Merry Christmas Midwest!
You Hate "Right To Work" Laws More Than You Know. Here's Why
From: Mark Ames
TO: The Labor Desk
Date: Dec 12th, 2012
The minute that right-to-work comes to Ohio, I'll get a $600 raise by getting to keep the money the union extorts from me (even though I never joined)!
will not cut your salary if others leave the union? You're being foolish. Remember your previous post on a different thread? You criticized your union for not getting a raise for you in the last 3 years. And you really believe that your $600.00 per year is too much to pay?
Did you ever consider that the union may have well protected you and the other workers from cuts in pay and/or benefit cuts? If you get the Right-To-Work-For-Less you crave, you'll most likely have this experience. I'm sure that your employer is salivating over the idea of how much management can save at your expense and at the expense of your co-workers if RTWFL becomes law in Ohio.
Good luck. You'll need it!
"And you really believe that your $600.00 per year is too much to pay?"
Why are you bothering to ask, Dale? You're against RTW, hence you don't want people even having that choice. 'Choice' bothers you Unionists, Socialists and Communists.
Your equating of unionism, Socialism, and Communism is either a quintessential example of intellectual fraud, or proof of your ignorance.
Dale, you're a Unionist, Socialist and Communist, and you don't want people to have the liberty to choose. That's the fact here.
When you act like a Unionist, Socialist and Communist, you should expect to be called those.
unionist, Socialist, and Communist, you display both your ignorance of what these terms mean and your bias.
For the record, I have been an active union member since the age of 29. I am retired, but a bought a lifetime retiree membership to my union immediately upon my retirement. Before that I worked for 15 years in my father's very small business. Usually, there was my father, me, and one other employee. So, I have both the experience of being an entrepreneur and that of being in a profession with union representation. Both are admirable.
I am not a Socialist, because I believe in private ownership of every business which can run effectively in the private sector. I am not a Communist, because I don't believe in the inevitability of violent revolutions to construct systems which history have proved to be totally unworkable. In actuality, I abhor Communism. But I have read Marx, Engels, and Lenin, among others. The collapse of worldwide Communism in all but a few countries today proves its unworkability. And most of the Communist nations which are left are greatly changed from their original structure. Otherwise, their governments would have collapsed, too.
In summary, I am NOT a rigid ideologue like so many who post a lot of things at this website. I want policies which work best for the most people.
BTW -- Have you noticed how the price of gas has been plummeting, just in time for the election? Must be another plot by Obama. OOPS! The election has been over for over a month! How could it be that gas prices are lower then they were before the election? Could it be that the Great Barack does not manipulate commodity prices at his will?
Dale, you're a Unionist, Socialist and Communist as your self interest guides you to be. I use all three terms since you follow various (and provably wrong) principles from each as it serves you. You're really a melange of the three. I don't know what single term really encapsulates what you are; "idiot" is probably the best one, but it's still too generic.
Please, please, please, GZ...never allow facts to get in the way of your ideology!
I am ending the discourse with you on this topic since you obviously do not understand the terms you are using, and you cannot relate to, and have a rational debate with, anyone who puts pragmatism ahead of ideology.
As the legislature in Lansing this week voted for the first time on historic freedom-to-work reforms, union leaders stormed the Capitol and traveled the state claiming Michigan needs a "climate of cooperation," yet union executives threw that philosophy to the wind earlier this year by pushing the divisive Proposal 2 on Michigan families.
With their failed constitutional hijacking scheme, union leaders were treating Michigan taxpayers and their own members as if they were nothing more than "special interests" that must be defeated at all costs.
Unfortunately for union members like me, those costs ended up being nearly $30 million in involuntarily collected member dues.
After his defeat on Prop 2, UAW President Bob King recently claimed that he wants to "foster mature relationships" to save jobs and make this state attractive.I couldn't agree more; but I believe the best thing our elected officials in Lansing could do is to pass "worker choice" or freedom to work, especially now that Indiana has jumped ahead of us with this reform.Michigan must do the same in order to compete for jobs.
Is forcingworkers to fund and support union executives and their political agendas a mature relationship?Perhaps King realizes that the rank and file in Michigan is extremely unhappy with the representation they are receiving on the shop floor, and he is afraid to allow workers to choose for themselves if they want to buy the product that union officials have to offer.
All across Michigan in every union, workers are frustrated over a lack of on-the-job representation, being denied their First Amendment right of freedom of association, and unions taking their money and spending it on a political agenda with which 40 percent or more of members disagree.
Unionism in the private sector used to be over 30 percent, now it is a paltry 6.9 percent. Forced unionism isn't working. Forced solidarity is no solidarity at all.Even prisoners in a chain gang have solidarity. Only through complete voluntary unionism will there be real solidarity that fosters mature relationships to save and create jobs.To be a pro-union worker means to be pro-freedom to work.
Let's be clear about something else.The truth is freedom to work does not ban unions, it does not get rid of collective bargaining, and it does not stop anyone from forming, joining or assisting a union.All it does is give the choice to workers.
Unions can once again grow and become well-respected organizations, but not until union executives embrace worker choice.It will make them better and stronger in the long run.And that is something that this UAW member believes in.
Terry Bowman is a UAW member and the president of the nonprofit Union Conservatives Inc.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121208/OPINION01/212080308#ixzz2EZD...
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.
