  Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 1999 Registered: 06-2006 |
Setting aside for a moment the fact that such a law would never be passed by a Democratic congress, the article provides some interesting statistics. Also, I don't see how a federal right-to-work law would make Michigan any more competitive, since it would apply to every state. Michigan needs to step up and do this on its own. http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20070903/OPINI ON01/709030337 | ||
Ramcharger Member Username: Ramcharger Post Number: 444 Registered: 05-2006 |
This is just another attempt by fat cat Republicans to push down the wages and benefits of working class Americans. The fact that the Detroit News would publish this Labor Day is really insulting! | ||
Krhn313 Member Username: Krhn313 Post Number: 5 Registered: 07-2007 |
I work in a non-union tier two automotive company, and unionization would be about the most devastating thing that could happen to us. In Michigan, we're not only trying to compete against ultra low labor countries like China and Mexico, but we're competing with the right-to-work, lower wage southern United States as well. With the cost of steel nearly doubling since 2004 and customers refusing to provide price increases, the only way we're able to eke out an existence is because we have a highly skilled, non-union (read: reasonably compensated) workforce. Unionized Detroit automotive companies are simply not competitive, because the rest of the world is playing by a totally different set of rules. If Michigan became a right to work state, it is feasible that we'd see automotive jobs grow in the area. Detroit has the highest concentration of die building and automotive expertise in the world. If we were a right-to-work state, Detroit's automotive expertise would likely be enough to convince some of the foreign OEMs to open plants in Detroit as the expertise would offset the higher wages paid here vs states like Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. And if Detroit tier ones and twos wants to have any real long term automotive future, we'd better start successfully courting the foreign OEMs because I'm not comfortable trusting my livelihood in the hands of the execs of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. | ||
Warrenite84 Member Username: Warrenite84 Post Number: 144 Registered: 01-2007 |
Many of you seem to be missing the ripple effect that union wages provide not for this area alone, but for the nation as a whole. Unions have set the pace of wages and benefit compensation that many other businesses work from. I have no problem with non-union shops so long as the workers are fairly compensated and treated. Many of the safety and ergonomic work rules that benefit us all were because of union intervention. We were once called the "eight fingered city", because of industrial accidents. This race to the bottom that NAFTA accelerated is the only reason people are talking about Michigan becoming a right to work state. Someone will always undercut you on price. Ask Mexican workers who have lost their jobs to the Chinese. There has to be a better way. I believe education and entrepreneurship is the key. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 450 Registered: 11-2006 |
I believe it was unions which got health insurance which most white collar employees now enjoy. Matter of fact, I believe unions are responsible for the CONCEPT of health insurance. Lest I be wrong, health insurance did not cover over to America on the Mayflower. ;-) Hard to believe that health insurance was a 20th century invention. (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1595 Registered: 10-2006 |
Wait, so you can be forced to join a union by the state government? I am confused... | ||
Ramcharger Member Username: Ramcharger Post Number: 447 Registered: 05-2006 |
quote: Indeed. | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 19 Registered: 08-2007 |
A "Right to Work" (for less) law does not directly affect unionization rates. All it does is allow some people to become free-riders and not pay their fair share of union dues. It has no effect on the laws or regulations affecting whether or not a union represent workers in a given workplace. I used to live in Florida and found that in fact a right to work (for less) law makes union organizing easier, because people are more likely to vote in a union knowing they will get the benefits from it without having to pay union dues for it if they don't want to. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1602 Registered: 10-2006 |
Why should you be forced to pay for something regardless of if you truly want it or not? | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 451 Registered: 11-2006 |
quote: "Why should you be forced to pay for something regardless of if you truly want it or not?" Lot of things folks are forced to pay for regardless. Childless folks pay taxes which support schools. Workers pay Social Security taxes regardless of whether they would opt in or opt out, if given a choice. Workers pay a medicare payroll tax regardless if they didn't want medicare. In each case, if taxpayers were given the choice to 'opt out' it would kill the system be it public schools, social security, medicare, etc. The real question is does the non-union member receive BENEFITS from the union? E.g., does the union bargain on behalf of the dues paying and non-dues paying member alike? (e.g., does the union bargain for vacation time for all employees?) | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1606 Registered: 10-2006 |
