Unions vow political payback for Michigan right-to-work law
LANSING, Mich. (AP) - With defeat in the Michigan Legislature virtually certain, Democrats and organized labor intend to make enactment of right-to-work laws as uncomfortable as possible for Gov. Rick Snyder and his Republican allies while laying the groundwork to seek payback at the polls.
Shell-shocked opponents of the laws spent the weekend mapping strategy for protests and acts of civil disobedience, while acknowledging the cold reality that Republican majorities in both the House and Senate cannot be stopped - or even delayed for long by parliamentary maneuvers. Leaders vowed to resist to the end, and then set their sights on winning control of the Legislature and defeating Snyder when he seeks re-election in 2014.
"They've awakened a sleeping giant," United Auto Workers President Bob King told The Associated Press on Saturday at a Detroit-area union hall, where about 200 activists were attending a planning session. "Not just union members. A lot of regular citizens, non-union households, realize this is a negative thing."
Right-to-work laws prohibit requiring employees to join a union or pay fees similar to union dues as a condition of employment. Supporters say it's about freedom of association for workers and a better business climate. Critics contend the real intent is to bleed unions of money and bargaining power.
Hundreds of chanting, whistle-blowing demonstrators thronged the state Capitol last week as bills were introduced and approved hours later, without the usual committee hearings allowing for public comment. Even more protesters are expected Tuesday, when the two chambers may reconcile wording differences and send final versions to Snyder, who now pledges to sign them after saying repeatedly since his 2010 election the issue wasn't "on my agenda."
Republicans are betting any political damage will be short-lived. During a news conference with GOP leaders last week announcing their intent to press ahead with right-to-work measures, Snyder urged labor to accept the inevitable and focus on showing workers why union representation is in their best interest.
"Let's move forward, let's get a conclusion, let's get an answer and get something done so we can move on to other important issues in our state," he said.
On that point, at least, the governor won't get his way. Unions and their Democratic allies say this means war.
Allowing employees to opt out of financially supporting unions while enjoying the same wages and benefits as members undermines the foundation of organized labor, they contend. A UAW bulletin described it as "the worst anti-worker legislation Michigan has ever seen."
"You will forever remember the day when you thought you could conquer labor," Sen. Coleman Young II, a Detroit Democrat and son of the city's fiery late mayor, boomed during floor debate Thursday. "Be prepared to engage in the fight of your life."
But for all the defiant rhetoric, the opposition faces tough odds.
State law forbids repealing spending bills through referendums, and Republicans made the right-to-work measures immune by attaching a $1 million appropriation. So the only apparent way to nullify the policy, once enacted, will be to seize statehouse control through the ballot box.
Even after losing five House seats in November, Republicans will retain majorities in both chambers for the next two years - during which time they expect voter attention to turn to other topics. They redrew district lines in their favor after the 2010 Census, boosting their long-term prospects.
Also, as Snyder noted, fewer than 20 percent of Michigan workers are union members. Organized labor rolls and influence have declined in recent years, emboldening Republicans to challenge unions even in their historic Rust Belt stronghold.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survived a recall attempt after curtailing collective bargaining for most public employees. After Indiana enacted a right-to-work law this year, voters in November gave Republicans a legislative majority so large they can conduct business without any Democrats present. Snyder and GOP lawmakers already had chipped away at Michigan union rights, even forbidding school districts from deducting dues from teachers' paychecks.
Another problem for opponents: Right-to-work has considerable voter support. A statewide phone survey of 600 likely voters conducted in late November by the Lansing firm EPIC-MRA found 54 percent favored the idea while just 40 percent opposed it, although they were evenly divided when asked whether Michigan should become the 24th state with such laws. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Senate Majority Floor Leader Arlan Meekhof, straining to be heard over jeering opponents in the chamber's gallery, argued last week that by enacting right-to-work, "we are announcing to the world that we are moving Michigan forward. We are for workplace fairness and equality and we are for job creation."
To go up against all those obstacles, unions and Democrats will need solid organization, steadfastness and a persuasive case.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Sander Levin, who as a state legislator in the 1960s sponsored the labor law that right-to-work measures would overturn, called for a "massive education campaign" to remind voters of unions' role in building the middle class and explain how the new policy will weaken their ability to bargain for good wages and benefits.
"What's at stake is the cooperative, constructive labor-management relations that have ripened over the last 15 to 20 years," Levin said. "This governor is essentially saying that instead of collaboration, it's going to be dog-eat-dog."
Michigan Education Association President Steve Cook said Republicans pushed the one issue guaranteed to unite an often fractious labor movement.
Activists have filed a lawsuit claiming the state Open Meetings Act was violated when police temporarily barred doors to the Capitol during last week's debate. Other legal challenges are being considered, opponents said. Union members distributed leaflets Saturday at a college basketball game in the Upper Peninsula city of Marquette.
