  Mrjoshua Member Username: Mrjoshua Post Number: 1370 Registered: 03-2005 |
It Takes a Recession By LAWRENCE W. REED June 16, 2007; Page A8 The Wall Street Journal, op-ed MIDLAND, Mich. -- For three-quarters of a century, industrial Michigan was a linchpin of the nation's labor movement. It was the birthplace of the United Auto Workers and home to such labor icons as Jimmy Hoffa and the Reuther brothers. Generations of Michiganders grew up believing that tough unions would protect jobs and secure higher incomes. It has therefore been an unlikely place to ban the closed shop -- that is, the practice of forcing employees to join a union as a condition of taking a job. But that may be changing. There is now a serious push to do the heretofore unthinkable: make Michigan a right-to-work state. The ball really got rolling a year ago when the Detroit Free Press cosponsored a poll that showed 56% of Michiganders oppose compulsory unionism and would support a change in the law to ban it. This spring Compuware Corp. CEO Peter Karmanos joined the fray by lambasting the state's unions for being "fiscally irresponsible" and openly calling for a right-to-work law. A week later he was echoed by L. Brooks Patterson, chief executive of Oakland county (the state's second-largest county). Other notables who have spoken favorably of right-to-work include the editorial page editor of the Detroit News, Nolan Finley; Michigan Chamber of Commerce president James Barrett; and Frank Beckmann, a popular radio talk-show host. "The state needs to make a very strong statement that we're open for business," says Richard Haworth, chairman of Haworth Inc., a global office furniture manufacturer based in western Michigan. "Nothing would do that louder than a right-to-work law. It would be a triple-win for employees, employers and taxpayers." He sees a healthy new boldness within the business community in favor of taking on the issue. And then there is the state legislature. Not so long ago, no member would have dared to introduce a right-to-work bill. Today several such bills sit in the hopper with a dozen co-sponsors. Why is the basic truth, that unions are part of the state's economic problem, now coming to replace the notion that they are the state's salvation? A 2002 study from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, of which I am president, gives us a little hint. The study found that from 1970 to 2000, right-to-work states created 1.43 million manufacturing jobs. At the same time non-right-to-work states lost 2.18 million jobs. Not surprisingly, heavily unionized Michigan was near the bottom of the pile. There are also 22 states that have taken advantage of a provision in the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act to enact right-to-work laws. Many of them have thriving economies. Michigan lost a quarter million jobs since the start of this decade. Unemployment is the highest for any state in the country. And while inflation-adjusted per capita personal incomes grew nationally by 4.2% since 2001, in Michigan they have fallen. Over the same period, real per capita GDP grew by nearly 9% nationally and declined in only one state -- Michigan. High-profile companies like the Big Three auto makers, Pfizer and Comerica are slashing workforces or moving operations out of state. Tax revenue is down and the state budget is hemorrhaging red ink. The state government's "economic development" efforts have obviously flopped, and for largely the same reason that a bad restaurant can't turn itself around by offering discounts or subsidies to a handful of customers. It must change the menu for everybody. The state has tried to stop the bleeding with expensive TV ads featuring Michigan-born actor Jeff Daniels spotlighting the state's corporate welfare. But what's really dumb and getting dumber is the persistent reluctance of the administration of Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm to tackle the union issue, even as signs swell that the public is ready for a sea change. Her strategy is to sweep aside any suggestion for labor reform and lobby instead for an unpopular, job-killing tax increase and a billion-dollar hike in state spending. Unions love to claim that Michigan would become "an Alabama" if compulsory unionism were ended. We should be so lucky. While it's true that per capita income is higher in Michigan than it is in Alabama, at least in that state the per capita income is actually growing. If current trends continue, Alabama will eclipse Michigan in per capita income in just three years. With base pay and bonuses, and especially when the cost of living is factored in, nonunion workers in many auto plants in the South are better off than their union counterparts in Michigan. Union clout is a shadow of its former self, even in Michigan. While the portion of our private-sector workforce that is unionized is double the nation's rate of 7%, it's less than half what it was at the peak of labor's influence. UAW membership has nosedived, paralleling the national decline from 1.5 million in the late 1970s to barely a third of that today. Even the school employee unions here are reeling from widespread privatization of school support services and growing public alarm about sky-high costs of union health insurance and retirement benefits. Making Michigan a right-to-work state would quash with one powerful blow the nagging perception that our labor climate is too hostile and costly for business. It would provide more freedom for individual workers and a temporizing influence on union leadership. A right-to-work bill is unlikely to emerge from the legislature and would probably be vetoed by Gov. Granholm, but if someone managed to get it on the ballot in 2008, a majority of voters might just enact a right-to-work law themselves. Ending compulsory unionism in its historic bastion may not yet be politically inevitable. But then it is also no longer politically impossible. Mr. Reed is president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 185 Registered: 05-2004 |
