Michigan Right to Work

[Kev3188]

As is, the opposite is true. If your looking to join a union, don't go to work for a company that doesn't have union representation !

Also true.

In my case, I didn't- my employer merged with yours, and you shouldn't be surprised that people are working to regain representation for the combined entity.

The state of Wisconsin is the "Employer" and "Should" determine what wages are !

Nobody's arguing that (though I'd add that the "state" consists of the residents themselves). You asked who determined what the "fair share" should be, and I responded.

 

[delldude]

Also true.

In my case, I didn't- my employer merged with yours, and you shouldn't be surprised that people are working to regain representation for the combined entity.

How's that panning out.

 

[southwind]

Also true.

In my case, I didn't- my employer merged with yours, and you shouldn't be surprised that people are working to regain representation for the combined entity.

To which I reply, why are unions peeps so pissed about being a RTW state, if a union can be voted in? My, belief is, the unions are pissed because now , a new hire doesn't automatically translate to a new, dues-paying, union member !

 

[delldude]

To which I reply, why are unions peeps so pissed about being a RTW state, if a union can be voted in? My, belief is, the unions are pissed because now , a new hire doesn't automatically translate to a new, dues-paying,campaign cash contributing union member !

There Pal, I fixed it for you.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Except that all of those raw statistics can be shown to prove any point you would like….
The simple fact is that union representation is not large enough in any US state to have a meaningful influence on the salaries and benefits or any other statistic you cite on a statewide level.

There is an article in the Wall Street Journal Wednesday with a compilation of studies over the benefits of RTW vs not at the state level and they said the same thing – and I posted the same thing elsewhere on this site last week.
I’m sure the WSJ is not a top read for the labor movement but the fact that they cited supporters for both sides and still came up w/ a “not likely to make a difference” is further evidence that what is happening in MI is significant for the labor movement but really isn’t for America one way or the other.

The truth is, with depressed wages comes less consumer spending (the *real* job creator), which in turn stunts economic recovery and/or growth. As wages go, so too, does an economy, and as 700's poster notes, RTW doesn't do anything to raise the floor.

The other inconvenient truth is that with depressed wages come a smaller tax base, and silly little things like education & transportation budgets get slashed. All that does is further the disconnect between what a business owner may be looking for, and the skill set the local employment pool possesses. Also kinda hard to move goods quickly/efficiently on an outdated network of roads/rail/airways, but that seems to be lost in ALEC's zest to demonize anyone that dare try and organize.

3rd world here we come!

First paragraph cited is accurate until you get to that “RTW doesn’t do anything to raise the floor” - but the fact is that unions haven’t done anything to keep the floor from falling out or in pushing wage rates up… if they were successful, they would have people standing in line willing to pay for union representation and benefits… it’s all economic – and includes the public’s perception of whether unions deliver a valuable service or not.

while US infrastructure needs to be upgraded, you need to travel outside of the US or even look at statistics at how efficient the US is and how well its infrastructure works.
There are a whole lot of countries that would take the worst US state's infrastructure if they could.

A large part of the US' advantage in the global marketplace is because of the outstanding transportation and communications systems that we have... some of which have been built by the gov't and some by private enterprise but untouched by anything else in the world.

Btw, airlines and their standard practice of putting employees at bottom of pay scale regardless of experience or work ethic is bad for the airlines. Not much better than rtw laws

And yet there is no willingness of any airline I have ever heard to replace seniority with a merit system…

States constantly undercutting one another (corporate welfare) is a much larger factor than whether or not a state is RTW or not...

The basis of the US which is different from many other countries is that gov’t at the closest level to the citizen is best capable of deciding what is in their people’s best interests….
MI couldn’t help but react given that IN was attracting business based on its own RTW laws…. It is business that creates jobs and business goes where risk is lower and return is greater.

Nope. Capital. They convinced a good chunk of middle class
America to work against their own best interest(s), and now they sit in their proverbial ivory towers and laugh and laugh while we fight each other...

People decide what is in their own best interest… not sure why it is ok to think that you can make that choice correctly for yourself but others can’t.
The real killer of American jobs is American consumerism which seeks the lowest price… doesn’t help that the US spent billions rebuilding Asia and Europe after WWII and Japan’s economic success has been copied by other Asian countries.
Suppose we would be better off if we just left the rubble there?

