Why right-to-work will inevitably spread
WASHINGTON — For all the fury and fistfights outside the Lansing Capitol, what happened in Michigan this week was a simple accommodation to reality. The most famously unionized state, birthplace of the United Auto Workers, royalty of the American working class, became right-to-work.
It’s shocking, except that it was inevitable. Indiana went that way earlier this year. The entire Rust Belt will eventually follow because the heyday of the sovereign private-sector union is gone. Globalization has made splendid isolation impossible.
The nostalgics look back to the immediate postwar years when the UAW was all-powerful, the auto companies were highly profitable and the world was flooded with American cars. In that Golden Age, the UAW won wages, benefits and protections that were the envy of the world.
Today’s angry protesters demand a return to that norm. Except that it was not a norm but a historical anomaly. America, alone among the great industrial powers, emerged unscathed from World War II. Japan was a cinder, Germany rubble, and the allies—beginning with Britain and France—an exhausted shell of their former imperial selves.
For a generation, America had the run of the world. Then the others recovered. Soon global competition—from Volkswagen to Samsung—began to overtake American industry that was saddled with protected, inflated, relatively uncompetitive wages, benefits and work rules.
There’s a reason Detroit went bankrupt while the southern auto transplants did not. This is not to exonerate incompetent, overpaid management that contributed to the fall. But clearly the wage, benefit and work-rule gap between the unionized North and the right-to-work South was a major factor.
President Obama railed against the Michigan legislation, calling right-to-work “giving you the right to work for less money.” Well, there is a principle at stake here: A free country should allow its workers to choose whether or not to join a union. Moreover, it is more than slightly ironic that Democrats, the fiercely pro-choice party, reserve free choice for aborting a fetus, while denying it for such matters as choosing your child’s school or joining a union.
Principle and hypocrisy aside, however, the president’s statement has some validity. Let’s be honest: Right-to-work laws do weaken unions. And de-unionization can lead to lower wages.
But there is another factor at play: having a job in the first place. In right-to-work states, the average wage is about 10 percent lower. But in right-to-work states, unemployment also is about 10 percent lower.
Higher wages or lower unemployment? It is a wrenching choice. Although, you would think that liberals would be more inclined to spread the wealth—i.e., the jobs—around, preferring somewhat lower pay in order to leave fewer fellow workers mired in unemployment.
Think of the moral calculus. Lower wages cause an incremental decline in one’s well-being. No doubt. But for the unemployed, the decline is categorical, sometimes catastrophic—a loss not just of income but of independence and dignity.
Nor does protectionism offer escape from this dilemma. Shutting out China and the others deprives less well-off Americans of access to the kinds of goods once reserved for the upper classes: quality clothing, furnishings, electronics, durable goods—from the Taiwanese-manufactured smartphone to the affordable, highly functional Kia.
Globalization taketh away. But it giveth more. The net benefit of free trade has been known since, oh, 1817. (See David Ricardo and the Law of Comparative Advantage.) There is no easy parachute from reality.
Obama calls this a race to the bottom. No, it’s a race to a new equilibrium that tries to maintain employment levels, albeit at the price of some modest wage decline. It is a choice not to be despised.
I have great admiration for the dignity and protections trade unionism has brought to American workers. I have no great desire to see the private-sector unions defenestrated. (Like FDR, Fiorello La Guardia and George Meany, however, I don’t extend that sympathy to public-sector unions.)
But rigidity and nostalgia have a price. The industrial Midwest is littered with the resulting wreckage. Michigan most notably, where its formerly great metropolis of Detroit is reduced to boarded-up bankruptcy by its inability and unwillingness to adapt to global change.
It’s easy to understand why a state such as Michigan would seek to recover its competitiveness by emulating the success of neighboring Indiana. One can sympathize with those who pine for the union glory days, while at the same time welcoming the new realism that promises not an impossible restoration, but desperately needed—and doable—recalibration and recovery.
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post. His email address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
Dec 17, 2012 at 3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Right-to-Work will spread, until things get bad enough and unions will grow again. Things always balance.
Dec 17, 2012 at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Please define child labor??
As I see it -- having a 14 yr old cleaning tables at a Pizza place is a good thing or delivering newpapers, running dads tractor onb on the farm. It teaches them that they need to work for the things they want, gives them a feeling of self value/worth.
I paid for my 1st car -- like $500. I bought my own gas, paid for my dates dinner. So yes, lets define child labor -- There are family owned businesses...... Is there something wrong with 8 yr old Johnny taking the garbage out?