Ever think that the ever omnipotent upper management might be to blame for company screw ups? If they come up with crummy products or lousy marketing, why are the workers getting blamed? Should Michigan try to get everyone to make minimum wage to make multinational companies happy? There would be no need for unions if companies were so kindhearted. Of course, they have shown over history (without some restraint) they'll walk over anyone or anything that gets in their way. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1280 Registered: 04-2006 |
Never trust anything that comes from the Mackinac Center. It is about as biased as something put out by the "Hippie Liberal Council" | ||
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto Post Number: 3659 Registered: 10-2003 |
As I've pointed out before, the name Mackinac "Center" is absurdly deceptive. Let's call it what it is: the Mackinac Far Right. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 1225 Registered: 03-2006 |
Yeah, I think we should stay the course, who can argue with success? | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 4280 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yeah especially riding the wave of prosperity spearheaded by the Repugnican party of 12 years of Engler. How's he doing BTW? Oh yeah that'sright he LEFT for VIRGINIA after he raped and pillaged the state coffers... | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 1226 Registered: 03-2006 |
Yeah keep blaming Engler, even in Granholm's second term. Why not go back even further and blame Milliken? I would take the Engler days back in a second compared to the crap we have now. | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 4281 Registered: 10-2003 |
IOW... You can't blame everything that is going on squarely on Granholm... If you are going to call someone out, then blame all parties involved... | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 1228 Registered: 03-2006 |
Granholm has shown zero leadership on the issues that face us, sitting around trying to think up dozens of new taxes is not accomplishing anything. There are plenty of parties to blame, and Granholm should be speaking about that, she won't though because many of the "problems" we have are in her political base. We need dramatic, sweeping reforms and big ideas, not the same big-government, pro-union BS that got us into this mess. | ||
Mrjoshua Member Username: Mrjoshua Post Number: 1371 Registered: 03-2005 |
"The study found that from 1970 to 2000, right-to-work states created 1.43 million manufacturing jobs. At the same time non-right-to-work states lost 2.18 million jobs. Not surprisingly, heavily unionized Michigan was near the bottom of the pile." Wow. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5649 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yes, it's taken a recession to even get the majority of Michiganians to take out their anger on any party they can. Poll after poll shows that Michiganians don't really know what they want to do/experiment with to help us navigate this economic restructuring, and are really willing to consider anything. That's the only consistency I've seen in these polls. A majority polled want a part-time legislature, but want term limits, but a significant amount contradict themselves later when asked if they want both, ect...We're flailing; we don't know what to do. But, when all else fails scapegoat unions, right? Hell, it's easy, and Michigan has proven it loves easy and has forgotten how to work. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 1230 Registered: 03-2006 |
It isn't just unions, but Michigan is not seen as a business-friendly state. It will take a few years for the word to get out that the SBT is gone and the labor environment is another piece of the puzzle. New, modern businesses do not want to operate in the adversarial environment that is created by unions. Other states have lost manufacturing jobs and domestic auto plants and have been able to attract new investment and foreign auto makers, we have not. If we had instituted some reforms several years ago we could have gotten a Honda or Toyota plant, we have the workers and the infrastructure. What we also have is a labor environment and a state government that is hostile to business and it is killing us. | ||
Mind_field Member Username: Mind_field Post Number: 723 Registered: 10-2003 |
I work in a non-union shop and am COMPLETELY satisfied with my wages, which are WELL over minimum, and i'm also fine with my benefits. At one time, unions served a purpose, but no longer. The facts speak loudly enough. Make michigan a right to work state!!! | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 1998 Registered: 02-2004 |
