News of the day

timothy leary wrote: Epignosis wrote: timothy leary wrote: You can change professions. You can also change states. The Dark Elf wrote: This right-to-work nonsense is just that, nonsense. It has nothing to do with worker's rights, but rather corporate greed backed by Republicans who are fueled by corporate donations. They can fire you singly, they can reduce your pay, and they can eliminate your benefits. They can't simply do that with a united front. In the words of George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Or maybe it's not allowing organizations who fund the Democratic party rob people who just want to make a living. Just let the republican party rob them instead.If someone does not want to be in a union, don't be.

I'm glad to see that you've come around to the libertarian view of allowing employers to negotiate contracts in whatever way they wish. (although the public sector is different)

Your argument would imply that you now agree with me that employers should be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or any other criteria they want? If you don't like it, just don't work there!

timothy leary wrote: Funny with the Michigan law firefighters and police are exempted. As in anything follow the money trail backwards to see what is happening. The names at the top are the proof of stealth legislation. As for the value of unions.......Apart from the eight-hour work day, and the forty-hour work week, weekends, sick days, vacation days, paid leave, maternity leave, workplace safety regulations and health standards, social security, the minimum wage, pensions, worker insurance plans and benefits, child labor laws, the retirement age, unemployment insurance, disability pay, overtime pay, laws regarding discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and 5 or 10 others that I can't remember right now... what have the unions ever done for us? We will wait and see what this law does for Michigan. I doubt companies will be flocking to start up businesses in Michigan.

The only reason I can think of that you keep arguing points that no one has disputed (unions have value) is that you have no real argument to make for the actual issue at hand.

Let me try your method of debate and see how it works: You're wrong, Tim! Union members shouldn't be allowed to murder people without legal repercussions! The fact that you would think such a thing shows how demented your ideology is!

Hmm, you're right. That is fun.

I just disagree with you that union members should be allowed to murder whomever they want with impunity.

I think that what grinds me the most about the "right to work" side is that they claim that their position is to benefit the workers, but everyone knows that the reality is that they could care less about the workers and this is merely a side effect of helping their corporate puppet masters to reduce salaries and benefits of their employees.  I am curious as to how this is going to effect the employer-employee relationships in these situations as well as the effect on employee morale.  Sadly, I forsee a lot of arm-twisting, leg breaking, and swimming with the fishies occurring for those union "members" who elect to choose their right to work versus paying union dues. 

“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. It is supported by Southern segregationists who are trying to keep us from achieving our civil rights and our right of equal job opportunity. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.”

The T wrote: "Equal job opportunity" really translates as "you have to be a union member to work"? How easy it is to twist words.

How easy indeed Teo. I suspect Dr King's translation would have been "you don't have to be white to work"

Dean wrote: The T wrote: "Equal job opportunity" really translates as "you have to be a union member to work"? How easy it is to twist words. How easy indeed Teo. I suspect Dr King's translation would have been "you don't have to be white to work"

timothy leary wrote: Dean wrote: The T wrote: "Equal job opportunity" really translates as "you have to be a union member to work"? How easy it is to twist words. How easy indeed Teo. I suspect Dr King's translation would have been "you don't have to be white to work" Those were Dr. King's words. If he meant what you said, he would have said it

True enough, and when he spoke of equal opportunities he was referring to the African-American civil rights, so in context that is what he said.

The T wrote: True. Yet you use the words in a discussion about unions. I just followed there was a point there somewhere instead of just a random use of a quote. Sorry if I got the wrong impression there.    "Equal opportunity to work" still =/= existence and forced membership and payments to unions. But "equal opportunity to work" IS "all people of any color can get a job". Who would disagree withthat?

The right to work law has racist roots. If you would like to read a history of right to work...........http://www.dartmouth.edu/~socy/pdfs/MDD_Limit_Labor_07.pdf