Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder says right-to-work issue is on the table

[ghettopalmetto]

But for a skilled tradesman/woman, it's a different ballgame. I wouldn't want to restrict them from taking a job at GM simply because they choose not to join a union. If anything, I would hope the union provides enough of a value proposition to justify its existence and convince a worker to join [[sans the use of intimidation). It seems like the fact that unions are concerned about their vitality and longevity means they're not quite secure in what value they actually bring.

Since no person can be forced to join a union, per federal law, I would turn this argument on its head. Why would we want the government to restrict the ability of workers to organize? I would hope that the Republican party provides enough of a value proposition to justify its existence and convince a person to vote for them [[sans the use of intimidation). It seems like the fact that the Republican party is concerned about the vitality and longevity of unions means that they're not quite secure in what value they actually bring.

[Jimaz]

If all the one percenters are now claiming to be "job creators" then just who the hell was responsible for all that offshoring over the last few decades? The janitors? The burger flippers?

Chirp Chirp Chirp

Sometimes what isn't said reveals more than what is, especially when it's said too enthusiastically to be credible.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

[oladub]

If all the one percenters are now claiming to be "job creators" then just who the hell was responsible for all that offshoring over the last few decades? The janitors? The burger flippers?

The political leaders of BOTH parties who brought us GATT, NAFTA, and allowed millions of illegal aliens to compete for remaining jobs. The one percenters no doubt contributed to their campaigns but the offshoring couldn't have been done without the support of leaders like Bush and Obama; take it back to Reagan for that matter. Obama was caught a few months ago secretly promoting the TPP treaty which would give foreign companies some extra legal rights inside of the US.

No more crickets and illusions.

Oops, I'm off topic. I'm all for closed shops if that's what the contract says. I don't think government should be meddling with contracts between unions and employers. If unions act like greedy parasites, however, and devour their host, government should not try to bail out the business.

[firstandten]

I think Snyder is overplaying his hand politically and will regret this, next election cycle. Something this important should be decided by the people. I think the state Repubs misread the message the people sent on Prop 2. I believe that the message was not to use the state constitution to give any special interest an advantage, not that the state wants RTW. I think Snyder will lose the good will he has built up with the Dem moderates and Independents once he goes thru with this signing. He has ignored the long history that this state and unions have played in this state growth. I see him paying a heavy political price by doing this.

[michimoby]

Since no person can be forced to join a union, per federal law, I would turn this argument on its head. Why would we want the government to restrict the ability of workers to organize? I would hope that the Republican party provides enough of a value proposition to justify its existence and convince a person to vote for them [[sans the use of intimidation). It seems like the fact that the Republican party is concerned about the vitality and longevity of unions means that they're not quite secure in what value they actually bring.

Yes, you're right. It's absolutely illegal to force someone to join a union -- I concede that point.

According to the NLRB, these are the stipulations that every union must provide to its potential members upon joining a union shop:

• the union must inform you that you have the right to be a nonmember;
• the union must inform you that nonmembers have the right to object to paying for union activities not germane to the union's duties as bargaining agent and to obtain a reduction in fees for those activities;
• the union must give you sufficient information to enable you to intelligently decide to object;
• the union must tell you about its procedures for filing objections; and,
• if you object, the union must tell you the percentage of the reduction, the basis for the calculation, and that you have the right to challenge these figures.

Is this occurring? I've never applied for a union job, so I'm honestly curious and ignorant to this -- if it's happening, then I can be convinced that the union is acting in the best interest of employees and not itself. I'm admittedly skeptical, though, given my past brushes with the UAW during my time as an engineer [[I didn't realize it was illegal for me to examine the parts I designed without a union representative's authorization. Go figure.)

As for your question re: Republicans...well, figuring Snyder was the first Republican I voted for in thirteen years, I'm not going to begin to address the issues that party is facing.

