Market Currents
The right-to-work issue in Michigan isn't going unnoticed by labor unions. UAW President Bob...
-
Friday, December 7, 2012, 8:16 AM ETThe right-to-work issue in Michigan isn't going unnoticed by labor unions. UAW President Bob King was at the state's Capitol building leading a protest against legislation that would allows workers to opt out of unions and not pay dues. The state House passed the measure yesterday by 58-42, sending it along to the Senate. Though the Big Three are deathly quiet on the issue, it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine weakened union laws in Michigan could help bottom lines.
Other date
Latest Consumer Articles
This news story has 87 comments:
Want to know what's wrong with unions, just look at the losers, thugs and goons attacking our Capital right now. Those people don't need representation - they need a bus ticket out of town.
In analyzing our results, the most sweeping conclusion we could draw about the thousands of organizations active in Washington is that, in the aggregate, their interests tilt strongly in the direction of the haves. More than half represent the interests of business in one way or another. Only 5 percent represent broad public interests (whether conservative or liberal or neither) such as wilderness preservation, auto safety, national security, human rights abroad, lower taxes, reproductive rights, and citizen education. Only 4 percent represent people on the basis of such identities as race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, age, sexual orientation, or gender. A mere 1 percent are unions. And less than 1 percent advocate on behalf of, or provide social services to, the economically needy.
"Though the Big Three are deathly quiet on the issue, it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine weakened union laws in Michigan could help bottom lines."
So the companines make more money and send many workers to the breadlines.
You folks really don't know that most working people have not had an increase in pay in years! And most stock holders get free money in the form of dividends that the pay NO tax on. Great world for you guys, but payback is coming.
All the legislation does is give workers the right to choose whether to join a union and pay fees. Anything extrapolated from that basic fact and then debated is an irrelevant "straw man" argument.
As an example, the apparent widespread assumption that companies could suddenly fire all the union members and hire non-union "scabs", is false. Federal law permits unions to exist, and for employees to join the union, and for collective bargaining. Companies that would try to involuntarily replace the union workforce wholesale and hire only non-union replacements would be subjected to discrimination lawsuits, just as effectively as if they tried to replace all the women and minorities and seniors with young white males. Can't happen - at least in the US.
But certainly companies would be able to hire new employees, and those new employees could then independently make the choice whether to join the Union themselves. But this does NOT for example empower companies to pick and choose. Again, the laws against discrimination would mandate equal opportunities regardless of union affiliation.
The assumption that non-union employees would be cheaper than union ones is also false. Instead of all getting the same pay regardless of skills and experience and seniority and effectiveness on the job, non-union workers could theoretically be paid differently based on those factors. So for example, an individual who is more experienced, more skilled, and more efficient on the job than the average union guy, could end up with significantly more pay. Performance based pay ... just like the executives and managers! Imagine that.
The ones ending up on "the breadlines" might be those that deliberately keep slowing down the line, and keeping everyone else in line, so no one worker does a better job than another. You see this all the time, where some fresh young whippersnapper comes in on the line and tries to outwork everyone else. A sharp rebuke from the "alpha leader" puts the young buck back in his place. Meanwhile the ones showing up late from lunch, drunk or reeking of pot, barely able to do the job, gets exactly the same pay, and thus positive reinforcement to continue to perform poorly. High performers get slapped down, while low performers get held up. Such are the current union ways.
"Have not had an increase in pay in years"? You must have missed something. At least in the case of the union auto workers, they took huge contract signing bonuses, something like $10k each, and they also have profit sharing each year - works out to about $1000 for every billion in US profits. The base hourly pay may be the same, more or less, in order to remain competitive with the non-union automakers (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, etc.) but the yearly pay is higher, and the fringe benefits are still very generous and mostly free.
As for the stock holder dividends - they most certainly are taxed if taken as cash, and they are taxed again when spent on goods. Now if they are re-invested directly into a tax deferred (IRA, 401k, etc.) account, then correct - they don't pay taxes today, but they will pay taxes when the funds are cashed out later, at retirement or death. That is the federal (and state) law on tax deferred savings. Another straw man argument.
