Why exactly should you be forced to join a union as a condition of employment? What is wrong with making union dues optional?

Isn't Detroit a worker's paradise? It has been run by Democrats for how long? Hasn't Michigan supported union rights in both the private and public sectors? I assume there is full employment and the workers have generous benefits?

Oh wait a minute....isn't this where we (the taxpayer) dropped $60B to bail out some industry? Of course we shafted those workers who were not in the union....well f...ck them. That will teach them not to pay their dues....maybe next time they should just not pay their taxes.

Torp where abouts in Az? Unions still have a right to exist. Feisty you realize the Nazi platform was about taking guns away and removing capitalism as well? Yeah kinda sounds like you. Torp is right about this one.

Ceasar..Phoenix..Grew up here. When my family arrived the state was a Democratic bastion. Now mostly republican. All we we have are incompetent hacks on both sides of the aisle. One of the highest sales tax rates in the country and I believe 45th in education. Go figure. Prison industrial Complex is doing well though!

i grew up in the greater phoenix area as well. parents still live there off Bell Rd in the north.

Used to target shoot against the berm that was on Bell intersecting Scottsdale road in the 6o's. Scores of people would be there every weekend sighting in their rifles. Used to wrangle for Weldon's Riding Stables on Van Buren. Long gone now.

Torpedo I agree in part, obviously I agree that the Gestapo references from others have no place in these types of discussions. However, I differ with your opinion about right to work states. You say that workers in Arizona get great pensions and benefits so there is no need for them to be a union state. You mention that it is time for them to pay their fair share. Interesting enough the right to work state, public servants who are not part of the union are the free riders. They get the plus of the benefits, the pensions etc. at no cost. The right to work union members are carrying them and providing benefits for them with their dues. So in my opinion, the right to workers are getting benefits at no cost, without paying their fair share, not the other way around.

I do see the other side, why should a person have to be part of the union and pay dues. Well it make sense if you look at it as a type of fairness. If the public employee is to get these benefits then they have to pay their dues. Again right to work states who do not join their union but reap the benefits of the union are the true free riders.

In my state Texas (right to work) public employees can opt to choose to become part of the union and pay dues, as I do. Those dues are for leadership to bargain with the State. Yes benefit packages are one of the advantages, but those who are not public employees tend to over emphasize the supposed cadillac benefits that are enjoyed. Even with lower wages and a bullseye on your back comes the too common held contempt from the public we try to serve. That type of thinking is predominant in Texas where, Mr. Perry has mandated an all hands four year pay freeze and two year hiring freeze along with increases in insurance premiums with lessened benefits.

The country would be in better shape if government jobs hadn't been slashed with abandon the past couple of years. Final point as union rights/pay diminish typically non union salaries fall as well. This could lead to smaller purchasing power and smaller sales taxes that can starve education and local programs.

Van Buren has a reputation for the working girls at least over a decade ago. Even the areas out by lake Pleasant are developed. In fact Wikenburg is now part of Phoenix in sorts. i havent been there in years. 05 was the last time i visited. i'll never go back. Too hot too populated

History has a tendency to repeat itself !

On the 1st of May 1933, the NSDAP in Germany, organized a National Workers Day with demonstrations all over the country.

The trade unions asked their members to take part, and many did.

On 2nd of May, Hitler outlawed the trade unions, the SA seized all buildings, including printing presses, newspapers and all assets. Trade union leadres were taken into prisons and concentration camps.
All assets of the trade unions were assigned to the German Labour Front, a sub-organisation of the NSDAP (Wikipedia - I don't know where the author got the part about "corruption in the existing unions" from).

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

The Republicans Gestapo strikes again...

Anyone here want to venture a guess as to what type of reception this comment would have received had it been made about the democrats?

Ceasar...Weldon's was waaaay east within half a mile of what was to become the Phx. Zoo. Guy who owned it was an old Cowboy by the name of Bob Richardson who used to run cattle in what is now North Scottsdale. Interesting that you you know where the hookers hang though. hahahaha.

Public sector employees should have the right to collectively bargain but should not have the right to strike!

REALLY.... what exactly about my comment was sick?

Is it the fact that I pointed out Fisty's hatred and bigotry?

Or maybe it's the fact that I am now point out your hatred and bigotry?

(you speak of bias... obviously from experience.)

Yellowdog...Last time I checked, I didn't see any cops, teachers, prison guards, state tax collectors, janitors, parks workers, firefighters, (an area rife with nepotism) etc on food stamps. The bottom line is if the State cannot afford bloated salaries, job packing, pension and medical benefits then they must share the burden. That in my view is not to much to ask which by the way was one of the reasons the Germans were able to avoid a recession.

Without unions, workers would not have the benefits and pay they now enjoy and the country would not be great. There is a place for unions and your lack of undertand is just that - your lack of understanding.

And do you understand Brian's quote from FDR as to the distinction between private and public sector unions? Also, no one here is advocating the end of unions, simply the requirement of union membership as a condition of employment.

Brian LotsaNumbers,

you Democrats . . . just have no business sense

If anyone is looking for today's most brainless comment, there it is. As though only Republicans own or start up businesses. . . .

spudbucket,

So the liberal democrats are saying people do not have the right to work?

Obviously you've never read 1984. . . .

OK...I need some help here. I have never worked for a company that had a union. So I really don't understand union issues very well at all. I read a line like this from the article:

establish workers' rights to employment in a workplace without having to join a union.

and that doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. Can someone explain to me the basic problem with this? Not looking for political rants...just a quick explanation of why this could be considered a bad thing. Or the converse from someone supporting this as to why it would be a good thing. Thanks guys! :-)

Torp, who didnt know where the hookers were, now youre being silly LOL. scottsdale now is home to those nasty one percenters. Ranchers usually sell their land off to home developers, they typically hold large swaths of land and are easily able to part with said land if the price is right. I see it all the time. I grew up on the edge of Sun City. I dont miss the valley of the Sun 'and that aint no Bull!"

Agree on collective bargaining and I agree that public sector workers, police etc. should not be able to strike. The Chicago teacher's strike was an embarrassment and was a black mark on union members.

Something to think about, if the State (public) does not provide these services or pay sufficiently to get qualified people to do them who will? Will the private sector do so if little profit is to be made and will they do so at a smaller price then a public agency, department would?

Torpedo, I can not speak to the hiring practices or conditions of nepotism in Arizona. I do know that the practice of political nepotism/favoritism from GOP politicians is rampant in Texas. Reports have shown that formerly public agency work farmed to private business (donors) are often done poorly and at higher cost. In that case, the citizens of the state are doubly hurt because they get a poorer product/service and they pay more for it. Some things are worth paying for.

...and by the way my friend we are sharing the burden.

Can someone explain to me the basic problem with this? Not looking for political rants...just a quick explanation of why this could be considered a bad thing. Or the converse from someone supporting this as to why it would be a good thing. Thanks guys! :-)

Hi Grimey, I don't see an issue either. However, the argument for enforced union membership is that as the union negotiates the wages and benefits and as all workers benefit from the negotiated contract then all workers should pay union dues.

I have worked for local government, private sector where this was a condition of employment and to be honest at the local level you rarely see a union official, except for your workplace rep.

brian, why SHOULD pensions be a relic of the past? Why should workers in the USA continue to decline on the very things that much of the rest of the world admired and copied: pensions, higher wages, social security, medicare? Now, thanks to republicans claiming "individual responsibility", we continued Reagan's race to the bottom for workers through the Bush 43 years.

One more thing, brian, for someone who claims not to be a republican, you use all the "commie" attack lines--that only comes from far right wingers.

Hey Feisty, nothing new with you, eh, still ill informed, as usual! Just wait until your "Nazis" bang on your door.

It's simple Frank,

If workers are not required to join the unions but receive the same (or similar) benefits the union workers feel slighted... as in the non-union guy is making me pay for his benefits. (sound familiar? taxes and entitlements)

Additionally, once workers see that the corporations ARE providing good pay and benefits to non-union workers, the incentive to join the union is gone, membership dwindles and unions lose their power... and yes... that includes political power.

TorpedoYou, I'm one of your ha overpaid AZ State workers, why don't you come live in my shoes. I pay my taxes, yes my portion of my own salary pays my myself I get no break. My healthcare went up, I haven't had an increase in pay 5 years, they took pay away from me for the past 2 years, they laid off my wife, that big pay I'd like to know where it is we didn't make it. Healthcare ya I got it, dental care it sucks, retirement Input into it I better have it when I retire, just like I did at the private sector jobs I worked at, same with health and dental. I'm uncovered already I don't have to waite for the legistrature, but my Department's budget will never allow for increases to the workers, but the bosses get them. dcan't strike it's against the LAW>

Alan, NJ

If you were to look at the entire quote from FDR you would see that he supported collective bargaining in principal, but he didn't think that they should be able to strike because that would harm the public.

process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.

I take the following "as usually understood" to mean striking.

____

"The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied."^[7]

This letter would suggest that the former president believed that "collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service" as a result of the possibility of strikes shutting down the government, not that it should not exist at all.

bubba...

Your talk makes it sound as if government is just like one of those 'evil' corporations... you know... the one's where the bosses get the raises/bonuses and the workers get the shaft! (I think that's the liberal line.)

Well guess what bubba... risk garners reward. No risk... No reward. I'll bet you were really happy when you got that cushy government job. Now... not so happy.

BTW... you always have the right to go back to the private sector.

Seeking -

There is a place for unions and your lack of undertand is just that - your lack of understanding.

I spent 10 years in a United Steelworkers Facility... Can I speak against what today's union represents? Can I speak of being forced to participate without wanting to? Can I speak about supporting Republican issues, but being vilified within the union for believing as I did?

Can you quantify who is allowed to have an opinion regarding unions, and who is allowed to give their opinions in favor of, or to speak against, said organizations?

I somewhat agree with something you said - there are specific places for unions - I get that. But in general, as someone who has been in the trenches, and as someone who has sat on both sides of the table, unions are a well respected and honorable historical piece of America's past (generally speaking). Any more, I personally view the majority of union dealings as a means of division and promotion of specific ideologies.

Union thugs today are taking what they can get, while putting the screws to those with less seniority. For example: I know of several union facilities, in order to maintain what they already "fought for", new hires are paid $5.00+ less per hour & have significantly lower bonus structures, health care, and pension eligibility. So the fat cats wouldn't get burned, they sacrifice less senior employees. Then they force all new hires to join their union & pay dues... All this in an attempt to remain viable in a competitive business environment. WOW! They sacrifice tomorrow so they can get theirs today...

Then those same fat-cats are allowed to spend your extorted money on programs they wish, and many of those programs directly / indirectly and up in the hands of those pushing political agenda's. Those government entities who nearly 100% of the time are benifited by that money are Democrats. Democrats need that continued support, so they make special stops (like BHO today) in Michigan to promote the union positions - keeping the money and voter river flowing. Unions are caught in this horrible situation with no way out. They are a slave to themselves and don't realize it. But, like me, there are people within the unions who understand the bad road they are on. They get it. But they have NO VOICE because of their union taskmasters!

There is only so much money to go around. It is nice to say "pay them more". In fact, I'd love it if that were always possible. But to remain competitive as a member of the world trade organization, and with China being welcomed to join said organization - thus "normalizing" trade relations with them, corporate America can only pay so much without raising the cost of their products to pay additional labor costs. They pass that increase on to us, the consume, meaning higher prices (note: the paycheck doesn't go any farther). And because of the increases to product price, imported goods are cheaper to buy than domestically produced goods. We make more, but the paycheck goes no farther than it did in 1978. It is a vicious cycle!!!!!

Grimey, if a smart guy like you can't see the real motivation behind this legislation and the unfairness of it, then no amount of explaining it here will help because you have already bought what the republicans have been selling for 30 years.

