Skip to main content

Crowd of protesters in Michigan as House debates anti-union bills.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder said in a press conference early Tuesday evening that he has signed into law the two anti-union bills, affecting public and private sector workers, passed by the state House earlier in the day. Though Snyder has touted the new laws as pro-worker, he signed them privately, an act more in keeping with the view he had repeatedly stated right up until the final weeks before he joined Republican legislators in rushing to pass them: so-called "right to work" laws are divisive.

The Michigan laws contain verbatim language from an ALEC model bill and were heavily pushed by the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity and Amway billionaire Dick DeVos.

"Gov. Snyder showed his true colors today," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement. "He’s a puppet of extreme donors, and he is willing to ignore and lie to his constituents. His action will undoubtedly please the Koch Brothers and corporate CEOs, but it will diminish the voice of every working man and woman in Michigan."

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:02 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Dispicable behavior here. (14+ / 0-)

    The man needs to be laid low.

    "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -Benjamin Franklin

    by hotdamn on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:06:45 PM PST

  •  These are not just anti-union laws (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karmsy, Puddytat, bigforkgirl, ranton

    Don't they also give employers firing power they didn't have in the past?

    PBO is doing a competent job, but he needs to be more liberal.

    by jimgilliamv2 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:08:24 PM PST

  •  If Snyder was so proud of what he has done (27+ / 0-)

    then he should have signed it in public with both a pic and video.

    President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

    by Drdemocrat on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:09:31 PM PST

  •  They no longer make any pretense (27+ / 0-)

    of being anything other than enemies of the people.

    The good news is, the people of Michigan have another chance every two years.  They probably don't want to become another Mississippi, and will probably repeal this law as soon as possible.

    Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

    by Boundegar on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:09:54 PM PST

    •  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 ]

    •  Got that backwards... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JanL, wishingwell, la58

      ...Mississippi doesn't want to become Michigan.

      This Snyder character is full blown nuts.

      He's a hard pill to swallow for even Mississippi.

      "You just gotta keep on livin man! L-I-V-I-N!" - Wooderson

      by wyvern on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:58:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So, when are the next statewide elections there? (10+ / 0-)

    Vote him and the miserable Republican shit out the legislature and overturn all the damage they've done.

    That's it.  Obama won the state by almost 10 points... time to deliver the same numbers to progressive Democratic at the state level.

    •  2014. (12+ / 0-)

      I worry that outrage fatique will kick in before then.

      •  It didn't in Ohio. (10+ / 0-)

        What has to happen is what was done in Ohio where it was repealed.

        A statutory initiative can be done so this is on the ballot in 2014.

        President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

        by Drdemocrat on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:14:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ballot initiative...not really possible! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Actually, I read that because an appropriations law was part of the bill, it might not be able to be repealed via a statutory ballot initiative.


          •  How about a recall of Snyder? (0+ / 0-)

            "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

            by noofsh on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 08:38:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Recalling a politician (0+ / 0-)

              I believe in freedom, and so I have two issues with recall elections (this has nothing to do with the political persuasion of the ostensible recallee).

              1) They cost money - so, whilst I indeed would love to see the ability for the people to recall a politician, I just want to be sure that threshold of required voters to force one is high enough to justify the cost of having one.

              Now if that threshold is reasonable, and it gets met (i.e. enough of the electorate is sufficiently upset at the target politician), then yes, then it should surely happen.

              In Beverly Hills (back in 1999), there was forced special election (which cost the City quite a bit to run, being a special election) over a ballot initiative to require that any garment with fur valued at more than $50 be tagged with a warning label unless the store owner can show proof that the animal died under humane conditions.

              In fact, an outside group came in and convinced a very small number of residents of Beverly Hills to sign the petition and used the City of Beverly Hills as a scapegoat and platform to raise awareness of their issue. Frankly, everyone knew it was going to loose, and that nobody really wanted it to even happen, but the City of Beverly Hills had to pay for the election.

              Now, you might say, well the City of Beverly Hills could afford it, and that might well have proved out to be true. But, what if recall elections become abused and states can't afford those abuses, then the right could be lost.

              Thus, I want recall elections to be a viable choice for the people to have, and I do not want them to be abused either so they do not start to get seen as a burden and the right taken away from the people due to cost. So a threshold to have one must be more than a trivial number of people.

              2) The ability to recall someone - It is a powerful commentary by society to say you have the job at the pleasure of the people, and that pleasure can not be denied even if you are mid-way or even 1 month into your term of office. I think this is a very daunting power for the people to have and I am happy to see the people have it and exercise it when appropriate.


