Occupying the GM plant in Flint, 1936-37
In Michigan's battle over union rights, it's almost over but the shouting. Yesterday, in a matter of hours, Republican Governor Rick Snyder and both chambers of the Republican-controlled legislature managed to jam through bills that ban union shops. Final passage hasn't happened yet, but there's not much standing in the way.
The so-called Right to Work law makes it so that you don't have to pay union dues, basically, even though you benefit from union employment. Right to Work decimates union membership; what follows is lower wages.
The UAW's Women's Emergency Brigade.
That this happened in Michigan of all places, cradle of the modern labor movement, is stunning. Why the hurry? The New York Times today picks up on one reason: Republicans lost seats in the last election, and yesterday's House vote was close enough to suggest that they might have had trouble passing it when the new session starts next year.
I think it's worth considering for a moment the far deeper roots here. The United Auto Workers union was born in a courageous 44-day sitdown strike in Flint, back in the winter of 1936 and 1937.
Geraldine Blankship tells MLive that before workers stood up for themselves, her father came home too tired to eat supper:
"It was just one hard struggle and when the strike was on, we worried for my dad's life for a long time," she said. "He was beat up by the company goons. We didn't know if they were going to send him home in a box."
But with help from their families, the Flint sitdown strikers stuck it and won recognition from General Motors as a bargaining unit. Blankinship's son worked there for more than 30 years, happily. When people say strong unions created the middle class, that's what they're talking about.
Walter P. Reuther Library, Wayne State University
Flint, 1937
In getting rid of strong unions, Republicans crafted the legislation to contain spending provisions, so it's technically appropriations legislation and can't be repealed by citizen veto. Our guest last night on the show, Rick Pluta of Michigan Public Radio, says he has heard talk of drives to pass new referendums that would reinstate the rights, and also of attempts to recall some of the officials involved.
Leave a Comment:
As TR reminded us:
If only legislators around the nation would know their history. Read more at
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/07/organization-of-labor-part-three.html
That's a great quote, thanks!
All That Appose Unions , Don't They ALL Sound Just Like Slave Owners ?!
*****
I'm jumping in here to get as close as I can to the top of the list. Just wanted to tell anyone who's skimming through to be sure you get to the second page of comments. There are some really great anecdotes, which deserve to be read. This topic got a terrific response. Don't stop reading too soon!
*****
The thing I always think it's important to remember when you talk about things like this is that Unions weren't just spontaneous movements that just happened. They were like most revolutions reactions to specific abuse and inequity that was created by the owners.
Sometimes it becomes necessary for people to demand a redress of grievance. Some people do it with strikes and picket signs when those don't work they usually go for guns and guillotines.
Unions would not be necessary if employers treated their workers properly with decent wages and benefits. A RTW law is designed to help employers underpay their workers. I think the automakers should step up and tell the Republicans to back off since their workers have worked with management to get the industry back on its feet. If Michigan proceeds on this law, I would like to see massive labor demonstrations at the state capitol with enough people to scare the hell out of the Republicans.
Actually the CEOs of Ford and Chrysler both voiced their opposition to this legislation. Apparently that makes no difference to the Republicans in Lansing as it had absolutely no effect. Shameful.
R. Abouja: I'd love to see a link of some kind to these CEO statements. Do you have something on this? Thanks
Mike, the republicans tout it as a law for the workers. Its so great that they don't make the police give up their unions. Might explain why the state police helped lock down the capitol building instead of throwing the traitors out on the street.
These are the same unions that destroyed Detroit, and put GM into bankruptcy, right? Looks like the middle class got played.
Nope
that was piss poor management that did that, remember hummers, and 7 mpg trucks cars that was just not getting it done.
as sure the unions pushed, and well they all got pushed back, they gave up money/benefits got the crankshaft up the wuzzz.
LOL but i am sure you will floor this with your canned talking points.
And somehow the management that took huge bonuses and failed to follow the trends in the market is absolved of any blame?
Who is running the company?
The American auto makers were being drowned in legacy costs. Yes, they gave away too much to the UAW, but it was in the 1960s. The best health care anywhere, no premiums, continued into retirement, to go along with a generous pension.
Why? Because benefits were tax-free. Wages are taxed coming and going. So it was cheaper to give the workers a benefit and pay for it, than to pay them and let them buy it themselves. Both sides made out on the deal. Short term. But then retirees started living longer and longer.
This is why defined-benefit programs are being replaced by defined-contribution plans. Otherwise there's no knowing what the long-term cost is going to be.
