Comments
1 - 20 of 109 Comments Last updated Dec 21, 2012
First Prev
of 6
Next Last
x mas present to Michigan

United States

#1 Dec 12, 2012
Be strong Michigan, as your leadership gives people the choice to be ( in ) or ( out ) of any union. Remember you ca NOT force people to join, they can decide, no one else.

Take a look MN it is going to sweep across America !!!
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#2 Dec 12, 2012
“Under the National Labor Relations Act, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.

Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee.") Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time.”- National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

The only thing right to work laws do is allow workers to benefit from union bargaining agreements without paying anything.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#4 Dec 12, 2012
Big Al wrote:
The only thing right to work laws do is allow workers to benefit from union bargaining agreements without paying anything.
And rightfully so. If they are doing the same job as the union workers they should get the same pay and comparable benefits without being forced to agree to and pay for the unions various political agendas. The trade off is that they do not have access to the same retirement benefits, discounts, etc. that members receive. Kind of like AAA. You can drive, you can reap the benefits of all the studies they AAA does for the NTSB and others, I think you can even subscribe to their magazine, but you can't get a discount on insurance or travel if you don't pay the AAA dues.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#6 Dec 12, 2012
Sofa King Cool wrote:
<quoted text>
Perfect example. Unfortunately, logic has no impact on leftists.
Amen! No greater statement has been made today surrounding this subject!
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#7 Dec 12, 2012
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
And rightfully so. If they are doing the same job as the union workers they should get the same pay and comparable benefits without being forced to agree to and pay for the unions various political agendas. The trade off is that they do not have access to the same retirement benefits, discounts, etc. that members receive. Kind of like AAA. You can drive, you can reap the benefits of all the studies they AAA does for the NTSB and others, I think you can even subscribe to their magazine, but you can't get a discount on insurance or travel if you don't pay the AAA dues.
They would get much lower the pay and fewer benefits without union bargaining. Right to work laws are just a “divide and conquer” tactic to reduce labor costs so the fat cats can make more money.
redeemer

Minneapolis, MN

#8 Dec 12, 2012
The Big Three auto manufactures will force Gov.sellout to the koch bros. to reinstate all of the union demands within three months or less once a national boycott against their product get started or implemented,I can see another backfire
or a roadrunner coyota moment coming.

United We Stand Divide we fall!

BTW: Don't forget that redeemer said it first.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#9 Dec 12, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
They would get much lower the pay and fewer benefits without union bargaining. Right to work laws are just a “divide and conquer” tactic to reduce labor costs so the fat cats can make more money.
Do you mean the union leader fat cats or the pro union lobbyist fat cats who get a nice chunk of your dues money? Or are you referring to the pro union politicians who willingly accept your fundraiser money to vote in your favor?

Again, if you are doing the same job as a union member you should get the same pay whether you are a member of the union or not. Same job, same skill set. No one should be forced to join a union.

The unions were needed once and can still be relevant but they need to realize they have overstepped their boundaries because of the greed of their leaders who pass it on to their labor force.

The average auto worker makes $28 to $39 per hour. Add in the benefits to the tune of an additional $33.50 per hr and you can see why people don't like them very much. No one should be paid $63 hr to bolt fenders to a frame all day.(a job most anyone could be trained to do in a few days time)

But let them keep it up and keep being stubborn about their perceived worth. The car manufacturers (and others) are wising up and investing in robots to do their jobs for far less money.
Bridgework

Lincoln, NE

#10 Dec 12, 2012
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean the union leader fat cats or the pro union lobbyist fat cats who get a nice chunk of your dues money? Or are you referring to the pro union politicians who willingly accept your fundraiser money to vote in your favor?
Again, if you are doing the same job as a union member you should get the same pay whether you are a member of the union or not. Same job, same skill set. No one should be forced to join a union.
The unions were needed once and can still be relevant but they need to realize they have overstepped their boundaries because of the greed of their leaders who pass it on to their labor force.
The average auto worker makes $28 to $39 per hour. Add in the benefits to the tune of an additional $33.50 per hr and you can see why people don't like them very much. No one should be paid $63 hr to bolt fenders to a frame all day.(a job most anyone could be trained to do in a few days time)
But let them keep it up and keep being stubborn about their perceived worth. The car manufacturers (and others) are wising up and investing in robots to do their jobs for far less money.
Actually I think you have those number wrong. The $60-80 cost per labor hour includes payments to retired workers.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#11 Dec 12, 2012
Really, no mention of the FACT, the governor said he had no plans to implement "right to work" legislation AND LIED ~!!!?? Yeah, I figured YOU'D LOVE THIS GUY, unfortunately constituents HATE THE MORON ~! Are you at the airport Hertz, in your "collectible" Corvair ?????? LMAOROTFU~!
redeemer

