Market Currents
A pair of right-to-work bills are officially passed in Michigan to set the stage for new...
-
Tuesday, December 11, 2012, 2:59 PM ETA pair of right-to-work bills are officially passed in Michigan to set the stage for new employees at General Motors (GM +0.3%), Ford (F -0.1%), and Chrysler (FIATY.PK) to skip around union fees. While labor groups are still making quite a bit of noise on the issue, the Big Three have been deathly quiet.
Other date
Latest Consumer Articles
This news story has 83 comments:
Labor wants peace with the big three. And the big three don't want a war with labor. As much as the Michigan GOP might want one.
We now hve a federal trade commission, enviornmental protection laws, Obma health care, and workers compensation requirements. Why do we ned a Union? Answer - We don't!
I know your ideology forbids it, but if money can be organized so can labor. I'm not for a race to bottom.
There is no prohibition of any sort to labor "organizing". But nobody in this country should be forced to "organize", simply because they choose to work for a certain company.
Rights must be balanced or they lose their meaning.
Right to work is not anti labour, it is pro worker. It protects the right to associate while allowing for the right to disassociate. That's democracy.
You know, the market. Like the CEOs who claim they have magical skills no one else has, thus they deserve to be paid the Sun, moon and stars for losing stockholders' money.
Has the quality gone up? Nope, just the cost. That's the same reason our steel industry is a shadow of itself. That's the same reason GM, Chrysler, and Ford almost all disappeared.
I have to disagree because there are ton's of places to work in this country that don't have unions and still have worker's rights. I work for a company that doesn't have a union, I have rights and I feel like the company values me.
To the big 3:
If you ever get tired of dealing with all these unions, just come to my state, I know hundreds of people that would love to work for your company and those hundreds of people don't feel entitled enough to start a union.
Now back to auto unions. Why should a worker be forced to join a union? What if takes a little less because he doesn't have to pay union fees? You sound silly saying management will abuse a worker if given a chance. Companies need good workers. If you are a hard worker, a good worker, and are productive the company will not want to lose you. Unions take a way the incentive to be a creative worker. They want to put each worker into a box and they will protect them from losing their job as long as you tow the union line.
No problem with the no requirement to join a union. But by like token, the union should not have to represent non-union paying workers either. Such that a two-tier pay system could happen, with union and non-union workers receiving different pay & benefits. No doubt management would take advantage of exactly such a differential pay-benefit arrangement and thereby pay non-union less. If non-union is prepared to accept such pay-benefit differentials, then no problem with the no requirement to join the union.
...and what do you think about. LNCO?
Give others the rights you demand for yourselves, or lose the democracy that makes creative capitalism possible.
For example, California is an extremely wealthy state without a "right to work" law, yet the state's financial position is a disaster.
I'm usually for choice. Just as a woman should not be forced into a certain choice by the Government, shouldn't a worker also not be forced into a choice by the Government? Why should they be forced to pay union dues? There are many non-union workers who are perfectly happy. Perhaps "right to work" will force unions to use their revenue to benefit workers not just the Union's political agenda, such as TV ads during an election year.
Something also never mentioned is outsourcing. If we want less of it in the future, restrictions such as mandatory union membership, higher tax rates, and excess regulation are not the way to go. Corporations will continue to ship jobs abroad if their cost of doing business is excessively high in the USA.
We're being hammered in the global marketplace by countries like Sweden and the Netherlands that educate their people and balance the rights of labor and capital. We're losing.
The poverty information you are using is outdated. And there is no credible evidence that "right to work" laws create higher poverty rates.
According to an article by the Huffington Post referencing data from the U.S. Census Bureau, California now has the highest poverty rate.
In addition, the poverty rate in the South is no higher than the nation's average poverty rate. The West currently has the highest poverty rate as is presented in a link within the link below:
http://huff.to/QUzINa
I am not saying "right to work" laws alleviate poverty. However, there is no evidence they create poverty.
Surely the housing bubble is partially responsible for high poverty rates in California and Florida. However, it does appear to me that border states with a large population of unskilled immigrants, are now the most impoverished. In addition to California and Florida, also Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
I am for "right to work" laws not because I feel they will alleviate poverty, as I have no idea if they will, but because I believe in the freedom to choose.
