Printable View
The Mackinac Center's mission is "improving the quality of life for all Michigan citizens...", but it also works to turn Michigan into a right-to-starve er... right-to-work state which I don't think improves the lives of citizens who have had decent salaries in the past. So what are the advantages of a right-to-work state except the obvious, that people are working but not necessarily at great-paying jobs.
No unions or at least no closed shop unions which is a big advantage for businesses. As you know the Mackinac Center is a conservative, pro-business, right wing think tank. Nothing coming from them is helpful to the general public at large.
In my experience it would be more accurate to call it a "Right To Work For Less Than A Living Wage" which more honestly would be called a "Right To Be Worked To Death" i.e. Arbeit macht frei from the infamous labor/death camps.
Or, in the case of South Carolina, the "Right for the State to Collude with Businesses Against Workers".Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
"Right to Work" is Orwellian doublethink at it's finest.
Actually, "Patriot Act" is a pretty good example, too.
East Detroit.... HAHAHAHAHA.... priceless....Quote:
Originally Posted by East Detroit
WORD! And may I add, exactly what ghettopalmetto said! Pennsylvania is another "right to screw workers" state.Quote:
Originally Posted by East Detroit
if you look at the states with the highest poverty level, all are right-to-work states, except michigan. Last survey I saw had states that always boast low unemployment, like texas, with higher poverty rates than heaviy unemployment states like michigan. none of the states with the highest standard of living are right to work states
As a conservative, I believe right-to-work states are detrimental to society as a whole. If giventhe opportunity, business will erode wages and benefits at most opportunities. That has been shown time and again. In fact it is happening everywhere in N. America now!
When it comes to wages and benefits, it's happening everywhere in N. America, even to union members - proof that even unions are powerless to hold on to their gains in the face of economic contraction. That leaves collective bargaining as a vehicle for improving and sustaining working conditions, which over the past 40 years has increasingly come under the jurisdiction of the state and federal governments. In the absence of right-to-work legislation, current trends will eventually produce the same result, just having taken longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOAT
That is true to a degree Mikeg. But without the ability to strike [[or the right to do so) I think wages would be even lower. I don't even like unions [[the mentality of most is galling on a good day) but to not have that right is shocking.
I live in a "right to work" state, [[Florida). The main impact it has on your life as a worker is this:
You have no rights.
It is common for an employee to be fired just weeks before retirement so the employer does not have to pay. It is common for an employer to fire people for no reason and under right to work laws, the employee has no rights. An employer can fire you because they don't like your shoes, ect ect ect. Wages are crap and employers can walk all over you. Your boss can double your hours and cut your pay and your choice is :
1. Do it or 2. Quit.
About the whole unions not Conservative thing, I don't see how allowing labor to defend the worker and Conservatism can't work hand in hand. If Conservatism is about "letting the free market sort it out", and Unions are incompatible, then Union companies will go out of business. Unions, even though they have all moved to favor just one party, and have become more politically motivated than motivated to back the actual workers who they are created represent, do give workers a voice, and puts some strength behind that voice.
The right to work ... for less than half what you used to ...
Please explain.Quote:
papasito: Unions, even though they have all moved to favor just one party, and have become more politically motivated than motivated to back the actual workers who they are created
RTW does not take away a union's right to strike. It takes away a union's right to claim dues and fees from all of the workers in the bargaining unit and to have an individual fired if they do not pay them.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOAT
I think what he's trying to say is that when union members under RTW have the ability to withhold their dues and fees when their leadership takes a political position contrary to their own views, the union leaders over time tend to become more representative of their entire membership.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxx
In other words, you're not saying the union can't strike. You're just cutting their legs out from under them is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeg
"There: You have no legs. Now let's see you strike, commie."
So if a person decline to participate in a union, then the union strikes and settles for a higher wage, should the person who opted out benefit from the member's sacrifices?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeg
RTW does not take away the union's valuable right to be the exclusive agent for all workers in jobs covered by their contract with an employer. Likewise, RTW does not affect the union's resulting obligation to represent all workers covered under that contract. Are you attempting to make an argument that the union should still hold the exclusive bargaining rights while not having the obligation to represent all workers covered under that contract?Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitej72
If your hypothetical person perceives that the union leadership's decision to walk out after having received the member's strike authorization was the right one and worth the resulting wage gains, perhaps they might be more inclined to begin paying the dues.
Just as there wouldn't be a need for unions if all employers always treated their workers fairly and equitably, there wouldn't be a need for "union shop" agreements [[mandatory dues payment as a condition of continued employment) if a majority of the rank and file believed that their local and national union leaders always acted in their best interests.
Oh, yeah, Right to work doesn't mean the union can't organize. It just takes away their funding, which means they can't afford to run a union or ever go on strike. Nice. Right to work can suck it.
If a person doesn't pay dues, they should not be entitled to reap the benefits that the union gains. Let the cowboys who chose not to participate go to management and try to bargain for themselves and lets see who gets the better deal. That would be a fair playing field and both sides win because management will have non union folks making less money and that way they can better afford to pay the union foks more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeg