• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

dw914er said:
I think they forgot that huge cuts will stifle growth. Spending money supports growth, regardless of who is doing it. I just hope that this process gives an honest look to what programs should be cut and which ones should remain. The idea of slash slash slash is simply too short sighted, but some things should be trimmed.
Click to expand...

Teapartiers don't understand economics at all. They are also self-absorbed in that they only see how much taxes affect them, NOT what taxes are spent on like roads, law enforcement, fire protection, schools, etc.
 
Wow... it is a political hot potato here. Unions are trying to bash in the door to the capital building because the state is in the process of approving Right to Work regulations and protests in the City because the city voters approved a bill to classify possession of marijuana as a misdemeanor, but the county prosecutor is suing the City saying that it is a state law, not a city law. Oh, not to mention it is a felony at the federal level, which apparently supersedes everything.

It is days like this that make me happy that I switch from pre-law to planning.
 
michaelskis said:
Wow... it is a political hot potato here. Unions are trying to bash in the door to the capital building because the state is in the process of approving Right to Work regulations and protests in the City because the city voters approved a bill to classify possession of marijuana as a misdemeanor, but the county prosecutor is suing the City saying that it is a state law, not a city law. Oh, not to mention it is a felony at the federal level, which apparently supersedes everything.

It is days like this that make me happy that I switch from pre-law to planning.
Click to expand...

been watching that a bit out of the corner of my eye up there. Lots of hyperbole to go around in the talking head discussions of activity up there in the mitten. I don't have much opinion on the matter, as I'm in Texas and don't know any other life than "right to work." I will say that down here in Texas I've seen some things go on that I think would have been prevented by more empowered unions. I kind of wish we had "union-lite" down here.
 
michaelskis said:
There has been discussion about Michigan becoming a ‘right to work’ state. The union people make it sound like the end of the world, the GOP makes it sound like the best way to boost the economy and create jobs.

I don’t know enough about the regulations but from my general understanding of the regulations, it would not require anyone to join a union and would not require them to pay to be part of the union.

What are your thoughts on right to work laws? Is that all that they do or is there something else that was not listed?
Click to expand...

I generally support unions and union activity but I also don't think that workers that don't want to join a union at a unionized employer usually still have to pay the dues so I guess I support the idea of right to work legislation. However, I do not like the way it is being rushed through the lame duck session without opportunity for public comment and with the attachment of some appropriations which make it unable to be overturned by ballot initiative here in Michigan.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I will say that down here in Texas I've seen some things go on that I think would have been prevented by more empowered unions. I kind of wish we had "union-lite" down here.
Click to expand...
That's the thing that bugs me about the whole union debate. The anti-union side won't even acknowledge that employers sometimes take advantage of their employees. I don't think unions need to be anywhere near as powerful as they once were but I certainly think they have a place in our society.
 
Blide said:
That's the thing that bugs me about the whole union debate. The anti-union side won't even acknowledge that employers sometimes take advantage of their employees. I don't think unions need to be anywhere near as powerful as they once were but I certainly think they have a place in our society.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree 100%. Here in MI they were critical for improving working conditions. There is no question about that.

While I agree with the right to work legislation, I think that the MI GOP is going about this in a sneaky way. It was not quite a back room deal, but not far off. I think that there should have been a bit more discussion and a few hearings before it was passed.
 
In the history of American politics, Congress and state legislatures have always used lame duck sessions to push through polarizing legislation.

The 13th amendment to the Constitution is an example.

I have no problem with how the Michigan GOP did it. If the Democrats don't like it, then start winning more elections.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
I generally support unions and union activity but I also don't think that workers that don't want to join a union at a unionized employer usually still have to pay the dues so I guess I support the idea of right to work legislation. However, I do not like the way it is being rushed through the lame duck session without opportunity for public comment and with the attachment of some appropriations which make it unable to be overturned by ballot initiative here in Michigan.
Click to expand...

That's how you thwart democracy. What party is doing this again, and how often does that party operate this way? Why does that party hate America??

Nevertheless, unions getting too big for their britches lately is no excuse to eliminate them, unless you are an owner of a company.
 
btrage said:
I have no problem with how the Michigan GOP did it. If the Democrats don't like it, then start winning more elections.
Click to expand...

I don't either. If Michigan voters don't want unions to be busted and wages decreased then they voted for the wrong people. It's no secret what republicans wanted to do.

It's also not that big of a secret that wages tend to decrease when these kind of laws are passed. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1027987
 
Wish me luck!

Tomorrow morning I am getting on a union bus and heading over to our state capitol, where I'll meet up with an expected 10,000 of my closest friends. Lansing FD announced street closings yesterday (they want to keep motor traffic down). The local bus system should do very well.

If you see news coverage featuring a sousaphone with a Michigan bell cover played by someone in a fleecy red & green mitten-print jacket, you know who that will be.

:mi:
 
imaplanner said:
I don't either. If Michigan voters don't want unions to be busted and wages decreased then they voted for the wrong people. It's no secret what republicans wanted to do.

It's also not that big of a secret that wages tend to decrease when these kind of laws are passed. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1027987
Click to expand...

Perhaps because over the last 50 years unions have artificially driven wages up, beyond what the market can truly support. Remember, the intransigence of the unions was just as much to blame for the near collapse of the Big 3.

There are some school districts that are using snow days in Metro Detroit because so many teachers are going to protest in Lansing. Waste of time, since the Governor has already said he will not veto the legislation.

I wonder if these union workers put as much effort into working as they do protesting, maybe they wouldn't need the unions.

Wow......my inner conservative is really coming out on this issue. :-c
 
Not altogether sure I understand Mitch McConnell's political stragedy by introducing a bill to give the President the power to set the debt ceiling without requiring congressional approval. You may have heard about it, but he ended up in effect filibustering his own bill when the Dems agreed to call it to a vote.

Here's an editorial piece on it http://www.kentucky.com/2012/12/11/2439140/urgent-case-for-senate-reform.html
 
Maister said:
Not altogether sure I understand Mitch McConnell's political stragedy by introducing a bill to give the President the power to set the debt ceiling without requiring congressional approval. You may have heard about it, but he ended up in effect filibustering his own bill when the Dems agreed to call it to a vote.

Here's an editorial piece on it http://www.kentucky.com/2012/12/11/2439140/urgent-case-for-senate-reform.html
Click to expand...

He made a mistake and had to walk it back.

Nevertheless, the Beltway Genius Talking Heads are in a little frenzy amongst themselves trying to blow enough smoke to confuse Americans on what is happening. Our corporate-owned media is failing what is left of our democracy.
 
btrage said:
Perhaps because over the last 50 years unions have artificially driven wages up, beyond what the market can truly support. Remember, the intransigence of the unions was just as much to blame for the near collapse of the Big 3.

There are some school districts that are using snow days in Metro Detroit because so many teachers are going to protest in Lansing. Waste of time, since the Governor has already said he will not veto the legislation.

I wonder if these union workers put as much effort into working as they do protesting, maybe they wouldn't need the unions.

Wow......my inner conservative is really coming out on this issue. :-c
Click to expand...

WTF? Did someone from the GOP hack your account? I agree with the legislation, but I feel that there should have been at least one hearing. As for the lame duck, they are still in session and they should still be doing work.

I don't understand how freedom to choose is anti-union.

I saw a cartoon showing the protest with the caption "record union productivity" under it.
 
btrage said:
Perhaps because over the last 50 years unions have artificially driven wages up, beyond what the market can truly support. Remember, the intransigence of the unions was just as much to blame for the near collapse of the Big 3.
Click to expand...

Inner conservative indeed!!

But I would disagree with nailing the cause of the Big 3 collapse on unions demanding too much. When you add up salary and benefits, for example, the average auto worker in Germany makes $67.14 an hour. In the United States, auto workers only make $33.77 an hour in salary and benefits (these are 2010 stats). Only about 40 percent, for example, of Ford's workforce even works in North America, and that includes Mexico and Canada (and the average Mexican auto worker brings in less than a tenth of the total compensation that a U.S. auto worker makes). Given these stats, its hard for me to see that the union demands of American workers (which represent a fraction of the total American manufacturers' workforce) have that big an impact. More significant, I think, is the shrinking marketshare (60 percent in 1970, 20 percent today for American car companies) and a failure to innovate and plan ahead. With tariffs and such high wages, how is it, for example that Germany (which made more than twice the number cars the US did in 2010) is able to pay their workers so well and we can't? Admittedly I don't know alot about this topic, but this seems more like a management failure to me than a union problem.

I don't mean to be defensive (you are certainly entitled to your opinion and you may know more than I) and I am not immune to realizing that there are cases where unions are abusive or demand/create situations that are untenable. But these are correctable problems within the system, IMO. Its a cause for reform, perhaps, but not throwing the whole thing out. Its like identifying government corruption and then deciding to get rid of it altogether. It just doesn't seem prudent or thoughtful to me...
 
Right to work isn't about the right to work at all -- it's about busting the union movement entirely and thus destroying a major supporter of the Democratic party. It's that simple folks. We did it here in the Hoosier state and there's been no rush to expand/relocate to Indiana. Pure bunk. :not:
 
wahday said:
But I would disagree with nailing the cause of the Big 3 collapse on unions demanding too much.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think any company collapse can be completely attributed to unions. They may be a contributing factor but they're not the root cause. In the case of the Big 3, they got complacent and were releasing inferior products compared to their European and Japanese counterparts for a number of years. Eventually that caught up to them. So when they finally recognized they needed to make significant changes, the unions wouldn't let management make changes as quickly as they thought was necessary.

Basically I think unions are completely manageable but you have to be proactive. Management just can't expect unions to rollover as soon as they come to the realization that they've spent years running the company into the ground.
 
[USER][/USER]
btrage said:
Perhaps because over the last 50 years unions have artificially driven wages up, beyond what the market can truly support. Remember, the intransigence of the unions was just as much to blame for the near collapse of the Big 3.

There are some school districts that are using snow days in Metro Detroit because so many teachers are going to protest in Lansing. Waste of time, since the Governor has already said he will not veto the legislation.

I wonder if these union workers put as much effort into working as they do protesting, maybe they wouldn't need the unions.

Wow......my inner conservative is really coming out on this issue. :-c
Click to expand...

Who knew you hated America?;)

Certainly I agree unions have driven wages up. Do you think they are where the market can't support it? My view is that corporate profits have risen to a level not supported by the market? Wages have been flat while productivity gains are no longer shared by the workers.

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp195/

If wages are too high right now, what do you think would be a fair wage for people? 20 percent less, 50 percent less? Do you believe you should be paid less for what you do?
 
Gedunker said:
Right to work isn't about the right to work at all -- it's about busting the union movement entirely and thus destroying a major supporter of the Democratic party. It's that simple folks. We did it here in the Hoosier state and there's been no rush to expand/relocate to Indiana. Pure bunk. :not:
Click to expand...
ISTR that Caterpillar announced their plans to move production in their then recently acquired Electro-Motive Diesel division (they build railroad locomotives and are the corporate successor to GM's former Electro-Motive Division, which was originally located in McCook (suburban Chicagoland), IL) from London, ON :canada: to a new plant in Muncie, IN at about the same time that the Indiana Legislature was debating their RTW law and that that move was completed shortly after that law took effect. The union in London, ON was not happy about it.

Mike
 
michaelskis said:
I don't understand how freedom to choose is anti-union.
Click to expand...

RTW is not about "freedom to choose." It's about the ability for unions AND EMPLOYERS to negotiate the terms of a contract. If BOTH SIDES agree to charge a fee for those that choose not to join, but get the benefits and protections the union contract provides, what exactly is wrong with that?

If both sides don't agree with agency fees, then they don't happen. Seems pretty simple to me.
 
The right to freely associate also includes the right to not associate with those with whom you disagree. IMHO, the ability to negotiate and sign 'free agent' contracts is very much included under that umbrella.

Mike
 
mgk920 said:
ISTR that Caterpillar announced their plans to move production in their then recently acquired Electro-Motive Diesel division (they build railroad locomotives and are the corporate successor to GM's former Electro-Motive Division, which was originally located in McCook (suburban Chicagoland), IL) from London, ON :canada: to a new plant in Muncie, IN at about the same time that the Indiana Legislature was debating their RTW law and that that move was completed shortly after that law took effect. The union in London, ON was not happy about it.

Mike
Click to expand...

[ot]Ahh Muncie. Great choice... lots to do for their employees... ;)[/ot]
 
mgk920 said:
ISTR that Caterpillar announced their plans to move production in their then recently acquired Electro-Motive Diesel division (they build railroad locomotives and are the corporate successor to GM's former Electro-Motive Division, which was originally located in McCook (suburban Chicagoland), IL) from London, ON :canada: to a new plant in Muncie, IN at about the same time that the Indiana Legislature was debating their RTW law and that that move was completed shortly after that law took effect. The union in London, ON was not happy about it.

Mike
Click to expand...

Once again Mike you miss the fact and insert your own reality to the topic. EMD purchased the Muncie facility in October 2010. Indiana proposed the RTW legislation in January of 2012. The debate started in earnest on the topic until the summer of 2011.

One could argue that the closure of the London facility and the movement of those lines to Muncie had to deal with the unions but not the initial site decision.
 
NHPlanner said:
RTW is not about "freedom to choose." It's about the ability for unions AND EMPLOYERS to negotiate the terms of a contract. If BOTH SIDES agree to charge a fee for those that choose not to join, but get the benefits and protections the union contract provides, what exactly is wrong with that?

If both sides don't agree with agency fees, then they don't happen. Seems pretty simple to me.
Click to expand...

It is not so simple when you consider it from the standpoint of an individual employee who may not wish to be in the union. Their choice is either join the union and pay dues, or don't join the union but still pay the dues (or fee in lieu of dues). This is forced unionization really and it happens all the time.
 
hilldweller said:
It is not so simple when you consider it from the standpoint of an individual employee who may not wish to be in the union. Their choice is either join the union and pay dues, or don't join the union but still pay the dues (or fee in lieu of dues). This is forced unionization really and it happens all the time.
Click to expand...

Those who don't join but still pay dues also get the benefit of union negotiated wages, benefits, and job protections.
 
mgk920 said:
The right to freely associate also includes the right to not associate with those with whom you disagree. IMHO, the ability to negotiate and sign 'free agent' contracts is very much included under that umbrella.

Mike
Click to expand...

You assume good faith negotiations. There's a long track record of that, right?:not:;):r:

Hink said:
[ot]Ahh Muncie. Great choice... lots to do for their employees... ;)[/ot]
Click to expand...

There's always Indy and the scenic Indiana countryside with abundant recreational activities. MGK can tell you about the excellent fishing that can be found in the state and the light, delicate, chemically enhanced flavor the of the fish.
 
hilldweller said:
True, but what if one believes that these benefits are not worth the cost in terms of dues?
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose that perhaps those people who don't wish to join and don't want to pay dues should just take whatever their employers want to choose to give them and take their chances that they won't get fired because some manager wants to give some friend or relative a job. That's how it works in non-union shops. I've worked in both.
 
Linda_D said:
Well, I suppose that perhaps those people who don't wish to join and don't want to pay dues should just take whatever their employers want to choose to give them and take their chances that they won't get fired because some manager wants to give some friend or relative a job. That's how it works in non-union shops. I've worked in both.
Click to expand...

That's what millions of workers already do.
 
Linda_D said:
Well, I suppose that perhaps those people who don't wish to join and don't want to pay dues should just take whatever their employers want to choose to give them and take their chances that they won't get fired because some manager wants to give some friend or relative a job. That's how it works in non-union shops. I've worked in both.
Click to expand...

Please. Nobody does patronage hiring better than the unions.
 
hilldweller said:
Please. Nobody does patronage hiring better than the unions.
Click to expand...

I agree that unions have overstepped their bounds and failed to adapt.

But srsly, can anyone here argue that they are important instruments in keeping corporate power somewhat in bounds, and that without them we wouldn't have 40 hour weeks, health benefits, etc? Didn't think so. They are necessary.
 
Gedunker said:
Right to work isn't about the right to work at all -- it's about busting the union movement entirely and thus destroying a major supporter of the Democratic party. It's that simple folks. We did it here in the Hoosier state and there's been no rush to expand/relocate to Indiana. Pure bunk. :not:
Click to expand...

I just sat down and read the bill... It is the right to choose. If people what to stay in a union, they will have the ability to, and the unions will still be able to negotiate contracts for them.

However, unions will need to be able to compete I the free market. It will come down to the question if people believe the unions are a good value for the money, then the unions will have nothing to worry about.
 
I think our very own Veloise made it into the live updates via Twitter on the Detroit Free Press Website:

Shawn Windsor @shawnwindsor
The Grand Rapids street musician drove over because "whenever 2 or more people get together to discuss democracy I want to b there."
Click to expand...

Shawn Windsor @shawnwindsor
<name> arrived at Capitol with a cast on her foot. She took a seat near the steps, unpacked her sousaphone and played all morning.
Click to expand...

Moderator note:


modified to eliminate an unintentional outing of a member's real name.

SR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In Michigan, the people should be protesting the possible elimination of Personal Property Tax revenue to local municipalities. This could have a far greater negative impact on public sector employees than the switch to a right-to-work state.
 
michaelskis said:
It will come down to the question if people believe the unions are a good value for the money, then the unions will have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

Not really. This bill appears to require unions to still negotiate on behalf of people who don't pay union dues. Basically it allows free-loaders. I never figured you for a supporter of free-loaders.

ColoGI said:
I agree that unions have overstepped their bounds and failed to adapt.

But srsly, can anyone here argue that they are important instruments in keeping corporate power somewhat in bounds, and that without them we wouldn't have 40 hour weeks, health benefits, etc? Didn't think so. They are necessary.
Click to expand...

The GOP doesn't approve of 40 hour work weeks, or health benefits, or safety standards. The honest conservatives will tell you this to your face.
 
imaplanner said:
The GOP doesn't approve of 40 hour work weeks, or health benefits, or safety standards. The honest conservatives will tell you this to your face.
Click to expand...

I partially agree with you. Some honest conservatives I know will tell you that functioning markets (not necessarily "free" markets) need agents that have purchasing power and grudgingly admit that workers with good jobs fulfill that requirement after admitting that they can't think of another way to make that happen. You won't hear that on foamer radio, though.
 
Last edited:
Tuba time!

This was after the guitarists figured out I was there, and let me know what key to play in. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htMjYUQ3u5Q

The upside-down state flag (on E-Z pack PVC poles) is something else I brought along.
 
imaplanner said:
Not really. This bill appears to require unions to still negotiate on behalf of people who don't pay union dues. Basically it allows free-loaders. I never figured you for a supporter of free-loaders.
Click to expand...

House Bill 4003 said:
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.

Sec. 9.
(2) No person shall by force, intimidation, or unlawful threats compel or attempt to compel any public employee to
do any of the following:
(a) Become or remain a member of a labor organization or bargaining representative or otherwise affiliate with or
financially support a labor organization or bargaining representative.

[Note:this applies to Police and Fire Fighters only]
(b) Any person described in subdivision (a), or a labor organization or bargaining representative representing
persons described in subdivision (a) and a public employer or this state may agree that all employees in the bargaining
unit shall share fairly in the financial support of the labor organization or their exclusive bargaining representative by
paying a fee to the labor organization or exclusive bargaining representative that may be equivalent to the amount of
dues uniformly required of members of the labor organization or exclusive bargaining representative. Section 9(2) shall
not be construed to interfere with the right of a public employer or this state and a labor organization or bargaining
representative to enter into or lawfully administer such an agreement as it relates to the employees or persons
described in subdivision (a).
Click to expand...

LINK TO ACTUAL BILL

By definition, they only represent the union members, not all employees.

I don't support freeloading, I support freedom.

There are good unions out there. As I noted before, my Brother In Law's Union finds him work across the country and I think that is awesome.

If people want to support the unions and protest, I am cool with that and actually encourage it. But the only thing that this bill does is give most people (not including firefighters or police officers) an option to be in the union and [sarcasm] reap the awesome rewards [/sarcasm] or run the risk of being their own person and being responsible for their own situation.

imaplanner said:
The GOP doesn't approve of 40 hour work weeks, or health benefits, or safety standards. The honest conservatives will tell you this to your face.
Click to expand...
That is a total load of crap and you and I both know it. If it wasn't why would any republicans have health care or worry about safety standards? As for a 40 hour work week that reminded me of a story:
Three little kids were bragging about how fast their fathers where.
The first little kid said that his dad was so fast, he could shoot an arrow, run down to the target and hold an apple for the arrow to hit.
The second little kid said that his dad was so fast, he could shoot a gun, run down and hold up a quarter for the bullet to hit.
The third little kid (son of a UAW) said that his dad was so fast, he punches out of work at 5pm and would get home at 2pm.
 
