HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I Am Surprised That Michi...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:06 AM

I Am Surprised That Michigan Defeated The Pro Union Amendment.

What are these idiots thinking in rejecting the pro union amendment in Michigan. They opened up this latest right to work vampire law by doing do so. They have no one to blame but themselves. If you keep rejecting pro labor or pro union initiatives you will end up like Bangladesh. Working for nothing. Damn it wake up American workers.

Your wages are falling because you are so God damned stupid.

110 replies, 7292 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 110 replies Author Time Post
Reply I Am Surprised That Michigan Defeated The Pro Union Amendment. (Original post)
TheMastersNemesis Dec 2012 OP
xoom Dec 2012 #1
underoath Dec 2012 #65
gollygee Dec 2012 #2
LisaLynne Dec 2012 #4
Union Scribe Dec 2012 #8
Barack_America Dec 2012 #11
Union Scribe Dec 2012 #21
Barack_America Dec 2012 #24
patrice Dec 2012 #28
LisaLynne Dec 2012 #12
Union Scribe Dec 2012 #19
patrice Dec 2012 #32
putitinD Dec 2012 #88
Recursion Dec 2012 #18
Union Scribe Dec 2012 #20
Recursion Dec 2012 #25
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #26
Recursion Dec 2012 #27
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #30
patrice Dec 2012 #33
longship Dec 2012 #39
Recursion Dec 2012 #44
longship Dec 2012 #51
Recursion Dec 2012 #53
longship Dec 2012 #56
Recursion Dec 2012 #57
longship Dec 2012 #58
gollygee Dec 2012 #41
Recursion Dec 2012 #46
Triloon Dec 2012 #62
Recursion Dec 2012 #63
geardaddy Dec 2012 #103
fadedrose Dec 2012 #3
Fla Dem Dec 2012 #6
ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2012 #29
Teamster Jeff Dec 2012 #5
Union Scribe Dec 2012 #7
patrice Dec 2012 #35
sufrommich Dec 2012 #9
Barack_America Dec 2012 #10
erinlough Dec 2012 #13
sufrommich Dec 2012 #14
Romulox Dec 2012 #15
sufrommich Dec 2012 #16
Romulox Dec 2012 #17
Union Scribe Dec 2012 #22
Romulox Dec 2012 #23
frostfern Dec 2012 #48
krhines Dec 2012 #31
Recursion Dec 2012 #34
krhines Dec 2012 #36
krhines Dec 2012 #37
Recursion Dec 2012 #38
krhines Dec 2012 #40
krhines Dec 2012 #42
Recursion Dec 2012 #47
krhines Dec 2012 #49
Recursion Dec 2012 #52
krhines Dec 2012 #54
Recursion Dec 2012 #45
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #67
Recursion Dec 2012 #68
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #70
Recursion Dec 2012 #73
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #75
Recursion Dec 2012 #77
krhines Dec 2012 #83
gollygee Dec 2012 #43
Recursion Dec 2012 #50
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #64
Recursion Dec 2012 #66
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #69
Recursion Dec 2012 #72
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #86
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #55
PD Turk Dec 2012 #59
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #102
underoath Dec 2012 #60
erinlough Dec 2012 #71
underoath Dec 2012 #74
erinlough Dec 2012 #80
underoath Dec 2012 #81
erinlough Dec 2012 #82
underoath Dec 2012 #85
erinlough Dec 2012 #87
underoath Dec 2012 #89
erinlough Dec 2012 #90
underoath Dec 2012 #93
Recursion Dec 2012 #95
Recursion Dec 2012 #84
Squinch Dec 2012 #106
underoath Dec 2012 #61
SoCalDem Dec 2012 #78
underoath Dec 2012 #91
erinlough Dec 2012 #94
underoath Dec 2012 #96
SoCalDem Dec 2012 #104
Recursion Dec 2012 #79
underoath Dec 2012 #92
Recursion Dec 2012 #97
underoath Dec 2012 #99
patrice Dec 2012 #100
Recursion Dec 2012 #101
Squinch Dec 2012 #105
Teamster Jeff Dec 2012 #108
Squinch Dec 2012 #110
Squinch Dec 2012 #107
Shadowflash Dec 2012 #76
patrice Dec 2012 #98
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #109

Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:42 AM

1. Michigan politics is a little strange

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xoom (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:43 PM

65. It seems that way...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:48 AM

2. The anti-union propaganda is very effective for some reason

I live in Michigan and I'm always surprised by how many working class people talk about unions being horrible. The right has won a PR battle on this. We haven't done enough to counter it. Did we assume no one would be swayed in an area with such a history of unions? If so, we were wrong.

