MI House Passes Right-to-Work Measure While Teachers Skip School to Protest

And as to the question of employee rights vs company rights. Its pretty simple. Employees have to be protected from companies, but the opposite is not true. Companies have often taken advantage of, even enslaved employees, as just last year was reported in florida, with the orange companies, i think it was, having several generations of slaves working their fields. I think companies in florida have successfully been sued for slavery like 27 times in the past two decades. On the other hand, regardless of what you may think of union workers, employees can rarely have as significant an impact on a company.

Originally posted by macman

You should be forcing your workers to create a Union and allow them to dictate to you how the company is run.

Unions are not in the business of dictating.

They provide leveraged negotiations between employees *as a group* and the employer.

Maybe you will eventually learn this?

Business and government dictate, especially if it is run by republicans.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Unions are not in the business of dictating.

Oh, so just dictating whether an employee has the right NOT to join them...
If they aren't into dictating, then why the fuss over giving the MI Citizen the option to join or not join???

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
They provide leveraged negotiations between employees *as a group* and the employer.

Yep, that seems to be one of many things the pitch as to what they do.
You forgot punch Tea Party Members, knock down a tent and trapping people inside, threatening people, thrash a hotdog vendors property, stealing campaign yard signs and so on........

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Maybe you will eventually learn this?

Again, thank you so much for educating me on how much the Union truly cares for the worker and just how lost I am in my wonderful career without them.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Business and government dictate, especially if it is run by republicans.

Yeah, and Unions have no fingers in the pot with Govt, especially the current Govt admin.
How many times did Trumpka visit the WH just this year???

Correlation does not mean causation. Just because unions are prevalent in Michigan does NOT mean it is to blame for their unemployment.

Unions are crucial to keep what little freedoms we have in the workplace. Without Unions, corporations could impose any rules they wish even if most of their workers hate it.

Originally posted by zero1020
Correlation does not mean causation. Just because unions are prevalent in Michigan does NOT mean it is to blame for their unemployment.

Unions are crucial to keep what little freedoms we have in the workplace. Without Unions, corporations could impose any rules they wish even if most of their workers hate it.

And all of the good workers will go work some where else where they are appreciated leaving the abusive business owner with no business.

We have laws now. Minimum wage, overtime, child labor laws and many safety regulations. The unions have no purpose anymore and they know it. That is why they are fighting so hard to keep their grip on the businesses that they are still suffocating. It is not the turn of the 20th century anymore.

My wife has worked 10 years at a unionized hospital. She had an intern working under her at one point. After the internship was over my wife gave the intern a reference for a job she applied for at a non union hospital in a neighboring city. The intern got the job doing the same thing my wife has been doing for ten years and started out making $2 an hour more than my wife was making after 10 years.

Who do you think the union is protecting? My wife or the hospital? Every time her manager has tried to get her more money it is always the union contract that prevents her from getting a raise

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by ldyserenity
I don't think it's right to force anyone to join any union. But the right to work Bullspit is also garbage. The employer should not have the right to "Close off" Any employee because they're union (this is done here in Florida at wal mart) No Union people will be hired at a wal mart in florida and no union is allowed to try and get wal mart workers to join a union, also if you decide You think you want to join a union, in florida, wal mart will then fire you (and they're the only ones that actually give you breaks down here) So either way to the extreme is very bad. I don't know how it will play out at MI I guess only time will tell. As it says now the way it reads looks innocent enough, but I have learned a lot of double talk in these bills or you know, the fine print over these many years, we shall see.

It seems to me that what you are asking for in freedom of choice that only goes one way. Why should an employee have the freedom to be part of a union but an employer not have the right to not employ a union worker? IMHO, the employee and the employer both have rights and if they cannot come to a mutually beneficial agreement, either side should be free to terminate the relationship.

Nobody should be blocked from getting a job...hence why there are discrimination laws. PERIOD.

Ok, is that more clear?

Nobody should be kept from a job because they smoke tobacco (A LEGAL product) Or for any reason that does not directly affect performance.

