Skip to main content

View Diary: Michigan Gov. Snyder signs anti-union bills into law (178 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We can only hope that the voters of Michigan and (18+ / 0-)

    the folks on our side will NEVER forget what these anti-labor, anti-middle class people have done to them.

    Class warfare?  Fuck yes, and where do I sign up?

    •  They voted for him to begin with (18+ / 0-)

       The Republicans have been enemies of working people almost from the time of their inception.

       And, yet, many working people still vote for them.

       That is a massive, massive messaging fail on the part of the Democrats.

      "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

      by Buzzer on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:16:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In this case, remember that Snyder didn't campaign (18+ / 0-)

        on this **.

        Almost all of them campaigned on "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!"

        Only to become "Tax cuts! Gays! Abortions!" after they were sworn in.

        We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

        by Samer on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:20:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wow the republicans do something because (6+ / 0-)

        people voted for an outright lie and it is still the democrats fault. Yeah like the Dem propaganda channel Fox news will let them get messages out (wait they aren't LW) or even CNN or any of the major media outlets which are 4 to one RW talking heads. People get what they vote for. which is what the rich and corps pay for.

        Only solution in 2014 is door to door to talk gently about what has been done in Michigan at the hands of these corporate raiders in politician disguise.

        Fear is the Mind Killer...

        by boophus on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:26:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What people see... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I am an independent voter, and I watched some news reports on Fox News today about a fellow trying to interview some union folks at a rally in Michigan.

          I think a good part of the problem is that when people see union members beating up news reporters and that it just gives justification for reasonably minded people to say, well, these union folks maybe are not so reasonable. Maybe they are just a bunch of thugs, what have you.

          One person I saw was actually trying to articulate his objection to the right to work laws, and was explaining how he felt that people who didn't join the union were freeloaders getting the benefits of those that did and went on strike.

          But what is strikingly odd is, why do the unions not advocate simply changing the law so that the unions do not have to do anything for the people that don't join? I do not service customers that haven't paid me, and no one can make me do so, why should they do so? It seems like a bad marketing ploy to force people to join rather than setting up a system where people feel forced to join. Besides, if they want to force people to join, they should not be able to spend money on political contributions then. That is wrong, no matter whom they give the money too.

          Then if people do not join and get a bad deal they see the value in joining, and if they can get a better deal by not joining, then the union is helping them anyway as much as it thinks. That seems like a perfectly logical approach to me, but now all that will be remembered about that rally is how union thugs beet up Fox News reporters. Wonderful, that is just great, really helpful to everyone.


          •  If they work in a place with a union, they benefit (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            victoryleft, rhauenstein

            from wage and benefit structures even if they do not belong to the union.  It also allows an employer to divide and conquer: non-union  against union workers.

            Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

            by ranton on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 08:42:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ranton, rhauenstein

              Divide and conquer until you have enough non-union workers, at which point Koch and ALEC will help start the decertification vote.  Then you will have a long period of time where work conditions will get so bad that people, trying to improve things... will start fighting to form a union.

          •  Here is what happens in an Open Shop (0+ / 0-)

            I was part of an amalgamated union and we had different union shops in different parts of the state.  Our company sold one shop to a separate company and as part of the deal the new company had an "open shop" of which you describe.  

            In an Open Shop people don't have to pay dues and they still get all the wages and benefits of the union.  So, what happened was the first year very few resigned due to loyalty.  The second year more resigned because they saw that those who already resigned weren't punished and they still got everything the union members got.  This trend continued until we had about 15% of the people paying union dues.  

            What occurred is we couldn't afford to have a union Rep. in that plant.  Our fallback Rep. was the Union President who was two hours away from the plant.  Any worker issue--union or non-union, the President was legally bound to go and represent it--and it was more non-union freeloaders who needed the help.  With less and less dues, people--especially union members receive less services while the freeloaders take advantage of the services they don't pay for.

            What happens is you go from a fully functional union, to one that is hamstrung and not able to function quite well and eventually, not at all.

            •  Open shop (0+ / 0-)

              You made a very interesting statement:

              "In an Open Shop people don't have to pay dues and they still get all the wages and benefits of the union."

              I agree, that forcing a union to service non dues paying members is equally as repulsive as forcing people to be members. The Union President, nor any one at the union should be bound to do anything but ignore the situation because it was a non-union member's issue.

              If you are suggesting that our legislative climate forces the union to help non-union members, then we need to amend our legislative climate (laws) in order to have such equity in society. I'd support that change as much as I'd support giving people the freedom to choose to join or not. Both rights should be achieved.

              If you join the union you get services, when you quit the union and need help, well, you are on your own, good luck with that. And if you want to rejoin, there ought to be an "open season" or what have you that you would have to wait for to join.


    •  Well, Republicans have certainly thrown down the (9+ / 0-)

      gauntlet.  From right to work laws, abortion, voter suppression, protection of tax cuts for the 1%, and gutting "entitlements" for working Americans, they have finally shown their true agenda.  The question is, are Democrats and the people they represent up to the challenge?

      “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

      by ahumbleopinion on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:28:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site