Always amusing when the same people who invoke Bill Clinton's presidency with every post get all puffy when the evil name of Engler is brought up. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 318 Registered: 11-2006 |
Break the unions utterly. The core valuable functions can be retained (organization into a single cogent voice for laborers' concerns, support, cohesion, etc) lose the wage negotiation, the terms of labor, the power to influence workers and employers, and the corruption. Lose the name "union" as well. Call it a club, or whatever, but wipe the bad memory of the destructive force that unions have become away for good. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5650 Registered: 10-2003 |
If a significant part of our problems are even close to being part of the union shop, Ontario across the river should be should be reeling, not to mention a plethora of other states. I guess if one had already made up their minds (even in the booming times) that unions were the sources of all, most, or even a significant portion of our ills this would most definitely be the best time to capitalize off of Michigan's angers and frustrations with their situation, though. That's right, whip up a furor and raise holy hell, because this is as best a time as you'll ever have to get rid of what you always despised. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 1234 Registered: 03-2006 |
Lmichigan - OK, what is your theory as to why we don't have a Honda, Toyota or Nissan assembly plant here? We have skilled labor, suppliers, everything they need. Why wouldn't they want to be here? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5651 Registered: 10-2003 |
For a number of reasons the main ones being that they are most likely offered significantly better incentive packages in the states they move to. Why does Ohio (a depressed union shop state just like all of the others on the Great Lakes) have 4 Honda plants; why does union shop Indiana have a one? In fact, of Honda's plants in the United States only four are in Right-To-Work states, and seven in union states. This issue is too complicated to boil it down to union vs. non-union. That doesn't do the issue any real justice. Seriously, unions are imagined to have far greater chilling effect than they really have. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 327 Registered: 11-2006 |
Start by eliminating this huge problem, then work on the lesser concerns. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5652 Registered: 10-2003 |
The unions aren't the 'huge' problem, though you can try to misrepresent them as such until you're blue in the face. The foreign auto industry, as I just showed, is doing business in both union-friendly and right-to-work states. To keep using unions as the whipping boy is fear-mongering at its worst. This is not even to mention that our unions are smaller than they've been in years, and more docile, as well. It would be easy to keep viewing the unions as if they were at the height of their power and influence, but it's just not the case no matter how many more times you try to portray them that way. Much more pressing (i.e. real) problems include the restructing or our business tax (looks to be completed), and our tax system, in general, and if you believe that the state government hasn't been offering sweet enough incentive packages I guess you could argue that the state needs to give more away. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 1238 Registered: 03-2006 |
If unions are not a problem why has union membership fallen so precipitously? Clearly companies don't want to hire these people, in fact they want to be rid of them:  | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5653 Registered: 10-2003 |
Huh? Fewer people are joining unions, probably, people are dying off, and there are significantly fewer auto jobs to be had. The union is undergoing a natural downsizing. Their need is less than it was in the past, and their declining numbers reflect that. (Message edited by lmichigan on June 18, 2007) | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 1242 Registered: 03-2006 |
There are more cars made in this country than ever before, just not here in Michigan. There is no reason that joining a union should be compulsory, a right-to-work law would leave the option up to the worker. If unions are of value people will join, if not, they won't. Letting the market decide is best. I have worked in union shops and also have participated in starting new companies, I can tell you that virtually no employer would prefer to have a union. The paradigm in the modern economy is to partner with your labor force, not working from an adversarial position. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2326 Registered: 06-2004 |
yet employee real wages drop as executive compensation and shareholder returns skyrocket (Message edited by lilpup on June 18, 2007) | ||
Cinderpath Member Username: Cinderpath Post Number: 92 Registered: 05-2006 |