Right. The folks taking the million dollar salaries for designing and selling cars that people didn't want to buy and who oversaw the terrible quality of the cars coming off the lines had NOTHING to do with the Big Three's troubles.
mike hates unions so much he joined one and refuses to opt out, enough said.
Right to Work States will produce:
Lower Wages: Average worker in RTW states makes about $5,333/year less than those in free bargaining states.
Fewer Health Benefits: 21% more people lack heath insurance in RTW compared to free bargaining states.
Higher Poverty rate: RTW states have a poverty rate of 12.5% compared to 10.2% in free bargaining states.
Workplace fatalities: The rate of workplace deaths is 51% higher in RTW states where unions can't speak up on behalf of workers.
Source www.upworthy.com
Michigan can not afford this, so who is the Governor working for; the citizens of Michigan or the Koch Brothers and the Republican Party.
@whomitmay:
I don't hate unions. I don't belong to a union, and I can't opt out of anything in this discussion. In previous posts I mentioned that I've worked in union and non-union environments. But I have never been in a union, because I am an engineer.
If you are having trouble figuring out which "side" of this debate I am on, it is because I can see merit in both sides.
I am really disgusted with my governor (who I did not vote for) because he pretended to be disinterested in RTW just one month ago, and now he is planning to sign legislation next Tuesday.
I have no doubt that this is politically motivated, in two respects: 1) that unions tend to contribute to Democrats and liberal causes, and this will weaken unions, and 2) that businesses in Michigan will reward Snyder and the GOP for it.
Less than 18% of Michigan jobs are unionized now. That number will go down. Is that a good thing or a bad thing--I'm seriously not sure. But the way they are doing it is wrong.
I want to know why shooter is always coming on here and posting points that never make any sense Lol...
@Felix
Because his parents grounded him and took away his Xbox.
Mike in Mich. One thing about WI and mainly Milwaukee County, Those Police and Fire have a requirement to live in that County, mayor Barret wouldn't change that so that is the Main reason they really didn't support him.
I heard Ezra Klein on last night's show and his guest, Rick Pluta, attribute this move to a pay-back for putting the workers' rights referendum on November's ballot, but I'm a bit more cynical. I think that the GOP lost it's shirt in the national election and now they've made a shift to influencing state politics, ala ALEC. Kill this grassroots movement at its base, and voila! Problem solved.
That's why DeMint is leaving the Senate to go to Heritage. That's the emerging new plan from the right wing nihilists: if they can't destroy government from the top down, they'll do it from the bottom up. Flood state and local races with angry old white billionaire kook money to try to generate a monopoly on state and local offices and get the moochers out of the habit of expecting government to pay for the schools and fire and police protection and water quality. Then, libertarian utopia!
I couldn't agree with you more, Steve. As I've said before, listen to Bill Moyers' show The United States of ALEC. You'll see the current state of our elections in a whole new light.
Fore warned is fore armed. Now we have NO excuse if this comes to pass.
Who is running for school board/township supervisor/sheriff in 2014? (all politics is local!)
This is exactly the approach that the Religious Right took beginning in the 1980s. They started with the school boards. The ordinary person who ignores politics doesn't wake up to these shenanigans until it's too late. The lesson: We ALL need to pay attention to politics, all the time, not just every four years. All politics is local, as the saying goes.
Sorry, double post.
Unfortunately, among liberals, the "think globally, act locally" bumper sticker doesn't translate into action because liberals just plain suck at voting, and at getting out the vote, in state and local races. The truth is, unless there's some particular issue of personal importance to them, local politics just don't much interest liberals the way national politics do. Hell, I'm writing about it, noting it's a critical problem, and I still don't care about 'em.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are just so damn angry about everything all the time, they'll vote in any election for any candidate who promises to blow up government, any government, and lower their taxes, any taxes, whatever the cost.
And then there's the money. There are just a lot more well-heeled people out there with some some direct financial stake in a local issue. There's just a lot more money available for conservative causes in general to slosh over the top of the glass and trickle down to the coaster to the local level. And then, there's the fact that the conservative establishment has actual billionaire funded think tanks and nonprofits dedicated to demolishing civil society one local government at a time while liberals are focused on big picture issues.
Paula, I know the "label" they used in the 1980s was the Religious Right, but I'm going to put forward another theory. Call it a conspiracy theory if you want. I'm standing by it anyhow.
The 1980s saw the rise of Ronald Reagan--and, surprise!--Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed. Now, Reed inserted himself as the leader of the Christian Coalition, but he was no more a pious, good-hearted fellow than Saddam Hussein. An opportunist was what he was. And he convinced all the little old ladies and starry-eyed, under-educated, church-going young and middle-agers that they were carrying the torch of Right and Justice. (And pass the plate, please.)
This has been going on a long time, and someone needs to pull back the curtain to show the little old man pushing buttons and pretending to be the Wizard of Oz.
Ask yourself, WHY are police and firefighters exempt from these new laws?
Because just like in Wisconsin last year, these two groups are generally more supportive of Republicans. Law and order, and all that. And without this exemption, the GOP didn't have the votes. Pure politics.
It makes sense, public safety-wise, to NOT allow police and firefighters to strike (just as with the air traffic controllers in Reagan's time). But it makes NO sense to allow them to collectively bargain, and require these public employees to pay dues, when teachers and other groups have "right-to-work."
Gov. Snyder is a weasel. Last month, with PROP 2 on the ballot, he claimed he had no plans to push for RTW. This month, facing a slightly-smaller majority in the state house and senate next month, he decides it is time to go ahead. Sure, lull the voters into a sense of security that you don't agree with RTW, then slam it down their throats before Christmas.
Thanks, Guv.
Why? Because they need cops to beat and pepper spray the people trying to take their demonstrations into the statehouse and if the firemen get it in the neck, the cops may wise up and realize they're next.
Same @!$%#. Different century.
What will happen to the police and firefighters is that they supposedly won't be directly targeted but will feel the effects of this anti-union action when their Governor doesn't accept or refuses to dispense monies to cities. This will cause municipalities to feel a severe financial crunch and lead to lay-offs or reductions in staffing, reductions in work hours, pay cuts, benefit give-backs, no new equipment or training programs, etc. You will see police departments telling their officers to write more tickets/citations as a means to obtain more revenue. These proactive officers will then be less liked in their communities and will be easier for city councils to fire, lay-off, or abolish those jobs because the public doesn't want a ticket for driving 1 mile an hour over the speed limit. In the town I live in, in Wisconsin, the local police are feeling the effects of Walker's anti union policies right now even though they weren't "going to be affected" by the union busting. I'd hate to be a police officer or a firefighter, with a family and a mortgage, in these states with anti-union actions in them.
So the recent events in Bangladesh don't raise red flags? 113 people died in a factory fire due to unsafe working conditions, including locked exit doors. Just one example of what unions have fought to change here. I'll agree that, in the past, unions may have hurt their own cause by overstepping on benefit demands, but without unions, we would not have the 40-hour work week, child labor laws, OSHA, etc. It's all about fair and safe working conditions as well as a living wage.
Remember, unions bring the wages of everyone up. We have a middle class because of the rise of unions. Republicans know that unions also bring money to political races. By making Michigan a right to work state, it weakens unions to the point that they are unable to raise political action dollars. When the PAC dollars dry up for organizations who historically support the democratic party, the path to more and more republican victories becomes a certainty. Greedy.....yes, underhanded......yes, but the republicans in Michigan are not stupid. They have broken the back of organized labor in its own backyard. Sad and poverty stricken days ahead in Michigan.
Sadly, the voters of the state of Michigan have only themselves to blame. Electing a Republican governor, senate, and house is asking to go back to the Stone Age.
You bring up and excellent and mostly overlooked point. The people of Michigan elected their representatives either directly (by voting for the candidate) or indirectly (by not voting). If you believe that your Republican official will act differently then the Republican officials from another state, you are probably and sadly mistaken.
Totally agree, Carol, locally elected representatives are usually door-knocking, hand-shaking, baby-kissing campaigners who win by name recognition over substance(usually). Republican candidates got alot of publicity and outside monies to win in the last local/Gubnatorial elections. Snyder campaigned as an outsider/geek/everyman and turned into a radical corporatist after winning. I think many Michigan voters were fed up with the status-quo and did vote for "change"- boy did they get it!Let's hope they can change back next time...
Jon . . . If they want to turn this around, the folks in Michigan had better start working NOW. They need to start lining up their candidates and preparing their GOTV efforts for 2014. That's going to take lots of time, organization, and, yes, money to combat the avalanche of funding coming from those on the far right.
People in other states had better be doing the same thing, or they'll find themselves in the same position in a few years.
The only good thing about what Republicans have been doing at the state and local level is that Dems and independents should now know to stay away from anybody with an "R" after his/her name. No matter what those folks say when they campaign, we have a pretty good idea what they'll do once they're in office.
The unions shot themselves in the foot when they began supporting Republicans. It started with Nixon and blossomed into Reagan Dems with some becoming Republicans. And what compounds the problem is Dems have not stood up for workers rights because they fear losing support from independents if Dems are too close with labor unions. The best we can get from the Dems is talk about "middle class" and even that sounds hollow at times because there are so many corporatist Dems.
