Michigan Votes for Right to Work Status

[Sakari]

Nevada is considered a " right to work State ".

I can say, everyone that lives and works there know what that really means, and say it often ...." right to fire State "

[F3SS]

Nevada is considered a " right to work State ".

I can say, everyone that lives and works there know what that really means, and say it often ...." right to fire State "

That beats the hell out of "can't get fired". If I couldn't fire the people I have fired I can guarantee you that I wouldn't be in a position to do such a thing because I would be out of business by now. How dare a company have the right to choose who stays on their staff? That's the thing about unions. Fair worker and discrimination laws are already on the books, for every business.

Edited December 11, 2012 by -Mr_Fess-

[Gromdor]

Right to work states tend to have an "at will employment" clause. The business relationship can end for good cause, bad cause or no cause with no liability. What is happening in Nevada is people being fired for no cause on a rather large scale. Naturally this is irking some people.

[F3SS]

Right to work states tend to have an "at will employment" clause. The business relationship can end for good cause, bad cause or no cause with no liability. What is happening in Nevada is people being fired for no cause on a rather large scale. Naturally this is irking some people.

So the employer has full say as to who's involved in his/her business. On what planet is does that not sound right?

[Odin11]

Right to work states tend to have an "at will employment" clause. The business relationship can end for good cause, bad cause or no cause with no liability. What is happening in Nevada is people being fired for no cause on a rather large scale. Naturally this is irking some people.

I think Michigan is already an ""at will employment" state.

[F3SS]

I need to add that if business just get off on firing people for the shear joy of it they'll never succeed. They'll be constantly training instead of acquiring talent. If your business is full of rookies you'd better get used to doing things on your own, wasting time and money and generally failing at ever becoming successful or a long term job provider. So for these rampant cases of people getting fired for the hell of it you can bet karma will bite the employer in the asss sooner or later. Something tells me though people who get fired nearly always have it coming. Saying otherwise sounds like a jail full of inmates telling everybody they don't know why they're there.

Edited December 11, 2012 by -Mr_Fess-

[Sakari]

Right to work states tend to have an "at will employment" clause. The business relationship can end for good cause, bad cause or no cause with no liability. What is happening in Nevada is people being fired for no cause on a rather large scale. Naturally this is irking some people.

[Odin11]

So the employer has full say as to who's involved in his/her business. On what planet is does that not sound right?

What I've seen first hand, is that "at will employment" allows employers to circumvent anti discrimination laws.

[+DieChecker]

So, any qualified person could walk into a union business and get a job without joining? Besides being harassed by the union to join I can't see how this would be a bad thing.

Agree. The arguement is that if that new employee gets paid equivalent to the Union employees, then he is riding on the Union's negotiators without paying in.... getting a free ride, I think they call it.

To which I say... so what? The company does not need to hire that new guy at the union rate, the deal is between the company and the individual. He might get 20% less then the going rate, or 20% more. It depends on the individual and their skills and whatnot.

I don't know what loophole the unions are using, but they are big contributors to one particular party. It takes but a moment to look that up.

Well, they deposit their union dues into a bank don't they? So, theoretically, they collect money and it gains interest. And the interest is Not Union Dues, but is Revenue of the Union itself. That is how I would do it, if I was a Union Boss.

Unions are not a business, right?

They are not a business. And the money they collect does not count as business earnings. But... These guys have swank offices. Sometimes whole buildings. They bring in lots of money depending on who they represent. The teamsters are probably as rich as the Queen of England or the Pope.

[Michelle]

What I've seen first hand, is that "at will employment" allows employers to circumvent anti discrimination laws.

It also allows you to get rid of dead weight without weeks or months full of bull.... paperwork and covering your butt. That is the reason temp agencies do so great in areas that don't have it. You don't have to give any other excuse besides that fact that they aren't working out, whether it is someone who is not productive or simply can't get along with the rest of the crew.

[F3SS]

What I've seen first hand, is that "at will employment" allows employers to circumvent anti discrimination laws.

No. It circumvents union discharging procedures because really, business owners don't have time for that. There's so many other things owners could do in that time like hire someone to replace that bum. It hinders production.

[supervike]

Well then how exactly do unions make money because they most definitely give untold millions to the democrat party. Unions are not a business, right? Do they get money from unionized company jobs or services, thereby making them practically business partners? Seriously, if it's not from the dues how do they have all those millions to lobby with and pay protesters across the country to fight for causes they're not even aware of? Supervike, I'm looking to you for answers.

I am not saying that Unions don't very strongly advocate (with CASH) the Dems.

What I am saying is that Unions cannot spend Union Dues for Political Contributions. Almost all unions, however, have a separate and voluntary PAC that they get political money from. Unions have been caught breaking these rules, and they end up getting big time fines.

The money just doesn't come from the Dues, its from the PAC. Just like Business will use PACs to support candidates of their choosing. It's no different.

[F3SS]

I am not saying that Unions don't very strongly advocate (with CASH) the Dems.

What I am saying is that Unions cannot spend Union Dues for Political Contributions. Almost all unions, however, have a separate and voluntary PAC that they get political money from. Unions have been caught breaking these rules, and they end up getting big time fines.

The money just doesn't come from the Dues, its from the PAC. Just like Business will use PACs to support candidates of their choosing. It's no different.

Alright well as long as it's on the up and up.

[+DieChecker]

Sorry Mr. Fess, you are wrong on this. Union dues DO NOT GO TO POLITICAL PARTIES. It is illegal to do so.

No it is not. The Federal law actually prevents Union Dues from goint to individuals. But PACs are fair game.

The Supreme Court ruled back in June 2012 that it is OK. It is only Not OK when Special funds are needed and automatically deducted. Then the union needs to get permission from their members first.

With the regular union dues, there is no actual law forbidding their spending it on politics. They are allowed to spend it on whatever they need to that will further the goals of their members, which includes political contests.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/29/supreme-court-upholds-fairness-in-union

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a verdict in the case of Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, showing how deeply it understands that basic concept. By a 7-2 vote, the high court slapped down the union for deducting money from its employees’ paychecks and using it to fight against California campaign initiatives—without giving its nonmembers a chance to opt out of these political campaign contributions.

[F3SS]

No it is not. The Federal law actually prevents Union Dues from goint to individuals. But PACs are fair game.

The Supreme Court ruled back in June 2012 that it is OK. It is only Not OK when Special funds are needed and automatically deducted. Then the union needs to get permission from their members first.

With the regular union dues, there is no actual law forbidding their spending it on politics. They are allowed to spend it on whatever they need to that will further the goals of their members, which includes political contests.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/29/supreme-court-upholds-fairness-in-union

Basically, according to that article, the union can do whatever it wants with your dues so long as they give it back if you complain. Lol. What if business owners, CEOs were doing that? Oh the outrage and rightly so.

[F3SS]

But if you don't complain you never see it anyways. Man if that ever caught on the complaints would be non stop.

[+DieChecker]

I understand that PACs are technicially not money for individual political candidates, but I suspect that the PAC would do whatever the candidate asks for them to do.

Also since unions are not business/corporations they don't have to pay tax, and their finances are not really inspected by anyone regularly, so they can pull all kinds of these, Borrowing, actions.

Edited December 11, 2012 by DieChecker

[Gromdor]

I understand that PACs are technicially not money for individual political candidates, but I suspect that the PAC would do whatever the candidate asks for them to do.

Also since unions are not business/corporations they don't have to pay tax, and their finances are not really inspected by anyone regularly, so they can pull all kinds of these, Borrowing, actions.

Nah, Unions get audited all the time and the dept of labor regulates them. The government doesn't give them as much free reign as most people think.

As for the "at will employment", it is an effective tool for keeping labor costs down. Have a guy thats been in the company for 30 years and is slowing down? You can get rid of him and hire a younger guy at starting rate. Good for the business, sucks for the old man. Using "At will employment" you could shuffle the entire workforce at a factory every 2 or 3 years or so and completely rid yourself of the need for raises or retirement expenses. The owner of one of the factories where I graduated high school was notorious for this, but people kept going there because there was nothing else.

[+DieChecker]

Nah, Unions get audited all the time and the dept of labor regulates them. The government doesn't give them as much free reign as most people think.

You're probably right Gromdor. I was mostly just talking there.

As for the "at will employment", it is an effective tool for keeping labor costs down. Have a guy thats been in the company for 30 years and is slowing down? You can get rid of him and hire a younger guy at starting rate. Good for the business, sucks for the old man. Using "At will employment" you could shuffle the entire workforce at a factory every 2 or 3 years or so and completely rid yourself of the need for raises or retirement expenses. The owner of one of the factories where I graduated high school was notorious for this, but people kept going there because there was nothing else.