    •  For that to occur we need good Dems to run (10+ / 0-)

      And right now I don't see one.  We need to start now with a better Dem party, better candidates and better ideas.  Where are they?
      I've lived in Michigan for 59 years, been a Democrat for all of it.  I'm not surprised by this vote or Snyder signing the bill into law, and no one else should be, either.  
      When Snyder first showed up on the scene everyone was going on and on:  He's so different, a different kind of Republican, a Nerd... blah, blah, blah.  My only reply to that?  Rick Snyder is a JAR... Just Another Republican.  The man ran Gateway into the ground, for Christ's sake.  The last thing we needed in Michigan politics was a freaking businessman, but that's what we got.  Now look where we are.
      It's time for the Democratic party in Michigan to start exposing this guy for what he is:  Mitt Romney with white hair.  You don't want a businessman to be running your city, county, state or nation.  You want businessmen to be working for the person running the show.  Why?  So they can consistently remind the businessmen that government is not meant to be a freaking profit center.  Government is supposed to serve the people that elect it, to help them... not drain them of their last penny and then kick them to the curb.
      Snyder's nothing more than a JAR, and he will be re-elected unless Democrats in Michigan can find someone to run against him.  They don't, then we'll have Snyder for 4 more years.  It'll happen.  The rural vote is strong (and apparently entrenched in Republithink).  Change that vote by a few points and Snyder is out.
      Sorry for the rant... I'm furious.  It's just my 2 cents.

      "Please don't dominate the rap Jack, if you got nothing new to say." - Robert Hunter

      by WSComn on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:00:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Curious about something... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I am not saying it will happen, BUT, what if the enactment of right to work and other "business friendly" legislation actually attracts more jobs to Michigan and more people are put back to work? Maybe it won't, but what if it does?

        It is entirely possible that this may never happen, and things could just get worse. But, what if they do get better? Would it be fair then to perhaps contemplate the possibility that maybe the right to work and pro-business legislative climate might have actually helped the people by creating a more business friendly environment that caused more jobs to be created?

        Again, I am an independent, so, I want things to improve and I could not care less what party the people whom improve my economy come from, as long as they get the job done! :)


        •  So a low paying job with no benefits is better (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          than unionized that what you are saying?  Just how low would you suggest is okay?  With the current Corporatist mindset, pro-business  means screw the worker.  

          You did note the report concerning the highest level of Corporate profits lately...right?  Did you also note that as Corporate profits rose, wages and benefits have declined?!

          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 08:50:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you from mars? (0+ / 0-)

            Clearly, I have no idea where you ever came up with this rubbish:

            "So a low paying job with no benefits is better than unionized that what you are saying?"

            There are two reasons that you might make such a statement. One you are lacking in intelligence and therefore were unable to comprehend the full composite of the idea I was trying to proffer, or two, you are quite intelligent and are simply intending to purposefully ignore what the meaning was so you could intentionally mislead people about my statements.

            To clarify what I said (in case you are just lacking intelligence instead of being intelligent and purposefully ignoring what I said): No, I did not say that, you did.

            I said nothing of the sort, and I presume you are smart enough to realize that. Moreover, I am sure that others on this site are smart enough to see what I mean, even if you were not.

            Obviously my "what if" is presupposing that the improved business climate might impel companies to move to Michigan and create jobs where there were none before. We both know that less expensive labor costs are going to attract new business to move to Michigan. There is no MBA required to realize that.

            Are you going to argue that being unemployed is better than  having a low paying job with no benefits?

            Not to mention, I do not believe that the only jobs created by new business coming to Michigan would be low paying or lacking benefits.

            Lets take health care for example: Why would any employer not wish their employees to have health benefits? Who pays for them is a different issue, but, without health benefits employees get sick, call out sick on an unplanned basis leaving jobs undone, become inefficient, etc... No business wants that kind of climate and you know it.

            Moreover, the idea that you are merely giving people "a choice to join a union or not" in no way means that all jobs in Michigan will become low paying with no benefits. And what wreaks most notably is that its obvious you realize that.

            No body is saying that unions should not exist or workers should not bargain collectively, well, unless that is what you are saying, but it is not what I said.

            I am only saying two things:

            1) It makes sense to allow people to choose to not join a union if they feel they can get a better deal themselves negotiating directly. After all, if they fail to get a better deal, you will not be able to stop them from wanting to join the union anyway.

            Do you really think a non-union member would stand desirous of persistently avoiding membership in a union when they see their coworkers that are union members making more money or receiving greater benefits than they do for the same job?

            If you are suggesting that non-union members will be paid less and given less benefits than union members, and one allows both scenarios to exist at a company (granted laws might need changing for that too), then obviously people will not want to leave a union anyway.

            This is logic, not emotion. Why don't you actually think about what is being said here, eh?

            2) The issue concerning political contributions is very simply, merely limit the unions to negotiating and dealing with companies and then that problem goes away. The same people whom join a union can also form and donate to a separate political action committee that will support their political beliefs. Problem solved.

            I would not wish to squelch the political speech of anyone because they are in a union, merely I do not want the unions to be able to collect money from members and force them to pay for political contributions they disagree with, that's all.

            But, as you can see above, that is a small issue that can very easily be resolved.

            Indeed, what people like myself that are neither "anti-union" nor "anti-worker" are concerned about, is simply making sure that people have more freedom vice less freedom. That, ostensibly speaking, is always the better scenario to be operating under and is the very underpinning of the founding of our country.


            •  Me thinks you protest too much! I will not even (0+ / 0-)

              address the insults you is simply a tactic that is unbecoming an "intelligent" person; it is, however, a tactic just about about every conservative I know uses.  At Daily Kos, commenters let their arguments persuade.  And for someone who claims neutrality on unions, you certainly have the Corporatist spin and propaganda down pat!