Last edited:
michaelskis said:
That is a total load of crap and you and I both know it. .
Click to expand...

No its not. The anti-union efforts are being spearheaded by the Koch brothers and the waltons. The anti-union bills use the exact same language as the model bills from their dunded AEP and ALEC organizations that are dedicated to rolling back labor laws, safety laws and benefits. These are the same people who refused to provide basic safety standards in Bangladesh resulting in huindreds of people dying in their factories. They make no secret about rolling back federal labor and safety standards. They don't agree with being forced to pay ovetime over 40 hours a week. They don't want to have to comply with OSHA. They want to get rid of the clean air and clean water act. They admit it. Some conservative talkers even outright say it. They don't want the federal government to be setting standards for these things. You've even hinted at believeing the fed shouldn't be dealing with those issues. Like I said- honest conservatives admit this. Dishonest ones call it a load of crap.
 
imaplanner said:
No its not. The anti-union efforts are being spearheaded by the Koch brothers and the waltons. The anti-union bills use the exact same language as the model bills from their dunded AEP and ALEC organizations that are dedicated to rolling back labor laws, safety laws and benefits. .
Click to expand...

These basic facts are, of course, well-known outside the bubble. What is not as well known is that Snyder and Walker lied about their intentions. Or at least disguised their anti-union intentions during their campaigns. But Snyder specifically stated numerous times gutting unions ALEC-style was not on his agenda.

Why so many people vote for these charlatans is [STRIKEOUT]beyond me[/STRIKEOUT] because of our lazy media and poor public education system, IMHO.
 
imaplanner said:
No its not. The anti-union efforts are being spearheaded by the Koch brothers and the waltons. The anti-union bills use the exact same language as the model bills from their dunded AEP and ALEC organizations that are dedicated to rolling back labor laws, safety laws and benefits. These are the same people who refused to provide basic safety standards in Bangladesh resulting in huindreds of people dying in their factories. They make no secret about rolling back federal labor and safety standards. They don't agree with being forced to pay ovetime over 40 hours a week. They don't want to have to comply with OSHA. They want to get rid of the clean air and clean water act. They admit it. Some conservative talkers even outright say it. They don't want the federal government to be setting standards for these things. You've even hinted at believeing the fed shouldn't be dealing with those issues. Like I said- honest conservatives admit this. Dishonest ones call it a load of crap.
Click to expand...

Are there people who are anti-union, including the Koch brothers. Absolutely! They push to prohibit unions or prohibit collective bargaining. I don't believe that any government should prohibit them.

As for the fed dealing with these issues, your right. I don't think that the Fed should deal with these issues. It is not their job, it is each States' job to address them. That is the way that the founding fathers intended it to be.

I do think that each state should have OSHA regulations to protect people on the job. Right now that is how it works in Michigan.

I do not think that we should have a minimum wadge and I do not thing that there should be a regulated work week. Seriously, how many Planners do you know that limit themselves to a 40 hour work week? I know too many people who have been extremely successful because when they were young the tossed out the idea that they were only going to work 40 hours a week. For example, I work 3 days a week and sometimes those days are 14 to 15 hours long. But I spend the other 4 days with my family.

I also think that each state should have some level of environmental regulations. More so, I think that there needs to be serious improvement in public education regarding the products we buy and how the manufacturing or use of these products impacts the natural environment.

You can say what you want, but to call this bill union busting is still a load of crap. But then again, if Unions are so wonderful, people will be falling over themselves to stay in and unions will have more money than ever before. OR, people will realize that some unions (Not all but some) don't represent the ideas and principles that they believe and get out.

Dishonest republicans might call it a load of crap, but so to honest Libertarian / Independents who know the truth.

ColoGI said:
These basic facts are, of course, well-known outside the bubble. What is not as well known is that Snyder and Walker lied about their intentions. Or at least disguised their anti-union intentions during their campaigns. But Snyder specifically stated numerous times gutting unions ALEC-style was not on his agenda.
Click to expand...