It is very very sad. Not a good time to be a Michigander.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:58 AM

4. I agree -- the anti-union propaganda has been very effective.

We haven't done enough to counter it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaLynne (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:45 AM

8. I dunno

There were just loads of ads for the collective bargaining amendment, starring nurses, teachers, firefighters, police, factory workers. We showed this state the vast swath of people who benefit from union rights, but they still looked at these everyday heroes and went to the polls and voted a solid "fuck you."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:03 AM

11. I want to watch the channel you watch. It was intensely anti-Prop 2 here.

And the Free Press coming out against it was surprising. Don't forget all the anti-Prop 2 ads with fire and policemen. I also think that the 6 different proposals on the ballot confused people. The "just vote no on everything" campaign seemed to make sense to people who didn't want to take the time to consider all of the individual proposals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barack_America (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:40 AM

21. I saw them all the time.

It seemed to me the big anti media push was late. The pro ads were evenly spaced out over about two months, starting even before the courts had ruled it would be allowed on the ballot. We tried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:11 AM

24. I don't blame the unions. I blame the Supreme Court for allowing endless $...

...to be thrown into politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barack_America (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:40 PM

28. Endless SECRET $. So one wonders what kind of deals have been bought with the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

in this situation.

I'd be looking at, new and existing, staffing-agency deals and I'm sorry to say that anti-government regulation cohorts and anarchists of various types could be pretty effective in this environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:04 AM

12. BUt clearly, they weren't effective. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaLynne (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:37 AM

19. That's because people here are anti-union. Period.

It isn't because they were confused. It isn't because we didn't try to get the message out. It is because a majority of the people in this state are short-sighted fuckheads who delighted in the opportunity to smack down unions, whether or not it winds up hurting them. It was petty vindictiveness and that's it. Pollsters are saying a majority are happy with the right to work law, too. And go to the Detroit paper sites and read the vile, ugly shit people write about those who have the audacity to fight for workers. They hate them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:54 PM

32. I'm hoping someone tries to collect that naturalistic information about "WHY?"

I know a small business owner who says the union in his shop is corrupt and most of what they get in wage increases and other improvements in benefits go to the union leadership. It's a family member, so I don't argue with him for my niece's and her children's sakes.

Is the sort of thing he is talking about possible?

They are looking at selling his dad's business and buying something else in a different state.

Given that some anti-union sentiment is just plane and simple hate, there would STILL be some anti-union sentiment that is more directly related to authentic problems and, therefore, the whole process by means of which unions do what they do should be evaluated for authentic union needs to reform and then reform should be researched in and of itself too, WITH union memberships as collaborators. Is there anything like that, some process or procedures, in the union status quo? If so, do unions make an authentic effort to use those processes and procedures to identify the relationships between people's real, justified, concerns and functional adaptations, i.e. reform, or is it as some people claim, just another self-preserving power-structure?

If you're picking up Edward Deming-esque influences in this riff, you are correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #19)


Response to gollygee (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:22 AM

18. Actual union corruption hasn't helped

The two biggest articulated resistances to unions I've encountered are:
1) Corruption
2) Seniority rules

I think a third that doesn't get mentioned is that unions are seen as sticking up for union workers at the expense of non-union workers. (See the whole flap about the non-IBEW linemen allegedly kept off the line after Sandy.) Working America is a start, but there's still a lot of outreach to do.

