Michigan to become a right to work state?

[coyotes_geek]

Michigan Legislature Approves Right-to-Work Measures Amid Tumult
(http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-06/michigan-governor-snyder-promises-to-sign-right-to-work-bill-1-.html?cmpid=yhoo)

:wow

[boutons_deux]

aka, Right to Earn Less.

all states with RTW laws have lower avg wages than non RTW states.

RTW = War on Employees

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/06/michigan-governor-right-to-work/1751081/

"Right-to-work legislation makes it illegal to require financial support of a union as a condition of employment. Snyder and Republican leaders characterized the bills as giving workers a choice . Democrats said the initiative is about union-busting and retribution for Proposal 2, a failed Nov. 6 labor-backed ballot initiative that would have barred a right-to-work law and enshrined collective bargaining in the state constitution."

So, Big Labor (lol) tried a similar tactic last month and it failed...somehow they're surprised and shocked at this?

Not the smartest knives in the drawer.

[DarkReign]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/06/michigan-governor-right-to-work/1751081/

"Right-to-work legislation makes it illegal to require financial support of a union as a condition of employment. Snyder and Republican leaders characterized the bills as giving workers a choice . Democrats said the initiative is about union-busting and retribution for Proposal 2, a failed Nov. 6 labor-backed ballot initiative that would have barred a right-to-work law and enshrined collective bargaining in the state constitution."

So, Big Labor (lol) tried a similar tactic last month and it failed...somehow they're surprised and shocked at this?

Not the smartest knives in the drawer.

Nailed it. The moment Prop2 failed to be enshrined in the Constitution, it opened the door wiiiide open for RTW legislation. The Unions gambled and lost (pretty handily, I might add). Now theyre sour grapes.

[TeyshaBlue]

aka, Right to Earn Less.

all states with RTW laws have lower avg wages than non RTW states.

RTW = War on Employees

lol simpleton.

Ever factor regional differences in cost of living into that bit of "analysis" or did you just crib that from thinkprogress? http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

[boutons_deux]

red state regions are generally less unionized, less educated, and poorer than blue states, as well as being annually bailed out by blue states.

[mouse]

Not the smartest knives in the drawer.


Its the Sharpest Mr. Butter knife.

[TeyshaBlue]

Its the Sharpest Mr. Butter knife.

lol fuck me and my mixed metaphors!:toast:lol:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

red state regions are generally less unionized, less educated, and poorer than blue states, as well as being annually bailed out by blue states.

Nice dodge. Again.

[Drachen]

Nice dodge. Again.


It's not a dodge if it is the only talking point he has that has something in common with the topic being discussed. He could, however, work on his segues so it wouldn't be so obvious.


That's an interesting point, though I am not sure that I agree with it. However, the real issue seems to be red state regions are generally less unionized, less educated, and poorer than blue states, as well as being annually bailed out by blue states.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's not a dodge if it is the only talking point he has that has something in common with the topic being discussed. He could, however, work on his segues so it wouldn't be so obvious.

Except, that's not really a cogent point either. It's just the same old, tired, debased red-state bubba campaign he's waged for years.

[Drachen]

Except, that's not really a cogent point either. It's just the same old, tired, debased red-state bubba campaign he's waged for years.

Oh I never said that it was a cogent point. I just said that as he poured over his notes, this was the closest talking point to what was being discussed. His handlers didn't prepare him for this conversation.

[mouse]

lol fuck me and my mixed metaphors!:toast:lol:lmao

I did the same this last year got hammered by the grammar cops. :toast

[Capt Bringdown]

In the private sector, we have contracts between workers and employers...don't "right to work" regulations necessarily mean big government intrusions on these private contracts?
"Right to Work" means big business colluding with big government to dictate the terms for working people.

[CosmicCowboy]

In the private sector, we have contracts between workers and employers...don't "right to work" regulations necessarily mean big government intrusions on these private contracts?
"Right to Work" means big business colluding with big government to dictate the terms for working people.

WTF?

It means that each employee has the right to decide if he wants to pay dues to a union that has a political agenda that he may or may not agree with.

[Capt Bringdown]

WTF?

It means that each employee has the right to decide if he wants to pay dues to a union that has a political agenda that he may or may not agree with.

"If you don't like it, find another job." I heard this line regarding the WalMart strike.
But when it comes to collective bargaining, you want a big government intrusion on a private contract.

[TeyshaBlue]

"If you don't like it, find another job." I heard this line regarding the WalMart strike.
But when it comes to collective bargaining, you want a big government intrusion on a private contract.
You're confused....the legislation does nothing of the sort.

[Capt Bringdown]

You're confused....the legislation does nothing of the sort.

"Right to work" is an example of government intrusion into the free market. It bans a particular contract provision that could be agreed to between employees and employer.


A Libertarian perspective (The Freeman):

What’s Wrong with Right-to-Work (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/whats-wrong-with-right-to-work/#axzz2Epi8H5L5)

A “union shop” agreement between an employer and a union commits the employer to ensuring that new hires join the union within a specified period. Right-to-work laws ban union-shop agreements.

Let’s put it another way: They violate freedom of contract.

If employers choose to conclude union-shop contracts with unions, what gives the Indiana legislature the right to interfere?

Employers own the wages they will pay and the sites where work will be performed under such contracts. So it’s their right to dispense the wages and make the sites available specifically to union members, just as it’s their right, more generally, to trade with anyone they choose.

When a legislature interferes with voluntary employment contracts, it infringes people’s freedom to bargain with their own labor and possessions. Treating this kind of interference as acceptable means licensing arbitrary interventions into the market by politicians, who are ill-equipped to second-guess the decisions made by the real people making work agreements with one another.

And there’s no principled way to draw a sharp line here: Once it’s okay for a legislature to interfere with bargaining in this way, there’s no stopping politicians from setting wages and prices, or requiring or prohibiting the hiring of particular people.

It’s not the job of the government to interfere with free agreements to lower costs or boost incomes. Presumably the government could force lots of people to work for no wages at all. That would also do what right-to-work laws do, albeit much more dramatically: It would treat people as slaves. The same would be true if it mandated wages for everyone.
-more> (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/whats-wrong-with-right-to-work/#axzz2Epi8H5L5)

[Jacob1983]

Unions should exist but they should be 100 percent private and funded by private donations and dues.