The unions brought this on themselves. Here and in Wisconsin if you did not know a union member or weren't "one of them" you did not have the same opportunity to get in to the union.
The money made by union members did not exactly make them "victims" or someone the regular guy felt sympathy for.
Then there is the corrupt union leadership caught time after time with their hands in the cookie jar or outstretched, fingers rubbing together, looking for a little green thank you for whatever they did for you.
Unions, like the Repugs in the last national election lost because of their own mistakes and shortcomings.
You were divided; now you've been conquered. Please keep us posted on how that works out for you.
The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow
;-)
Yeah, those "corrupt union leaders." That's the problem, all right.
But, um, refresh my recollection. Who would those corrupt bosses be, exactly? In the last thirty years, I mean? And how, exactly, are they worse than, say the board and officers of Enron? Or the fine fellows at say, Wachovia, Countrywide, Merrill Lynch, BoA , AIG, and Citibank who were skimming seven digit bonuses and eight digit compensation packages off of their shareholder's money, year, after year, for their exemplary work driving their companies, and the nation's economy, into the ditch?
The real Reagan legacy...............Point fingers everywhere except on those who caused the problem while giving them rewards for causing the problems.
The announcement by Apple that they would have more work done in America is going to be worth the watch. Where will the jobs be... in a "right to work" state? And how will they treat their workers... minimum wage and non-union?
If you're talking about the manufacturing of Apple products, they will defiantly put them in a right to work state. Being able to pay them minimum wage and the workers accepting that wage will be critical. Also, the poor school systems in those states will provide a steady supply of drone workers. If it's for the creative side of the company, they will go to states that have a good education system because the workers are highly intelligent and want the same for their children.
think they are looking at three states NC, TX, NV
yes they seem to be RTW states.
To argue that this is a Rep political strategy is also to argue that Dem gain political power from support of union organizations - they are two sides to the same coin, both with truth, I am sure.
I worked at a union plant and I was most aggravated, being a non-union worker, that seniority, and hence power, was gained simply by years of service. Therefore, new workers would get hired, and in my experience, were extremely hard working. Much harder working than those with seniority, many of whom chose to work very little. Then when the cuts came, who automatically got fired? Those with the least years, the new guys. Firing a poor performing worker with seniority would have taken a congressional mandate. The frustrating thing about it, working harder than someone else, or performing better gets you nothing, except maybe frustration. Those of us who do not join unions, possibly choose working for reward, not being forced into a system of no accountability. I found that this lack of accountability, allowing poor performers to gain the same rewards as high performers, lead to stagnation amongst all workers - 'why should I work harder than him, for the same thing' attitude.
Additionally, is it not an elephant in the room that unions have overstepped their bounds with the large PACs and involvement in politics? Regardless of what good unions have done in the past, or can continue to do in the future, some of the major faults must be addressed, or they will hopefully go away, to be reformed when needed. And let's also be honest, our more advanced and prominent legal system can address many wrongdoings with labor practices, medical practice, almost any issue within society. The need for unions is far less these days, in many respects. Our nation, as a whole, has advanced considerably since their inception. let's please not overstate the good they do these days.
Lastly, when the economy of the world and US is crumbling around us, we can not continue to ask for higher wages and more benefits. We should be happy to simply have jobs. Eg, immigration to US just for jobs - people will take illegal jobs just for something, a way to survive. We are still a very blessed country, but must continually adjust. If people want the right to take a lower salary and benefits to have a job, then let them. I would work three jobs to support my family if I had to, instead of striking. But that is just my perspective.
Unions can still play an important role in this country, but they too must change. Why is it so hard to realize that these jobs will evaporate, move to other states with different workers and laws and pro-job policy, or even other countries, if we do not continue to adjust. This whole argument is similar to the macro idea of isolationism - both of which don't work.
You do make some excellent points, JLee. It may be time to take a fresh look at the good and bad points of unionization and "clean out the closet." (Be sure to keep the good stuff, though.)
;-)
Or to shorten it, Reagan said. Here is a clue, no one works harder then the job requires them to work to complete the task. You confuse activity with work, a new guy fresh on the job is untrained so he is going to be more active then the guy who has been on the job for 10 years because the new guy is wasting time by performing more moves to do the same task. Then there is production numbers, the older worker can produce more with less activity. Just because the older guy doesn't look busy, reality is once production is met he can do no more work, so older workers tend to be able to time their activities to met production which makes it look like they aren't working as hard. The difference between a union shop and a nonunion is in the union shop once production is met the worker can not be forced to go do another job that he was not hired to do, another words if he is a machinist and he meets production, the foreman can't put him on inspection. In a nonunion shop the foreman can. So reality is you want to punish the skilled worker because he can meet production in less time then the new guy.
