[canudigit]

The unions have been losing power in Michigan since way before this legislation happened, anyway. How is it that a new hire line worker at any of the Big Three now makes about $14.50/hour, roughly half of what their earlier hire co-workers make, and this happened when Michigan was not a Right to Work state?

Simple answer: The unions demands have gotten way beyond realistic and sustainable and were a major contributor to the almost demise of the domestic automotive industry. Cuts had to be made somewhere, they were, and the unions had no power to stop it.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Arthur Digby Sellers

Complete nonsense.

If you are in the minority of workers that requires a union to prop up your wages, you may need to adjust to reality.

The rest of us whose wages are determined by the market will feel no effect.

Yes, they will continue to go down on their own accord.

[Arthur Digby Sellers]

What's your point? That the global financial meltdown hurt median wages? Real shocker there.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by actinic

This is a done deal, union lemmings. Get over it like many states and join the 21st century.

Keep out the name calling. Thanks guys.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Arthur Digby Sellers

What's your point? That the global financial meltdown hurt median wages? Real shocker there.

I think it has been a lot more than the global financial markets (which affected employment numbers more than wage numbers). It's also the huge surge in 1099 "employees" over W2's, and declining/stagnating wages in general.

I know a lot of people who have switched jobs in the last 5 years and are making less than they were making before (and working as 1099's for multiple companies).

[Bydand]

Originally Posted by jackmccullough

It would be if that were happening, which it isn't.

First off, nobody in the United States can be required to become a member of a union as a condition of employment. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.

Wrong. The Taft–Hartley Act of 1947 made it a States choice. In the 23 RTW states you cannot be forced to join a union for a job, in the other 27 it depends on the union contract with the company. You need to check facts a bit better. It takes less than 10 seconds of a google search for "union shop" to prove your point wrong. "Closed shops" were outlawed, but union shops were not (union shop is one where you HAVE to join the union to remain employed.)

From the Taft-Hartley Act: Provided, that nothing in this subchapter, or in any other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization …to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement … if such labor organization is the representative of the employees…

Second, unions have a legally enforceable duty of fair representation that applies to all members of the bargaining unit, regardless of union membership. Whether it involves grievances or wages, hours, and working conditions, nonmembers are entitled to get all the services from the union that members receive. What they are not entitled to is to get those services without paying anything for them. What Right to Work for Less legislation does is destroy unions but making it impossible for them to collect the dues they need to keep the doors open and to bargain on behalf of all the workers.

Wrong again, unless you are meaning the "bargaining unit" as members of that union. Workers who are not members of the union in a union shop have zero representation by the union. RTW does NOT destroy unions. RTW makes it so they cannot extort money from non-members that they don't represent anyway. Been there done that, try telling your lies to someone who doesn't have 1st hand experience (on both sides of the union/non-union member debate.)

[Coldjensens]

People seem to be i=missing a lot of facts.

1. This is not 1930.

2. Unions are not going anywhere. They will continue. They will only be weakened if they fail to serve their members sufficiently to make them want to pay to be members. IN other words, if unins start doing what they are supposed to do, they will be fine. They will only be in trouble where the workers find them offensive or irrelvant. if unions cannot survive where they are not allowed to force workers to join, then they should not survive. Will this destroy unions? No. Will it force them to change? Absolutely.

3. There are a ton of assumptions being made about the impact of this law. The fact is, no one knows what the impact will be. Will it attract a ton more business to Michigan? Everyone's QOL goes up. Will it help stop some of the exodus of businesses? If so we will not see an improvement, but a slowing of decline. Will wages change significantly? Will unemployment change signficantly? Absolutely in answer to both. Both are going to change. However it may or may not be related to the RTW - we will never know. There are too many factors impacting our economy and QOL to isolate one factor and say this was the cause.

4. Unions do not represent all of heir workers, they only represent some of them. Some of them get thrown to th wolves by the unions, especially part time workers. Now with Obamacare taxes kicking in at 29 hours, more and more people are going to be part time. Unions also pick and choose amongst their membership whom they will truley represent and whom they will screw. Being a member of a unoin does nto mean the union is pulling for you, for many workers it means the union is hurting you for the benefit of other types of workers they prefer.

I have to say, although I find the approriations twist amusing, it should not have been done that way. They were likely trying to avoid a costly election process that woudl only end with the same result (RTW), or trying to avoid a flip flop back and forth RTW, Union only, RTW, Union Only, RTW that woudl be a disaster for everyone, however the ends do nto justify the means.

Still it is pretty clever. Kind of like what the Dems tried to do with Obamacare, knowing that if they did nto do something, it owuld get overturned before it really went into effect.




Personally my wife's inocome will go up. She will not longer be forced to pay for non-representation. Although she is in the union, she gets nothing (or at least nothing good) fomr the union. They evnen told her that. Since you are part time, you will not benefit fomr union membership at all. You cannot even vote, but you still have to pay dues. Further the agency she workd for might actually be able to pay the bosses (librarians) as much as the workers (clerks - some who can barely read or write). they are all union, but for whatever reason the union in its great wisdom has declared uneducated unskilled people who cna do nothing of any benefit for the agency must be paid more than highly educated skilled owrkers who are members of the same union. Who are they protecting?

I expect many other states will now follow. Michigan is often seen as the union state. within five years I expect most states to become RTW. New York and Massachussets probably never will be, but the others will proabbly have to in order to compete for business.

[tjay]

I think its time to delete this thread...too much stuff you (and your buddies) don't agree with.

[zthatzmanz28]

Originally Posted by Bydand

What I find immensely amusing in all this is that the unions are still saying this will be lower wages, lower standard of living, etc.... I must be looking at a different law, where does it state that there is no more collective bargaining? Where does it say that all union contracts are null and void? Where does it say wages will drop? Where does it say that all competition for quality workers will cease as soon as this passes?

The cry about wages dropping can't hold water; think about it for just a moment. There will still be unions, there will still be union shops, there will still be collective bargaining, there will still be union contracts, there will still be union wages under the old contracts and new ones to come. The ability of unions to take a portion of non-union employees in a union shop will stop; but if the union is that great to begin with, why are there "freeriders" as the unions call them? If RTW will break your union, just how weak is it to begin with? If the unions are still giving an advantage over non-union shops there shouldn't be any worry at all. Workers will still be able to unionize, workers will still be able to be represented by unions and have those unions enter into agreements with companies on their behalf. So what are the unions/Dems so afraid of really? If unions are still relevant to todays working environment this will have almost zero effect on them. If they are not, then the gravy train just pulled out of the station and they will be exposed for what they really stood for behind their facade of caring for the average worker.

What i sthe first thing labor experiences when the union contract is voided? PAY CUTS.

[malamute]

It's only fair that those who want to belong to the union pay dues and those who don't want to belong should not have to pay dues. Total free choice---- how can anyone be against that?