For a number of reasons the main ones being that they are most likely offered significantly better incentive packages in the states they move to. Why does Ohio (a depressed union shop state just like all of the others on the Great Lakes) have 4 Honda plants; why does union shop Indiana have a one? In fact, of Honda's plants in the United States only four are in Right-To-Work states, and seven in union states. This issue is too complicated to boil it down to union vs. non-union. That doesn't do the issue any real justice. -This gets closer to the real point. This has more to do with than just the union. There are many factors well beyond labor cost that determine site location for factories. -One of the main reasons is logistics. A plant built in Tennessee is now is a 1-2 day truck drive away from almost 2/3rds the US population. It is not that far from the NE, and within a day drive almost all the growing regions in the US. This saves the plants tens of millions a year in shipping cost, which goes directly to the bottom line. -Good surrounding infrastructure, and less local traffic. Many of these states offer plants that are locating to them substantial upgrades to roads/rail/utilities, etc. Look at the infrastructure in this state. It is deplorable. Every extra minute a truck sits in traffic due to gridlock waiting to get somewhere is waste of fuel, time, etc. Again, millions. -Electricity cost. Several of the Southern States benefit from cheaper electricity cost, some through TVA, other due to less legacy cost than what DTE offers. In many cases it is several cents per kw/h cheaper. This might not seem like a big deal, but to a body shop at an assembly plant, this means millions in savings per year. -Despite the hype, Michigan's work force is not that educated, certainly not much more than other regions enough to be a deal breaker. Besides, the other states are kicking a lot of money for job training. A lot of the skilled people in these facilities are Michigan transplants. The brain drain from this area is real. -Quality of life. If you were a foreign transplant would you come to this area? Seriously, this area is nothing but sprawl, and downtown Detroit is not even on the radar screen for reasons too lengthy to get into here. Despite what L. Brooks Patterson and the slick Automation Ally brochures say, a high per capita of golf courses is not exactly a great quality of life- "more than 100 public and private golf courses, not to mention more golf holes per capita than any county in America. Other strong selling points include world class entertainment venues like the Palace of Auburn Hills, Meadowbrook, and DTE Energy Music Theater (formerly Pine Knob). There is also an abundance of top notch shopping experiences that range from Great Lakes Crossing, the retail mega giant in Auburn Hills, to the upscale Somerset Collection in Troy and everything in-between." This should stop any would-be factory builders in other states dead in their tracks, let's see shopping malls, and concert venues where you can rot in traffic for hours to get there. That is pretty hard to top. At least when you are stuck in traffic , you might be lucky enough to be stopped behind a truck trying to make a delivery to your factory, also enjoying the great quality of life. Due to the above reasons, some of which are geography related, will keep Michigan out of the running. The belief that "Right to Work" is a silver bullet for getting plants here only looks at part of the problem. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 638 Registered: 10-2003 |
It's time for something to change with the unions. Preserving a middle class is one thing, and I understand and appreciate it. But this is NOT all about product. Our companies cannot compete because they are FORCED to pay people more than their skills are worth in wage and benefits. The value of a line worker is artificially inflated, like a stock on wall street. When you get to the point where some people are making these union wages, but equal amounts of people are unemployed because they had to be laid off to pay to maintain those wages, you are not benefitting the society! Again, to use a Wall Street term, the value of some of the unionized auto jobs need a "correction". NO they don't need to make minimum wage. There can still be negotiation, but it's time to start making some concessions. If there are calls for right-to-work in this state by the people, and a decreasing enrollment in the unions, it's a pretty good sign that people are starting to say "Hey, I just want a f*cking job, and you aren't helping me get/keep one." | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 639 Registered: 10-2003 |
BTW, I'm not ignoring those white-collar wages either. Equally, if not more so, bullshit in many cases. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1892 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Take those wages and benefits and apply them across the board in Michigan to energy, cable, construction, etc. It is just to expensive. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 985 Registered: 04-2006 |
"right-to-work states created 1.43 million manufacturing jobs. At the same time non-right-to-work states lost 2.18 million jobs." So in essence, the country netted -750,000 manufacturing jobs in that 30 year period. Call me a cynic, but I think those figures show that manufacturing is a dying art in this country. Being right-to-work will do little to save Michigan, IMO. As LM said, citizens opinions are just flailing for anything right now... and the worst possible reaction would be to act out of panic. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5656 Registered: 10-2003 |
Perfectgentleman, we're making more cars with less employees. Keep trying, though. It really doesn't have to be that way, though. BTW, at the very most, being right-to-work simply delays the loss of these manufacturing jobs before they make their way to even cheaper labor markets (i.e. out of country), and it only works for states that are seeing high population growth. Right-to-work may temporarily be working for states that are just now beginning to build a significant manufacturing base (i.e. many parts of the unindustrialized South) because of the natural move of people and the economy south and westward, but right-to-work is hardly the catalyst for these states' growth. These regions are little more than beneficiaries of the natural move south and westward that's been going on for many, many decades, now. A move that is far from rooted in any deep (or even topical), ideological hate for unions. (Message edited by lmichigan on June 18, 2007) | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 362 Registered: 11-2006 |
Evidence of the threat posed by Unions; GM and Ford's recovery begin only after major concessions are given, and DCX sells Chrysler within months of being turned down for similar concessions from the UAW. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5657 Registered: 10-2003 |
You guys are playing the most interesting and far-fetched game of Connect-The-Dots I've ever seen. If A=B, B must equal C, right? You're going to have to step up your game. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 1181 Registered: 08-2006 |
I wouldn't have an issue with this movement if the label were more truthful, it should be "Right to Fire". Most jobs open around here are temp or contract jobs where you are an at will employee. A right to work law is unnecessary. Our employers all ready have it good enough. | ||
Hans57 Member Username: Hans57 Post Number: 157 Registered: 05-2006 |
That UAW graph is eerily reminiscent of Detroit's population. | ||
Sbyman Member Username: Sbyman Post Number: 12 Registered: 06-2007 |
i thought unions were a good thing, but we all have to be honest here, no job is exactly safe, especially middle-management jobs of all areas of employment. But no one should be forced to join a union, that could jeopardize their status as an employee at their job. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5659 Registered: 10-2003 |
Who in the auto industry is legally forced to be a union member? Why do unions have to be all good or all bad? Why is it that their existence is one of the only places where one is forced to judge the subject as either all good or all bad? If I was to define the other side of the issue as forcing someone to either support corporations or be opposed to them I'd be yelled down for oversimplifying the issues. Why is it, then, that the other side tries to frame the debate as "you're either for unions or you're not"? Everyone knows why. This is called "false dilemma/choice" in debating. (Message edited by lmichigan on June 19, 2007) | ||
Warrenite84 Member Username: Warrenite84 Post Number: 124 Registered: 01-2007 |
I have to admit I'm a bit conflicted since I am a Republican and a Union member. On one hand I understand that because of NAFTA, among other things, cost cuts are necessary today to stay in business. On the other, being in a union, I see workplace health and safety and some semblence of job security as necessary also. Workers should not have to give concessions so that out of line executive bonuses could be made. ALL must suffer a little to ensure better product and job security. Many I work with understand that negotiations will be tough and that we are willing to do our REASONABLE part to protect our jobs and help the company. We do work hard in physically and mentally challenging jobs doing our best to make quality parts. Consider looking into buying a union made American car the next time you're in the market. Thanks. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5660 Registered: 10-2003 |
You don't have to be conflicted; you can both respect the fact that you need to give reasonable concessions in tough times, and the reasonable right of workers to organize and for unions to exist. Again, the either/or dichotomy is a false choice. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2563 Registered: 12-2004 |
Beautiful. 9 months ago, the folks at the Mackinac Center were arguing that all of Michigan's problems could be tied to the SBT. Now that it's gone, they argue that it's all about the fact that we're not a right-to-work state. I suppose if the Big 3 don't get their act together fast enough, we'll soon have the Mackinac Center arguing that our problems are some how tied to our choice of a state bird. "Darn the American robin!" they'll no doubt argue. "It doesn't attract tourists the way pelicans and flamingos do." Meanwhile, if one takes a moment to look at the issues that business owners are pushing, you'll find a conspicuous absence of right-to-work legislation. http://capwiz.com/detroitchamb er/state/main/?state=MI Let's not forget that some of the issues that the Detroit Regional Chamber and others have long been pushing, (DARTA legislation anyone?) have been forgotten by everyone in Lansing. I suppose we could start with a common sense solution to all of this: deal with issues that have a proven track-record of producing results first. But it's so hard for MrJoshua and others to copy and paste common sense. Which, of course, explains why the Mackinac Center is so reluctant to embrace it. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6074 Registered: 02-2004 |
