harry b

Thu, Jan 31, 2013 : 5:42 p.m.

Tell the people at american axle about that.

katmando

Wed, Jan 30, 2013 : 1:35 a.m.

small to you maybe and if the nions weren't being negated by by corporations bent on destroying them we would have retirement. if it wasn't for unions there wouldn't be "Obama care" to for back on because the wages are so low you can't afford to pay for healthcare on your own. Just ask most wal- mart employees.

harry b

Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 6:02 p.m.

Sorry to hurt everyones feeling with this fact, Katmando- You are correct there is a small difference in wage. 836 vs 780 per week. I think that is a good trade off for having low unemployement. * forget about retirement. Union or no union they are all cutting it out. Even the strongest union in the nation (UAW) has got rid of it. *Healthcare you are incorrect. There is little difference but it should not matter anyways Obama Care will take care of this. Good article read it... http://www.classmates.com/places/school/school/693/m?communityId=693&_requestid=2564041&hitwiseSegment=free&checkCookie=1359482245728

katmando

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 10:12 p.m.

Also they have lowest average wages, little to no healthcare, and retirement.

Unusual Suspect

Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 1:50 a.m.

Like the article above, I'm addressing the Great Lakes region. Last time I checked, Germany is quite a distance from here. I understand the "free loader" argument is the only thing union supporters have to stand on, and it's an extremely weak argument, and pretty much bogus (but don't let that stop you - it hasn't so far). You point to the actual law that says the unions must do that, and the rest of us will help you out by sending a letter to the governor asking him to repeal it. Then your problems will be solved - no more bargaining for non-union people (that is, workers.)

clownfish

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 8:08 p.m.

JBK, as I understand the current talking heads, the GOP opposes people "taking" without paying. EXCEPT when it comes to unions, then they seem to want more takers. Help me understand the flip flop in philosophy, please.

JBK

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 7:03 p.m.

Clownfish - And I quote! "And do you agree that people should be allowed to rely on Other Peoples dues to support their benefit packages?" You are kidding right? My TAXES pay for people to collect food stamps, general assitance, early childhood devopment, latch key programs, etc... These people bring no value to society, yet other people are FORCED to support their "benefit package". How is this different?

clownfish

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:57 p.m.

And do you agree that people should be allowed to rely on Other Peoples dues to support their benefit packages? In what other situations do you think some people should be allowed to "take" from Other People? Lets say 47% of people in a shop don't belong to a union but get union wages and benefits, do you agree that the 53% should support them?

clownfish

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:54 p.m.

So you agree that the Nazis banning of non-state unions brought prosperity and freedom to Germany?

maallen

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 11:33 p.m.

Clownfish, When it comes to your "takers" comments, it is just a red herring. Here is a lesson in Union 101: When a union organizes a company, they have a choice to make. 1) they can represent members only (meaning people who are a member of the union/want to be a member of the union) or 2) represent all the workers ( exclusive representation, regardless if they want to be a member of the union or not). They write that into their contract that they negotiate with the company they organized whether it is exclusive representation or members only representation. Now to make more money, which option do you thing the unions go for? But in reality they don't have to. They have that choice, each and every time their contract comes up for negotiations. And guess when the RTW applies to existing unions? When their contracts are up for negotiations. So at that time, they can decide to represent only union members or represent all employees. It will be their choice. There are no "freeloaders."

clownfish

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.

UNUSUAL, can you show me the last president to have his nationality challenged? The previous 42 presidents never had theirs challenged, why this one? What separates him from the previous 42? Why did the GOP put forth proposals to mandate health insurance coverage then get outraged when it was actually passed? Is the portrayal of Obama as a Kenyan witchdoctor a policy statement based on statistical analysis? Why did several GOP politicians have to remove racist comments from webpages or back track on emails that had racist overtones? What is a "Magic Negro"? Nope, no racism here, all in my imagination.

Unusual Suspect

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:33 p.m.

OK, John, whatever you say.

John

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:32 p.m.

What's wrong Unusual?? It's common knowledge the GOP is full of racists, even some GOP members have said so themselves! Never was there so much "faux outrage" in this country until a black man became President...I suggest you grow up and accept that the demographics of this country are changing more and more each day. Until the GOP acknowledges this, they will continue to be voted out in droves each election.

bobslowson

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:28 p.m.

Apparently being a freeloader is a new tea party value!

Unusual Suspect

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:12 p.m.

Oh, yeah, the black thing. That's what it's all about, isn't it? Grow up.

Basic Bob

Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 5:25 a.m.

Why do "progressives" believe they stand for everyone else?

grye

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:12 p.m.

Would you mind pointing out in their platform where they hate the middle class?

sayzme

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:24 p.m.