[Bluenote132003]

Let me start out that I'm not an extremely political person. I vote every election, consider myself conservative, but am open to both [[any) sides of an issue.
I'm trying to understand the objections to "right to work". It seems like the major concern is that if you gain employment at a union shop, you are not going to be forced to join the union.
I understand the necessity for unions, especially in the past to bring working conditions up to acceptable levels. I also understand the extremes that unions can take an issue for the rights of the worker, even when common sense states otherwise.
But should anyone be forced into a union? If you support the union, join! If you don't support the union, take your chances on your own.
I realize some non-union workers benefit from union contracts. I also see people's point that they pay union dues and never get anything for it, in fact it's sometimes just as corrupt as government and their hard earned money is going to line someone else's pockets. And some unions are much better for their members than others.
So why not give the worker the choice to join? If you have a great union, he would want to. If he suspects graft and corruption, he doesn't. It would seem like the best workplaces would flourish,others maybe not so much...

[TexasT]

Let me start out that I'm not an extremely political person. I vote every election, consider myself conservative, but am open to both [[any) sides of an issue.
I'm trying to understand the objections to "right to work". It seems like the major concern is that if you gain employment at a union shop, you are not going to be forced to join the union.
I understand the necessity for unions, especially in the past to bring working conditions up to acceptable levels. I also understand the extremes that unions can take an issue for the rights of the worker, even when common sense states otherwise.
But should anyone be forced into a union? If you support the union, join! If you don't support the union, take your chances on your own.
I realize some non-union workers benefit from union contracts. I also see people's point that they pay union dues and never get anything for it, in fact it's sometimes just as corrupt as government and their hard earned money is going to line someone else's pockets. And some unions are much better for their members than others.
So why not give the worker the choice to join? If you have a great union, he would want to. If he suspects graft and corruption, he doesn't. It would seem like the best workplaces would flourish,others maybe not so much...

I thought I was liberal, but then I left Texas and have come to realize I'm really a moderate conservative [[which is a hippie lib back home). If RTW is going to be implemented, then unions should be able to bargain only for union members. That's only fair. I don't understand the reasoning as to why it's any different, but perhaps someone can enlighten me.

[Honky Tonk]

I thought I was liberal, but then I left Texas and have come to realize I'm really a moderate conservative [[which is a hippie lib back home). If RTW is going to be implemented, then unions should be able to bargain only for union members. That's only fair. I don't understand the reasoning as to why it's any different, but perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Unions keep everyone's pay scale and benefits in check, even though people don't want to admit that part. An non-union employer will usually match Union scale to keep Unions out, minus what you'd pay in dues. Mazda does just that here in the states. SO, if all the Unions evaporate tomorrow, what's to stop the shop owner from doing pay and benefit cut-backs, or hiring a whole new crew for half of what you're making? Unions, on the other hand, have taken "workers rights" WAY overboard, costing the shop owner serious time and money. Shop owners used to be able to jack-up prices, because American goods were the only game in town. With the economy the way it is, and globalization, consumers tend to gravitate toward lower prices, leaving more expensive goods out in the cold.

[JVB]

So why not give the worker the choice to join? If you have a great union, he would want to.

That's exactly right, but at heart is a disagreement between individualists and collectivists.

Individualists believe in freedom, personal rights and individual responsibility. This results in competition in the workplace where the best workers rise to the top and are rewarded with more pay.

Collectivists believe your boat should be tied to your neighbors boat and you should sink or swim with him. This results in shitty workers being kept afloat, and great workers being held in place and prevented from advancing beyond their neighbor.

It's really just a matter of your philosophical position on individualism vs collectivism - many people feel very strongly one way or the other and both sides have valid points.

[gnome]

When I was a Local 652 guy, one of my jobs was watching piston heads roll down a conveyor belt. Every so often a head rolled on its side and my job was to pick it up and set it upright. That was it. A mind-numbing, stupid job and one in which I was able to automate with a couple of rubber bands and a few playing cards left over from our euchre deck.

