Right-to-work debate heats up ahead of Mich. vote
Photo
Debbie Nault from the Michigan Nurses Association stands with other members of the association on the state Capitol steps in Lansing, Mich., Monday, Dec. 10, 2012, protesting right-to-work legislation. Organizers say the gathering was meant to symbolize the silencing of unions that nurses say will happen should the legislation become law.
LANSING, MICH. — Even with the outcome considered a foregone conclusion, the heated battle over right-to-work legislation in the traditional union bastion of Michigan shows no sign of cooling.
Authorities in Lansing were bracing for an onslaught of demonstrators Tuesday at the Michigan Capitol as the Legislature reconvenes for what could be final votes on bills. Hundreds of people gathered early Tuesday to get inside.
“I want to try to get into the gallery. I want to see the proceedings,” said Wes Nakagiri of Livingston County’s Hartland Township, an engineer with an auto parts supplier. “I’m for the legislation, but I can see both sides.”
If it is passed and signed into law, Michigan would become the 24th right-to-work state, banning requirements that nonunion employees pay unions for negotiating contracts and other services.
Democratic lawmakers and union backers concede they have little chance of stopping the tide, given the Republican-dominated Legislature and GOP Gov. Rick Snyder, who has pledged to sign the measure into law.
In an interview Tuesday with WWJ-AM, Snyder said he expects the bills to be on his desk later this week, calling them “good legislation.” He said the intention is to give workers a choice, not to target unions.
“This is about being pro-worker,” Snyder said.
But foes of the law, including President Barack Obama, are trying to keep the spotlight on this latest battleground in the war over union rights.
Sharon Mowers, 54, of Lansing, is a United Auto Workers union member who has worked for General Motors Co. for 13 years. She was among those gathered outside the Capitol and said the legislation will bring lower wages for workers.
“People don’t understand the labor movement,” Mowers said. “They don’t understand the sacrifices people made to get us to this point.”
In other states, similar battles were drawn-out affairs lasting weeks. But Snyder, a business executive-turned-governor, and the Republican-dominated Legislature used their political muscle to rapidly introduce and ramrod legislation through the House and Senate in a single day last week. Demonstrators and Democrats howled in protest, but to no avail.
On Tuesday, asked about the speed at which the legislation moved forward, Snyder said the issue wasn’t rushed in Lansing. He said the question about whether to make Michigan a right-to-work state has long been discussed.
“There has been lots of time for citizens to contact legislators and share their feelings,” he said.
A victory in Michigan, a cradle of organized labor, would give the right-to-work movement its strongest foothold yet in the Rust Belt, where the 2010 election and tea party movement produced assertive Republican majorities that have dealt unions one body blow after another.
For all the shouting, the actual benefit or harm of such laws is not clear. Each camp has pointed to studies bolstering their claims, but one labor expert said the conclusions are, well, inconclusive.
“Very little is actually known about the impact of right-to-work laws,” Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Massachusetts, said Monday. “There’s a lot of assumptions that they create or destroy jobs, but the correlation is not definite.”
Democrats contend Republicans, who lost five House seats in the November election, wanted to act before a new legislature takes office next month. In passionate floor speeches last week, they accused the majority of ignoring the message from voters and bowing to right-wing interest groups.
Criticism of the legislation has come from all the way up the Democratic food chain.
“These so-called right-to-work laws, they don’t have anything to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics,” Obama told cheering workers Monday during a visit to an engine plant in Redford, Mich. “What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.”
U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and members of the state’s U.S. House delegation met with Snyder on Monday in Detroit and urged him to veto the legislation or amend it to allow a statewide referendum. Levin said the governor pledged to “seriously consider” the requests.
In Lansing, leaders of the Democratic minority in the state House acknowledged there was little they could do to stop the fast-moving legislation in the waning days of the session. However, they vowed to vote against other legislation as a form of protest.
Ari Adler, spokesman for Michigan House Speaker Jase Bolger, chided those in Washington for “trying to tell Republicans in Michigan to slow down and not do our job in Lansing while they fail to resolve the nation’s fiscal cliff crisis or even approve a budget.”
Associated Press writers Tom LoBianco in Indianapolis, Ed White in Detroit, Corey Williams in Lansing, Mich., and Ben Feller in Redford, Mich., contributed to this story.
