Right To Work-Fast Track To Disaster

LANSING, Mich. -- A new federal report says Michigan's economy has continued its steady recovery from the Great Recession, growing 2 percent in 2013 and staging a faster comeback than the nation as a whole over a four-year span.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/07/4277216/michigan-economy-grows-2-p...

No votes yet

Since Michigan's right to work laws only passed in December of 2012, and didn't go into effect until March of 2013, that means most of the state's economic comeback took place before "right to work" was in effect. In fact, the best years for growth, 2010 and 2011, were well before "right to work" was even passed. I guess the headline of your post is correct.

"The report says Michigan's economy expanded 5.3 percent in 2010, 2.2 percent in 2011 and 1.5 percent in 2012."


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/07/4277216/michigan-economy-grows-2-p...

Exactly the auto bailout was what improved Michigan's economy

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

RTW isn't about economic development or recovery. RTW is about stepping back from the brink of Socialist hell, and returning to the natural laws of Humanity. You have the right to employ people, and people have the right to apply to an employer, all without interference by a union.

If a union wants to dictate terms to an employer, then that union should buy up the owner's equity with which to do so. That's what natural law clearly states should happen.

RTW isn't about economic development or recovery.

Your second statement, however, is off the mark. RTW is not some philosophical legislation designed to get us all closer to the "natural laws of humanity".

The purpose of RTW is plain and simple. Its purpose is to divide and conquer unions.

RTW keeps unions from stealing from workers, and using that money in part, to support the democrats' party. I personally don't think someone should have to pay a ransom in order to have a job. I worked in a union shop for forty years, and the union is falling apart just fine in States that aren't RTW.

You worked in a union shop for forty years and got no benefit from having a union, none at all? No overtime pay? No weekends? No contract agreements? No health plans? Nothing? Why didn't you quit if it was so bad that you felt you were "paying a ransom in order to have a job"?

Yeah G-Man. When we pass RTW we're taking away your weekends!


And overtime. And paid time off.

Overtime compensation is federal law. And generally you must be compensated for your labor; that's also federal law.

Quit pretending that that's all going to go away once we kill off those ridiculous private sector unions. Those also won't go away once we start ruthlessly assassinating the public unions.

OT comp is only law because unions fought for it. You don't want unions, so you can give up all that unions fought for you to have while you're at it.

Sounds good.

OT is law because the people of these United States fought for it, not just unions.

And you're still not explaining how, with the decrease of private-sector unions, these laws remain in place, as well as how you're failing to explain how these laws are ONLY here because unions still exist.

I don't owe unions anything, particularly since they only make labor too expensive to hire in these United States. Global competition means our high wages must drop, which unions oppose. So the unions must be destroyed. And in fact, they are being destroyed, by economic means. Employers rationally choose to dismiss unions and then avoid them in the future. This is unavoidable, since these actions fall within the scope of the natural laws of man.

You're on the wrong side of history, AC. I know it's hard to see the era you're in, but you're just being stubborn.

Yes, it is federal law thanks to FDR, a president that stood strong for a worker's right to organize! I love it when you righties have to use legislation from FDR's New Deal to make your argument work. It just goes to show how important he was. LOL! Now go read some history.

Thanks for the advice, son! I looked up good old Franklins' record, and this is what I found--he put 110,000 Japanese-Americans in CONCENTRATION CAMPS, in the United States, in 1942! What an IMPORTANT guy? It's hard to believe how anyone other than a dimwitted racist childish FOOL would love an idiot like franklin delano hoosevelt.


Yeah, and Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during a civil war as well. What does that have to do with overtime pay, and you pointing out it was federal law? Stay on the subject, and stop using FDR to make your argument if you hate him so much.

Excuse me? You're the one that TRIED telling us what a great person he was. Try learning how to read, as well as you start trouble, and maybe you'll get somewhere in life. What other racists are you in love with, besides FDR and HAMAS?

FDR was president from 1933 to 1945. The internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 was an awful thing to have done, but he did many other things throughout his years in office that were very important to the people of his time, and to the people of today. Labor laws, such as overtime pay, help people just as much now as they did then. Ever get paid overtime? Did you like it? Or, did you give it back because it wasn't part of "natural law"?

Just because I am able to see the good things as well as the bad doesn't make me racist.

"Just because I am able to see the good things as well as the bad doesn't make me racist."

I this case, it does. My folks were immigrants from two other countries(White countries) who were also at war with the US at the time. They were never even asked about their views, let alone robbed and put in concentration camps. You conveniently left the Roosevelt business out, until I highlighted it. I have no idea why you are trying to connect me with "natural law". It looks like the abuse of 110,000 "Japs" is OK as far as you're concerned.