Right to Work is another big business (ALEC) ploy to remove employee say so and allow more power to the employer. It is just one more way of pitting one group of workers against another. It is one more big business and GOP move to eliminate unions--after all, unions have political clout and the Koch boys, the Adelson's, the Murrays with the help of those "free market capitalist" republicans have carefully constructed the anti-union efforts. We know they are successful because we need only read their words repeated here.

The wages and benefits for workers in Right to Work states are 3-7% lower than in states without those laws. Right to Work is an oxymoron, a carefully chosen term that makes the laws sound favorable to workers. We already have the right to work. Why should workers who choose NOT to join a union at their place of employment be given the same wage increases and better benefits of those who join unions? In my view, they shouldn't. Those who decide not to join an established company union when they accept employment at that firm should be on their own for negotiating pay raises and benefits--otherwise, they are the "free riders", the "moochers".

Republicans have been preaching for decades about how unions were once valuable but their value is now disappeared, they are irrelvant. The question everyone should be asking is who really receives the most value from the demise of unions? The answer is obvious, it isn't the workers.

Frank,

and that doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. Can someone explain to me the basic problem with this? Not looking for political rants...just a quick explanation of why this could be considered a bad thing.

Hi Frank, there isn't a problem. The only problem is that when Michigan becomes a right to work state the unions will no longer be able to require the employer withhold the employee's union dues from their paycheck automatically. This happened in Wisconsin after the legislation passed. The public employees were required to elect to have their dues taken out of their pay.

Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees—the state's second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers—fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011

Much of that decline came from Afscme Council 24, which represents Wisconsin state workers, whose membership plunged by two-thirds to 7,100 from 22,300 last year.

As you can see the membership fell by more than half. What the union leadership thugs, and by extension Democrats, don't want is to allow employees to have a choice in whether to participate or not participate in a union. Ironic, eh?

Jody,

Right to Work is another big business (ALEC) ploy to remove employee say so and allow more power to the employer. It is just one more way of pitting one group of workers against another. It is one more big business and GOP move to eliminate unions

I don't think Brian understood my allusion to 1984.

Pssst! Brian! It's really a "Right to Fire" bill.

Jody, Iowa - Why should workers who choose NOT to join a union at their place of employment be given the same wage increases and better benefits of those who join unions? In my view, they shouldn't. Those who decide not to join an established company union when they accept employment at that firm should be on their own for negotiating pay raises and benefits--otherwise, they are the "free riders", the "moochers".

As I often do I agree with you Jody.

______

Sick of the Bickering - you always have the right to go back to the private sector.

Sick of, and you have the right to come to the public sector if you think they've got it so good. Observation, by the looks of this thread some people appear to disagree on the wealth and abundance of the public worker's benefits.

Interesting thread and nice discussion with only one comment about nazis and one comment about commies.

Why should workers who choose NOT to join a union at their place of employment be given the same wage increases and better benefits of those who join unions? In my view, they shouldn't. Those who decide not to join an established company union when they accept employment at that firm should be on their own for negotiating pay raises and benefits

I agree. And if they are more productive then the can legitimately negotiate a better package than the union.

Tell me Jody, why are teachers unions so obsessed by seniority rather than achievement?

@Dog I see where you are going but if you cannot withdraw your labor how do you negotiate?

Pssst! Brian! It's really a "Right to Fire" bill.

Yep can't have employers choosing who they employ. Much better to set up job banks to pay workers when there is nothing for them to do. I mean how can that cause any problems?

Jody, what every RTW vs non-RTW salary and benefits figures will tell you is right up front, none of them compensate for cost of living differences. COL is anywhere from 5-18% lower in a RTW state than a non-RTW.

And I'll agree with you on a small point: yes, we all do have the right to work, however, in a union state, it's a right-to-work-as-long-as-you-agree-to-pay-the-union... In a RTW state its right-to-work-as-long-as-you-... wait, just right-to-work...

I mean, I love living in a RTW state. I can market my skills and experience, and what I earn is mine. I can parleigh for my own benefits as I see fit. I'm a single male with no kids. Why do I want to hurt potential income by haggling over family benefits that have no effect on me? Why would I want to pay a union out of my own pay check to do something I can do myself, and probably more effectively?

I'm going to love to see where the plants building the Apple product line that they announced will be all U.S. manufactured will be. I'm going to guess an RTW state, and unemployment will drop.

Thanks for the answers all.

Hi Jody...not buying anyone's spin or what anyone's selling. I am simply pleading ignorance on this issue and seeing what each side has to say. Union membership is an issue I've never had to deal with and likely never will. Thanks for the input though. :-)

Alan, NJ - As FDR noted the Public sector worker is obligated to the greater good of the public. I know, with out the ability to strike you would have very little leverage but perhaps you negotiate with straight forward honesty.

Ha! Even I smiled at that one!

Probably why our union gets it a5$ handed to it by Perry and the legislature. Death by a thousand cuts but whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

One other thing to clarify, I do not support automatic union dues being taken for political campaigns. Can only address RTW Texas, you have to sign up to have additional dues taken out for political action committees. My dues only goes to support general lobbying for rights, health etc. not some politico's coffers. I choose who I spend my political contributions. Last cycle only sent in one donation a "U.S. Grant" after fear compelled me to after the Obama's dismal 1st debate.

No one should be forced to join a union in order to work somewhere. Closed shops amount to legalized extortion where you have to pay the bosses if you want a job, the union bosses that is!!! Union dues should be optional and no one should have to pay them just for the privelege of working at a particular company. It time that the unions were forced to prove their worth to their members instead of simply collecting their dues so that the union bosses can live the good life at the expense of the workers.

This is nothing more than the Democrats trying to pay back the unions for all those campaign contributions. They owe the union big for keeping them in the White House and in control of the Senate and this is the payback. Who cares about people's right to work, there are campaign favors to pay back. The democrats are showing their true colors. They claim to be for the little guy but really only care about the money. They will shaft workers if it suits their purpose and keeps their donations rolling in.

Isn't this law the one the Republican legislature put together AFTER the union people LOST their attempt to get a state constitutional amendment passed which would have prevented any and all anti-union laws?

It sounds like, for Michigan, the union people already had their say and they lost.

The only way this won't be the law in Michigan is if the government in MI suddenly changes to Democrats.

Yellowdog-Mark D

Sick of, and you have the right to come to the public sector if you think they've got it so good.

True, YD... True...

And as you can see, I CHOOSE to work in the private sector. (and in a non-union capacity).

Years ago, when I was a full-time college student, I also worked full-time for a grocery chain. Tough times back then and not much sleep to be had... but I had to pay for my schooling - rather than take out loans or government assistance.

Working at that grocery store required that I join the union, since it was a union shop. My starting wage was only a few pennies above minimum wage rate, yet I had to pay union dues. In the four years that I worked there, I NEVER saw my local union rep... not once. My experience was one of a union that did nothing to benefit it's members and so my opinion of unions is that they are a waste of time and money.

I prefer to take responsibility for managing my own career. It has been my experience that every company I worked for after college has treated me fairly... and if/when I was unhappy with the way things were going, I simply exercised my right to find employment elsewhere.

Being in a right to work state, I make as much or more than many of my counter parts who are in unionized states, my benefits are as good or better, the perks my employer offers are better in many instances and I don’t have to pay someone else for the privilege. Nor am I answerable to anyone other than my employer. In addition, I don’t have to worry about being passed over for a promotion just because someone else has more time on the job than me because promotions are earned and promotions are more readily available because my employer hasn’t been forced to take on more employees than they need and they can terminate those who don’t do their jobs. I’m rewarded for my talent and my work ethics and wouldn’t have it any other way. I think unions are afraid that people will get a taste of freedom and decide they like it.

And Washington needs to butt out of state business. If unions are so great and wonderful, they have nothing to fear.

As long as Feisty is quoting Hitler lets go with this one.

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

Adolf Hitler, April 15th, 1935

SickOf, I was happy to HAVE A JOB. Private sector isn't so great but State work is't either, I'm making it, there isn't much full time work out there, I get tired of think because you have a State or Goverment job you get all of these breaks and perks. We might do nothing but we do it hard. ;-}

So, in Michigan, an employee is FORCED to join a union? That's worse than not being able to create a union. Granted, I think unions priced themselves out of the market, and the graft and corruption is even worse in the union leadership than it is with politicians - and that's pretty bad, but I think workers should have the right to unionize if they WANT to unioinize. I also think that they should NOT BE FORCED to join if they don't WANT to join.

I realize the country is in a class war - more specifically at war over who pays how much tax, and I sit in the middle of the middle. I don't even come close to the $250,000 bench mark set by President Obama, but if you rank and file democrats don't get an education in economics then we are doomed. You fools think raising the tax on the wealthy will give you more money in your pocket, and you are WRONG. Raising taxes on the wealthy won't put much of a dent in anything. The government has to hit the middle class with higher taxes because we make up most of the populace. Here's what the democratic plan is: raise taxes on the rich to placate the middle class and fool the poor into believing they will be given more by the government. Then slowly raise taxes on the middle class becaused the democrats in the middle class will buy into to paying their "fair" share. In the mean time, the wealthy will move more money and jobs off shore, and the middle class will continue to dwindle.

Commis want pay back from Obama.

The economy of Michigan will go down, most manufactures are moving or installing their production plants to right to work states , Toyota, BMW, and many others are not in Michigan. This is all about money an more power to the greedy mob , the high rank union bosses, who are the corrupt army for Democrats, supporting them every election in exchange for more benefits that ultimately destroy the Employer, Local, State Government or Private.

In today's world, unions do not serve the worker --- they serve the union and their political goals. No one should be forced to join a union and pay dues to a union that does not represent their values, morals or life goals. The federal government now has in place work place protections for workers as well as minimum wage requirements. Now that we have had Obamacare forced on us,everyone will have access to health care insurance coverage (or so they tell us). Please explain exactly WHAT good unions do for workers in 21st century America? Unions did real well in representing the workers at Hostess --- so well that the company that was under court order (due to bankruptcy proceedings) had to close their doors and liquidate all assets. Bet every one of the Hostess employees are praising their unions and sending them thank you notes for that move.

Joining a union and paying dues should be a choice not a requirement of employment. I applaud the legislature for this bold move and hope the Governor signs it.

When I was in college I worked as a Janitor for Ma Bell. I was the CWA union steward. We never struck during my tenure. I do remember filing a number of grievances on behalf of my co-workers because we had a Shi!!y supervisor who ran roughshod over us. Arizona was and still is a right to work state. No one forced us to join the CWA.

And this is why China will surpass us in a few more years.

'Bravo' to Snyder and the rest of the Republicans who have finally grown the cajones to stand up to these legalized mobs. What I find most ironic is that the unions are actually fighting against what they are supposedly meant to fight for, which is increased workers' rights (in this case the right to make a choice of whether or not to join a political organization). No one is saying that someone shouldn't have the right to join a union, but I (along with most of America) find it absurd that anyone should have to pay dues to a 3rd party as a condition of their employment. If the 'protection' the union provides their workers is so minimal that their members would actually choose to leave given the choice, that says a lot about their contributions to society.

As a fundamental right in the Constitution, I have the absolute right of freedom of association. It totally disgusts me to be forced to join any organization against my will, whether it's a union, a church, or a political party. Period.

I worked in the newspaper business for 25 years, and I witnessed first-hand the union bosses doing nothing for their members other than keeping themselves in power.

This is absolutely amazing to me - what about the poor lady who wants a job but who doesn not wish to join or pay for a union. In your mind that is somehow tied to abortion? Such leftist extreme reactions. What about the freedoms of non union affiliated people? Some how that simply is lost on you...