Dec 13, 2012 at 7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
everyone should become independent contractors, people would become educated real quick and demand changes to many broken systems.
Dec 13, 2012 at 7:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gandalf still waiting...
Dec 13, 2012 at 3:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Guess it's about time to call in the Pinkerton's!
Dec 12, 2012 at 7:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
It also makes you wonder why the right makes such a big deal out of it if so many employers are non-union.
As far as wages go, by nearly every metric, they have been amazingly flat over the last 30-40 years, while profit by the companies employing them have made astronomical gains. I don't have a problem with rich people, and I understand, from a historical perspective, that we exist today because of a long series of bubbles and financial retractions.
What I do have a problem with is the constant narrative by those on the right that unions are thugs and evil. I could lay at your feet piles and piles of historical instances of corporate interests destroying lives, destroying people, destroying the very environment around them, and all for what is usually an incredibly short term gain. I'm not just talking about the U.S. There are global players today leaving complete disasters in corners of the world that nobody pays attention to. Is that a good thing? Guess so.
Unions provided a balance to that. They aren't always good, nothing every is, but the puritanical fantasy by the right wing that corporatism is next to godliness is destructive at it's core.
There is no right answer for everyone.
Dec 12, 2012 at 7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
West.......That makes you wonder why that if it works so well for 99% of the employees that work within the state, why a small group of people can't accept what would seemingly be a positive change?
Dec 12, 2012 at 6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
mouse-You are strangely sounding somewhat coherent. Of course completely wrong but maybe the meds are kicking in or you stopped typing in the dark.
Dec 12, 2012 at 6:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
916wi, if you work in WI, nearly every employment situation is "at will" employment, unless you are under contract, which 99% of people are not. That's why it states in nearly every single new hire packet or handbook of nearly every single employer in WI, and most of the US, that the offer of employment is not a contract.
Exceptions are the few unionized fields, of which most are shrinking, and have been for 20 years.
Dec 12, 2012 at 6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mouse,
Why do 90% + of all businesses chose not to unionize? Is it because of greedy owners who want to keep unskilled, uneducated employees down? Are these unskilled, uneducated employees the people that need a "safety net" from evil corporations? Who are corporations? Are corporations educated and skilled employees?
As for mistreatment-what are you referring to? mandating that employees show up at pre-scripted times to perform agreed upon work?
Dec 12, 2012 at 3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
The 80% of Americans who have had their wages slashed by the forces of globalization CANNOT afford to pay excessive property taxes and fees to support excessive wages/benefits for a few union members.
Dec 12, 2012 at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
justchillin.......I've worked for/advanced within an "at will" employer for the last 10 years. It's great. If you are a slacker and choose not to apply yourself, you're not going to make it. On the flip side, those that choose to apply themselves are rewarded. The company and the employees that allow it to excel, have a much easier job in doing so without having to carry the dead weight of an employee that wants to do nothing but "show up". I wouldn't have it any other way!
Dec 12, 2012 at 3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
"As many teacher attend a markist conference."
I don't think that's an 8th grade level sentence. Better work on those writing skills.
Dec 12, 2012 at 3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
You have the right to join or not join any cult, how is this any different?
Dec 12, 2012 at 2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
justchillin -- I have never seen an at will employee lose a job without notice or just cause. I have seen people fired for breaking the law, ethics violations, and insubordination. ALL employers I have worked for provide severance based upon vacations and other criteria (longevity). There are also laws in place when there are large layoffs (WARN notices). So keep spouting lies.... Unions only provide protection for underperformers and underachievers today. Or They attempt to extort wages and benefits. The reality today is that a very high percentage of the dues collected goes to political sources and is NOT used to support the workers, andy the existence of bloated Union leadership salaries.
Dec 12, 2012 at 1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Does anyone worry that all these "Right to Work States" will only attract "At Will Employers" where employees will have very limited rights, with less ability to prove if their rights have been violated without some type of representation?
Or they keep wages low so there isn't enough left over in disposable income to pump back into the economy let alone pay for everyday expenses. Why should an employee have to worry from day to day if they are going to have a job because the "At Will Employer" can let you go with out any notice or just cause. Just wondering.