              Statistic prove that workers in "Right-to-Work-for-less" states do NOT enjoy the wages and benefits that workers in other states enjoy.

              a. Workers in states with “Right to Work” law average $5,538 a year less than workers in states without these laws.  

              b. Workplace deaths are 52.9% higher in states with Right-to-Work-for-less laws.

              c. Union members earn 28% more per week than nonunion workers.

              d. 78% of private sector union workers have medical insurance through their jobs; 51 percent of nonunion workers do.

              e. 77% of private sector union workers have a guaranteed defined benefit retirement plan through their jobs while only 20%of nonunion workers do.

              f. 2.9 % of union workers are uninsured compared to 14.2% of nonunion workers.

              See the chart based on government stats (the Fed): "Corporations made a record $824 billion in profits last year...In the third quarter of this year, 'corporate earnings were $1.75 trillion, up 18.6% from a year ago.' Corporations are currently making more as a percentage of the economy than they ever have since such records were kept. But at the same time, wages as a percentage of the economy are at an all-time low, as this chart shows."

              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 Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:47:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hang on a second... (0+ / 0-)

                Lets presume for the moment that your statistics are correct (I do reserve the right to do my own research, and I will), but for now, lets presume they are correct and union members make more money than non-union members, and they have better benefits.

                If by having a union you are forcing someone at law to join and pay dues, then its wrong. Anything that takes away a freedom I have is bad, and I certainly do not wish to be forced to sell my freedom. Perhaps it is worth more to me than the money. I ought to get to make that choice. But having the freedom to make that choice should not stop you or anyone else from forming and joining a union. I want you to be free too, just as I am, to have the same choices I have too. And if I choose to not join and not pay to be a member of the union, I will gladly agree to realize that the union is not going to support me or take care of me, I'll do it on my own, thank you very much. However, if I do join the union, then I am fine to pay the dues as I have elected to make that choice then because I see value in it for me.

                Moreover, I have seen how some unions treat their management, and their company's customers too; maybe I do not want to be a part of such a beligerant mechanism (at least when I worked with the Communications Workers of America and PacBell I saw that, granted, I was a consultant, so not an employee at all). I willing to suggest that this is just one single example and may well not at all be representative of the greater aggregate of unions, but, at PacBell I would never have wanted to join their union.

                I watched as a union steward told another union employee at PacBell to stop working until management arrived because the union steward had a grievance (it was NOT safety related). The worker told the union steward that if he did that, emergency communications lines for the county would probably go down entirely and not get fixed until the next day. The union steward said, "whatever - you are to stop working on that now." I do not think that I, with good conscious could obey such a directive. Even if that same union has worked to make sure he has a helmet and eye goggles and safe tools to use, it doesn't justify putting emergency communications to hosptials and firehouses at risk.

                It just is not all about the money and benefits, there are many other issues at play as to why someone might want or not want to join a union. Sure, dues are a component, but there are other reasons too.

                No matter how much more improved a situation maybe for any group of workers, it should not be a justification for limiting any individual from making their own choices, even if those choices are to their own personal detriment. Because once you get to force me to join a union and pay the dues, then I am being forced to sell my freedom, something that I nor you nor anyone should ever be forced to do. NEVER.

                The more interesting question is why are unions not fighting to be able to cut loose supporting the "free loaders" as you put it, instead of fighting right to work laws?

                Lets consider this: Lets say I am allowed to not join a union at a company that has a union, and I do the same job that union members do.

                Perhaps I will conclude that the fact that the company's willingness to offer to pay me a bonus while working during a strike is a better financial choice for me than being a member of the union and being on strike. And if it is not, then I ought to get the choice to make that mistake, even to my own detriment. Its my life to run, not the unions to run.

                People need to be empowered to be able to make their own choices.

                No union would want me to join if I didn't want too anyway, it would not help them at all. If I felt forced to join and pay against my will, then maybe I'd just attend all the union functions and head into work during a strike and tell management what was planned. And why not? I didn't want to be a member, but I was forced, so, I'll take advantage to the greatest benefit I can get for me then. I mean after all, isn't that what a union does when it's members say we get to force you to be a member and pay because it benefits us having better pay?

                Bear in mind, I am not saying I'd never join a union or that they are all bad, not at all. I am just saying that the value in being able to make that choice for myself is significant to me, worth more to me than any difference in pay I might get.

                I just think you need to consider a little about why people might want to make these choices and realize that it might not be entirely monitary, or political (those were just two items I picked to speak out on initially, but there are other reasons obviously too). Maybe I just think that there are too many stupid people in the union and collectively they will force me to subject myself to bad choices. I am sure there were people in the Baker's union at Hostess that didn't want to go on strike, yet now, everyone is out of a job there, union and non-union employees.

                It is just not as simple as someone wanting to be a freeloader or not, there are an enumerate of other non-monitary and non-benefit related issues that might well impell someone to be desirous of not joining.


            •  When you join a union you do NOT have to pay the (0+ / 0-)

              part of your dues that go for political action...people can request a refund.  That lie is used by anti-union forces to bolster their position.  