"Lastly, when the economy of the world and US is crumbling around us, we can not continue to ask for higher wages and more benefits. We should be happy to simply have jobs." No, this is bad thinking. You should always seek--and work toward--the best possible scenario for yourself and your community. Being happy to "just have a job" is not enough. That type of thinking will cause more problems than striving for better. Principle is principle, regardless of the circumstances.
I think each of you is correct in the particular point you're making. It's the blind-men-describing-the-elephant situation. Like I said, it's time to take a fresh look at unions to keep the parts that are beneficial and a deterrent to management overreach, while limiting nepotism and empire-building that actually weakens the union overall.
whomitmay - no, actually I do not confuse anything. Please do not generalize what I am saying, nor should we accept the generalization that you suggest. I meant the with job security, people got lazy at my plant. Plain and simple, it happens. My point is to reward the efficient experienced worker you are describing, more than the lazy or inefficient worker. A darwinism of sorts...Now should we punish the worker that would like to pursue multiple tasks because of their efficiency, because the rest of the workers can not keep up with him? I tend to think not. You on the other hand, seem to think it punishment by being asked to do more. I like to see harder working, more productive individuals get ahead. However, I do agree with JL, unions do hold important roles for most workers, who have the capacity or desire to only ever do one thing and one thing only. This society needs all types of workers. Google and Apple were not created by someone only doing 'their task' efficiently. I guess my longwinded point to all of this would be innovation and progression occurs in environments where personal risk (or work or sacrifice) can be rewarded. Unionionized environments can defeat the reward/stimulus aspect. But I know, not all want this working environment.
The military has a similar union style environment, with rank based on experience, etc. However, there exists a below-the-zone promotion, where higher performers can advance faster. Something similar would benefit the environment I worked in previously.
DBinIL - I guess then that we progressed when Hostess shut down because workers would rather not have a job than accept a lower wage. Did you ever see the movie Apocalypto, the ending in particular? There is something much larger looming on the horizon. I agree, principles, ethics, morals, stand regardless. I am not a relativist. However, wages are not among these things. Maslow's hierarchy of needs explains much of human behavior, and when survival is at stake...I believe the existence of jobs is beneficial to people to supply food and shelter is most important, not guaranteed benefits. The methods to meet our needs and principles do have to change, as we live in an organic world.
The problem with all of it is these same arguments have been going back and forth for over 100 years within American politics. Most, if not all, of these things are issues and rhetoric put forth to the general masses by political demagogues who care only to keep themselves in power. I am so skeptical of politicians. Our collective good hearts and ideals and twisted manipulated by men in power to keep them in power. We are lead into debate over these issues, when truly the organic nature of all of it is far more complex than union vs non union....and while we debate, nothing truly changes.
Sorry for the long-winded responses, I am who I am...
Agree with most everything in this last post, JLee. Except, I think the debate part is good, too.
;-)
" . . .Google and Apple were not created by someone only doing 'their task' efficiently. . . ."
No, but the products those people designed and engineered are produced by--and Apple's enormous profits are largely a product of--people who DO exactly that.
This isn't why the Hostess plant shut down
But you are lowering the bar by stating that. First and foremost you're making the assumption here that "just having a job" is enough to pay for food and housing. The average worker for companies like WalMart does not make enough money to pay for food, healthcare, and housing alone. The average employee at WalMart, in fact, uses Medicare for his health insurance because he earns so little he qualifies as being at the poverty level (thus under Medicare coverage) despite the fact that he works full time. About 10% of WalMart's employees earn so little they are homeless despite working full time. And about half receive foodstamps or live in public housing/subsidized housing because they cannot afford regular rent rates.
You cannot compare poverty in the US to that of the rest of the world. The standards necessary to live in America aren't the same as the rest of the world so you cannot make this leap in logic about the idea that having some money naturally equates to having food and shelter. And as for prescribed benefits: let's look at this fiscally for a second.