So, I set up a chair, propped up my feet and opened a copy of Catch 22.

oops.

I should not have done that.

oh boy, the steward got way up in my grill, the skill trades guy was apoplectic that I circumvented machinery and put the entire plant in jeopardy of blowing up, the foreman chewed my ass and yanked me off the floor.

You would have thought I did something to harm the company, the country and motherhood itself.

i saw it as making a small change that helped make the company work smarter; but in reality I had taken away someone's job.

[davewindsor]

An non-union employer will usually match Union scale to keep Unions out, minus what you'd pay in dues. Mazda does just that here in the states. SO, if all the Unions evaporate tomorrow, what's to stop the shop owner from doing pay and benefit cut-backs, or hiring a whole new crew for half of what you're making?

If all unions evaporate tomorrow...

What about Henry Ford introducing the $5 a day wage? In 1914, Ford never had unions, but decided to pay his assembly line workers twice what any other automotive company was paying for the best workers. And guess what? His company skyrocketed into success, hiring more workers that were paid more money than the competition. Ford could have also cut his workers pay to lower the cost of his cars because there were no unions. So why did he do the opposite?

If unions evaporate tomorrow, you'd not lose any more jobs to China and Mexico. Maybe you'd have a lot of auto suppliers that left for China and Mexico come back and bring more employment to the area.

If unions evaporate tomorrow, who says you get a pay cut. It depends on the company and it depends on the value you bring to the company. Will Rousch and well branded custom garages with the best workers pay their workers less? I doubt it. If you're a slow or unproductive worker, well you get you what you deserve relating to the company's productivity.

It's supply and demand. There was a time in Detroit where an auto company would hire you the moment you got off the bus. Now, you're competing with thousands of other applicants for 1 job at an auto company. Who's the real winner?

There's an old saying that you get what you pay for. There's another old saying that 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. And there's also economists who believe you should have a little more faith in the free market.

[ghettopalmetto]

When I was a Local 652 guy, one of my jobs was watching piston heads roll down a conveyor belt. Every so often a head rolled on its side and my job was to pick it up and set it upright. That was it. A mind-numbing, stupid job and one in which I was able to automate with a couple of rubber bands and a few playing cards left over from our euchre deck.

So, I set up a chair, propped up my feet and opened a copy of Catch 22.

oops.

I should not have done that.

oh boy, the steward got way up in my grill, the skill trades guy was apoplectic that I circumvented machinery and put the entire plant in jeopardy of blowing up, the foreman chewed my ass and yanked me off the floor.

You would have thought I did something to harm the company, the country and motherhood itself.

i saw it as making a small change that helped make the company work smarter; but in reality I had taken away someone's job.

I'm sure a lot of people have "union" stories like this. I'm not defending it, one way or another. But where does the relationship between workers [[unions) and employers require government interference? Why do employers, who sign the paychecks and thus have the power, need to have an intrusive government go union busting on their behalf?

The debate on whether or not workers unionize should be left to the workers, and contractual agreements made between the workers and the employers. The working conditions you describe are the result of a contractual agreement signed by BOTH the union AND the employer.Right-to-Work is a solution looking for a problem to fix.

I mean, if you guys want to pay electricians $10 an hour with no benefits, like in the Deep South, knock yourselves out. But you're going to get what you pay for.

[JVB]

I mean, if you guys want to pay electricians $10 an hour with no benefits, like in the Deep South, knock yourselves out.

Link please.

[Eber Brock Ward]

I think the issue is fundamentally one of "more jobs for a bit less wage" under a right to work regime as we take some jobs from Mexico, Canada, down South, etc. against "fewer jobs at a higher wage" were agency shop provisions still allowed.

I don't have an answer for that, but would think that I like the former better when the economy is bad and unemployment is high, and like the latter better when things are going fine.

Shame we can't have "Right to Work only sometimes" legislation.

[ghettopalmetto]

Link please.