Minneapolis, MN

#12 Dec 12, 2012
Amused Slew wrote:
Really, no mention of the FACT, the governor said he had no plans to implement "right to work" legislation AND LIED ~!!!?? Yeah, I figured YOU'D LOVE THIS GUY, unfortunately constituents HATE THE MORON ~! Are you at the airport Hertz, in your "collectible" Corvair ?????? LMAOROTFU~!
Were going to close the republican party out in Blue states in 2014 two more years Champ!
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#14 Dec 12, 2012
Who says they make the same, the boss should offer the better bricklayer over scale... Oh right, you're clearly clueless about labor union contracts...THEY SET AGREED MINIMUMS....
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#15 Dec 12, 2012
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean the union leader fat cats or the pro union lobbyist fat cats who get a nice chunk of your dues money? Or are you referring to the pro union politicians who willingly accept your fundraiser money to vote in your favor?
Again, if you are doing the same job as a union member you should get the same pay whether you are a member of the union or not. Same job, same skill set. No one should be forced to join a union.
The unions were needed once and can still be relevant but they need to realize they have overstepped their boundaries because of the greed of their leaders who pass it on to their labor force.
The average auto worker makes $28 to $39 per hour. Add in the benefits to the tune of an additional $33.50 per hr and you can see why people don't like them very much. No one should be paid $63 hr to bolt fenders to a frame all day.(a job most anyone could be trained to do in a few days time)
But let them keep it up and keep being stubborn about their perceived worth. The car manufacturers (and others) are wising up and investing in robots to do their jobs for far less money.
You seem to be obtuse to the fact that businesses don’t give wages and benefits out of the kindness of their hearts. If the wages and benefits are product of union bargaining then everyone benefitting from that bargaining should be required to pay those costs. If that doesn’t seem fair to you I think you are part of the problem.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#16 Dec 12, 2012
Sofa King Cool wrote:
<quoted text>
Two union brick layers. One can lay 500 bricks an hour while the other can lay 750.
Why should they make the same wage? Should the 750 guy slow down?
Many employers negotiate performance incentives with their unions. the key word is negotiate.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#17 Dec 12, 2012
Many just pay more to the "better" worker, regardless if speed is the actual determining factor... Ask management why they pay the same, nobody forces them.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#19 Dec 12, 2012
Sofa King Cool wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your key word is intimidate.
Does the idea of negotiating intimidate you?
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#20 Dec 12, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the idea of negotiating intimidate you?
No, he's hoping the greedy do-nothing manager can intimidate the workers into working for less, so he can collect bone-us money, and kill the company, while violating contractual obligations to fund pensions like at Hostess...
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#21 Dec 12, 2012
Amused Slew wrote:
<quoted text>No, he's hoping the greedy do-nothing manager can intimidate the workers into working for less, so he can collect bone-us money, and kill the company, while violating contractual obligations to fund pensions like at Hostess...
You mean like the baker's union at Hostess did, putting 18000 out of work because they wouldn't take the bankruptcy judge's approved 8% pay cut?
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#22 Dec 12, 2012
The bakers didn't accept a poor offer, because they were cheated in the past...Oddly, you never comment on actual facts.... WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF THEM ???
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#23 Dec 12, 2012
Amused Slew wrote:
The bakers didn't accept a poor offer, because they were cheated in the past...Oddly, you never comment on actual facts.... WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF THEM ???
The actual fact is the bakers' union turned down the offer and put 18000 employees out of work. They took the twinkies out of their union brothers' mouths.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#24 Dec 12, 2012
Nope, that's a result of lots of actual facts, but you are a simpleton.....Oddly, you never comment on actual facts.... WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF THEM ???

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
MN: Green Line Train Fatally Hits Woman Wearing... 8 min PB in Saint Paul 1
Another American BeHeaded 12 min cantmakeitup 7
Where were you on 9/11? 16 min Space ace 1
Minneapolis: A Hotbed For Radical Islam 20 min cantmakeitup 83
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 23 min Obskeptic 32,502
Men who don't like football 34 min Space ace 12
Obama: "no strategy" on Isis. 44 min Space ace 24
•••
•••
•••

Minneapolis Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Minneapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Minneapolis
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••