On a larger point, if you want to see our side's version of the right's general echo chamber/bubble mentality, talk to other liberals about labor unions. I have seen on this board stuff like "I literally can't imagine a worker not wanting to be in a union." Yeah, you probably cant, which is the problem...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:38 AM

20. Go gloat somewhere else. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #20)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:17 PM

25. WTF? That's what I'm talking about

I have negative things to say about some aspects of unions, so suddenly I'm "off the team". That's how the right behaves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:23 PM

26. Full story for linemen

They were sent to an area of the grid they had compatible equipment for. The area of the grid being worked in by Union linemen was not compatible to their gear. It was, I know shocking, a safety issue.

But of course it became a let's bash the union moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:26 PM

27. Yes, I know that, but optics are important

I even pointed that out in one of the threads about that. I'm saying it struck a chord and there's no use pretending it didn't, and unions need to do a lot more to show that they're there to protect all workers, not just those lucky enough to be members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:47 PM

30. Unions do

The problem is that the country has been overtaken by forty years at least, of anti union propaganda.

The aforementioned example is a good example. It was lousy reporting to begin with. So if it was reported as a safety issue it would not be as sexy, or sadly propaganda predictable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:57 PM

33. Please see #32. I'm not sure the WHOLE thing can be explained as ir-rational hate. & It does NO

good to refuse to separate the hate from other more rational factors in the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:31 PM

39. Your claim about Sandy line workers has been falsified.

No non-union workers were turned away.

Working power is very dangerous, working power in salt water, all the more so. Of course the power workers were vetted for proper certification. None of that certification included a union card.

Check it out:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/sandyunion.asp

Then, either retract your claims, or self-delete your post.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:46 PM

44. I was one of the first ones to point that out in the original thread; you're missing the point

But, I know, unions can do no wrong...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #44)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:59 PM

51. Nice straw man there.

Your claim that non-union workers were turned away is falsified. Either edit your post, delete it, or be known here as an anti-union shill.

I never said that unions were perfect, or flawless. But non-union workers were not turned away in Sandy's wake.

It is on that claim alone which I challenge your post.

I stand by my response... and by this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #51)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:02 PM

53. Well, non-union workers *were* turned away, but not for being non-union

And if "alleged" isn't strong enough for you, hide my post; I don't care. But that's the problem I see: unions (other than SEIU and a few others) refuse to look at the image they've managed to give themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #53)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:15 PM

56. So I expect you will edit your earlier post to reflect that fact.

Because that's not what it says, does it?

Waiting...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:16 PM

57. No. I said "alleged" and I meant it

It has been alleged that that happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #57)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:24 PM

58. Alleged by FOX News, and their fellow travelers.

In case you may not have noticed, DU does not like Fox's echo chamber to be echoed here. Especially allegations which have been so thoroughly debunked.

I still stand by my posts.

Sorry if you disagree. We'll just have to leave it at that. I am done here as there doesn't seem to be any point in us continuing the head butting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:37 PM

41. This is a pretty good example of the anti-union propaganda

thanks for coming and giving us an example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:51 PM

46. Really, which part?

The "many locals have been and are corrupt" or the "unions are increasingly unpopular among non-union members"?

Both are empirical facts; it's hard to call either propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #46)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:36 PM

62. neither of these things are facts

Both are unsubstantiated generalities. The "many locals have been and are corrupt" isn't even worth addressing, and the "unions are increasingly unpopular among non-union members".. well... there is no such thing as a non-union union member. Unless you are talking about the freeloaders that are happy to get union benefits but want them paid for with others' dues and refuse to pay dues themselves. And that right there is the crux of the 'right to work' selfishness. In a split shop the bosses like to give the same benefits to non union workers as the union workers, just to deceive the non union workers into thinking that the union isn't necessary and that the good ol boss is going to take care of everyone just the same. And that stratagem works. Even if it isn't true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Triloon (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:39 PM

63. Sorry, non-"union members", not "non-union" members. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:03 PM

103. What about the corruption

and toadying that goes on among management?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:49 AM

3. Republican governor - Help needed from DNC & Act Blue

and a majority in the house....they just voted to stop labor bargaining.

We need the DNC and Act Blue to come in and fund many of the local races.