              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 Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:53:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Interesting indeed (0+ / 0-)

                I certainly have no interest whatsoever to assert incorrect facts, so of course, I am interested to understand a few things about your comments (if you are aware).

                1) Do people need to give a reason why they disagree or can they just request a full refund of dues spent on political actions for a particular year?
                2) Is that refund provided quickly?
                3) How can someone be assured there is no reprisal if they make that request?
                4) Is this a right that union members have in every union in every state that does political action activities?

                Again, I am not trying to be skeptical, I truly am curious (as clearly, I never knew this before as evidenced by my prior statements).

                I feel that having to request a refund and draw attention to yourself as an "unwilling contributor" so to speak, should not have to occur or be burdened upon any union member.

                Now, that being said, if each union member is asked to sign a special political contribution form that authorizes the union to automate the deduction of political contributions from their cheque, I take no issue with that at all. They agree, they contribute, its a proactive action on their part, the know about it, so be it - contribute away!!

                I also want to point out that I'd NEVER want to stand in the way of anyone in a union from having their money spent on political speech they believe in, regardless of if I agree with it or not. I believe very strongly in people have choices, real, meaningful choices. Including the right to choose to support who and what they politically believe in.

                I have made no reference to any union, contribution, or anything, that I disagree with that any union did. I just believe in the members having to take a more proactive, assertive action for it occur. That's all. If they do, great!

                Moreover, there are things that the unions do lobby for that I do not disagree with. I am not a wholesale hater of unions, I just want people to be able to easily choose and not be reprised against for what they choose.

                I want to be clear, I am not against anyone speaking out politically (with contributions to pay for political speech), regardless of if I agree or not with that speech.

                I appreciate your remarks, and will do some more of my own research on that. But, again, I do think it ought to be a situation where a proactive, assertive action needs to be made to contribute not one that is required to get a refund.


        •  Actually, UAW contracts were bringing MI back (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          economically.  Snyder was just lucky enough to be elected by the Republicans in 2010.  We had nowhere to go but up economically and, in a sense, Snyder can claim his Freedom to Freeload bill helped turn around the economy even though the UAW negotiated about 10,000 new jobs in Michigan auto plants in 2011--which are currently being implemented.

          This has a ripple effect with suppliers in and around the state.  It also improves all the other businesses in the state from restaurants to customer service to tourism.  That is why Michigan's unemployment rate has been dropping.

          •  It is possible... (0+ / 0-)

            It is possible that what you suggest is true (I have not studied the facts enough to know one way or the other, so I will presume you are correct for the moment).

            I understand the freeloader argument, and I agree, that the unions need to be unbound from having to support or deal with non-members. To require them to do so is as wrong as requiring people to join and pay.

            The best way ahead is to make a union like any other thing in life, if you are not a dues paying member then you do not gain the benefits of what the union can offer. Then you give people the ability to choose to join or not.

            But, what seems to be rather surprising is that unions do not espouse this idea. Why if you gave people the freedom to join or not and the freedom to get service or not, they would make their own choice.

            I have the freedom to choose to cut my own grass or to hire a lawn boy. Despite having the freedom to choose to do this menial labor myself, I also have the freedom to choose that for a small amount of money its not worth my time or that the lawn boy will do a better job than I would anyway, or even, he can buy chemicals and things in bulk and do it cheaper than I can.

            That said, no matter how many jobs the unions bring to Michigan, and no matter how good the effect is on the overall economy in Michigan, giving people more of a choice (to join a union or not, and ALSO, to loose representation if they choose not too) is always better than having less freedoms and less choices.


      •  what district are you in? (0+ / 0-)
  •  Does he get his signing bonus by signing this bill (6+ / 0-)

    or when he signs on as lobbist for Koch Bros?  I bet he at least wants it to start collecting interest now.  

    The more you learn the less you know.

    by quiet in NC on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:12:14 PM PST

  •  2010 is hauting us...... (23+ / 0-)

    Gerrymandered distircts have hurt states across the country.

    The wave of GOTP governors that won in 2010 are sparing no expense at stripping workers rights. (and voters rights, and womens rights, etc.)

    Democrats need to show up like they did for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and vote them out in 2014 and 2016.

  •  Lame-duck sessions should be banned (28+ / 0-)

      We don't have them here in Maryland. Thank God.

      They're nothing but an excuse for completely unaccountable legislators to ram bad legislation down the public's throats.


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

    by Buzzer on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:13:27 PM PST

  •  Where Can I Donate? (8+ / 0-)

    Where can I donate to defeat Snyder? Who are the vulnerable Rethuglicans in the MI legislature? What businesses contribute to them? Find a few Rethug legislators and boycott their businesses, their family members' businesses, their contributors' business? They want a fight? Let's give it to them.

  •  So (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What is it the union needs dues for anyway?  they can't organize and meet at someone's house?

    I was a member of IBEW once.  Paid my dues willing.  Saw a woman who's husband had just had a heart attack told she could leave, but it'd count against her.  She already had one mark against her and the company could release her at that point.  Union rep?  Oh wait, she was an 8-5 person who worked across town and pretty much shrugged.

