Right to Work Law Passed in Michigan: Why are people protesting?

[chadwix]

I thought hostess was going to be taken over by the mexican guy? More jobs lost because of our economic policies but obama is to dumb to see this, or its what he wants.

[Grizzly Willy]

I thought hostess was going to be taken over by the mexican guy? More jobs lost because of our economic policies but obama is to dumb to see this, or its what he wants.

So it's not Hostess's fault, it's Obama's? Where the hell do you get this from?

[Wells]

So it's not Hostess's fault, it's Obama's? Where the hell do you get this from?

Don't you see? When businesses succeed its because of nothing but the owners hard work. When they fail its the Democrat's fault.

[schwank05]

It has to due with unions, there is nothing about it that will make sense. As a business owner I love laws like this that don't force people to join the unions, where in most cases their basic duties involve working as little as possible and getting paid more than you deserve and screw your employer every chance you get.

[Sunseeker]

So it's not Hostess's fault, it's Obama's? Where the hell do you get this from?

Because keeping failing businesses alive is good for America! Screw the little guy! We don't need innovation, competition or creativity!

[schwank05]

Its all a bunch of BS even if I fire an employee in MN, I have to pay them unemployment... WTF who comes up with this shit, if I fire an employee its usually because they are useless and didn't do the expected job. I think you should have to work for your money not let others earn it for you. Best example I have ever seen of how Unions are BS was when a friends of mine got a job working for Cat implement, his first day of work he was working his ass off to get as much done as possible when along comes the union boss and says to him. You need to slow it down, my friend replied this is the pace i work and I am not going to change it. He was told if he wanted to keep his job he would slow down. He quit a few months later and got a job at a rural implement and has never had any issues since.

[Fugus]

Its all a bunch of BS even if I fire an employee in MN, I have to pay them unemployment... WTF who comes up with this shit, if I fire an employee its usually because they are useless and didn't do the expected job. I think you should have to work for your money not let others earn it for you. Best example I have ever seen of how Unions are BS was when a friends of mine got a job working for Cat implement, his first day of work he was working his ass off to get as much done as possible when along comes the union boss and says to him. You need to slow it down, my friend replied this is the pace i work and I am not going to change it. He was told if he wanted to keep his job he would slow down. He quit a few months later and got a job at a rural implement and has never had any issues since.

I had a similar problem as your friend at a non-union job that treated its employees like crap. I had virtually every employee in the building warn me that I was working too fast. Found out why. I would finish my job way to early and ask them if the mananger had any other work for me. The managers didn't like being asked this and since they didn't, they would send me to help others and by the end of it, they actually thought I was being lazy from not doing anything part of the time besides pushing a broom or cleaning equipment, their minds completely glazed over the fact that I did all the jobs they had already given me and had ran out of work to do. Not cool, but I had it happen, he might have been in a similar kinda job. But they really do have places that run like that were a good portion of your work is trying to make sure you LOOK busy even when you aren't.

Or it could be a case I have seen before as well where you have one person who is just hyper quick when it comes to doing stuff and makes others look slow by comparison and the rest end up catching hell for not being as quick as the guy who is just abnormal in their speed or work ethic.

There are good and bad unions, but the worst thing you can have is NO union. Trust me on that, I live in an area where the unions have nearly all been destroyed. The jobs are complete crap unless you are lucky to get on at the few places that still have them, even though they are still weaker than they used to be. Still better to do a hard job for $15 an hour with full time hours, benefits, and a level of job security than to do it for $9 an hour, part time hours and no benefits with the threats of firing you if you don't like it or will fire you just to replace you with someone cheaper.

Without Unions, the common worker really has NO power over his own fate against the ones who run the companies. It is like a normal person against Superman, you are literally powerless against them as an individual when it comes to that negotiation without it, especially when you are a point and you have literally hundreds applying for any and every open job that comes up and you have people flooding them to the point they actually have signs up saying they AREN'T taking applications.

[Grizzly Willy]

Because keeping failing businesses alive is good for America! Screw the little guy! We don't need innovation, competition or creativity!