At Will employment does what you say, but if that man with 30 years in his job, is now worse then a new employee, then why shouldn't the business let them go? Loyalty? Niceness?

Edited December 11, 2012 by DieChecker

[Order66]

http://www.foxnews.c...-right-to-work-

Michigan unions see this weakening their foundation.

"You will have people that will be working right alongside of you that will not have to pay union dues as you pay union dues, but will still be able to get all the benefits from being a union member," UAW member Gloria Keyes told Fox News.

Really? Is that anything like giving your employee a money for services, just to have a third party union who didn't work for it take it away? Nice going Gloria, you have ust attacked the foundational premise of a labor union. You are weakening your own foundation. Pack it up and go home and take your gorilla thugs with you.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Order66

[aztek]

i remember few years back when mta had to downsize, they laid off hundreds of union workers, next day in one of the bus depots, hudreds of buses had their fare collecting equipment vandalized, they were full of expanding foam. the same day union leader was screaming, that he was absolutely positive that it were not former employess, but angry passengers that did that, yea right, they walked into guarded (by union workers) garage, took time to pump equipment with foam, and no one saw a thing. yea angry passengers.

i have no problem with union gone and their accounts frozen, the sooner the better.

back in 20s there was a need for unions, now that need is long gone, unions the way they are, expired and rotting. need to burn them so no trace left.

[F3SS]

Nevada is considered a " right to work State ".

I can say, everyone that lives and works there know what that really means, and say it often ...." right to fire State "

Please people. You have to watch this video.

You mean fire people like this? How on Earth can these guys get their job back. The video eludes "to their off-duty conduct" and something tells me that's what won the case. Unbelievable. And these idiots build cars that your life depends on. This case is the reason 'right to work' must prevail. How much time, money and resources did the union spend on these chumps? Plus, what happens to their replacements? If they get canned I would fight and banter my union nonstop about wrongful termination and hypocrisy.

http://www.myfoxdetr...&clipId=8044879

[F3SS]

Rick Snyder: Right To Work Bills Signed Into Law In Michigan

WASHINGTON -- Gov. Rick Snyder ® officially made Michigan a "right-to-work" state on Tuesday, signing into law two bills that significantly diminish the power of unions.

"I have signed these bills into law. ... We are moving forward on the topic of workplace fairness and equality," he said at a press conference on Tuesday evening, just hours after the state House passed the bills.

Right-to-work laws forbid contracts between companies and unions that require all workers to pay the union for bargaining on their behalf. Although business groups and conservatives cast the issue in terms of workplace freedom, unions note that the laws allow workers to opt out of supporting the union although they reap the benefits of the collective bargaining. Since the laws tend to weaken unions generally, unions, as well as President Barack Obama, call the legislation "right to work for less." http://www.huffingto...nk3&pLid=244324

Edited December 12, 2012 by -Mr_Fess-

[supervike]

Basically, according to that article, the union can do whatever it wants with your dues so long as they give it back if you complain. Lol. What if business owners, CEOs were doing that? Oh the outrage and rightly so.

]

Ceo's and corporations DO give (and unchecked amounts) to political campaigns. That is what the whole 'corporations are people too' argument is about.

PACS are not fair game. Union Dues cannot be given to Federal candidates at all, individuals or PACS. Seperate volunteer only funds can be.

Edited December 12, 2012 by supervike

[supervike]

i remember few years back when mta had to downsize, they laid off hundreds of union workers, next day in one of the bus depots, hudreds of buses had their fare collecting equipment vandalized, they were full of expanding foam. the same day union leader was screaming, that he was absolutely positive that it were not former employess, but angry passengers that did that, yea right, they walked into guarded (by union workers) garage, took time to pump equipment with foam, and no one saw a thing. yea angry passengers.

i have no problem with union gone and their accounts frozen, the sooner the better.

back in 20s there was a need for unions, now that need is long gone, unions the way they are, expired and rotting. need to burn them so no trace left.

And how long would it be before sweatshops, no overtime pay, unsafe worker conditions return? Unions help balance out ramshod corporate concerns.

I don't disagree that Unions need some major reform, but to see them gone would be just as bad as to see them everywhere. There needs to be a balance.