For instance, we used to have Dave Bonior, a good Rep, Speaker of the House, until redistricting about 10 years ago - the Rep gov with the twins, can't think of his name, and we got Candice Miller. The only things I saw her do were to plead for the lady's life in Florida, Terry Shivo, and I also saw her at Washington Rallies jumping up and down while Michelle Bachmannn made speeches. Buster Brown haircut then, I think she got rid of bangs or just got older, can't tell....

Also, the wording on the proposals were to vote for when you were actually voting against - very tricky proposals, all of them, unless you knew before you went into the voting booth that you might not be voting for what you thought you were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:34 AM

6. LOL, just checked out Candice Miller on Wikipedia, her daughter is a member of thr

United Auto Worker's Union.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:42 PM

29. And she was endorsed by the Teamsters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:08 AM

5. If Democrats were only 1/2 as much Pro-Union...

as the Repubs are anti-union this crap wouldn't be happening as much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:43 AM

7. +1

Michigan voted for Obama, yet against what Obama supports (green energy, unions). The lack of awareness is...depressing, at this point. Having seen what has happened now, it's just depressing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:13 PM

35. Absafreakinglutely!!! I am sick and tired of scaredy-cat Dems!!! In our state they're so WEAK

that they teamed with a "moderate" organization (Mainstream Coalition, which started out being an active effort to provide objective evaluation of the political activities of our local churches and has since tried to completely divorce itself from that kind of work) . . . as I was saying, our "Dems" teamed with this bunch of (wealthy, btw) "moderates" to support a Republican against a young, female, progressive who has university research background in Labor History. They refused any financial backing to their own candidate in that race. Dems used the Mainstream Coalition to back the Republican "moderate" and that little pro-Labor newbie out-performed EVERY expectation; I think, of all of those Dems who lost, she lost by way less than any other Dem. And the capper on all of this was that the Republican that they put back in our state House, ABSENTED herself on the recent vote that ended state taxes on corporate profits and raised taxes on the middle-class in Kansas. My candidate's loss, caused a little dust-up here locally, hopefully we can get ourselves together to follow through on our issues with WHY this happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:48 AM

9. This latest assult in Michigan makes me sick to my

stomach. I can't even process it right now.I don't know what is happening to my state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:58 AM

10. Citizens United. The ad campaign against Prop 2 was intense.

Blanketed the television and airways. Drowned out the ads explaining what Prop 2 was for. They ran wildly false ads claiming Prop 2 would hurt kids, etc. Didn't help that local newspapers, including the Free Press (our left-leaning paper), came out against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:07 AM

13. I watched all day, I was a union member all my working life.

I'm so angry about what I saw. Our citizens were locked out of our capital, even with a court order to be let in! If the House Dems hadn't walked out, refusing to vote, until the people were let back in, no one would have seen this tragedy. The republicans are nothing but greedy bullies.

As to my state, we have a lot of people who have been very jealous of good union jobs that paid well. We have lots of people who are working poor, and they have bought the idea that it is all the unions fault. We have a large number of gun militia types, more than people think, and they (actually have some of these in my family) trust no one, and are very against organizations, Government and Union. We have tea party people coming out our ears. Topping that we have too many damned Republicans in office funded by the Koch boys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erinlough (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:10 AM

14. We also have gerrymandered districts drawn by

a house controlled by republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:11 AM

15. It was a huge mistake to push for collective bargaining in the Michigan Constitution.

Even people who support collective bargaining were extremely dubious about adding it to the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:13 AM

16. I think the push was because the word got out that the GOP

was going to push the right to work law. They were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:17 AM

17. The result was sort of an "anti-referendum", imo. It gave the Repubs the cover needed.

That's my feeling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:42 AM

22. They didn't need cover. They strong-armed it in one day.

Republicans don't care about cover or what people think of the awful things they do. Those rights NEEDED to be in the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:44 AM

23. Could it be any clearer that this was Snyder's plan from square one?

Also makes me question all the union support for Snyder's bridge. Makes me think that somebody was played for a fool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:56 PM

48. Yup. I knew the repukes were going to pull a fast one...

and make Michigan a "right to work" state. That's why I voted for Proposition 2. I had the feeling parts of the amendment were a little too ambitious on public union rights but voted for it anyways. That may be part of the reason it didn't pass. Protecting private unions from "right to work" should have been the first priority.