Dec 12, 2012 at 11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Thompson, I would be wrong on liberals when unions start contributing to Republicans in a balanced manner. Then, well, all of a sudden you'd see an uproar of liberals that American familys and workers are being exploited by the unions and the choice to become a school teacher (for example) depends on whether I can keep the money I earn or if I have to forcibly pay out.
Notice none of the liberal media is covering the assaults by the union thugs in MI? They didn't in WI either, so why change now?
Only 7% of 8th graders in MI can read and write at an 8th grade level. As many teacher attend a markist conference. Blue fist of communism alive and well in the Democrat party.
It's all about money, not jobs or workers as they threw workers under the bus to desperately try to keep their union. Modern day sweat shops are the forcibly extracted dues for unions greed and power.
Dec 12, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Unions: The only group with the ability to recruit idiots at $7.25 per hour to protest Wal-Mart for paying employees $10.00 per hour.
Dec 12, 2012 at 10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Still waiting for any proof, I can read your rhetoric another time. What legislation did the Koch brothers write???????
Dec 12, 2012 at 9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Both the ACLU and HRW have long promoted one of the central contentions of Soros's Open Society Institute: the notion that America is institutionally an oppressive nation and a habitual violator of human rights both at home and abroad—indeed, the very antithesis of the type of “open society” Soros reveres. "
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/indiv...
Dec 12, 2012 at 9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Soros's Move-on's own "claims" of success stories.
http://www.moveon.org/success_stories.ht...
Dec 12, 2012 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
" A significant part of Progressive States efforts revolve around supporting state legislative campaigns. The organization offers legislators and their staff members with the technical and messaging support necessary to embrace progressive policy. Tapping into a network of experts in each state, the group catalogues existing or developing legislation related to six key values we support. Progressive States also accumulates research to support new laws in these areas."
http://www.progressivestates.org/about/1...
With your head in the sand the view never changes and the truth will never be seen.
Dec 12, 2012 at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Speaking of "FALSE CLAIM"s, I'll dance your silly game as soon as you provide one piece of legislation written by the Koch brothers and forced down the throats of states. No rhetoric, actual proof is required....
Dec 12, 2012 at 9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gandalf as is the case most of time your ignorance on issues shows up again. The soros funded and moveon pushed Progressive States Network http://www.progressivestates.org/ the American Legislative and Issue Campaign Exchange which Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote about plus another 5-6 groups http://www.thenation.com/blog/167186/bui... are just a few of THE MANY of similar left wing groups.
But hey, just keep denying reality, that has been your behavior so far.
Dec 12, 2012 at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
"This is just more of the ALEC (Koch Bros.)-sponsored legislation that is designed to divide and conquer the working people of our great nation, with the objective of dramatically lowering the cost of labor."
----------
Don't you think that the continued outsourcing of nearly all of our manufacturing overseas has much more to do with the "dramatic lowering of the cost of labor" than any ALEC legislation?
Dec 12, 2012 at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
"This is just more of the ALEC (Koch Bros.)-sponsored legislation that is designed to divide and conquer the working people of our great nation, with the objective of dramatically lowering the cost of labor."
----------
Don't you think that the continued outsourcing of nearly all of our manufacturing overseas has much more to do with the "dramatic lowering of the cost of labor" than any ALEC legislation?
Dec 12, 2012 at 8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh no the ALEC and koch boogeymen again.....shhh just don't mention actblue, moveon, Open Society Institute, msnDNC, soros, and the many other left wing groups.
Dec 12, 2012 at 7:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Collective Bargaining should never trump the rights of individuals to choose. Simple.
Dec 12, 2012 at 7:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Pres Obama can continue his class warfare to the tune of lost jobs. Lost jobs means no need for unions. It's a cycle that the left may not be thinking about.
You can't organize a "closed" "out of business" company now can you.
When there is nothing left to organize, Unions go down like the switch board operator of by gone years.
Tick tock mouse 2013 is just around the corner.
Job creators give, unions take. How much more simply can this be spelled out for you. They have reached their expiration date.
Dec 12, 2012 at 6:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Typical dem union paid for state politician claiming there will be "blood" if people have the right to decide for themselves what they want...so much for freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...
Dec 12, 2012 at 2:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yep one of the leading states that is not right to work also leads the nation in poverty...California.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/...