It's stupid to think anybody has the right to do that.

reply to post by ldyserenity


Yet they do just that. I have seen a lot of jobs have on their "requirements" list to be a nonsmoker. I suppose it is because they do not want to have to work in smoke breaks. Don't even get me started on the drug test and background check BS.....

I believe that no one should be required to belong to a union.

I believe that any employee who does not belong to the local union does not receive the pay, protections and benefits that the union members do. They are hired at the rate of pay that the company offered the union employees at the BEGINNING of the last contract negotiations and they can make their own way up from there. They protect their own jobs from predatory corporate LR departments, and argue their own pay disputes. They receive whatever benefits the corporations feel like giving them. They accept whatever vacations the corporation offers when they offer them.

That seems fair, right?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

Yet they do just that. I have seen a lot of jobs have on their "requirements" list to be a nonsmoker. I suppose it is because they do not want to have to work in smoke breaks. Don't even get me started on the drug test and background check BS.....

This is exactly why we need some unions, and the ability to belong to one if we so choose. I have NO DOUBT in my mind that this law will end up being one sided...on the side of the big corporation over the humanitarian "freedom of choice" BS they're trying to shove down their throats in MI. I am sure the fine print says a lot they hope will not come to the surface until it's as deplorable to work there as it is in a few states mentioned here like Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, And Whatever other ones have been previously discussed how horrible the working class are being fleeced and spat on in "right to work" or even "at will" crap states. I think the one thing that needs to be done is everyone refuse to work those places anymore, just stop working and completely crash their Dumb A$$ system, then they'll maybe wake up and start realizing we refuse to work for chicken scratch. People need to just tell them all to piss off and do the work themselves, they'd change their damn tune quick then!

Originally posted by begoodbees

Originally posted by zero1020
Correlation does not mean causation. Just because unions are prevalent in Michigan does NOT mean it is to blame for their unemployment.

Unions are crucial to keep what little freedoms we have in the workplace. Without Unions, corporations could impose any rules they wish even if most of their workers hate it.

And all of the good workers will go work some where else where they are appreciated leaving the abusive business owner with no business.

We have laws now. Minimum wage, overtime, child labor laws and many safety regulations. The unions have no purpose anymore and they know it. That is why they are fighting so hard to keep their grip on the businesses that they are still suffocating. It is not the turn of the 20th century anymore.

edit on 20-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)

Really you can cover all your bills on 7.25 an hour? Really???

This is ridiculous minimum wage is not any standard of living for a first world country at all...maybe in Africa that would be enough to have a decent life, but not in the USA where everything is way over the top in cost.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
This is ridiculous minimum wage is not any standard of living for a first world country at all...maybe in Africa that would be enough to have a decent life, but not in the USA where everything is way over the top in cost.

Have you considered that the real problem is not pay? Cost of living is high because of all of the hidden costs involved in bringing a product or service to market. Labor, supplies, insurances(of multiple types), compliance with a plethora of regulations, taxes, and numerous other costs. There is no way we can compete in a "free trade environment" with nations that pay slave wages and have fewer insurance and regulation compliance related costs. Nafta, Gatt, and all of the other free trade agreements have sucked all of the good jobs out of America.

Originally posted by YouSir
reply to post by macman

 

Ummm.....I actually think that unions have served their purpose. I'm no longer in one and wouldn't join if I was paid to. I have too much pride in self and ability to ever go that route again. I especially think that public sector unions should be shut out, down and sideways. There are so many more ethical people out there in the labor force that would fill those positions in a heartbeat. If we protect whistleblowers and have real teeth in employee protections from an enforcement standpoint then there is no need for a union. All of that being said, I think that private unions should be outlawed as well, and those bums thrown to the wolves like everyone else. The Dems love to rag on about leveling the playing field, well lets start there......

YouSir

your thoughts and opinions are silly and not valid therefore I wish I could reach through my computer and slap you.

reply to post by YouSir

How dare you have thoughts and opinions anyway right? I think you catch my drift. Unions and teachers right?