Unions seemed to haveout sight of their purpose which in mg opinion was to me a safe work place for people and have a fair salary. They now seem to only care about getting as much money as can be extorted out of the company and getting as much dues as they can. Why should an unskilled FA or person on a UAW assembly line get paid as much as they do? That is not a fair wage in my opinion.

Unions are on their way out. I don't know that what is left in their absence will be better.

The gov’ts of most western countries have laws that are far more strict than what unions pushed for at one time…. Thus, laws accomplish much of what unions once did.
With the exception of a very few jobs for which there is no competition, the marketplace DOES decide. If you don’t like what one employer offers, there are others who do it better – or else unions aren’t going to make a difference either. Labor can’t do what the marketplace cannot or will not do.

When is organized labor leaders and the AFL-CIO going to admit that they are running a failing strategy by reliance upon political campaign financing and lobbying?

Truth is the unelected, unaccountable, idiots do not have what it takes to be real union leaders. They are cowards, full of threats and buzz words.

Dismantle to the AFL-CIO, dismantle the campaign financing, and stop assaulting those that disagree with your position. Go back the old method of witholding production and shut the economy down. Only then will you begin to advance and stop retreating.

Very well said…. The reality is that there are people on here who would make excellent leaders for the labor movement – unless some of them step forward, they will be explaining the concept of unions to their grandchildren not much differently than we talk about vacuum tubes and 8 tracks – good ideas at the time but replaced by something far better.

" In fact, public-sector employment (i.e. federal, state, and local government jobs) declined in 10 of the past 12 months, in sharp contrast to 29 consecutive months of private-sector job growth. Indeed, falling public employment has been among the largest contributors to unemployment in the United States since the end of the Great Recession."

I guess we need another Republican president to bring back more big government. The charts show a big reason why the unemployment numbers were stagnant over the last 4 years.

http://www.brookings...eenstone-looney

You might want to note that a couple big reasons for the drop in gov’t workers is due to major reductions in US military activity and the reduction in local and state employment since those levels of gov’t actually have to balance their budgets.

And in this instance I'll echo what WT said. Like it or not, companies are looking at ways to avoid unions and they lose flexibility and control over how to run their business as they see fit. This is the direction things are going in, unions can accept it and change or continue to lose members and get dragged out of existence.

Thank you.
As noteworthy as the respiratory system or not, unions have to decide they will create an environment in which they are willing to seek the best interests of all involved… and that has historically been something the labor movement has been unwilling or unable to do.
In the airline industry, WN has built legendary success on top of high unionization because all parties know what works best for the company and figure out how to make it work for the company.
B6 and DL do the same thing … they just happen to figure out how to allow employees to win better in their model than employees do at other airlines – and thus provide little to no incentive for employees to seek unionization.
Labor is not the only side that has to choose to cooperate but it is as obvious as the air we breathe that the traditional labor-mgmt relationship which is based on each side contentiously seeking what is best for them regardless of the impact on the other side is dead and will only result in further declines for the labor movement… which is more vulnerable than business or the taxpayer.

In my case, I didn't- my employer merged with yours, and you shouldn't be surprised that people are working to regain representation for the combined entity.

And all you have to do is convince enough of them that the labor mgmt model is superior to what they have…. With DL expecting its profits to continue to grow and its employees to see increased wages, it will be very hard to expect those employees to give up what they have for something that is not producing anywhere close in comparison….

 

[Kev3188]

To which I reply, why are unions peeps so pissed about being a RTW state, if a union can be voted in? My, belief is, the unions are pissed because now , a new hire doesn't automatically translate to a new, dues-paying, union member !

I'd say that's a ways down the list for the average rank and file worker.

The simple fact is that union representation is not large enough in any US state to have a meaningful influence on the salaries and benefits or any other statistic you cite on a statewide level.

No? If that's the case, then why would groups spend countless millions trying to undermine them?

First paragraph cited is accurate until you get to that “RTW doesn’t do anything to raise the floor”

Feel free to show us how RTW explicitly does raise the floor on a broad basis, then.