Dec 12, 2012 at 2:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
If your going to start work for a company who already has a union in place , that means some time before you got there at least 51% of the workers that were already doing a job you want think they were better off with the union in place ! So stop your whining and get in line and work your way up with seniority instead of brown nosing . Dont like it work some where else , go to school , Apply for a Supervisor ! there not in the union !
Dec 12, 2012 at 1:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
People dont understand that there are some company's that need unions and some dont , some are very good and treat there employees well , then theres some who dont ! I truely dont believe in the right to work though , If the company is that good to work for then just De-certify the union , all it takes is 51% of the workers to vote on it , same as voting in a union . Non union employee in a union shop ='s SCAB .
Dec 11, 2012 at 10:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes - this is your Republican joke-sters hard at work (manipulating and playing games).
I'm sure Ms. Hendricks and Mr. Walker are having their little private celebrations even as we speak! And always remember, one can never be too thin, too tan...or too rich!
Dec 11, 2012 at 9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mouse...you are a typically dysfunctional, jealous, bitterly outraged, perpetually pissed citizen.
Your work here is done. Why don't you and your left-wing drivel take the rest of the year off?
Dec 11, 2012 at 9 p.m.
Suggest removal
Its all about me??? Are you trying to turn the tables? lol This is about personal choice. Making someone join an organization and pay to be in it just because YOU know whats best for everyone is all about you. Lets keep in mind I'm not arguing against union. I'm arguing against Choice of being in one..As Passionate as you are for unions there is someone just as passionate against them... Give a person a choice. Whats so wrong about that?
Dec 11, 2012 at 8:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Congratulations to all of the workers and residents of Michigan on your brilliant move forward. Someday Wisconsinites will expand their rights too. Cross your fingers.
Dec 11, 2012 at 7:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
controll over who? There own company? Im lost..I was union for 18 years now I am not. I cant believe the difference. Im actually awarded for being a better worker. My company liked me so much they taught me a skill and Ive never made more money in my life AND never been in love with my job more.
Dec 11, 2012 at 6:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
MOUSE: You Would'nt work for the Koch's? They are union jobs. This isnt even the point tho... Ther giving workers true RIGHTS. If you want to be union then you pay your dues and stay union. Why do you care if someone doesnt want to be union? There the one going to get trampled on by the company rite?
Dec 11, 2012 at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
BG, you clearly didn't understand my comment . Read. it. again. slowly.
Dec 11, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
No offense midnight, but that's a silly question. You are taking the choice in this topic(to join a union) and applying it to all 'liberals' and all choices?? Be honest, do you see any flaw in that quesion??
I can cherry pick several issues that it appears to me that 'conservatives' are against choice, but I'm certainly not going to assume they are all against those choices and I would certainly not assume that means they are all against choice. You should come shake my hand some day, I'd be delighted to show you how wrong your stereotypes of a 'liberal' are.
Dec 11, 2012 at 4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
I love the fear mongering, the unions represent less than 15% of all workers in private business and I hear very little of the abuses that we are told will come if unions don't exist, it's easy to see when people are desperate they turn the BS machine up to 11.
Dec 11, 2012 at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
dtb, resting on morals. Hostess did spend years dealing with over bloated salaries and pensions as many states with public unions are right now.
Pres Obama can continue his class warfare to the tune of lost jobs. Lost jobs means no need for unions. It's a cycle that the left may not be thinking about.
You can't organize a "closed" "out of business" company now can you.
When there is nothing left to organize, Unions go down like the switch board operator of by gone years.
Dec 11, 2012 at 4:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
But Thompson, why are liberals so against choice?
Dec 11, 2012 at 4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
'We will, under Benghazi Barry become a nation of partime, minimum wage sponges. It's every dicator's dream.'
My guess is that this guess is as good of a guess as your 'Romney in a land-slide' guess. I would guess.
Dec 11, 2012 at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think BOTH sides paint the extremes of what unions do to help and hurt workers.
With that said, this legislation just makes it optional to financially support the union and not mandatory. I know as someone who worked there and HAD to support a union that did nothing for me this is a great thing. It will hold the union more accountable to its members and not just watching the money come in without regard as to why it is there.
The people who are fighting this so hard are the unions, because many people will opt to not financially support them anymore and no one likes to make less money, not even unions.
Dec 11, 2012 at 3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Unions are getting violent in Michigan - smaller #'s but more physical than in WI. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/335...