And Obama once said he was not in favor of same sex marriage. But as the saying goes, you can tell if a politician is lying if their mouth is moving.
 
michaelskis said:
As for the fed dealing with these issues, your right. I don't think that the Fed should deal with these issues. It is not their job, it is each States' job to address them. That is the way that the founding fathers intended it to be.

I do think that each state should have OSHA regulations to protect people on the job. Right now that is how it works in Michigan.

I do not think that we should have a minimum wadge and I do not thing that there should be a regulated work week. Seriously, how many Planners do you know that limit themselves to a 40 hour work week? I know too many people who have been extremely successful because when they were young the tossed out the idea that they were only going to work 40 hours a week. For example, I work 3 days a week and sometimes those days are 14 to 15 hours long. But I spend the other 4 days with my family.

I also think that each state should have some level of environmental regulations. More so, I think that there needs to be serious improvement in public education regarding the products we buy and how the manufacturing or use of these products impacts the natural environment.
.
Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree with you on the fed/State issue on this one. I think there needs to be Federal workplace and labor oversight. Our economy is not restricted to state lines, and because of our telecommunication and transportation infrastructure, many businesses cross state lines with ease and can move their company. I think that if all states had their own rules it would be a race to the bottom in terms of employee compensation/benefit vs. Corporate profits. It would be very similar to the arguments over granting tax abatements. Many states don't like tax abatements, but they have no choice but to grant them because other states do it. It would be similar with wages and benefits. As soon as some states started to reduce them below federal levels to appease corporations, all states would do it and hence the race to the bottom. There needs to be some minimum levels that all states adhere to.
 
btrage said:
I'd have to disagree with you on the fed/State issue on this one. I think there needs to be Federal workplace and labor oversight. Our economy is not restricted to state lines, and because of our telecommunication and transportation infrastructure, many businesses cross state lines with ease and can move their company. I think that if all states had their own rules it would be a race to the bottom in terms of employee compensation/benefit vs. Corporate profits. It would be very similar to the arguments over granting tax abatements. Many states don't like tax abatements, but they have no choice but to grant them because other states do it. It would be similar with wages and benefits. As soon as some states started to reduce them below federal levels to appease corporations, all states would do it and hence the race to the bottom. There needs to be some minimum levels that all states adhere to.
Click to expand...

That is ok to disagree with me on this. If we both had your view point on this, we would both be wrong.

If you think about it, our economy is not restricted to any lines. Look at the companies that leave the US. There are even corporations who set up shop just inside of Mexico and some of the workers live in the US take corporate buses over the line for work every day.

Lines in most places only dictate regulations and taxes. Just look at all the wealthy French people who are buying homes and land just on the other side of the eastern border because of new tax laws. They still do business in France, but live in Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, or Luxembourg.
 
btrage said:
I'd have to disagree with you on the fed/State issue on this one. I think there needs to be Federal workplace and labor oversight. Our economy is not restricted to state lines, and because of our telecommunication and transportation infrastructure, many businesses cross state lines with ease and can move their company. I think that if all states had their own rules it would be a race to the bottom in terms of employee compensation/benefit vs. Corporate profits. It would be very similar to the arguments over granting tax abatements. Many states don't like tax abatements, but they have no choice but to grant them because other states do it. It would be similar with wages and benefits. As soon as some states started to reduce them below federal levels to appease corporations, all states would do it and hence the race to the bottom. There needs to be some minimum levels that all states adhere to.
Click to expand...
This race to the bottom mentality that many states have going on is in no way sustainable. That's a big reason why I'd like to see more Federal oversight. At some point, the floor is just going to drop for the nation as a whole as states keep cannibalizing each other.
 
michaelskis said:
That is ok to disagree with me on this. If we both had your view point on this, we would both be wrong.

If you think about it, our economy is not restricted to any lines. Look at the companies that leave the US. There are even corporations who set up shop just inside of Mexico and some of the workers live in the US take corporate buses over the line for work every day.

Lines in most places only dictate regulations and taxes. Just look at all the wealthy French people who are buying homes and land just on the other side of the eastern border because of new tax laws. They still do business in France, but live in Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, or Luxembourg.
Click to expand...

If the economy is not restricted to any lines, then that's even more reason there needs to be federal oversight. I'm not saying the Feds need to be involved in every single thing or set unreasonable standards, but there should be minimum standards of compensation, labor conditions, etc.
 
Back
Top