Im curious to why big red scurried off and is nowhere to be seen. Seems even some of the lefties recognize that calling everyone right of che a Nazi doesnt fair well. you see there are no fascist governments that exist. there are no fascist style supporters even in the right leanings of government. so if the best you can show is Nazi Germany in 2012 you know have nothing

My state has long had a right to work law and it is consistently rated as one of the top states in the nation for business.

Unions, like the naacp had their place in history. There are laws on the books to protect the people now. AND NOW unions are a cancer on society! ESPECIALLY public jobs. They should be illegal. Now IF the private job markets want to go union (I HAVE NO CLUE WHY THEY WOULD) thats THEIR business!

We must dress appropriately for incremental weather and wear sensible shoes-Adolph Hitler 12 October, 1932

Please source your quote or your citing will have as much credibility as mine. You know why Hitler didn't drink Scotch? Because it made him mean.

An actual quote:

"History will not judge us according to whether we have removed and imprisoned the largest number of economists, but according to whether we have succeeded in providing work." [Hitler to the the Nazi state governors, July 6, 1933]

-- Shirer, p. 206

Joining a union and paying dues should be a choice not a requirement of employment.

Should the worker who does not join the union, get the same benefits and pay negotiated by the union?

I'm all for letting someone make their own decision about joining the union, only if, they don't derive any of the benefits the union has negotiated. Let the worker negotiate him/herself (and good luck). And yes, unions negotiate all kinds of benefits, discipline rulings, and pay for the workers. Just look it up.

If employees want to unionize-they should be able to. However, if somebody doesn't want to join a union (they want to bargain on their own, don't see the point in paying dues to an organization they perceive, rightly or wrongly, to do nothing for them, etc.), they shouldn't be forced to.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion from liberals in this thread. When a state is a "right to work" state it simply means that a person has the right to join a union or NOT join a union.

Feisty's comment that started this thread was (intentionally?) incorrect. The elimination of the right to strike is NOT involved in the "right to work" law at all and either Feisty just doesn't understand or DOES understand and is intentionally passing along incorrect information.

Right to work simply means that if I accept a job at company XYZ I can decide to either join the union (and pay applicable union dues) to be represented by the union OR can decide to negotiate with the ownership of the company directly.

How can anybody justify that a worker should not have the RIGHT to join a union or not? What justification is there to tell a new worker who might be happy with the offer coming directly from ownership that they are not allowed to accept that and MUST join the union?

I, personally, think unions in the 21st century are unnecessary but I don't go so far as to say unions should not be allowed. If YOU want to join a union then I fully support that and you and your union are welcome to do that. But if I support your decision to JOIN a union how can you then say you don't support my decision to NOT join a union?

Killian Jones

'Bravo' to Snyder and the rest of the Republicans

Not only Republicans, also Democrats who are not part of the extreme far left, that is hijacking their party.

Union worker= slave to union

Non union worker = free worker.

You should not be forced to pay a "Union or Fair Share Fee" to work!!!! Unions are nothing more that Legal Organized Crime Syndicates that sell their Strong Arm Tactics to the Highest Bidder !!! In Maryland Martin O.Malley sold out the State Employees to the Unions in exchange for their support. He Guaranteed them no less than $4 Million dollars a year in MANDATORY Fair Share Deductions (95% of normal Union Dues), for that sum the Union gets to go through the motions of bargaining for Salary and Increased Benefits. The reality is that O'Malley and the Politicians can either accept or refuse the bargain or give employees whatever they wish based on availability of Funds. We DON'T NEED UNIONS TO TAKE OUR MONEY AND THEN CAVE-IN TO O'MALLEY'S REQUEST. As Chairman of the Democratic Party O'Malley STOPPED BEING GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND and has been campaigning for the Democratic Nomination for 2016. You can have him, State Employees will pay his air Fare to anyone who wants him. He has raised every possible tax and even invented some. Together with the Democratic Majority in Power for over 20 years, Maryland is one of the Highest Taxed States - most politically corrupt states (makes Huey Long look like a Saint) and at the same time the Democrats and O'Malley like to spin Maryland as one of the wealthiest and Progressive States. With all the Tax Increases it damn well should be!! O'Malley, wants to be a White version of O'Bama and has increased every Welfare Program in the State and created new ones for Illegals and continues to be an absent Governor who hasn't got a clue. If you want him take him, PLEASE!!

Feisty Redhead....curious, what is the source of your quote? I got a bad feeling you are using one of those "urban legend" quotes that has no basis in fact. Please be specific, the source of a quote is usually easily backed up with widely accepted documentation and authenticity.

She is a liberal hack and just made it up herself so that makes it a fact.

A while ago I waited tables in a " Union House" hotel. One day a customer walked out on her bill and I was told that I either had to pay or fix the problem. So, I got the woman's number off her bounced check and called her to insist that she pay for her and her friends' lunch. My management thought this was confrontational and suspended me for three days under threat of being fired.

After having paid my mandatory Union dues for 2 years I immediately went to my Union Rep with my problem and was told that this was a "management issue" and that they were not going to do anything. So, the long and short is: After my, now, 5 day suspension I not only paid paid for the woman's lunch but I had to apologize to her in order to keep my job.

One month later when I had to pay Union dues again and I complained about their utter uselessness I was told that if I did not like it I could always look for another job. Needless to say, I found another job shortly thereafter. My experience here led me to believe that Unions are merely a vehicle to extort money from workers to keep worthless Union employees in a job.

That being said, I am absolutely sure that there are industries where Unions are still necessary but I remain unconvinced that anyone should be forced to join one.

Too many anti-union postings on this thread, as well as 2 or 3 shots at Feisty. I get the feeling it will be collapsed soon to make the opposition shut up...

My political views? If I leaned any more left I'd fall over...EXCEPT when it comes to Unions in Michigan. I am from Michigan and have watched what the unions have done to our State. I was a flight attendant several years ago. The corporation was based in a right to work state. This meant that I did not, nor could I be forced to join the union. However, because I benefitted from the union negotiations , I still had to pay a nominal fee to the union vs full union dues. What this meant is that I got the same pay, vacation, seniority, etc as the union employees, but if there was a strike, I would be expected to still work or be fired, if I thought I was treated unjustly, I had to handle it alone, the union rep would not help me.

I personally liked this and agree with it 100% way to go Snyder, this is one item that I support you on.

Do any of you ignorant leftists know how and by whom the union movement began in the US. I'll not do your research for you but I will give you a hint. Key words; communist, Russia, 1917, Bolshevik and before I forget, organized crime which has always and continues to play a key role in the American labor movement. How many of you knew that the AFL-CIO pension fund built Las Vegas?

The people of Michigan elected a republican governor and legislature and now they have the votes to enact the legislation they want to enact. It's a bitch, isn't it, libbies? Kind of reminds you of healthcare reform, only in this case the republicans won't have to invoke cloture rules and pretend it's about something it isn't about...

Michigan has already lost some 70 companies to Indiana. Union employees make up only 20% of Michigan's workforce. They are doing the right thing.

BTW, how come liberals are all about choice (abortion), but all of a sudden it's a dirty word when workers want the choice as to whether to fund a union or not? I am confused.. Is choice a good thing or a bad thing?!

Not even sure of her point. Hitler surely was more of a socialist than a free market capitalist. He practiced the same methods of unions.

I remember a story about a dedicated union worker was attending a convention in Las Vegas and, as you would expect, decided to check out the local brothels. When he got to the first one, he asked the Madame, "Is this a union
house?"

"No," she replied, "I'm sorry it isn't."

"Well, if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?"

"The house gets $80, and the girls get $20." Mightily offended at
such unfair dealings, the man stomped off in search of a more
equitable, hopefully unionized shop.

His search continued until finally he reached a brothel where the
Madame responded, "Why yes sir, this is a union house."

The man asked, "And if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?"
The Madame replied' " the girls get $80, and the house gets $20."

"That's more like it!" the union man said. He looked around the room
and pointed to a stunning attractive blonde. "I'd like her for the
night."

"I'm sure you would sir," said the Madame, then, gesturing to an
obese seventy-five year old woman in the corner, "but Ethel here has
seniority."

Interesting. So most of you all want the State to govern more of the work place? Scary. I live and work in a "right to work" state, Virginia. I love it. It gets all the underachievers out of the hard-workers way. But then again, we all are equal and *ahem* deserve the same raises. I don't think so. The American worker is soft and getting softer. It's not about the big man keeping the little man down, just that the little man doesn't want to work that hard any more. By all means, tell me I'm wrong. I wish I was, but I see it everyday. My company would have been gone away a long time ago if we employed people who they were in a union. Small margins, getting smaller, plus people wanting to make as much as their colleagues, yet perform at a lower standard equals hard times.

Eh, who cares about the big bad corporation, especially when people have to look out for themselves. Even if it means shutting the whole thing down.

SOOOOO.....Feisty, Pigotry, (and all on the left.....) please tell me HOW a company like this A123 battery group can get a 249 MILLION dollar loan, and be bankrupt within ONE YEAR?

@ ProBusiness

I'm going to give Feisty the benefit of the doubt and assume she was being more disingenuous than ignorant but there's probably a lot of both floating around. Notice how there was no follow-up commentry? Liberals are good with talking points and sound/word bites but they're not much for actually logically debating something.

Did you know that most of the northern unions were formed to keep cheaper labor from being allowed to work?

Like anything there is good and bad in Unions. I personally have and probably always will rely on my own skills to garner the pay that I feel that I deserve.

We as a country have to understand that in the Global marked wages are part of the global competition as well. If a union strikes or works for benefits that do not allow a company to compete, who is truly to blame?

There are just as many rich democrats as there are rich Republicans. You can flip a coin on who treats there workers better.

Read up on hostess and all the stupid rules that they had because of the unions. Maybe if they did not have some of those stupid rules everyone could have made more money in pay?

"Pssst! Brian! It's really a "Right to Fire" bill."

BINGO! I live in a "right to work" state and it basically means your employer can fire you at any time for any or no reason.

BINGO! I live in a "right to work" state and it basically means your employer can fire you at any time for any or no reason.

So I guess that means you actually have to prove your worth to your employer instead of sitting on your fat-ass expecting the gravy train to continue rolling.

Cool, now I hate unions and dems just that much more. What a bunch of whiny a$$ greedy jerks! Do what's right - sign the bill immediately, it's a good idea and it's what the dems would want for themselves if they weren't being stupid puppets.

Wow. Does anyone understand that of which they speak? I live in a right-to-work state. It means you can choose to be part of (or not be part of) a union. My husband works for Delta, which has repeatedly voted to NOT have the union, but the union continuously tries to change the rules. The union leader actually wanted to change the no-shows to yes votes and then said that millions upon millions have been spent trying to unionize the mechanics, who keep voting no, EVEN with Northwest being a full union airline before it went under and their employees now work for Delta. Millions spent, of other people's money, to try to force a union on people that keep voting no- why? Because they want the dues...to pay their inflated salaries.

There are some things about right-to-work that seem funny like the rule that employers can fire someone without just cause...until, wait for it...an unemployment hearing, which sides with the employee if fired unfairly. As a former business owner, there is no fudging that line.

The right-to-work doesn't mean lower wages. Workers still have a voice. For example, KIA in Georgia pays $15 p/h, starting out, with GREAT insurance benefits, and have some of the best facilities ever seen. Lots of overtime to be had, as we Americans love to buy foreign cars. $15 an hour isn't a lot, you say? Well, in the area that the plant is, $29K per year will buy a decent house in a decent school district...if you figure 3x salary for a house- $87K will buy a 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath with at least an acre of land in a good subdivision with good schools and good neighbors. And no one bought their job there- i.e. union dues- they earned it by standing in line and applying and going to work every day. And now, with a new boom of even more vendors, the people of that town are employed by restaurants, hotels, car dealerships, Walmart, grocery stores, etc....

