Right-to-work law: yay or nay?

You know, "there is no worst blind, than the one who refuses to see". Good bye.

 

Agreed, not doubting that bad decisions are made, we all make them.

The inability to make a decision and be accountable for it leads many "management" people to hire consultants to tell them what to do, so they can then point to the consultant and absolve themselves.

My point was more around the generalizations being made and the assumptions around intentions and motivation. It may feel personal, but it's not. Some people are just idiots.

As far as poor previous managerial decisions, all forward-looking decisions are based on assumptions. Many times those assumptions turn out to be incorrect, like changes in the economy making a pension fund grow at a slower rate than assumed, changes in laws and policy affecting your cost structure, etc. Sitting on a fat pension that directly affects many other people's lives and saying "tough luck, blame management" is not much different than management absolving themselves with consultants.

Basically, it goes both ways. People that retire in their jobs, pulling a fat salary with a fat pension, waiting and holding a spot that could be done cheaper, faster and better by someone at half the cost are just as much a part of the problem. But I guess that's a managerial problem, too.

We've got to move beyond the "it's not my fault" attitude and start taking ownership.

GAH. OK, I will shut up now.

 

Here in the northeast, things are good, unemployment is the lowest if you remove the oil producing states. We are all not a right to work state (Ma, NH, VT) In Ma. we have been cranking right along thru this recession pretty much unhurt. We are not a right to work state. Why was Michigan making the whole vote a top secret that nobody was ready for if it is such a good thing? Why sneak it in for a vote without letting proper due process take place if it is so good for everybody? Look at Indiana, they are loosing jobs ever since they went right to work.

 

this is as much a movement to kill union rights as it is to promote individual worker rights.

 

well said sir. I agree with you more than it seems. Blame comes around and then goes around.

 

In a nutshell, if those are the benefits offered by the company, why shouldn't every employee of that company get the same benefits equally? I think union workers already spend a bit too much time trying to separate themselves from other workers in this country. Their payment of union dues does not bestow special privilege above others.

 

The point you're trying to make here is irrelevant... Ohio is right-to-work, I grew up there... Take a look at what happened there when they were not right-to-work through the 70s and 80s, and it actually started in late 60s... Jobs slowly but surely just kept going away. My grandfather worked for United Engineering, who before they closed the doors were making machinery parts for Japan which would eventually take away jobs with that machinery. Right-to-work makes absulutely no difference, that has been proven by history... Ohio has actually bounced back better in their time of being right-to-work, but I still don't think that is what made the difference. And people can stand together united without corrupt top union officials and make a difference. That's just how I see it though.

 

And my point is you didn't prove anything. Just because TX, CA and FL are gaining, that doesn't mean they're coming from Iowa. And just because you found a study that reflects the trend when Jimmy Carter was president, that doesn't prove it's happening now.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong. Just that those sources don't prove your point. It's not enough to say, "I put up evidence, therefore I'm right." It has to be both timely and relevant. None of those sources are.

 

and jamming in the vote while nobody is looking doesn't raise a red flag with you at all? What about the workers right to organize?

I just have had experience with top people in companies over the years running over the employees, and the employees don't have options to simply get another job as some suggest.
and corruption is not only in the unions by the way.

 

Completely not true.

"Thirty-one companies have already committed and are presently in Indiana, producing more than 5,000 new jobs and putting about $500 million into their companies in the state of Indiana," Alting said.

This is in the first year since right-to-work was passed. Link to the full article is below. Some of these deals were already in the works before the new law, but how many years do you have to go back to find a time when Michigan attracted 30 companies to their state?

http://www.wlfi.com/dpp/news/local/how-is-the-right-to-work-law-working-in-indiana-nearly-a-year-later

 

way to cherry pick a talking point. read the whole article. and why was it a snatch and grab move when heads were turned in Michigan?

 

The thing that distresses me the most is the long term view which I think the people who are bashing unions are completely missing the point on.

Part of this issue is the evolution of global economics, if country A produces one good at X price and country B comes online and produces that same good cheaper then country B takes those jobs from country A, it's nothing new, companies that abandon American jobs should not be given tax breaks or any other kind of breaks if they wish to do this. In fact they should be given breaks if they keep the jobs here.
That workers in China are starting to press for higher wages and the chinese economy is beginning a shift from manufacturing to service means that jobs will start to migrate elsewhere and the process will begin anew. Then whatever countries those jobs land in, eventually those workers will organize and press for better wages until someday the unfair advantage of oppression of wages, the destruction of local environments and the lack of safety will be largely adressed and the price of those products will (and should), reflect what it took the make it by people making a living wage in a safe environment (wherever that is).
The next problem I have is the pay for core manufacturing jobs (once the backbone of the US economy), has not risen past the rate of inflation for something like 50 years. We produce more with less yet workers have not seen any commiserate benefit, it's basically all gone to shareholders. That Apple gave all of it's retail workers a raise this year (even though it wasn't needed), and the publisher of 50 Shades of Grey did so well they gave ALL of their employees a $5000 bonus, these made the news, why? This is the sad exception, not the norm. When people talk about adding jobs I look at the quality of the jobs, not the quantity, are these low-paying service-sector jobs that do not produce a living wage?
The next bone is the argument that 'make yourself more valuable' vis-a-vis education or more training, that works for some and certainly applies for the young in school but not when you are 55 and have been completely screwed out of the workforce and now face age discrimination as well. Also if 'the Plant' is basically the only gig in town and the rest of the local economy feeds off and serves it, choices as such are probably more limited.