And I am by no means bashing immigrants, as they are vital to this nation's economic growth as they have been since our founding. Perhaps part of the solution is providing immigrants with job opportunities through non-union work, since many unions are against immigration growth. Instead of being so protective of their interests, unions would be better off advocating worker choice and opportunity for immigrants.
Please explain to me how we are being hammered by the Netherlands and Sweden? In what respect? Sure Sweden has a better standard of living than many countries in the world, but they are surely not considered an economic power. And have you checked unemployment in Sweden among younger people recently? It is sky high. If I had to live in another country I'd rather live in Hong Kong over Sweden due to Hong Kong's greater economic freedom ranking. However, I am sure some people would feel more comfortable in Sweden, living off a huge government safety net.
AAh the Stone Age is back, unions are like the mafia, only protected by the Demacrates.
Workers are your market. They're the buyers of your goods. If htey can't afford your goods you go out of business. Who else are you going to sell to?
Also, unions still exist for small companies and not just large corporations. However, IMO they just seem to get in the way in smaller organizations, especially when the ownership/management (they are usually the same in smaller businesses) cares about their employees. I think unions have a place, but it's not to be another fat cat siphoning off of an employee's paycheck.
What capital wants isn't always what capital needs.
You think raising union wages - which raises prices for everyone else - is a good thing. Why? because it's money in your pocket - you don't give a hoot about anyone else American or not.
http://bit.ly/YXRlAk
Secondly, the poverty level is set federally and is a static number. Arguably, states with a lower cost of living would have a lower poverty line and states with a higher cost of living would have a higher poverty line. So the poverty level automatically favors states with higher costs of living. Using that as a measure is misleading, and still does not show a strong correlation between the two. You're obviously strongly pro union, but you're allowing your ideology to blind your objectivity. Unions have a place, but this law does not end them.
Wealthy people who don't understand that are ignorant. Those who do understand it and persist anyway are sowing the seeds of their kids' destruction.
That's what I would do....
"Business leaders say workers should not be forced to join a union against their will, but, in fact, workers in Michigan can already opt out of a union. If they benefit from the better wages and benefits negotiated by a union, however, they are required to pay dues or fees, preventing the free riders that would inevitably leave unions without resources."
Sounds like fair deal to me.
Perhaps the government needs to mandate a federal minimum wage that is no lower than a first-term Congressperson. Also, benefits must be on par or better than that first term Congressperson receives.
Government openly supports class warfare in this case, and I think it stinks.
In many parts of the world, there are no unions and the workers are treated like fodder. Is that what we want in our country? Walmart is an excellent example of how big business operates without Unions to stand up for the rights of workers.
Right to work advocates are either mouth pieces for big business or just too stupid to know any better.
Walmart pays a living wage, contrary to semi-popular belief. You won't be jetting around the world, or eating caviar on what Walmart pays, but you also won't be standing in a soup line or pulling home a wagon of potatoes for the next month's potato hash.
But that's right - now to be considered above poverty level, you must have a cellphone, cable TV, a car, and a house, right?
WTF happened to this country?
You assume that all unions are working in the best interest of their members, but I personally think there are a lot of people that do not see the incremental value for the cost. If the idea is that the value the union adds is to prevent a collapse in wages, then the union should focus on reducing costs to their members. Either way, there is no evidence that right to work will result in any substantial change for employees.
Following from Newark Star Ledger about Mayor Booker:
"Wal-Mart is the No. 1 driver behind the growing use of food stamps in the United States. As many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores are forced to depend on food stamps. If Booker was serious about helping families on food stamps, he should be paying more attention to the root cause that drives the need for food stamps — poverty-level wages offered by America’s wealthiest corporations. It is time for the mayor to break his silence on this issue and bring to Newark companies that pay sustainable living wages and uplift the community."
I think those are actually the facts!
Or maybe you are lucky enough to work for one of the rare companies that cares about its employees like Costco or Ben and Jerry.
Or maybe you have unusual skills that make you hard to replace.
In any case, you employer decides how well or poorly you do and your opinions or needs are not part of the equation.
An employer can "deal" with hundreds of individual workers one by one. An employer may have to listen to and negotiate with an organized work force.
If you wish to trust in the goodness and generosity of your employer, fine. My reading of history makes me a bit concerned. I often find find that rich forget about what it was like to struggle and they need a little encouragement to share the wealth.