Yes...they ARE buying other governors and senators. Here's the 40 that Koch paid to put in office. Guess who received the most Koch cash? Look no further than our own state rep! Walberg, Tim (R-MI) $27000 http://thinkprogress.org/climate /2012/01/20/405463/meet-the -40-members-of-the-congressional-koch-caucus/

Hesh Breakstone

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 11:29 p.m.

One of the problems with some of these corporate types who made a name for themselves in the mahogany paneled halls of corporate America is that at some point this is all they know... Or, more specifically... they attempt to replicate what they learned and benefited from with the corporate think that they naturally default to. When it goes too far... and one is not aware that they are breathing their own air, so-to-speak... they attempt to manage the world around them with the same methodologies that worked for them in corporate America or in this instance Gateway. So.... in this context it's not surprising that Snyder let the jewel of the American labor movement fall from our historic grace as being progressive in respect to labor relations because ultimately labor unions would interfere with what Rick seeks to do most. And that is make Michigan "corporate friendly..." with to date $1.8B in tax breaks at the expense of seniors, education, roads, public safety... to name a few. The end game being to again replicate the success that he had, by some measure..., at Gateway but this time by reducing Michigan's labor force to more closely resemble a Chinese labor force... It's a 2013 corporate bean counters version of "let them eat cake...."

grye

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:11 p.m.

lefty: RTW was not his plan. In fact he didn't want to address it. However the Unions tried to push constitutional changes down our throats that would ensure their rights over individual citizens. When asked to back down, they refused. The legislature, not the governor, introduced the RTW law. The governor only approved it. If you want to point fingers, then point them at the Unions for trying to bully the citizens of Michigan and the legislature for their response.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 1:26 p.m.

Hi lefty- From this Mlive Story: http://bit.ly/ml-s2t "When I did this, actually my wife gave me permission for a 10-year plan: two years running, and hopefully eight as governor," he said. "I haven't formally announced anything, but there's a lot more I want to do."

lefty48197

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 1:08 p.m.

RTW was ricks life goal. He has no intention of running again.

grye

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:07 p.m.

Why are you mentioning punitive legislation when all I was addressing was inidividual rights? Regarding the helmet law, it should be each individual's decision whether or not to wear a helmet. If you choose not to wear a helmet, then you may forego medical treatment after you hit your head on the pavement, but then that's your choice. This law should be about rights as a citizen. If the economy improves as jobs come to Michigan, that is icing on the cake.

hermhawk

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 12:28 p.m.

The injustice is from those who pushed this punitive legislation which has nothing to do with job creation, never. As for the rights of the individuals, how about the motorcycle helmet law? How absurd.

snapshot

Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 2:24 a.m.

RTW states don't have lower wages compared to regional costs of living and in some cases the hourly wage is even higher. Stop the fear mongering. If you want to compete, get competative.

Stan Hyne

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 1:13 p.m.

Great all those sound good to me !!!!!

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 5:04 p.m.

"wow...sounds like the Affordable Health Care Act...passed on Christmas Eve. Or should I say, rammed through on Christmas Eve!" It was signed into law on March 23, 2010. You can look it up? Why is it that, to make their case, conservatives resort to fiction? Could it be that it is because they have no fact-based, logical case? GN&GL

snapshot

Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 2:20 a.m.

Like unions don't work the system to their advantage? Saints you're not.

nekm1

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 1:18 p.m.

wow...sounds like the Affordable Health Care Act...passed on Christmas Eve. Or should I say, rammed through on Christmas Eve!

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 1:17 p.m.

"Reminds me of how ObamaCare was rammed down our throats. I think they call it karma:)" Let's see. Obamacare was in the works for over a year. Hearing were held by several committees in both houses of Congress. The legislation in its final format had more than 400 Republican-sponsored amendments. "Rammed through"? Only in the cloudcuckooland inhabited by Faux Noise, Lush Rimbaugh, Glenn Beck, and their addled followers. And the process for RTW looked nothing like the above. GN&GL

Basic Bob

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:45 a.m.

"no opportunity for public input" In our current form of government, you have an opportunity every two years to elect a representative, and four years to elect a governor. Do you think Jeff Irwin and Rebekah Warren asked for "input" before they cast their votes? Even if they got input, do you think they would follow it? Face it, our government is controlled by people who are continuously running for election and will vote in favor of whatever gets them elected. Don't confuse what is popular in Ann Arbor with what is popular statewide. Those are completely different.

JBK

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:45 a.m.

Reminds me of how ObamaCare was rammed down our throats. I think they call it karma:)

a2citizen

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:21 a.m.

"abruptly pulling an about-face." It's also mischaracterizes the events that took place.

maallen

Fri, Feb 1, 2013 : 12:32 a.m.