Working in a factory --- no. Supporting your family and paying your own way somewhat as a teen -- yes. We have given kids everything and that -- to some extent is what has built this rediculous entitlement society.
Dec 17, 2012 at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
DeGryse: Please present your findings on child labor in China.
.
imbkay13: 916 WI answered the question for you. I would also add that cultural attitudes and current social norms would also prevent child labor.
Dec 17, 2012 at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bottom line is people should have the right to decide if they wish to join a union or not. Doesn't the left support individual choice...or is that only when the opposing side can't speak for themselves? I think the entire country should be mandated as right to work. If unions had not received such outrageous wages through intimidation and threats, maybe some of the jobs would not have been sent off to other countries to produce the goods at a fraction of the cost.
Dec 17, 2012 at 10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Before unions-child labor.
After unions-no child labor
I'll ask you the same question, what evidence do you have that would indicate otherwise"
-------
Just spitballing here, but I would say that the federal and state laws that have been in place for decades that deal specifically with child labor??........Those laws should put a dampener on the sweatshop startups you envision where little Timmy is "hired" at 50 cents an hour to put together your Nikes:)
Dec 17, 2012 at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Third_Eye," No, we would not return to child labor if unions ceased to exist."
Before unions-child labor.
After unions-no child labor
I'll ask you the same question, what evidence do you have that would indicate otherwise?
Dec 17, 2012 at 6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
etown: 1- Unions will still exist. 2.- Unions presently represent about 14% of all workers. 3- No, we would not return to child labor if unions ceased to exist. What evidence do you have that would indicate otherwise?
Just a suggestion: work on conventional grammer.
Dec 16, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
see alot of posts about how the govt has laws to protect overtime child labor and so on. those laws were put in place because of the unions , you really think they will stay there if the unions no longer exist. i know 3 people in the last 2 years that lost their jobs just because . no valid reason other then they were the longest employee there basically and a new employee would be much cheaper. do people have a right to work with out union s of course , all you have to do is apply to a company that doesnt have a union . you want a good example of what happens without unions , wisconsin has sent out letters to state employees wanting them to submit a list of medications they are taking . they state its legal for them to get this information and other states do it . well my guess is they are going to use this list to get rid of people . lower their insurance cost s by using the medication list to weed out the high risk employees . the county employees no longer get over time based on seniority . if they like sue better then joe guess what joe gets it. these are just two examples of what has happened to employees that they have taken their union rights away . there is more but you get the picture
Dec 16, 2012 at 4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
West are you claiming the information is wrong? If so please provide your source. Can't wait....
Dec 16, 2012 at 1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
unionfacts.com Retiredairforce? That's funny. You do know where and by whom those websites are funded through, right? Of course you do.
Dec 16, 2012 at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wally....your argument doesn't hold water and you know it. There is nothing in the National Labor Relations Act that requires unions to represent non-member employees. Unions can elect to negotiate "members only" contracts that only cover dues paying members. If union benefits are so attractive, then all workers step up to the plate to take advantage. If not, how does it make any sense to force employees to pay for something they see as a bad value?
Dec 16, 2012 at 8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
I'm sorry, Walter - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and admit there are two sides to everything. I'm sick of political power plays too. This last round of elections has been enough to sour anyone, regardless of their political stance. That being said, I think that the power lies within the American people to make their own choices and shape their own destiny. I would agree with you if this legislation banned unions, but that isn't what happened. If workers as a whole decide that unions are of benefit to them, they will support and strengthen their unions. If workers don't see the benefit of union support, the unions will weaken. Either way, it's the workers who will decide.
Dec 16, 2012 at 8 a.m.
Suggest removal
yada so typical of the left when faced with real facts, they can't deny, the next step is always the Alinsky approach.
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
And the FAVORITE RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Dec 16, 2012 at 7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wash...
RETIREDAIRFORCE Should Take A Look At his own GRAVY TRAIN OF BENEFITS that add to the cost of over $100 Billion Dollars a Year.
Many union people would love to get your health care lifetime benefits and salary. I'll bet you think you are worth every penny, but those getting union benefits are not.
What do you think about a plan to cut / slash your benefits???
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/ret...
Dec 16, 2012 at 7:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
One thing I have always learned is that anyone can Twist & Turn any statistics to say what it is they are trying to prove. The most important part RETIRED left out is all of the families that have been able to benefit from a Union willing to help them live the American Dream. The American Dream that if you work hard you will get a decent wage and benefits to care for your family. Hey - RETIRED - If you are really a RETIRED AIR FORCE --> SHARE with us the PENSION AND BENEFITS that you now have so we can look at them. I would bet you would not give us an accurate & truthful picture of your situation.