Sounds to me like the American people are greedy. If you don't have an education, or you weren't first in line to apply, or you can't pass a drug test, then WHY shoud you get a job making $50 per hour to turn a screw or more than $8.12 an hour to say "You want fries with that"? Get over yourselves.

So many people opposing the right to work without paying off a union thug for the privilege. We can see where they are going! Private sector unions are getting smaller (YEAH!!!!) while public sector unions are getting larger (BOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!) We need to reduce the power of unions both politically and financially.

StoptheCannibals-2908428

Should the worker who does not join the union, get the same benefits and pay negotiated by the union?

If he is doing the SAME WORK why not?

Fair is fair!

Many in this thread are "bashing" unions but, from a historical perspective, were very necessary at one time. But you have to know some history and labor laws in order to make that determination.

At one time there were no labor laws or protection. Getting hurt on the job was just part of the "risk" but if you got hurt then you could no longer work AND the employer would not continue to have you as an employee (obviously). There were no laws about how many hours in a day/week you could be "made" to work and no protection from unhealthy environments. Additionally some employers basically "owned" the town so had a monopoly on the labor market (called "monopsony" in Economics) meaning they were basically the ONLY employer thus could take advantage of the employee by paying extremely low wages and if you didn't like it then pack your bags, load your horse and buggy, and move to another city where you had to find a place to build then ACTUALLY build your own house. In other words the employer was able to take extreme advantage of you. And back in the late 1800's and early 1900's they did.

But THAT was 100 years ago. Now we have labor laws, child laws, and health laws. In other words nowadays the ONLY benefit of a union is to have some type of "power" over the labor market forcing HIGHER than market wages. And that works out great - for those able to keep their jobs. So instead of hiring 100 workers at, say, $13 an hour the union negotiates $17 an hour. That's fine but now the employer hires, say, 90 instead of 100. So the 90 employees benefit from the union but 10 lost their jobs.

So unions were necessary at one time but now is used to force above market wages and if you want to join a union that is fine. But for one of the 10 now unemployed in the example why shouldn't they be allowed to negotiate directly with a potential employer? Maybe they are happy with $13 an hour. If so they should be allowed to accept a job without a requirement to join a union. And if you DON'T want to work for $13 an hour that is fine too. But how can even a liberal believe it is acceptable to FORCE a worker to join a union? I though you believed in "fairness"? I thought you believed in the "right to choose"?

all of you out there is think that union members are some kind of elite need to do some real research about the history of labor in this country and how REAL union members live, not just the ones that are made up by right wing pundits.

where do you think your 8 hr work day comes from? why do you think you get a vacation, a lunch, overtime over 8hrs a day or 40 hrs a week? if you're non-union you might not get those perks. but, i guess the lot of you figure we workers don't NEED to eat during the day, or get a good night's sleep or have ANY time off from work at all! we're just suppose to show up for work, give 110%, take what is shoveled out to us and SHUT UP! and for what? 12$ an hour? who can live on that?

$45,000 a year sounds great! and maybe 40 years ago, it was fabulous, but when you break it down in today's economy, 45 grand is barely middle class. let's see, that's about $3,750 a month, BEFORE taxes. let's break it down to weekly. that's about 937.50 a week. take out approx 26% in taxes and it equals about 703.5 a week. that's brings your take home pay to 2,814 a month. so, how much do you have to pay for rent or house payment? how much do you pay in utilities? food? well, i live with just my mother who is disabled and i pay $1500 for rent( i choose not to live in a ghetto, thank you.) and $300 in utilities and approx $300 in food. that's 2100 a month. so if i made $45000 a year, i would have 714$ a month for living expenses. now, what if you have children? do they wear clothes? do they go to school?

you see the big numbers look good until you start looking closer. in this world, $45000 is middle class. just barely. and why do the public employees need so much? really? my ex-husband was a cop for almost 30 years. he made good money, but we were not living the high life by any means. we were middle class. and what did he do the deserve that? he went to work every day and RISKED HIS LIFE FOR YOUR SORRY A**ES! that's what he did. and the firemen go out and RISK THEIR LIVES FOR YOU. and the teachers have YOUR CHILDRENS' future in their hands. these people don't make enough money if you ask me. meanwhile the political hacks out there making the laws are rolling in dough, accepting money from big businesses to sell you and your family down the river.

we need unions now more than ever. the corporate greed is out of control. during the last 30 years, wages have flatlined, pensions have dried up, benefits have shrunk, while profits for the companies have risen to obscene levels and ceo wages have skyrocketed. and if you can't see the forest for the trees, i don't know how to help you. without someone to speak up for you, what is to keep your boss from walking into your job and announcing that everyone is going to $10 an hour and no more vacations, no more health benefits, no more vacations, or sick time. there are no laws that force any company to pay their employees anything other than minimum wage and the illustrious republican house has tried several times to do away with that requirement.

you have NO protection from your employer without labor laws. those can be changed and they are under assault right now. pennsylvania tried to lower the working age to 14! everywhere across the country, state legislatures are taking money from public education and trying to turn OUR childrens' futures into a for profit institution. if we don't stand up and fight, only the rich will be sending their children to school and the public education will be fourth rate. if you can't see that big business does NOT respect the working class, you will be the first to be blindsided when they start taking away your rights.

the australian business woman who said of course she would take her workforce to africa where people would be willing to work for $2 a day because why pay someone else more? THAT'S WHAT BUSINESS THINKS OF US!! with very few exceptions. my own boss told me that I should be content and satisfied with my life to RENT a ROOM!!!! are you kidding me? we workers should feel privileged to live like animals, groveling at their feet and willing to take whatever scraps they throw us while WE'RE the ones who make the money! WE'RE the ones on the front lines, working our fingers to the bone, going home tired and sore every night, so the elites can look their noses down at us and tell us that we're not apreciative!?

i'm not asking for communism and neither is any liberal or democrat. that's is just STUPID thinking. and yeah, i'd tell you that to your face. we're just asking for a FAIR deal! we just want enough money to live on. we don't need to millionaires, we just want to be able to go buy food without having to worry if we're going to be able to afford our rent or medication or utilities. and why shouldn't we be able to buy a house? or a new car? why? do we not work? i WORK for my paycheck and i work hard. i have never accepted public assistance. i DESERVE my paycheck and more! i am nobody's endured servant and i will NOT be satisfied or content renting a room while the ceo of my company makes millions a year. that is ridiculous thinking. and i know, you'll say, well, why didn't you try harder and make more out of your life? i have lived an honest, hard-working life and i shouldn't have to become some back stabbing, cruel, thoughtless creature just to make more money. not everyone in this world can or wants to be the boss. that doesn't mean that the average joe out there doesn't deserve dignity and respect.

i just don't get big business. they are trying to destroy the middle class and turn this country into a society of slaves. don't they get that if they don't give their employees decent wages that at some point there aren't going to be enough people to buy their goods/services? what do you get when you pay your employees enough money to live on? YOU GET CONSUMERS!!!!! and we love to spend our money! i think greed has overrun any sense of decency in our society and it won't be until we, the common worker, stand up and force a conscience back upon them that we will see a change. and it will happen. read your history. people don't rebel when they are happy and well fed. read about the russian revolution, the french revolution and our own. why did we choose to rebel against england? because they refuse to give us a voice. and now, the radical right wing of our government, in cahoots with big business is trying to do that again. they are trying it with gays, immigrants, and women. they will move onto the working class. look at michigan. the governor wants to pass his law AND make it so that it CAN NEVER be challenged. if that isn't taking away the voice of the people, what is? i wonder what would happen if there was a statewide strike? maybe what we need is a national strike. i'd like to see the managment of my job come in and do my job for even a week. what a joke!

there are those businesses out there that get it. they have been very vocal lately about treating their employees right and the need to give the worker decent wages. but, unfortunately, they are being shouted down by the kock brothers of the world. my only hope is that more employers will regain their souls and consciences.

Right To Work States open the flood gates for illegals to come work there - I love the irony of Republican voters...one step forward resulting in two steps backward.

Torpedo; I've lived in Washington State for 45 years and the last 13 in Arizona - you need to live in other States, then come back to Arizona to see just what a low quality of living Arizona has.

Again, the unions served their purpose years ago. What they did was set in motion new worker rights and a totally new way to set standards. Now, we have unions for unions for unions and they no longer serve the purpose they once did. The government now sets the standards for air flight...FAA. The government now sets the standards for insurance needs...minimum coverage for auto and ACA for health. The government sets the standards for illegal aliens to work...INS. Why do we need unions anymore?

And Alessa- calm down. My brother-in-law and cousin are police officers. One has been shot, the other run over. This, by criminals who don't want to be productive members of society. In our part of the country, we value officers and many of us band together to make sure that their spouses and children will not go without. It's called being a good neighbor. And guess what- we aren't forced to do it. We just do.

45K to start for a prison guard plus full pension after 20 years AND full medical brings that starting salary to 60K. We cannot afford it!

Maybe you folks in Arizona might take a little time and reform the laws that make so many people into prisoners then you wouldn't need quite so many guards.

One of the dirty little secrets of RTW legislation is the fact that the union is required by law to represent non-members the same as members. This is the same as if you worked at a non-union shop and if an employee got fired or disiplined, that employee could go hire a legal team to dispute that and then send the bill to all the other employees. And you would be forced to pay it! How's that for 'freedom' and 'personal responsibility'? This simply allows union-haters who work under a collective bargaining agreement to be 'takers'; get the benefits without paying for them. All from the minds of the GOP and their corporate bosses. Any of you anti-union people care to explain this?

Don't like unions? Then go get a job at a non-union shop, it's that simple. FWIW, it's usually these union-haters who snivel the loudest and are the biggest troublemakers in a RTW union shop, but are quick to demand their 'union rights' when they get in trouble. But that's all about the GOP 'taker' mentality....

Pennsylvania is a right to work state but also has a "fair share" if you are working for the state. In short, you can either pay the full union dues or our "fair share" as determined by the union since all employees "benefit" from the union. I got a job with the state after being laid off for 18 months. When I got back to work, I was working for $10,000 a year less, I still have to pay for health insurance, pay into retirement and unemployment insurance. For those who think the grass is greener on the other side, anybody in a GS9 or above has not gotten a raise in the last 6 years, possibly more. For me, I didn't get any consideration to how long I was in my field, I started at the bottom of the pay scale for my grade however, I will get a pay raise percentage be part of the "rank and file". Time off, I could not take a day off for the first 6 months since I was on probation. I now get vacation time but, I earn just 7 days a year for the first 3 years. Use your time wisely. So, all of those who think being a state worker is soo great, take a closer look. Odds are, you are making way more in the private sector and if you business has a union, then you have employment protection, so to speak. As for the "Right to Work" bill, I think it should go through. EVERYONE has a right to support their family however, I don't feel that every Tom, Dick, and Harry on up to all the government agencies has a right to take money I earn for whatever they want. BTW: There are more than rich Republicans out there. There are the rich union fat cats, the democrats in congress and the entertainment industry so I sure hope they get taxed and chased down as hard as they seem to be on Republicans that ARE paying their taxes. Does Stephen Baldwin ring a bell????

Ooooh, temper, temper, Radcliffe. A majority of Michigan voters elected the Governor, so they must support his policies and actions, huh? I got that logic, by the way, from listening to Obama supporters since the election . So, if it's good for the Democrat president, it must be good for the Republican governor....right?

Just another reason for SHAME on the republican party. They have sold out to the top 2-5% and corporate world. All for Greed and Power! Remember, "Power corrupts absolutely!" Just look at the republicans!

Radcliffe4- maybe to you it is about that. It seems that many others from Michigan agree with the governor. I think it comes down to people realize that they might have to think outside of the box.