[Wild Cobra]

In the private sector, we have contracts between workers and employers...don't "right to work" regulations necessarily mean big government intrusions on these private contracts?
"Right to Work" means big business colluding with big government to dictate the terms for working people.
Are you serious?

You need to do some more reading on the topic. What you just said is not correct. You must be tuning into libtard propaganda.

[Wild Cobra]

Let’s put it another way: They violate freedom of contract.
Such collective contracts, without 100% agreement on the employees, is authoritarian and communistic. Unionism already removes individual bargaining. Employees still fall under the agreements, but they just don't have to finance the union.

[TeyshaBlue]

"Right to work" is an example of government intrusion into the free market. It bans a particular contract provision that could be agreed to between employees and employer.

The right to work legislation didnt ban a fucking thing. Anybody can still join a union. It's now no longer compulsory.

Really, this isn't complex nor difficult to understand. I don't know why you cant/wont grok this.

[Wild Cobra]

The right to work legislation didnt ban a fucking thing. Anybody can still join a union. It's now no longer compulsory.

Really, this isn't complex nor difficult to understand. I don't know why you cant/wont grok this.
He's just a lemming, repeating what his liberal masters tell him to say.

[TeyshaBlue]

Just because someone disagrees with your enlightened perspective doesn't make them a lemming, WC. :facepalm

[Wild Cobra]

Just because someone disagrees with your enlightened perspective doesn't make them a lemming, WC. :facepalm
True, but I like saying it. You weren't much nicer to him.

[Wild Cobra]

aka, Right to Earn Less.

all states with RTW laws have lower avg wages than non RTW states.

RTW = War on Employees
All?

Probably not. It is true however, that right to work states have an average lower income than non right to work states.

It is also true that right to work states have an average lower cost of living.

When both these facts are factored in, right to work state individual, as an average, have a higher purchasing power than non right to work state individuals.

[Capt Bringdown]

The right to work legislation didnt ban a fucking thing. Anybody can still join a union. It's now no longer compulsory.

Really, this isn't complex nor difficult to understand. I don't know why you cant/wont grok this.

I see that the legislation does ban compulsory union membership. "If employers choose to conclude union-shop contracts with unions, what gives the legislature the right to interfere (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/whats-wrong-with-right-to-work/#axzz2Epi8H5L5)?"

I think it's a pretty straight forward libertarian argument. I think employers and employees are better equipped to negotiate private contracts for mutual benefit than remote legislators.
Was I condescending to you? I don't think I was, so your aggro is more than a bit bizaare.

[Capt Bringdown]

He's just a lemming, repeating what his liberal masters tell him to say.

Not at all. The article I linked to was from a libertarian source. Seems to me that there's a wide range of opinion on this subject, and that the topic can be addressed without childish name-calling. Don't you agree?

[CosmicCowboy]

I see that the legislation does ban compulsory union membership. "If employers choose to conclude union-shop contracts with unions, what gives the legislature the right to interfere (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/whats-wrong-with-right-to-work/#axzz2Epi8H5L5)?"

I think it's a pretty straight forward libertarian argument. I think employers and employees are better equipped to negotiate private contracts for mutual benefit than remote legislators.
Was I condescending to you? I don't think I was, so your aggro is more than a bit bizaare.

Are you choosing to ignore the fact that federal government intervention into the employer/employee relationship is what allowed unions to exist to start with? Unions had extended that federal protection into control of 100% of the workers that chose to work for a given employer whether they wanted to be union or not. Right to work is simply protecting the rights of the workers against the union. Or put differently, it is giving the individual worker the right to choose. How do you find this to be anti-libertarian?

[Capt Bringdown]

Are you choosing to ignore the fact that federal government intervention into the employer/employee relationship is what allowed unions to exist to start with?
No, and I would like to see the current labor law framework opened up to more competition, especially from more radical unions such as the IWW.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You need to do some more reading on the topic.
When WC says this, it's code for, "You need to start getting your information from Politico and Fox News!"

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

All?

Probably not. It is true however, that right to work states have an average lower income than non right to work states.

It is also true that right to work states have an average lower cost of living.

When both these facts are factored in, right to work state individual, as an average, have a higher purchasing power than non right to work state individuals.
I'd bet my left testicle you just made this up and don't have any factual evidence backing it.

[Capt Bringdown]

How do you find this to be anti-libertarian?

Freedom of contract. redux: If employers choose to conclude union-shop contracts with unions, what gives the legislature the right to interfere?
"When a legislature interferes with voluntary employment contracts, it infringes people’s freedom to bargain with their own labor and possessions. Treating this kind of interference as acceptable means licensing arbitrary interventions into the market by politicians, who are ill-equipped to second-guess the decisions made by the real people making work agreements with one another."

As I was told many times during the WalMart strike, employment is voluntary. No one is forcing anyone to work in a union shop, right?


Such collective contracts, without 100% agreement on the employees, is authoritarian and communistic. Seems to me that your standard of anything less than 100% agreement = "authoritarian and communistic" is unworkable in just about every human context.

[CosmicCowboy]

As I was told many times during the WalMart strike, employment is not voluntary. No one is forcing anyone to work in a union shop, right?

.

So you want the government to force workers to pay dues to an outside organization they don't want to belong to just so they can work for an employer that they want to work for?

[Capt Bringdown]

So you want the government to force workers to pay dues to an outside organization they don't want to belong to just so they can work for an employer that they want to work for?

Government should respect private contracts.
"All that people need in order to negotiate for themselves is freedom of contract. (Of course, sometimes they might not be able to do so if an employer is bound by a union contract that prohibits individual negotiations. But if the contract is a voluntary one, the government has no business interfering with it.)

[CosmicCowboy]

Government should respect private contracts.
"All that people need in order to negotiate for themselves is freedom of contract. (Of course, sometimes they might not be able to do so if an employer is bound by a union contract that prohibits individual negotiations. But if the contract is a voluntary one, the government has no business interfering with it.)

Exactly

So if an employer wants to hire a worker

And the worker wants to work for the employer but doesn't want to join the union

The government shouldn't give an outside organization the power to extort the worker to give them part of his/her wages that they earned.

[boutons_deux]

employees who don't pay union contributions should not be included in any benefits the union obtains.