    Never did understand why were in the IBEW, I was a 411 operator for a cell phone outfit, the CWA seemed like a better fit, in fact when we were swamped with calls and didn't have enough people to cover them the CWA people were asked to come help, and some of them did but not for long, as they had to actually take calls ( land line 411 is so automated yet still needs 8 people on a shift for god knows why ) and do the calls within our time limit ( 5.8 seconds was what we were to aim for, 7 seconds was tolerable and more than a week of 10+ second calls got you fired )

    Do you know how robotic you have to be to get a call done in 7 seconds?  On a cell phone with a crappy connection, and an already pissed off $1.75 per 411 call customer?

    And all this with automatic raises, which was great, except that they maxed out at 18 months...and when 15 months came up for us long timers?  Suddenly call volume dropped and I was working 2 days a week, some people had 2-3 weeks off, all without pay of course.

  •  They were ambushed. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karmsy, Puddytat, urnumbersix, kiga

    It's really getting to look like the Democrats are in one of those comedy basketballs skits with The Harlem Globetrotters. The GOP keeps infringing, and the DEMs keep lecturing. Like Kos said, show me what you DO and I'll tell you what you BELIEVE.

  •  Remember this next election cycle. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    by LamontCranston on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:22:55 PM PST

  •  This was all planned out by right wing big money (13+ / 0-)

    (the Kochs, DeVos, ALEC, etc). It's from the same playbook they used in Wisconsin.

    When Snyder runs for re-election, Michigan will get flooded with right wing dark money that will spend months proping up Snyder and trashing the Democratic nominee.

    Chicago--Proud Home of the 1907-08 World Series Champion Chicago Cubs

    by Jeff Y on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:24:48 PM PST

  •  I formerly took comfort in our Repub Mich Gov (11+ / 0-)

    by consoling myself, "At least he's no Scott Walker Koch Brothers extremist." Can't say that anymore. He's a Scott Walker Tea Party Knock Brothers extremist. Period.

  •  Michigan got what it deserves!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Parker, stunvegas

    When you elect a Republican governor this is what you get.  Stop voting for Republicans!

    How can a state that goes for Obama elected these Republicans?

  •  hey we won big on 11/6 but the war for a decent (5+ / 0-)

    life for our workers and kids goes on and will go on forever. this never ends but at points in time we can be up or lets support the unions, votes these turds out and push the folks we elect to reverse this bullshit all the while fighting all the other battles in front of us on the environment, banking rip offs, racism, and on and on .....the need to fight never stops and i believe our position has improved and our values and methods are superior.

  •  Election Not Over (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, rosarugosa, ranton

    We may have thought the election was over in November, but unfortunately, it is likely to continue the next four years. The Republicans won't stop, and this is just one of the first of many things they have planned.

  •  Well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hillbilly Dem

    I wish the people of Michigan well but elections do have consequences. They voted mr. two face into office and it's a little late to cry now. They are now officially a right to work for less state. We will see how this plays out but for now anyway it's the law.

    •  Democrats need to work on GOTV outreach in a big (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      way for off yr elections. We do very, very well in Presidential election years. Democrats have one of the best ground games for Presidential elections. But we need to work on those off years ...those every 2 yr elections where a Presidential candidate is not on the ticket.

      Democrats vote but we could not get enough sporadic and new voters and young voters and independents out 2 yrs ago was a big problem.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:07:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm so mad I can't see straight. (11+ / 0-)

    Why in hell don't the workers in the state shut down and strike - close down every union house until the bill is rescinded.  I want to see 100,000 in the streets around the courthouse and mobs of union picketers at EVERY single private home of every republican in the legislature that voted for it.  Just maintaining a quiet, ever present vigil so their neighbors know what they've done.

    I will be working the phones come next election in Michigan - and I've never done phones before for anyone, nor do I even live in Michigan.  

    •  Shut the lights off at General Motors? *laugh* (0+ / 0-)

      Besides that, union jobs only account for 17-18% of michigan jobs... life would mostly go on if that happened.

      To you, I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.” ― Woody Allen

      by soros on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:41:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  need to win control in 2014. without that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    urnumbersix, wishingwell

    That, they could pass it again. A few Republicans did not vote for it but they probably got a pass since their votes were not needed.

    Brand new favorite RSS feed of Daily Kos Radio Podcasts
    Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

    by We Won on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:35:50 PM PST

  •  Michigan "Protect Our Jobs" Amendment, Proposal 2 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Per Ballotpedia:

    The Michigan "Protect Our Jobs" Amendment was on the November 6, 2012 statewide ballot in Michigan as an initiated constitutional amendment where it was defeated. The initiative would have added the right to collective bargaining for public and private sector employees to the state constitution.

    It lost 42% - 57%.

    The official ballot text read as follows:[3]

        PROPOSAL 12-2

        This proposal would:

            Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.

            Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.

            Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.

            Define “employer” as a person or entity employing one or more employees.

        Should this proposal be approved?
        YES _
        NO _

    To me that last clause would have me voting No (namely, Define “employer” as a person or entity employing one or more employees. ).

    Per that page:
    Primary support for the amendment came from a campaign coalition called Protect Our Jobs

    Per that page, Protect Our Jobs raised $8 million to support the measure and spent $1.15 million - i.e., to my eye, prima facie, it was a scam.