Why is it, when a Republican poses something, it is dirty and sneaky but when a Democrat does it, it is to save the world and help everyone? Democrats and Republicans get their donor money from the same sources...and it is still more than you will ever see in 10 lifetimes of work at a union salary. There are many things that both parties are doing, regardless of a vote. Seems to me that the governor was voted in by Michigan. Now, let him do it. If it isn't good, then vote him out.

Boo-hoo for the Union scum !!! Lets outlaw PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS all-together , The politicians THEY GET ELECTED, pay them off with sweet pension deals with all of us none union workers tax payed monies !!!! Wake up AMERICA !!

I see the typical Liberal/Progressive union goonion worshipping cabal is out promoting a substantial part of the cause of the demise of our industry sector economy.

Combine the destruction Progressivism has caused to our great Republic for the past century and the thug corruption the unions have embraced and it should be no surprise why goonion membership has fallen to 9%. Michigan, with its Motor City presence, once dominated the auto industry. Yes, GM and Chrysler caused much of their own destruction, but the goonions never accepted nor helped relieve any of the pain.

When the Japanese auto-makers, more affectionately known as "rice-burners", invaded our industry the worst thing we did was discount their impact. The unions, instead of realizing the global economy was not our sovereign domain, decided to be adversarial to the industry rather than supportive. As our industry struggled to remain competitive the goonions were just concerned with sustaining their union dues and profitability.

Today we see the wave of the future as industry is already regulated with respect to workplace safety and states compete for economic advantage. The populace realizes that in order to be competitive on the global stage we need to allow our industries and the workforce to have a choice.

It's amazing how so many Liberal's support Pro-Choice for abortion but deny the same choice to the workforce individual. I can never understand why anyone with a skill needs strangers to negotiate their wages and benefits.

Hypocrisy or corruption? Neither will help our economy.

Right To Work for a stronger, better America.

Union worker= slave to union

Non union worker = free worker.

Really, Redvirginia? Try telling that to Major League baseball players, and they will tell you they were slaves to the team owners until Mark Miller came along.

Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, it is hard to understand why the voters in Michigan would vote for complete opposite platforms at the Federal and State levels. They voted for President Obama (a Liberal Democrat) and for a Republican House and Governor in their state. It seems they have no idea what they want...which is completely understandable as a very small percentage of voters actually take the time to educate themselves.

Tell me Jody, why are teachers unions so obsessed by seniority rather than achievement?

Tough to achieve when your little snowflakes are all rockstar/pro athlete wannabes.

Radcliff, you are incorrect.

What we voted against was the constitutional amendment requiring that all bridges built in Michigan must be put up for a public vote. That amendment went down in flames. We did not vote to NOT have the bridge to Canada built. Also, we did NOT vote out all emergency managers. The emergency manager law was long before Snyder, Snyder passed a law when he first came in to broaden the EM powers. Those extra powers are what we voted down. As for the State with holding money maybe if Detroit City council would pull their heads out of their rear ends, then maybe the State would release those funds, but Detroit has proven over and over again that they can't handle money. Detroit has no one to blame but themselves for the mess they are in. Detroit scream to the State and the burbs to leave"us alone" but then cry for more money

That's it dems, hang on tight to that boat anchor as it drags your state ever deeper.

Should the worker who does not join the union, get the same benefits and pay negotiated by the union?

If he is doing the SAME WORK why not?

Fair is fair!

Because when the union loses all its members, good luck trying to negotiate ever again.

Probusiness, your point is valid but only up to a point. I am a rare democrat who is a free trader but must draw the line when you talk about highly educated individuals working within the government. A person with a high level of degree who works within the government structure must receive the benefits and pensions afforded them or their overall receipt from work would be far far less than their private equivalent. This would not be equitable and if it wasn't corrected through pensions/benefits the best and brightest would never go into public service which supports our society et al.

If a person (teacher, engineer, business manager) takes a job in NJ in the public sector their salaries can (almost) never rise above about $100k. The pensions that they collect and benefits that they receive are supposed to support the gap between this level of earning and their private sector equivalent who often START at salaries at or near their cap (which they would not receive until 20 years down the road). In essence this becomes deferred income. Additionally for this group their contribution to the pension and benefits, albeit not 1/2, are always timely regardless of the governments willingness or lack thereof to pay their share.

I'll gladly have this argument with numbers anytime someone wants to have it. Unfortunately I do believe that people without a discernible skill should not be afforded such benefits as free markets would never allow for janitors making doctor wages. The supply/demand is just not there.

StoptheCannibals: You are replying on the question of "same benefits" and you correctly note that they should not get the same benefits - and that is true.

But that is how a right to work law works: You can either negotiate as an individual and your benefits very well may be different from the union. But if that is what you agree to then that is fine. Maybe you don't need dental insurance or a higher percent matching in a 401k. And maybe you agree to a higher hourly rate in lieu of that. Point is if a person doesn't believe the union will benefit his situation, or maybe a person wants to advance with the company based on his accomplishments rather than by seniority of time, he should have that right.

THAT is the debate. Whether a person who wants to negotiate directly with the owner should be allowed to. Still amazes me that the Democrat Party who is supposedly the "party of choice" would tell a person they DON'T have a choice as to who they work for and for what wages. That just amazes me.

Yellowdog-Mark D

Torpedo, I can not speak to the hiring practices or conditions of nepotism in Arizona. I do know that the practice of political nepotism/favoritism from GOP politicians is rampant in Texas. Reports have shown that formerly public agency work farmed to private business (donors) are often done poorly and at higher cost. In that case, the citizens of the state are doubly hurt because they get a poorer product/service and they pay more for it. Some things are worth paying for.

I think you need to site a source to show you are correct. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Unions were fine in the past but now days they are simply Legal Mafia's..... If you do not have the guts to stand up for yourself then it is time to move on.....

Any organization run by human beings (yes that would be all of them) is going to be corrupt...at least to some degree. The problem, lately especially, is that every time we open the newspaper another union boss is being investigated for misuse of funds, bribery, theft, etc. The union members need to take a long look in the mirror and demand that their own leadership clean up their act. Then maybe unions could get back to doing the business they were created to do. The following is an exerpt out of the Minneapolis paper from a week or so ago regarding the Teamsters leadership being in hot water...again. The money they stole and wasted came right out of the pockets of hard working middle class workers.

It's hard to distill the IRB's remarkable document, but the nickel summary includes: Suspect finders fees for construction projects, secret payments to union leaders, dealings with "sham" companies, corruption, incompetence, financial improprieties, (deep breath), conflicts of interest, patronage, a "fake benefit for a non-existent sick baby," hundreds of thousands of dollars of unaccounted-for sports tickets and, of course, missing booze.

Paragraph after paragraph of what-the-what moments.

The international put Local 120's top officers, Brad Slawson Sr. and Brad Slawson Jr. (yep, father and son), on unpaid leave when the union was put into trusteeship earlier this month.

StoptheCannibals-2908428

Because when the union loses all its members, good luck trying to negotiate ever again.

Lemme ax you a question. Why do you need a union to negotiate your worth?

The question you need to ask yourself is, are you worth your wages and benefits?

If you are, you don't need a union to negotiate for you.

If you're not, you're the reason jobs get outsourced or offshored.

The 21st century economy will require all workers to be educated and capable of proving your value to your industry.

I don't understand - isn't this law just saying that people should be able to get a job even if they don't want to join a union? It's not getting rid of unions at all, right? It's just preventing people from HAVING to join a union?

I must confess, I see a basic conundrum here:

A. All workers in a company/industry take a vote on whether to organize a union or not.

B. Republicans favor less government interference in the operation of private businesses and corporations.

C. Republicans decide to interfere in the operation of private businesses and corporations by negating the will of the workers who have voted to organize a union.

How do you reconcile B with C?

Unions have played a major role in companies closing up shop and moving manufacturing overseas. Hostess was just recently forced into bankruptcy by one union that represented around 3000 of the 18,000 employees that lost their jobs. Unions have been their own worst enemy, grabbing when the times were good, but unwilling to make concessions when times are bad. The argument is always the same, greedy executives and or poor management caused the problems. The unions just never own up to their part in this whole process.

I love it... got to protect the billion dollar industry, called Unions. And any attempt to pass laws that give the average citizen the same rights afforded the unions is "counter productive"?

I love how all the liberal minded are name calling the GOP for being for big money and riving business out... all the while, AIG, that Obama fought to save has been sold to a China based Company.

In fact, seems that ONLY Democrats are fighting for the big money banks and Corporate muscle.

Newsflash, the largest lobbyist on Capital Hill is a Union Lobbyist. The average Union managment falls in the top 2% of the income earners.

Hate to break it to you, but the only one's protecting the Middle Class are the GOP. Don't believe me? Simply, who is taking the biggest hit from Obama agenda driven legislation? Middle Class. Who is likely to lose from a tax hike for those making $250,000/yr. Based on every impartial economic analysis, the Middle Class.

Democrats are fighting to protect their money makers, and using the poor as the bait to keep power, all while spinning their lies. And fools are eating it up.

Keep in mind, if you wish to kill off rats, you do not add a lot of poison at once. You add small bits at a time, going undetected, after awile, then once they have developed a tolerance to the taste, THEN you increase it to lethal levels.

If you can not understand that they are making citizen co-dependent, than you can never see the poison.

Unions will drive out any non-Union competition, that is there goal. The more on the rolls, the more they pull in for Union Dues.

Small business, buying local... small markets... all going away. Unions are killing the US markets, simply because the drive up the cost of doing business, while foreign companies can produce for far less.

Business 101, if 2 companies produce the same product, the one with the lower production costs stands to gain more. If 2 companies are selling widgets, and it cost Company A $1 per widget to produce, and Company B $2... and they both sell for $3. Company A is making $2 per.

The problem comes with increased cost... both have retired employees. Company A does not pay any retirment benefit.. Company pays 50% of the previous costs... meaning now Company B is only making $0.50 per... then inflation hits... it now cost twice as much for materials. Company B is now losing profits. They could raise their prices, but who would buy, considering Company A is still making a profit and they want the business from Company B... and they now have it.

China has no "Right to work". It has no benefits packages mandated by contract. And no Unions demanding raises, regardless of performance.

Long story short, how many more Hostess' and AIG's will it take for the people to understand?

This is America - There is no reason for me to be Denied a Job because I do not wish to belong to a Union..... In today's society the main reason for a Union is to protect incompetent workers..... Why not ask all those Hostess workers who are looking for Handouts right now what the Union really did for them..... And by the way I am a ex AFL-CIO member.....

I see 'Amazed' brought up the usual RW bugaboo about 'union fat cats'. How about some truth for a change, huh?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/not-exactly-the-99-top-union-leaders-salaries/article/2505719

Ok, so none of these people will miss any meals, but note there isn't a million-dollar-plus salary among them. And also note that their pay is well within a ratio of 20-to-1 (compared to the lowest-paid member they represent) or less. Not like the corporate world, where average CEO pay is now an average of 244 times more than the median US wage, or nearly $10 million per year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/average-ceo-pay-2011_n_1545225.html

This ratio was about 40-1 in 1980. So, tell me again; who are the 'fat cats'?

GCooper, this legislation does not affect Unions, other than provide just as attractive reasons to be non-Union.

Whta it does it provide much of the same legal rights to all citizens, enjoyed by the Union. Meaning the only major difference would be the large amount of Union Dues collected.

Alan, NJ...I notice you did not mention the bankers being bailed out...and it was they who started this mess to begin with..but that must have been ok with you. It does make me wonder just how many businesses you would like to see leave this nation ? Congress has had no problem siding with big business in allowing them to take their business elsewhere and get little to no taxes or fees for anything they send back to this nation. I have to also wonder just what you believe would be a good pay scale for us all when unions are gone ? You can bet the bank that your pay would be reduced big time....but doubt that any cost of goods would be reduced to match it. Also..how many more millions of people would now be out of a job if what you consider bad were to have been allowed ?