[Capt Bringdown]

Exactly

So if an employer wants to hire a worker

And the worker wants to work for the employer but doesn't want to join the union

The government shouldn't give an outside organization the power to extort the worker to give them part of his/her wages that they earned.

Why should membership in a union as a condition of employment be denied? If private parties agree and compliance with the contract is voluntary, I don't see a valid reason for big government to get involved.
No one is forced to work for a particular employer, so language such as extortion is inflammatory and inaccurate.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why should membership in a union as a condition of employment be denied? If private parties agree and compliance with the contract is voluntary, I don't see a valid reason for big government to get involved.
No one is forced to work for a particular employer, so language such as extortion is inflammatory and inaccurate.

Any employer that still wants to make union membership a condition of employment can do so.

Extortion is the perfect word to use if an employee doesn't want to join the union but the union forces him to as a condition of employment (with the hammer of a strike hanging over the employers head if he doesn't go along with the extortion plot)

Your argument has been blown to pieces.

[CosmicCowboy]

employees who don't pay union contributions should not be included in any benefits the union obtains.

The employee works for the employer, not the union. The benefit package negotiated is between the employer and employee.

[Drachen]

True, but I like saying it. You weren't much nicer to him.
TeyshaBlue you two are so alike. I wouldn't be able to tell you guys apart if it wasn't for your avatars.

[boutons_deux]

The employee works for the employer, not the union. The benefit package negotiated is between the employer and employee.

that's the kind of power relationship employers exploit to fuck over employees, esp when unemployment is high and employees are desperate.

[coyotes_geek]

All?

Probably not. It is true however, that right to work states have an average lower income than non right to work states.

It is also true that right to work states have an average lower cost of living.

When both these facts are factored in, right to work state individual, as an average, have a higher purchasing power than non right to work state individuals.

I'd bet my left testicle you just made this up and don't have any factual evidence backing it.

Pretty much a given that WC doesn't have any homework on this, and normally I'm not into doing someone else's homework for them. But, this topic got me curious enough to see what I could dig up in 15 minutes or so.

I took per capita incomes by state that I found here, on the Census website (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/ranks/rank29.html) and put those into a spreadsheet.

I did a google search for a cost of living adjustment, by state, and found one here (http://www.1stmarinerbank.com/blog/post/2011/07/18/is-the-cost-of-living-and-inflation-higher-in-washington-baltimore-area.aspx) and plugged those into my spreadsheet.

From there I just normalized all the incomes using the COLA data I found, separated the right to work states from the closed shop states and averaged the normalized incomes for each group. I left Indiana and Michigan in the closed shop group because the income data on the census website was 2008 and both those states were closed shop back then.

I ended up with an average normalized per capita income (2008) of $38,516 for right to work states and $37,400 for closed shop states.

Obviously there's a bajillion different factors that affect per capita income and cost of living that have nothing to do with right to work or closed shop. So borrowing the Mythbusters standard, we can't give WC's myth a "CONFIRMED", but we can give it a "PLAUSIBLE".

[Capt Bringdown]

Any employer that still wants to make union membership a condition of employment can do so.

Extortion is the perfect word to use if an employee doesn't want to join the union but the union forces him to as a condition of employment (with the hammer of a strike hanging over the employers head if he doesn't go along with the extortion plot)

Your argument has been blown to pieces.

Not at all. Employment is voluntary and there is no extortion.

"Do you have the right to not join a union - sure. (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/whats-wrong-with-right-to-work/#axzz2Epi8H5L5) What you don't have the right to do is not join a union and work for an employer who requires you to join one as a condition of employment.

Similarly, you have the right not to wear a blue shirt, but you do not have the right to insist on being hired at a place where the uniform is a blue shirt, yet not wear one."

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

average income is a pretty worthless statistic that doesn't account for how income is distributed at all. If you filled a stadium with Bill Gates and 50,000 homeless people, the average person in the stadium would be a millionaire. Median income is by far the better and more accurate measure of middle class prosperity.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not at all. Employment is voluntary and there is no extortion.

"Do you have the right to not join a union - sure. (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/whats-wrong-with-right-to-work/#axzz2Epi8H5L5) What you don't have the right to do is not join a union and work for an employer who requires you to join one as a condition of employment.

Similarly, you have the right not to wear a blue shirt, but you do not have the right to insist on being hired at a place where the uniform is a blue shirt, yet not wear one."

You are really slow aren't you? Right to work gives the employer the opportunity to CHOOSE to hire union AND non-union workers if he wants. The difference is the union employees pay the union to negotiate their salary and benefits where the non-union employee can negotiate his own salary and benefits directly with the employer.

[Capt Bringdown]

Obviously there's a bajillion different factors that affect per capita income and cost of living that have nothing to do with right to work or closed shop. So borrowing the Mythbusters standard, we can't give WC's myth a "CONFIRMED", but we can give it a "PLAUSIBLE".

This is obviously an old study, but:


Lawrence Mishel of the liberal Economics Policy Institute wrote in 2001 that working in a right-to-work state results in a 6 to 8 percent reduction in wages. Even controlling for regional cost-of-living differences, the difference is a fairly significant 4 percent penalty. - more ->
Right-to-work doesn’t work
Michigan passes an anti-union law and claims it's good for workers. Economists say sure -- if you own the company (http://www.salon.com/2012/12/11/right_to_work_doesnt_work/)

[Capt Bringdown]

You are really slow aren't you? Right to work gives the employer the opportunity to CHOOSE to hire union AND non-union workers if he wants. The difference is the union employees pay the union to negotiate their salary and benefits where the non-union employee can negotiate his own salary and benefits directly with the employer.

Resorting to personal insults means you've lost the argument. But besides that, it seems to me that you refuse to accept the freedom of contract between employer and employee. If employers and employees feel a closed shop arrangement is to their mutual benefit, they should have the freedom to negotiate such agreements. The government should respect freedom of contract.

[coyotes_geek]

average income is a pretty worthless statistic that doesn't account for how income is distributed at all. If you filled a stadium with Bill Gates and 50,000 homeless people, the average person in the stadium would be a millionaire. Median income is by far the better and more accurate measure of middle class prosperity.

Re-running the numbers for median income instead of per-capita I get $50,237 for right to work and $49,849 for closed shop.

[DarrinS]

Unions have done wonders for the people of Michigan, especially Detroit.

