Wednesday briefing and open thread
Effort to recall Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder faces opposition – FROM THE LEFT
Teacher Job Satisfaction Suffering as New TV Attack Ads Set to Air
Tell Hoekstra and Romney NO on November 6
The Return of EAGTruth.com
Snyder to consider deregulation of 18 industries
The first shot in the battle to defend the middle class was fired Wednesday night when the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution 5-2 to urge the Michigan Legislature to take up a bill to make Michigan a right to work for less state, also known as the right to freeload act.
Teabaggar and Commissioner Jason Gillman brought the resolution to the board, most likely written by the billionaire Koch Brothers, the anti-union Mackinac Center or ALEC, to the board, calling the resolution a “freedom to work” resolution. The effort to starve and bankrupt unions by allowing union members to opt out of paying dues while still being protected and defended in court by the union was launched last week by extremist Republicans falsely calling the effort, “Michigan Freedom to Work.” Gillman is part of that effort.
A packed, standing room only crowd showed up at the meeting of the board’s Public Health and Safety Committee Wednesday night that was pretty much evenly split among supporters and opponents. The committee of the whole first held a vote to see if this was the proper place to bring up the issue. The nine member board – made up of eight Republicans and one Democrat – voted on a split 4-3 vote that it was the right venue.
It’s not something we as a board should be taking up,” said Commissioner Sonny Wheelock
That’s something the public agreed with, saying the board should be working on roads, public safety and the sewage problem.
“I can’t believe something that effects all the people in the state should be taken up by this board,” said county resident Douglas Cunningham. “Right to work laws are designed to do one thing: weaken labor.”
Gillman has been a disruption on the board since being elected last November, going after the charity status of the Traverse City Rotary Club and the local 4-H, and it has, apparently, not been lost on the public.
“As I look over your proposal and your web site, I saw someone who has higher political aspirations,” said Traverse City resident David Graham.
Everything supporters of RTWFL and Gillman said was debunked, and in fact, Commissioner Ross Richardson, the lone Democrat on the board, noted they were all quoting from the same study that was passed out to the commissioners. The claim that you can be fired for not being part of a union that was put out by Gillman is simply a lie; because federal law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union to get or keep their jobs, and the law gives workers the right to opt out of a union.
Another Gillman lie was that RTWFL states have higher wages and more job growth. Workers in RTWFL states make an average of $5,900 less in annual salary, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In addition, the rate of workplace deaths is 41 percent higher in RTWFL states, according to the bureau. As for the job growth lie, of the five states with unemployment rates higher than Michigan, three are right to work for less states, including Nevada at No. 1. Plus, the job growth in RTWL states like Texas are mostly minimum wage jobs.
A constant refrain was “forced unionization,” but a union has to be approved by the majority of workers in a sanctioned election, and a majority of the workers can also decertify a union and fire it by a majority vote.
“Unions are not forced on anyone; they vote in a union and they can vote a union out,” said Bob Donnick, business agent for Teamsters Local 214, which represents most of the county’s unionized employees. “To quote Martin Luther King ‘In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.’”
Under Gillman’s logic, if the candidate you did not vote for loses, you can opt out of paying taxes to that government entity the candidate ran for.
This is a move to starve unions of funds and bankrupt them, so they both go out of business and cannot contribute money to political candidates who stand up for workers. That would leave rich corporations who are making record profits unlimited political power.
Unions in RTWFL states are required by law to defend non-dues-paying members involved in a dispute or charged with a grievance at work, but those employees do not have to contribute dues. Such a provision does not give workers more rights, but instead it weakens unions and their ability to bargain for improved benefits and working conditions, which is real intent of RTWFL. The union, by law, must represent all workers equally.
“I have been a utility worker for almost 30 years, recently retired,” said county resident Joel Casler. “I had the privilege of representing workers; we didn’t hire them or fire them, but we were obligated to represent them.”
After the almost two-hour meeting, the board voted 5-2 to approve the resolution, with Richardson and Wheelock voting no. Chances are this will be sent to the other 81 county boards as well, so expect more fights like this one.
And let me be the first to point out that this right here, along with most everything else we've been talking about on BFM, is a DIRECT RESULT of working people staying home last November because they were feeling all "un-enthused." So I ask you, middle class, are you enthusiastic yet?????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And watch for right-wingers to claim that right to work for less is a "grassroots" movement, based on the fact that these Mackinac Republicans are passing these resolutions ……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wish you were wrong, but you are 100 percent correct. It was interesting to see Gillman in action; what a scumbag. I would welcome him to come here and debate, but he can’t take his ball and go home here when he gets his sorry ass beat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Christine, you're correct, these are astro-turf groups at the most, complete fabrications at worst. The Maconaw Center has found a useful idiot in UAW member Terry Bowman, who claims to be "pro-union" but also RTW. He loves his wages and benefits, but doesn't want to pay dues. Similarly, I love my cable tv, but I'm sick of paying Comcast.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The precise title of the resolution should be posted: Employee FREEDOM to Work Act.