You just insist on the straw man argument don't you? The overall subject here is labor laws, not Japanese internment. We all get it: Japanese interment bad! There's no defense for it. It was terrible! That's why it is such an easy, and very predictable straw man for someone like you to bring up for attack. Stop with the straw man fallacy bullshit, and stop being so willfully ignorant of what exactly is being discussed here.

With an attitude like you have, I'll do just exactly as I please, unless you ask me NICE! And maybe you should take your amateur logician crap somewhere else while we're at it.

Sorry I was hard on you G, but you don't get to call me a racist just for pointing out how FDR's labor laws are still helping people today. And, the fact that Japanese Americans were wrongly detained by FDR is not fine by me. Make a thread on that subject and I will agree with you all the way.

Don't worry about "being hard"on me. I can handle anything you can regurgitate. IMO, you support a racist, you are a racist.

Did you ever receive overtime pay?

FDR was a President. The President doesn't singularly create or authorize legislation. The Congress creates it, at what can only be assumed the urging of the people of these United States that said Congress purports to represent. Presidents can run their mouths all they like. They are mere signatories.

There were many actors in the creation of labor law. That's my argument. Hence overturning that labor law will again require many actors. The question is, which actors, and how many? My assertion is that it can't happen since so many Americans find their OT benefits too good to give up. And the proof of my assertion is that despite the collapse of private-sector unionization, OT laws remain in full force.

Keep this up, PayingMyWay, and I'll slap around around like a red-headed stepchild. You Liberals have been begging for this for over a generation. It's morning in America, and your ideology is dying on the vine in the blazing light of that dawn.

Good job, GZ.
It doesn't take a whole lot of Civics to know a president doesn't singularly create legislation, but congratulations anyway. A president does, however, have a considerable amount of clout when it comes to major legislation during time in office. And, it is not uncommon for presidents to get "credit" for major pieces of legislation, especially when such legislation is one of their stated goals while in office. For example, Lincoln gets credit for ending slavery, when in reality it was he and congress together that ended slavery. FDR gets credit for the New Deal, and OT laws were a part of it. Try getting your conservative friends to separate FDR from the New Deal.

As to OT laws ever being undone... did you ever hear of H.R. 1406, "The Working Families Flexibility Act"? Look it up. It's a Republican bill that wants to change the OT laws as they exist now. It even got through the Republican controlled house.
Better tell your hardworking OT loving friends to vote Dem.

P.S. I'll be waiting for that slap.



". Try getting your conservative friends to separate FDR from the New Deal. "
I have to get them past his concentration camps first.

", Lincoln gets credit for ending slavery, when in reality it was he and congress together that ended slavery"
Don't you mean what was LEFT of Congress, after the Southern Democrats went with their respective Southern States following secession?

", Lincoln gets credit for ending slavery, when in reality it was he and congress together that ended slavery"

In other words, it was a Republican President that ended slavery.

Yes, a Republican president that was opposite of today's Republicans in that he went against state's rights and supported a stronger central government.

Congress certainly had a hand in the 13th amendment. It followed up what The Emancipation Proclamation did not include.

The definition of what constitutes "the work week" is often spelled out in union contracts.

The company I myself work for has many divisions in the USA and Canada. Some divisions are unionized and some are not. When I worked in Florida at one of their non- union divisions we had to work mandatory Saturdays, with only Sunday as a single day off. It was a six day work week. Here in Ohio, with a union, we have both Saturday and Sunday off. A weekend to me is Saturday and Sunday, or at least a five day work week.

That was then, and this is now. RTW FOREVER!!!

they were back in the "good ol' days." Workers don't need unions now. In our modern times, management, generally, treats workers with respect, and rewards them with fair remuneration. They always do so at WalMart and Sam's Club, after all! Their employee turnover rate is tiny. Right? Every source but WalMart itself states that 70% of WalMart employees leave within the first year of employment, That's tiny. Right?

Does Wal-Mart replace their lost workers? Of course they do, right? If they lose 70%, and replace them, that equals no job loss, right? And there must be a REASON 70% of their first year people leave, right? RIGHT ON, MY MAN!

You missed some of what should be asked? Why do they leave? Where do they go? Do they leave because they think they deserve more? Do they end up on welfare? Did they get better paying jobs? What difference does it make to you if 70% leave, if they get replaced?

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

professional interviewer.
I don't have statistics about where the 70% go. I assume it is some of each of the categories you mention, but I assume (and I know the dangers here) that most move on to other jobs where they feel more valued. WalMart provides mostly someone's first job, or someone's job while looking for other employment, because few WalMart employees stay with WalMart and move up in the ranks.