ArborArmy, "And this is true in federal labor law, as well." Again please show the federal law that says union must ONLY have exclusive representation. Quoting from your link in regards to fair representation: "A determination must be made as to whether the matter was one grounded in the union's role as exclusive representative." Again, if the union is "forced" to represent all workers, then there would be no need to find out if a union is an "exclusive representative" or not. Also, Pres. Clinton's Chairman of the NLRB, William Gould, a union attorney and Stanford Law Professor, said that federal law "permits member only bargaining without regard to majority rule or an appropriate unit and without regard to exclusivity." Please explain the Chairman of the NLRB's statement then? Would love to hear your explanations and also would love to see that Federal law quote of yours.

arborarmy

Thu, Jan 31, 2013 : 9:33 p.m.

Yes. I understood that this law applies to public employees. I said so in my post above. And the law says EXACTLY what you claim it does not. And I can only assume that you have read all the sources you cite as well as you've read my post and the clearly quote state law.

maallen

Thu, Jan 31, 2013 : 7:12 p.m.

ArborArmy, Did you not read Public Act 336 of 1947 423.201? It is for PUBLIC employees. Not for private unions in which we are talking about! "Bargaining representative means a labor organization recognized by an employer or certified by the commission as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the employer." Again, did you not read what you quoted? It does not say the certifying agency determines the exclusive representation. It only becomes so AFTER it is recognized by the employer or certified by the commission, which means the union chose the exclusive representation and the agency is certifying it as such. You really ought to read your quotes and links before you post. Show the federal law that says the union MUST ONLY have exclusive representation.

arborarmy

Thu, Jan 31, 2013 : 4:58 a.m.

Public Act 336 of 1947 423.201 Definitions; rights of public employees. Sec. 1. (1) As used in this act: (a) "Bargaining representative" means a labor organization recognized by an employer or certified by the commission as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the employer. In other words, it is the employer or the certifying agency, not the union, that determines exclusive representation. There is no other alternative. And this is true in federal labor law, as well.

maallen

Wed, Jan 30, 2013 : 6:16 p.m.

Arborarmy, Thanks for posting the link, and if you would have read it you would have understood that "fair representation" applies AFTER the company is organized AND after the contract is written. What you fail to understand is when a company is organized by the unions, during the process of writing the contract with the company, the union must choose who they represent: Members only representation (only those who are members of the union) or Exclusive representation (all employees regardless if they are part of the union or not.) Quoting from your link in regards to fair representation: "A determination must be made as to whether the matter was one grounded in the union's role as exclusive representative." Again, if the union is "forced" to represent all workers, then there would be no need to find out if a union is an "exclusive representative" or not. Also, Pres. Clinton's Chairman of the NLRB, William Gould, a union attorney and Stanford Law Professor, said that federal law "permits member only bargaining without regard to majority rule or an appropriate unit and without regard to exclusivity."

arborarmy

Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 2:30 p.m.

basicbob: good for you. But most Americans go o Walmart rather than to a more expensive local store. We live in a society where cheap is good and free is best. So people will not hesitate to end their memberships yet continue to be parasites on the unions. maallen: you're at it again, citing cases and decisions with authority but NEVER being able to quote the exact words that states that unions don't have a duty to represent. Until then, one can only conclude you're just making it up. But here's an FLRA document to support ERMG's statement: http://www.flra.gov/Guidance_duty%20of%20fair%20representation

Basic Bob

Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 4:31 a.m.

"So, I'm curious: if your lawyer or doctor gives you a choice of paying for services rendered or getting exactly the same services without paying anything, which will you do?" I'm not a freeloader, so of course I pay. You should, too.

snapshot

Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 2:16 a.m.

I think unions "freeload" off the rest of the working population. GM won't be paying back about 20 billion of the taxpayer bailout while giving union workers bonuses. The public unions continue to strike for better paydays and benefits even though they're operating at a deficit and skirting bankruptcy in some cases. Yeah, the good people of the union aristocracy.

maallen

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 11:21 p.m.

When the unions organize a company, they have a choice to make. 1) they can represent members only (meaning people who are a member of the union/want to be a member of the union) or 2) represent all the workers (regardless if they want to be a member of the union or not). They write that into their contract that they negotiate with the company they organized. Now to make more money, which option do you thing the unions go for? But in reality they don't have to. They have that choice, each and every time their contract comes up for negotiations. And guess when the RTW applies to existing unions? When their contracts are up for negotiations. So at that time, they can decide to represent only union members or represent all employees. There is no "freeloaders."

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 1:14 p.m.

"Ask your union brethren why they would decline to pay union dues." Answer: because the union is still required to represent the freeloader as if they were a dues paying member. So, I'm curious: if your lawyer or doctor gives you a choice of paying for services rendered or getting exactly the same services without paying anything, which will you do? GN&GL

Basic Bob

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:47 a.m.