This allows true freedom, of course; the only reason the unions will fight it is because they will now have to raise funds on a VOLUNTARY basis. If they are doing such good things for workers, there should be no concern on their part.
Hopefully, this will inspire other states to begin movements to insure freedom for workers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
No, the precise title of the resolution should be posted: Freedom to Work for Less. Workers already have the freedom to work, as well as not to join a union as a condition of employment.
By your twisted logic, I should have the option of paying state taxes voluntary because I didn’t vote for this Governor or my State Representative or my State Senator.
Unions are doing a great job for workers, and if they are not, you have the opportunity to fire them and decertify them with a majority vote. However, you don’t get something for nothing.
This is not “freedom for workers.” This is about busting unions so corporations and Republicans have unlimited power.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
You have omitted something with YOUR logic: You have claimed that because of unions, workers now have things such as better wages, safer work environments, and good benefits; you imply that we must pay deference to, and support, them because of this.
This conveniently omits the fact that unions could only exist because some people took risks, were creative, and set up companies in which workers could find employment. Therefore, if we extend YOUR logic, why is there no recognition of what the original company owners did for the workers?
Next, we are really referring to paying union dues TODAY, and partially as payment for what the unions achieved. But, according to that logic, one must recognize and thank TODAY'S owners and management for YESTERDAY'S achievements.
A worker joins a place of employment AT IT IS. If it has poor or good benefits, he makes a voluntary choice and begins his employment from that point; he may or may not be thankful for what those before him have built, but if he is honest, he will pay thanks to those who risked their capital and were entrepreneuring enough to set up the business.
You comparison to taxes is invalid, unless you do not ascribe to the Founding principle that the government is established by the CONSENT of those who are governed. The government was set up by the people who are governed; companies – in almost all cases in America – were not. They certainly were not built by unions!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s not a claim, it’s a fact: because of unions, workers now have things such as better wages, safer work environments, and good benefits. You also forgot due process. Without unions, we don’t have them, and as soon as they disappear, all those things will immediately be rolled back.
No, unions exist because workers took risks and faced violence and death to form unions. As we have seen from the UAW, just to name one, they gave concession that helped save the company. The troubles the Big 3 were facing were not because of workers, it was because of cars people did not want to buy, as well as unfair trade policies.
I agree, “we are really referring to paying union dues TODAY,” so why are you giving this BS of “worker freedom?” Dues are so unions can carry out their legal obligations and make sure there are laws to protect the workers. But the fact is what they do with their dues is none of your business. You are not a voting member.
If it has “poor or good benefits” he can change that by running for a position on the leadership team. The fact is if he is fired unfairly or has a grievance the union is obligated by law to defend him. That costs money, and he has an obligation to pay for that. He also gets to enjoy the benefits and pay the union won for him.
Sorry, my comparison to taxes is valid unless you do not ascribe to the Founding principle that the government is established by the consent of those who are governed. How is a union any different than the U.S. form of Representative government?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
"Without unions…. all those things will immediately be rolled back."
Benefits will not necessarily disappear if unions are rolled back. One can point to many places that do not have unions and the workplace is excellent. You are painting owners and management with a broad brush of a group that is inhumane and does not care about human being but only their own profits. This is simply not true and is a denial human nature.
"Unfair trade policies?" In essence, when tariffs are set up, the government is asking individual taxpayers all over the country to send some cash to a factory. Most, I think, would prefer to send it – if indeed they could afford it – to their favorite charity.
You refer to actions taken by unions in the past to supposedly achieve benefits that people enjoy today. Even if it is true to the extent that you claim, there are two things omitted:
1. This is not sufficient to continue to force people to give money to unions.
2. It omits what is FAR MORE important and conveniently overlooked: Some people took risks and made incredible efforts in the past to set up a company. Most actually failed, and they have no recourse except to try again or maybe live in poverty.
"what they do with their dues is none of your business. You are not a voting member" I no longer am forced to pay dues by law in my present position, but they have taken a good chunk of my salary in the past by force of law, and I declined membership. Therefore, I was relegated to a non-entity by that union that would take my money and use it as it pleased, including supporting politicians who were getting big bucks from unions. (You never did respond to my information that unions are the BIGGEST 15 of 16 contributers to political campaigns in America, by the way……)
As far as "benefits" go, many people would forgo them if they did not have to pay the dues. Why not have union contracts in which only the members get the new and improved benefits? I would not hesitate to join such a company, and the unions members can have their new and improved benefits! Again, you can state that the present benefits are there because of PAST union efforts, but I maintain that a person looks at the present benefits and chooses. In addition, the very company is in existence because of the past efforts and risks of non-union people who never were of any importance in establishing the company. They came in later, after the work was already done and the dust settled, of course.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
"How is a union any different than the U.S. form of Representative government?"