The issue is a business model. The current Walton leadership team has made the decision that the best way to run their business is to remunerate the bulk of their employees at the lowest possible level. They accept, (although they do not admit this publicly), that they will have high turnover of employees. But they do not feel that this constant turnover, and constant training of many new employees year-round is so costly as it would be to remunerate employees at a higher rate, and cut significantly into the costs of training.
As a contrasting example, COSTCO takes the opposite approach toward their employees. COSTCO management believes that better overall compensation leads to more loyal, happier employees. This translates not only into less turnover and less training of new employees, which saves money, but also into better customer service, because the employees are happier doing their jobs. Figures show that the beginning worker at COSTCO earns about the same amount as the average worker at WalMart. It's a different business model. I prefer the COSTCO approach. Both approaches have been successful in the economic sense.

Furthermore, while most COSTCO stores are not unionized, some are. It is estimated that about 11% of COSTCO employees are represented by the Teamsters Union. It is my understanding that COSTCO neither encourages nor discourages employees joining in a union. WalMart, again, has taken a very different approach. WalMart is so anti-union, the company closed a location in Canada when the right of the workers to unionize was confirmed by the Canadian courts. The Walton family will not allow even one store, at least in North America, to have a unionized workforce with a collective bargaining agreement.


"The current Walton leadership team has made the decision that the best way to run THEIR business"
After that it's up to those seeking employment to accept the terms or not, and to those who shop there to accept the low prices in return for that business model.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

I prefer the COSTCO method of doing business. I cannot predict the future, but in the past year, WalMart stock is down about 3 1/2%, and COSTCO stock is up a little more than 3%. Right now, the COSTCO method seems to be more effective for prospective investors.
For the record, I own no stock in either of these companies.

Same store sales at US Walmart stores dropped 0.8%, they're facing mounting pressure from dollar stores on the low end of their market, they've had no success in getting more affluent consumers (aka Target shoppers) to shop at Walmart consistently, their online strategy is being annihilated by Amazon, and Wall Street is getting sick of Walmart's stumbling.

Costco is kicking Walmart's ass in large part because of their motivated and experienced workforce.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

RTW is not some philosophical legislation designed to get us all closer to the "natural laws of humanity".

Since it does follow natural law, then it does exactly that. I hardly care what the ideological scheming that takes place behind it. Employers have the utter right to refuse to negotiate with unions. If you were running a business, you'd want that same right. Should a guest in your home take control of your house? Of course not. Guests do have rights, but they don't have the right to an equity stake in your property.

That's what natural law says: You have the same sets of rights regardless if you're an employee or an employer; whether you're a taker or a maker; if you're a capitalist (saver and investor) or a consumer. Rights are sensibly apportioned and in fact live together. You have the right to apply for employment. You also have the right to employ. These rights just aren't in conflict... well, not if you're a sensible person. Stupid fucking asshole Liberals disagree, which is how we clearly identify them as stupid fucking asshole Liberals.

As for conquering unions, since they so egregiously offend our natural rights, then they SHOULD be conquered. (I'd prefer the word "obliterated".) Unions that want to dictate terms to businesses have ALWAYS had the right to take equity stakes, not to make use of law to take control of businesses without compensation. Taking control of a business using the law, is theft. That's what RTW is trying to fix.

It's morning in America. Gun rights are being strongly re-asserted across the land. Unions are being told to go and fuck themselves. Americans are buying things cheap and that's forcing wages down, which is exactly what a mature capitalism is supposed to do. This is what's moral and ideologically correct. And it's going to continue, as the new day of America proceeds apace.

Natural law also defines humans as greedy. People with the power will isolate individuals who challenge them, and therefore punish them. It's much more difficult to do that when the individual is part of bargaining unit. Back in the 1980's the Right to Know Laws to improve worker safety were promulgated. There was an uproar from Corporate America that such a law would cost too much money and would be impossible to implement. This law required employers to make the workplace safer instead of employees getting needlessly injured. The employers were concerned about their bottom line. They didn't care if they mauled and killed all their workers. Collective bargaining units played a tremendous role getting the legislation passed.

The "collective bargaining" you're talking about violates the natural laws of man.

Workers always have the natural right to unionize, and to bargain collectively. But they do not possess the natural right to seize control of the employer's business. If you want to exercise that sort of control, then purchase an equity stake.

I keep telling people (particularly Liberals) over and over and over and over that workers haven't lost anything in Wisconsin and Michigan and other places that have overturned these ridiculous anti-employer and anti-liberty laws that give unions power. Workers regardless of state always have the right to unionize and then bargain as a group. That right always existed. And by the natural laws of man, that should never have changed.

These have nothing to do with regulations like workplace safety.

That is not what natural law defines.

Natural law show us that humans are communal. We are pack animals. The smaller the pack the more selfless the individual is because our survival is more inherently linked. This has been shown multiple times thru history. Sociologists professors will show you that if you put 10 students in a classroom that seats 100 they will sit closer together than in a classroom that seats 25.


After watching the pure panic exhibited by 500,000 people for no documented reason, other than the mayor said so-I tend to think people are more like herd animals. Had the water supply been turned off, the packs would certainly have formed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.