MI couldn’t help but react given that IN was attracting business based on its own RTW laws…. It is business that creates jobs and business goes where risk is lower and return is greater.

Businesses go where they are offered the best corporate welfare tax break/incentive package.

And all you have to do is convince enough of them that the labor mgmt model is superior to what they have…. With DL expecting its profits to continue to grow and its employees to see increased wages, it will be very hard to expect those employees to give up what they have for something that is not producing anywhere close in comparison….

You keep implying that people would have to give something up. That's not the case, unless you're referring to the vaunted "direct relationship." So either you're off the mark here, or your implying that as part of the "superior employment experience," that DL would not negotiate in good faith. Which is it?

 

[737823]

I've said it before, but it bears repeating; IMO, Stern is not a friend of labor. You know how I talk about labor tearing the house down, and starting over? I usually have him in mind when I write it. His retirement from the SEIU was certainly not a loss.

That's precisely the issue is labor hasn't gotten the right people in influential positions to adapt and change with the economic realities and of course understand the needs and interests of the members they represent. Explain to me how someone gets value being in a union like IATSE which is full of corporate and studio apologists looking to sell out the "membership" every contract and replace experienced AV and lighting technicians with $10/hour (no benefits) part-times who pay union dues? How is that good for the labor movement and the workers? As Bob said that's not why people join unions, so why are unions engaging in this practice?

You could replace "government office" with just about any occupation imaginable. Sounds like HR either made a poor hiring decision, or doesn't enforce performance standards.

Sure could but the difference is tax-payers aren't signing their paychecks. If a private company wants to hire people to sit around and do nothing more power to them. And btw I agree most of the people that HR identifies for positions are always the wrong applicants and not suitable candidates for the position. That is not unique to DL or any other employer its everywhere. It's very difficult to identify a good applicant and you often don't know until you have them for six months which is costly both in on-boarding costs and lost productivity.

That's not surprising; after all, your perspective is one that deals with explicitly building shareholder value, as opposed to stakeholder value.

Of course management wants flexibility and the ability to run their business as they see fit do you really think otherwise? You and 700 can keep citing WN and other consistently profitable heavily unionized companies but the fact is the WN of 2012 is very different than the WN of 2002. They are adapting and changing, and several of their work groups are in ongoing negotiations not sure if they are making progress or not.

And let me just take this opportunity to say I'm not opposed to people wanting to join unions. I am just opposed to having it be compulsory and imposed on workers. I don't personally see the value in having union representation but others like yourself do. Fine, but its a two-way street. Companies should respect the decisions of their employee groups and negotiate in good faith. However the union has its role in negotiations too. The union should act as a liaison for a mutually beneficial agreement between the workers and the company recognizing the economic realities and business needs of the company. Similarly the company should treat workers fairly, provide industry competitive pay and benefits too. The problem is nowadays unions are an adversary of management and destroy companies (either intentionally or not) through onerous work rules, wage/benefit demands and cripling strike action.

Josh, with all due respect, that's enough hyperbole. Maybe it's just early, but I've seen you write things like "injustice" one too many times already. There's no injustice in being organized, and really; if it's so bad, a worker can either exercise their "choice" to not apply there in the first place, or exercise their "freedom" to look for another place of employment.

Framing the RTW argument with the idea workers in closed shops are a sort of helpless hostage is, frankly, demeaning to all of them.

Please explain to me if you think it is fair for union membership to be compulsory, YES or NO. No circular answers, either you do or you don't. It's very much an injustice when a worker has representation imposed and pay withheld without accountability. Like I said go look at how unhappy AA AMTs and FSAs are with the TWU, do you think they like having that imposed? Several on here have said they'd sooner be non-union than have the TWU, especially when they see their non-union peers at B6 and DL have better terms of employment with greater pay and benefits. I know this beyond the scope of RTW discussion since RTW doesn't apply to the RLA but its a good example nonetheless.

So could we say the something of employers too? If I'm an employer and tell all my employees from the get go this is a non-union shop, no organizing, employer stipulates terms of employment is that fair? Of course not, but it's not a two way street. RTW adds accountability and gives workers the ability to choose. You may disagree but I think overtime RTW laws will grow on organized labor much like immigration which unions vehemently opposed until the 1970s and into the 1980s. Of course unions saw immigrants as a threat to organized workers since they were more difficult to organize and willing to work for less money and more flexible conditions but now embrace immigration (including illegal/undocumented) since they are an organizing opportunity.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

What employees at B6 and DL would have to give up is an employee-employer relationship that provides as good as or better economic benefits as what they could get in another type of relationship. Therefore the 3rd party intervention that should produce more benefits has become in the airline industry a target for a contentious relationship for the majority of airlines that can't run a good enough business in order to pay the higher wages that network airlines have traditionally given to their employees.

Thus, while it is not possible to tie the benefits of union representation to economic success at the state or even large city level, the connection most certainly can be made for a particular industry - and in the airline industry there is ample evidence to show that union representation has not translated into increased economic benefits.

And let's not forget that the RLA does not give airline employees the choice that RTW legislation provides to employees in other industries.

The MI governor might have said alot of things you and others didn't like but he did say that unions have to be able to demonstrate their value if they want to expect to retain members.

Labor should fear nothing if they can deliver what they promise - in American business outside of the RLA or in the airline industry where labor unions already have advantages compared to in other labor groups.

Business goes where they can make the most money... that is what business does. If states create an environment conducive to the success of business, then they will win business over other states that do not.

MI needs every advantage it can get.

 

[signals]

737823 said:

In many states and municipalities union officials have considerable influence and direct lines to law makers its outrageous. Look at somewhere like Boston and how ingrained the union and organized labor culture is with politics here, it's sickening. Our City Council President Mike Ross went after the firefighters and was able to get some (but not all) of the reforms through. Go to any government office and there are people shopping online, reading the newspaper, etc all day.


Not in mine.

They are getting big concessions from firefighters and police. The firefighters voted to increase their health insurance by 4X their current rate. The police were replaced by security officers in a place they were making a killing in overtime. Their unions file lawsuits but they are dragging. If it hits the micro it is heading for the macro.

You know, airline employees that has 6 out of 8 hours downtime have nothing better to do than complain about the lazy government worker that is wasting time. ahh but you are a taxpayer. Newsflash so is the government worker.

 

[signals]

Nice try but boy are you missing the boat, government doesn't have to compete in the market and they have never ending revenue streams (or so they seem to think) so they just keep giving public sector employees outragious salraies and benefits in exchange for campaign money, workers and votes.

You're so full of it that I'm sure you got your job because of who you...

Governments are screwing each other in the aid they give. Feds aren't helping as much, therefore the states are cutting, and the counties are cutting, and the municipalities are cutting, and villages are cutting. You do know that certain governments force employees to live within their borders? You can live wherever you want.

Exactly who makes an outrageous salary? I'm no pilot or airline executive, but I live within a budget. Campaign money? If I help a candidate it is strictly voluntary and my union would be the last thing I listen to.

You are truly delusional in your beliefs and unless you are a public servant you're a total clueless (fill in the blank)

 

[Kev3188]

That's precisely the issue is labor hasn't gotten the right people in influential positions to adapt and change with the economic realities and of course understand the needs and interests of the members they represent.

You've been reading what I write, right?

Sure could but the difference is tax-payers aren't signing their paychecks. If a private company wants to hire people to sit around and do nothing more power to them. And btw I agree most of the people that HR identifies for positions are always the wrong applicants and not suitable candidates for the position. That is not unique to DL or any other employer its everywhere. It's very difficult to identify a good applicant and you often don't know until you have them for six months which is costly both in on-boarding costs and lost productivity.

We agree that they exist in all companies/sectors/etc. Where we differ is that you seem to blame all the workers for the actions of a few; I blame HR for not enforcing performance standards, and co-workers for not holding them accountable as well. The latter makes us all look bad, really...

Of course management wants flexibility and the ability to run their business as they see fit do you really think otherwise?

Um, nope... Thought we had that covered already???

You and 700 can keep citing WN and other consistently profitable heavily unionized companies but the fact is the WN of 2012 is very different than the WN of 2002. They are adapting and changing, and several of their work groups are in ongoing negotiations not sure if they are making progress or not.

You gotta quit mixing and matching us. Make no mistake; I'd be proud to stand with him anytime, but...

And let me just take this opportunity to say I'm not opposed to people wanting to join unions. I am just opposed to having it be compulsory and imposed on workers. I don't personally see the value in having union representation but others like yourself do. Fine, but its a two-way street. Companies should respect the decisions of their employee groups and negotiate in good faith. However the union has its role in negotiations too. The union should act as a liaison for a mutually beneficial agreement between the workers and the company recognizing the economic realities and business needs of the company. Similarly the company should treat workers fairly, provide industry competitive pay and benefits too.

Companies can feel free to start that anytime...

Please explain to me if you think it is fair for union membership to be compulsory, YES or NO.

If you apply to a company you know is a closed shop, then absolutely.

No circular answers, either you do or you don't. It's very much an injustice when a worker has representation imposed and pay withheld without accountability. Like I said go look at how unhappy AA AMTs and FSAs are with the TWU, do you think they like having that imposed?

I read that on here, but I gotta ask; at what point are they just gonna either decertify or change unions already? I fully agree that the TWU has failed them, but at some point workers have to sh*t or get off the pot, and it can't just be outspoken activists like Bob. IMO, union membership shouldn't begin and end with paying dues. The membership should demand accountability, expect performance, and so on.

What employees at B6 and DL would have to give up is an employee-employer relationship that provides as good as or better economic benefits as what they could get in another type of relationship.

It's so much more than purely economic items. If you can't grasp that by now, I can't help you.

Therefore the 3rd party intervention

Ah yes, the reviled "3rd party." You mean like:

Sedgwick?
ESIS?
Ingenix?
People Scout?


Those 3rd parties are okay, but an organization made up solely of actual employees is not? Okay, got it.

You know, airline employees that has 6 out of 8 hours downtime...

Where is this magical station, and how can I bid into it???

 

[WorldTraveler]

I read that on here, but I gotta ask; at what point are they just gonna either decertify or change unions already? I fully agree that the TWU has failed them, but at some point workers have to sh*t or get off the pot, and it can't just be outspoken activists like Bob. IMO, union membership shouldn't begin and end with paying dues. The membership should demand accountability, expect performance, and so on.

completely agree w/ this... but where is the evidence of people willing to stick their neck out to save the labor movement.

Do you know see how some of us have to be skeptical about the future of labor when we see most of the activity on an airline labor-oriented site has a very high percentage of posts about which union is better - but very little discussion about what is being done to tangibly stop the erosion of union membership?

It's so much more than purely economic items. If you can't grasp that by now, I can't help you.

I do understand that for you the non-economic terms are bigger but the reality is that the vast majority of people are not going to choose an inferior economic strategy in the interest of protecting an ideology that hasn't delivered better than other alternatives.

The vast majority of the public IS motivated by economic terms and can sort the rest out... they aren't going to pick an alternative that is not in their best economic interests. Period.

Those 3rd parties are okay, but an organization made up solely of actual employees is not? Okay, got it.

to be clear, that is not my quote.

 

[Kev3188]

completely agree w/ this... but where is the evidence of people willing to stick their neck out to save the labor movement.

Not an issue of sticking their neck out. All AA workers need to do is collectively decide they've had enough, and either decertify or change unions.

 

[WorldTraveler]

this isn't an AA or a DL or even an airline industry issue... it is an issue that the labor movement has not been able to demonstrate its value to American workers.

Decertification or a change in unions may or may not help AA employees but I for one - who have nothing against the labor movement - expect that if the keen minds who are on this forum can't come up w/ a plan to save labor in the airline industry, then the chances of labor having a meaningful place in American business has to be questioned, given that the airline industry is one of the most heavily unionized private sector industries left in the US.

 

[Kev3188]

this isn't an AA or a DL or even an airline industry issue...

Josh specifically noted the discontent of AA employees--> I responded that at some point they need to sh*t or get off the pot--> you responded that no one wants to stick their neck out--> I noted that's not required; only signing an A card or starting a decert petition is...

All caught up now?