Just because there is an option to freeload or an option to own an AR-15 or an option to have an abortion does not mean they are required. Ask your union brethren why they would decline to pay union dues. I'll bet it's not because Glenn Beck told them so.

arborarmy

Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 2:38 p.m.

"You mean like the unions tried to alter our state constitution to serve their needs by rallying their membership, probably on company time using company resources. Yeah what a noble group they are." In a year long campaign that gathered hundreds of thousands of petition signatures and garnered millions of votes. Yeah, that's the same thing as a lame duck legislature passing legislation in one week's time without public hearings.

snapshot

Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 2:09 a.m.

You mean like the unions tried to alter our state constitution to serve their needs by rallying their membership, probably on company time using company resources. Yeah what a noble group they are.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 1:12 p.m.

"Slid through" means no hearings, no debates, done in about one week's time so that opposition could not be mustered. Love the republican commitment to democracy. GN&GL

Angry Moderate

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 12:05 a.m.

If "slid it through" means the legislature voted on it and the governor signed it, then sure. P.S. - many corporations had their taxes INCREASED by the reform of the Michigan Business Tax. A2.com has run numerous articles about it.

snapshot

Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 2:05 a.m.

Ain't it the truth. Unions are like a whole bunch of little Koch Brothers running around yelling "the sky is falling" only the Koch Brothers employee about 50,000 people, pay taxes, and supply the petrol to keep the economy churning away while unions seem to work at nothing but limit the churning while increasing the cost and decreasing the quality and accountability.

harry b

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 5:38 p.m.

and corrupt at that.

bobslowson

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2:46 p.m.

Republicans don't represent the majority, they are bought and paid for by special interest groups.

clownfish

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 2 p.m.

They represent their members. Now they are going to be asked to represent people that don't pay. It used to be that those people were called "takers" by the GOP. Now they have found a group that they think is fine to be represented with Other Peoples money. Remember, if you paid into SS you are a "taker", if you DON'T pay unions dues you are an over encumbered worker. Now, if you have ANY other issue with your conditions of employment, the GOP says "tough!, love it or leave it. If you have to work in unsafe conditions...deal with it! If you are being harassed at work...deal with it. If you have to pay dues to the group that negotiated pay and benefits, well that is just not fair and the GOP will ride to your rescue. Not out of any concern for your well being, but because some of the money might, maybe elect a democrat in an open election. They will not HAVE THAT!!

hermhawk

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 12:26 p.m.

And the Koch brothers, DeVos and their allies aren't the same?

Tom Todd

Sun, Jan 27, 2013 : 10:26 p.m.

Kissing the Middle class good-bye

Floyd

Sun, Jan 27, 2013 : 10:21 p.m.

And they just lost to the another special interest group: Snyder's rich friends who own businesses. The Kochs teamed up with our local right wing boss DeVos to push through right to work. Snyder is their man on the inside for their special interest group. There is still a class war going on in Michigan and the working class is eating it big time.

maallen

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 11:13 p.m.

Lefty, What lies do you speak of?

nekm1

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 1:16 p.m.

Snyder has done more in 2 years, than our former governor in 8! As head of the largest scam (Kilpatrick's Detroit) and the loss of thousands of jobs, how can you even doubt the work that he has done to turn the corner quickly, and make Michigan viable again! Be thankful for his leadership, as opposed to someone who papered her pockets...and left for California. You "lefties" are incredible.

lefty48197

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 1:04 p.m.

Once a liar always a liar. Snyder can't be trusted ever.

ferdcom

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 3:36 a.m.

I think he was referring to the fact that union membership is at around 10%. Therefore 90% of jobs are not affected by RTW legislation.

Angry Moderate

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 12:06 a.m.

Not sure that I follow...how does that quote "admit" that RTW isn't about bringing jobs to the state? It doesn't even say anything about bringing jobs to the state.

snapshot

Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 1:47 a.m.

Unions sure alienated a large portion of the Michigan population with their blatantly greedy power grab. And then they seemed surprised at Right to Work legislation? Members should be seriously questioning their leadership and the union mission.

Stan Hyne

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 1:35 p.m.

Governor Snyder never said he would not pass a right to work law. He said this is not on my agenda at this time as there are more important things to get done. When the union lead drive to put Prop. 2 on the ballot, Governor Snyder contacted the President of the United Auto Workers Union, and said this isn't a fight we want to have at this time. This proposition would have made Right to Work forever impossible. The Governor also said if Prop. 2 did not pass, he would pass Right to Work in the lame duck session. The union gambled and lost.

Unusual Suspect

Mon, Jan 28, 2013 : 4:03 a.m.

That crowd? I don't think so.

a2citizen

Sun, Jan 27, 2013 : 10 p.m.

Maybe they are in church.