Read the Story & Statistics on " Federal Retirement Plans ALMOST A COSTLY As Social Security"(Civilian & MILITARY)
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wash...
Dec 16, 2012 at 4:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Interesting information...
Union Facts: Vital Statistics
Financial Information
Annual Dues Paid to Unions: $8,209,113,955
Total Union Assets: $8,775,962,626
Total Spending
Representational Activities: $4,074,510,945
Political Activities: $582,248,875
External Contributions: $333,982,197
Overhead: $3,914,513,501
Unions that fail to pass Department of Labor audits: 92%
Those are some impressive numbers. Over $8 billion in annual dues. Over half a billion in political activities.
Union Officials
Total union officers and staff members: 173,389 people
Total compensation paid to union officials and officers: $1,152,061,495
Total compensation paid to union employees: $2,563,981,776
Almost 175,000 union officers? And note that their compensation totals almost half as much as that paid to the rank and file members.
Diversity
Major Unions with White Presidents: 94%
Major Unions with Male Presidents: 89%
http://www.unionfacts.com/cuf/vitals
Dec 15, 2012 at 10:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
missmarysunshine,
Your argument would hold up if it weren't for the big money backed Republican campaign to influence legislation to kickstart the attack on unions by stacking the deck when it comes to political donations and the power that comes as a result. Again, this is about a political power play at the expense of middle and lower class workers that are just looking for fair wages and adequate working conditions.
Dec 15, 2012 at 4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you are correct, Walter, then at that point the workers will re-join and re-support the unions, and the unions will thrive. Otherwise, they will go by the wayside. In either case, it is the workers who will make that determination for themselves.
Dec 15, 2012 at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Unions have brought down eduction levels of our children"
That sentence only works if you know how to spell "education".
Back to fourth grade for you.
Dec 15, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
We do realize that "right to work" laws require unions that are active in a work place to represent and collectively bargain for all employees even the ones that are not willing to pay dues, don't we? That is why this is problematic for unions and the good they do for employees. New employees will see an opportunity to get fair wages and better working conditions without contributing to the union and they'll be just fine with that. Meanwhile the resources for the union to operate become stretched to the breaking point and the union will have to dissolve because, even though the employees want the protections, they're used to not paying for them and will just take their chances without the union naively thinking that they couldn't possibly see their pay and benefits reduced. That's when the layoffs start happening and the cuts to take home pay and the unaffordable or eliminated benefits start replacing existing benefits and the hiring of people willing to take less pay. Right to work laws are nothing more than a political power play being done with no forethought as to the terrible things that can happen to the American middle class workforce if unions are completely destroyed. If you think the gap between the very wealthy and the poor is big now, just wait. Representation of the lower and middle classes, both in the workplace and in government, is under attack when "right to work" laws are passed.
Dec 15, 2012 at 7:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bowlgal....ditto
Dec 15, 2012 at 7:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
missmarysunshine, So beautiful stated. When you hear incorrect outbursted of "no rights and no work" you can't help but feel sorry for the uneducated.
The top 10 states in the union with the lowest unemployment are right-to-work states.
You are giving the right to join a union or not join a union. You given the right to work at your choosen profession without being extorted for "fees" or "dues" - taking your hard earned money. And in most cases redistributing that wealth into the hands of union bosses and left wing causes.
We are no long a nation of child labor or sweat shop abuses. And that is mainly due to laws passed down through the years through our elected officials. Unions have brought down eduction levels of our children, allowed pot smoking/drinking workers back into the Chrysler plant and allowed prono watching teachers back in the classroom. Allowed city workers to call in sick for their shift and work next shift for double pay at the cost of billions nationwide.
They have been their own worst enemy in the way they have conducted themselves in Wis. and now Mich. Exposing their left wing hatred and communist rhetoric.
I look forward to the day when all 50 states are "right-to-work" states.
Dec 15, 2012 at 6:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
This will only mean "death of the unions" if the workers choose it to be so. Right To Work doesn't mean there can't be unions - it only means that workers can choose whether to join them or not. So if the workers support unions, they will still voluntarily join them, and in the end it is the workers, not the politicians, who will decide the fate of the unions.