Unionism represents all workers not just the 20% in Michigan who belong to unions. Everything you have as a radio shock jock employee came from union activism. Your 15 hour work week was influenced by labor's 40 hour work week. your vacation time, labor, your healthcare insurance, labor, health & safety standards, labor, on and on it goes. To see a country without unions go to China an experience the 40 cent an hour slave shop. This is where America is headed. Look around this country and see the changes of free trade have wrought on Middle class Americans. Its not a pretty sight!
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.
The poster once again ignores the facts. Nothing that I have do I get from a union. I agree to a contract with the owners of the company. If I don't like the terms I either don't sign or make a counter offer. Some radio stations have unions, mine does not.
When I was in a union for 10 years, the RCIA, I watched people steal from the company, do less work than me, and abuse the contract for their own purposes get protection from the union. The least skilled worker made as much as I did even though I worked twice as hard. I saw people steal from the company and simply get moved to another location rather than be fired outright. Abuse of sick days was rampant and the union stood by.
Workplace safety and working conditions are now part of city, county, state, and federal laws so there is no reason to have a union protect the slackers. Why should someone get a raise simply because they've managed to stay in the same job another year.
Productivity would increase if merit raises and pay bumps for produced work were used. It was a great system at Huffy back in the 70's.
While you were a member of ClearChannel you saw fellow workers shown the door with little notice. Given ten minutes to gather their things (in a box) and escorted out the door. Yes they collected unemployment that unions have lobbied for. Yes they may be still collecting extended unemployment benefits that unions have won for them thank you! Some may be using medicaid or SSI. The list is long, you will collect Social Security and Medicare from prior union activism. To say you have not benefited from unions is just simply ignorant.
SantaObbamma's, Green Energy boondoggle gave to a friend and donor of his.
Which province in China-are they using our tax dollars to build a factory in ?
SantaObbamma-gave $4.5 BILLION to First Solar Corp.,-which Chinese Province are they building a factory in using real American's hard earned tax dollars ?
3) Ningxia ?
I know that you do not know because you are as stupid as the most obtuse imbecile that has ever lived !
Proof is who you vote for every election cycle.
Unemployment insurance was discussed in Congress during the 1920′s, however, unemployment insurance did not become a real issue until after 1930. One important factor, hindering its development was the position taken by organized labor. The A.F. of L. had long opposed compulsory unemployment insurance. This was inherent in its rejection of compulsory insurance for any risk except work-connected injuries or disease. Even as the depression began to swell the ranks of the unemployed, resolutions endorsing unemployment insurance that were introduced at the 1930 and 1931 conventions of the A.F. of L. were opposed on the grounds that such legislation would tie workers to their jobs, open the door to discrimination against union members and be less effective than limitation of hours or work sharing.
From-Early History of Unemployment Insurance
By: Abe Bortz, Ph.D., Historian of the SSA
Until Wisconsin passed unemployment insurance there was no such thing. FDR fans try to give him credit, but it goes to Wisconsin over as you see the protest of the American Federation of Labor.
"To see a country without unions go to China an experience the 40 cent an hour slave shop. This is where America is headed."
Yes, that is where the USA is headed, because you Liberals will never understand economics.
The global mean wage (GMW) is about $2/hr. That's for billions of workers and potential workers, so it's not like 150 million (1/7th billion) working Americans will pull it up significantly with their $16/hr mean domestic wage.
As work more and more goes global, and as products more and more join the global commodity streams, wages across the world must more and more abide by the GMW. Weighted averaging (probably a math effort that exceeds your Liberal capacity) means that the 150 million workers in the USA will experience significant wage reductions, while the billions outside the USA will experience minor (from our standpoint) wage increases.
This woman legislator is a fool. She would punish an entire state to make the point that less than 20% of the population isn't getting it's way.
Sorry, here's the link for the story about the idiot woman legislator http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/12/08/Michigan-Politician-Ask...
The latest unemployment figures available are for October, 2012. Not including Michigan, there are 23 RTWFL states. Of these, 12 had unemployment rates higher than that of Ohio's rate of 6.9% that month, and 11 had unemployment rates lower than Ohio had that month. And, for the record, Indiana's unemployment rate for October was 8.0%.
So what's the point? RTWFL does NOT create jobs. It lowers wages for those who currently have jobs. Who benefits the most from RTWFL laws? Who is "all in" to get RTWFL legislation passed in every state? Mega-millionairs who control giant national and international corporations are pushing RTWFL nationwide. Why would they do that? When personnel costs go down, profits go up on the same or similar revenues. RTWFL allows mega-millionaires to make more mega-millions. It's as simple as dollars and "sense." It makes no sense for common folks to support RTWFL.
battery maker A123, to ?
An extension of your unemployment benefits for 520 weeks for the correct answer.
Laughing almost uncontrollably.....
It started in 1942 with the Emergency Stabilization Act signed by FDR. Due to a labor shortage on the home front AND wage feezes due to WWII.
"Wage and price control measures, as well as regulating the hiring and firing of workers, was also initiated by the government. The National War Labor Board was established by an executive order of President Roosevelt on January 12, 1942. The board was responsible for determining the correct procedures for settling disputes that could possibly affect any war production. It was also authorized to approve wage increases and quickly adopted the Little Steel formula for wartime changes based on the rising cost of living."
"The Emergency Stabilization Act was passed in October 1942, which placed wages and agricultural prices under control. There were immediate wage restrictions, and in order to attract labor, the employers offered a range of such fringe benefits as pensions, medical insurance, paid holidays, and vacations. Because the foregoing were not paid out in cash, they did not violate the wage ceiling. Controlling output proved easier than controlling wages."
Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a socialist.