Michigan: A RIght to Work State?

**maxx** · January-19-11, 08:37 PM

http://www.michiganafp.com/2011/01/n...-on-the-table/

And...
"...Bolger would start the clock retroactively to provide current and future recipients an absolute maximum of four years of assistance..."

**ghettopalmetto** · January-20-11, 09:05 AM

Uh, yeah. You see, the real problem with Michigan is that the skilled workforce can't compete with rural Mississippians who will work for 8 bucks an hour with no benefits. It's high time we fix that problem!

*rollseyes*

**Det_ard** · January-20-11, 10:52 AM

Michigan has the best auto industry workforce in the country, particularly at the skilled and engineering level. Yet not a single final assembly plant has been located here by any of the Asian or European auto manufacturers. Why? They don't want to be in a strong union state. They're willing to locate in an area with a sub-par workforce just to avoid the cost and hassles of a unionized workforce.

How many of the plants that located in the South might have come here had our strong union reputation not been such an impediment? How many jobs would have been retained as market share shifted from domestic to foreign companies in the last few decades? How much healthier would our economy have been had we had a more diversified auto manufacturing base? We'll never know because we still have cling to our strong union structure, even though that continues to repel new business.

If Michigan had been able to attract even 1/3 of the newly built foreign manufacturing plants and their hundreds of associated suppliers, how much lower would our unemployment rate be now? Our future still depends heavily on the auto sector. If we remain unattractive to a large segment of the auto industry our state will continue to pay the price.

But it may already be too late. The abundance of auto plants in Southern states has created a number of auto-centric business locations far from Michigan. The decision to located in the South versus in Michigan is easier than ever for an auto company. Yet some here in Michigan want to ride that union horse into the ground.

**rb336** · January-20-11, 10:54 AM

Texas, a "right to work" state, has much lower unemployment, but a higher poverty level than Michigan. 13 of the 15 highest poverty states are "right to work" states. No r-t-w is in the top 10 in per-capita.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-20-11, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Det_ard

But it may already be too late. The abundance of auto plants in Southern states has created a number of auto-centric business locations far from Michigan. The decision to located in the South versus in Michigan is easier than ever for an auto company. Yet some here in Michigan want to ride that union horse into the ground.

Oh yeah, is that so? I suppose the $250 million ass kissing that South Carolina gave BMW had *absolutely nothing* to do with anything, did it? It was all the unions, or lack thereof. Never mind that the State of South Carolina had to shell out additional public money just to train folks how to do jobs that Detroit's UAW members have been doing for decades.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that "right-to-work" is a euphemism for an activist union-busting state government. Who needs Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of association? Who needs the federal National Labor Relations Act? By golly, we're going to suck the cock of every big business who needs cheap, uneducated, exploitable labor!

Face it--the European automakers are using the American South as a Third World labor force. And the executives in Germany laugh their asses to the bank while our public coffers PAY for the "privilege" of $12/hr jobs. Not only do they increase their corporate bottom line, but they ensure that they keep Americans poor and stupid at the same time.

**Det_ard** · January-20-11, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Oh yeah, is that so? I suppose the $250 million ass kissing that South Carolina gave BMW had *absolutely nothing* to do with anything, did it? It was all the unions, or lack thereof. Never mind that the State of South Carolina had to shell out additional public money just to train folks how to do jobs that Detroit's UAW members have been doing for decades.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that "right-to-work" is a euphemism for an activist union-busting state government. Who needs Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of association? Who needs the federal National Labor Relations Act? By golly, we're going to suck the cock of every big business who needs cheap, uneducated, exploitable labor!

Face it--the European automakers are using the American South as a Third World labor force. And the executives in Germany laugh their asses to the bank while our public coffers PAY for the "privilege" of $12/hr jobs. Not only do they increase their corporate bottom line, but they ensure that they keep Americans poor and stupid at the same time.

Nice having an intellectual discussion with you. Do you scream hyperbolic inanities and obscenities at the radio and TV too?

May peace be upon you.

**rb336** · January-20-11, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Face it--the European automakers are using the American South as a Third World labor force. And the executives in Germany laugh their asses to the bank while our public coffers PAY for the "privilege" of $12/hr jobs. Not only do they increase their corporate bottom line, but they ensure that they keep Americans poor and stupid at the same time.

well put. but of course, you are just "anti-business"

**ghettopalmetto** · January-20-11, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Det_ard

Nice having an intellectual discussion with you. Do you scream hyperbolic inanities and obscenities at the radio and TV too?

May peace be upon you.

Did I write anything that was factually incorrect?

**bailey** · January-20-11, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Did I write anything that was factually incorrect?

Well, yeah.. I mean the real rate is about $15 an hour for new hires in those plants in the South. That's a hellofa lot more than third world. Try 3.50 an hour in Mexico where GM and home town hero/no bailout taking Ford is building it's newest and shiniest plants. Lets also point out that GM's Orion plaint is paying new hires about that much now too under the new two tier agreement for the small car plants.