Unions is good! Unions is here now and forever. I don't care what Japanese automakers or any corporate companies have to say about our Great Lake State. If they don't like what we're running the show, go someplace else, but I'm buying your stuff. | ||
Mrjoshua Member Username: Mrjoshua Post Number: 1373 Registered: 03-2005 |
Ahh Fnemecek, there you go again, raising your little Socialist flag in a bitter attempt to reclaim what you believe you have lost. The commentary on this thread is largely hilarious. My friends in other areas of the country find it strange and laughable that Michigan continues a raging debate within its borders as to whether or not unions are still viable, much as schizophrenics do when having imaginary conversations with invisible detractors regarding the end of days. No one presents a counter argument to the statistics/factual information presented within the op-ed. The response has been a boring and predictable DYes moral crusade against globalization and the immorality of people losing their jobs in a process of unending creative destruction within an antiquated economy and its workforce clutching desperately to memories of exorbitant wages and employer vilification. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 1184 Registered: 08-2006 |
"My friends in other areas of the country find it strange and laughable that Michigan continues a raging debate within its borders as to whether or not unions are still viable" Your friends in other parts of the country should count themselves lucky that globalization has not put them out of work yet. https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/5843/104397.html?1181698 609 | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 989 Registered: 04-2006 |
I think your friends are laughing at Michigan trying to force a pulse out of a dead industry. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2335 Registered: 06-2004 |
Reading arguments on this board one would think Michigan is the only state where unions still exist... | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5662 Registered: 10-2003 |
I was thinking the same thing, Lilpup. lol! You'd also think that it was the only non right-to-work state, too. Ha! Check out this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I mage:Right_to_work.svg If Michigan were to go right-to-work (and it's not), it would be the first Great Lakes state, and first state in the Northeast to do so. Yes, those poor fools, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Massachusetts, ect...If only we could aspire to the quality of life found in Arkansas, Mississippi... Seriously, this right-to-work alarmism is little more than just that, alarmism. It's an oversimplification that doesn't do an economic discussion any justice. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 2354 Registered: 12-2005 |
Can even right-to-work states compete with China or has China made the right-to-work issue moot? (Message edited by Jimaz on June 19, 2007) | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 1274 Registered: 03-2006 |
You guys are right, we should tell all companies that want to come to Michigan we have the best unions in the world and we will be glad to organize their workers right away. Oh wait, there aren't any companies that want to come here. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on June 20, 2007) | ||
Sfdet Member Username: Sfdet Post Number: 87 Registered: 11-2003 |
it's true. there is simply no chance that michigan would vote in a 'right to work' law. if such a proposal ever made it to the ballot, watch out! the unions would empty their coffers in a overwhelming PR campaign to defeat it. just look at what the california public employee unions did to arnold's proposals to weaken union laws in that state. it wasn't even close, the unions won in a laugher. they played the sympathy card, putting teachers, firefighters, and nurses on tv talking about how arnold was out to destroy them. doesn't play well in california, just as it wouldn't play well in michigan. that said, just think if a 'right to work' law did pass in michigan. then any manufacturer in the midwest would have an economic incentive to move to move to michigan. don't know how many would actually do it, but i'd guess that it would be more than one. and you know what, jobs would be created. and every person who took one of those jobs would be better off than an unemployed union member. the time to change the law is before other states do, not after. nevertheless, it will never happen. | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 589 Registered: 05-2005 |
Every union automotive job in Michigan will be eliminated. One by one. Plant by plant. It's only a matter of time. And that time will be soon. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 2358 Registered: 12-2005 |