  •  Devastating. (9+ / 0-)

    But expected after the crap the GOP has pulled.

    They bitch about Obama and the Democrats "tyranny" yet need every cop in the state to protect them from the people's rage at their "ramming their agenda down our throats."

    Genuinely disappointed at my home state.

    "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

    by Scott Wooledge on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:39:08 PM PST

  •  So, if this is true: (0+ / 0-)
    "Gov. Snyder showed his true colors today," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement. "He’s a puppet of extreme donors, and he is willing to ignore and lie to his constituents. His action will undoubtedly please the Koch Brothers and corporate CEOs"
     Then why do we vote and pay a salary to government to represent us?  If the CEO's and the Koch Brothers truly run our country, as it appears, then what choices do the people have?  What is troubling is that the people didn't want this, shouldn't we have priority over our own lives?

    "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolution­ary act. " George Orwell

    by zaka1 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:41:07 PM PST

    •  Richard Trumka (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Bears much of the blame here.  His vitriolic rants do nothing more than paint a target on the unions as a group that need to be squashed.  There are ways to get your message out without being a jerk.  Has taking on Scott Walker, or Snyder on a personal level been helpful?  No, it's just picking a fight.  And if you're gonna pick a fight, you better be smart enough to figure out to pick it with someone you can actually beat.  In the Walker and now Snyder fights, he could not win.

      •  Fuck that Kumbayah bullshit!! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        phoebesdatter, chipoliwog

        Trumka said nothing (NOTHING) that isn't completely and provably true.

        Dems/progressives lose because they're afraid of seeming impolite and hurting the feelings of fuckers like Snyder, the Kochs and the rest of the GOPbag looters.

        The only problem with what Trumka said was that Barack Obama hasn't said it.

  •  850,000 fewer Democrats voted in 2010 (3+ / 0-)

    for Bernero than voted for Granholm in 2006. That's also 850,000 fewer Democrats voting for Democratic state legislators.

    This can't be blamed on voter suppression, either—it's laziness and apathy on the part of those Dems who couldn't muster the energy to vote, and pathetic gullibility on all those other Dems who swallowed Snyder's lies and voted for him. It's a sad commentary that we need extraordinary GOTV efforts even in a Presidential election year to get our side to the polls.

    •  I wonder how many of those were young college (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      aged voters,  sporadic voters,  new voters, and so on...those we have real trouble with getting out to vote when it is not a Presidential election yr?

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:09:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bernero was a really LOUSY candidate (0+ / 0-)

      Everybody knew he was toast from day 1.  Never surprised by the turnout numbers.

      To you, I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.” ― Woody Allen

      by soros on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:43:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  can you hear it? the sound of the 1% telling us (4+ / 0-)

    that elections don't matter anymore in America

    I wonder if the 99% will stay awake long enough to throw some of these K-publicans out of office?

    "You've got to be an optimist to be a Democrat, and a humorist to stay one" - Will Rogers

    by KnotIookin on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:44:10 PM PST

  •  And now, instead of shutting down the State... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the union leaders will go home and (perhaps I am being optimistic here) cry in their beer.

    Then continue to get paid by the rank and file to protect their members' interests.

    •  this might be the _one_ not bad thing about this (0+ / 0-)

      Unions are going to have to do a much better job at selling their benefits.  They are going to be forced to get more involved, more public.  If they don't, people will not join the union, or will leave it, and eventually there will be enough votes to de-certify.  The unions can only sit back and do nothing if they wish to no longer exist.  This may very well be the only positive thing.

      •  Don't blame the unions. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Union leaders have full-time jobs representing their members, the people who pay the dues. Or in Michigan, now, don't. (Of course, in many small unions, the reps handling bargaining, and defending workers who have been fired, and investigating health and safety problems, and etc. etc. etc. aren't even full time.)

        Yeah, some leaders are not so good, but most of the union staff and elected leaders I've known over the years work hard all day and go out almost every night to yet another meeting.

        Unions have been under constant, unrelenting attack in this country since the passage of Taft-Hartley in 1947. The political climate, lax enforcement of labor laws, and bad laws, make it almost impossible to run a successful organizing campaign. People sweat BLOOD to organize, and when the rare victory is won, often the union can't get a first contract because of employer obstruction and resistance and ends up being decertified.

        The job that unions have been doing lately in standing up for ALL working people and progressive values, not just their members, is hugely out of proportion to their resources. Uh, Rich Trumpka campaigning for Elizabeth Warren?

        When I was involved in worker safety and health in the 80's and 90's, there was, most of the time, one person trooping up to Capitol Hill to lobby on behalf of workers' interests on this issue, against all the corporate lobbyists--the AFL-CIO's staff person. One woman and her assistant. Paid for with union members' dues.

        Instead of sitting back and carping, the rest of us need to be out there supporting every union struggle, and educating ourselves and others about the labor movement. (And for god's sake not falling into the lazy liberal habit of looking down our noses at a white working class union members and sniffing, "thug.")