We cannot sustain a society in which 40+ million cannot see a doctor. Doing so drives up health care costs which costs the government more money and every other citizen more money. Eventually the costs go up to the point that progressively more citizens are dropping out and joining that initial 40 million. We're below every other industrialized nation in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, distribution of healthcare, accessibility of healthcare, etc. Hell even our obesity epidemic is largely caused by the lack of liveable wages earned by people here in America. The less money people make the more apt they are to buy cheaper, easily processed foods. Those foods are high in fats and carbohydrates and low on protein and essential nutrients, vitamins, and minerals. They are also usually high in sugar and/or salt and high in calories. This causes obesity (studies have shown us that obesity tends to favor poorer income earners over that of large income earners). That then contributes to our already overburdened healthcare system by driving up costs and making it progressively more difficult to provide healthcare at rates people can actually afford. Now I DO happen to agree that employers shouldn't be the ones who provide healthcare insurance. I don't believe healthcare insurance should exist except as a luxury item for people who have enough disposable income that they can spend that money on purchasing health insurance and thus guarantee they can get cosmetic surgery for cheaper or some other unnecessary coverage that insurance should be covering. We should have national health insurance and take out this middle-man-profit making factory. But until as such a time that we do have these things it's insane for us to argue that less benefits equates to better living just by having a job.
Additionally lets look at retirement. The less money wage earners are making now means the less money those who are retiring now have for Social Security and Medicare. Remember those programs are paid for by those who are currently drawing a payroll. If the amount those individuals make continues to go down while the amount of those who retire or who are disabled continues to go up (is now a good time to point out that obesity at certain levels becomes a debilitating condition in which a person can't work and has to go on SS and Medicare?) you end up running a deficit. That then costs the government more money and means either taxes have to go up (which nets out less money for each individual) OR it means that you have to start cutting people off the program. And thus we end up with people who are 70 having to work as WalMart greeters so they don't become homeless. And this is all neverminding the fact that if people aren't gaining retirement benefits such as pensions or matched 401k's from their employers and if people aren't earning enough to live in some way other than paycheck-to-paycheck (meaning they aren't able to save) then you create a pocket where those people will be ENTIRELY dependent on these programs in order to retire.
We have been forced into believing that wages have to go down because companies will pack up and move. I AM TELLING YOU THIS IS BULL@!$%#. Local businesses aren't the ones who are going to pack up and move- it's the national and international companies who are the ones that threaten to leave.
Forget for a second all the Republican rhetoric about business. Small businesses like mine are crushed by giant corporations. And when we go out that's what causes income disparity. The Republican Party (and yes even the Democratic Party in so many ways) pretends to care about small businesses with their rhetoric, but their policies are written to give unfair advantage to multi-national corporations. The money concentration goes to the top and then those companies are the ones who threaten to outsource. I am telling you now that if you called their bluff the nation would JUST FINE. Small businesses would step in and take over and nothing bad would happen. They are lying to you when they make this argument that you have to be dependent on them because they don't want to pay higher labor costs or be responsible for their employees. They are just useless vampires who suck money out from the laborers and from the small business owners.
I will say that I get you when you say you think there are reforms that need to be made by the union system. I have always personally maintained that unions come about because of bad management and piss-poor quality jobs. If employers give a crap about their employees and treat their employees justly then unions will never be a problem. Unions come about when companies start doing crap like extending your working hours without paying you overtime, denying you vacation time, cutting your sick days, etc. That's when people begin to unionize. If you treat your employees like human beings and not commodities to be bought and traded then I firmly believe you won't ever have to deal with a union. But unions are a band-aid to bigger problems within our society and to that extent I can understand how the band-aid becomes it's own infuriating circle jerk of red tape and bureaucracy (at some point everything does).
What we need is an entire change in how we approach economics and business. Some of that has to be social and come from within the populace itself- movement politics- and some of that can be done with law. For instance laws reforming healthcare make things easier on both businesses and workers (the ACA was a good start, although I personally believe it failed on so many levels to do the job as it needs to be done). Part of that is reformations to education and how we appropriate funds to school districts and for college. Part of that is in worker right laws and changes to the minimum wage. If we as a society took a pro-active stance on labor rights and the importance of a vibrant consumer class then we wouldn't have to have this tit-for-tat conversation about unions. But we insist on being a consumer based economy that only cares about the bottom line of the top companies in America. It's completely backwards. It's kind've like how the criminal justice system is set up to be deterministic in it's application of justice, yet we use free will arguments as the justification for our laws. The two are mutually exclusive and thus meshing them only creates problems.
Thank you Cartoon News , these people start their rants with misinformation about places like Hostess , then build on their fiction from there
We all need to be on board with the race to the bottom that romney and ryan campaigned on , if wall mart was really smart , they would just build shanty towns and soup kitchens next to all their facilities ... but maybe that would make it all too obvious?
So, what JLee is trying to say is, don't question, don't complain. Be good little cogs in the machine and accept that what little those above you give you is more than you deserve. Be happy when lawmakers go out of their way to turn the US into a 3rd world nation, and be glad in the end if you have a job. Even if it doesn't pay enough for you to afford enough food, a place to live, and no healthcare to speak of.
He would have enjoyed the days of the robber barons and the Gilded Age immensely if he really feels that way. Sad that our country has fallen so far that after people fought and died for the benefits of life we've had as American citizens, that some would rather we give them up for the chance to serve the rich and powerful.
So, first off, that was quite a magnum opus, Cartoon. I
suffered throughfollowed your logic, which was really well put. (Just kidding about the suffering.)I hope that the discussion can be kept at that level and not descend into scapegoating and name-calling, which doesn't really serve any purpose except to make everyone's blood boil. I think JLee has written something from experience that shows it's not all black and white, is all.
Yeah I am long winded too hah. Sorry about that JL ;-). And I was not trying to insult JLee? I see the point JLee is getting at- I was just trying to explain that this is wayy more complicated than whether or not you find the union system valid. I agree with JLee that there are probably a lot of reforms that can happen within unions to make them work better. In fact I expressly stated I wasn't contesting that argument because I agree with it. My point, however, was that unions are a band-aid to a MUCH larger systemic problem. Think of our economic situation as a puzzle. We keep our eyes fixated on this one puzzle piece- the unions- and in doing so we miss the larger picture of the entire puzzle. That was all I was trying to say.
It wasn't you I was talking to about that, Cartoon. If you get my drift. . . .
;-)
I guess they just want us to roll over and play dead now. Is that their plan? You know tax payers also support the police and the national guard who we could call at any given moment. Then, we'll see how fast they will change their tune. As far as I know President Barack Hussein Obama is the Chief Commander of his Country. Now, there's a president who knows how to make friends.
I can see the new signs that will be erected when one enters Michigan on the highways: Welcome to Michigan, the Mississippi of the North.
we are just like Mississippi just with out all the crooked letters.
Hey Pilot, Just a side note, ANOTHER ONE OF GOV. WALKERS AIDES SENTENCED 2 YR PRISON, 2YR EXTENDED SUPERVISION, REPAY $51,000 Stolen from a VETERANS FUND. WALKER took the fund away from the Vet's, LOOK what happens. This story is in Milwaukee journal Sentinel, Also look into Walker's WEDC situation, Wher's the $$$$
well thats great, he should also have to go and clean bed pans at a Vets hospital as well!
so it seems john doe is moving along in a positive direction.
and smiling, i can tell you was one of the good NCO`s,,, handshake.
The middle class is under attack. The middle class is the only class of people that can contest the unlawful antics of the wealthy. If you think about it, you cannot have a wealth class without the poor. Someone has to clean their houses and iron their shirts. Otherwise, why be rich if you still had to do "menial" labor. But the middle class is usually educated.
This is why events like this MUST be publicized and the counter actions MUST be communicated in this era of mass media and social networking. We can no longer tolerate tactics like this that affect the lives of millions of people.
For 2014, we should have a list of the republicans who voted for these bills and attempted these tactics and VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE.
Where is the "General Strike" of all UNIONS in Michigan??????? If you are not willing to stand up and fight for your rights, then what good are the UNIONS anyway. They are paper tigers. If this is what you believe in then SACRIFICE like your fore fathers did. Otherwise, you get run over and all you can do is Bi*ch.
It's against the law for public employees to strike but we'll figure something out.
I live in a "right to work state" Fla - the motto is "churn and burn" - get an employee to churn out as much productivity for the lowest pay- burn them out and replace with another. The phrase "we're lucky to have jobs" is defeatist - what incentive is there for an employer to pay a high wage - or even pay a living wage? They know that they have people so desperate that they can get away with paying virtually anything and it only adds to their profit margin.
I am not sure how much I believe all of Fla has a 'churn and burn' mentality , but maybe in your personal experience it has been true. Any business with that mentality should go out of business. 'We are lucky to have jobs' is not defeatist, it is reality. I am thankful every day for my job, as we all should be. The point is there has to be balance within all of these demands and desires. There are other people out there probably willing to take your job, either in your state, another state, or another country. Additionally, if you don't like your situation change it. We place so much emphasis on making sure the company does the right thing, but this is America - the country of freedom of choice, built, in part, by people leaving England, then leaving the east for the west because they wanted something better, something more. If a company has bad labor practices, leave for the company that has good labor practices. We make those same choices in the rest of our lives every day. Apple and Google, and others win by hiring away the best with their benefits and opportunities, not because they have a reputation of churn and burn. Wages are not the only methods of economic control in this country; they are mearly a part of the overall system of supply, demand, pricing, inflation, etc. Bottom line, if someone doesn't like the job, go to a different one. Should there be baseline labor practices, yes, and there are...thanks to unions. I have worked many jobs in my life, all in non-union environments, and have not suffered the extreme ill fate suggested by many here; but, that is just my experience. Point is, unions are not required to ensure a good working environment, not in many situations.
@Steve, Pretzelogic I am a union supporter, the bloody sacrifices of early union founders and the fact that they are the #1 driver of any positive advances in the working conditions in the US from the 8 hour work day to overtime and I could go on and on.. BUT..
Like the Repugs loss in the recent elections. Looking angrily at anyone who states any negative observations or the truth as they see it is not growth. The core reasons for so many voters not supporting the unions is not the republican conspiratorial push for their own agenda (this is their view of what is best for the country) it is in the very real shortcomings as viewed by the majority of voters. The majority voted these men and their policies in.
My country right or wrong does not truly make any better than my union right or wrong.
The conversation should be about the fact that our society is continuing to shift the costs of programs related to education, healthcare, retirement, public safety and more (in both the public and private sectors) to Americans without wage gains. People cannot afford to live. http://www.facebook.com/at10us?ref=hl
There must be a law somewhere about discriminating against some workers while favoring others. I guess it is time to call an auto worker a public safety auto worker since indirectly and directly, the quality of the car definitely effects public safety.
This came as a big surprise yesterday, with breaking news updates all afternoon. In an attempt to understand what happened, I found a couple of good pieces.
The guy who, in 2006, blew a gazillion dollars trying to get elected governor, is a major player.
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/tim_skubick_didnt_dick_devos_o.html
GOP taking advantage of the lame duck session, "immediate effect," and generally railroading this through. http://www.michiganradio.org/post/commentary-what-happened-lansing#.UMIFPNQPCzI.facebook
I pay about .25 and hour for my Union Dues. Just this year I got a about a .40 an hour pay increase, thanks to my Union, a 6% increase over 3 years. I make a good living wage. When I started my job I make $3.35 32 years ago, which is only $4 an hour less then what minimum wage is today. I just don't understand why the non union aren't beating the doors down to join. No one is going to do it for you like a union.
The Republican governing body in Michigan did not run on the policy of restricting union rights - they just rammed it through with the majority they have in the state houses - very similar to Scott Walker in Wisconsin.....
Don't get me wrong, I do not believe any political party should be allowed to rem rod any bill down the people's throats and especially one that can't be repealed by popular vote ( But we know that it is done on daily basis)
Having said that, I want to say from what I have seen Unions can be good and they can be bad .... workers that can't be fired by management just because they keep their union dues up are not good for the companies and Unions have had a lot to do with fair wages for both Union and non Union shops." I can't think of a single friend who has ever worked in a non union shop that paid prevailing wage on a certain contract complain about the pay, pay which would not have been so good had it not been for Unions.
Unions have been the strength of the American Workers and American Workers have been the Strength of Unions.
Unions have done their part over the years to the extent of almost forcing small businesses . the independents, if you will to have to pay competitive wages if they wanted to keep workers.
Michigan do not allow your politicians ruin all that, someone stand up and start a constitutionallity issue case or something to keep the Lame Ducks from ruining in meer weeks or month's what took years to build.
There is not now, and there never has been, a labor contract the prevented someone from being fired who deserves to be fired. There are, and have been, however, many, many company managers unwilling to do the paperwork required to prove that said person is being fired for just cause.
Any union member can be fired if that person has met the required standards. If there is a union member who should be fired yet hasn't been, the responsibility for that not happening lays with the company - not the union.
Just thinking, blog style, if retirement and health care were truely socialized, busisness would be saving on both the health insurance and retirement insurance costs then covered by taxes.
So Sam Walton has the idea that he will employ people at minimum wage to compete against union wage businesses. So nowadays his company has 1,400,000 employees working to give the Walton family $1,400,000/hour for every $/hour difference. So not only his employees live hard lives so to do the union workers who are getting crunched trying to compete. We call this rewarding innovation???
Everyone seems to be enjoying the lower costs of goods...And the competition walmart has created has lowered the cost of goods in many other stores. And created many jobs, maybe not as ideal as you like though.
As an investor, you could be part owner too. Or you could be part owner of GM with the Federal Government.
Labor practices were not his major innovations to make him successful.
How are wal mart workers suppose to invest in wal mart when they are on food stamps?