The "Big Three" are silent, because the last thing they want to do is get the rank and file all riled up for no good reason. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have contracts in place, which have no reference to "right to work" initiatives. It is doubtful that the Automakers would want to re-open the contract negotiations at this point, and they certainly don't the workforce to go on strike over the issue. It is also doubtful that the proposed State Law would immediately trump existing contracts, and force the Automakers to start hiring non-union replacement workers. Implementation and enforcement of the law is going to be he interesting part - the companies are going to have to walk a fine line.
So, what "payback is coming"? Are you making a threat against someone ("you guys"), or some company? Please say it isn't so.
"but payback is coming................" sounds just like a union goon doesn't it? I don't like your opinion so paybacks ah coming. you'll get punished for this because i think with my beer and my gun.
now people can effectively vote against the corruption and BS in the unions. Michigan can only get better.
"I see the light - and it brings a new day......................
It is people like the Koch brothers who are behind most of these actions. When you see billionaires trying to change workplace rules who do you think will benefit?
Anyone with more money than you has to give you some? That's exactly what the unions are all about.
Your numbers are wrong (400 families) but just maybe those people earn that money. Maybe they work hard and make the right investments. But poor Mortbert wants a big screen TV and even though he didn't study hard, isn't business smart, he's entitled to some of that money cause we all deserve to be equal.
My neighbor has got a new car - so I'm entitled to a new car. Is that where you're coming from? Where does it stop with taking stuff from other people just cause you want it?
I'm in a union and I put bumpers on cars and I want to be paid like a doctor gets paid and me and my other thugs and goons are going to bring this company to a standstill until we get the money - even though my neighbors will have to pay an outrageous amount of money for the cars we make - yeah, "buy American". Am I close?
My father came from overseas as a child, washed bottles, delivered milk, worked seven days a week and eventually managed a hundred drivers for a large dairy company. Dumb old me managed to get a couple of graduate degrees and have a career at Bell Labs.
When I got out of the Air Force, with not one but two strips, I built a brokerage firm with six offices in two states. I'm guess you would say I've been real lucky.
I do not envy what others have. I do buy new cars every twelve or fourteen years, when I've saved the cash to buy then. I do not own a large sceen TV. You might say I'm fiscally conservative.
I find we have a nice blend of capitalism and socialism in this country (social security, the VA hospital system). I don't worry about what others have; I worry about what the majority don't have.
I just saw a graph that shows the deline in middle class income matches the decline in union member. Must be a coincidence, right.
I would have to say if all union people thought like you, made the service commitment you made, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they don't - most are filled with greed and self serving motives.
They try to take over companies as a group of thugs and control management and production. Ever see them return anything to the community? They don't even honor other unions on strike anymore.
A blend of socialism - what better way to take away the incentives that made this country great. You could be whatever you were capable of, now you have to drag your neighbors, illegals, and lazy people with you to the finish line. Sorry, just don't like the idea.
For my fifth anniversary at a consulting company, I got a call that business was bad and I was out of work. They did what they had to do. I had a wife and two small kids so I scrambled and also collected unemployment insurance. Today it isn't as easy to get back on ones feet.
Unions are run by goons and corporations don't worry about anything but the bottom line. What happens to the working stiff ( or middle manager) who falls on hard times? Are they, as todays Republicans seem to feel, mostly illegals and lazy and undeserving of a hand?
I'm an Independent - I hate both sides - the extremes have taken over both parties. I'm watching the news now as the union goons are trying to take over Lansing and stop the R/W vote. Talk about a rag-tag group of misfits and beer drinking thugs. They say that half the cars in Lansing parking lots have out-of-state plates. I look at this group and can't generate a ounce of sympathy.
The future generations will realize there's no loyalty either way any more. People quit all the time and go to work for other companies taking information and trade secrets with them. Companies having a hard time - lay people off - that's a good thing. It allows the company to survive and rebuild. But a union won't allow layoffs so companies go out of business - just try to buy a Twinkie now. 18,000 out of work instead of 16,000 working to save the company.
"I believed our greatness was due to our hard work, fair incomes, opportunity, education, etc" Your words. I agree, I just don't think all that should be a gift.
I believe unions forced more jobs overseas than anything else. They forced prices up by excessive demands, they forced companies to employ workers unfit for the job, and they demanded benefits equal to people who were more educated and productive - just because they worked as a mob of thugs and demanded it.
