 |
Unions have been working to overturn Michigan's new right to work law. Yes those same unions that led to the mess Detroit is in now. They lost their court challenge...
Michigan appeals court rules against unions in right-to-work case
Darn, mandatory union dues may finally be a goner. I'm sure Obama is not happy.
Right or wrong court decision? Should workers have choice or not?
It was a wrong decision. On this one the courts messed up because the way the union works is with solidarity of its membership. This phrase is the downfall of the decision.
Quote:
The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the legislature had the authority to create the law that makes union fees voluntary because it has the constitutional right to "speak for the people on matters of significant public concern."
The state can speak for people all they want but they can't speak for the union. The union is the one bartering your contract and it is put to a vote. The courts stepped in it this time.
Took me a bit but I found the actual part of the ruling referred to instead of the spin.
Court of Appeals upholds Freedom to Work law - ABC 10Quote:
Accordingly, we hold that, contrary to plaintiffs’ claim, it is within the authority of the Legislature to pass laws on public policy matters in general and particularly those, as here, that unquestionably implicate constitutional rights of both union and nonunion public employees. Neither the language of Const 1963, art 11, § 5, the history of civil service law in the state of Michigan, nor the language of Const 1963, art 4, §§ 48-49, precluded the Legislature from enacting PA 349, and applying this statute to the classified civil service. The CSC’s power to “regulate” civil service employment does not infringe on the legislative power under art 4, § 49, to enact laws relative to conditions of employment, and applying those laws toward all employment in the state, public and private, civil service or non-civil service. Finally, Michigan case law fully supports the principle that the Legislature as the policymaking branch of government, has the power to pass labor laws of general applicability that also apply to classified civil service employees. For these reasons, we hold that 2012 PA 349 is constitutional as applied to classified civil service positions in Michigan. (p. 17)
Why should we even be surprised that republicans are moving to destroy unions and take away the people power to negotiate and empower work rules and conditions that make workers quality of life better?
What better way to write the rules that take away pensions and carves the land up for investors to make big bucks for themselves. What better way to take full advantage of region crippled by the los of jobs, revenue, and population?
Its been done before, and they will do it again as republicans yet again collude with business to extract profits and make more poor people. What follows are more depressed wages, and more minimum wage jobs with a lot less benefits. You can hate unions and bosses all you want to for whatever reasons, but you cannot deny it's a sad state of affairs when you end up with workers needing two service industry jobs to be poor.
Unions will be back, like it or not because poverty and log hours tends to make ordinary workers dissatisfied with the way things are going, and the bosses that make profit off their labor.
Worker wages: Wendy's vs. Walmart vs. Costco | Money - Home
Funny how the small government, anti union crowd always support smaller wages, and fewer rights.
Tal, like I've said over and over we don't need unions to ensure worker safety any more. You can argue about negotiating wages and such but some of us don't want our money going to unions to advance political policies we don't support. You shouldn't be forced to give money to advance a political agenda you oppose.
But you take the wages and benefits fast enough.
You not only expect others to compromise their beliefs and values for your agenda you expect us to pay for it, too. In your words that would make you a BULLY. Get the unions out of politics and we can talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You blame the unions while unemployment rose dramatically during the economic downturn caused by the banks. You blame the democrats while you oppose and obstruct any job bills. You blame working women for destroying the family. You blame gays for destroying marriage.
Then you have the nerve to blame US for making you compromise your principles, taking your rights, and making you pay for it? That's exactly why we call you righties loony.
We aren't the ones trying to force the church to buy contraception and pay for unions to advocate against our beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Like I said, have unions drop the liberal politics and let's talk. I shouldn't be forced to pay for someone to advocate against my beliefs, or go around the country getting violent with other Americans as they did with tea parties and terrorizing bankers homes with children in them. That's just crazy, Tal, and you would object if it were the other way around. Don't pretend you wouldn't.
We have debated your so called forcing churches to buy contraceptives so I will skip that, but how are YOU, a non union type person paying anybody to advocate for THEIR belief, which you disagree with, but it is THEIR beliefs.
So it's okay to can MY rights and beliefs so you can have yours? That's a lot of nerve. Still looking for that violence against the TParty.
That violence against the Tea Party had been documented here before as was the bus trip harassing businessmen at their home with children inside. Here's the thing, no one is prohibiting you from being in a union and paying dues so no one is infringing on your rights, that's a bogus argument.
Skip the "I" and insert "no one" If the point didn't get across. No one should be FORCED to pay for someone advocating against their beliefs and values. It's not that complicated. How about I take YOUR money and use it to lobby against abortion, picket Planned Parenthood, harass abortionists at home? You wouldn't mind would you?
My tax payer money pays the salary of lawmakers who do things I don't like, but no union is taking your money, but you benefit.
And isolated incidences are hardly wide spread violence against the TParty, while the assaults on workers, minorities and women goes on. And did you make excuse about top and frisk? Maybe not you but conservative support it.
So you wouldn't mind me taking part of your wages and using it to fund conservative causes. Cool, send me a check. Be sure and send enough to pad my back account, too.
You just going to stick to the convoluted story about people taking your money huh? Bored before game time? :D
Said as jobs and rank and file alike move out of the state to places that already have 'right to work' laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You mean companies with unions opening in the southern states?
Capital goes where it's welcome and stays where it's well treated. (Walter B. Wriston )
Funny you should mention the guy that helped save NY from bankruptcy. We can't do that anymore can we? Wonder why?
The term is 'mandatory union dues' I believe and as I said, get the unions out of politics and we can talk. No one should be forced to pay for unions to advocate for policies and candidates they oppose. And no, I was bored during game time, five first half turnovers? Typical Cowboys.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You aren't in a union, so what's your problem? Shouldn't those decision of who to support with time and money be left to dues paying member?
I turned back to baseball after Bryant's fumble. Schedule is clear for next Saturday. Chomping at the bit. :D
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:34 PM. |