I already wrote to that. A government is initially set up by the people with their consent. A company is set up by individuals who do it on their own, raise capital, take risks. If it fails, they fail. Workers JOIN later. A worker can quit anytime he likes and join another company down the street or even start his own business. I hope that you can see the difference now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry, you are wrong again. Benefits will disappear if unions are rolled back. In fact, the decline in the middle class is in direct proportion to the fall off of union membership and the all-out assault on collective bargaining. The great pay and benefits in non-union places is because of unions. Do you really think corporations gave them up out of the goodness of their heart? With the possibility of a union no longer there, those alleged great benefits will also disappear. Plus, at non-union workplaces, workers have no due process rights.
Yes, unfair trade policies like the Japanese government providing health care for workers and manipulating currency.
1. “This not sufficient to continue to force people to give money to government?” Again, why should you get something for free?
2. Some people took risks and risked their lives and actually died to organize. If you are a union member, then you have a say in how the dues are spent. I did respond to your claim that the biggest 15 of 16 contributors to political campaigns in America are unions, I say great; it shows the power of lots of small contributions. I’m very happy that they are among the top 15 because without them then only corporations and the chambers have all the clout. That is what this is all about. You think corporations should run the country. Again, for once be honest and admit this right to work for less scam is just a political trick to bankrupt unions to keep Republicans in power.
I don’t believe people would “forgo” benefits if they had to pay union dues. Your comparison makes no sense. Then why can’t I voluntarily pay my taxes if I don’t like what the government is doing with them? I state the present benefits are there because of past union efforts because it’s true, and without unions, they will disappear. The workers helped build that company as well, and there is no reason they should not be paid a decent wage and be able to work in a safe environment. In fact, I don’t see how a well-trained, well paid and motivated workforce hurts a company.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Since you refuse to answer the question, I will answer it for you: there is no difference between unions and our form of representative government. Like a representative government, a union is initially set up by the people with their consent. There is nothing more democratic in the workplace than than a union, so that must one reason you hate it so much.
I hope that you can see the difference now.
By the way, I hope you do understand that corporations are not “individuals.” That the very reason they are corporations, so they do not have to take any responsibility for their actions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
"….you have the opportunity to fire them and decertify them with a majority vote."
In theory, yes. In practice, no. There are incredible pressures to support the union in workplaces. The penalties for not supporting one ranges from attacks on one's property or body to social ostracism.
If unions are so well liked and needed by the workers, then there should be no worry if they membership and dues are voluntary. The union organizers and managers know that most people no longer want unions, so they call for the power of the State to make payments mandatory by force of law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“In theory, yes. In practice, no?” That’s simply not true. The latest example I can think of is the NFL players union, but it is rare. That is because workers understand the value of a union.
That is just pure BS. Again, why pay for something you get for free? For once be honest and admit this is just an attempt to bankrupt unions and put them out of business. No, union organizers do not know “that most people no longer want unions.” But lies from people like you are making it tough.
It’s funny that you have a picture of a former union boss as your photo.
“They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost,” President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1980.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am going by history and personal observations. What happens to an employee who crosses a picket line because he believes that the strike was wrong and uncalled for? What happens to an employee who openly speaks out against a union?
I used to pass out RTWL pamphlets to college seniors who were about to enter the teaching profession. They had done their practicum and already felt pressures that they should join when they get employed. Of course, these new hires lack confidence and are unsure of themselves, so the union members and leaders easily badger and intimate them: "You are a team player, aren't you?" I tried to persuade them NOT to join and this is important for others as well who really did not want to be part of a union.
"be honest and admit this is just an attempt to bankrupt unions and put them out of business."
Not at all. You are asking that question in a presumptuous manner, of course. I either admit to what YOU insist I am thinking (how can you possibly know that?) or am considered "dishonest." The very question itself, phrased in that way, it the HEIGHT of dishonesty.
"It’s funny that you have a picture of a former union boss as your photo."
Well, he was able to see clearly what had infiltrated unions in Hollywood. Later, he did a magnificent job with the Air Traffic Controllers and even the Russians took notice. But that is another story……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Are you serious? “Workers are getting their job “for free?” So they can just sit at home and collect a pay check? Give me a break. How are workers not being "thankful” if they band together to sell their labor at the best price?
You are wrong. Union membership, mostly by committee, choose who to endorse. How are unions monopolies?
Apparently, you think corporations should run the country by ensuring there is no counter balance. Did you write those exact words? No, but anyone who can read can draw that conclusion.
Because by law, unions must represent all workers.
“Again, Then why can’t I voluntarily pay my taxes if I don’t like what the government is doing with them? We are talking about a union, not a company. No, unions came into existence because they stood up to strikebreakers at the risk of life and limb to win the right to collective bargain for wages, benefits and working conditions.
That is just bullshit. “The benefits were coming anyway because of prosperity?” Corporations never just gave anything to workers out of the goodness of their heart.
Good thing people are not paid more than they are worth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am going by history and personal observations. I don’t know what happens to an employee who crosses a picket line, but I hope he is treated like the traitor he is. What do you not understand about democracy? Again, why do I have to pay my taxes if I did not vote for the government official representing me? Nothing happens to an employee who openly speaks out against a union. Just ask the Republican stooges behind the right to work for less push.
