Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What this boils down to is that the unions are pissed that workers GET TO CHOOSE if they want to join the union or not.
Anything in politics that is given a nice sounding name has vast potential to eat your lunch.
Like CAIR or the Affordable Healthcare Act or the Wall Street Reform Act? You do have a point, but in this case the product lives up to the name!
Your dumb enough to believe this helps MI.
There's really no point in making a point in this thread.
2014 MI will flush the turds who voted for this down the toilet to the sewers of TX.
Message sent': Collective bargaining measure fails
Lansing Michigan voters rejected a controversial measure to enshrine collective bargaining in the state Constitution.
The union-backed measure mustered only 42 percent support with most precincts reporting. Voter approval would have made Michigan the first state in the nation with such a constitutional guarantee of collective bargaining rights.
The proposed amendment known as Proposal 2 would have prohibited the Legislature from approving any new laws to restrict collective bargaining.
Proposals 3-6 dealing with alternative energy, home health care, tax increase safeguards and bridge voting requirements also failed.
Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, in a 2:15 a.m. tweet that noted Republicans kept control of the Michigan House and defeated Proposals 2-6, said, "Thank you voters for your affirmation of our work."
Other allies were more blunt.
"Michigan union bosses were more interested in attacking job providers and the state's reinvention effort than in representing their members best interest," Michigan Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Rich Studley said in a Tuesday night statement, "and today at the ballot box union members themselves stood up to their bosses and overwhelmingly rejected their divisive approach."
Nice little try but you just cannot answer the question now can you.
Who said that doesn't bother folks? Oh, that was you who said that.Will one of you American worker haters explain to me why all you do is bash workers while the CEO's sit on their asses and rip of companies and when this go south for the company they get a big pay out and this bothers you not?
What a large group of hypocritical lying Worker haters.
Maybe it is because you could not get a raise or hold a job and this pisses you off, while the workers who have negotiated a decent wage make you jealous. IS that it?
I'll leave you to keep arguing with yourself.
What this boils down to is that the unions are pissed that workers GET TO CHOOSE if they want to join the union or not.
You get to choose whether or not to join a union in every state.
The only difference is in RTW states the state dictates to business and unions what kinds of contracts they can sign with each other, rather than allowing business and unions to determine between themselves what is in their mutual interests.
I was in 1971. The first meeting I went to, this dirty old man got up in front of all us office girls and told us to wear miniskirts up to our navels if we wanted to to defy a 4-inches-above-the-knee limit set down by the company. What they were aiming at was to have Union office gals busting up Management marriages.
The meeting pissed me off after I had to give up 8% of my wages which were the lowest in the company on the ground floor, and I had a family to support all by myself. And I refused to bust up coworkers' marriages by dressing shamefully like the idiots wanted.
Don't lecture me about how people aren't forced to join a union. I was pulled aside by 2 ladies when I balked about joining before that meeting. They said they'd be forced to make my life hell on earth if I didn't sign pay and join. they had to answer for whether I joined the damn union.
You don't think that smells to high heaven?
It's called Omerta Union shenannigans. Nobody can prove anything because it just didn't happen the way (intimidated secretly) witnesses said.
There are laws against intimidating people into joining a union. If you didn't report the crime that's your problem. Its hardly fair to pass laws prohibiting what kinds of agreements unions and business can make with one another just because some folks are too chicken to report crimes against them.
You do not know that in a union shop state EVERYONE is required to join the union before they can get a job in a union company?
What this boils down to is that the unions are pissed that workers GET TO CHOOSE if they want to join the union or not.
You get to choose whether or not to join a union in every state.
The only difference is in RTW states the state dictates to business and unions what kinds of contracts they can sign with each other, rather than allowing business and unions to determine between themselves what is in their mutual interests.
link
I was in 1971. The first meeting I went to, this dirty old man got up in front of all us office girls and told us to wear miniskirts up to our navels if we wanted to to defy a 4-inches-above-the-knee limit set down by the company. What they were aiming at was to have Union office gals busting up Management marriages.
The meeting pissed me off after I had to give up 8% of my wages which were the lowest in the company on the ground floor, and I had a family to support all by myself. And I refused to bust up coworkers' marriages by dressing shamefully like the idiots wanted.
Don't lecture me about how people aren't forced to join a union. I was pulled aside by 2 ladies when I balked about joining before that meeting. They said they'd be forced to make my life hell on earth if I didn't sign pay and join. they had to answer for whether I joined the damn union.
You don't think that smells to high heaven?
It's called Omerta Union shenannigans. Nobody can prove anything because it just didn't happen the way (intimidated secretly) witnesses said.
There are laws against intimidating people into joining a union. If you didn't report the crime that's your problem. Its hardly fair to pass laws prohibiting what kinds of agreements unions and business can make with one another just because some folks are too chicken to report crimes against them.
If a union wants a union shop and the business they work for agrees to that condition in writing, then being made to pay union dues as a condition of employment is no different than any other condition an employer may make on employment.
"Right to work" laws don't give you any more a right to work than you did before - rather, instead, those laws infringe on the rights of business and labor to determine between themselves what kind of contract they would like to have with each other.
Union shop is STATE LAW. That is why it took the legislature TO CHANGE THAT LAW.
NOTHING to do with businesses and unions negotiating together. That is THE LAW of the state, MANDATORY! NO EXCEPTIONS.
Until now, freedom for workers as they now have a right to work.
You get to choose whether or not to join a union in every state.
