Michigan Becomes A Right To Work State

Raees wrote:

Maybe incomes are falling instead because we so many of the countries that used to buy American products now export products to America and can do it cheaper so our wages have to get more in line.

But instead R thinks it is because unions are disappearing.

I was talking with one of my engineer friends who works for Boeing. It looks like their union will go on strike next year. They want a 7% pay hike. But the union is not seeing that new aircraft building companies in Brazil and China are going to be able to undercut them on prices.

The Union ‘Free-Rider Problem’ Myth in Right-to-Work Debate
For example, according to the most recent federal filings, the Michigan Education Association — the state’s largest labor union — received $122 million and spent $134 million in 2012. They averaged about $800 from each of their 152,000 members.

According to union documents, "representational activities" (money spent on bargaining contracts for members) made up only 11 percent of total spending for the union. Meanwhile, spending on “general overhead” (union administration and employee benefits) comprised of 61 percent of the total spending.

So MEA members who disagree with the leadership of the union are paying up to 90 percent of their dues, but the union is only spending about a tenth of the dues money representing them.

Read more here

Actually the point of the Raees pic post graph is to show that you can plot two unrelated lines on a chart, adjust the left and right scales, and "voila" make the slopes match up. I'm convinced. GO UNION! Down with Math education!

Those of you who support this 'right to work' legislation, why do you support it? It's sold as giving an advantage to the state to attract business and jobs, but if surrounding states also have similar legislation, what is the advantage? I think the 'business environment advantage' argument has more holes than swiss cheese and is a bogus argument for this legislation. So what is really the goal? I don't see the advantage to such legislation. Michigan already had legislation allowing employees to work without joining the union, so nobody was forced to join or prohibited from a job for not joining (I know, I know, I know, you ALL have your anecdotal stories about your wife's cousins best friends father in laws buddy in Michigan who was 'intimidated' by some union thug...bs...give me real facts, or if you want to make the 'intimidation' argument, document some real cases because I think your anecdotal evidence is highly exagerated, if true at all, and the only personal stories you've relayed were years ago).

Think this whole thing through. How will desroying the unions improve your life? How will breaking the unions potentially have a negative impact on your life? How about how it will affect the greater populace of the nation? There's no advantage to the middle class for this legislation. None.

Please, just tell me how this legislation benefits the middle class. So far the only reasons provided are completely bogus.

Union Claims About RTW Flawed
Right-to-work opponents have long claimed that such laws are not worker friendly. Mark Gaffney, president of AFL-CIO, reiterated this claim in his July 20th Op-Ed in The Detroit News with the moniker right-to-work (for less). But his claims are just plain wrong.

Gaffney asserts that workers’ average annual pay in right-to-work states was $4,476 less than the average pay a Michigan worker received in 2009. While this single statistic is true, the real story lies in personal income, which grew 46.8 percent in right-to-work states from 2000 to 2010, compared to 33.7 percent in non-right-to-work states. Michigan saw per-capita personal income grow just 16.1 percent over the same time period.

Read more here

plaidvillain wrote: , so nobody was forced to join or prohibited from a job for not joining .

Every worker was forced to pay into the union regardless if they "joined" or not.

Grady wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: , so nobody was forced to join or prohibited from a job for not joining .

Every worker was forced to pay into the union regardless if they "joined" or not.

Only to cover costs directly associated with the services that benefit them, such as wage negotiations. To not pay for these services while still receiving the benefit would be theft. You support theft?

LOL wrote: Actually the point of the Raees pic post graph is to show that you can plot two unrelated lines on a chart, adjust the left and right scales, and "voila" make the slopes match up. I'm convinced. GO UNION! Down with Math education!

Grady wrote: Quote:
Union Claims About RTW Flawed
Right-to-work opponents have long claimed that such laws are not worker friendly. Mark Gaffney, president of AFL-CIO, reiterated this claim in his July 20th Op-Ed in The Detroit News with the moniker right-to-work (for less). But his claims are just plain wrong.

Gaffney asserts that workers’ average annual pay in right-to-work states was $4,476 less than the average pay a Michigan worker received in 2009. While this single statistic is true, the real story lies in personal income, which grew 46.8 percent in right-to-work states from 2000 to 2010, compared to 33.7 percent in non-right-to-work states. Michigan saw per-capita personal income grow just 16.1 percent over the same time period.

Read more here

So when Raess presents evidence, the counter is "you can't prove one thing is the result of the other"...then Grady goes on to provide an argument with nothing to support that one thing (rtw legislation) is the reason for the other (increases wages). Nice.

PV,
You may think you can return to the glory days of US labor in the 1950's when a high school diploma was enough to get you a comfortable middle class existence working in the mill, when our main trade partners like Europe and Asia were lying in ruins, but the world has changed. We can't go back.

Want to bring back high tariffs to keep wages up? That will drive up the costs of goods and raw material our domestic manufacturers use. It is a no-win situation, but it is reality.
And already the lucrative deals public employee unions have been able to get are being re-examined by the voters.

FredHayek wrote: PV,
You may think you can return to the glory days of US labor in the 1950's when a high school diploma was enough to get you a comfortable middle class existence working in the mill, when our main trade partners like Europe and Asia were lying in ruins, but the world has changed. We can't go back.

Want to bring back high tariffs to keep wages up? That will drive up the costs of goods and raw material our domestic manufacturers use. It is a no-win situation, but it is reality.
And already the lucrative deals public employee unions have been able to get are being re-examined by the voters.

bolding mine

So you support accelerating the race to the bottom, the erosion/destruction of the middle class, since it's a no-win situation? Your defeatist attitude is for chumps who roll over and give up as soon as things get tough. Or, you stand to gain something by everyone else being torn down. Are you looking forward to profitting from the 3rd world labor wages you're pushing us towards? It's way beyond having the mill job for the high school diploma...nowadays, college degrees can't find entry level positions. High tariffs only bring high prices to imported goods, so yes, I do want increased tariffs. I want fair international trade. I want domestic manufacturing. I want the so called "job creators" to start creating some jobs in the nation they make their profits.

The so-called "lucrative deals" of the public unions were negotiated fairly, with both sides making concessions for different gains. Now you think it's fair to go back and tell those employees the contracts they made don't matter? You surprise me Fred...I used to think you had principles.

I hear you conservatives blame everyone else for the nation's problems, but never accept any responsibility yourselves. You villainize the unions as moochers while your red southern states year after year take in more federal dollars than they contribute. Accept responsibility for your own mooching before you attack everyone else.