Again, you do not have to join a union as a condition of employment, and to say otherwise is simply a lie.
I can already see you are not being honest. This is just an attempt to bankrupt unions and put them out of business. By the way, your all caps key appears get stuck at certain times. You should fix that.
So, when he gave that speech about the Solidarity trade union movement that helped end Communism he was lying? Really, what was it that “had infiltrated unions in Hollywood?” And look at the great state of air traffic controllers today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I hope you can see the contradiction in your post:
"What do you not understand about democracy?"
And: "I hope he is treated like the traitor he is."
"Nothing happens to an employee who openly speaks out against a union."
Legally, no. But otherwise, YES!
"you do not have to join a union as a condition of employment, and to say otherwise is simply a lie."
You are implying that I am lying. I know that law, and you know that I know it, of course. People can be forced to pay. That is what I said.
"you are not being honest. This is just an attempt to bankrupt unions and put them out of business."
Again, you cannot read my mind. You are wrong. I stated something clearly and will restate it for about the fourth time: It is about freedom.
You are trying to divert the topic to a discussion of the great Ronald Reagan. Again, you are making assumptions based on that photo. Why not just stick to the topic of the post?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, I see the truth in my post, and I see you cannot debunk it.
If you are making the claim that you have to join a union to work some place as a condition of employment or must join a union to continue to work there then you are lying. I am forced to pay a millage even if I did not vote for it. There is simply no difference, and that leads me to ask, again, what you not understand about democracy?
Again, you are not being honest. This is just an attempt to bankrupt unions and put them out of business." How is it about freedom? Freedom for what? Freedom from democracy?
Really? I say the same to you. The “Great Ronald Reagan?” I beg to differ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Communications Guru,
“Benefits will disappear if unions are rolled back.”
“the decline in the middle class is in direct proportion to the fall off of union membership”
Two errors there:
1. Correlation, not necessarily causality.
2. Union membership has been declining for 5 decades. If what you say is true, then the middle class started its decline in the 1950s.
“The great pay and benefits in non-union places is because of unions….With the possibility of a union no longer there, those alleged great benefits will also disappear.”
Again, not necessarily true at all.
“unfair trade policies like the Japanese government providing health care for workers”
The Japanese government does not PROVIDE health care in the private sector. The Japanese have national health insurance that people have to pay for and price controls. Anyway, it shows your thinking if you state that the government “provides” anything. There is nothing that the government provides, of course.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Very true, Benefits will disappear if unions are rolled back. Also true; the decline in the middle class is in direct proportion to the fall off of union membership. I have yet to see where I made a statement that was untrue.
Sorry, the Japanese government pays, or provides, 70 percent of the cost of health care and the patient pays 30 percent. Again, your all caps key is stuck.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Benefits will not necessarily disappear. The only way that they might is if the salaries and benefits were busting the company, and they have done that, of course.
The decline in union membership also occurred during prosperity; it appears that you are not quite aware that this decline is not new but has been occurring in the private sector since the 1950s.
In your statement about the Japanese government, you conveniently left out an essential ingredient: The citizens must pay for health insurance that is government run. Sometimes a company can pay this, just like in the United States. Otherwise, individual businessmen – dentists, computer repairman, garage owners, etc. – buy this insurance. This is essentially the same as in America, except their is government-run.
And there are two additional comments about the Japanese health care:
1. The government pays for nothing. I hope you realize that.
2. Japanese health care quality is inferior to America's. This has nothing to do with unions, but I feel compelled to add that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Benefits will disappear. This is part of the strategy to drive down the cost of labor to an all–time low, and to maximize profits at all costs. The fight to kill unions has never stopped.
I didn’t leave anything out about the Japanese government. The government pays 70 percent, the individual 30 in this universal, single payer system. Be my guest and try to debunk that. It sounds like Medicare for all. As for your claim that “health care quality is inferior to America's” it sounds like you pulled that out of your ass, too. Japan has a system that costs half as much and often achieves better medical outcomes than the U.S. system, and it only pays about 8 of GDP on HC. That’s about half as much as the US pays, and Japanese citizens live longer than any in any country in the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I did not say you left anything out concerning the Japanese government. In fact, I agreed.
You are wrong about the quality of medical care in Japan. I did not pull it out of any orifice. I say that because I really do know, and this shows how you are quick to jump to whatever propaganda will support your ideology: I live in Japan. I graduated from a Japanese university and have gone back and forth for 14 years, living half of the time on the local economy in three major cities and in one smaller one.
In fact, I am in America right now precisely because of medical treatment: I KNOW for a fact, and without the slightest doubt, that the quality of care is far superior in America; that is why I came to America. More people have access to Japanese health care than in America, but that is NOT what I am writing about, and I chose my words carefully: American care is superior.
This proves that you are willing to accept the talking points that support what you want to believe. You jump to a conclusions and accuse me of "pulling it out of my rear end" without knowing why I wrote what I wrote, and never even asking.