[CosmicCowboy]

Like all employees, union employees range from excellent to shitty. Without right to work the union negotiates an "average" salary with the employer and then pays all the workers the same.

I'm not saying the stereotypical shitty union employee is gonna like "right to work".

It allows the talented and motivated employees to negotiate higher than "average" salaries and benefits and leaves the union to negotiate the new "average" for the slug employees that are left at the next contract renewal.

[CosmicCowboy]

Resorting to personal insults means you've lost the argument. But besides that, it seems to me that you refuse to accept the freedom of contract between employer and employee. If employers and employees feel a closed shop arrangement is to their mutual benefit, they should have the freedom to negotiate such agreements. The government should respect freedom of contract.

I'm not losing the argument, I'm just stating the obvious that you are fucking stupid. I have already said twice that the employer can choose to have a closed shop in a right to work state if he wants. It's just that now he has the right to choose a mixed shop.

[DarrinS]

Like all employees, union employees range from excellent to shitty. Without right to work the union negotiates an "average" salary with the employer and then pays all the workers the same.

I'm not saying the stereotypical shitty union employee is gonna like "right to work".

It allows the talented and motivated employees to negotiate higher than "average" salaries and benefits and leaves the union to negotiate the new "average" for the slug employees that are left at the next contract renewal.



This is why unions would never appeal to the most talented people in their fields.

[Winehole23]

presumably the same holds for firefighters and police, right?

[Th'Pusher]

presumably the same holds for firefighters and police, right?
Right? What is the case for firefighters and police being excluded?

[boutons_deux]

Right? What is the case for firefighters and police being excluded?

The Repug thug politicians and their 1% financers need fire and police services. And I bet fire/police vote mostly Repug, anyway.

[boutons_deux]

Jon Stewart Slams Orwellian 'Right-to-Work'In the segment below, Stewart skewered the Orwellian language, noting that the law is really about the right of corporations to work around unions.


http://www.alternet.org/jon-stewart-slams-orwellian-right-work

[TeyshaBlue]

I see that the legislation does ban compulsory union membership. "If employers choose to conclude union-shop contracts with unions, what gives the legislature the right to interfere (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/whats-wrong-with-right-to-work/#axzz2Epi8H5L5)?"

I think it's a pretty straight forward libertarian argument. I think employers and employees are better equipped to negotiate private contracts for mutual benefit than remote legislators.
Was I condescending to you? I don't think I was, so your aggro is more than a bit bizaare.

It does nothing to ban union membership. It simply makes it a choice, not compulsory for employment. Your argument is completely backwards. Prior to this, there was no choice whatsoever. If you wanted to work you were forced to join a union.

[boutons_deux]

Myths And Facts About "Right-To-Work" Laws

Are workers in states without right-to-work laws forced to join unions? (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/12/myths-and-facts-about-right-to-work-laws/191810#myth1)

Do right-to-work laws lead to higher wages and benefits? (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/12/myths-and-facts-about-right-to-work-laws/191810#myth2)

Will right-to-work laws lead to lower unemployment in states that adopt them? (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/12/myths-and-facts-about-right-to-work-laws/191810#myth3)

Do right-to-work laws protect workers from supporting political activities they disagree with? (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/12/myths-and-facts-about-right-to-work-laws/191810#myth4)


http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-20121210-forcedunionism.png

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/12/myths-and-facts-about-right-to-work-laws/191810

[TeyshaBlue]

The Repug thug politicians and their 1% financers need fire and police services. And I bet fire/police vote mostly Repug, anyway.

Ever encountered the concept of civil services?

Civil services. Retail/Trad employment. One of these things is not like the other one.

[TeyshaBlue]

Myths And Facts About "Right-To-Work" Laws

Are workers in states without right-to-work laws forced to join unions? (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/12/myths-and-facts-about-right-to-work-laws/191810#myth1)

Do right-to-work laws lead to higher wages and benefits? (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/12/myths-and-facts-about-right-to-work-laws/191810#myth2)

Will right-to-work laws lead to lower unemployment in states that adopt them? (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/12/myths-and-facts-about-right-to-work-laws/191810#myth3)

Do right-to-work laws protect workers from supporting political activities they disagree with? (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/12/myths-and-facts-about-right-to-work-laws/191810#myth4)


http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-20121210-forcedunionism.png

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/12/myths-and-facts-about-right-to-work-laws/191810

lol...boutons posts link from moonbat blog that references "studies" from moonbat orgs.

Yet, he'll lambast Heritage.

Irony. It's not just for breakfast anymore.

[Th'Pusher]

The Repug thug politicians and their 1% financers need fire and police services. And I bet fire/police vote mostly Repug, anyway.
But why does collective bargaining make sense for police and fire, but not for other union jobs? Wouldn't police and firemen prefer to negotiate with their employer directly based on individual performance?

[Wild Cobra]

When WC says this, it's code for, "You need to start getting your information from Politico and Fox News!"
I don't get my news from either. Are they good sources?

[Wild Cobra]

I'd bet my left testicle you just made this up and don't have any factual evidence backing it.
I can back it up.

Ready to lose it?

[Wild Cobra]

employees who don't pay union contributions should not be included in any benefits the union obtains.
I'd go for that. That means I can individually bargain for my benefits, and get better ones than the union members!

[Wild Cobra]

Obviously there's a bajillion different factors that affect per capita income and cost of living that have nothing to do with right to work or closed shop. So borrowing the Mythbusters standard, we can't give WC's myth a "CONFIRMED", but we can give it a "PLAUSIBLE".
LOL...


$38,516 for right to work states and $37,400 for closed shop states.
Anyone see data that disagrees with this?

CG did what two studies did.

[Th'Pusher]

If this is nothing more than providing workers a choice? Why are police and fire being carve out of such a great deal? Why is it compulsory they continue to pay union dues? Can a red teamer give me at least a canned answer?

[CosmicCowboy]

If this is nothing more than providing workers a choice? Why are police and fire being carve out of such a great deal? Why is it compulsory they continue to pay union dues? Can a red teamer give me at least a canned answer?


My guess is the difference between public and private employer. Plus, they may have made the political calculation that in order to get the bill passed they didn't need the police and fire unions lobbying against it.

[Th'Pusher]

My guess is the difference between public and private employer. Plus, they may have made the political calculation that in order to get the bill passed they didn't need the police and fire unions lobbying against it.
Why are unions lobbying against choice? Now they get to choose whether or not they pay union dues? Why are they so upset?

