Union thugs go down in MI

[Brainfade]

Michigan is now a right-to-work state. Pro-choicers must rejoice, but idiot Democrat Representative Doug Geiss says there will be blood! Unions, like Eric Hoffer said, went from a good cause to a business before degenerating into a complete racket. Hope this is the first nail in their coffin.

[Ram]

You cant legislate your way out of an electoral setback. The more the republicans try to cripple voting blocs that traditionally vote democratic - labor, black, hispanic etc - the more mobilized they become.

[Brainfade]

You cant legislate your way out of an electoral setback. The more the republicans try to cripple voting blocs that traditionally vote democratic - labor' date=' black, hispanic etc - the more mobilized they become.[/quote'] Channeling Fidel, eh? Spoken like a true revolutionary! Pray, tell us, are you OK with union dues being mandatory? That public employees (e.g., teachers) cannot work unless they pay union dues? What happened to being pro-choice?

[Ram]

Channeling Fidel, eh? Spoken like a true revolutionary! Pray, tell us, are you OK with union dues being mandatory? That public employees (e.g., teachers) cannot work unless they pay union dues? What happened to being pro-choice?

The two of us read the same piece of news, but the interpretation couldnt be more different. You view this as pro-labor, pro-freedom move. I see this as a continuation of a pattern of cynical, totally-out-of-the-blue, backdoor moves by the republican governors in states across the nation to 1) Systematically undermine voting blocs that vote blue and 2) Strengthen the hand of Corporates.

[Clarke]

Lived in MI many yrs, not a big fan of them with all the guaranteed lifetime healthcare/pension benefits etc. A simply profit sharing agreement is much more sustainable in today's globalized world.

[Nova]

Obama won in Michigan because of these unions. This is a systematic ploy by the GOP to undermine the democratic party's political clout there. Bad GOP :whack:

[Lurker]

Michigan is now a right-to-work state. Pro-choicers must rejoice, but idiot Democrat Representative Doug Geiss says there will be blood! Unions, like Eric Hoffer said, went from a good cause to a business before degenerating into a complete racket. Hope this is the first nail in their coffin.

Doubt it has anything to do with pro-choice, CA. World has changed. Nobody keeps doing the same job for his life (aside from you Academics :winky::winky: ). People are lucky if they work for the same company for more than 5 years. Surely this means HR policies, including Unions, would change to keep up with time. There is also something to be said that American society, in general, has stopped being a collective unit and people are out for themselves. It has become lot more insulated. Losing unions is one such manifestation of it. I do not see it as good or bad really, just that there is a propensity of people to simply care more about themselves than society at large.

[Brainfade]

Doubt it has anything to do with pro-choice, CA. World has changed. Nobody keeps doing the same job for his life (aside from you Academics :winky::winky: ). People are lucky if they work for the same company for more than 5 years. Surely this means HR policies, including Unions, would change to keep up with time. There is also something to be said that American society, in general, has stopped being a collective unit and people are out for themselves. It has become lot more insulated. Losing unions is one such manifestation of it. I do not see it as good or bad really, just that there is a propensity of people to simply care more about themselves than society at large.

When workers don't have a choice as to whether they want to join the union, it is more than being individualistic or out for oneself. It is about choice. And when Democrats talk about being pro-choice, shouldn't they support the choice of the worker to join or not join the union? That's where I was going. The unions have amassed too much power and too much money and do not work for the benefit of the workers anymore. Union leaders are politicians, too, and are looking to centralize power and control into their own hands. They do it under the guise of "protecting the worker," and in the case of teacher's unions, under the guise of the slogan "for our children." If it were truly for the children, would they block the firing/demotion/non-promotion of underperforming deadbeat teachers? Would they be OK with education funds going into fatcat administrative pockets at the cost of true classroom instruction? Don't think so. As for individualistic society, you do have a point. People are becoming less family-oriented, less inclined to help neighbors, and are mostly self-involved. On the other hand, they have shown that they feel entitled to more and more "care" from the authorities (e.g., federal government) and are less inclined to work for it themselves.

[Brainfade]

Obama won in Michigan because of these unions. This is a systematic ploy by the GOP to undermine the democratic party's political clout there.

Good.

[Desi Cartman]

I can't believe that people can be forced to join and pay for unions. This is absurd.

[Lurker]

The unions have amassed too much power and too much money and do not work for the benefit of the workers anymore. Union leaders are politicians, too, and are looking to centralize power and control into their own hands. They do it under the guise of "protecting the worker," and in the case of teacher's unions, under the guise of the slogan "for our children." If it were truly for the children, would they block the firing/demotion/non-promotion of underperforming deadbeat teachers? Would they be OK with education funds going into fatcat administrative pockets at the cost of true classroom instruction? Don't think so.

I live in a right to work, and right to fire state CA. Employees and employers can choose who they want to work for. The state also happens to be consistently amongst the very worst economics wise. This issue of Union-izing to me is hardly of most importance. The key question is to grow the economy long term right now. Dont see that happening. Killing Unions is more of low hanging fruit which as usual right wing is concentrating on.

[Brainfade]

I live in a right to work, and right to fire state CA. Employees and employers can choose who they want to work for. The state also happens to be consistently amongst the very worst economics wise. This issue of Union-izing to me is hardly of most importance. The key question is to grow the economy long term right now. Dont see that happening. Killing Unions is more of low hanging fruit which as usual right wing is concentrating on.

The performance of an economy depends on many factors, and labor is one. Like the housing bust, which I believe hit AZ particularly badly. As it turns out, 5 of the top-10 best performing economies are RTW states. 6 of the bottom-10 are also RTW states. California, which is 49th/50, is not an RTW state. My post was not about the economy in general. It was about the dilution of union power, especially the public unions (e.g., teachers), that I see as a good thing. More than anything, workers should not be forced to join a union as condition of employment. Simple as that.

[Lurker]

The performance of an economy depends on many factors' date=' and labor is one. Like the housing bust, which I believe hit AZ particularly badly. As it turns out, 5 of the top-10 best performing economies are RTW states. 6 of the bottom-10 are also RTW states. [b']California, which is 49th/50, is not an RTW state. My post was not about the economy in general. It was about the dilution of union power, especially the public unions (e.g., teachers), that I see as a good thing. More than anything, workers should not be forced to join a union as condition of employment. Simple as that.

You can't be serious about that CA. California is world's 8thlargest economy pound for pound. It can independently exist as a nation if they chose to. It may be the only state today that can save US the blushes of being leader in any industry (Technology and Entertainment). Take out IT and Hollywood and I doubt US leads in any area today. It is reccession CA, Union-izing has little to do with state California is in.

[Brainfade]

You can't be serious about that CA. California is world's 8thlargest economy pound for pound. It can independently exist as a nation if they chose to. It may be the only state today that can save US the blushes of being leader in any industry (Technology and Entertainment). Take out IT and Hollywood and I doubt US leads in any area today. It is reccession CA, Union-izing has little to do with state California is in.

Am not sure how the size and scope of CA's economy has anything to do with my post. Overall, CA may be a large economy, but it is badly mismanaged and is not performing well. Part of that is due to the unsustainable entitlements for government employees - manifestation of union power? I was using it to counter what you said about AZ's failing economy and correlating it to it being RTW. You and I agree - unionization and labor relations in general are only one aspect of the economy. Can one contend that CA would not only be a large economy, but also a more robust one if only they were RTW? This is from 2011 http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/the-10-worst-performing-states-in-america/249501/#slide11

California State debt per capita: $3,660 (21st highest) 
Pct. without health insurance: 18.5% (8th highest) 
Pct. below poverty line: 14.5% (tied for 21st highest) 
Unemployment: 11.9% (2nd highest) California has moved down one slot on from last year to earn the title of the worst-run state in the country. In the fiscal year 2009, the state spent $430 billion, roughly 14% of all the money spent by states in that year. Compared to its revenue, the state spent too much — California had the 10th lowest revenue per person, and spent the 15th most per person. California is the only state in the country to be rated A-, the lowest rating ever given to a state by S&P. Despite the huge amount the state spends each year, conditions remain poor. California has the second-lowest percentage of adults with a high school diploma in the country, the second-highest foreclosure rate and is tied for the second highest unemployment rate in the U.S.

[Brainfade]

A better, but certainly not perfect, measurable to assess the impact of RTW may be the unemployment rate.

• The mean (+/- SD) unemployment rate for RTW states: 6.9 +/- 2 (n = 23)
• The mean (+/- SD) unemployment rate for non-RTW states: 8.2 +/- 1 (n = 28). Includes DC.

Is this a big enough difference/correlation? I honestly don't know. Like I've said, my biggest point is that of power-concentration and choice for workers. http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

[Lurker]

You and I agree - unionization and labor relations in general are only one aspect of the economy. Can one contend that CA would not only be a large economy' date= but also a more robust one if only they were RTW?

You could make that assertion, provided that you are also willing to concede that it was the unions, and the prevalent work culture, that brough California to where it is today.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

Those numbers shouldn't be surprising. The top 10 states with least unemployment are states with smaller population (Dakota, NE, WY etc) where most people have either moved out of or support small industries (tourism etc), by the way which I personally like. I do concur with you about workers being allowed to choose whatever they want to do. I just get a feeling this is an overblown issue.