Probably most people who voted against didn't even understand the entire bill. The problem is most voters are selfish and only motivated to vote if they think there's something in it for them. The repukes are good at playing on the envy of non-union voters with the attitude "If I can't get better pay nobody should", and a lot of people see public sector unions as a drain on the tax-payer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:48 PM

31. $$$

the Devos family has a lot of money to spend on anti union propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krhines (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:03 PM

34. Such as?

I keep hearing about anti-union propaganda but I don't see anything besides ad campaigns for specific ballot measures. What did you have in mind? Where is the propaganda airing? What does it say?

Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:16 PM

36. In Grand Rapids

Which is their home town (and where I live) they have commercals airing. This family is every bit as bad as the Koch family... probably worse because people dont know that much about them.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/romney_tax_increases_unions_ri.html

"But here we are just a month later. The Michigan Freedom Fund, which is run by longtime Dick DeVos confidante/employee Greg McNeilly, is running TV ads for RTW and has a huge banner draped on the Capitol steps.


DeVos, whose businesses aren't unionized, has been calling GOP senators pushing them to vote for legislation, Tim Skubick reports. And millionaire real estate mogul and former state GOP Chair Ron Weiser promised lawmakers he and DeVos would pay the bill if unions try to recall them."


http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/tim_skubick_didnt_dick_devos_o.html

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2012/12/right-to-work_protestors_targe.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:24 PM

37. I post this a lot

I have posted this artical numerious times, but it gives good insight who these people are.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/4/20/232844/831

"DeVos wrote a biting op-ed for the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call in 1997 in which she stated that her family did indeed expect a return on their huge investments.

"I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party. ...I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krhines (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:31 PM

38. OK, so where is the propaganda she paid for?

What's its medium and content? Where is it displayed or broadcast?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #38)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:35 PM

40. From my first reply

Which is their home town (and where I live) they have commercals airing. This family is every bit as bad as the Koch family... probably worse because people dont know that much about them.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/romney_tax_increases_unions_ri.html

"But here we are just a month later. The Michigan Freedom Fund, which is run by longtime Dick DeVos confidante/employee Greg McNeilly, is running TV ads for RTW and has a huge banner draped on the Capitol steps.

DeVos, whose businesses aren't unionized, has been calling GOP senators pushing them to vote for legislation, Tim Skubick reports. And millionaire real estate mogul and former state GOP Chair Ron Weiser promised lawmakers he and DeVos would pay the bill if unions try to recall them."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to krhines (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:52 PM

47. I hate videos (they're an awful way to make an argument) but I watched it

I didn't see anything about a propaganda campaign, though I saw a very good argument about why this bill shouldn't have passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #47)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:57 PM

49. you win

They are ardinant supporters of workers rights and unions...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krhines (Reply #49)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:01 PM

52. Who?

I still don't understand what you're arguing. I'm well aware that there are a lot of very rich people who hate unions. The fact that they cheese off the Kochs and Walkers of the world is one of the reasons I do still like unions on the whole.

What I'm arguing against is this (IMO) head-in-the-sand notion that the only reason normal working Americans could have negative attitudes about unions is because of some national propaganda campaign which nobody can actually come up with examples of. (Gollygee did mention some ads and mailings below, which I've never seen, so maybe it's a geographical thing? I don't know.) But I worry that the one thing labor doesn't seem to want to do is look at their own actions over the past several decades for a hint (well, that's not true: SEIU does and has, and is making some very good changes because of that).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:06 PM

54. ok

Both of my parents are teachers and part of the MEA. Is that organization perfect? No, but killing the unions is not the way to fix them. I do agree that some unions have set themselves up as a corporate structure which leads to some of the problems (imo). So maybe we aren't so far a part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krhines (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:48 PM

45. Yes, I mentioned ads for specific ballot initiatives

I'm talking about the "40 year anti-union propaganda campaign" I keep hearing about; the stuff that has allegedly turned good folks' attitudes towards unions bad over the past several decades. Because it couldn't have anything to do with the unions themselves, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:44 PM

67. if you haven't noticed the 40-year-anti-union campaign, you've been in a hole somewhere.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #67)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:45 PM