Take a good look at my name.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I beg to differ on your views of the Japanese health care system. It was not me that said, “Japan has a system that costs half as much and often achieves better medical outcomes than the U.S. system” it was the Washington Post. It’s also hard to say a HC system is inferior when that country has the highest life expectancy in the world. I’m willing to concede that the quality of HC in the U.S. is slightly better for those that can afford it and are not sick, but not when up to 50 million people do not have access to it. That is not better. I think universal, single-payer is far superior to the U.S. HC system.
“Talking points? Where did I use talking points? I stand by what I wrote; you pulled it out of your ass.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Communications Guru,
“Why should you get something for free?”
Workers are getting their job “for free” by the mere fact that they did not have to risk their own capital and time to set up the business in which they work. Besides, in virtually every aspect of our lives when we join a company, live in a community, and choose the clothes we wear, it is based on what others set up in the past. We should be thankful and recognize this, so it is important to be aware of those who risked their capital and had the creativity, initiative and drive to set up a company so workers could simply go there and get the benefits.
“your claim that the biggest 15 of 16 contributors to political campaigns in America are unions, I say great; it shows the power of lots of small contributions.”
No, the unions give the money to politicians regardless of what individual members think and want. Unions should be considered monopolies and subject to anti-trust violations as Barry Goldwater recommended.
“You think corporations should run the country.”
Did I write that? Somehow, you keep claiming to read my mind. Why not stick to what is written and not insist that you know exactly how I think?
“I don’t believe people would “forgo” benefits if they had to pay union dues.”
I said why not have union contracts that gives benefits that the unions supposedly gets only to its members?
“Your comparison makes no sense. Then why can’t I voluntarily pay my taxes if I don’t like what the government is doing with them?”
It makes perfect sense, of course. A company was not formed by a consensus of the workers in the first place; it was formed by individuals deciding to build it.
“I state the present benefits are there because of past union efforts because it’s true”
I did not disagree; I only stated two things:
1. The unions only could come into existence because some entrepreneurs set up a company and made it successful; if we are going to be beholden to the past, let’s not be hypocrites.
2. The benefits were coming anyway because of prosperity. Workers could demand higher wages and benefits or go to where they had them. Why did blacks come north after the Civil War – because of UNIONS? Heck, unions excluded them in their early days and up until World War II.
“I don’t see how a well-trained, well paid and motivated workforce hurts a company.”
Very true. And it is a business decision, of course. People should never be paid more than they are worth; it harms the country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Communications Guru,
You wrote {Are you serious? “Workers are getting their job “for free?” So they can just sit at home and collect a pay check?}
No, please do not distort what I wrote; I wrote that the workers get their jobs after OTHERS have already established the companies. And most of those OTHERS failed. If it were not for these OTHERS, there would be no jobs for the workers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Communications Guru,
{Union membership, mostly by committee, choose who to endorse.}
Yes, and if we look at the results of national elections, we will see that about half of those who work are not for the candidate to whom their hard-earned money goes.
{How are unions monopolies?}
They control who can work, of course. They become very problematic when they start going beyond their immediate bargaining unit and pressure other unions and groups to join in.
{Apparently, you think corporations should run the country by ensuring there is no counter balance. Did you write those exact words? No, but anyone who can read can draw that conclusion.}
No, my thoughts are different, of course. Today, there is really almost no need for unions. Unions are dead weight that force taxpayers to subsidize them.
{Because by law, unions must represent all workers.}
Too bad.
{why can’t I voluntarily pay my taxes if I don’t like what the government is doing with them?}
I explained it three times already. It is unfortunate that you could not understand this simple and basic premise that I spelled out very clearly.
{Corporations never just gave anything to workers out of the goodness of their heart.}
No, it was mostly to keep good workers and to attract the best ones. Others did want their employees to be happy. Your picture of evil and greedy capitalists who only want to squeeze the workers is simply not true. It is unfortunate that this is how you view the world – the oppressed and oppressors, the victims and the victimizers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, I didn’t distort anything. You said “Workers are getting their job “for free.” That is simply not true. The company can’t function and make a profit without workers, so they didn’t get anything for free.
“Yes, and if we look at the results of national elections, we will see that about half of those who work are not for the candidate to whom their hard-earned money goes?” You pulled that out of your ass. Even if it were true; I’ll ask again, what don’t you understand about democracy?
Another lie. Unions do not “control who can work.” Again, you do not have to be a member of a union as a condition of employment. There is more need for a union than ever before. Taxpayers do not subsidize them. You have them mixed up with oil corporations and their huge tax subsidies.
No, you have never answered it, so I’ll ask it again: why can’t I voluntarily pay my taxes if I don’t like what the government is doing with them when I didn’t vote for them?
Like I said, corporations never just gave anything to workers out of the goodness of their heart. Unions raised the standard of living for every worker. Seriously? “Your picture of evil and greedy capitalists who only want to squeeze the workers is simply not true?” You need to take a look around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The workers got the job without risking their own capital or time. Someone else built something, and they thenjust showed up.