But that is how a right to work law works: You can either negotiate as an individual and your benefits very well may be different from the union. But if that is what you agree to then that is fine. Maybe you don't need dental insurance or a higher percent matching in a 401k. And maybe you agree to a higher hourly rate in lieu of that. Point is if a person doesn't believe the union will benefit his situation, or maybe a person wants to advance with the company based on his accomplishments rather than by seniority of time, he should have that right.

Thank you for this intelligent point of view. I chose not to have benefits at work, as I did not need them since I am covered via my spouse. My talent and drive got me the position that I currently have, and at a very fair salary. I don't make as much as my counterparts in the BIG cities, but I make more than my counterparts in my smaller city. I have been with the same company for 4 years, almost 5. i have been given raises and new agreements of contract terms. I control my salary. But I also didn't go into the job asking for $50K more than I was worth. I see kids fresh out of college asking for $65 to $70K per year to do what I do for $50K...and I had to earn that over 5 years of proving myself. Get real. But, that $50K comes with the ability to leave when I need to, work from home, and be able to enjoy my job. SUre, I could make more and go to the big city, but I'm good. Thanks. My money goes to a vacation once a year, groceries, utilities, and savings. My husband pays the mortgage, car payments, and the rest to retirement. We planned and learned. Geez...bunch of whiners.

Crazy Steve, did it dawn on you, before you read that, that every Union Rep on that list makes above the very same line that the Democrats call the "Wealthy" class, and targeted for raising taxes?

They are in the top 2%.

As for the CEO's list... something to really consider. CEO's pay is provided by the Investors that hire them to control very large companies.

Union Rep's get their money from Union Dues, colected from the working stiffs.

This is totally crazy. My buddy works in construction (as GC's) and they construct public schools. The unionized carpenters they higher get paid like $50 an hour. THEY EVEN HAVE PEOPLE WHO CHARGE $25 PER HOUR, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY THEM $50 PER HOUR BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PAY UNION WAGES EVEN TO NON-UNION WORKERS!!!! It's the craziest thing I had ever heard!

This is not about rights to be in unions... it's about the right to NOT be in a union! haha. crazy.

Many interesting comments, so I'll add my 2 cents worth. I think public employee unions are B.S. Why? How badly do we treat our government employees that they need a union? Seriously? Their working conditions are pretty good.

Why do we have to subsidize better pensions and health care than what we taxpayers get in the private sector? The private sector cannot afford government-like benefits because they cost too much. Helloooo...

When did you go to the DMV last to renew your license? Didn't you see 3 people working, 2 or more in a gab-fest and some supervisor running around telling people to go on their breaks? Why don't we just fire 1/3 of all government employees (INCLUDING members of Congress)? That would go a long way to reducing the deficit.

Let me give you a case in point - two true examples:

Non-union employee - young man with a family - was just given a merit raise and in two weeks was called into a meeting at 7am - told he was fired and was told they didn't need to give him a reason. Within two weeks the bosses son was pulled from a part time position and placed in the young man's job. That she wanted her son to have this job was rumored prior to him being fired - but he felt safe with his work record and the recent merit raise. No recourse and no union to find out the truth and protect the job. Within twenty minutes he lost the ability to support his family and the benefits that helped pay for his son who had recently completed cancer treatments and was still dealing with medical needs from the long term exposure to chemo.

A non-union employee, in a union shop, is told that when his plant closes he will have to drive across the state to work in another factory - uprooting his wife from her job and his children from their schools. The Union went to bat for this employee (even though he had never paid union dues) and they worked with management to get him a position within a plant close enough to be able to make it home every night.

These are true stories -- united workers make for a stronger middle class when they have the ability to hold management accountable.

ljstauth

"GCooper, this legislation does not affect Unions..."

Obviously, we must be reading two entirely different stories. I'm reading the one at the top of this series of postings entitled "Lawmakers implore Michigan gov. to halt or delay 'right to work' law."

. What are you reading?

alessa

where do you think your 8 hr work day comes from? why do you think you get a vacation, a lunch, overtime over 8hrs a day or 40 hrs a week?

Those things came from Henery Ford 30 years before there was an auto-workers union because he wanted to compete for the best labor. The reality is that the unions don't deserve half of the credit they're given today. And aside from that so what? Are you really trying to say that because unions were a good thing 100 years ago they must still be good today? Really?

Whining people like alessa always say how can you live on blah blah blah, its not enough. Then says she shouldnt live in the Ghetto. Well, if you actually tried in school and made something of yourself, you wouldnt have to worry. Unions protect the lazy and corrupt on the backs of the hard workers. Unions are completely unnecessary in today's world, and only the lazy libs want them around since it drives up their wages on the backs of people who actually want to work.

I live in a right-to-work state and I am more than happy to compete among others in the labor pool for job openings and to have employers compete with each other when looking to fill a job opening.

Supply & demand does a fine job setting the price for wages & benefits for a particular position. If any employer gets too cheap, good people won't want to work for him and his best employees -- the ones who help him make a profit -- will leave and go to work for his competitors who are not being penny wise and pound foolish.

Likewise, any employee who gets too demanding and expects wages or benefits beyond what similarly qualified people elsewhere make for the same job at another company is likely to find himself shown the door when times get tough and the company needs to cut costs.

I have no problem with people joining labor unions if they want to, but it is criminal to tell someone "you're not allowed to work here unless you join the union and give them part of your paycheck."

the only thing the union cares about is the union. funny how anyone can argue against a "right to work" bill and force employees to be "slaves" to a union in which you have NO rights to critize.... I have worked as a union worker and a non-union worker so I speak from experience. With labor laws, safety laws, EEOC, all I need is a layer than some bonehead steward looking after my rights.

FRH, making everything political.... "a mind is a terrible thing to waste" ;o)

have a great day!

Geez atlas - do you even know why those labor laws and safety laws came into being - because of unions. You need to to a little history reading - on the formation of unions. Meanwhile enjoy your weekend - courtesy of unions - and your holiday pay - thank you unions.

Crazy Steve-1996926

And also note that their pay is well within a ratio of 20-to-1 (compared to the lowest-paid member they represent) or less. Not like the corporate world, where average CEO pay is now an average of 244 times more than the median US wage, or nearly $10 million per year.

This ratio was about 40-1 in 1980. So, tell me again; who are the 'fat cats'?

Hmmmm, OK Steve, when was the fastest and highest run-up of CEO-to-worker compensation discrepancy?

Between 1990 and 2000. Yes during the Clinton era. In 1989 the ratio was 53.3-to-1 and by 2000 it was 411.3-to-1.

Where was your outrage then?

Out of the 7.7 million employer firms (firms with payrolls) there are a few hundred that get these elevated wages and benefits. This is not a significant issue economically, it’s just another convoluted Liberal/Progressive talking point in your irrational class-warfare/envy meme.

This discrepancy has been going on for decades, if you Liberals/Progressives can do a better job go get an education in business, start a Fortune 500 company or climb the corporate ladder, become a CEO and run the company for a $1 a year and make it the Shangri-La you all so desire.

It can’t be that hard, right?

Dems target Michigan's right-to-work law

Yes, that's them for you alright. No level playing field and everything for free. The Democrats and the corrupt unions. Nice example you are setting for the rest of the country.

SHAME on the Dems and Michigan. Anybody needing a union to secure a job is a LOSER!

Poor Pigotry! He sounds like the pamphlets we got in Viet Nam in the '60s: "running dogs?" Please, Pig, quit with the Communist Party slogan quotes, already!

But that is how a right to work law works: You can either negotiate as an individual and your benefits very well may be different from the union. But if that is what you agree to then that is fine.

Sorry no, that's not how it works. This is how this sort of legislation gets passed is because too many people are ignorant of the facts.

A union doesn't materialize out of thin air. Employees decide they want union representation, so a vote is taken and if the majority opt for it, you have a union. This is the same process we use to elect our government representatives. If 'my guy' didn't win, oh well, I have to live with the majority choice. I don't get to ignore something I don't like because 'I' didn't vote for it/them (a concept the GOP seems to be having problems with lately). But at this point, you don't have an agreement with the employer. The employer has two choices; close the doors, or negotiate with the employees or whoever they designate. The employer can't just fire everybody, because that violates the employees' right of free assembly (one of those pesky constitution rights); you know, the right where you get to choose what church, clubs, etc you join. So at this point, just who is covered by whatever agreement is decided on comes about. If you're a covered employee, you're part of that 'bargaining unit'. All wage/work rule/benefits are as-agreed after a vote by the employees for all covered employees, whether you like them or not. If you're non-covered, then you can negotiate your own deal, but not if you fall under the agreement. Go read post 1.92 for how RTW laws force the unions to represent employees that don't want to pay union dues and explain how/why that represents 'freedom'.

The key word above is 'bargaining'. Both sides sit down and work out an agreement that they both can agree on. Neither side is forced to sign anything, and both (if they're doing their job) try to get the best deal possible. If one side is smarter than the other, that's the way it goes. A contract is signed (a legal document binding both parties to it's terms) and there you go.

You can use the same process to decertify a union; if enough members no longer want one, you have a vote and majority rules. But RTW laws and/or laws banning collective bargaining strip rights from people and prevent the exercise of those individual rights, giving the advantage to the employer.

Again, if you don't want to work under a union contract, then don't take a job that's covered by one or quit and go get a job at a non-union employer.

Nothing gets those connies drawers in a bigger bind than a middle class American actually making a living wage with some benefits and a safe and secure pension. I swear their neanderthal skulls are pervious to common sense or logic and this is so simple. If you are so against working at a business that has a union don't go work or apply for a job there. Someone else will step in your place in a heartbeat who wants to work for union or has no problem with it. Why is that so hard for you dimwit connies to understand???? You guys really think anybody believes the right wing stuff you are spewing about unions that most of the connies here haven't a clue about.

Why do republicans want to be the advocates of the continued destruction of the middle class??? Isn't it ironic that every one of these gop governors are members of ALEC and were bought and paid for by the likes of the koch brothers and other corporate billionaires?? Isn't it ironic they all signed their allegiance not to Americans but to grover norquist the biggest lobbyist in D.C.????. Isn't ironic that that the koch bros. despise unions, pensions and health care benifits because it take monies out of their bottomless pockets. The like of the koch's and waltons have more money that they'll ever be able to spend in the next 100 years but believe me it's not enough. It's never enough. It's a debilitating disease called greed and it's not exclusive to the republican party but it's thrives in their environment well.

Oh well, you connies have fun and keep posting your delusions, lies and fear but please don't expect rational thinking Americans to buy a lick of it. But please don't stop because this is one of the reasons your agenda was rejected overwhelmingly in the last election. And with you idiots continuing to double down on your nuttiness - there will be plenty more losses for you in 2014.....cheers!!!!!

Hmmmm, OK Steve, when was the fastest and highest run-up of CEO-to-worker compensation discrepancy?

Between 1990 and 2000. Yes during the Clinton era. In 1989 the ratio was 53.3-to-1 and by 2000 it was 411.3-to-1.

Where was your outrage then?

I had it then too, and there were letters written. Note that real wages have remained flat while this was going on, so don't tell me there wasn't any 'income redistribution' going on....

I remember 'Dubya's' tax cut that put about $3 on my weekly check... what an insult.

“legislation that would establish workers' rights to employment in a workplace without having to join a union”

Wait a second I always thought that liberals were pro-choice. I guess that pro-choice attitude goes out the window when it comes to the matter of employment. I guess workers only have rights when they drink the kool-aid and toe the line when big brother tells them to. Ahh collectivism: “if you’re not one of us then you’re one of them.” Sounds so tolerant and progressive.