Bingo. My company only treats me well because it is making a ton of money on me. If the situation changed and my skills suddenly became less valuable I expect that my employer would either cut my wages or fire me, and there is nothing wrong with that. It's nothing personal, just business. That is what all you people bellyaching about the plight of the unskilled worker fail to understand. If I was in that situation (which I have been) I would not waste time with all these emotional appeals about the lifestyle that I deserve. Instead I would work towards understanding what skills are marketable, and figure out the best path to acquire them. Having accomplished this, I now have the ability to negotiate directly with my employer because he knows the competition will hire me if he doesn't keep me happy. I call that individual bargaining (much better than collective :D) So your comment: "you employer decides how well or poorly you do and your opinions or needs are not part of the equation." is actually not at all true in my case because I basically tell my employer what I want and most of the time I get it. Works even better with an offer letter in hand.
1) I am reasonably intelligent and I stay focused on my task.
2) I am willing and able to work long hours in miserable conditions for a month straight or sometimes longer without direct supervision and not allowing fatigue to affect the quality of my work.
3) I treat the clients with respect and when we are having problems I work with them to resolve it. So many people don't realize how far it goes for a customer to see you out in the cold working your ass off to resolve a situation.
I don't think I am inherently better than anyone else (which disqualifies me from running for congress) Almost any able bodied person could do my job if they would do the 3 things listed above. That said, I feel pretty secure in my job right now because at least 90% of the population refuses to do even 1 of them.
Unions; they have worn out their welcome. Bye bye now.
A strong middle class is good for us all.
The Mafia, like Malcolm X, was a "I'm tired of turning the other cheek" movement. After being kicked around for years, the community turned to "self protection". Yes, it got out of hand, but it was effective.
The Panthers I saw wore black suits, white shirts, were uniformly polite... and they demanded respect.
There are bums high up in the union movement who take advantage of their position... Just like corporate execs.
Lets remember the roots of the unionism are worker protection and the need for "respect". How else will they be heard?
The law clearly does not void current union contracts, and would only apply to those that are open for negotiation after March 2013.
The Detroit Three have contracts that last 4 years, until September 2015. It is highly doubtful that the UAW will be interested in opening up those contracts before then, because then the law could automatically apply.
Meanwhile there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge from now until then, and political pendulums tend to swing equally far both ways when it comes to highly polarized issues of this nature.
Still drinking the big business coolade.
Corporations = good, unions = evil.
Corporations say "Just trust me, I'll take care of you; it's those unions that are robbing from you. I need that private jet and 15% tax rate on investment income to get by."
Obviously, you are not an 18 year old entering the job market. You might want to take back those words in a few years. I hope I'm wrong.
Those companies put food on your table, you don't like what they pay or what hours you have to work - leave. Go work where you think you're appreciated - and if you can't find a place you like - then maybe it's you that has a problem. If you don't have the skill set to succeed - then get some more skills. If you owned the company you'd act the same way, but you don't, but you think you're entitled too.
My 18 year old entered the job market in 2009 with a four year degree in Geology. He's making 90k right now (with overtime) without a union because he got the right skill set, the right motivation, and he listened to every word I said which arrived in his ear everyday he was in college.
But my point is - if you work hard and own a company, you don't need a union telling you what needs to be paid to workers.
By the way - happy holidays and I hope next year is a little more peaceful and quiet for all of us.
Big been
I don't worry about you guys. I care about you and I'm really on your side. I just don't trust corporations. They are not "people" and, for the sake of the bottom line, are amoral.
I think we want the same kind of world for our kids and the next generation. My son graduated with an engineering degree from RPI, spent a year at the Gap (with a lot of other new grads), after several jobs became a plant manager, made me proud by earning a lot more than old Dad, negotiated with company unions (who he felt he could handle without too much trouble), and was just laid off by his new Chinese owners because he wasn't happy with the way "his people" we're being treated. He keeps the details to himself. I'm sure he will have several offers in a month because he his a fine reputation in several industries. But he is out of work (and that is the companies prerogative) not because of his performance, his results or his worth to the company. A case of bad company attitude.
Enough of this. I don't want to moralize. I'm in shock from the deaths in Newton... Shooting your mother and 18 5 year olds...
I wish you a healthy, happy, profitable New Year.