68. Then it should be very easy to give me an example (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #68)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:50 PM

70. it is. 30-second google: wsj 2012: "Overpaid Public Workers: The Evidence Mounts"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:00 PM

73. I don't have a WSJ subscription

I'll see if I can find the government studies the headline mentions, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #73)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:03 PM

75. disingenuous

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #75)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:07 PM

77. No, I seriously and sincerely don't think there's been any sort of propaganda campaign

There have been editorial boards that were against unions when they were popular and are still against them now and I don't think any sort of advertising remotely explains unions' fall in popularity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #75)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:14 PM

83. i agree

If he (HiPointDem) really wants the truth he will find it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:45 PM

43. I got a TON TON TON mailed to me before the election

Just crazy amounts. I got 4 or 5 things a day mailed to me, for a few weeks.

I watch very little TV so I didn't see that but they got me by mail!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #43)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:57 PM

50. I guess I live in the wrong place

I guess I've only lived in places where labor laws were a foregone conclusion one way or the other. But the alleged propaganda campaign that turned people against unions must have been massive to have the effect it had, right? So what was it?

My experience with a union was with ILWU. I know, that's one of the worst ones, but I certainly don't think people are crazy or stupid for having negative attitudes towards unions given what I had to put up with there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:41 PM

64. disingenuous -- you yourself passed along a piece of anti-union propaganda in this very thread.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:44 PM

66. Ah, so when you say propaganda you're including urban myths

Nobody paid anybody to spread that story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #66)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:45 PM

69. of course someone paid someone to spread that story.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #69)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:59 PM

72. No, really, nobody made money off of that (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:16 PM

86. Union Red Tape in N.J. Causes Alabama Recovery Crew to Head Home

 

Union Red Tape in N.J. Causes Alabama Recovery Crew to Head Home

Despite devastation and millions of power outages in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, a utility crew from Alabama said it has been unable to help a ravaged New Jersey shore town due to a union dispute.

Officials from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers presented Alabama-based Decatur Utilities with documents that “required our folks to affiliate with the union,” Ray Hardin, general manager of Decatur, told FOX Business on Friday. “That was something that we could not agree to. It was our understanding and still is that it was a requirement for us to work in that area.”

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/11/02/union-red-tape-in-nj-causes-alabama-recovery-crew-to-head-home/#ixzz2EOoIrPGn


no one buying your wares

& i'm done

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:07 PM

55. As long as it is illegal

to pay non-union members less than union members, there is going to be this problem. Today's workers have no memory of what it was like before unions. All they see is the money coming out of their paychecks for union dues. I think every state will eventually go "right to work", unions will die out completely and the labor wars will begin all over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #55)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:26 PM

59. I'm afraid you're right

"Right to work" laws create a "why buy the cow when you can get the milk free" atmosphere since under federal labor law non union employees at unionized companies are included in the bargaining unit for compensation purposes. They get the same money as the dues-paying union members.... right up until the union collapses from non participation

And I also fear you're right about having to do it all again, we will not turn around until we hit rock bottom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PD Turk (Reply #59)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:03 PM

102. That's always the way with people

who refuse to learn from the past...to paraphrase Santayana.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:29 PM

60. what does this do to Unions in Michigan?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:58 PM

71. We'll see but having worked in a school without a union shop

It gets old fighting for a fair contract and having freeloaders in your place of work who gain the benefits but never pay their fair share. I was the Pres so I had to represent the contract for them just like I would for a paying member. I can honestly say I represented the freeloaders in contract disputes more then paying members, don't know why there was that correlation.....