The question for Michigan is do we want no new manufacturing jobs or do we want jobs that pay less? I understand not a great choice but it's the reality brought to us by a generation of management and unions kicking the can down the road on the real price of labor.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-20-11, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Well, yeah.. I mean the real rate is about $15 an hour for new hires in those plants in the South. That's a hellofa lot more than third world. Try 3.50 an hour in Mexico where GM and home town hero/no bailout taking Ford is building it's newest and shiniest plants. Lets also point out that GM's Orion plaint is paying new hires about that much now too under the new two tier agreement for the small car plants.

So do you believe that $31,200 is a reasonable salary for a skilled factory worker who produces a potentially dangerous product?

**bailey** · January-20-11, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

So do you believe that $31,200 is a reasonable salary for a skilled factory worker who produces a potentially dangerous product?

I believe it's irrelevant. What sort of reputation for quality did the domestics have when they were pay leaders in the 70s and 80s? You know the glory years where people looked to make sure their car wasn't built on a monday or a friday?

**ghettopalmetto** · January-20-11, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

I believe it's irrelevant. What sort of reputation for quality did the domestics have when they were pay leaders in the 70s and 80s? You know the glory years where people looked to make sure their car wasn't built on a monday or a friday?

That wasn't the God damned question. The question was, "Do you believe that $31,200 is a reasonable salary for a skilled factory worker who produces a potentially dangerous product?"

**bailey** · January-20-11, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

That wasn't the God damned question. The question was, "Do you believe that $31,200 is a reasonable salary for a skilled factory worker who produces a potentially dangerous product?"

Answering a non seuqitor with a question is perfectly valid. what's your definition of reasonable? 31k in NYC...no. 31k in northern Michigan. perhaps What's skilled? Advanced certs, training or wrench monkey turning a screw? You're implying 31k is the top salary. Reality is it's the new hire salary. and still you've not addressed the fact that being a salary leader was irrelevant to quality during the 70s and 80s when the "big 3" were putting out lemons left and right.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-20-11, 02:26 PM

I'm asking you if you think $31k is an appropriate income for a skilled worker who produces a potentially dangerous product. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not implying jack shit. You can stop dancing and provide your opinion anytime you feel like it.

Let me simplify the question for you: Pretend you're interviewing a candidate for a job in an automobile assembly plant that you operate. What salary do you offer him?

**Detroitnerd** · January-20-11, 02:29 PM

Ah, yes. It's business logic time. How do we attract jobs? By promising to accept wages that will keep us poor. And to never allow labor to organize to ask for more money, no matter how profitable companies are.

Oh, FUCK yeah. That's an AWESOME idea! Where do I sign?

**bailey** · January-20-11, 03:15 PM

I'm asking you if you think $31k is an appropriate income for a skilled worker who produces a potentially dangerous product. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not implying jack shit. You can stop dancing and provide your opinion anytime you feel like it.

I said it the first time. Its irrelevant. You seem to think 31k is too low. Well then what is the magic number? If the market is incapable of determining it, what would you think is appropriate? 75? 150?

Let me simplify the question for you: Pretend you're interviewing a candidate for a job in an automobile assembly plant that you operate. What salary do you offer him?

I would pay them based on what is determined to be the appropriate wage for the skill set. That wage would need to fit into what labor costs are determined to return what is determined to be the ideal profit for the product line. I'm not paying the 18 yr old wrench monkey the same as a comptroller. Also there is no guarantee I'm paying the same as the cross town rival or as much as one of my own factories that makes a different product. Around here around contract time it's strike season if the jobbies at Chryslers are getting 60 cents less an hour than the jobbies at Fords. Or if the jobbies at the Cadillac plant are getting more than the jobbies at the Chevy plant.

Ah, yes. It's business logic time. How do we attract jobs? By promising to accept wages that will keep us poor. And to never allow labor to organize to ask for more money, no matter how profitable companies are.

Well, first you have to have labor and legacy costs that allow for a profit. Then you can argue about how much profit is too much profit.

**1KielsonDrive** · January-20-11, 03:21 PM

Here we are arguing about all of the various problems facing our society, our culture and our country. What are we doing about them? Until we get a handle on the one party, corporate funded election system gripping our country, none of these discussions matter. Democracy? Free Market? Capitalism? Free Elections? Free Press? All euphemisms and lies. We must have, simultaneously, huge skepticism in this system we grew up believing is the best, and belief that our system still holds enough promise that we can turn it upside down to produce positive results. We become cynical optimists. Get up each day being happy with whatever we have but determined to do whatever is necessary to challenge the bullshit put out by the corporate, political party establishment.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-20-11, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

I said it the first time. Its irrelevant. You seem to think 31k is too low. Well then what is the magic number? If the market is incapable of determining it, what would you think is appropriate? 75? 150?

I would pay them based on what is determined to be the appropriate wage for the skill set. That wage would need to fit into what labor costs are determined to return what is determined to be the ideal profit for the product line. I'm not paying the 18 yr old wrench monkey the same as a comptroller. Also there is no guarantee I'm paying the same as the cross town rival or as much as one of my own factories that makes a different product. Around here around contract time it's strike season if the jobbies at Chryslers are getting 60 cents less an hour than the jobbies at Fords. Or if the jobbies at the Cadillac plant are getting more than the jobbies at the Chevy plant.

Well, first you have to have labor and legacy costs that allow for a profit. Then you can argue about how much profit is too much profit.

In other words, you can bitch and grovel about how evil the unions are...

...but aren't man enough to state your personal opinion on a simple question when asked. I'm sorry, that's not entirely fair. I suppose we have to give you time to let the Oracle of the Free Market to tell you what the fuck to do.

Got it. You're indecisive. But UNIONS = BAD.

Here's more of that "free market" and "right-to-work" bullshit. Note the date of publication.

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/teams/c...-tax-news.html

**bailey** · January-20-11, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

In other words, you can bitch and grovel about how evil the unions are...

...but aren't man enough to state your personal opinion on a simple question when asked.

Got it. You're indecisive. But UNIONS = BAD.

Ohhh.. insulting my manhood. What's next? calling me a nazi? God its like watching Fox or Sarah Palin defend a position. Insult the other side and hurl non sequitors.

and as to your edit addition... nice Fox-like confabulation of irrelevant facts. Ridiculous tax subsidies are another debate. You know...like is it wise, while running a huge deficits, to still offer subsidies like giving 45c of every dollar spent here by the out of state movie industry back to them.

**Jimaz** · January-20-11, 04:19 PM

In my experience in right to work states, classic union activities [[threat of strike, collective negotiations, etc.) happen anyway despite the absence of any formal union. They're just more spontaneous.

What happens is managers [[themselves under pressure) make ever greater demands on employees, including even unpaid [[slave) labor, until something breaks. Suddenly an unplanned employee collective spontaneously emerges to deal with the problem. Whether the process stays civil depends on the immediate situation. It's very, well, unmanaged. I would think management would prefer the more orderly processes unions provide.

Oddly, I've never before heard this phenomenon described but I have seen it first hand.

gdogslim · January-20-11, 04:55 PM

If that is the case -^ ^- then one would think that unions would welcome states becoming right to work.
Then they could have a more angry workforce that would end up demanding union representation.

Comparing a r-t-w states with high poverty and income is like comparing high unionized cities states and high taxes with people and businesses moving away from them to the south and non unionized areas.

**Detroitnerd** · January-20-11, 05:15 PM

"Right to work" means "the right to work for less."

**ghettopalmetto** · January-21-11, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

and as to your edit addition... nice Fox-like confabulation of irrelevant facts. Ridiculous tax subsidies are another debate. You know...like is it wise, while running a huge deficits, to still offer subsidies like giving 45c of every dollar spent here by the out of state movie industry back to them.

No, tax subsides are not part of a different debate. Considering that Boeing was likely to locate its new assembly plant in South Carolina anyway, what was the need for hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies? At the same time the state is facing an $800 million budget deficit for the upcoming fiscal year? Then we get a new governor who outright states that she will go to bat for Boeing to combat any potential unions that might crop up [[Federal lawsuits have already been filed in response to Mrs. Haley's statements.).

So on one hand, the state gives away the farm for a bunch of $15/hr jobs. On the other hand, the state cuts necessary programs to balance the budget hole it created, localities raise taxes to cover the gap, and the benefits from a large employer like Boeing [[or BMW) accrue to ONE county and ONE school district--while the entire state has subsidized the entire operation. Let's not forget the existing businesses in the state--some of whom actually pay their employees decent wages--who have to pay ever-increasing local taxes while the sexy large corporations get armored cars backing up to their loading docks.

Then, of course, you have the workers, who are made to believe that they should be grateful for whatever crumbs they get, and both the employer AND the state government work in concert to squash any effort by the workers to improve their wages or working conditions. You don't think this reverberates to depress wages--and thus economic activity and tax receipts--across the state?

You can't convince me that this is anything other than feudal economics, where decisions aren't made on rationality, but on the premise of keeping the entrenched ruling class intact, and the rest of us slobs as peasants. Believing in such a system is one thing, but forcing us to pay for our own economic and educational demise is quite another.

The only reason "right-to-work" is named as such is because "right-to-slavery" would never pass Constitutional muster. Jim Crow is indeed alive and well in the American South. And while he may no longer be racist, he still has a healthy disdain for people that have to work for a living.

**maxx** · January-21-11, 11:49 AM

GhettoP:
What does the Gov. get out of such a deal? Sounds like someone got a kick-back to me.

littlebuddy · January-22-11, 08:19 AM

31,ooo is a good salary for unskilled auto workers. How much skill does it take to put a nut on a bolt. I worked at GM for 4 years at the Fleetwood Fisherbody plant on Fort St. and it was full of people from down south and others from up here who had no skills and less education, but managed to put a nut on a bolt. I was a loner and did a different job everyday and there was not much skill needed.