Dec 11, 2012 at 3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Third_Eye You are correct the environment I described has all of these characteristics: high turnover, low pay, unpleasant place to work. Unfortunately there are a lot of companies like and the this demand for jobs allows companies treat their employees like this. If you don't like what management says they fire you or treat you so bad that you just quit. There's plenty of people looking for jobs so they will just hire someone new. These are problems that unions can solve. I'm not saying all unions are good some are greedy and they give all unions a bad name.
Dec 11, 2012 at 3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
User28: Quote, "A question for the people who think unions don't do anything worth while anymore.
What happens when your contract says you only supposed to work 40 hours and suddenly you are told you have to more than that? What happens if you try to talk to management about it and they ignore you or tell you have to work the extra hours." End Quote
This is not how it works in a non union workplace. Where the environment such as you describe does exists it is a high turnover, low pay, unpleasant place to work.
Dec 11, 2012 at 3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
mteg, 40 hours work weeks will go down as Obamacare kicks in. Government taxes and overreach has seen to that.
We will, under Benghazi Barry become a nation of partime, minimum wage sponges. It's every dicator's dream.
Dec 11, 2012 at 3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Unions have sank a lot more companies then Hostess. Take a look at California. The "auto bailout" was a bailout for unions not workers or white collar employees as "thank you".
Unions are becoming obsolete by their own selfish, greedy hands.
It's just a matter of time. 24 states taking care of their business, 26 to go.
Dec 11, 2012 at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Regardless of union/non union, spome businesses need employee's to work more than 40 hours a week...hence them being compensated with overtime. It is cheaper to pay employee's time and half vs. having to flip the bill for benefits...and then face laying individuals off when business slows up. In a union setting you are trained on one job...and only required to do what is in your job description...vs. cross training and helping out in area's that were busier. SOmething mundane like picking a broom up and sweeping is the ultimate evil in a union setting because you are taking work away from another employee. Hence why non-union businesses will always be more profitable than union business-given good management and process improvement strategies. They are able to make more efficent uses of employee's vs. being strong armed by the unions. As for working 40 hours...does anyone really do that anymore??? Non-hourly employees' will more than likely work way more than 40 hours...and not get the standard time and half OT wages... Provided an employer follow state and regulations in hours worked per week (given ot hours paid and acceptable breaks) who really cares what the unions think. If they dont like it there are plenty of suitable candidates both local and abroad who would love to fill their spots.
Dec 11, 2012 at 2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bowlgal, let it rest. Everyone knows that Hostess was mismanaged for years before they crashed.CEO even stole money out of the union pension fund for operating income and it didn't keep them afloat. Incompetent leadership sank Hostess, not unions.
Dec 11, 2012 at 2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
A question for the people who think unions don't do anything worth while anymore.
What happens when your contract says you only supposed to work 40 hours and suddenly you are told you have to more than that? What happens if you try to talk to management about it and they ignore you or tell you have to work the extra hours.
Yes there are laws set in place but a lot companies don't follow those laws so what's next. You report the company and wait to hear back because you are on a long list of other people who are also have a complaint because many companies don't follow laws they are supposed to. How long do you wait?
If you are part of a union you can go to your union rep and they set up a meeting with management. And they work something out.
Dec 11, 2012 at 1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
The unions have become a shakedown machine for political contributions.
Dec 11, 2012 at 1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mouse
Dec 11, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.
"America just needs work"
I'm sure the thousands of Hostess worker's jobs killed by union thugs greed couldn't agree more.
Freedom of choice lives in Michigan. If Hostess were in Michigan, they would be alive too.
Tick tock mouse. Have you picked your single name yet? 2013 is just around the corner.
Dec 11, 2012 at 1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
In related news the solidarity singers found a new concert hall.
Dec 11, 2012 at 1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Doesnt matter...even obuma's wasted trip couldnt keep it from being passed. A win for Mich.
Dec 11, 2012 at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Unions currently doing what they do best........
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/...
Dec 11, 2012 at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
That worker can choose a different shop to work at if they don't like union dues taken out of their pay.
Just like public sector workers were told to change jobs if they didn't like Act 10.
If it's good advice for the public sector, it's good advice for the private sector as well.