They also established no union zones, so I would assume that if a county wants to ban unions a school wouldn't be able to bargain collectively. Once that happens all wages will go down at least 5% because the schools have been asking for that in new contracts already. Too bad for the freeloaders, they will pay the district rather then dues...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erinlough (Reply #71)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:01 PM

74. do the freeloaders not work as hard as the other Union workers?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #74)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:09 PM

80. Generally, it is about following the contract, not how hard you work. Let me explain.

When you are working under a contract both sides are given specific rules and conditions that are to be followed, this is due process and this is what unions and employers set up. Each side is responsible for following these rules. When a worker has a grievance it has to be connected to the fact that they believe the employer did not follow the contract. Likewise when a worker gets in trouble the employer is saying the worker did not follow the rules. Someone can be a "hard worker" but still have trouble following the rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erinlough (Reply #80)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:10 PM

81. so who are the freeloaders you are referring to?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #81)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:12 PM

82. People who refuse to join the union who represents them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erinlough (Reply #82)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:15 PM

85. what if a person doesnt want a union to represent them?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #85)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:23 PM

87. If the place of work has negotiated with a union for a contract then

That contract covers all workers not just union paying members. If you work in a place like that you still must follow the contract which was negotiated. That is how it was, with this new ruling I don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erinlough (Reply #87)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:31 PM

89. can a non-union worker get hired into a job with a union?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #89)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:33 PM

90. See my last post. The place of work

Is either represented by a union or not. I have never seen a place that is both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erinlough (Reply #90)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:35 PM

93. so its still up to the business and its workers to decide if they want to unionize, right?

 

this law doesn't make unions illegal, does it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erinlough (Reply #90)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:41 PM

95. There are big companies with partial organization, plus there are some "two-tier" industries

So, people who do activity A might be in the Federated Brotherhood of A while people who do activity B might not be organized. And then that comes to a head when the boundaries between A and B are somewhat vague (only a longshoreman can move it down a ramp and only a teamster can put it in a truck, but then there's that no-man's land in-between, etc.)*

And auto unions are famous for two-tiering deals, too, which doesn't help.

* Actually longshoremen are a horrible example because the employer is usually the stevedore (that is, the union itself) and the port and ships are competing clients. That was just an example of activity turfs that I happen to have worked with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #81)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:14 PM

84. The people they should be persuading but insist on calling "freeloaders" and "scabs"

It's the echo chamber effect. When you really like your union you can only attribute malice to people who don't...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #81)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:23 PM

106. Free loaders might not be the right term. "Free riders" is a real economic term for people who

collect benefits by being members of a group that gets the benefits, but they don't pay the fees or do the work that makes those benefits available to the group.

Like the guy who shows up for the birthday cake at the office, but didn't kick in to buy it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:33 PM

61. wont this let the business and its workers decide if they want to be Union or no?

 

Cant a business and its workers still be union after this law is passed?

does it just give the business and its workers the right to decide if they want to be union or not? or does it kill Unions all together?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:08 PM

78. It means that union workers who pay thier dues, subsidize scabs who go to work there

and get the benefits without paying their share..

As more people go to work there NOT paying dues for benefits earned by union members, bosses can "fire at will", and often do, once the "new" cheaper workers are trained.

Good wages that still allow for decent profits disappear.. corporate pockets the "saved" wages, and benefits start to wane..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #78)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:34 PM

91. but the business and its workers still have the right to decide to unionize if they want to, right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #91)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:40 PM

94. They always have and they still do

There are rules for setting up unions. The problem is that if this law contains language to limit unions from negotiating in certain zones then it may stop unions there. I'm sorry to stop what I have considered good questions, but I have to go pick someone up from the airport, so ill have to leave it there. Hope you learn what you want to know from others

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erinlough (Reply #94)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:42 PM

96. thanks for you help and understanding!!!

 

I learned a lot!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #91)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:05 PM

104. not for long..

Fire-at-will means that union workers are the ones who get "laid-off" fired etc..and as more union workers disappear, the unions wither away..

Union pay leaves the communities broken and "Detroit-ish"..

It's no surprise that right to work states are where most poor folks live.., They are apparently ignorant of the fact that unions HELP...not hurt their future livelihoods, by keeping bosses on-the-level...and by having actual bargaining power when it comes to wages & benefits.

When bosses hold all the cards, workers always get a pair of 3's while the bosses have 4 Aces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:08 PM

79. That question is more about card check. RTW is more about dues withholding

Though of course all the issues are tied up with each other.