[Brainfade]

You could make that assertion' date='[b'] provided that you are also willing to concede that it was the unions, and the prevalent work culture, that brough California to where it is today.

Maybe so. I am not ready to compelety concede (several other factors like climate, accessibility etc. contributed to CA's past success. That success has now been flushed down the toilet with unsustainable govt spending, driven by bloated entitlements for public employees that likely came from union/govt agreements). But even if I did concede the point, I go back to my OP where I quoted this (paraphrased): unions started as useful entities, morphed into a money-making excercise, and have now degenerated into a racket.

[Lurker]

Maybe so. I am not ready to compelety concede (several other factors like climate, accessibility etc. contributed to CA's past success. That success has now been flushed down the toilet with unsustainable govt spending, driven by bloated entitlements for public employees that likely came from union/govt agreements). But even if I did concede the point, I go back to my OP where I quoted this (paraphrased): unions started as useful entities, morphed into a money-making excercise, and have now degenerated into a racket.

Unions and rackets have never been too far off. I will agree to that. Most gangsters around the world did use unions at some time. Back home thats how Dhanbad, or Bombay mafia came into being in many ways. But there is a difference between a teachers union vs a truck drivers union. I have hardly heard too much racket on former, a lot for the latter. As a whole though, I can see where you are coming from with regards to Unions being a money making exercise. What is your take on PACs CA? Just curious

[Brainfade]

Unions and rackets have never been too far off. I will agree to that. Most gangsters around the world did use unions at some time. Back home thats how Dhanbad, or Bombay mafia came into being in many ways. But there is a difference between a teachers union vs a truck drivers union. I have hardly heard too much racket on former, a lot for the latter. As a whole though, I can see where you are coming from with regards to Unions being a money making exercise. What is your take on PACs CA? Just curious

What about them? I don't like their influence and I think their messages must somehow be vetted. But how, I don't really know. The big difference is that their contributions are voluntary. Union contributions in non-RTW states are not - it's pay up or don't work. As for teacher's unions, their negative influence is legendary. As I mentioned in previous posts, tenured, underperforming teachers cannot be fired - thanks to the union. They enjoy life-time pensions and healthcare coverage. They are firmly entrenched and block the progress of meritorious teachers because "everyone is equal." There is little incentive for great public-school teachers to keep performing well as they cannot rise above the ranks of the experienced fat-cats. And any time someone raises a voice against the power of the teacher union, they are branded anti-teacher, anti-child, anti-education. Even Democratic union-hacks like Rahm Emmauel had to fight them in Chicago because they were being unreasonable. WI's Walker and NJ's Christie took them on against great odds and managed to bring some sanity. I am all for paying teachers much more than they are paid now. But, do it at the front-end, not by giving them unsustainable life-time benefits. Reward good teachers, punish/fire deadbeat ones. Give teachers the freedom to discipline children more. Release more resources and incentives to innovate in the classroom. Don't shackle them with paperwork. Most importantly, hold all teachers accountable - not just the untenured ones. Make it easier to fire them when they screw up. But, the unions get in the way. For your reading pleasure: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577452862561051838.html

[Lurker]

What about them? I don't like their influence and I think their messages must somehow be vetted. But how' date=' I don't really know. [b']The big difference is that their contributions are voluntary. Union contributions in non-RTW states are not - it's pay up or don't work.

lol. A rich person paying off 20-30 million dollars to effect the lives of millions of people? That is voluntary contribution for you? To me it is a rather simple case of corruption, trying to further one's own interest. Voluntary contributions would have been 20 million to Red Cross. No questions asked then. Pardon me for being cynical here but maybe a bit of gripe you have against Unions is how they are one of the few bastions that can stand toe to toe against PACs?? :winky:

As for teacher's unions, their negative influence is legendary. As I mentioned in previous posts, tenured, underperforming teachers cannot be fired - thanks to the union. They enjoy life-time pensions and healthcare coverage. They are firmly entrenched and block the progress of meritorious teachers because "everyone is equal." There is little incentive for great public-school teachers to keep performing well as they cannot rise above the ranks of the experienced fat-cats. And any time someone raises a voice against the power of the teacher union, they are branded anti-teacher, anti-child, anti-education. Even Democratic union-hacks like Rahm Emmauel had to fight them in Chicago because they were being unreasonable. WI's Walker and NJ's Christie took them on against great odds and managed to bring some sanity.

And I would agree to let them have lifetime benefits. Period. Those are one of the few perks a teacher has. I doubt any of us, certainly not me, does half of what an average teacher does and gets paid a pittance. At the end of the day these teachers are the ones raising next generation and they make as much as an Administrative Assistance in most private companies. I dont have a problem with them having extra benefits.