Actually, I was thinking that the real question is, why should unions be government supported? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 2152 Registered: 03-2006 |
As the vast majority of workers in the US are non-union, I think the credit that unions are given for high wages and benefits are vastly overstated. Some of the best paying jobs are non-union. The workers at non-union auto plants seem pretty happy with their packages for the most part. In addition it is obvious that unions are not a guarantee of job security, in fact quite the opposite. Lastly the adversarial relationship between labor and management that sets in with a union can be very detrimental to a company. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2678 Registered: 06-2004 |
How are unions government supported? Recognized, yes, but supported? "The workers at non-union auto plants seem pretty happy with their packages for the most part" That's because the non-union auto plants pay virtually the same as today's union plants - the differences in cost are historical (retiree) pensions and benefits. (Message edited by lilpup on September 03, 2007) | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1608 Registered: 10-2006 |
"How are unions government supported?" FROM THE DET NEWS ARTICLE: "Still, too many workers are trapped against their will in unions they were forced to join by state and federal laws that support compulsory union membership and automatic dues deductions." (Message edited by charlottepaul on September 04, 2007) | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 2154 Registered: 03-2006 |
There are government employees that are in unions and many labor laws designed to protect unions. In Michigan, a worker can not "opt out" if they work in a union shop. In that sense the union is being "supported" by the government. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 2155 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: Which proves that unions are not needed in order to receive fair wages. FORCED union membership is also a violation of the right to "Freedom of Association" as outlined in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. A freedom to assemble should also include a freedom to *not* assemble. The tendency of unions to support certain political candidates and positions is also problematic as workers are forced to pay dues to support a political agenda they may not agree with. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on September 03, 2007) | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2679 Registered: 06-2004 |
"Which proves that unions are not needed in order to receive fair wages" False. The reason those plants are paying is because of the unions. If the union gets broken, pay in those plants will plummet. Working and safety conditions are already subpar compared to union plants. | ||
River_rat Member Username: River_rat Post Number: 284 Registered: 02-2006 |
The fact that there is even a question / discussion of this issue shows how mired in the past the State of Michigan and workers of this state are in their thinking. Last worker out of Michigan; please shut off the lights but pay your union dues. | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 20 Registered: 08-2007 |
Unions are more than about wages and benefits. They are about democracy, dignity, and voice. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2680 Registered: 06-2004 |
Broadway is unionized, Hollywood is unionized, virtually all civil services are unionized, many retailers are unionized, the service industry, including hotel workers, is heavily unionized It's not *just* the UAW or Michigan, no matter how much some would like others to believe so. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2002 Registered: 06-2006 |
"If the union gets broken, pay in those plants will plummet." Good. $60 an hour to put screws in is way too much for something that any person can do with little to no education...get rid of the unions and some of these companies might actually make a decent profit margin and won't continuously be bordering on bankruptcy... | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 452 Registered: 11-2006 |
I'd like to return to my main point: Where a union exists and bargains for all who work in the bargaining unit, then the benefits won by that union benefit all [in that bargaining unit]. The non-union dues paying employee can't say that he would have gotten the same benefits if there had been no union. Likewise, the non-union dues paying employee (assuming we are talking hourly and not salary) can't point to the white collar employee and say, "I get the same amount of vacation as the white collar employee" and that proves that the union did nothing for me. I believe the chicken and egg was that the UNION won the benefits for the blue collar employee and the company was then 'obligated' to give their white collar employees a similar package of benefits. One can say that unions won benefits for the bargaining unit and also those (e.g., salaried employees) not in the bargaining unit. This is almost an example of: 'a rising tide raises all boats'. Salaried employees should THANK their bargaining unit employees. | ||