Wait, so Chadwix is for bailouts? Interesting!

[Sunseeker]

Wait, so Chadwix is for bailouts? Interesting!

He has to be. You can't be for breaking unions and against bailouts, because that's what breaking unions are, bailouts. People are getting paid "too much" and these poor companies aren't producing or selling enough to pay for it, so we should give them more money in the form of taking it from the taxpayer as directly as possible: by breaking their government representation and reducing their income, thus allowing more profit to go to the guys at the top and to make it more difficult for their opinions to be represented in politics.

Lots of companies have unions, and lots of companies get along just fine with them, because they are good and successful companies. And hell if you're a smart company like Google, you'll treat your workers right to begin with and unions won't even be necessary!

[Deleted]

He has to be. You can't be for breaking unions and against bailouts, because that's what breaking unions are, bailouts.

I don't think you understand what a bailout is.

[Flutterguy]

No one should be forced to join a Union nor should their contributions be used for political campaigns they may not support.

[vaeevictiss]

Its all a bunch of BS even if I fire an employee in MN, I have to pay them unemployment... WTF who comes up with this shit, if I fire an employee its usually because they are useless and didn't do the expected job. I think you should have to work for your money not let others earn it for you. Best example I have ever seen of how Unions are BS was when a friends of mine got a job working for Cat implement, his first day of work he was working his ass off to get as much done as possible when along comes the union boss and says to him. You need to slow it down, my friend replied this is the pace i work and I am not going to change it. He was told if he wanted to keep his job he would slow down. He quit a few months later and got a job at a rural implement and has never had any issues since.

are you sure? im not sure about mn law but normally if you are fired or quit a job you cannot be paid unemployment. Only if you are laid off does the employer have to pay.

and on the main topic, the reason this is such a big deal, is because unions destroyed detroit. Actually, look anywhere there is mandatory unions, they are all falling off the map. I read something recently that the governor is talking about giving detroit back to the county and letting them do whatever with it. Just seems surreal that the rest of the state is at the point where they want to just wipe it off the map. It is one of the cities that built this country.

[Roxyfoxy]

People who don't want to pay the union fee is just silly, without unions you would make less money for your work so that fee you have to pay doesn't seem like a bad trade off.

Edit: i can see that some people worry about what the money they are paying are going to, but at least here in Norway there is different kinds of unions so you can support those that give you the most bang for your buck.

[Sunseeker]

I don't think you understand what a bailout is.

Giving more money to a business that made stupid decisions so it will stay in business.

If you break unions and cut their pay, the business gets more money.

The end result is that the average taxpayer has reduced income and higher debt(though the average national debt) and still has to shoulder the burden of paying for the mistakes and greed of a few, who never suffer any punishment or penalty for their actions.

[Grizzly Willy]

People who don't want to pay the union fee is just silly, without unions you would make less money for your work so that fee you have to pay doesn't seem like a bad trade off.

Edit: i can see that some people worry about what the money they are paying are going to, but at least here in Norway there is different kinds of unions so you can support those that give you the most bang for your buck.

I think that the option to not join a union should be there. If the union is good enough they won't have trouble encouraging people to join.

[Sunseeker]

I think that the option to not join a union should be there. If the union is good enough they won't have trouble encouraging people to join.

Though I don't favor right-to-work legislation I agree it should be an option, there's really no downside to joining a union except when they require you to strike. Though most pay a stipend(which is part of what union dues pay for), it can be difficult to suddenly live on $200 a month instead of $1000. If a Union is really worth it's salt, they won't have to force you, and if the Union and the business get along well(demands aren't too high, pay isn't too low) then it's all around good for everyone.

[Fugus]

and on the main topic, the reason this is such a big deal, is because unions destroyed detroit. Actually, look anywhere there is mandatory unions, they are all falling off the map. I read something recently that the governor is talking about giving detroit back to the county and letting them do whatever with it. Just seems surreal that the rest of the state is at the point where they want to just wipe it off the map. It is one of the cities that built this country.

How much of that do you think are companies exploiting the non-union areas to avoid better wages and benefits?