Bottom line is, bashing unions without taking into account the myriad of local, regional and global influences and things like rising health-care costs and long-term downward pressure on wages to pump up earnings, really in my opinion is a willingly ignorant viewpoint and not worth discussion unless the person who is against unions can understand the bigger, long-term picture.
We have enjoyed basically uninterrupted prosperity since WWII and have not seen a prolonged depression since the 30's, interestingly enough, it was in the 30's when a young, brash leader came to power and understood the power of giving his countrymen a focus to blame their problems on. That cost 10 million people their lives, that's the power of ignorance both willful and passive. So when I hear people espouse their lack of intelligence by blaming all of their problems on Mexicans or unions or whatever it tells my they drank the Kool-Aid. Are unions perfect? Of course not, anything that involves power and money is going to attract corrupt people (just like in corporations), but to dismiss what the core value is to the worker as not being needed anymore is ignorant.

 

And another thing, this argument of states that are now right to work? If someone can explain to my why a living wage job in Flint that paid $25-30 and hour is now going to some guy in Indiana who is doing the same job for $12 an hour, who does that serve? What benefit is that to the american worker? You can't possibly tell me that is in any way fair.

 

I'll jump in with my personal experience, for what it's worth.

I grew up in a right to work state, NC. once a booming state from textiles, furniture, and tobacco. Almost all of that work disappeared. I don't know how much unions were involved in these industries. Tobacco went down more because of government regulation and changing attitudes about health. Have you priced a pack of cancer sticks lately? Holy crap! Furniture and textiles of course moved overseas. Probably more global economics than anything.

That being said here is my first-hand experience:

After the Army I've had a few different jobs.

First I worked for an air cargo place with no union. Shitty hours and pay. i.e. If the plane was delayed we were told to punch out but couldn't leave. Had to punch back in when plane was on final. Didn't stay there long.

Next I worked in a distribution center for a major auto parts company. No union but great pay and benefits. quick advancement, too. I went from a do-all guy at the bottom to shift supervisor in eight months. Sometimes I miss working there.

No union involved, It was all management decisions that made these companies the way there are/were.

Went to work at a small machine shop. Decent pay, worked 12 shifts fri, sat, sun and got paid for forty. One guy kept trying to get the union in but everybody just laughed him off as a crazy old man, nobody wanted a union in there.

College.

Went to a company that builds the beams, frame work, and paneling for metal buildings. Not Tuff Sheds but big fuckers like hangars and warehouses. Started in engineering but hated a cubicle so took a supervisor position on the production floor. Teamsters Union was fully entrenched in the shop. Being "management" I had no union of course. I fought daily with employees just trying to get them to come to work and be productive. I would follow union rules exactly when it came to discipline and had seven guys fired. One guy three times in four months. EVERY one of them got their jobs back, even though I followed the rules. Every one of them and their stewards would walk around high-and-mighty when they came back (with back pay, of course).

I tried to work with my guys when I could. Needed a partial crew one saturday to complete some orders. Naturally had a guy come in whose machine had work to do. He was young, expecting a baby and living paycheck to paycheck. Problem was he had little seniority. Big mistake. Had another guy on my crew that did a different job. But he used to do the young guy's job. Wound up having to pay guy #2 nine hours of overtime for not being there because I didn't offer it to him first, Even though he wasn't qualified on the new machine.

That's what sticks out the most about dealing with the Teamsters. Oh and the time I got berated by a shop steward for giving a guy a hand moving some metal off the plasma cutting table.

Another point about non-union members reaping union benefits. Our non-union guys were paid the same, but they got annual revenue sharing bonuses that the union guys didn't. And they didn't have to work as many weekends because there were always plenty of union guys that I had to offer the work to first, per the contract. They also got more vacation time and accrued it faster versus the union guys.

Eventually our company (we had five plants in the US) was bought by the parent company of our biggest competitor. They had a similarly capable plant manufacturing the same thing about 90 miles down the road. That shop was 100% non-union. As the construction economy went down, the plants became redundant. Guess which one was closed down? And not just closed but the property was sold as well.

That's right, the Union plant.

I'm not saying it's the union's fault, but I know that the two non-union plants we had before the buyout were much more pleasant places to work. (I visited all of our plants at different times and saw this first-hand).

This is just some food for thought. Bottom line, I like right-to-work and if there is resentment either way as to who has the better deal, it should be the employee's choice as to whether to join or not.

 

Sorry if my post above was too long to read but I agree with this statement.

Also please do read my post, I would like some feedback and to further the topic at hand.

 

The counter point to this is that the job probably wasn't worth $25-30 an hour but the union inflated the pay. The company can't afford it so they have to move their plant, they can go to a reasonable pay in another state with right-to-work or ship the work overseas. Which would you prefer? You have to consider what is fair for the worker and the company.

 

The rosie picture of non union work being so much better than union is BECAUSE of the unions. If they were never around, the bar would be much lower. years ago when unions were needed, is where we will go to after a while without them again. Then we will have unions again, then we will trash them again. Then we will need them again.

 

That's my thinking exactly

 

what kind or WORK is worth 12 buck's an hour? I don't open my eyes for 12 buck's. Who says the company can't afford? maybe they simply see opportunity to exploit a cheaper pay scale somewhere else. cheap wages are what is overseas, i don't want to be like china.

 

I agree, but the difference I see is if people are granted the right-to-work then eventually we would strike a balance where unions exist in companies/communities where they are needed and not exist where they are unnecessary. I don't think anyone is arguing that unions should be abolished outright.