Michigan........

[zeus3925]

I might almost acknowledge your point IF unions limited themselves to negotiating with employers and weren't politically active, but since individual members don't get to specify how their monies are distributed to the various political parties, candidates, and causes, afraid I simply can't agree. If the unions would distribute their political contributions proportional to he leanings of individual members (which wouldn't be that difficult), then, again, I could almost go with your statement, but................

As a stockholder I never get to vote where my corporate contributions go either. Unions will support candidates that support labor. The Grand Obtuse Party is anti-union and very little money flows in their direction.

[HPL]

As a stockholder I never get to vote where my corporate contributions go either. Unions will support candidates that support labor. The Grand Obtuse Party is anti-union and very little money flows in their direction.

Where this analogy falls completely apart is that no one forces you to be a stockholder, and you buy stock, you don't pay dues, but in non-right to work states, you join the union, pay dues, or you don't work. That has the smell of coercion to me.

[murral stark]

Where this analogy falls completely apart is that no one forces you to be a stockholder, and you buy stock, you don't pay dues, but in non-right to work states, you join the union, pay dues, or you don't work. That has the smell of coercion to me.

There seems to be a double standard here. The rebloodlicans cry to high heaven for the "leeches" that get all of the entitlements, yet it's ok for workers that don't want to pay union dues to get the same benefits and wages of the dues paying members. I would consider those workers "leeches".

[caryalsobrook]

There seems to be a double standard here. The rebloodlicans cry to high heaven for the "leeches" that get all of the entitlements, yet it's ok for workers that don't want to pay union dues to get the same benefits and wages of the dues paying members. I would consider those workers "leeches".

I would consider those workers that are unreliable, irresponsible and in general do poor work, AND "EXPECT" the same income as those workers that are reliable and responsible and in general do a good job, TO BE THE LEECHES, regardless whether they are union or non-union.

[Marvin S]

I believe your pay should begin at the time you are required to be at work, so if you are told to be at work at 7pm or face reprimand then that is when your workday begins. We we're required to attend a shift briefing that took place 15 before shift began, add to that a series of security points that could add another 10 minutes to get to the time clock.

Been there, done that, but not for long. I believe Wally World has one of those suits going & rightfully so. But I belleve the individual has a responsibility to look out for himself, so should make sure they have employment options. When the best or only job in town is that company, then folks don't have many options. Companies look for those types of towns , but that's reality.

My first employment when I graduated from college was at a mine that had portal to portal working conditions. The philosophy of that company was: 1) to expect people to get their work done in the time allotted, 2) if folks were unable to do that, to look at what they were being asked to do, 3) If what they were being asked to do was reasonable, to counsel them, if that didn't work to reasssign them, which included termination. I thought that to be a good philosophy which I practiced both as a manager & a worker.

My last employment was as a lead engineer at a major company. I spent many years as the top rated engineer in my skill code, yet was criticized for being out the door at the end of the day on time unless there was a major issue, which happens occasionally. One of my bosses made that comment to me about the comments other bosses had made about me during rating procedures. My answer to him was "they are usually the bosses who show up late after the challenges for the day have been handled, want to be part of the decision that has already been made, & then want to visit about it on my time. If that's the only criticism then I'm home free ." I didn't care what these bosses thought as I was confident in my abilities & knew I could move in a minute within the company - I just really liked what I did, it was challenging, never routine, & it kinda fun facing down someone who believes themselve to be a big shot. Didn't have to do it often, just often enough to let those folks know they were in the big leagues . There are a lot of jerks in management, just as there are employees who will take advantage, that's life & one has to be able to work around those issues. The guy who runs F was a 3rd level manager in our organization, loved the sound of his own voice, but could not go out on the floor & tell the shop guys what needed to be done without having to consult someone else. That's why he is at F .

We were expected to keep our skills up to date on our own time, if there were expenses the company paid for some. We were responsible for being there, our own meals, & transport. I never had an issue with that as those new skills belonged to me.

[JS]

Where this analogy falls completely apart is that no one forces you to be a stockholder, and you buy stock, you don't pay dues, but in non-right to work states, you join the union, pay dues, or you don't work. That has the smell of coercion to me.

This statement is only PARTLY true, and could be misleading to those who don't understand the law.

To clarify: In a non-RTW state, workers are required to join the union and pay dues ONLY IF the majority of their co-workers in their bargaining unit have voted ... in a federally monitored, secret ballot election ... to be represented by the union. Being a non-RTW state does NOT mean that all workers must be unionized. If an employees' effort to organize fails, there will be no union and no one will be required to pay union dues. For example; in the state of Washington where 21% of the labor force is organized, only that 21% are required to pay dues. The law concerns only those workers who are represented by a union contract and has NO impact on the other 79% of workers in that state nor ANY of the employers.

I know this is elementary, but it is clear from some of the posts that many here do not understand the reality of non-RTW. This principle of majority rule applies to many facets of our everyday lives. It is fair and equitable and should be viewed as unreasonable only to those who have a basic aversion to unions in general.

(BTW, that same law REQUIRES ... in any state ... that ALL employees in the bargaining unit receive all the benefits of the union contract regardless of their support or non-support of the union.)