Now people can buy goods made in China for 1/3 of what the going price was before. You work and make less? No worry, China is delivering goods here at a 70% discount. You think if we were still making bedroom sets and PC's you'd be able to buy them for the price they are selling at? I can buy a beautiful business shirt for $20, a full bedroom set for $500 and a powerful PC for $500 with a monitor bigger than my old TV.
Heck I owe the unions my gratitude for making it possible to bring in imported goods that are so cheap.
Anyway, I wish you and the family well. I appreciate your position and support your right to vote for anything that adds value to your life and family. (npi)
Well, here's something that's actually on topic for SA. Could you please describe this in more detail? I would be very interested in learning how I can receive dividends tax-free. Currently, the companies I own pay on average around 30% tax on the earnings that support the dividend (which is not deductible), and I'm required to pay an additional 25.3% income tax on the dividend itself. In other words, for every dollar my company earns, the government is taking about 40%. That's assuming I've met the requirements for treating it as a Qualified Distribution and it's not a REIT, BDC, or other differently-taxed entity, in which case it's typically 38.3% -- not much difference, really, unless it's in an IRA, in which case I will of course have to pay tax on it as ordinary income when I take my MRDs. So please explain how one can collect these dividends tax-free; I think everyone would very much like to keep 1/3 more money without doing anything! Thanks.
Ryandan you are just so brilliant.....It's people like you that caused unions to be formed in the first place.
I don't think I caused a single union to be formed - but thanks for thinking I had that kind of influence.
I made some pretty good investments last year. How much money do I need to give you "entitlement people" so your self-esteem doesn't collapse?
We agree on a lot Moran - Happy Holidays................. safe. We'll look for more common ground next year. ;-)
"The data on wages tell a fairly clear story. Of the top 10 states in per capita income in 2011, seven were not right-to work states. Of the bottom 10 states with the lowest per capital income, seven were right to work states."
As a retired Bell System manager I remember we looked forward to union negotiations. The benefits they gained tended to flow up to us fairly soon.
To have a fair study, you have to go back and re-parse the data, filtering out those low income states that have no active major industrial centers that would require large numbers of potentially unionized workers.
But even before filtering, what about the three of ten states with the highest per capita income that have the right to work? Apparently Right to Work works just fine there, right? Does that not completely invalidate your argument?
And what about the three of ten states with the lowest income that are forced to be unionized? What is wrong with your argument there?
Remember - Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, and other Asian and European automakers set up production plants in non-union right to work states, to avoid the insufferable work rules of out of control unionists. Those highly skilled and highly respected workers are also highly paid, well above average, about the same as their Big Three peers; and they love their jobs, and they want no part of unionizing and collective bargaining. Every time the UAW bosses shows up to try to convince the workers that they are being abused by The Man and need union protection and support and collective bargaining, they are laughed right back out into the street. the How can you explain that? Brainwashing? Some kind of drug slipped into their lunches?
Union work rules and safety rules are not interchangeable. Arguing for simplification and consolidation of job roles and responsibilities, and improving the education and skills of skilled workers, does not imply that safety rules are out the door.
Of course there was a time when worker health and safety was held at the bottom of the list of priorities at companies, after profits and production. Many workers were killed and grievously injured, unjustly and as a direct result of abusive practices by the companies. But that time is long past - as in many decades. Since OSHA came to be, accidents in the work place that can traced to be caused by insufficient safety rules and insufficient training are, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. The rare accidents that do happen are generally due to distraction, inattention, fatigue, and deliberate acts.
Yet to this day, union work rules can require three different skilled trades, plus two unskilled tradesmen, and a committee man and steward to change out the same light bulb you can change at home yourself. It is a tradition that dates back to the time of Edison and Rockefeller, when electric and gas or oil lights were competing, and electricity was considered as frightening as black magic, and there was uncertainty as to which skill was needed to make a repair; so they sent in everyone just in case.
In any case, I respect your point of view. You know what you have been taught, and no other points of view can be considered valid. It is more like religion and politics than anything else - a system of beliefs and philosophies that have been passed down through the generations. It won't go away, regardless of logical or intellectual discussion. It goes nowhere, and does nobody any good. Converts from one side to the other are rare, because these are deeply held beliefs.