You f'g crazy liberal idiots are comparing "right to work" laws with Nazi Germany??? Are you out of your ever-loving minds?

No one is outlawing unions....you just won't be FORCED to join one just to be eligible for employment. You can still voluntarily join one if you want to do so.

Jesus Christ...what a bunch of hysterical morons.

well...like all the elitist leftist Chavez's here like to say " you lost , so get over it"

@fonze1111

Wait a second I always thought that liberals were pro-choice.

They are...As long as you choose the things they tell you to.

@Crazy Steve-1996926

Note that real wages have remained flat while this was going on, so don't tell me there wasn't any 'income redistribution' going on....

Even after the last disastrous ten years people today still are still worth 30% more than their parents were at the same age (adjusted for inflation of course). The whole "real wages have remained flat" argument is utter BS.

@G-Man-804405

Oh well, you connies have fun and keep posting your delusions, lies and fear...

Was it fun for you?

Jim Spence,

Lemme ax you a question. Why do you need a union to negotiate your worth?

You can't possibly be so stupid that you don't know the answer to this question.

Crazy Steve, did it dawn on you, before you read that, that every Union Rep on that list makes above the very same line that the Democrats call the "Wealthy" class, and targeted for raising taxes?

They are in the top 2%.

As for the CEO's list... something to really consider. CEO's pay is provided by the Investors that hire them to control very large companies.

Union Rep's get their money from Union Dues, colected from the working stiffs.

More twisting of the truth. First, not 'all' of the listed union heads are above the $250K '2%' threshold. Some are, some aren't.

Next, the statement that 'investors' are who grant these outlandish salaries is also false. CEO pay is decided by the boards of these companies (where publicly held; by owner fiat where not) who are supposed to represent the investors, but I guess you missed the blowback by shareholders and the courts that have been in the news lately. Not everybody is happy about this, other than the CEOs.

And yes, the union heads are paid via dues. But unlike most CEOs, they are answerable to their members. If the membership so desires, all it takes is a general vote by the individual local unions to reduce their pay. The only exception is the AFL/CIO, but it's much the same process. Each international union has 'X' number of votes based on membership, get enough votes you can change it. Or that union can pull out of the AFL/CIO if they wish, and not pay anything.

If the actual investors had a real say in CEO pay, do you think all of them would be making what they do?

The American worker should still have a choice as to wether they eant to join a union or not.After all this is still a free country.Forcing unions on workers is no different than the Nazis banning unions,different method with the same results,total control of the population.So with this in mind are we going to say that the Democrats are against freedom of choice?It would appear so.Now i expect to be torn limb from limb and drawn and quartered by Democrat supporters on this issue.The Democrats have a habit of atacking their opponents with the same zeal the Nazis would have.Are the Democrats and the Nazi's related and reading from the same play manual?

Jack in Portsmouth

You can't possibly be so stupid that you don't know the answer to this question.

Obviously I am.

I have never worked in a union industry and I have consistently made anywhere from 19%-27% more than similar union wage workers. This has happened in three different industry sectors that I have worked in. I also, negotiated my own benefits and legacy costs.

Are you too scared to negotiate your own terms? Are you too incompetent to negotiate your own salary, benefits and legacy costs. Are you one of the "collective" that aren't worth your salary? If you're such an exemplary worker why would you trust your position to just be included in an aggregate negotiation? Are you sure all the other workers the union negotiated for including yourself are worth exactly the same wages, benefits and legacy costs as you are?

Like I said above, if you're truly worth your wages you don't need a union, if you're not worth your wages you're the reason jobs get outsourced and offshored.

Feisty: Well said!

• Dear AUTO COMPANIES:

We refuse to buy any automobile from any company that busts unions or otherwise threats workers unfairly. Your products are inferior because you have scabs on the conveyor line instead of union-tested and trained professionals.

We will not trust our children to a substandard vehicle, and if you will short us on quality labor you will short us on materials, design standards and support after the sale. If you will force your workers to accept less wages so you can line your pockets you have lost us as customers.

• AUTO COMPANIES: ARE YOU LISTENING???

The American worker should still have a choice as to wether they eant to join a union or not.After all this is still a free country.Forcing unions on workers is no different than the Nazis banning unions,different method with the same results,total control of the population.So with this in mind are we going to say that the Democrats are against freedom of choice?

Another low-information ignorant RWNJ spewing the GOP line. American workers do have a choice of whether or not to join a union. Looking for work and don't want to join a union? Then don't apply for work at a unionized employer, how hard is that to understand? Decided you don't like your union where you work? Then quit and get a job at a non-union employer. Where's the force?

Oh, wait, you want the wages and benefits they have. Now your choices get harder, or do they? According to numerous anti-union posters above, you should have no trouble getting equal or better wages at a non-union employer if you're worth anything, so why not do that?

It's probably because you'll discover that you won't do as well non-union, but don't take my word for it. No, you want the hard-won benefits that union members enjoy, but don't want to accept the obligations that come with it... just another RW 'taker'....

Jim Spence,

I have never worked in a union industry

Neither have I.

Obviously I am [stupid].

Yes, obviously you are.

Jack in Portsmouth

Jim Spence,

I have never worked in a union industry

Neither have I.

Good.

I'm glad you agree with me that the unions goonions are irrelevent in the new global market.

Only the illiterate, unskilled and untrainable need a goonion to support them, unfortunately they steal the poor illiterate workers money too.

Just go look at any state that is run by Dems and their Union thugs, compare that to and state run by conservatives with the right to work. Now tell my why the Dem run state are all nearly bankrupt and why the Red states can pay their bills. Also you should note the population increase in red states and the population decrease in blue states. Keep it up and the next presidential vote wont come down to two swing states. Even with place counting 140% "vote" for Obama or the places that had 100% turn out and all voted Obama won't help.

I think the reaction to this story and stories before like this indicates that liberals and union supporters do not trust the marketplace. If the union provides a good product at a reasonable price then there is every reason to think that most workers will pay the dues...unless you think these employees are stupid. If that is the case then you would be wise to vote for less government too since these same stupid workers are likely the kind of people who vote for the people who represent you.

How about you leftists look at this another way? Competition makes everyone better. Where no competition exists and a monopoly (or non-competitive oligopoly) results then by definition workers and firms achieve less than otherwise possible. These laws should make our economy more competitive. Fewer jobs should leave the USA due to this problem. Which means more people will be employed and paying taxes into the government so that you can have more free stuff. Dang Republicans! Always trying to give away more free stuff!

One has to love those showing their lack of intelligence by attacking with "commies", "Libbies", "You f'g crazy liberal idiots(thanks J R Browenstein!), Nazis and so forth.

And kudos to those actually contributing with honesty and facts, whether supportive of the proposed Michigan Law or in the Opposition. As with most issues, we are vastly undereducated regarding those issues which greatly affect our lives personally.

I must say, if the posters claiming to earn well over their Union counterparts are sincere, then they should be waving the banner supporting the Unions! It would follow that only non Union workers can make such fabulous incomes due to the lack of interference by the Government prohibiting such rules!!

I do not regularly work in Michigan(once did work The Lion King production in Detroit Opera House), so am not fluent on your tax structure, but do believe I had City ad State taxes deducted there as well as all the Federal Deductions. It appears that Detroit is teetereing back from the edge, but is the rest of the State in crisis? Would like to hear from someone there as to the Big Picture there, economy/jobswise.

As a member of a Union in a RTW state, I also find there are those members that exist which bring down the level of professionalism, experience, and knowledge which many, in fact most, Union Members bring to the job. This is, and will, remain true across society, Union Shop or not. And there are those "Union Bosses" at the top which cut deals with management to ensure their own position/job, as well as are prone to cronyism. None of them meet the criteria for "1% to 5% Rich", nor even close, by income or lifetime earnings/investments or opulent living. A few of us may even have our homes nearly or paid off. We are all just trying to make it in the ranks of a dieing Middle Class Worker environment. Few if any Corporate Bosses have this in their interests of improving Our Well-being. One thing in my Union, we CAN and DO vote out those showing they are ultimately selling us out for their own gain soley. You cannot do that on your own. But good luck if you feel that is your calling...

I personally believe that if the right to collective bargaining is beneficial to non-members across society, that is great and wonderful, and more power to them. And it by all means has given those non-union workers the medical insurance and health and welfare benefits/contributions, paid vacations, sick time, overtime, etc., if they have them, by the blood, sweat and tears of many that fought for those things and continue to do so today. I do NOT get any paid time off, vacation or otherwise. I either work when the 'revolving list' lands on my name or sit at home. Unless of course one of the non-union companies call me for the occasional gig. These few companies I receive calls from are not the norm in my field. They pay us very fairly, coverper diem/transportation/housing, and treat us like the professionals we are. I am proud to work for them, though one has met its demise by venture capitalism getting its foot in the door through management. After the money was all gone after changing from a formerly successful busines model(under which I worked), the company was unable to find workers with the skill level we former employees brought when they tried to cut the wages in less than half. The VC fluffed up the paperwork, sold it on projections under the new rules/wages income potential while using the previously successful numbers as holdings value. It collapsed under the new, gutted business model. But the Vulture Capitalist all walked with the liquid assets(read: cash). Good thing this is not the bread and butter work I do, but I will miss the potential for an earnings infusion, as well as the interesting shows we set up. Known as freelancing, I will still perhaps see several of those professionals I worked with out on the dusty trail at another gig.

Now that I have presented the fact I do what I have to to work my butt off(can't afford too many unpaid vacations, as well as those many bills we responsible people have and pay), let me say this.

In my Industry, the non-union worker in a RTW state earns half or less than Union hourly, and are generally making no benefits, can get fired for no reason, and can barely survive. Not so for their bosses, most which I know personally. They undercut union wages when securing the job by a couple bucks, then collect the profits for themselves off the workers' labors. And all of these scab company owners DO fit in the "1%-5%" income levels, own spacious properties and lots of toys. I am not saying these folks do not work hard, they do. It is what they take for themselves which is the shame, while their employess have to live at home w/ parents or can barely afford to rent an apartment or a dependable car.

I am not forced to pay stamps, I choose to, I am paying 5% of gross income to dues, my insurance is so-so, and I cannot live off retirement when, and if, that time comes without also collecting Social Security while still up to allowed, nonpenalized income, and am STILL much better off than those working non-union are. I consider our Union relatively weak, but am sure proud to be Union.

For those politicizing this beyond your personal knowledge, I offer the following constant. The Big Bosses of Big Corporations will ALWAYS get their Millions in Bonuses, for someone trying to start a company in a labor field, good luck, Union or Not, your Workers' Skills will be commensurate to what you pay them.

For a little good new, I interject this:

@Crazy Steve-1996926

If the actual investors had a real say in CEO pay, do you think all of them would be making what they do?

No...I don't think the investors would make anywhere near as much as they do in most cases.

sic-n-tired, whatever... just how many non-union FORIEGN cars are sold here in the U.S.?

ARE YOU LISTENING???

Sic-n-tired

Your products are inferior because you have scabs on the conveyor line instead of union-tested and trained professionals.

ROTFLMAO!!! Yeah, you can always expect lesser work from people whose pay rate depends upon their own performance...Oh, wait...That doesn't make any sense at all. Any rationally thinking person who is concerned about quality would certainly steer away from the products that are built by people with nothing to gain or lose from the quality of their work.

Caesar Augustus-

Torp where abouts in Az? Unions still have a right to exist. Feisty you realize the Nazi platform was about taking guns away and removing capitalism as well? Yeah kinda sounds like you. Torp is right about this one.

I do not understand your historical perspective. Adolph Hitler was financed by German Industrialists. Nazi Germany and Capitalism had a love affair, the Nazis were not trying to get rid of them...they financed the Nazis, they were the power behind the Nazis.