I used common sense in saying that about half of the workers are not in agreement with the decisions of management – virtually everywhere – to support Democratic candidates. Take a look at most polls: Neither candidate for the presidency receives much more than 50% of the popular vote, and sometimes the Republican candidate receives more than 50%, like the great Ronald Reagan did.
Yes, I understand that the unions elect representatives, but it is really a one-party system, of course. But it is an election (like one with two Democrats both wanting basically the same thing). Therefore, it is legal. I simply want to see RTW laws enacted for the sake of freedom.
{Again, you do not have to be a member of a union as a condition of employment.}
This could be the fifth – repeat, 5th – time that I wrote the same thing: I know that. But one can be required to pay union dues or fees in states that do not grant freedoms to workers (non-RTW states).
Yes, taxpayers subsidize unions whenever the government bails out companies and does not let them die, of course. It is a government subsidy, and from where does the government get money? Remember, the government never pays for anything – It simply cannot, of course.
And the government should not subsidize any corporations. Just because I suggest the taxpayers should not subsidize unions, you jump to a conclusion that I want the government to subsidize corporations. Show me where I wrote that.
No, most "capitalists" are not greedy and evil as you think that they are. And workers are better off today because of a rising standard of living. If you deny that the standard of living has risen, you are far off the deep end; I sincerely hope that you do not do that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I know corporations would like to function without workers, but they can’t. Your “risking their own capital or time” is simply not relevant to the civil right of collective bargaining. It seems to me you have a problem with having to pay human beings for their labor that helps make a company grow and prosper. “They just showed up?” Get real. I also fail to see how they are not risking their time, especially when you consider that compared to other countries with advanced economies, workers in the United States spend more time working.
No, you didn’t use common sense, and I don’t even see the relevance of “about half of the workers are not in agreement with the decisions of management,” other than a need for unions. Really? “Neither candidate for the presidency receives much more than 50% of the popular vote?” That’s just more proof of how misinformed you really are. President Obama won with 53 percent of the vote. You can call Reagan a lot of things, but great is not one of them.
“A one-party system.” What party would that be? Right to work for less has nothing to do with freedom. What freedom would that be, besides lower wages, less benefits, no due process and a more dangerous workplaces? The freedom to freeload?
Again, you do not have to be a member of a union as a condition of employment. I don’t care if you write it 100 times, it’s still wrong. RTWFL has nothing to do with freedom, freeloading yes. Right to work for less is nothing but a union-busting ploy designed to bust and bankrupt unions. You are a typical conservative; wanting something for nothing.
No, taxpayers do not subsidize unions. So in your warped world, it’s OK for the government to bail out Wall Street that helped create the economic meltdown with their greed, but not a corporation that actually employee people and make things? That is just sad. How is it a subsidy if it’s paid back? That sounds like a loan to me. The oil corporations are not paying back any of the subsidies they get. Like I said, taxpayers do not subsidize unions.
I agree workers are better off today because of a rising standard of living, and that is because of unions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It really doesn't have anything to do with anybody being "good" or "evil" … it has to do with the fact that profit is what drives the US economy. Management's job is not to raise the standard of living for workers but to create a profit for shareholders / owners. They are going to reduce wages and do anything else they can to cut costs, so that they can improve profits.
Collective bargaining helps get those profits reinvested into the workforce that created the profit. Additionally the business owners might risk their own resources when they start a business, but they also consume common resources such as water, air, land, and the productivity of the workers. We have not only a right but a duty to protect these resources from being used inappropriately or unfairly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Communications,
{Your “risking their own capital or time” is simply not relevant to the civil right of collective bargaining.}
But it is, of course. You repeatedly refer to the “benefits” that workers get from unions, and that is supposedly what they did – in the past, before the worker showed up. So, the creation and development of the company is in order if you are at all honest. But you are deliberately deceitful because you are a hater of “capitalists” who would never give credit to one of the “evil” ones.
There is no risk for workers, of course. They spend time, but they are not risking it. They expect to get paid. How can you possibly contest that?
I wrote that neither candidate gets much more than 50%. And you wrote an insult because Obama won 53%. Don’t you even know what “Much more” means? And don’t you realize that I was referring to other elections? Why can’t you get the basic point? I will spell it out: Elections go back and forth: Republicans win presidential elections and so do Democrats. Most of the time it is not much more than half. Extrapolate this to the workforce. Despite this, union management virtually always sends incredible amounts of workers’ incomes to Democrats. That is all. Your quibbling over whether 3%age points is “much more” than 50% is idiotic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Communications,
{“A one-party system.” What party would that be?} Pro-union Democrat.
{Right to work for less has nothing to do with freedom.} Of course it does. You union people are afraid of it. You need the force of law to make people pay up. You know that they will dump you if you don’t.
{Again, you do not have to be a member of a union as a condition of employment.}
I wrote it SIX times now. I wrote – for the SIXTH – time, that I know one does not have to be a member; one has to pay the fees. I AGREE WITH YOU! Do you need to have it written SEVEN times? Will capital letters help?
