Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > The Round Table
Reload this Page [News] Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signs 'Right to Work' bill

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.

The Round Table Have a seat at the Round Table for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.



Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old December 11th, 2012 (04:26 PM). Edited December 11th, 2012 by FreakyLocz14.
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14 FreakyLocz14 is offline
Conservative Patriot
Platinum Tier
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 3,431
Gov. Rick Snyder and the Michigan State Legislature gave workers more rights when looking for work with the passage of the Right to Work Act. This new law gives workers the choice of whether or not they wish to join a labor union, and have union dues taken from their paychecks. Big-money union thugs are already trying to liken this law to Wisconsin's Act 10, which is a false scare tactic. Right to work does nothing to limit the right of workers to voluntarily unionize and collectively bargain.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/11/michigan-lawmakers-pass-right-to-work-la
Reply With Quote
  #2    
Old December 11th, 2012 (05:24 PM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
Gold Tier
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,116
I'm okay with this. Although, I don't see this really catching on 'cause... why would you chose not to have nice benefits and job security when you can get them?

I'm generally not in favour of public unions (professional unions dealing with people with less-than-adequate managerial/negotiating skills in a monopolistic industry and an ability to print money just seems like a bad/costly mix), but I am okay with private unions (in those industries or positions where they make sense).

I had a union job this summer. Did not like paying dues. And the idea that you would need to pay out something to hold job you may be otherwise perfectly qualified for just seems wrong to me. If you want the benefits unions bring, then you should join and pay the dues and such. If you just want a job and are fine taking on whatever risks there may be by not joining a union (like if you're horrible at your job, you can actually be fired), then you should have that option. Because, let's be honest some unions get some pretty obscure benefits - and I'd rather have the potential for increased pay based on performance over access to seven pairs of orthopaedic shoes.

Personally, I'd like a middle ground. Join the union and pay out the dues, but if there is a strike you should be allowed to cross the picket line and work if you wish. Not being able to work due to no fault of my own would bug me immensely more than union dues.

Also, two of the largest unions in Canada were discussing merging and implementing Right-to-Work policies - and extending the same benefits to those who do not participate in the union. So, I don't buy that this somehow damages unions when on this side of the border they're looking at doing it to strengthen them and be more inclusive.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old December 11th, 2012 (05:41 PM). Edited December 11th, 2012 by Otter Mii-kun.
Otter Mii-kun's Avatar
Otter Mii-kun Otter Mii-kun is offline
Molly, you're cute ;)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 810, Michigan
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,478
Needless to say, with the powerful influence the unions have in Michigan (powerful enough to get a State Representative recalled in November 2011), I'm shocked that this finally occurred. Then again, with neighboring Indiana doing the same several months ago, it was about time it came up for consideration in Michigan. This also comes at the heels of Michigan voters defeating a "collective bargaining" constitutional amendment proposal last month, which would've prevented Right-To-Work had it passed.
Of course, the Democrats and Big Labor aren't going to put up without a fight:
Top Michigan Democrats, led by state Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer (a rumored gubernatorial candidate for 2014) urged President Obama to threaten to cut off federal highway funds should Right-to-Work be signed. Also, the Michigan State House Democratic Caucus posted the following tweet:
Quote originally posted by Michigan House Democrats' Twitter account:
"We are going to undo 100 years of labor relations. And there will be blood. We will relive the Battle of the Overpass." -(Rep. Douglas Geiss) #SaveMI
The ACLU Michigan branch also blasted this bill as "Right to Discriminate".
Despite this major accomplishment of an agenda that had been going for many years, being rekindled around 2006-07, there will surely be a fight to overturn it. There was a petition drive back in 2008 that would've made Michigan Right-To-Work, but it didn't go through, thanks to an advertising campaign against it featuring former Detroit TV news anchorman Bill Bonds (best known for his tenure at WXYZ-TV, and having been a pitchman for several Detroit-area businesses, including Gardner-White Furniture, and most recently The Law Offices of Sam Bernstein, yet also chided for his alcoholism and numerous drunk driving arrests.)

I'm fully expecting some activist "judge", probably at the federal level, to overturn Michigan's new Right-to-Work law. I'm also expecting recall efforts against Gov. Snyder (again), as well as all the legislators that voted for this new law.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old December 11th, 2012 (05:50 PM). Edited December 11th, 2012 by FreakyLocz14.
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14 FreakyLocz14 is offline
Conservative Patriot
Platinum Tier
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 3,431
Quote originally posted by TRIFORCE89:
I'm okay with this. Although, I don't see this really catching on 'cause... why would you chose not to have nice benefits and job security when you can get them?

I'm generally not in favour of public unions (professional unions dealing with people with less-than-adequate managerial/negotiating skills in a monopolistic industry and an ability to print money just seems like a bad/costly mix), but I am okay with private unions (in those industries or positions where they make sense).

I had a union job this summer. Did not like paying dues. And the idea that you would need to pay out something to hold job you may be otherwise perfectly qualified for just seems wrong to me. If you want the benefits unions bring, then you should join and pay the dues and such. If you just want a job and are fine taking on whatever risks there may be by not joining a union (like if you're horrible at your job, you can actually be fired), then you should have that option. Because, let's be honest some unions get some pretty obscure benefits - and I'd rather have the potential for increased pay based on performance over access to seven pairs of orthopaedic shoes.

Personally, I'd like a middle ground. Join the union and pay out the dues, but if there is a strike you should be allowed to cross the picket line and work if you wish. Not being able to work due to no fault of my own would bug me immensely more than union dues.

Also, two of the largest unions in Canada were discussing merging and implementing Right-to-Work policies - and extending the same benefits to those who do not participate in the union. So, I don't buy that this somehow damages unions when on this side of the border they're looking at doing it to strengthen them and be more inclusive.
The thing is, if you're in a union, you have to strike when the union decides to go on strike. The union can punish you for crossing the picket line. Some workers don't want to be owned and controlled like that. Individual workers may also disagree with their union's political views, since the large majority of union dues that are used for political purposes go to Democrats.

Still, I think that only a small handful of workers will opt-out of their workplace's union, since most workers will want the additional benefits and job security. Only workers who have an ideological bone to pick will opt-out.
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old December 11th, 2012 (06:17 PM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
Gold Tier
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,116
Quote originally posted by FreakyLocz14:
The thing is, if you're in a union, you have to strike when the union decides to go on strike. The union can punish you for crossing the picket line. Some workers don't want to be owned and controlled like that. Individual workers may also disagree with their union's political views, since the large majority of union dues that are used for political purposes goes to Democrats.

Still, I think that only a small handful of workers will opt-out of their workplace's union, since most workers will want the additional benefits and job security. Only workers who have an ideological bone to pick will opt-out.
Currently, yes. But I meant I think that is something that should be addressed through law. Crossing the picket line is more literally the right to work to me.

As for where your dues go, eh... don't see that a big deal. Everyone dislikes some things that your taxes go toward, I see it as the same boat.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

Forum Jump


All times are UTC -8. The time now is 04:44 AM.