Per the 2013 R.S. Means Construction Cost Estimating Guide, an electrician in parts of Alabama [[for example) makes 42% the national average for this profession. The stated national average rate for electricians [[including fringe benefits) is $52.40 an hour. $52.40 * 0.42 = $22.00. That is, IF the electrician gets benefits like health insurance, pension, paid training, and paid vacation and sick leave. By comparison, in Detroit, this rate is $52.40 * 1.07 = $56.07/hr. These figures are based on UNION wage rates, per the methodology of the book. It reasons that a nonunion employee isn't going to have it quite so cushy as $22/hr [[including benefits).

But hey, at least our guy in Alabama has a "right-to-work" [[whatever that means)!

It's amazing what you can learn when you're not guessing or relying on opinion.

[JVB]

Per the 2013 R.S. Means Construction Cost Estimating Guide, an electrician in parts of Alabama [[for example) makes 42% the national average for this profession. The stated national average rate for electricians [[including fringe benefits) is $52.40 an hour. $52.40 * 0.42 = $22.00. That is, IF the electrician gets benefits like health insurance, pension, paid training, and paid vacation and sick leave. By comparison, in Detroit, this rate is $52.40 * 1.07 = $56.07/hr. These figures are based on UNION wage rates, per the methodology of the book. It reasons that a nonunion employee isn't going to have it quite so cushy as $22/hr [[including benefits).

But hey, at least our guy in Alabama has a "right-to-work" [[whatever that means)!

It's amazing what you can learn when you're not guessing or relying on opinion.

OK so what you're saying is electricians are not being paid $10/hour in Alabama? But if an electrician wants to make more than $22 hour he should leave Alabama to find work elsewhere. And then with a shortage of electricians in Alabama the remaining ones will be able to command a higher wage?

[ghettopalmetto]

OK so what you're saying is electricians are not being paid $10/hour in Alabama? But if an electrician wants to make more than $22 hour he should leave Alabama to find work elsewhere. And then with a shortage of electricians in Alabama the remaining ones will be able to command a higher wage?

What the numbers are saying is, it costs $22 an hour to employ a UNION electrician--INCLUDING wages, health insurance, pension, paid training, and paid vacation/sick time--in parts of Alabama. If you know anything about business, then you know that wages are a fraction of that cost.

As much as you'd like to pretend this is an academic exercise [[electricians will magically flock from Alabama to higher-wage states like Michigan--whoops, not anymore!--Massachusetts) instantaneously, reality has a way of disrupting that pleasant dream.

We're talking about peoples' livelihoods here. Their families. Their well-being and ability to eat. And you so much as dismiss them out-of-hand as a fictional story problem from your Ayn Rand textbook.

This is the labor market for which you're advocating. Prepare to bend over and time warp to the 1890s.

[oladub]

gnome [[regarding post # 106), A long time ago, I had a part-time flexible clerk [[39.5 hours/week usually) union job at the Traverse City sectional center post office in Michigan. All incoming mail would be dumped on the end of a conveyor belt and sorted by a line of workers. I noticed that a large percentage of the parcels were for Manistee, Frankfort and Cadillac. All non TC parcels were put into a big hamper for later sorting in the basement. I wrote up a suggestion that a rack of three bags be put behind the sorters labelled for those three cities. The bags could be put directly back on the dock for speedier delivery and save an extra sorting in the basement. The reward for suggestions was 15% of what it saved the post office for three years I think. I estimated that my idea would save $30,000.

The union guys were really angry, attempted to frame me in retaliation, and messed up my locker.

The postmaster, shortly thereafter, switched the entire upstairs operation with the downstairs operation and adopted my ideas. I asked him what about the reward for my idea. He said that my idea, as written, was specific to the upstairs and would not be rewarded because it was used downstairs in the same operation.

After that swindling, I did not submit any suggestions. A couple of years later, the entire TC sectional sorting center function was consolidated in Grand Rapids. What did fighting efficiency get those union luddites, a job transfer?