The Chinese iceberg is snickering over our shoulder while we're preoccupied rearranging these right-to-work chairs on our beloved Titanic. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 379 Registered: 11-2006 |
The "Chinese iceberg" is socialist/communist..a system with no legs doomed to fail. Outsourcing for cheap labor in very low end jobs is, and has been, a tool of industry that is not the threat that some say it is. When it comes to illegal immigration, leftists like to chant the mantra that the jobs done are beneath American citizens. Yet, when it comes to outsourcing, the left goes silent, why? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 1277 Registered: 03-2006 |
I don't think anyone is saying that becoming a right to work state would solve everything, but it would send a clear message to the business community that we are changing things and it would help dispel the notion that we are hostile to business. There is absolutely zero doubt that business would prefer NOT to have unions, especially start-ups. The other reforms needed would be the tax laws which are being worked on right now, ending the SBT was a good thing but it will take a bit for the word to get out on that. If Toyota is going to be the market leader, they will need more plants in the US. We should be lobbying them and Honda hard to get a plant here and tell the UAW to stand down. I don't see anyone in state government doing that. It is fine that UAW members made very good money for a long time with great benefits. The aspect that is ignored is that many of the jobs were relatively low-skilled positions that others at non-union plants in the supplier community were not getting. The wages at the big 3 were artificially high due to the union, if you weren't lucky enough to have a friend or relative at a big 3 plant to get you in at GM, Ford or Chrysler then you made a fraction of what the union guys did. Now those same guys are being thrown out in the street because the union plants they supplied are closing down. These non-union workers would be more than happy to work for Toyota or Honda, as would former UAW members who are now out of work. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on June 19, 2007) | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2572 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Yes, the Chamber of Commerce really is the great bastion of socialism. Do you even read what you're writing anymore? Or do you just have a script that you copy and paste stuff from? quote: If you want send a clear message to the business community that things are changing in Michigan, why not actually work on the things that they've been begging the Legislature to enact for more than a decade now? Oh, yeah - I forgot. Y'all don't have an article from the Mackinac Center that you can copy and paste for that one. | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 590 Registered: 05-2005 |
Y'all? Who are you, Bill Clinton? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5664 Registered: 10-2003 |
Or that complete failure of a leader 'Curious George' Dubya, take your pick.  We all know that it is only in Michigan that unions exists and negotiate deals, right? lol (Message edited by lmichigan on June 19, 2007) | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 403 Registered: 11-2006 |
Michigan leads the way in this corruption...also leading the way in foreclosures, unemployment, crime, segregation...Do you think there might be a connection? | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2574 Registered: 12-2004 |
Futurecity, of all the things you could've copied and pasted, is that really the best you could do? | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 591 Registered: 05-2005 |
Rule #1. Use "Y'all" when making a point and lose all credibility. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5665 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yes, if you're a xenophobic elitist, or someone that actually believes that a regional dialect makes you more of less intelligent depending upon the region. Seriously, you made your terrible, and most importantly, irrelevant, point the first time. Edit: Thanks for the correction...moron. (Message edited by lmichigan on June 20, 2007) | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 593 Registered: 05-2005 |
I see that you have lost all credibility by exhibiting a complete and total inability to construct a complete sentence. Oh, but we should just attribute that to your "regional dialect". Moron. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5666 Registered: 10-2003 |
Classy. You don't have anything of value to add to the discussion so you throw out some ad hominem attacks. You have one post that was even related to the subject, here, and the rest have been stupid personal attacks. You're trolling, but I guess that's all one can do when one doesn't know what they are talking about. | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 594 Registered: 05-2005 |
I think you started with the personal attacks. It's great that your intellect is not able to tell the difference between personal attacks and humor. Perhaps that can be attributed to your "regional intelligence". |