Also, the anti-union keyword to look for with card check is "secret ballot", which is vaguely accurate about one aspect of overturning card check but misses the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #79)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:34 PM

92. but under this law, unions will still be able to organize, right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #92)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:47 PM

97. Yes, this is an attack on already-existing unions. The attack on forming new unions...

... is about card check, or as they brand their anti-card check efforts, "secret ballot".

As a rule of thumb: if you hear "right to work", the issue is about Republicans trying to keep existing unions from being able to get workers' dues (that's the "I never voted to be in a union" stuff).

If you hear "secret ballot", that's a case of Republicans trying to make it harder to organize in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #97)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:48 PM

99. ahh ok. thanks!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #97)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:50 PM

100. Where is the EFCA? They never voted, right? Is it still somewhere in Congress? Killed in committee?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #100)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:56 PM

101. Stuck in the Senate

But it's been 5 years now since the House passed it so I think they would have to reconsider it, which is bad news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #92)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:18 PM

105. But the free rider problem becomes a very large one here:

When the law says you are no longer able to make membership mandatory, the union is inevitably going to die.

Right away, a percentage of people will decide that the system will be maintained by those who ARE paying the union dues, so they will no longer pay. They get the benefits that the union has negotiated but they don't pay to maintain the union which gets the benefits.

The people who are still paying start to think they must be chumps to keep paying for the free riders. Many of these say, "the hell with this" and they too stop paying dues. Or someone falls on hard financial times, and decides that he'll just stop paying the dues until his financial situation loosens up.

Now the union is being maintained on a fraction of the money that it used to get. It starts falling apart, and there isn't enough money to repair it. They can't afford the things they need to effectively negotiate: educated professionals who are dedicated to the cause of the union full time, lawyers, ways of disseminating information to the union members. There are fewer people running the union, the union has fewer benefits to offer, the salaries for the negotiators are reduced so the quality of the negotiators is reduced. The quality of those negotiating for the employers hasn't changed, so the employers begin to run roughshod over the union.

So now the union isn't very effective. It isn't getting or maintaining benefits. Those who are still paying for it aren't getting anything back. They stop paying for it, and the whole system falls apart. The union disappears, and now there is no entity that can match the employer at the negotiating table, and the employees are completely subject to the whim of the employer.

That is why this is a bad thing. Even if the unions can still organize, the ability for people to be free riders and get the benefits for which they don't pay spells the eventual inevitable failure of the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #105)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:32 PM

108. Yes. This is totally fucked and its only purpose is to weaken unions

Think about all of the business associations that exist including the Chamber of Commerce. Can anyone even imagine passing a law that states that if you join one you do not have to pay fees if you don't want to but the organization is still obligated to treat you as a full member and supply you with all of the membership services and perks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Reply #108)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:07 PM

110. Not weaken unions, eliminate them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underoath (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:24 PM

107. By making union dues non-mandatory, it is effectively killing the union.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:06 PM

76. As a Michigan resident I have to say

You are completely correct.

Not only do we constantly keep the government controlled by the republicans we are surprised that, when we decide that we don't really want to protect our worker's rights, they move to restrict those rights like they are doing everywhere else.

I just cannot fathom why, knowing what was going on, they (we) would just beg to be treated like this. It boggles my mind.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shadowflash (Reply #76)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:48 PM

98. Citizens' United. It can fund unions too, so as all of this crap about jobs works itself through

all of our systems, Labor is either sitting in the electric chair or the catbird seat and most of us on the outside don't know which it is.

Here's a fascinating read on internal Labor politics within larger political contexts from the '70s to more current. Told in a very engaging story-telling style: http://books.google.com/books/about/Stayin_Alive.html?id=xz-EINoBGNcC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:35 PM

109. The Amendment was a classic case of having a good idea, but dramatically over-reaching.

Voters didn't protest the thought of the right to organize or of having Unions to protect workers rights. Voters were confused by and put off by some of the other things in the Amendment. One commentator who was dismayed by the defeat of the Amendment and what is happening now said that if the people that launched the Amendment came back with a cleaner Amendment that focused on two or three key changes, the Amendment would be overwhelmingly approved.

Some from the far Left are constantly for over-reach her on DU, but Left over-reach often lead to the same result as right over-reach, the objectives being sought get defeated by rightfully confused voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread