UAW stunned by Michigan right-to-work bills

[dcsteg]

.....and what would the basis of the legal action be? Right to work laws are in the arena of a state's prerogative.

True but not in the interests of middle class working people.

This is a ploy by the R controlled legislature. They want to control the work force by employing cheaper labor.

Simple, more money for the 2%R's have always hated unions.

 

[tankman]

Unions will be a thing of the past in 20 years. Drug test them and UAW would loose at least 30% of the work force.

Wow. . .quite an uninformed statement. one more example of people making rash generalizations.


dcsteg- Yes, I agree this CAN be a way for an employer to get rid of the Unions. It would cost them. They will have to get enough current Union employees to leave and then replace them as the company deemed necessary.

I think the biggest possibility is if the Union worker makes significantly more than the same job in a company that's not Union. Myself, while times are good non-union people will make what I do, but when times are bad, wages go way down. But in the Union the wages are constant, so my company might not be as inclined to be as motivated to absolve the Union.

Even if Unions go away i don't think things will go back to the 30's or when working conditions were so terrible. Companies undersatand that they need to produce a good product. It takes good employees to make a good product. the way to make and keep good employees is to treat them well.

Eric
Local 412
13 years proud UAW member

 

[Hib Halverson]

Unions will be a thing of the past in 20 years. Drug test them and UAW would loose at least 30% of the work force.

That's unlikely.
Union members who have been suspended or terminated for being under the influence of alcohol or drugs often are reinstated later under various arbitration processes which are required by the collective bargaining agreements between unions and car companies.

In fact, this just happened with the 13 workers fired by Chrysler after being caught on video drinking and smoking marijuana on the job. After a two-year legal fight, Chrysler was forced to reinstate all of them by an arbitrator who stated that Chrysler didn't have sufficient evidence to uphold the firings...in spite of the video footage of the workers drinking and taking drugs.

 

[CAPTAIN AL]

Typical uneducated reply

That's BS.

Union employed people take many tests to be qualified to even work on a job. Drug testing and OSHA requirements a must. Go back to your buger flipping 30 hr. no benefit week and enjoy your life. Come back when you know what you are talking about. I don't think a drug test is required for what you do. You should be safe.

I am a retired GM Exec. GM Doraville, Ga. Plant - I know the testing policies and how sorry the average UAW (give me a hand out) workers are.

 

[xfirez51]

It will be interesting to see if the Obama administration files suit against MI to overturn the law.

With all Pres. Obama owes union labor in getting re-elected, it would be surprising if Pres. Obama and Att. Gen. Holder let the Michigan "Right-to-Work" law stand.

I haven't seen or heard anything that suggests the Federal government would be involved in any overturning of the MI law. After all, there are ~23 other states w "Right to Work for Less" laws. I don't see any litigation going on in Indiana as an example. When Wisconsin attempted the same, Obama got castigated by progressives for NOT getting involved.What would be the basis for such a suit in your estimation?
:eyerole

 

[jhecox]

In non-right to work (RTW) states, the unions have too much power over the companies. Employers cannot get rid of the "bad eggs", as discussed above with Chrysler. How much did it cost Chrysler to fight this in court only to have to bring these folks back. That amount of funds came from the company’s profit column. What about the unions taking union dues and using those funds on things not related to the employee's benefit? The Large salaries union heads draw from their constituents? On the other hand, just making the state RTW doesn't mean the unions must go away. It just might force the big union heads to take a long look and how they have been running (controlling) their little empires and listen to what their employee body has to say. They may have to work a little harder, use some of their "bling / political" funds to provide additional benefits, to attract and keep their union base. Would that be so bad? Job safety, city inspections, certificate of occupancy qualifications have not changed with RTW. So we will not be going back to the 30's. Competition drives better quality and cheaper prices (in this case, higher wages/benefits). This is the same thing. The unions will now have to compete to keep membership. If company A (non-union RTW) is willing to pay equal pay/benefits as company B (union - non-RTW), why would you pay those high union dues? By the same token, if company A (above) isn't willing to pay equal pay/benefits as company B (above), company B will attract and keep all the best employees. Eventually company will suffer quality / profit issues from not providing for their employees. Either way this employee "choice" helps the employee. Bottom line, if a union is so wonderful at providing better benefits for employees, then why do they have to make it mandatory to join. Everyone should be jumping for joy to join. I think RTW will be good for the working person. If you look at the stats, unemployment in RTW states is less than non-RTW states, so they must be offering more than just "burger" jobs.

 

[xfirez51]

In non-right to work (RTW) states, the unions have too much power over the companies. Employers cannot get rid of the "bad eggs", as discussed above with Chrysler. How much did it cost Chrysler to fight this in court only to have to bring these folks back. That amount of funds came from the company’s profit column. What about the unions taking union dues and using those funds on things not related to the employee's benefit? The Large salaries union heads draw from their constituents? On the other hand, just making the state RTW doesn't mean the unions must go away. It just might force the big union heads to take a long look and how they have been running (controlling) their little empires and listen to what their employee body has to say. They may have to work a little harder, use some of their "bling / political" funds to provide additional benefits, to attract and keep their union base. Would that be so bad? Job safety, city inspections, certificate of occupancy qualifications have not changed with RTW. So we will not be going back to the 30's. Competition drives better quality and cheaper prices (in this case, higher wages/benefits). This is the same thing. The unions will now have to compete to keep membership. If company A (non-union RTW) is willing to pay equal pay/benefits as company B (union - non-RTW), why would you pay those high union dues? By the same token, if company A (above) isn't willing to pay equal pay/benefits as company B (above), company B will attract and keep all the best employees. Eventually company will suffer quality / profit issues from not providing for their employees. Either way this employee "choice" helps the employee. Bottom line, if a union is so wonderful at providing better benefits for employees, then why do they have to make it mandatory to join. Everyone should be jumping for joy to join. I think RTW will be good for the working person. If you look at the stats, unemployment in RTW states is less than non-RTW states, so they must be offering more than just "burger" jobs.

Quite a bit misleading and just plain wrong w this post.
Here's just one fact regarding wages:

RTW laws lower wages for union and non-union workers by an average of $1,500 a year and decrease the likelihood employees will get health insurance or pensions through their jobs. By lowering compensation, they have the indirect effect of undermining consumer spending, which threatens economic growth. For every $1 million in wage cuts to workers, $850,000 less is spent in the economy, which translates into a loss of six jobs. [Economic Policy Institute, 9/16/11]

​

You can read the full text of the Myths regarding RTW here:

Myths And Facts About "Right-To-Work" Laws | Research | Media Matters for America

 

[dcsteg]

I am a retired GM Exec. GM Doraville, Ga. Plant - I know the testing policies and how sorry the average UAW (give me a hand out) workers are.

Yes...your from the other side of the fence and I would expect that comment coming from you.

Did you ever get you hands dirty or see half the other half works. I think not.

 

[dcsteg]

Quite a bit misleading and just plain wrong w this post.
Here's just one fact regarding wages:

RTW laws lower wages for union and non-union workers by an average of $1,500 a year and decrease the likelihood employees will get health insurance or pensions through their jobs. By lowering compensation, they have the indirect effect of undermining consumer spending, which threatens economic growth. For every $1 million in wage cuts to workers, $850,000 less is spent in the economy, which translates into a loss of six jobs. [Economic Policy Institute, 9/16/11]

​

You can read the full text of the Myths regarding RTW here:

Myths And Facts About "Right-To-Work" Laws | Research | Media Matters for America

Good job xfirez51 for addressing this typical Republican mentality. They never quite address any issue truthfully. That's what got them kicked to the curb in November.

 

[jhecox]

Quite a bit misleading and just plain wrong w this post.
Here's just one fact regarding wages:

RTW laws lower wages for union and non-union workers by an average of $1,500 a year and decrease the likelihood employees will get health insurance or pensions through their jobs. By lowering compensation, they have the indirect effect of undermining consumer spending, which threatens economic growth. For every $1 million in wage cuts to workers, $850,000 less is spent in the economy, which translates into a loss of six jobs. [Economic Policy Institute, 9/16/11]

​

You can read the full text of the Myths regarding RTW here:

Myths And Facts About "Right-To-Work" Laws | Research | Media Matters for America

That's what's great about this free country. I have my "myths" and you have your "myths". The fact is, if a union prices itself out of the market and refuses to try to work with its employer when times are tough (like now), then there are no more "Twinkies" for anyone. Everyone loses. All those lost jobs hourly and salary combined, don't help the economy either do they? I stand by my earlier statement "if a union is so wonderful for employees, then why do they have to make it mandatory to join? Everyone should be jumping for joy to join." I'm not saying unions are bad. I'm not saying they are good. I'm saying people should have a choice over their lives. They should not be dictated too.
BTW: I have worked on both sides of the fence, so I do have experience. I have even helped negotiate a couple of union contracts as a union rep. I have seen the good and bad from both sides. And both sides have some of each. I just want the right to be able to make up my own mind. I'm smart enough to do that by myself.

 

[jmhorn52]

So

The actions of the union members yesterday in assaulting people and destroying is perfectly ok because they support a union position. Teachers leaving their jobs and forcing students to miss school is ok because it supports a union position. I dont have a problem with protesting whether its against RTW laws or for right to work I have a problem when it destroys others property and turns to violence when someone disagrees with a position. If you think Im against unions your wrong. I belonged to the steelworkers union 40 years ago, then I was member if the local IBPO for many years.

 

[catbert]

True but not in the interests of middle class working people.

This is a ploy by the R controlled legislature. They want to control the work force by employing cheaper labor.

Simple, more money for the 2%R's have always hated unions.

All true. I didn't say it was right - I said they could do it as a power delegated to the states. It should surprise no-one that a Republican Gov and legislature would try to marginalize the unions. They are pretty honest and up front about it. It's been that way since unions gained political power over 50 years ago. The greatest union buster of all times was Senator Bob Taft, R-Ohio, back in the 40s and 50s. He hated them because he believed, probably correctly, that unions cost him a strong run at the presidency. Not much changes.

 

[dcsteg]

This is becoming a tit for tat thread.

I am thankful we still live in a country where we can come an go as we please in freedom.

I come from a generation where we all had jobs. All paying enough to have the basic needs to live a decent life. The outsourcing of most manufacturing jobs has really hurt our country. Now it's take what you can get with the crowd in the 2% wanting to call the shots.

Concerning the man who was reelected for 4 more years. We will see. There isn't anyone R or D that could have corrected this mess with one term. It's going to take many years for us to recover...if we ever do. In order to do that both sides need to come together and compromise for the good of everybody. I don't think we are there yet. Write your representative and let them know your concerns.
​

 

[xfirez51]

What's absolutely galling is to watch a guy like Jaime Dimon, CEO for JP Morgan, sitting there saying that we just can't afford these "entitlements" anymore. His bank was one that got $xxxx billion dollar bailout that came out of the pockets of the very people who now need to reduce their "expectations" for medical coverage, retirement, etc. because we're running a deficit and need to cut spending.
The "joke" is that there's a CEO, union guy, and a laborer sitting around a dish w 10 chocolate chip cookies. The CEO yells "Oh look"
and then takes 9 of the cookies. When the union guy and laborer turn around they see one cookie left on the dish. The CEO turns to the laborer and says, "Hey that union guy wants your cookie".

 

[Front Runner]

I'm no fan of lazy, non-dedicated, non-producing workers of any type. Period. Honest day's work for an honest day's pay is what I'm all about. That's all I ask of the people that work for me.

With that said, I think many who strongly oppose unions for political or ideological reasons have a serious bone to pick with them so all they point out and magnify are the negatives of the unions and union workers.

I do not believe most union members are lazy no-good workers, but quite the contrary, most are hard working good honest workers and the slackers are few overall percentage wise.

The passing of this law will negatively effect MI workers for years to come if not permanently. Period. Workers will earn less and have less benefits. Period. Protections will be stripped from the workers and the employer will hold all the cards with the exception of the federal and state far labor standard laws.

People who are less than honest may not like what I just said but they know its true unless they are blind fools.

 

[xfirez51]

All true. I didn't say it was right - I said they could do it as a power delegated to the states. It should surprise no-one that a Republican Gov and legislature would try to marginalize the unions. They are pretty honest and up front about it. It's been that way since unions gained political power over 50 years ago. The greatest union buster of all times was Senator Bob Taft, R-Ohio, back in the 40s and 50s. He hated them because he believed, probably correctly, that unions cost him a strong run at the presidency. Not much changes.

Catbert,

why do you think the Republicants don't do anything about immigration reform? Their constituencies depend on illegal workers and it helps drive down wages and union membership.

 

[dcsteg]

I'm no fan of lazy, non-dedicated, non-producing workers of any type. Period. Honest day's work for an honest day's pay is what I'm all about. That's all I ask of the people that work for me.

With that said, I think many who strongly oppose unions for political or ideological reasons have a serious bone to pick with them so all they point out and magnify are the negatives of the unions and union workers.

I do not believe most union members are lazy no-good workers, but quite the contrary, most are hard working good honest workers and the slackers are few overall percentage wise.

The passing of this law will negatively effect MI workers for years to come if not permanently. Period. Workers will earn less and have less benefits. Period. Protections will be stripped from the workers and the employer will hold all the cards with the exception of the federal and state far labor standard laws.

People who are less than honest may not like what I just said but they know its true unless they are blind fools.

Well said Front Runner

 

[jmhorn52]

If you look republicans have tried to enforce immigration laws and democrats have tried to thwart them. Just look at the laws passed in Arizona to try and curb illegal immigration and places in California refusing to follow the law even giving illegals sanctuary. I dont have a problem with people coming here but follow the law. Illegals are costing states billions to take care of why are we allowing them (illegals) to get welfare and other govt benefits.Its all political to get votes not what is best for those that work hard and do things right.

 

[jhecox]

I'm no fan of lazy, non-dedicated, non-producing workers of any type. Period. Honest day's work for an honest day's pay is what I'm all about. That's all I ask of the people that work for me.

With that said, I think many who strongly oppose unions for political or ideological reasons have a serious bone to pick with them so all they point out and magnify are the negatives of the unions and union workers.

I do not believe most union members are lazy no-good workers, but quite the contrary, most are hard working good honest workers and the slackers are few overall percentage wise.

The passing of this law will negatively effect MI workers for years to come if not permanently. Period. Workers will earn less and have less benefits. Period. Protections will be stripped from the workers and the employer will hold all the cards with the exception of the federal and state far labor standard laws.

People who are less than honest may not like what I just said but they know its true unless they are blind fools.

Well call me a blind fool.
The RTW law has NOT outlawed the UAW or any other union in MI. It simply allows the individual, his or her private right to choose, whether to be union or not.

The thing you need to remember, companies are in business to "make money", NOT to supply high paying jobs to everyone with no regard to their bottom line. For example, Chrysler could start paying all line workers $200 per hour (whether the amount was union negotiated or not) and soon there would be NO Chrysler employees at all. A company has to compete to survive and wages affect the bottom line. As we seen a couple of years ago, neither Chrysler nor GM handled there bottom line very well. Both went bankrupt. It’s about charging what the market will bear to stay in business and not jeopardize the company’s existence. The same holds true for a company selling a product, as it is for the union asking for a raise. Both can price themselves out of existence.

As our leader has stated so many times about health care, "if you like your Dr., you can keep him, no one is forcing you to change". The RTW law is the same. If you like your union, you can keep it, no one is forcing you to change. If a union is providing a valuable service to its constituents, they should have no problem maintaining membership. But, if the service is not worth the cost of the union dues, they may have to look at their business plan, to make the provided service worth the cost.

 

[xfirez51]

"If a union is providing a valuable service to its constituents, they should have no problem maintaining membership. But, if the service is not worth the cost of the union dues, they may have to look at their business plan, to make the provided service worth the cost."


jehecox,

For the purpose of accuracy, the RTWFL law REQUIRES the union to represent and bestows on the non-union worker the same benefits, protections, and process available to union members. All for NO dues. The workers make the choice of the worth of having a union when they first elect to be represented by that union. If someone doesn't want to belong to a union, go to another shop and let the "free market" decide what your wages and benefits will be.