The Nazis provided German Corporations with nearly unlimited forced labor and huge profits in return for building Hitlers war machine.

As to disarming the German People, the Nazis didn't pass gun restrictions until 1938; then only restricting ownership to citizens. It restricted Jews, non-citizens and communists from owning firearms. The earlier Weimar government had already passed gun registration laws. The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power.

The Nazis did however, go after the unions.

Rich-281385

I think the reaction to this story and stories before like this indicates that liberals and union supporters do not trust the marketplace.

The market place gave us the 2007 crash. The market place gives us unsafe drugs until they are shutdown by the FDA. The market place is based on greed. Do you trust greed as a motivating force for positive change?

If the union provides a good product at a reasonable price then there is every reason to think that most workers will pay the dues...unless you think these employees are stupid. If that is the case then you would be wise to vote for less government too since these same stupid workers are likely the kind of people who vote for the people who represent you.

Unions don't produce products. You really do need to study the roles of labor and management. Companies produce products and they are not managed by union members. The rest of your comment makes no sense.

How about you leftists look at this another way? Competition makes everyone better. Where no competition exists and a monopoly (or non-competitive oligopoly) results then by definition workers and firms achieve less than otherwise possible.

Competition is between companies producing like products, it is not between union and non-union labor forces. Though you tout free enterprise I don't believe you understand it. You seem to think like the Supply-Side Economics supporters that believe simply cutting expenses will create wealth...like demand doesn't matter. Unions do not create monopolies...management does!

These laws should make our economy more competitive.

Yes, you would think so wouldn't you? The problem is that no matter how little we pay American workers, our labor costs will always be greater than the Chinese. Destroying the US Economy is not an improvement.

Fewer jobs should leave the USA due to this problem. Which means more people will be employed and paying taxes into the government so that you can have more free stuff. Dang Republicans! Always trying to give away more free stuff!

No matter how little you pay American Workers.. China, India, and third world nations, will always draw US Companies to relocate there until we end the tax breaks to off-shore and impose tariffs on US companies that produce off-shore and import into the US...a little something the Republicans refuse to do.

Gotta love it! Even the HNIC in his ball-spiking post-victory campaign wasn't able to sway the logical thinking of a state and its right to enact legislation.

these two in particular represent the worst of the worst in liberal ideology.

When ever I need to hire to have work done on my home, car etc. I ask is this a Union shop? If they say yes ...I go some fine someone else.

Union Greed is why most NEW automotive manufacturing facilities are being built in right-to-work states ! The unions have manipulated the free market for so long, they have priced themselves right OUT of the market !! Right-to-Work states are happy to pick up the industrial gains !!!

Some of the "Great Lakes States" are beginning to try and stem the tide of losses .... meanwhile, Detroit is but a shadow of its former self ! I can't wait for Obama to try and step in .... the unions scratched his back in the elections, now Obama feels obligated to cover their a$$ !!

Unionists don't get that they are being damaged everytime a Jeep is made overseas. Romny understood that even if the Jeep to be built in China is being sold overseas, it does not help the balance of trade and hurts American Workers.

Jeff, then by your reasoning, Romney knew he was hurting American workers when he sent all of his jobs over seas....

SOOOOO.....Feisty, Pigotry, (and all on the left.....) please tell me HOW a company like this A123 battery group can get a 249 MILLION dollar loan, and be bankrupt within ONE YEAR?

A123 will also probably be purchased by a Chinese Company. So much for our better technology...

jlmyers, thats JUST a liberal talking point. How about the highway jobs HERE going to companies from china? Thank You Bozo. Thats pres. obummer to you libs. How about the "green" jobs created overseas and not here, thanks to bozo? You libs have a BAD memory or just dont care to recall how things really are.

Feisty.

It never ceases to amaze me how you always get to be first in line on liberal controlled threads.

It also never ceases to amaze me that you have not run for office yet.

You make a better Sheepherder than Obama.

Feisty Redhead, the reason why she was so quiet is because she has her head up Obama's butt and can't talk for herself, because while her head is buried in up to her neck, his hand is moving her mouth. Way to go Feisty

Sounds like the early days of unionizing may need to be revisited. People died and businesses were shuttered. There's no place in this world for scabs. The Republicans are angling for war with America's workers. Bad idea. Workers unite! Shut any union-busting business down tight, including states. Treat scabs like scabs.

Just more SHAME on the republican party that has abandoned the American Middle Class for the top 2-5% and the corporate world over working Americans! Greed has taken over the republican party!

All the right wingers on here today, whining about Unions. You remind me of a pack of dogs fighting over which one has the bigger bowl of Gravy Train. While your owners sit at their T-Bone steak dinner laughing at you. Here's some facts you should be thinking about instead:

Country Ratio of pay of CEO vs Average Worker

Japan 11:1

Germany 12:1

France 15:1

Italy 20:1

Canada 20:1

S.Africa 21:1

Britain 22:1

Mexico 47:1

Venezuela 50:1

USA 475:1

All the countries listed here have stronger Union movements than we do. The problems we face have nothing to do with Unions and a great deal to do with corporate greed. Ever since the 1980's the Republican Party and other right wingers sold their souls to the wealthy in this country. And now from being a country that prided itself on having a strong Middle and Working Class. We are joining Third World countries in a race to the bottom. 475:1,what a disgrace to the generations of Americans that fought,and in many cases died to make us better than that.

finally said something that isn't designed to piss people off.....or somebody stuck a sock in her inflamitory toll pie hole......maybe her union told her to be quiet?

the gop in michigan think they know better than the people of the state. they passed their emergency managers bill and the people rose up and had it removed by popular vote. this time they don't want the people to have a say so they made the bill where it can't be over turned by a vote.

i love how the gop thinks they know whats best for people and go out of their way to make sure the will of the people does'nt matter. thats the big part of this. and thats the part that is going to turn the state back blue and for generations.

if the bill is worth having it's worth letting the people decide if they want it, not shove it down their throats without any input from the people

Feisty: This has got to be the smartest comment you've made in the past 6 months. ( .)

Viewer_Ready

Feisty.

It never ceases to amaze me how you always get to be first in line on liberal controlled threads.

It also never ceases to amaze me that you have not run for office yet.

You make a better Sheepherder than Obama

I have been wondering that too. Is she just staying at the computer waiting for a new article to appear? I wonder if she he working for MSMBC and knows when it is going online so she can post first.

Uncle Bob 512

All the right wingers on here today, whining about Unions. You remind me of a pack of dogs fighting over which one has the bigger bowl of Gravy Train. While your owners sit at their T-Bone steak dinner laughing at you. Here's some facts you should be thinking about instead:

Country Ratio of pay of CEO vs Average Worker

Japan 11:1

Germany 12:1

France 15:1

Italy 20:1

Canada 20:1

S.Africa 21:1

Britain 22:1

Mexico 47:1

Venezuela 50:1

USA 475:1

All the countries listed here have stronger Union movements than we do. The problems we face have nothing to do with Unions and a great deal to do with corporate greed. Ever since the 1980's the Republican Party and other right wingers sold their souls to the wealthy in this country. And now from being a country that prided itself on having a strong Middle and Working Class. We are joining Third World countries in a race to the bottom. 475:1,what a disgrace to the generations of Americans that fought,and in many cases died to make us better than that.

Please quote your source..... Without it you have no credibility with these stats.

Uncle Bob, nice analogy, but serious... too bad it's a major distortion of the facts.

The CEO's were hired by the Investors, paid from the Investors purses. In other words, paid by the rich to make them money.

Union Reps are paid form the Union Dues of the working class.

Difference, obvious, the CEO's are wealthy, hard working managment staff who are not taking a dime from the middle class workers, while Union Reps ONLY take their funds from the middle class and "equally" benefit the Corporate World, by driving out the little guy.

Sure wihs liberal could stay on the same side of the fence from topic to topic. The "Right to Work" laws proposed in Michigan afford the SAME rights to non-Union workers, that are afforded to Union.

Yeah, they want to remove the "Collective Bargaining". If you really understood how the Union Reps use that to enlarge their coffers, and bankrupt small business, you would understand.

But you go ahead and spin the liberal lies.... btw, how much did Democrats GIVE to bail out AIG? You know, the one that is now owned by yet another China based Corporation?

Must be nice to give away taxpayers money, to save a company long enough to find a good foreign buyer. How many Corporate Entities have to be protected by Democrats before people really figure out who's on their side? How many banks have to be bailed out by liberal politicians, off the backs of the middle class?

How is it, the President can afford to take a 2 week, all expenses paid vacation to paradise? Guess that "fiscal cliff" isn't that important.

BTW, the House of Represntative, especially leadership will still be in D.C. working on resolving the problem, without him... But I know, the GOP is only for the wealthy... working while others suffer and fighting to just make ends meet... the nerve of those dang Republicans.

@Ed McT-2404427

The Republicans are angling for war with America's workers. Bad idea. Workers unite!

WTF are you even talking about? This is about giving workers a CHOICE. You know, that thing liberals pretend they are all in favor of. How exactly is giving someone a choice tantamount to "angling for war"??? Do you stop to think before you post?

Good grief, Connor! Did you even read what you wrote before you hit the <enter> key? Republican want to tell us what to do? What about the Democrats?

Support mandatory union membership.

Obamacare: get insurance or pay fines for both individuals and businesses.

Mandatory birth control pill provision.

How much farther should I go, Connor, in detailing what the DEMOCRATS are telling us we have to do?

I was bred, born, and raised in a RTW state and love it! I have bargained repeatedly to have my salary and bennies raised and have won every time!

When I was in college, I worked in Missouri for 6 weeks and hated every minute of it. Western Auto was in the process of building a new regional warehouse complex and was taking NONE, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA of the union workers from Missouri to the new warehouse. Everyone in Kansas got an offer including a relocation bonus and help. Shows how much good the Teamsters did for all the folks in Missouri (closed shop state).

“legislation that would establish workers' rights to employment in a workplace without having to join a union”

Wait a second I always thought that liberals were pro-choice. I guess that pro-choice attitude goes out the window when it comes to the matter of employment. I guess workers only have rights when they drink the kool-aid and toe the line when big brother tells them to. Ahh collectivism: “if you’re not one of us then you’re one of them.” Sounds so tolerant and progressive.

@Uncle Bob 512

Country Ratio of pay of CEO vs Average Worker

Now why don't you name some of these companies in those other countries Bob? The fact that the VAST majority of major global corporations are headquartered in the US, (is there even one in Venezuela?) might just skew those numbers a tad. Not that you probably care as long as it supports your propaganda of course.

Uncle Bob makes a valid point and still the republican hacks who worship the ultra wealthy argue with him. Until he opts to disclose his basis for stats, here's a few places you "disbelievers" can view... I welcome you to have at it:

http://www.payscale.com/ceo-income

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/ceo-pay-worker-pay_n_1471685.html

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/19/467516/ceo-pay-gap-2011/?mobile=nc

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/governance/compensation.htm#Average_World-Wide_CEO_Compensation_

pay close attention to the last one... it's from the Heritage Foundation, which I believe is a "conservative" organization. It shows the USA to have a 531 to 1 pay ratio for CEO's to the average worker of the company, while the other countries listed ALL have well less than 100 to 1

So what is wrong with giving the American people a choice about joining unions?Don't people have a right to freedom of choice or is that just a conveneient term used only during an election year?

@PRober

pay close attention to the last one... it's from the Heritage Foundation,

LOL! Actually it's from the Heritage INSTITUTE. Every one of your sources range from the left to the far, far, bat-@!$%# crazy left. Clearly you don't worry too much about facts, either that or you have trouble grasping hold of them. Either way it doesn't exactly lend much credibility to your position.