{RTWFL has nothing to do with freedom, freeloading yes.} You are wrong. You are against freedom.
{No, taxpayers do not subsidize unions.} They do. In the private sector, whenever the government imposes tariffs or bails out a company, the taxpayers are paying. In the public sector, from where do the salaries come? And part of that is going to pay for Democratic candidates, whether the taxpayers want them or not. Nice gig the union administrators have, living off the taxpayers’ money in that way, helping to get candidates in so they can keep up the corruption.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Communications,
{ in your warped world, it’s OK for the government to bail out Wall Street}
You are lying again. Show me what I wrote that. In fact, I wrote the opposite: The government should never subsidize or bail out any entity, not a one. Is that clear? Do I need a SEVENTH repetition? This is the third, ya know.
{ I agree workers are better off today because of a rising standard of living, and that is because of unions.}
No, as I wrote before, unions came after the companies were going strong. Without capitalists and entrepreneurs, there would be no unions to come along and get on the gravy train like they do!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The benefits that workers get from unions are not in the past, and if you and your ilk succeed in busting unions, those benefits will disappear. How am I a hater of capitalism? Workers have something to sell, and I think they should get the best price they can for it. That sounds like capitalism to me.
You are finally right about something: I did misread your phrase “neither candidate gets much more than 50%.” That leads me to the conclusion that it is irrelevant. You can’t “extrapolate this to the workforce,” and it does not matter. The fact is there are multiple presidential candidates, but an election to form a union only has two choices.
Really, “union management virtually always sends incredible amounts of workers’ incomes to Democrats?” Not true. What it does, after a majority vote, is make campaign contributions to those that support working people; which just happens to be Democrats. The bottom line is that is what this union-busting RTWL push is all about. Instead of trying to bust unions, Republicans should try and support the middle class for a change instead of the richest 2 percent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Really” Every union member is a “Pro-union Democrat?” That is not true. It should be, but Republicans are masters at getting people to vote against their economic self-interest. Union elections are also nonpartisan.
Right to work for less has nothing to do with freedom. The purpose is to bust and bankrupt unions by requiring it to do the things it is required to by law, but allowing a few freeloaders skate by for free.
I wrote it is seven times, and it's as true then as it is now: you do not have to be a member of a union as a condition of employment. Of course you have to pay dues. Why should you get something for free that everyone else is paying for? I see you have not had that problem with your Caps Lock key fixed.
RTWFL has nothing to do with freedom, freeloading yes.
No, taxpayers do not subsidize unions. As for private sector unions, the money paid in dues, as well as their salary, belongs to the worker, not the government. Again, if Republicans want endorsements and contributions from unions, do something for working men and women for a change. As for corruption, the biggest corruption scandals in the last decade have been Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Communications Guru,
{It was not me that said, “Japan has a system that costs half as much and often achieves better medical outcomes than the U.S. system” it was the Washington Post.}
This only shows that you are inclined to accept as uncontestable fact whatever certain media outlets present. You are a “talking points” guy, of course; that is clear. How about looking into what they mean by “medical outcomes?” I was very specific about medical care, medical treatment. And there are many factors in life expectancy; you are assuming that it is the medical care. Why are you doing that? What about diet? What about less violence? Fewer obese people? Lower rates of crime? You are just praising the Japanese system because it will seems to provide data to support your ideology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Let me get this straight: I’m supposed to accept the opinion from someone who has been less than truthful, but not the facts because they came from a reputable news source? The facts are Japan spends less on HC than the U.S., they see a doctor more often and they have the highest – or one of the highest life expectancy rates in the word. Those are facts, not talking points, and that goes a long way toward proving the quality of HC, in my mind. I’m not sure what this has to do with union busting, but facts are facts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Communications,
You are doing it again: Accusing me of lying when it is you who has been lying. You have accused me of thinking x and y, of meaning z, but I never wrote anything of the sort. That is lying. And you are distorting once again: I wrote specifically about Japanese treatment, not access or the like.
The Japanese appearing to spend less has nothing to do with the quality of care. Yes, they see doctors more often, but it is mostly the elderly because after a certain age, it is free. Hospitals also become a gathering place. Where I live, the nurses call it the "social club" because the same people come every Monday morning, another group on Tuesday, etc. That is what "free" care brings about, and others have to wait.
And, as I wrote, you are being completely illogical and unreasonable to draw causation with correlation; I guess you do not know the difference. You cannot simply juxtapose two sets of data and claim causation. How about being "logical" and reversing it? Maybe longetivity has caused more visits to the doctor! And you call yourself a "guru?" And you completely ignore the FACTS that the Japanese have an excellent diet, are more physically active, have less violent crime, and are less obese. A real cherry-picking guru.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Christine,
{It really doesn't have anything to do with anybody being "good" or "evil”}
It shouldn’t, of course. However, the union advocates are always framing the picture in terms of owners and management always trying to squeeze labor in order to get more profits. They are portrayed as uncaring and inhuman beasts who only want to keep down costs and will drive the workers into poverty and get rid of child labor laws if they could get children on the assembly line to cut costs.