Dec 11, 2012 at 1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Pastafarian - you are correct in that a worker in a union shop is not required to join the union. What you fail to mention is that in order to have that job, union dues will be forceably deducted from your paycheck anyway. Hmmm . . . sounds like theft to me. If unions are so wonderful, why are they terrified of workers having the right to choose?
Dec 11, 2012 at 11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
This law is designed to do no more than defund Democrat candidates.
Everyone already had a choice if they wanted to be in a union or not.
Dec 11, 2012 at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
If unions are so great why are they so scared of choice? There not taking unions away there giving people the choice... Unions might of had there place years ago but so did a typewriter... With so many laws and regulations the only thing unions do now are politics...
Dec 11, 2012 at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
"America just needs work" How ironic is it that you suggest that when it was Ronald Regan who suggested "The greatest social program is a job". Obuma on the other hand has said very little about job creation other than it will magically happen. In fact, he's offered more incentives to individuals to NOT work. Right to Work is all about choice...another choice obuma wants to remove from the states and the taxpayers and place solely in the hands of the federal government. If I was the Goveror of Mich, I'd kindly tell him to return to Washington to deal with his own impeding problems (that he built) or to take another $8million vaction at the expensive of the taxpayers.
Dec 11, 2012 at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
1 thru 8: Most non union workplaces have similar work rules as union workplaces. Did the Unions help bring this about? Most certainly. Then they increased their demands and have overplayed their hand.
Non Union employers will not roll back these advances if they wish to maintain a quality workforce. Twice in the past 20 years there has been a 'shortage' of workers. (The late 90's and again in 2003-2006.)
A recent example of excessive union demands came to light in the Hostess Bakery discussion. It took two trucks, one with cakes, one with bread, to deliver to one location. Union rules prohibited the cake truck from hauling bread and vice versa.
Dec 11, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
12345678-This doesn't end overtime or any of the other federal and state labor laws. Unions did help to get these laws in place but as a previous poster said, currently they only protect the under performing while holding the excellent employees wages down.
It is actually just another distribution of wealth both ways. Money to underachievers and money to line the fat cat union bosses pockets.
Dec 11, 2012 at 9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
motor-It's fine to get higher wages thru effort and talent but collective bargaining?
You don't get higher wages in a union with effort and talent-you get what everyone else gets-even those who give little effort and have minimal talent. These right to work laws don't lower the wages for those who give good effort and have talent-it allows them to achieve higher wages.
Dec 11, 2012 at 9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
When you people that want a right to work state get what you want...Be prepared,you think you have it made now?? What will you do when your employer can work you 60 hours a week at straight time? That is right overtime pay will be no more and there is noting you can do about it.Unions have helped all workers in this country one way or another.Be-careful what you wish for,you may not like the end result.
Dec 11, 2012 at 9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
The people of Michigan just voted on the November ballot...NO to Prop 2.
Why should unions have the RIGHT to VETO laws passed by elected representatives? Maybe Wisconsin needs to revisit the "right to work" option.
Dec 11, 2012 at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
An after-tax dollar earned in a right-to-work state has more real purchasing power than it does in other states, because union labor tends to raise the costs of goods and services.
Dec 11, 2012 at 9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
After passing right-to-work legislation in 1986 and 2001, respectively, Idaho and Oklahoma both experienced explosive growth in their economies and overall employment.
Dec 11, 2012 at 9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
From 1995 to 2005, incomes of residents in right-to-work states grew by 142 percent more than the incomes of Wisconsin, and private-sector job growth was 500% greater.
Dec 11, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
God forbid people be given a choice I guess that is only allowed on one issue.
Dec 11, 2012 at 8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reason-How much of that difference goes for dues? Also whats the total jobs in each state?
Do right to work states have more or less jobs?
Dec 11, 2012 at 8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Just enough to pay dues....
Dec 11, 2012 at 8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Average wage for all occupations:
$15.31/hour : Right to work states
$16.89/hour : Collective bargaining states
-$1.58/hour (-9.4%) : Difference
This is a simple fact that you can easily verify:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst....
Dec 11, 2012 at 8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why is this a LOCAL story?? Can't you at least keep LOCAL within the state??
Dec 11, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Every new auto factory built in the U.S. in the last decade has been in a right to work state. Thousands of jobs. Yet, the AP isn't sure about how being right to work creates jobs ?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.