Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally posted by Sanrene
What backlash in WI? The bill passed, the recall failed, the justice was re-elected, everything the GOP wanted, they got.
Don't you remember the protests in Madison? Even the effort to recall Gov. Walker shows there was a huge backlash. I never said it was successful. There was nothing like that in Indiana, except for a few protests here and there. Union busting is not as easy in the Upper Midwest due to its progressive and egalitarian traditions. But then, the idea of equality and everyone having a fair go is foreign to most conservatives, so I wouldn't expect them to understand.
Don't you remember the protests in Madison? Even the effort to recall Gov. Walker shows there was a huge backlash. I never said it was successful. There was nothing like that in Indiana, except for a few protests here and there. Union busting is not as easy in the Upper Midwest due to its progressive and egalitarian traditions. But then, the idea of equality and everyone having a fair go is foreign to most conservatives, so I wouldn't expect them to understand.
I think a major reason why Right to Work has been slow to catch on in other states is because NOT having Right to Work has worked pretty good in keeping unions out over the years. Because when a union comes around wanting in, the workers can be truthfully told that if they let a union in, then that union will have the right to take money out of all worker's paychecks, whether they wish to become a union member, or not. Likely enough workers will not like the sound of that and vote to keep the union out.
On the other hand, in states that do have Right to Work, workers can be told they can try out having a union free of charge, and if they like the union, they can support it by becoming union members. If I were a worker, I suspect I would like the latter deal better and would vote YES to allowing a union in.
To conclude, I further think bringing in Right to Work is not about trying to keep unions out, but rather trying to weaken unions already established. Under newly passed Right to Work, the boss can tell the workers, if they want to enjoy a 2% raise, or whatever amount the union is taking out of paychecks, then all they need to do is drop their union memberships. If enough workers can be persuaded to do this, the boss will feel more confident about violating terms of the labor contract while hoping the union won't have enough money to hire legal help to fight it.
Anyway, I hope Right to Work fades away, because it's not in the best interest of the workers. Instead, it's by far in the best interest of the company.
yes or they can do what target did and use bullying tactics to make sure people vote no on the unions .
Riiiighhttt...That's why Minnesota voted for the GOP to take over both legislative chambers in 2010.
My, those dumb voters really don't know what they're doing.
Most people don't vote out of thought but on a reactionary level. The election is never about liking the party you vote into power more as much as disliking the party you voted out. That's one of the reasons the republicans and often democrats never learn their lessons because they think people voted them in for a mandate on their version of social issues. In states with still high unemployment you can rest assured the republicans will get kicked out this election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
What backlash in WI? The bill passed, the recall failed, the justice was re-elected, everything the GOP wanted, they got.
Not really because the 2 seats they lost were swing seats. They kept the typically GOP safe seats, and the democrats kept their number. However they lost the middle of the road seats that attract the more moderate voters which generally in most states win the election. That shows the republicans measure is not as strong as they had hoped. And what will the result be in a few years when the democrats repeal said measure?
Good post......with facts....stuff the Left doesn't like to hear. They just HATE it when voters get to decide stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
For some reason, the Left objects to people having a CHOICE about joining a union. Why would that be? Because they know politically it does real damage to their party.
Because no one is going to choose to not join a union is why. That's an argument the right likes to use that has little validity. Why would you choose to join a job that has better protections,wages increases, and guaranteed benefits but then turn it down? What it does is makes it easier for these companies now to hire scabs which will work for less money and basically break the power of the unions. In the end the only people who win out are the owners of said companies. Which basically are the only people the republicans care for anyway.
I have mixed feelings on this. My view is that PRIVATE employee unions and PRIVATE companies should be allowed to negotiate their contracts without the government interfering in that process. "Closed shop" contracts are negotiated. The union can demand a "closed shop" clause but the employer is free to accept or reject it. The state need not be involved in that process. Public unions are another matter however because public tax money is being used to pay those employees. So government would have every right to say that public employees may not be required to join a union as a condition of public employment. And I would support that.
And I bet you strongly support banning the minimum wage and seeing how close to ZERO Americans might be willing to work. But there is a big problem with that. It may promote something you abhor--unionism.
You hit the nail!! That is EXACTLY where I stand! I do not believe that we should have a minimum wage at all. Wages should be determined by BARGAIN between employer and employee. If the employee belongs to a union, then the union represents the employee to the employer. The employer and the employee or the employee's bargaining representative determine what the employee's wages, working conditions and benefits will be. I do not understand why people cannot grasp this concept.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