[Wild Cobra]

Why are unions lobbying against choice? Now they get to choose whether or not they pay union dues? Why are they so upset?
It's so funny. Liberals and unions go pretty much hand-in-hand, and they claim to be all about choice.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why are unions lobbying against choice? Now they get to choose whether or not they pay union dues? Why are they so upset?

:lmao

Are you really that stupid?

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao

Are you really that stupid?
No. But you're making it out to be some great deal for the workers. Now they have a choice? If it's such a great deal for the worker as you seem to imply, why are they so upset?

[DarrinS]

No. But you're making it out to be some great deal for the workers. Now they have a choice? If it's such a great deal for the worker as you seem to imply, why are they so upset?

really?

[Th'Pusher]

really?
Yes. Explain to me why a union worker would be upset about having the choice of whether or not he has to be a member of said union? CC and governor Snyder seem to think this is all about offering workers a choice. If that is the case, then why are they so upset? Do you know Darrin?

[CosmicCowboy]

No. But you're making it out to be some great deal for the workers. Now they have a choice? If it's such a great deal for the worker as you seem to imply, why are they so upset?

LOL at being too stupid to understand the difference between union members and union management. No union member dues, no union management.

[Th'Pusher]

LOL at being too stupid to understand the difference between union members and union management. No union member dues, no union management.

so only union management is protesting? The union members are not upset with the new legislation?

[CosmicCowboy]

so only union management is protesting? The union members are not upset with the new legislation?

Are you fucking serious? The guys that want to stay in the union can stay in the union. It doesn't affect them. If you saw guys waving signs at protests it's because the union was paying them to wave signs. Union Management is about power and enticing/forcing workers to pay dues to them so they can spend the money any way they want to. Right to work is exactly what it says. It is not anti worker. Unions used to be like AARP that the government forced you to join when you were 65. Fuck that.

[Th'Pusher]

Are you fucking serious? The guys that want to stay in the union can stay in the union. It doesn't affect them. If you saw guys waving signs at protests it's because the union was paying them to wave signs. Union Management is about power and enticing/forcing workers to pay dues to them so they can spend the money any way they want to. Right to work is exactly what it says. It is not anti worker. Unions used to be like AARP that the government forced you to join when you were 65. Fuck that.

Obviously I'm playing stupid here. I just find it amusing that you seem to actually believe that unions don't serve as an organizational counterweight to the power of those at the top.

[DarkReign]

Obviously I'm playing stupid here. I just find it amusing that you seem to actually believe that unions don't serve as an organizational counterweight to the power of those at the top.

Simply put, police and fire were excluded for purely political purposes. They are incredibly powerful unions in both political landscapes. It's one thing to have a thousand UAW members blaring horns and being arrested in Lansing and quite another to have striking police officers and firefighters being arrested in Lansing.

[Th'Pusher]

Simply put, police and fire were excluded for purely political purposes. They are incredibly powerful unions in both political landscapes. It's one thing to have a thousand UAW members blaring horns and being arrested in Lansing and quite another to have striking police officers and firefighters being arrested in Lansing.
But why would the police and firefighters be striking? Now they get to choose whether or not they want to participate in the union. It's all about giving workers choices!

[Jacob1983]

The stats about unionized states having better median incomes and low unemployment rates are misleading. North Dakota has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and it's a right to work state. The economy and unemployment rate are terrible in California and it's not a right to work state.

[Wild Cobra]

Obviously I'm playing stupid here. I just find it amusing that you seem to actually believe that unions don't serve as an organizational counterweight to the power of those at the top.
As much good as the unions once did, they now exercise more power than they should. I think we should leave that as a different argument, and I only bring it up as a reason why not everyone wants to be a union member.

In my case, I am stuck with a pay scale negotiated between my union and my employer. It is a set pay scale by job and time. Every employee in the same job is treated with equal pay only offset by pay steps that are fixed with how long you have worked. The downside for the employee is there is no incentive to work better than their coworkers. The downside for management is there is no way to reward better employees with a better pay and benefit package.

Unions uphold the lowest common denominator. I cannot negotiate as an individual for better pay, even though I should get paid more than most my coworkers. Unions are great for employees who are replaceable at a whim, but they really such for the people who distinguish themselves above others.

[Wild Cobra]

But why would the police and firefighters be striking? Now they get to choose whether or not they want to participate in the union. It's all about giving workers choices!

It's just the teachers who hold our children hostage for more pay.

[Wild Cobra]

The stats about unionized states having better median incomes and low unemployment rates are misleading. North Dakota has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and it's a right to work state. The economy and unemployment rate are terrible in California and it's not a right to work state.

It isn't because California isn't a right to work state, or because HD is. It has to do with the populous mindset, and who they elect into office, and what the elected officials do.

[Jacob1983]

What about Ohio and NY? Unemployment is shitty in Ohio and NY. The cost of living is a joke in NY. I'm just saying that you cannot make it seem like
States with unions = low unemployment and higher income
States that are right to work = high unemploment and lower income

The numbers just don't add up.

[ElNono]

the 'unemployment' impact of right to work is fairly minimal... 2012 numbers look like this (seasonally adjusted):

- Collective-Bargaining States average unemployment rate 7.5%
- Right to Work average unemployment rate 6.9%

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

This whole thing is political wrangling which, as usual, hold the employees hostage.

Unions abuse their positions of power as much as corps do. Thinking otherwise is naive, imo.

[Jacob1983]

Unions should be optional and by choice. Aren't liberals all about choice, tolerance, and being open minded?

[Wild Cobra]

Unions should be optional and by choice. Aren't liberals all about choice, tolerance, and being open minded?

Only when its the things they agree with.

[Wild Cobra]

Unions have done wonders for the people of Michigan, especially Detroit.
The future location of Delta City.

[baseline bum]

As much good as the unions once did, they now exercise more power than they should. I think we should leave that as a different argument, and I only bring it up as a reason why not everyone wants to be a union member.

In my case, I am stuck with a pay scale negotiated between my union and my employer. It is a set pay scale by job and time. Every employee in the same job is treated with equal pay only offset by pay steps that are fixed with how long you have worked. The downside for the employee is there is no incentive to work better than their coworkers. The downside for management is there is no way to reward better employees with a better pay and benefit package.