In this particular case, right to work in Michigan, the sides are just as polarized as Christian vs Atheist, Conservative vs Liberal, Obama vs Romney, Right to Life vs Right to Abort, North vs South in the Civil War, and countless other ideals that polarize free thinking citizens.
The interesting part is that the Unions and their generally liberal supporters are so frightened by Freedom of Choice when it comes workers joining unions, and so convinced that allowing workers to choose equates to outlawing unions and giving companies the right to maim and kill their workers, that they can only succeed by demonizing it with fallacious Straw Man arguments.
If you want more information about Straw Man, by all means Google it, or see http://bit.ly/zrR413
"We have a development strategy based on a non-union workforce, the willingness of state and local governments to provide lavish subsidies, and the siting of plants mainly in rural areas hungry for manufacturing jobs. The foreign carmakers also have an advantage over the likes of GM and Ford in that they are operating in brand-new, state-of-the-art facilities.
It is worth noting that this is not a low-wage model. The hourly pay of many transplant workers is not far below that of unionized workers at the Big Three and is usually well above the average for their local labor market. This should not, however, be seen as a sign of generosity on the part of the foreign firms. It is clear that they pay relatively well to make unionization less appealing. The UAW, in other words, deserves credit for indirectly raising living standards among transplant workers.
A bigger discrepancy between transplant workers and UAW members is seen with regard to benefits, especially for retirement. Employees at foreign-owned plants invariably have defined-contribution plans such as 401(k)s rather than traditional pensions. This gives the transplants a huge competitive advantage over the Big Three, which have high “legacy costs.”
And, of course, without union work rules and grievance procedures, the transplants can extract more output per worker than the Big Three. Consequently, the employment growth at the foreign-owned plants doesn’t begin to make up for attrition among UAW members.
For now, it appears that transplant workers are satisfied with their working conditions as an improvement over what their rural areas otherwise have to offer. Similarly, state and local governments are willing to forgo substantial tax revenues to attract investment that they assume would otherwise go elsewhere. But it is not certain that these arrangements will pay off over the longer term. Once the threat of unionization seems more distant, will the foreign carmakers continue to keep wages relatively high?"
But why should an outside Unionist be the judge and jury to decide whether a non-union shop has sufficient and satisfactory wages and benefits? The Union is certainly free to advertise the wages and benefits at their own shop, as a benchmark for the non-union shop to consider. The non-union shop workers must still be allowed to decide for themselves whether they are satisfied with their wages, benefits, and work conditions. It is not the Union's business to decide for non-union workers, unless and until they choose to join.
if the union goes the way of the dinosaur it will be because it was voted out, not pushed out by thugs and goons.
i grew up in a union house and kicked around some unions when I was younger. you couldn't live long enough to convenience me unions have any value except for union leaders.
do you want to explain to me why union leaders have private golf course and huge retreat in upper Michigan that union members can't go to? could it be union members aren't the right kind of people?
A poor state that gets a few thousand union jobs is not going to move up the economic scale very quickly. I bet the people in those jobs are doing better economically.
The one with the large "Public always welcome" flag at the top of the home page?
http://bit.ly/UbpG7u
if you're a UAW member your annual membership is $1000.
if you're a family member your annual membership is $1800. (each)
you would enjoy reading the membership requirements for the general public! even the mobsters couldn't afford a golf course when they ran the show.
now tell me why the UAW needs a golf course north of Petoskey? they don't even have a plant there. and those membership rates - you think the average line worker can afford a family of (4)? do the math. it's run like a private club with private benefits where the average member can't go............ (but politicians get free passes).
i'm thinking the UAW has it's own fat bloated CEO's just like the companies they try to take over.
You should probably re-read the membership fees page... UAW member $1000 for self, $1800 for entire family (member, spouse, dependent children)... UAW retiree $800/$1400... general public $1200/$2000. $1800 for a year of golf for the entire family isn't that bad and beats the heck out of many other courses (granted, it's northern Michigan, the golf year is shorter there so it may not be a great deal).
Yes it is up by Petoskey - and yes they do have it set up so union members can't play there at those rates in the middle of nowhere.
