Union extortion now illegal in Michigan

Why are unions necessary up north but not in the south? I understood the purpose of the unions back in the day but how are the north and south so different today?

<actual question> i got no dog in this fight i'm just curious.
 
canndo said:
you aren't seeing the true purpose of the new law Desert Dude. Do you really think that the law was intended to offer workers a choice? Do you for a moment actually believe that the law had anything to do with protecting workers?

Now we might find some agreement that there may not be a place in government for unions, at least not unions with the sort of clout that normal, private worker's unions have. But this is not the case. This has little to do with state employee unions,it has to do with a direct attack on unions themselves.

How exactly are you going to convince a worker that he needs to pay union dues when he gets the exact same benefits without paying? It may be possible to expalain that if he does not pay, then the union that now protects him will wither, but it is unlikely. Hell, I know what happens and I, in that same situation may not opt to pay figuring that by the time the union fails, I will be out of there.

It is clear that business is using this current sentiment against public workers unions to attempt to unravel all unions and it appears to be working rather handily for them.
Click to expand...

Unions are facing a situation of their own creation. If unions had been ethical in the use of fees they would not be facing this environment, ESPECIALLY unions of government employees. Maybe in twenty years there will emerge a strong unionization movement in response to unfair labor practices.
 
DonPepe said:
Why are unions necessary up north but not in the south? I understood the purpose of the unions back in the day but how are the north and south so different today?

<actual question> i got no dog in this fight i'm just curious.
Click to expand...

I'm one of the most radical of the lefties around here and even I don't think they serve much of a purpose anymore. They were essential in decades past but IMO, the problem is that US corporations can save a buck at the expense of US workers jobs by outsourcing to 3rd world countries and exploit workers where no such unions exist. Those people ought to join unions, and indeed they would, if our government didn't install puppet regimes in those countries to protect corporate interests.

I'm happy that America is beginning to reject the Koch hegemony, it is good for the world and honestly, only the US could get rid of it's own bourgeois vampires. Get people like that out of our government for the world's sake.
 
desert dude said:
Unions are facing a situation of their own creation. If unions had been ethical in the use of fees they would not be facing this environment, ESPECIALLY unions of government employees. Maybe in twenty years there will emerge a strong unionization movement in response to unfair labor practices.
Click to expand...


No. What you are doing is separating the needs of individuals to have bargaining power with the companies they work for and the behavior of some unscrupulous union leaders. What is going on this time around is that big business is attempting to set up laws that will either prohibit or seriously impare the ability of workers to form bargaining and protectionary collectives. I am surprised you don't see that. I said previously that management brought unions upon themselves - if management had been ethical and fair there never would have been the need for unions. But I was ignoring the fact that it is the nature of organized men to take advantage of unorganized men, the group to take advantage of the individual and the powerful to inflict themselves upon the powerless.

Perhaps with enough abuse there will be new forms of collectives. Government will never be able to take up all the slack nor, I would suppose would folks like yourself want it to, but even if this eventualy occurs there will be generations of workers who will be abused and all of the good work that unions have managed over the decades will have been washed away.
 
abandonconflict said:
I'm one of the most radical of the lefties around here and even I don't think they serve much of a purpose anymore. They were essential in decades past but IMO, the problem is that US corporations can save a buck at the expense of US workers jobs by outsourcing to 3rd world countries and exploit workers where no such unions exist. Those people ought to join unions, and indeed they would, if our government didn't install puppet regimes in those countries to protect corporate interests.

I'm happy that America is beginning to reject the Koch hegemony, it is good for the world and honestly, only the US could get rid of it's own bourgeois vampires. Get people like that out of our government for the world's sake.
Click to expand...


Puts me in mind of a group of people in New Orleans pre Katrina. "I don't know, seems like these levees don't serve much of a purpose anymore - thhey are poorly maintained and we havn't needed them for many years, why not just let them go?"
 
canndo said:
No. What you are doing is separating the needs of individuals to have bargaining power with the companies they work for and the behavior of some unscrupulous union leaders. What is going on this time around is that big business is attempting to set up laws that will either prohibit or seriously impare the ability of workers to form bargaining and protectionary collectives. I am surprised you don't see that. I said previously that management brought unions upon themselves - if management had been ethical and fair there never would have been the need for unions. But I was ignoring the fact that it is the nature of organized men to take advantage of unorganized men, the group to take advantage of the individual and the powerful to inflict themselves upon the powerless.