In my experience, this is far less an issue to workers involved than it is to those outsiders posting here who seem to hate unions and anything related. I live in a right-to-work state. At the peak of membership in my local union, we had over 12,000 members and the number of those who declined to join and pay dues never reached more than 50 +/-.

JS

[Blackstone]

In Michigan, there have always been plenty of non-union shops. You are not required to join a union just because the state is not a RTW state unless your job is covered by a union.

[Marvin S]

In my experience, this is far less an issue to workers involved than it is to those outsiders posting here who seem to hate unions and anything related. I live in a right-to-work state. At the peak of membership in my local union, we had over 12,000 members and the number of those who declined to join and pay dues never reached more than 50 +/-.
JS

In my experience, which I would venture to say is a lot more varied & less biased than yours, I have seen the good that unions do & the bad. I would venture to say that the bad they do, such as their blind support of the Democratic party, is not one of the issues they would like folks to talk about too much. Why do they support the D's, because that same blind support creates legislation that they cannot win in the public marketplace .

In Michigan, there have always been plenty of non-union shops. You are not required to join a union just because the state is not a RTW state unless your job is covered by a union.

What happens is in states such as ours, the major unions are concentrated in the population centers, which translates into votes, generally Democrat. In our own state, the moderate Republican candidate for Governor was pre-eminent in his qualifications, yet managed to lose to the biggest buffoon to date that has been elected governor. Which is saying a lot as our present governor ranks in the bottom 5 of all the nations governors. What they do do is make sure the unions share in the governance of the state at a great cost to the citizens.

Not everyone is as politically aware as most of us who post here on POTUS & even though we disagree, I believe that if we sat down face to face most of us could come to many points of agreement long before we came to blows . Now there are exceptions on this forum, I just don't believe you are one of those.

[JS]

In my experience, which I would venture to say is a lot more varied & less biased than yours, I have seen the good that unions do & the bad. I would venture to say that the bad they do, such as their blind support of the Democratic party, is not one of the issues they would like folks to talk about too much. Why do they support the D's, because that same blind support creates legislation that they cannot win in the public marketplace .

Whoa ... labor, in general is anything BUT secretive in our political activity and very vocal in support of the candidates that get our endorsements. Our involvement in government goes far beyond monetary contributions, and we are not ashamed of the positions we take.

Why does our support most often go to the Democrats? That's simple ... the Democrat platform is more concerned with the issues of the working class people in general and, as such, is friendlier to the labor movement in particular. Believe it or not, labor wants a strong United States in every way and believes that a strong blue collar economy is the best way to maintain that. Believe it or not, labor wants a strong business climate and realizes that if the "company" is not doing well, neither will the workers. (That's a "duh", despite all the talk about unions trying to put companies out of business. ) We also believe that the greatest way any company stimulates an economy is on Friday afternoon. And we do not believe companies hire people just because they have extra money in the bank nor lay them off if they NEED them to produce product. Those employment decisions are based on NEED for the product and the better the workers are doing, the more product will be sold.

Of course labor doesn't get everything we want from the Democrats. No one gets everything they want in our type of government. But you still put your support with those who will do the best as you see it and lobby for those thing you think are most critical.

And regarding the "good and the bad" unions do ... absolutely I would never argue that unions are all perfect. Any more than I would argue that businesses are all corrupt. Some union leadership is self serving and irresponsible just like some managers. And some make stupid mistakes. I still have not forgiven the Teamsters for supporting Nixon just because Bobby Kennedy was going after Hoffa!

Not everyone is as politically aware as most of us who post here on POTUS & even though we disagree, I believe that if we sat down face to face most of us could come to many points of agreement long before we came to blows . Now there are exceptions on this forum, I just don't believe you are one of those.

I'm not so sure if everyone on POTUS is that politically aware or if they just like to argue. It's hard to believe that some of the more prolific posters have a very broad base of information. I don't pretend to be a "know-it-all" and I certainly don't deny anyone else their own opinions. But I do keep in touch with the various "extreme" news sources ... Fox News and MSNBC ... as well as the mainstream and Public Radio. (don't read the internet tabloid rags) I also have quite a diverse network of friends and acquaintances with whom I enjoy good, productive exchanges. Over the past summer and fall, I knocked on around 1000 doors and discussed politics with folks of all persuasions. Only a very small percentage of them express some of the opinions heard here. It is my strong opinion that the majority here limit their sources to the far right only, and back up their opinions with personal anecdotes and regurgitated sound bites, many of which are not based in fact or only partially true.

I DO, however agree with you that "if we sat down face to face most of us could come to many points of agreement long before we came to blows". I also agree with you that "there are exceptions on this forum". Some people have likened RTF to a tailgate session ... well, now and then at a tailgater, there's a clown that is a real PITA. Always attacking, never offering anything constructive and it gets so tiresome you just say, "see ya later" and walk away. I feel a lot of that here. I suppose some feel the same about me.

JS

[Marvin S]

Believe it or not, I still have not forgiven the Teamsters for supporting Nixon just because Bobby Kennedy was going after Hoffa! JS

Had Bobby Kennedy survived to be the D's nominee, he would have received our vote. Since that time the d's have never put up a nominee deserving .