Dec 15, 2012 at 6:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
EXCELLENT Quote Used By NVgrf -"RIGHT TO WORK PROVIDES NO RIGHTS AND NO WORK. ITS PURPOSE IS TO DESTROY LABOR UNIONS AND THE FREEDOM OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING."
DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
*Remember the SCOTT WALKER QUOTE on "DIVIDE AND CONQUER"
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepoliti...
*Remember that SCOTT WALKER REFUSED to answer thde DEBATE questions by Mayor Tom Barrett on RIGHT TO WORK LAWS & SIGNING THEM. Walker will sign it when it crosses his desk.
http://uawfordcommunity.net/index.php/ne...
Dec 15, 2012 at 5:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
fordfan...always with a thoughtful introspective posting. (Sarcasm, fordie)
Dec 15, 2012 at 1:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Frogger, you said "You can also be "let go" for no reason. IF they give a reason like "she is pregnant" then you don't need a union you just need a lawyer. Pretty sure you will collect UC if they fired you because "you were pregnant". This would be discrimination- covered by the GOv NOT a union."
To get a lawyer you will need a retainer up front and then you'll have to find one that specializes in employment law. The government isn't going to provide you with one for a civil matter. With a union, by paying a small due each month you pay for an attorney that only deals with this issues. It's sort of like an insurance plan for your own protection.
Dec 15, 2012 at 12:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Right-to-work spreads because billionaires like Diane Hendricks support it and give donations of $500,000 to politicians who do their bidding.
Dec 14, 2012 at 9:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Most of my working life was spent as a union carpenter and later as a UAW employee. I have had jobs in non-union shops as well so I've seen both sides. Wages and benefits grew with the UAW simply because we felt that as long as the GM CEOs were getting multi-million dollar salaries they could share the wealth with us. We were doing the work for them, so why not. Forty years ago the line jobs were hard, dirty, and a lot of the time unsafe. When complaints are raised concerning cutting out China and other countries, I can't feel sorry for them when they pay their workers lousy wages under far worse conditions than I had while being subsidized by those countries. Then there is the idea it's best for our country to ship good paying jobs to them to repeat the process. I wish everyone could have good paying jobs, but that's something the American corporations need to srep up to the plate about.
Dec 14, 2012 at 9:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here's what happens, as unions go the way of the dodo, the inevitable increase in mistreatment of employees will fall back on the state to rectify. There is a division within the Department of Workforce Development called Equal Rights. The staff, paid with your tax dollars, increases based on work load. As the number of active unions decreases, guess what, the work load at Equal Rights increases. They conduct investigations into credible claims and assess judgements against guilty employers that then must be paid to the wronged employee(s). You can bet that the fewer union represented employees there are out there the more there will be that will find their way to the services of the Equal Rights division of DWD. The private sector ultimately pushes costs onto the public sector. What a surprise.
Dec 14, 2012 at 7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
...and 916wi does a great job of playing stupid. I know she is playing stupid because no one would make her biased comments with honesty. Well, maybe if they get their thoughts from Faux News....
Dec 14, 2012 at 4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Red......Did you read, or should I say comprehend, what I wrote? You are putting words in my mouth that I clearly didn't use. I never mentioned taxes, I was very specific when I mentioned the ID. The voter that needs an ID is never charged for it's total cost at the time it received. If he or she was that would be a "direct" cost to that voter. Now stay with me.....Having the cost of that ID spread over millions of taxpayers and rolled into the state's budget could be called an "indirect" cost. The cost of all of the IDs to any one taxpayer when broken out over the millions of state's taxpayers would be so small that it wouldn't even register. It is a similar situation with entitlement programs. Your Quest card, rent assistance and utility assistance are not direct costs to me. I don't write a check to the controlling agencies to cover your entitlements, I pay for them indirectly though the taxes that the state collects from me. Do you understand now that I've framed it in a way that you can relate to?:)
Yes, Krauthammer admits that the loss of Union representation will result in reduced wages for workers. He also made a very valid point in pointing out that with the inflated wages, states would continue to bleed jobs. Having high wages but no employers around to pay them isn't going to do the workers and the communities they live in any good....no? You are correct when you say that "Workers ARE the middle class". A huge part of that being the 90% of the workers in the middle class that are not in a union and want nothing to do with them......Please try and remember that. Good night--I have to go.....
Dec 14, 2012 at 4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
PanamaRed, you are correct 'Free ID' are a cost to the taxpayer as is 'Free Healthcare', 'Free Food' and any other 'Free' thing the government gives away. In regards to the ID considering you need an ID for so many things in life maybe the question that needs to be asked is how many people that vote do not currently have ID, free, paid whatever?