  •  Let's take the long view (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, urnumbersix, wishingwell, DuzT

    The last great GOP power grab resulted in alienating the voters and losing elections.  Specifically, how did voter suppression bills benefit the GOP?  They didn't when one considers how many voters were energized by those bills.  

    The fact is this latest GOP power grab will make more people angry and will NOT result in more supporters.  So let the GOP have their little moment in the sun.  Let them pat themselves on the back for sticking a finger in the eye of union workers and all workers.  It's temporary.  As we saw with the voter suppression laws, their victory is pyrrhic.  Anymore "victories" like this will only hasten flushing the GOP down the crapper of history.  

    Can't come fast enough for me.  

  •  It's Not Up to People to Vote for Democrats (3+ / 0-)

    "Just because."

    Democratic politicians need to craft a message that will draw voters out to the polls to vote for them. "Bipartisan" and the like are not strong enough messages.

    I swore going into the last election that I would not vote for any politicians who could not clearly articulate, "If you vote for me, I will ... XYZ," where XYZ was on my agenda.

    The incumbent Dem in my old Congressional district didn't even have a campaign website. Fuck it, he didn't even have a campaign.

    In a country where not a few Democrats are afraid to stand up for policies and programs as clearly and unambiguously popular as reproductive rights and Medicare, it's a real surprise to me that people keep voting for them.

    We can howl at Snyder all we want, but he convinced voters to turn out and elect him. His opposition, Virg Bernero, did not.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:47:19 PM PST

  •  people keep voting for (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, hadrons

    the gop because they think the right wing will only target others who they don't care about, but when the shit hits the fan those same people enlist those they don't care about to fight the gop thugs they helped elect, wake up america we are all in this together so throw away your prejudice and focus on the real enemy, the gop.

  •  How long (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Before the torches and pitchforks come out?

    "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

    by US Blues on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:50:01 PM PST

  •  State Houses (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mumtaznepal, peregrine kate

    around the COUNTRY are GOP ... Our national elections mean nothing as long as the MAJORITY party in State Govt is


    The people of the United States will get the Government they elect whether good or ill... JFK

    All I want is the truth. Just gimmie some truth John Lennon

    by gimmie truth on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:50:34 PM PST

  •  Republicans will always lie (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Parker

    Psst!!!......Mittens you are more of a poor loser than I thought.

    by wbishop3 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:51:58 PM PST

  •  communicate with the voters who are for this plan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peregrine kate, DuzT

    Part of the opportunity here is to start communicating with those voters who ARE in favor of what Snyder did today.  We have a chance to educate them about why this is NOT a benefit to them.  I think that many people are still drinking the KoolAid and don't get it.  

    How is this new law going to affect people?
    What are the consequences?
    I would like to see a bullet list.
    We all need to tell stories about this, not just complain.  Stories can help change minds and can help under-informed persons like myself understand AND have better ammunition for the upcoming dialogue.

  •  End of America as we know it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peregrine kate

    THe working American is a sworn enemy of the Republican Party. You're not a millionaire or billionaire? Too bad, says the GOP. You don't matter a lick and can be beaten to death for all they care. The conservative agenda is about paying back the corporate and wealthy classes for their political cash, and sticking it to anyone that needs to work for a living and doesn't have a private jet or golden parachute from their plush executive job. Michigan will turn into the workers' hell that is any other state with this horrific law written on the books. America as we know it is being massacred by the right wing.  -  progressive

  •  Asshole, asshole, asshole (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Parker, wishingwell

    He may take awake worker rights, but he damn sure can't take away their right to vote.

    I sincerely hope the people of Michigan vote this extremist out in two years, along with half of the legislature.

  •  I would say... (0+ / 0-)

    ...something like, "To hell with the people of Michigan! They voted for him and their state legislature. Let them pay the price!"

    But that's just mean. That would be rubbing their noses in it. That would be pointing out the consequences of their collective apathy, or the error of their thinking, or both. That would be wrong.

    •  And I would say... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I am one of those "people of Michigan" who voted against Snyder and his cohorts.  And it won't just be me paying the price.
      If these fuckers are successful here it's going to expand beyond our borders; watch for it coming to your backyard next.

      I can see Canada from my house. No, really, I can.

      by DuzT on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 08:24:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  and I would say . . . (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DuzT, ranton

        This hurts all of us. For one thing, weakening the UAW, which has been a champion for causes that help all working people, which has been a positive political force in so many ways, hurts all of us. How happy the Koch brothers must be to have stabbed the UAW in the heart.

  •  Protests aren't working. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If the people of Michigan and Wisconsin want to reclaim their futures, it's looking more and more like radicalism is necessary.

    In Roviet Union, money spends YOU!

    by Troubadour on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:44:45 PM PST

  •  The time has come (0+ / 0-)

    Slowly the GOP has over played their hand. They continually show the American people that they are for the rich and well-off. We need to continue to show the American people that Dems are for policies that strengthen the middle class.

    Be involved!

    by ecthompson on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:24:13 PM PST

  •  Crowdsourcing a union-related question. (0+ / 0-)

    Can a union impose higher dues or penalties/fines on members for breaking a strike (scabbing)?  Or is that considered discriminatory retaliation and banned?