Perhaps with enough abuse there will be new forms of collectives. Government will never be able to take up all the slack nor, I would suppose would folks like yourself want it to, but even if this eventualy occurs there will be generations of workers who will be abused and all of the good work that unions have managed over the decades will have been washed away.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that unions have done mountains of good things in the past. Unfortunately, they have generally, not entirely, descended into debauchery and corruption. These right to work laws have not made unions illegal.
 
canndo said:
To say nothing of the fact that it makes your statements accurate (the ones pertaining otherwise to slavery that is)
Click to expand...
If you look up the word slavery, you will see several definitions and the way I use the term is correct according to at least one. I explicate arguments charitably and forgive the fact that mine are never forgiven for not conforming to American vernacular. Being that I speak several languages, I find it funny how Americans always see fit to demand words be used their way. What ever, I can still debate successfully in YOUR vernacular. Just remember, it is the concepts, not just the semantics being argued.
 
I don't see how right to work means right to work for less. Union wages are falling, and where I work is proof of this. The unions have allowed this to happen by getting in bed with the company and not having forward thinking. Even while union wages was rising, they was trading that small wage increase for the jobs they was allowing to flow over seas. Now it is to late and they have lost power to effect change. Even the billions of dollars the unions have is tied up with the same forces that fight against them. The workers are dependent upon the leadership while the leadership knows they will just follow along. Until a shake up between rank and file and so called leaders, unions are screwed.
 
canndo said:
Puts me in mind of a group of people in New Orleans pre Katrina. "I don't know, seems like these levees don't serve much of a purpose anymore - thhey are poorly maintained and we havn't needed them for many years, why not just let them go?"
Click to expand...

Incoming storm of despotism? You may be on to something, really (no sarcasm). I still think the 3rd world workers need to embrace collective bargaining.
 
abandonconflict said:
If you look up the word slavery, you will see several definitions and the way I use the term is correct according to at least one. I explicate arguments charitably and forgive the fact that mine are never forgiven for not conforming to American vernacular. Being that I speak several languages, I find it funny how Americans always see fit to demand words be used their way. What ever, I can still debate successfully in YOUR vernacular. Just remember, it is the concepts, not just the semantics being argued.
Click to expand...

Dictionary definitions? Links please? cn
 
desert dude said:
I don't disagree that unions have done mountains of good things in the past. Unfortunately, they have generally, not entirely, descended into debauchery and corruption. These right to work laws have not made unions illegal.
Click to expand...

No, better still, they have rendered unions inoperable in that state. Business has managed to see to it that unions are starved of their ability to exist. AS I grow older I begin to see that ther is no stasis, that what I saw as a final accomplishment is not so final. I had thought for instance that reproductive rights in this country was a done deal and find some 40 years later it is not. The same holds for unions. What they managed to accomplish remains liable to be reduced or even destroyed without their continuing influence - even if those who run unions are not as savory as we would like.
 
TroncoChe said:
I don't see how right to work means right to work for less. Union wages are falling, and where I work is proof of this. The unions have allowed this to happen by getting in bed with the company and not having forward thinking. Even while union wages was rising, they was trading that small wage increase for the jobs they was allowing to flow over seas. Now it is to late and they have lost power to effect change. Even the billions of dollars the unions have is tied up with the same forces that fight against them. The workers are dependent upon the leadership while the leadership knows they will just follow along. Until a shake up between rank and file and so called leaders, unions are screwed.
Click to expand...

I see much of this as a result of continuing assaults upon unions by big business. Union membership is down around 17 percent if I recall, and there is a point of diminishing returns for unions when their power is not great enough to have an effect on business as a whole. What company is worried about union inflence if for example, only one of 6 companies in a particular industry is unionized?
 
canndo said:
No, better still, they have rendered unions inoperable in that state. Business has managed to see to it that unions are starved of their ability to exist. AS I grow older I begin to see that ther is no stasis, that what I saw as a final accomplishment is not so final. I had thought for instance that reproductive rights in this country was a done deal and find some 40 years later it is not. The same holds for unions. What they managed to accomplish remains liable to be reduced or even destroyed without their continuing influence - even if those who run unions are not as savory as we would like.
Click to expand...

If compulsory membership is required for unions to exist, then they shouldn't.

"Reproductive rights"... You have every right to reproduce in this country. You might as well say what you mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jimihendrix1
Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear Signs Executive Medical Marijuana Order
Replies
9
Views
857
jimihendrix1
jimihendrix1
Jimdamick
  • Poll Poll
What's the use?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
hanimmal
hanimmal
C
Greetings, OneLove, and Peace from a lost soul....
Replies
2
Views
604
BarnBuster
BarnBuster
hanimmal
AP: NOT REAL NEWS: A look at what didn't happen this week.
Replies
5
Views
324
RonnieB2
R
Steep Hill
Legalization in the U.S. - What Do You Think?
Replies
0
Views
821
Steep Hill
Steep Hill
Back
Top