Dec 14, 2012 at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
GoodAmerican in theory you are correct, but do we not elect politicians in the government and the same broken system continues to cause issue after issue? The union structure is the same way, you can elect the most moral and well intentioned people to these organizations and they almost always become as corrupt as the system itself, or they are completely outnumbered by the ones that are corrupt so they cannot win, so in reality it is an unwinnable proposition you pose about the members being responsible for these things, the intrenchment of the system and all the bad it brings with is much too overwhelming to defeat.
Dec 14, 2012 at 3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
"no direct cost to the voter for the free ID"
-
See if you can follow along 916. Would not the "free ID" be paid using taxpayer funds? Are not taxes a direct cost to taxpayers? Are not taxes paid by voters? How can you possibly "logically", or otherwise, believe the voter ID is not a direct cost to voters (ie; taxpayers)? Besides, the whole voter ID issue is senseless 916, just admit it and move on.
-
Even Krauthammer admits that the loss of Union representation will result in reduced wages for workers. Those who favor the demise of Unions fail to comprehend the economic impact it will have in the U.S. When consumer demand falls we all suffer. Some day, when it's too late, those fools will figure it out. Workers ARE the middle class. Lacking a voice in the workplace there can be no middle class.
Dec 14, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
I do worry about one company giving you the choice to be union or not. All the union people would be jerks if you weren't signed up for union just as they are when a union strikes but a place still has to funcion so the company hires "scabs". Then they treat them like trash because they DO want to work and feed their family. You slash their tires because hey want to work and you are crying about some stupid stuff.(tyson) people slashing tires of people who Will work! GM crying over not making enough when you are at over $20 already. Saying you cannot feed your family popsicles on this. On stick getting uc and complining cannot feed family on uc benefits while stiff getting more than just UC.
Dec 14, 2012 at 3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
GoodAmerican, how was it my fault I was not a committeeman that defended this behavior, union members really have no power in these matters, I can give you an example of when my father stood up in a situation like this and then had his car vandalized and got a 'talking to' by some union folks. I can also tell you when I worked at a union shop it was the only time I have ever been 'talked to' by a committeeman for quote 'working too hard' and keep in mind I read 3-5 newspapers and magazines a night. So maybe your union actually did what they were suppose to do and were responsible, that is great, I can assume you worked for a skilled trade union in that case those organizations generally have their crap together. I can't say the same for the two unskilled unions I have dealt with.
Dec 14, 2012 at 3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Unions long ago were here to protect form child labor, hours,money, overtime, etc. Now the government regulates this. No need for union anymore. Now I think they are here to protect the lazy worker from being fired. Your buddy has your back. Smoke pot on the line and sell it all day at work. No big deal. Go ahead take a nap if you get in trouble they wont or cannot fire you because the union said they cant. Or you can skip work and say you are "sick" ad gt a DR to write you a note illegally even thought the union said you cannot do this if you should be at work.
Eagle- maybe more people could afford cars if they didn't have a union and" took enough parts to build a car".
"A union is only as good as the people who comprise it."
exactly and if made up of drunk, thieves and nappers then the buddies will get to stay.
The only good story I heard of was "as goes janesville when GM fired her because she went to take care of her son who was just in an accident." the union saved her job. According to her story. MAybe some of the story is missing like she always called in sick and that was the last straw. Who knows.
You can also be "let go" for no reason. IF they give a reason like "she is pregnant" then you don't need a union you just need a lawyer. Pretty sure you will collect UC if they fired you because "you were pregnant". This would be discrimination- covered by the GOv NOT a union.
Dec 14, 2012 at 2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mouse.....you're absolutely right. Although the sincerity of your request would have come off as much more genuine if you didn't single out someone who has always been critical of your posts....
Dec 14, 2012 at 2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fordfan.......So you are equating union presence as a conduit to "consideration, discussion, investigation, oversight or enforcement"?? Thanks for the laugh--it's been a long week and I needed it!!:)
Dec 14, 2012 at 2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Using 916WI's logic, all we need is to pass laws and get rid of the police. There is truly no need for watchdogs or enforcement as the laws are already in effect. Also, if new issues arrise that require addressing, everyone will automatically know about them and the laws will magically be passed to fully, fairly and completely address the situations - no need of consideration, discussion, investigation, oversight or enforcement as there are now "laws". Talk about being totally Fox News addicted clueless!