Unions uphold the lowest common denominator. I cannot negotiate as an individual for better pay, even though I should get paid more than most my coworkers. Unions are great for employees who are replaceable at a whim, but they really such for the people who distinguish themselves above others.

Are the other employees in the company better at sitting on ass and watching Stargate DVDs? If so, that sucks to not to be able to outshine everyone in performance reviews by telling about the lost episode where Charles in Charge came home drunk and tried to rape Jamie, only to get cockblocked by Buddy Lebeck.

[boutons_deux]

"they now exercise more power than they should."

evidence? esp now that unions are almost non-existent in USA due to VRWC union-busting the last 35 years?

[CosmicCowboy]

"they now exercise more power than they should."

evidence? esp now that unions are almost non-existent in USA due to VRWC union-busting the last 35 years?




:lmao

Tell that to the SEICU

[boutons_deux]

:lmao

Tell that to the SEICU

damn, you fucking stupid

"Union membership in the private sector has fallen under 7%"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States

the stagnation and loss of real household income in past 35 years has been largely due to the war on employees and union busting. Why do you think the Repugs want to destroy public sector unions? because they've pretty much fininshed off private sector unions.

Repugs MADE A HATED REGULATION blocking Homeland security PUBLIC employees from union membership, and want to kill public schools to kill teacher unions, etc, etc. It's the scorched earth campaign by Repugs/VRWC/ALEC to DEFUND the Dems (have nots) so the 1% and corps can fuck over the 99%

[boutons_deux]

Labor legislation

Labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Geoghegan) attributes the drop to the long term effects of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley_Act), which slowed and then halted labor's growth and then, over many decades, enabled management to roll back its previous gains.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#cite_note-deathoflabor-31)
First, it ended organizing on the grand, 1930s scale. It outlawed mass picketing, secondary strikes of neutral employers, sit downs: in short, everything [Congress of Industrial Organizations founder John L.] Lewis did in the 1930s.

The second effect of Taft-Hartley was subtler and slower-working. It was to hold up any new organizing at all, even on a quiet, low-key scale. For example, Taft-Hartley ended "card checks." … Taft-Hartley required hearings, campaign periods, secret-ballot elections, and sometimes more hearings, before a union could be officially recognized.

It also allowed and even encouraged employers to threaten workers who want to organize. Employers could hold "captive meetings," bring workers into the office and chew them out for thinking about the Union.

And Taft-Hartley led to the "union-busting" that started in the late 1960s and continues today. It started when a new "profession" of labor consultants began to convince employers that they could violate the [pro-labor 1935] Wagner Act, fire workers at will, fire them deliberately for exercising their legal rights, and nothing would happen. The Wagner Act had never had any real sanctions.
[…]
So why hadn't employers been violating the Wagner Act all along? Well, at first, in the 1930s and 1940s, they tried, and they got riots in the streets: mass picketing, secondary strikes, etc. But after Taft-Hartley, unions couldn't retaliate like this, or they would end up with penalty fines and jail sentences.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#cite_note-deathoflabor-31)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Labor_legislatio n

[DarrinS]

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ramirez-unions.jpg

[ElNono]

^ Where's the 'secede' bumper sticker? oh wait...

[baseline bum]

The Proud Liberal and Obama bumper stickers don't make any sense together tbh.

[Jacob1983]

How about these beauties?

http://rlv.zcache.com/obama_drones_bumper_sticker-p128615250523972942en7pq_328.jpg



http://rlv.zcache.com/military_industrial_complex_2012_bumper_sticker-p128450202655210898en7pq_216.jpg

[baseline bum]

Yeah, those are more accurate.

[coyotes_geek]

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ramirez-unions.jpg

Ridiculous. "Proud Liberal" and "Green" bumper stickers can only be placed together on a Prius.

[boutons_deux]

LOL...

Anyone see data that disagrees with this?

CG did what two studies did.

MYTH: Right-To-Work Leads To Higher Wages And Benefits

USA Today Op-Ed: Right-To-Work Creates Higher Wages, Which Help Grow Economy. In a December 6 opinion article in USA Today, Mackinac Center for Public Policy's F. Vincent Vernuccio claimed:

In other words, though Michigan's economy is going in the right direction, it can't let up now. And that's where a right-to-work law comes in to play.
Consider a few top-line facts about right-to-work states. Private-sector employee compensation in right-to-work states has grown by an inflation-adjusted 12.0% between 2001-2011, according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics. That compares with just 3.0% over the same period in states where workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of getting a job.
With growing paychecks come growing populations. Between 2000 and 2011, right-to-work states have seen an increase of 11.3% in the number of residents between the ages of 25-34 according to the Bureau of the Census. Non right-to-work states, over that same period, have seen an increase of only 0.6%. [USA Today, 12/6/2012 (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/06/michigan-right-work-union-economy/1751361/)]


On Fox, Guest Said Right-To-Work Legislation Increases Compensation And Improves The Economy.In a December 7 segment on Fox News' America's Newsroom, Penn State Financial Group's Matt McCall pushed the same numbers Vernuccio cited to suggest right-to-work laws bolstered wages and reduced unemployment:

McCALL: Well, If you look at the numbers, Bill, Steve's hit it right on the head. If you look from 2001 to 2011, look at the right-to-work states. Inflation adjusted compensation rose for employees, private sector employees, about 12 percent versus the non-right-to-work states only increased by 3 percent. So what happens when you're making more money? You then increase the amount of people that want to move to your state. In that same time frame -- you take a look again at right-to-work states -- you saw the population from 25-34 increase by 11.3 percent. In non-right to work states, increase by .6. So what that means is as more people move to your state, it's more tax revenue, you have more jobs, more companies coming there. So really, if you put it all together, it's great for the local economy. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 12/7/2012 (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/07/fox-gets-right-to-work-wrong/191746) via Media Matters]


WSJ: Michigan GOP Lawmakers Consider "Right-To-Work" Law "To Help The Lagging State Economy." In a December 5 editorial, The Wall Street Journal claimed that there are "economic benefits" to a so-called "right-to-work" law for Michigan and promoted it as a "happy possibility":


Unions lost big in Michigan in November when voters rejected Proposal 2, Big Labor's plan to canonize collective bargaining in the state constitution. Now they are facing a backlash with the happy possibility that Michigan could become the 24th right-to-work state.