    The scabs at my company benefited from striking gains, but never had to pay the price in lost wages.  There's certainly a moral justification for it.

  •  Welp (0+ / 0-)

    I hope that the progressives who didn't vote in 2010 to "teach the dems a lesson" learn a hard lesson of their own from this.

    "I am pro choice. My opponent [Mitt Romney] is multiple choice." - Ted Kennedy

    by darboy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:10:25 PM PST

  •  This is needed more Today than ever, Please sign (0+ / 0-)

    We DEMAND a MINIMUM Increase in WAGE/PROFIT for LABOR, it’s long PAST TIME.


    Here’s the LINK to the History, we all know and it’s past time, for this on the 2014 MID-TERM BALLOT:


    Drafting among the people today is a growing Demand and the interest is there and this is a good and positive and uplifting, not only for the Nation, but the Economy and the Majority of the people.  Our RECOVERY needs the people to increase their wages/profits.

    Watching the Media itself, ignore this growing injustice and the Media’s history of coming late to the fervor, growing in the Nation is not new. I say that because the Media, the “Networks, are ALL Corporations” and don’t want, the “cost of Labor” to ever go up, ever, so in every Production meeting across the Networks “landscape”, it’s quiet desperation and pins and needles subject, but the people are clamoring, believe, so we’re kicking it off, with a petition (s).

  •  We also must correct the perception of unions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in general.  

    As a teacher, I have seen with my own eyes how the public perception of us and all union members is deteriorating and if we don't fix that.... then we will be the only ones in the streets.  We must get everyone mad and have non union people fighting with us.

    If the public is happy about this, then it will never change.

  •  This was pay-back (0+ / 0-)

    Pure and simple.  When the unions make a point of trumpeting that it was they and their membership that got Obama elected (see Richard Trumpka's Announcement).  That it was THEIR turn out the vote efforts in key swing states that resulted in the victory,  they were practically inviting a fight.  

    ...And they got it, and today, they lost.

    •  Oh, so now it's Rich Trumpka's fault? (0+ / 0-)

      You think the right wouldn't have noticied that unions tend to support Democratic candidates if Trumpka hadn't mentioned it?

      So on the one hand, according to this thread, unions don't get their message out enough. On the other, they shouldn't draw attention to themselves. On the one hand, they're inefffective. On the other hand, if they excercise any muscle they're thugs.

      What does this double-bind argument remind me of? Oh yes--slut shaming! She wouldn't have gotten raped if she hadn't drawn attention to herself by wearing that short skirt. (And if she doesn't make herself look hot, she's a dyke or she's letting herself go.)

  •  Can we fight these right to work laws? (0+ / 0-)

    Clearly, we can work on getting rid of republicans whobdid this.  But is there any protection in the law?

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 08:37:29 PM PST

  •  I was at the battle of horseshit on Capitol Ave (0+ / 0-)

    when State Police inadvisedly started advancing into the crowd and with and without horses for no apparent reason.

    Union brothers and sisters behaved very well in my opinion at this provocation, which I heard was because they were thinking of bringing not-nerd out to go to the Capitol building to sign the bills.

  •  Looks folks, the template is clear.. (0+ / 0-)

    ...if the GOP takes control in a state, if its not a right-to-work state and has a union presence,  expect some union busting bills to be pushed through.

    But of course there will always be some union morons who will vote Republican and some equally dumb Democrats who will "sit out" an election to teach their Democrat president a "lesson".

    And then this will happen again (despite being forewarned), just because..

    Its just a lose-lose game.

  •  Off topic trivia (0+ / 0-)

    In the pic, the nearest building on the right is the George Romney building, named for Mitts' father.

  •  Call it what it is: the next step towards fascism (0+ / 0-)

    Let's not forget that Michigan's financial emergency law is de facto fascism on the local level - eliminating democratic government and replacing it with an "emergency manager" who rules by executive fiat, sweeps aside local contracts and ordinances, and is accountable only to the Governor.  Eliminating the labor movement is the largest step they can take to tear down the social safety net it took a century to build in this country.

    Michigan going right to work must be a clarion call to action.  Protest is not enough if it is only symbolic and doesn't actually shut anything down.  Ditto for civil disobedience- symbolism does not get you anywhere beyond a local news story.  We need campaigns or something more creative, to build power or pursue alternatives.  We're constantly on the defensive and this is just not working.  We are winning battles but losing the war here with this ratchet effect.  Democrats hold the line/maintain status quo until the next Republican victory when another social protection gets clawed back some more.  We elect centrist Democrats nationally with gridlock in Congress over K Street's legislative agenda while Republicans' gerrymandered state legislative majorities continue to wreak havoc on basic rights and social protections at the state level, serving the bidding of ALEC and the Koch Bros.

    At the core of this is the total prohibition on taxation and revenue increases, despite the fact that the 0.1% have enjoyed dropping taxes, lax enforcement and skyrocketing income growth for decades.  We need to talk about income not income tax - corporate welfare not welfare - not job growth but non-poverty job growth - living wage job growth.  We need to talk about Human Development Index not the DJIA Index.  We need to do something other than protest en masse and share info on how messed up everything keeps getting and posting about how mad we are about it.  We need organization.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site