Dec 14, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Red......Looks like your reading comprehension never was fully developed--you probably spent a lot of time riding the short bus to and from school--no?:( The quote was as follows: "no direct cost to the voter for the free ID" which there isn't. Anyone can walk into a DMV and get an ID used for the purpose of voting without paying a dime.....
As far as your little trip to the soapbox regarding this article, it really was funny how you framed everything in the past tense regarding unions. No one is arguing that they weren't needed decades ago when the workforce and the laws regarding it were evolving. At this point they have become a shadow of their former selves. Making headlines in the way that they are:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/12...
it's no wonder why the public isn't shedding a tear over their demise. The sooner Walker addresses Wisconsin's union labor laws, the better. It is coming!
Dec 14, 2012 at 1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Say 916, wasn’t it you the other day that claimed voter ID’s really were “free”? You certainly do know everything there is to know about being clueless. The fact is, if not for Unions there never would have been a middle class. Whether you agree with the concept of worker Unions or not, EVERYONE collecting a paycheck today is benefiting from past Union efforts. Before Unions, workers had NO rights and NO voice. They were treated worse than some animals thanks to some business owners whose only interest was gaining wealth at all costs. Unions championed the idea of providing proper training for workers, workplace safety and even paying workers a LIVING wage. Unions helped to create the best workforce this world has ever seen. I guess you’re too clueless to realize how much Unions have done the EVERY worker in this country. Even though many workers have the luxury of working for attentive and reasonable employers, some do not. Even with federal labor laws in place some employers continue to exploit their employees. Pro-Union or not, it’s imperative to ensure workers continue to have a voice in the workplace. BTW, the lobbying group that has spent the most to influence labor in this country is not the Union - it's the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They support corporate globalization/free trade, outsourcing and right to work among other conservative causes. Conservatives have a double standard when it comes to complaining about outside "influence" from special interest groups.
Dec 14, 2012 at 12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Everyone's a victim I see, Good lord America is dead if we continue down this whoa is me mentality.
Dec 14, 2012 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wally.......If that is all you got of the article, then you are definitely one of those who is completely inept and clueless enough to need union protection in order to survive in the workforce........good day!:)
Dec 14, 2012 at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lovely...not just a few steps back,,,but a leap back to the dark ages. The Tea Party time machine only can travel to the past.
Dec 14, 2012 at 11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
'Or the two guys that took almost enough parts to build a whole truck out the back door of the plant wouldn't have kept their jobs'
They learned it from Johnny...
Dec 14, 2012 at 11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Basically, good old Krauthammer is telling the middle class:
I want you to picture how a poor person lives. Good, now prepare yourself because that's how you'll be living soon enough.
He calls the era of strong unions a historical anomaly. I guess the norm for society is a split: the very wealthy & the poor. Damn those unions for creating a blue collar middle class!
Dec 14, 2012 at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Right to work also means the guy (charlie) across from me on the line at GM that literally fell over from being drunk on the line wouldn't be back the next night. Or the two guys that took almost enough parts to build a whole truck out the back door of the plant wouldn't have kept their jobs, as they did. Unions sadly have become only as good as the absolute worst element they protect.
Dec 14, 2012 at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nvgrf, Right to work means I don;t have to suffer the consequences of my lesser motivated co-workers. I can do my own negotiations I am not a child or a victim.
Dec 14, 2012 at 9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Thrid -eye --- since when have the unions not been a mob of angry white men...
Dec 14, 2012 at 9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
What about the "obligation to work" and "obligation to pay taxes"? I think this goes to show that although 3% more of America voted for obumma, individuals within this nation realize that just like religion...there needs to be a seperation between government and business. The right to choose between being in a union and not is fundimental. Just like it is fundimental that unions allowed to be formed. It should be a workers choice...not a bullying tactic imposed by the far (and not so far left) in government and powerful unions.
Dec 14, 2012 at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Today’s angry protesters demand a return to that norm. Except that it was not a norm but a historical anomaly."
Today's angry protesters will become tomorrows violent mob as this issue unfolds.
Dec 14, 2012 at 8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Like it or not, it does appear to be inevitable. Much like the re-legalization of Marijuana and the granting of RIGHTS to human beings who love other human beings of the same sex.
Dec 14, 2012 at 8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Freedom is the right to choose...
Dec 14, 2012 at 8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Right-to-work provides no rights and no work. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining.”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Dec 14, 2012 at 7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
The only "right" involved is the "Right to work for less."
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.