Lawmakers have been preparing to introduce a right-to-work bill in the state legislature, and the labor cavalry is heading to the Wolverine state.
[...]
[T]he economy has languished. Michigan is the fifth most unionized state in the country and the birthplace of the UAW. According to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michigan has lost 7,300 jobs since January, while next-door Indiana, which became a right-to-work state earlier this year, has been on the upswing.
[...]
f a right-to-work law passed the legislature, unions could still try to repeal it on the ballot, as they did this year with the emergency manager law, which let the Governor appoint emergency financial managers who could redo collective-bargaining agreements. By the time a similar fight could be waged against right to work, voters could have had more than a year to see the law's economic benefits. [[I]The Wall Street Journal, 12/5/12 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323401904578159570404589916.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop)]


FACT: Studies Show Right-To-Work Laws Lead to Lower Wages and Benefits For Workers

Economic Policy Institute: Right-To-Work Laws Force Employees To "Work For Lower Wages And Fewer Benefits." Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz, researchers at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), studied what they called "the compensation penalty of 'right-to-work' laws" and concluded:

[O]ur findings -- that "right-to-work" laws are associated with significantly lower wages and reduced chances of receiving employer-sponsored health insurance and pensions -- are based on the most rigorous statistical analysis currently possible. These findings should discourage right-to-work policy initiatives. The fact is, while RTW legislation misleadingly sounds like a positive change in this weak economy, in reality the opportunity it gives workers is only that to work for lower wages and fewer benefits. For legislators dedicated to making policy on the basis of economic fact rather than ideological passion, our findings indicate that, contrary to the rhetoric of RTW proponents, the data show that workers in "right-to-work" states have lower compensation -- both union and nonunion workers alike.


EPI estimated that right to work leads to a 3 percent decrease in hourly wages and a decrease in benefits for all workers.

http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/epi-20110405-rtw-wagesbenefits.jpg

[Economic Policy Institute, 2/17/11 (http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper299.pdf#page=9), 4/5/11 (http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper307.pdf#page=6)]

McClatchy: "Numerous Studies Have Found That Wages For Both Union And Non-Union Workers Are Lower In States With Right-To-Work Laws." McClatchy Newspapers reported that wages are lower for all workers in states that have passed right-to-work laws:

Numerous studies have found that wages for both union and non-union workers are lower in states with right-to-work laws. Others have found that workplace safety suffers in right-to-work states, where workers are less likely to secure job safety enhancements beyond federal and state regulations. [McClatchy Newspapers, 2/16/12 (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/16/2645127/indianas-new-right-to-work-law.html)]


Congressional Research Service: Workers In Right-To-Work States Make An Average Of $7,000 Less Than Those In Non-Right-To-Work States. Citing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Congressional Research Service reported that the average wage in a right-to-work state was $42,465, compared with $49,495 in "labor security" states. [Congressional Research Service, 6/20/12 (http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf27_28/pdf/ddd/glw/r42/r42575.2012-06-20.pdf?EbscoContent=dGJyMMvl7ESeqK44v+vlOLCmr0qepr VSr6i4TLaWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPHq43zz5OeOuePfgeyx7H312+KL3+ bn&T=P&P=AN&S=R&D=glw&K=R42575.2012-06-20)]

Economic Policy Institute: Wages for Union And Non-Union Workers Are Lower by "An Average of $1,500 a year." In an EPI article, political economist Gordon Lafer explained that right-to-work laws not only lead to lower wages, but also led to reduced benefits for workers:
RTW laws lower wages for union and non-union workers by an average of $1,500 a year and decrease the likelihood employees will get health insurance or pensions through their jobs. By lowering compensation, they have the indirect effect of undermining consumer spending, which threatens economic growth. For every $1 million in wage cuts to workers, $850,000 less is spent in the economy, which translates into a loss of six jobs. [Economic Policy Institute,9/16/11 (http://www.epi.org/publication/right-to-work-michigan-economy/)]


Hofstra University's Lonnie Stevans: "Wages And Personal Income Are Both Lower In Right-To-Work States." In an analysis of the economic impact of "right-to-work" laws, Hofstra University professor Lonnie Stevans wrote:
Wages and personal income are both lower in right-to-work states, yet proprietors' income is higher. As a result, while right-to-work states may maintain a somewhat better business environment relative to non-right-to-work states, these benefits do not necessarily translate into increased economic verve for the right-to-work states as a whole -- there appears to be little 'trickle-down' to the largely non-unionized workforce in these states. [Review of Law & Economics, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2009 (http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/dmdocuments/clearinghouse_resources/stevans_article.pdf#page=16)]


http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/12/myths-and-facts-about-right-to-work-laws/191810

[Wild Cobra]

Shazbot.

Please note that the earlier articles compared with cost of living. You later, counter arguments did not.

[boutons_deux]

ALEC is funded by large corporations which we know always have the "freedom and choice" of their employees as key value :lol

Michigan Anti-Union Law Drafted by ALEC
BOTTARI: It's clear, when you look at the ALEC library of bills, they have about 20 or 30 ways to kneecap and defund and screw around with union financing, and they have about 20 and 30 other ways to kneecap and defund and screw around with trial lawyers. It is very clear that they're targeting the big backers of the Democratic Party, that it is a completely partisan move, and that it—you know, it hurts. It hits unions where it hurts—in the financing end. And they need that money to pay for organizers, they need that money to be a political force in the arena and to stand up for workers against CEOs and big corporate heads like the Koch brothers and their anti-worker agenda.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13349-michigan-anti-union-law-drafted-by-alec

[boutons_deux]

ALEC's decades of 'right-to-work' effort pay off in Michigan


‘Forced unionism’
In a publication celebrating its 25th year, ALEC said it “began striking out against forced unionism and for the right to work in 1979.” ALEC members endorsed the law as model legislation and began introducing it in states in 1980.


Federal law prohibits workplaces from requiring employees to belong to a union and pay dues. However, employees, be they union members or not, may still enjoy the benefits of a union-negotiated contract.

While labor organizations cannot compel workers to join the union, they can require workers at a unionized workplace to pay an “agency fee” to cover the cost of negotiating contracts on a worker’s behalf.

Unions argue that these fees, which are less than membership dues, prevent “free riders” who would reap the benefits of union representation without chipping in.