The only difference is in RTW states the state dictates to business and unions what kinds of contracts they can sign with each other, rather than allowing business and unions to determine between themselves what is in their mutual interests.
link
Are you following along at all here? The definition of a RTW law is one that forbids union shop agreements.
There are laws against intimidating people into joining a union. If you didn't report the crime that's your problem. Its hardly fair to pass laws prohibiting what kinds of agreements unions and business can make with one another just because some folks are too chicken to report crimes against them.
You do not know that in a union shop state EVERYONE is required to join the union before they can get a job in a union company?
That isn't true.
That's a CLOSED SHOP. Those aren't legal anywhere.
In a union shop you are only required to join the union (or pay dues) within a certain time period AFTER you begin work. You do not need to be a member to get the job in the first place.
And you are of course free to choose to work at a place with no union shop agreement, just as you're free to choose to work at a place that doesn't require you to wear a tie or shave. To suggest its a violation of your freedom because not every potential job is suited to your liking is just absurd.
link
Are you following along at all here? The definition of a RTW law is one that forbids union shop agreements.
link?
A right-to-work law is a statute in the United States of America that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.
There are laws against intimidating people into joining a union. If you didn't report the crime that's your problem. Its hardly fair to pass laws prohibiting what kinds of agreements unions and business can make with one another just because some folks are too chicken to report crimes against them.
If a union wants a union shop and the business they work for agrees to that condition in writing, then being made to pay union dues as a condition of employment is no different than any other condition an employer may make on employment.
"Right to work" laws don't give you any more a right to work than you did before - rather, instead, those laws infringe on the rights of business and labor to determine between themselves what kind of contract they would like to have with each other.
Union shop is STATE LAW. That is why it took the legislature TO CHANGE THAT LAW.
NOTHING to do with businesses and unions negotiating together. That is THE LAW of the state, MANDATORY! NO EXCEPTIONS.
Until now, freedom for workers as they now have a right to work.
Its everything to do with what kind of agreements unions and business may make. It FORBIDS the agreement of a union shop. A union shop can only form when business and the union sign a contract agreeing to that condition - RTW states FORBID that kind of contract. Its nothing more than the state dictating what sorts of contracts business and unions may sign, it has absolutely nothing to do with your "right to work".
What this boils down to is that the unions are pissed that workers GET TO CHOOSE if they want to join the union or not.
You get to choose whether or not to join a union in every state.
The only difference is in RTW states the state dictates to business and unions what kinds of contracts they can sign with each other, rather than allowing business and unions to determine between themselves what is in their mutual interests.
You do not know that in a union shop state EVERYONE is required to join the union before they can get a job in a union company?
That isn't true.
That's a CLOSED SHOP. Those aren't legal anywhere.
In a union shop you are only required to join the union (or pay dues) within a certain time period AFTER you begin work. You do not need to be a member to get the job in the first place.
And you are of course free to choose to work at a place with no union shop agreement, just as you're free to choose to work at a place that doesn't require you to wear a tie or shave. To suggest its a violation of your freedom because not every potential job is suited to your liking is just absurd.
No, wrong again
Sure, they can hire non union members in a union shop state.
BUT they ARE FORCED TO JOIN THE UNION IN A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME OR LOSE THEIR JOBS.
Closed shop is worse than that.
In a UNION SHOP ALL HAVE TO JOIN THE UNION TO KEEP THEIR JOB.
Yes, one is forced to pay union dues. I went to grad school in MI and the fucking unions unionized grad students. The dues came out of my stipend check every month and there was NOTHING I could do about it. I left grad school in 2003, FYI. The union did ZERO for me, except to take my money.
Yes, one is forced to pay union dues. I went to grad school in MI and the fucking unions unionized grad students. The dues came out of my stipend check every month and there was NOTHING I could do about it. I left grad school in 2003, FYI. The union did ZERO for me, except to take my money.
Then you should have exercised a little something called "personal responsibility" and applied for graduate school at an institution without a union shop instead of expecting the nanny state to force employers to have a job to your liking.
Of course the assistantship stipends available at the non-union schools were probably a bit lower. But hey - its your choice.
So happy to hear you are having some kind of a pleasant experience at my expense in your poor, forlorn little lifey.The hatred of the American workers hasn't been this high in decades.Because union workers want to sabotage their own jobs, sure.
The hatred of the American workers hasn't been this high in decades.
That just isn't true, Doctor Doh. The American worker is not hated, but valued when they work hard and pull their weight in order to justify their pay. When that doesn't happen, or if some idiot sells American technology down the river like a President giving China a present of used government computers loaded with technological secrets, that information is used to take away American jobs by teaching the tricks to their own workers and shoving our workers under the bus.
Hiding the facts or blaming someone else did not work when Clinton did this, yet, people didn't think it was worth worrying about at the time. China gives its all to whoever it chooses.
It would've helped if Clinton hadn't been a dummy giv-a-mint to people who kissed his ass.
Ha yes free dumb becki speaks, i love it when you open your mouth, it makes me feel like climaxing!
It was unionized during the time I was there...my last year, as a matter of fact.Yes, one is forced to pay union dues. I went to grad school in MI and the fucking unions unionized grad students. The dues came out of my stipend check every month and there was NOTHING I could do about it. I left grad school in 2003, FYI. The union did ZERO for me, except to take my money.
Then you should have exercised a little something called "personal responsibility" and applied for graduate school at an institution without a union shop instead of expecting the nanny state to force employers to have a job to your liking.
Of course the assistantship stipends available at the non-union schools were probably a bit lower. But hey - its your choice.