That is the problem when it comes to globalization, the companies tend to try and go to the areas where it is cheapest to run which is typically accomplished by exploiting labor for cheaper prices and the least protections. And right now we have a problem where the labor can be outsourced by the finished products, many times, can not effectively. Which really hurts the overall situation.

To put it bluntly, in order for them to not flee would be to force them to deal with the same stuff no matter where they go, which is exceedingly difficult but if we could pull it off, the world as a whole would be a MUCH better place. But so long as I have to pay you $24,000 a year with safety benefits and overtime pay to manufacture something while I can go to China and paying some guy $220 a year in slave conditions to make it and profit the difference, most of the people at the top who are disconnected from the real world will take the Chinese guy and leave you to starve.

So, so long as I have to pay you a livable wage but I can go to North Carolina and pay them wages well below the poverty line and work them all part time and never give anyone benefits, I will take the pseudo-slave labor in North Carolina. Can take Purolator's approach they have done here where they have an in-house temp agency on the back of the building that all labor must go through and they can, and will, keep many of their employees as temp workers for upwards of 6 to 8 years to avoid benefits and put them that much further from retirement before they ever hire them as permanent time officially.

---------- Post added 2012-12-14 at 04:26 PM ----------

I think that the option to not join a union should be there. If the union is good enough they won't have trouble encouraging people to join.

Just as soon as the ones who opt-out of the Union also opt-out of the higher wages they have negotiated with the company and lose all the benefits and protections the unions fought for so they can really see what they are opting out of.

What? You don't like the fact that I am making $19 an hour with decent benefits and full time while you are only making $10 an hour as part time and no benefits with a much hire required production rate? Sorry, you should have been willing to pay for the negotiations for what we have just like the rest of us, good luck they don't fire you to replace you with some guy who will do it for $8 an hour cause we won't be fighting to protect you if that is the case.

[Sunseeker]

Just as soon as the ones who opt-out of the Union also opt-out of the higher wages they have negotiated with the company and lose all the benefits and protections the unions fought for so they can really see what they are opting out of.

What? You don't like the fact that I am making $19 an hour with decent benefits and full time while you are only making $10 an hour as part time and no benefits with a much hire required production rate? Sorry, you should have been willing to pay for the negotiations for what we have just like the rest of us, good luck they don't fire you to replace you with some guy who will do it for $8 an hour cause we won't be fighting to protect you if that is the case.

That's a good clause. Workers should know what they're getting entirely, and what they're losing out on. Some benefits however, cannot be opted out of, such as safety changes and protections. The whole place, Union members or not, lose time when Bob gets hurt, even if he's not a union member.

[Fugus]

That's a good clause. Workers should know what they're getting entirely, and what they're losing out on. Some benefits however, cannot be opted out of, such as safety changes and protections. The whole place, Union members or not, lose time when Bob gets hurt, even if he's not a union member.

I know, but unfortunately that is what it takes for many to get the picture. I know we keep all the ones that they NEED to have but the little extra stuff the union negotiated for them, if any, as extra they lose.

But it would be nice to have them deal with some of the non-union jobs we have out here in NC where they would be one OSHA call away from being shut down if they could only see some of the stuff they make us deal with. Like doing interior trim work with damn pawn shop tools with frayed wires and no safety equipment or working at the local Walmart where we have pallet jacks that don't even fully function anymore but they still refuse to replace or repair as it would cost them money or where they make you do unsafe practices to get the job done in time without getting into trouble but if you get hurt they can fire you for it because they have you on camera doing something unsafe.

[Deleted]

Giving more money to a business that made stupid decisions so it will stay in business.

If you break unions and cut their pay, the business gets more money.

The end result is that the average taxpayer has reduced income and higher debt(though the average national debt) and still has to shoulder the burden of paying for the mistakes and greed of a few, who never suffer any punishment or penalty for their actions.

Sorry, but you're still using the term wrong. Everything that benefits a corporation is a not a bailout. A bailout is a loan to an entity that is in financial distress. There's nothing wrong with bailouts in general, the opposition is usually against taxpayer funded bailouts.