I'll get back with you on the membership. http://bit.ly/SRS01p
I'm far more comfortable with beer drinkers, public golfers, hunters, and veterans than corporate bunnies. I haven't owed a white shirt in 30 years.
I do have a tendency to be blunt and my wife is constantly beating that out of me....................
;-)
You want to play the God card, you're going to look like you went through a tree shredder....
All fun aside, please have a safe and happy holiday...to you and your family. This is America - we can disagree here.
I shall not give up on you. My current theory is that either you have a psychological block concerning the history of the labor movement or that you get your kicks simply from arguing with us folks. Your wife needs to work on you harder.
Forgetting the head busting, private dicks, local police and militia called out on behalf of the poor helpless corporations, did unions contribute anything to passing child labor laws, the 40 hour work week, workplace health and safety standards...? And now that unions are on the way out and corporations are the only ones on the playing fields (since the corporations own much of government) the corporations see the light. Now that they have won they must not abuse works, they must offer health care, child care, retirement benefits.
Now for the important stuff:
Have you looked at LNCO for your IRA?
We can still try and make money even if you are confused about unions ;-)
Debate keeps the juices flowing.
OK M - let's admit that unions were good when they started because they established a better social conscience. I say they have gone well past their usefulness.
Heck, even mafia families kept neighborhoods safe by ruling with an iron fist or gun. And they went past their benefits - even faster than unions.
To many people use unions as a crutch to help them with their lack of ambition, energy or willingness to work for the benefit of the employer and neighbors not in the union.
Successful companies pay their workers well. Those are the companies you want to work for. (Costco, etc.) There are exceptions, I believe Walmart treats employees very poorly - so I don't work there and I don't shop there. But union people I know shop there??? Sooner or later, they will start to sag and die. Look at Sears and Kmart, etc.
How about this, we continue to let China bring in goods at a 70% discount. We all work for a little less money but have better buying power. With lower wages some of those jobs will come back. China is already under siege to raise wages significantly forcing more jobs back here. Finally - we're back to where we started and wages and benefits will start increasing again. What goes around comes around.
And unions won't be there dividing neighbor against neighbor.
I got a feeling we'll be talking about guns and cliffs next year. I'm doing my research now. Safe holiday season to you and Moran, I know he's around here somewhere. ;-)
Too "many people use unions as a crutch to help them with their lack of ambition, energy or willingness to work for the benefit of the employer and neighbors not in the union."
I think most people work to improve the quality of their lives. Union dues are part of the cost of continued improvement as is rent part of the cost of keeping a roof over your head. Sure, some folks are fat, happy and without a need to do better. Many, if given a chance to do better will break their butts.
The union folks who shop at Walmart, can't afford to shop elsewhere. When I was young (sigh) and poor in NYC, I furnished my $26/mo apartment in the Village by finding furniture left on the curb uptown. Nice stuff especially at the price. Did you ever try getting a table into an MGA?
$26 a month for an apartment? Did it have running water? How far was the outhouse? MGA, wasn't that about the size of a milk carton?
Ok Mortbert - let's put this to bed and you go shopping for the holidays and we'll met afterwards - right after we go over the cliff.
Good luck............! ;-)
We got all those Republicans in office at one time because........? Yeah, Democrats supported by unions screwed everything up for 8 years. I don't think we see a change just because a few union leaders got zapped.
Let me remind you there are a lot of union people who don't like the unions or the dues or the money wasted buying politicians. And if I remember right, 18% of Michigan workers are in unions. That would make you a minority................. ;-) Happy Holidays anyway.
You're making things up. I don't hate the middle class. I don't hate unions. I hate union leaders who reward drug addicts, drunks, thugs and losers with a guaranteed job. The teachers union here wants to allow teachers to come to work drunk 5 times before the school board can fire them. Yeah - tell me how little you think of the kids by supporting that crap.
Good people can turn bad - just like unions.
I wished you a Happy Holiday season on another thread, but it looks like you want to pound on me here past the holidays......... ;-)
By the way, I am against anyone that goes to work drunk. I'm not crazy about drug addicts, thugs or losers. Do you really think that is the purpose of unions? Also, do you not think there is none of this caliber of people in upper management of corporations?