Yes, it is management’s job to increase profits; why else should they be hired? Sometimes there is more profit if employees stay or are more motivated and happy at their work, so benefits will be added. Do you know at Wendy’s and McDonalds, for instance, there are excellent benefits packages if an employee stays over a certain length of time, typically more than a year? But the anti-capitalist forces portray these places as those not caring and not providing any health care benefits, etc. And it is simply not true for loyal employees.
In order to get some perspective, try imagining something. If you owned, say, a clothing store and hired someone to manage it because you are busy with something else and cannot be there full time anymore, what would you expect from him? Would you want him to squeeze the employees? You would want the most profits and it would undoubtedly require some happy, enthusiastic and loyal employees; if they despised you, they would lose motivation and probably undermine you. Even just as a human being you would get satisfaction out of seeing happy employees. I think that there is a mythical image presented that simply does not exist in real life: Some abstract idea of greedy and rapacious owners of businesses who do not care about anyone or anything except their own profits.
{the business owners might risk their own resources when they start a business, but they also consume common resources such as water, air, land, and the productivity of the workers. We have not only a right but a duty to protect these resources from being used inappropriately or unfairly.}
Let the Rule of Law handle that, not arbitrary human decisions. How do you determine what is “unfair?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
"They are portrayed as uncaring and inhuman beasts who only want to keep down costs and will drive the workers into poverty and get rid of child labor laws if they could get children on the assembly line to cut costs."
http://www.mackinac.org/media/images/2011/MACKTightenBelts450.jpg
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Christine,
Take a look at your cohort's posts. And look at all of the name-calling you did, using "right-winger" for starters and a host of others. Anyone can find what they search for on Google, of course.
I am going by what you and your cohorts post……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Communications Guru,
{The benefits that workers get from unions are not in the past}
They are. Imagine you are 22, just got out of college, and got your first job. The “benefits” are there for you, set up originally by evil capitalists, followed by workers “showing up,” and then union agitators coming in and making demands, some reasonable and most unreasonable that only care about the immediate concerns of the workers not the consumers or the country. But that is all in the past, you just start your job because you like the work conditions.
{Workers have something to sell, and I think they should get the best price they can for it.}
Yes, exactly. And if their value goes down, they should get less, of course.
{That leads me to the conclusion that it is irrelevant.}
How convenient. If I were not correct it would be very relevant, of course.
{an election to form a union only has two choices.}
No, it is always one choice for union management. Stop kidding yourself or trying to hoodwink me. Do you think that any major unions are going to promote the Republican candidate in the 2012 election? It is a done deal!
{What it does, after a majority vote, is make campaign contributions to those that support working people; which just happens to be Democrats.}
Word games. The only thing that will help the working people is wealth creation, not redistribution. Ya cannot distribute what you don’t have!
{Republicans should try and support the middle class for a change instead of the richest 2 percent.}
Both parties have messed up the middle class. Hopefully, change – real change, not the Hope and Change” garbage – will come. The Tea Party patriots have helped tremendously, of course.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Communications,
{Really? Every union member is a “Pro-union Democrat?”}
You are doing it yet again: Distorting what I wrote or deliberately lying. Don’t you remember that I wrote that about half of the people vote differently? That means close to half vote Republican, of course, and you just commented on that. I specifically wrote union management.
{Republicans are masters at getting people to vote against their economic self-interest.}
On the contrary; Conservatives in the Republican Party get people to see the larger picture, not just their own little world. Unions demanding high wages, especially in the public sector, are raising costs to consumers and taking taxpayers’ money, of course.
{Union elections are also nonpartisan.}
In theory, candidates can be of any persuasion, but show me major contributors to political campaigns that have donated to Republicans. It is a done deal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Communications,
{Right to work for less has nothing to do with freedom.}
You are assuming something that is not true by a longshot. People can work for more if they have freedom that you want to take away.
{you do not have to be a member of a union as a condition of employment. Of course you have to pay dues.}
Why do you keep writing this? I wrote – for the EIGHTH time now – that I know it, I agree. Why do you keep repeating it?
{Why should you get something for free that everyone else is paying for? I see you have not had that problem with your Caps Lock key fixed.}
I use caps because you do not seem to understand what the word “know” and “agree” mean.
{RTWFL has nothing to do with freedom, freeloading yes.}
No, it has everything to do with freedom. That is all it is about for most of us.
{taxpayers do not subsidize unions.}
In the public sector, they do. If union dues being forcibly taken from the workers results in their getting higher salaries, then the consumers – the taxpayers – are footing the bill, of course. But the union agitators do not care about the American people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Last month the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners passed this resolution that was pushed by teabaggar Commissioner Jason Gillman and most likely written by the billionaire Koch Brothers, the anti-union Mackinac Center or ALEC and sent it to Michigan’s 82 other counties. The Muskegon County Board declined to even receive it and place on file like it does all correspondence sent to them. Typically, this is done routinely by a consent voice vote. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0