Treble484 Member Username: Treble484 Post Number: 32 Registered: 02-2006 |
I work in a civil service position. I can opt out of my union, but I still have to pay the amount it cost the union to bargain for all employees either members or non-members which is equal to my dues, however I can not use them for grievance resolution. I would be out there on my own. So. I pay the same fee as a member and get full benefits. | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 437 Registered: 07-2004 |
bunch of "correlation does not equal causation" statistics right there! maybe the News should look into the alarming rise of global warming due to a decline in pirate population. since the pirate population has dwindled, we are experiencing hotter summers. look it up. | ||
Dustin89 Member Username: Dustin89 Post Number: 127 Registered: 07-2006 |
I have no interest in jumping into this debate here, but I did write a point-counterpoint regarding this topic in the Oakland Press about a month ago, with me writing against right-to-work and State Senator Nancy Cassis, who introduced right-to-work legislation in the State Senate, writing for it. I should mention that supporters of this legislation may try to push it through on the ballot rather than through a Democratic House & Governor. | ||
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto Post Number: 4099 Registered: 10-2003 |
Las Vegas and Union Wages: Under Local 226 (The Culinary's) master contract, waiters are guaranteed $10.14 an hour before tips, the highest rate in the nation. In Las Vegas, unionized hotel housekeepers generally earn $11.95 an hour, 50 percent more than in nonunion Reno. The Culinary contract guarantees workers 40 hours' pay each week, meaning housekeepers earn at least $478 a week, while in other cities housekeepers often work 30 hours and earn just $240. The Culinary's workers pay no premiums for health care, and they often pay just $10 for a dentist's visit, while nonunion workers often pay upwards of $150. "Our wages are higher, the medical benefits are great, and we have a guaranteed 40-hour week," said Marianne Singer, a waitress at the unionized MGM Grand. "Thanks to all that, I have a beautiful 2,000-square-foot home with a three-car garage." The Culinary has struggled to shed a once-unsavory image. A half-century ago it worked closely with Bugsy Siegel and the other gangsters who built up Las Vegas. In 1977, its president, Al Bramlet, was found shot dead in the desert; some say the mob killed him because he opposed its efforts to take over the union. The Culinary owes its successes to war and peace: first a war that most of the hotel casinos waged against it in the 1980's, and more recently, a broad partnership with the industry. The main war was a two-month strike in 1984 in which 900 picketing workers were arrested. Many casinos wanted to break the Culinary, but the union managed to pressure most into signing a good contract. The Culinary was badly shaken by the dispute, with six hotels refusing to sign a contract and eliminating their union presence. To gird itself for future battles, the union revamped, bringing in veteran organizers and young activists who organized vigorous rank-and-file committees in each hotel. The union also began doing strategic research on the industry, striking fear into some gambling companies by warning Wall Street that the casinos had dangerously high debt levels and could not withstand a strike. more: http://www.commondreams.org/he adlines04/0603-09.htm | ||
Romanized Member Username: Romanized Post Number: 242 Registered: 02-2005 |
"Broadway is unionized, Hollywood is unionized" Yes. But most every profession that requires brainpower in not unionized. P.S. The vast majority of people in those unions don't work on a regular basis. So much for that. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 1837 Registered: 02-2007 |
Things that are conveniently left out: workplace injuries pensions actual disposable income (they showed percentage increase, why not the raw #s?) not only are they correlation, not causation, they are selective stats, using only those that "prove" their point | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2005 Registered: 06-2006 |
"I should mention that supporters of this legislation may try to push it through on the ballot rather than through a Democratic House & Governor." That's what I mean when I say that Michigan needs to do this on it's own...not only would it fail to be passed by a democratic congress, but getting the feds to pass a law would not help Michigan since it would apply across the board and won't make Michigan any more competitive than anyone else | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1530 Registered: 04-2006 |
Yes. But most every profession that requires brainpower in not unionized. P.S. The vast majority of people in those unions don't work on a regular basis. So much for that. Both New York and California's economies are doing a lot better than Michigan... And neither is a right to work state. So they must be doing something right. |
