-to be able to have these discussions, Pursuit of Happiness- snowmobling for one. Also, especially at this time of year, please remember our service men and women who are in harms way protecting these ideals.

 

[slimcake]

Unions = ruining americas mfg advantage!!! To have all of the wages and benies that those unions get and then still want MORE MORE MORE is insane!! mspease is spot on with the whole drinking and smoking lefties and getting jobs back with back pay. The union def helped those people get their job back!! Don't you see the problem with that?? Don't you see the problem with 4 people to do 1 persons job?? I worked at a union shop many years ago. I was told to slow down and quit working so hard. I was told that I didn't need to work that hard and I was making the other people look bad.... Then we played this game when a new forklift showed up if you were the first person to ram into the new forklift you drank for free that night. Me and another guy tag teamed this poor kid on his new forklift and got caught doing it. The union stuck up for us and we got to keep our high paying forklift jobs with not so much as a talking to.... I would have FIRED ME for that bs.... I just don't understand how people can think that the unions are so good for workers and for America..... Just the opposite.... Only crappy workers need the unions!!!!

 

[durphee]

I am not disagreeing with you at all about how the union regulations were absolute ridiculous, if downright odd. The delivery and distribution system was inefficient and ridiculous. The problem is just what you said "companies are lined up around the world." I wold like them lined up in America, not other countries.

I really have mixed feelings on the issue honestly. I try to put myself in someone's shoes who is getting a 20% paycut, losing pension and paying more for insurance. Would you take that cut? Maybe some have no choice.

As with Michigan and Indiana, I still go back to my original idea of state politics. The state sets a good/bad political structure for companies. Union or not, companies want that "pro business package" being offered. Indiana has a much better package than Michigan, Unions is only a small part.

I have always believed that unions should not be needed, companies should look out for their employees. Unfortunatley, this is not the case but i don't think big unions are the answer either. Remember, you get what you pay for with a product and an employee (usually!).

 

[Admin]

whaler

I was the one that removed your post last week because it had a very harsh and negative tone to it.

To tell you the honest truth, I was so busy with computer problems yesterday that I did not even see this one until many posts had already posted. I read through them and while certainly in the arena of a political discussion, most posts were very civil and no personal attacks were done. I will say that this latest one from slimcake did cross the line, but will keep is up as an example that if more happen, this thread will get pulled.

I do have rules and tend to stick to them pretty closely, but also understand that sometimes we all need to blow off some steam and as long as the discussion does not get into a personal attack type mode and the posts can remain constructive and cordial, then it can stay.

Just thought I would explain why your's got yanked and this one stayed.

-John

 

[xsledder]

Don't worry xsledder, i read that article and several other economists rebuttals to the study, i cover my basis. But you didn't read the entire article. If stated right after that "However, given the study design, Holmes points out "my results do not say that it is right-to-work laws that matter, but rather that the 'probusiness package' offered by right-to-work states seems to matter".[8] Moreover, as noted by Kevin Drum and others, this result may reflect business relocation rather than overall enhancement of economic growth, since "businesses prefer locating in states where costs are low and rules are lax. Due to other similarities between states that have passed right-to-work laws, it is difficult to analyze these laws by comparing states; for instance, right-to-work states often have a number of strong pro-business policies, making it difficult to isolate the effect of right-to-work laws." So it goes back to the politics of how the area or the deals that can be struck with an area, hence a TIF or other means also, as i stated earlier.

One thing, I am not arguing for Unions, just pointing out the vast issues involved.

Also read "Studies of Economic Impact" below your citation. Lastly, although we are using it here, Wikipedia is not exactly a good site to use as a source.

Yes, I read those lines in the entire arcticle so your uninformed assumption that I didn't read the entire article is wrong. (You do know where the word assume comes from, right.) However, I find quoting the entire article and making extremely long posts you start losing people. Also look at one of my previous posts whereby I don include information that can be used against the discussion. I do have other sources but Wikipedia is a good enough source from which everyone else has access to and can verify. (Like you did.) If you want I can start using obscure sources but than the conversation starts to go over people's heads.

 

[Deleted member 10829]

durphee,

There are many American companies in the mix to buy them as well. I agree they should stay in America, in a RTW state. I also don't think they were asking for a 20% cut, I had heard it was 8%. At any rate, a job seems better to me than no job. Plus, many of the unions had accepted the company's offer, but it was the Baker's union that said no, thus ruining it for everyone else.

 

[jonesin]

X2

only if you don't deserve what you are getting paid now

 

[jr37]

There was a time in history when unions were needed. I'm sure there were abuses and unfair labor practices that needed to be corrected. Unions helped take care of that. Now in 2012 a company would not get away with what companies did 50 years ago. The days of a union be "needed" are over. There are too many unions that have taken it to far from making things fair. There is not enough give and take, they mainly want to take, and not much give. Hostess is a prime example. If unions don't get with it, they will become fewer and fewer. I think we will see more of the right to work coming.

 

[gary_in_neenah]

There's a time and place for everything. If you look back at the second half of the 19th Century when the Rockefellers and Carnegies were building their empires, they treated their workers terribly. People were killed routinely by unsafe conditions and pretty much worked to death. Unions put an end to that and quite frankly helped labor receive a living wage. Today we have laws, maybe too many, that regulate, dictate, and infuriate.

I should mention that I'm not a union member, my wife was and some of my coworkers are so I've had a view of both sides of the issue. One thing we can all agree on is that the world is changing, rapidly! I believe the spiral began with NAFTA in the early 90's and most recently the National Healthcare Law.

And before I get thrown out of here on my ear... have you notice all the politicians harping about taxing the rich to avoid greater debt but none are talking of cutting expenses and hand-outs. I read yesterday we're sending 12 F16's to Egypt as a gift!

OK, I'm done. I'll be outside looking in.