The postmaster, to his credit, painted the columns in the basement bright colors to make the place more cheerful.

Back on topic: "Warren Consolidated Schools, Taylor School District and Fitzgerald Public Schools are confirmed to be closed. It is also suggested that schools in Detroit may be missing a significant number of teachers."

The teachers' lesson for the day seems to be about fraud if some of these teachers aren't sick.

[old guy]

Yeah, I know you'll say this is left wing, liberal video from last night, but it does show what's just happened in Lansing.Rachel Maddow: Obama brings national focus to Michigan sneak attack on unions

[JVB]

What the numbers are saying is, it costs $22 an hour to employ a UNION electrician--INCLUDING wages, health insurance, pension, paid training, and paid vacation/sick time--in parts of Alabama. If you know anything about business, then you know that wages are a fraction of that cost.

As much as you'd like to pretend this is an academic exercise [[electricians will magically flock from Alabama to higher-wage states like Michigan--whoops, not anymore!--Massachusetts) instantaneously, reality has a way of disrupting that pleasant dream.

We're talking about peoples' livelihoods here. Their families. Their well-being and ability to eat. And you so much as dismiss them out-of-hand as a fictional story problem from your Ayn Rand textbook.

This is the labor market for which you're advocating. Prepare to bend over and time warp to the 1890s.

So why don't we just pass a law that all electricians get paid $200k/year? In fact, why stop there, we can pay janitors $100k and mechanics $150k, we can increase all of their wages so that everyone is rich!

Except when you raise wages, the cost of everything goes up with it and therefore you're not any better off. Any discussion of wages that doesn't factor in cost of living is meaningless.

Allowing regions to compete with each other for skilled workers is the only way to ensure that backwards regions either get with the times or suffer from permanent brain drain.

[JBMcB]

Unions keep everyone's pay scale and benefits in check, even though people don't want to admit that part. An non-union employer will usually match Union scale to keep Unions out, minus what you'd pay in dues.

My sector is, basically, completely non-unionized, and the wages are entirely fair. Some employers do underpay, and they generally get lousy workers as a result.

[ghettopalmetto]

So why don't we just pass a law that all electricians get paid $200k/year? In fact, why stop there, we can pay janitors $100k and mechanics $150k, we can increase all of their wages so that everyone is rich!

Except when you raise wages, the cost of everything goes up with it and therefore you're not any better off. Any discussion of wages that doesn't factor in cost of living is meaningless.

Allowing regions to compete with each other for skilled workers is the only way to ensure that backwards regions either get with the times or suffer from permanent brain drain.

So you're saying we should have our government ACTIVELY engaging in union-busting in order to keep the populace in permanent poverty and destitution...

...just so you can buy more shit you don't need? How is that NOT fascism?

You have no idea what in the hell you're talking about. If the country fell to shit after Henry Ford introduced the $5 Day, I might believe that you're not living in a made-up Fantasyland. But instead, we had that thing called the Roaring 20s, where people were able to afford the products they made, and prosperity grew for all. You'd rather everyone-but-you work themselves to death for peanuts, while you sit idly by, amassing a fortune for doing nothing.

Blow your holier-than-thou bunk out your behind.

[Pam]

Lansing Journal coverage:

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/a...nverge-Capitol

[JVB]

If the country fell to shit after Henry Ford introduced the $5 Day, I might believe that you're not living in a made-up Fantasyland. But instead, we had that thing called the Roaring 20s, where people were able to afford the products they made, and prosperity grew for all.

Thank you for making my case. Ford introduced $5/day wages before unions came into the picture.

[coracle]

Hey, Hey; Ho, Ho; The Right To Work Has Passed the flo'
Democracy in action. Union Members demonstrating their "right" to screw off from their own "right" to work in order to stop the passing of a Bill giving their opponents the same "Right" To Work.