Right-to-work laws ban this arrangement, creating “open shops,” where new employees at a workplace that is unionized do not have to join the union, pay dues or pay the lesser agency fee.

Back to work

At its November conference in D.C., ALEC members on the Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force voted to re-endorse 55 pieces of model legislation it has passed over the years, including the “right-to-work” bill, according to documents released by the liberal watchdog group
Common Cause (http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/CIED%202%20SUNSET_SUMMARIES.PDF).

Since 2010, members of the task force have included some of the nation’s largest non-union and anti-union companies, including McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Bank of America and MillerCoors. All four of the companies quit the organization this year after ALEC faced scrutiny for its sponsorship of voter ID (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/04/16/8657/beer-and-wine-wholesalers-behind-legislators-pushing-controversial-voter-id-laws) legislation.

Though long on ALEC’s agenda, “right-to-work” has been a tough sell in the states for decades. Since ALEC created the model legislation, only four states have passed it into law. In 1992, ALEC members introduced the bill in 11 state legislatures, including Michigan.
None of them passed.

In 1995, ALEC reported that its legislator-members introduced the bill in nine states, but again none passed new laws, according to ALEC annual reports. Idaho passed the law in 1985, but no state would pass it again until 2001, when 54 percent of Oklahomans approved (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_State_Question_695_(2001))a “right-to-work” constitutional amendment. The text of the Oklahoma law matched, word-for-word, that of ALEC’s model bill.

In 2012, a slew of ALEC members sponsored the bill in Indiana, which Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into law in February.

Key parts of the Michigan law (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billenrolled/Senate/pdf/2011-SNB-0116.pdf) are identical to the text in the ALEC model bill (http://alecexposed.org/w/images/c/c8/1R10-Right_to_Work_Act_Exposed.pdf).

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/12/12/11918/alecs-decades-right-work-effort-pay-michigan

[boutons_deux]

Not Just Union-Busting: 5 Other Terrible Things Michigan Republicans Did in the Lame Duck
1. Doctors can refuse healthcare for women if they feel like it
2. Ridiculous anti-sharia bill introduced
3. Another anti-union law on the books
4. Anti-abortion “super bill” passes
5. Denying food stamps for hungry citizens because of "moral" objections

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/not-just-union-busting-5-other-terrible-things-michigan-republicans-did-lame-duck?akid=9801.187590.8WbFgK&rd=1&src=newsletter760998&t=4

[TeyshaBlue]

Lol moonbat RSS feed.

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol The Great Boutons Stalker trashtalking the most useful web protocol since smtp and html :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

TB :lol The Great Boutons Stalker trashtalking the most useful web protocol since smtp and html :lol

Only a simpleton like you could screw up a RSS feed.
Lol @ stalking. Mocking is a better descriptor.

[boutons_deux]

The Racist Roots of "Right to Work" Laws

Muse was a fixture in far-right politics in the South before settling into his anti-labor crusade. In his 1946 book "Southern Exposure," crusading journalist Stetson Kennedy (http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/08/voices-stetson-kennedy-and-the-pursuit-of-truth.html) wrote:


The man Muse is quite a character. He is six foot four, wears a ten-gallon hat, but generally reserves his cowboy boots for trips Nawth. Now over fifty, Muse has been professionally engaged in reactionary enterprises for more than a quarter of a century.


As Kennedy described, these causes included opposing women's suffrage, child labor laws, integration and growing efforts to change the Southern political order, as represented in the threat of Roosevelt's New Deal.

Muse's sister and associate at the Christan American Association, Ida Darden, openly complained about the First Lady's "Eleanor Clubs" saying they (as related by Kennedy):

...stood for "$15 a week salary for all ****** house help, Sundays off, no washing, and no cleaning upstairs." As an afterthought, she added, "My ****** maid wouldn’t dare sit down in the same room with me unless she sat on the floor at my feet!"

Allowing herself to go still further, the little lady went on to say, "Christian Americans can’t afford to be anti-Semitic, but we know where we stand on the Jews, all right.

But for far-right conservatives like Muse, as well as industry groups like the Southern States Industrial Council, labor -- including black labor -- posed an especially dangerous threat in Texas.

Thanks to a burgeoning wartime economy, along with labor organizing drives spearheaded by the Congress of Industrial Organizations and, to a lesser extent, the American Federation of Labor, unions were rapidly growing in Texas.

After hovering around 10 percent of the workforce during the 1930s, union membership exploded by 225 percent during the next decade.

Muse and the Christian American Association saw danger.

Not only were the unions expanding the bargaining power --

and therefore improving the wages and working conditions --

of working-class Texans, they also constituted a political threat.

The CIO in particular opposed Jim Crow and demanded an end to segregation.

Unions were an important political ally to FDR and the New Deal.

And always lurking in the shadows was the prospect of a Red Menace, stoked by anti-communist hysteria.

Civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., who saw an alliance with labor as crucial to advancing civil rights as well as economic justice for all workers, spoke out against right-to-work laws;

this 1961 statement by King was widely circulated this week during Michigan's labor battles:

In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’

It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.

Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…

Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights.


Interestingly, 11 years later, Kansas also passed a right-to-work law, with the support of Texas-born energy businessman Fred Koch, who also viewed unions as vessels for communism and integration.

Koch's sons Charles and David went on to form the Tea Party group Americans for Prosperity, which pushed for the Michigan right-to-work measure, and

is now advocating for states that already have such laws, like North Carolina (http://projects.newsobserver.com/node/26551) and Virginia, (http://www.nbc29.com/story/20330810/right-to-work) to further enshrine them in their state constitutions.



http://truth-out.org/news/item/13432-the-racist-roots-of-right-to-work-laws




Interesting. The VRWC war-on-employees includes the racist war on blacks.

nah, right wingers, "Christians", Repugs aren't racist, never have been! :lol

[Winehole23]

From a historical perspective, the vote was not a surprise. More than 90 percent of the time, Missourians have sided against their elected state representatives when asked to vote on a law passed by lawmakers.https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/08/07/missouri-right-work-vote-results-2018-unions-labor-business/867457002/

[Winehole23]

Show me

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

Tell that to the SEICU

Missouri.

more than 20 point margin.

Republicans only get their shitty policies in many states when they can gerrymander legislatures enough to ram things down voters' throats.

Voters occasionally push back.