tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7089029.post5705675138317485948..comments2023-10-15T07:32:34.706-05:00Comments on Watersblogged Archives: Get over it, GOP: "Right-to-Work" laws are a bad, bad ideaRobert Elart Watershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18182251436190781481noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7089029.post-2585336409584045052012-12-22T15:39:30.399-06:002012-12-22T15:39:30.399-06:00Barb, I just re-read my second post to you and I a...Barb, I just re-read my second post to you and I apologize for the tone. I see why you feel condescended to. My only purpose with the history crack was to point out that the "union thug" meme is a consciously-created stereotype which historically applies more to management than to labor, and in many cases doesn't apply to labor at all.<br /><br />Robert Elart Watershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182251436190781481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7089029.post-8300891313486400572012-12-21T11:07:37.993-06:002012-12-21T11:07:37.993-06:00Barb, I'm sorry that you feel condescended to,...Barb, I'm sorry that you feel condescended to, but I think you're wrong. You seem to be pretty wedded to a position that seems clearly not to be in your own interest, too.Robert Elart Watershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182251436190781481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7089029.post-64336119315471743412012-12-20T10:07:22.182-06:002012-12-20T10:07:22.182-06:00Guess what? My husband did lose his job because he...Guess what? My husband did lose his job because he got sick. I still don't think unions are a good idea. And I don't like being condescended to.Barb the Evil Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04635449477605703171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7089029.post-53508690452099288522012-12-17T15:04:15.346-06:002012-12-17T15:04:15.346-06:00Really? You've changed your mind, and decided ...Really? You've changed your mind, and decided that you disagree with Ron Paul on that point after all?Robert Elart Watershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182251436190781481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7089029.post-64104808092668997022012-12-16T23:31:22.104-06:002012-12-16T23:31:22.104-06:00you think America was the bad guy on 9/11
What th...<b>you think America was the bad guy on 9/11</b><br /><br />What the pfargtl?Jeff Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768185709286407477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7089029.post-6205825027644682522012-12-16T15:38:07.015-06:002012-12-16T15:38:07.015-06:00Barb, with all due respect, you would benefit from...Barb, with all due respect, you would benefit from a bit more thorough education in American history. The amount of blood that has been shed by union-busting companies- I'm not talking about rhetoric here, but actual violence, actual armed assault on people carrying out their First Amendment right to free speech, actual murder- is to blood shed by the stereotypical "union thug" as a juice glass is to Lake Michigan. For a considerable portion of our history, in fact, the political influence of employers has been great enough to have labor organizers like the Haymarket defendents in my home town- Chicago- hanged for crimes for which there was literally no evidence of their guilt in order to get them out of the way. The Haymarket "riot," btw, was a peaceful demonstration against the police for having opened fire on a peaceful picket line at the McCormack Harvester plant a few days ago and murdered several union members in cold blood. To this day, nobody knows who threw the bomb at the Haymarket, and there is as much reason to think that it was an anti-union <i>provacatuer</i> as otherwise. And nearly all of those killed died as the result of policemen firing indiscriminately into the crowd. That includes the policemen who were killed.<br /><br />Intimidation has always been a major card for employers, and not simply the threat of being fired (which was also an option whenever a worker spoke up about maltreatment on the job). A great many people shed a great deal of literal, and not rhetorical, blood to get us beyond that days- and to get you, even as member of a non-union household, such things as employer-contributed health insurance, a guarantee that if you work you will not lose your job for being sick or having a baby, and a decent living wage.<br /><br />Give those things up voluntarily, Barb, and you will speak with more authority and authenticity.<br /><br />I happen to agree with your reservation about union contributions to Democratic candidates. But are you listening to yourself? Of course unions contribute to Democrtic candidates. Democrats support the interests of their members, whereas at least on this issue (and many others) Republicans oppose them. In their shoes, who would <i>you</i> support? Would you take kindly to a piece of legislation which will likely mean that you would have ten percent less income with which to house and feed your family, and drastically reduced benefits? And I'm not going to get into the moral issue of stealing union benefts, which is what "Right-to-Work" laws are essentially licenses to do. Whenever I have had a union job, I have cringed at the prospect of having my dues spent in any measure on contributions to Democrtic candidates. But in the last analysis, isn't protecting the interests of its members what any such organization is supposed to do, whether the UAW or the NAM or the AARP?<br /><br />"Right-to-Work" states have about ten percent more jobs than others. Bad jobs with low pay and few benefits. It's not hard to see why. If you can treat your employees like slaves and increase your profit margin, why not?<br /><br />But these are human beings, Barb- people with families to take care of, children who get sick- and will have a harder time doing so because of these laws. No, Barb, the Seventh Commandment is not the only one involved here.<br /><br />The Fifth Commandment is, too.Robert Elart Watershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182251436190781481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7089029.post-79138078276817116182012-12-16T15:38:00.359-06:002012-12-16T15:38:00.359-06:00First, Barb, the argument presented by the blog at...First, Barb, the argument presented by the blog at the Heritage Foundation is sheer nonsense. In fact, it's out-and-out dishonest. <br /><br />First, if poltiical contributions were not contributions spent in the advancement of worker interests, we would not be having this conversation. Republicans would not be supporting "Right-to-Work" laws and other anti-union legislation. And yes, organizations do need infrastructure and operating expenses. <br /><br />And yes, in the ways that matter, unions DO have to represent non-union members. Hey, if the law were changed so that only union members would get pay raises and increases in benefits won by strikes, that would be as good as doing away with "Right-to-Work" laws. There would no longer be an incentive for workers not to join the union. Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen. The only purpose of "Right-to-Work" laws is to starve unions of dues by getting workers to accept the insignificant short-term benefits of not joining at the much larger long-term price of having the interests of all workers subordinated tot those of the employer. <br /><br />Robert Elart Watershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182251436190781481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7089029.post-47286997168503372772012-12-16T15:13:02.776-06:002012-12-16T15:13:02.776-06:00Jeff, I'm not surprised at your response; you ...Jeff, I'm not surprised at your response; you can be counted on to be irrational on just about any subject on demand. For crying out loud, you think America was the bad guy on 9/11!<br /><br />In this case, as in most, you would probably be better advised to get at least a vague idea of what you're talking about before forming an opinion about it. But then, since you usually skip that step, I'm not surprised.<br /><br />The whole point is that that is what a so-called "Right-to-Work" law <i>is!</i> A special piece of Federal legislation- Section 14(b)<br />if the Taft-Hartley Act- grants non-union workers what amounts to a license to steal. They are guaranteed all the benefits of any contract the union negotiates, while not having to pay union dues. They get all the benefits of belonging to a union but none of the responsibilities.<br /><br />In essence, a "Right-to-Work" law has only one purpose: union busting. It's designed to keep workers at the absolute mercy of their employers, with no power or recourse almost no matter how abusive or exploitative the employers' treatmenf of their employees might be. It's immoral because it's immoral to steal- and a "Right-to-Work" law is essentially a license for non-union workers to steal benefits they are not morally entitled to. <br /><br />The irony is that they end up getting the shaft right along with everyone else, since wages in "Right-to-Work" states are an average of about ten percent lower than in the rest of the country, with benefits- including health insurance- correspondingly negligable. And of course, it is also in essense a license for employers to steal the labor of their employees, especially in bad economies, and to avoid paying a living wage.<br /><br />Immoral no matter how you look at it. And bad public policy, especially in hard times.Robert Elart Watershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182251436190781481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7089029.post-5293695608828644352012-12-15T12:30:21.589-06:002012-12-15T12:30:21.589-06:00<a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/...<a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/11/michigan-unions-freeloader-myth/>Unions are not required to represent non-union members.</a><br /><br />Honestly, I would never join a union, because I would be pissed at my money going to support Democrat candidates without my approval. After all the nasty, violent crap unions have pulled in Wisconsin and Florida, I can't believe anyone could support them. Anyone who threatens, "There will be blood"? No, just no.Barb the Evil Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04635449477605703171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7089029.post-2561965491149352632012-12-14T18:00:20.900-06:002012-12-14T18:00:20.900-06:00Greetings! I'll start off by disclosing that, ...Greetings! I'll start off by disclosing that, as a Michigander, I am very happy that Michigan—of all states!—has joined the ranks of those having a right-to-work law. I didn't vote for Governor Snyder last time, but I sure will next time.<br /><br />Having gotten that out of the way, maybe you can clear something up for me. I don't really understand why there is a "free rider" problem. Why does somebody who chooses to not join the union get the benefits of the union? Why don't they have to negotiate their contract on their own, etc.? That seems odd.<br /><br />I have the vague idea that it is because that's what it says in Federal law, but I'm not sure. If it is Federal law, you can't really blame Michigan for that. Talk to the Federal government.Jeff Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768185709286407477noreply@blogger.com