That's only the beginning, Cook said. While declining to discuss specific plans, he vowed labor would fight hard to unseat right-to-work supporters in 2014 and might try to recall some legislators even earlier.
"Whoever votes for this," Cook said, "is not going to have any peace for the next two years."
Shell-shocked opponents of the laws spent the weekend mapping strategy for protests and acts of civil disobedience, while acknowledging the cold reality that Republican majorities in both the House and Senate cannot be stopped - or even delayed for long by parliamentary maneuvers. Leaders vowed to resist to the end, and then set their sights on winning control of the Legislature and defeating Snyder when he seeks re-election in 2014.
"They've awakened a sleeping giant," United Auto Workers President Bob King told The Associated Press on Saturday at a Detroit-area union hall, where about 200 activists were attending a planning session. "Not just union members. A lot of regular citizens, non-union households, realize this is a negative thing."
Right-to-work laws prohibit requiring employees to join a union or pay fees similar to union dues as a condition of employment. Supporters say it's about freedom of association for workers and a better business climate. Critics contend the real intent is to bleed unions of money and bargaining power.
Hundreds of chanting, whistle-blowing demonstrators thronged the state Capitol last week as bills were introduced and approved hours later, without the usual committee hearings allowing for public comment. Even more protesters are expected Tuesday, when the two chambers may reconcile wording differences and send final versions to Snyder, who now pledges to sign them after saying repeatedly since his 2010 election the issue wasn't "on my agenda."
Republicans are betting any political damage will be short-lived. During a news conference with GOP leaders last week announcing their intent to press ahead with right-to-work measures, Snyder urged labor to accept the inevitable and focus on showing workers why union representation is in their best interest.
"Let's move forward, let's get a conclusion, let's get an answer and get something done so we can move on to other important issues in our state," he said.
On that point, at least, the governor won't get his way. Unions and their Democratic allies say this means war.
Allowing employees to opt out of financially supporting unions while enjoying the same wages and benefits as members undermines the foundation of organized labor, they contend. A UAW bulletin described it as "the worst anti-worker legislation Michigan has ever seen."
"You will forever remember the day when you thought you could conquer labor," Sen. Coleman Young II, a Detroit Democrat and son of the city's fiery late mayor, boomed during floor debate Thursday. "Be prepared to engage in the fight of your life."
But for all the defiant rhetoric, the opposition faces tough odds.
State law forbids repealing spending bills through referendums, and Republicans made the right-to-work measures immune by attaching a $1 million appropriation. So the only apparent way to nullify the policy, once enacted, will be to seize statehouse control through the ballot box.
Even after losing five House seats in November, Republicans will retain majorities in both chambers for the next two years - during which time they expect voter attention to turn to other topics. They redrew district lines in their favor after the 2010 Census, boosting their long-term prospects.
Also, as Snyder noted, fewer than 20 percent of Michigan workers are union members. Organized labor rolls and influence have declined in recent years, emboldening Republicans to challenge unions even in their historic Rust Belt stronghold.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survived a recall attempt after curtailing collective bargaining for most public employees. After Indiana enacted a right-to-work law this year, voters in November gave Republicans a legislative majority so large they can conduct business without any Democrats present. Snyder and GOP lawmakers already had chipped away at Michigan union rights, even forbidding school districts from deducting dues from teachers' paychecks.
Another problem for opponents: Right-to-work has considerable voter support. A statewide phone survey of 600 likely voters conducted in late November by the Lansing firm EPIC-MRA found 54 percent favored the idea while just 40 percent opposed it, although they were evenly divided when asked whether Michigan should become the 24th state with such laws. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Senate Majority Floor Leader Arlan Meekhof, straining to be heard over jeering opponents in the chamber's gallery, argued last week that by enacting right-to-work, "we are announcing to the world that we are moving Michigan forward. We are for workplace fairness and equality and we are for job creation."
To go up against all those obstacles, unions and Democrats will need solid organization, steadfastness and a persuasive case.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Sander Levin, who as a state legislator in the 1960s sponsored the labor law that right-to-work measures would overturn, called for a "massive education campaign" to remind voters of unions' role in building the middle class and explain how the new policy will weaken their ability to bargain for good wages and benefits.
"What's at stake is the cooperative, constructive labor-management relations that have ripened over the last 15 to 20 years," Levin said. "This governor is essentially saying that instead of collaboration, it's going to be dog-eat-dog."
Michigan Education Association President Steve Cook said Republicans pushed the one issue guaranteed to unite an often fractious labor movement.
Activists have filed a lawsuit claiming the state Open Meetings Act was violated when police temporarily barred doors to the Capitol during last week's debate. Other legal challenges are being considered, opponents said. Union members distributed leaflets Saturday at a college basketball game in the Upper Peninsula city of Marquette.
That's only the beginning, Cook said. While declining to discuss specific plans, he vowed labor would fight hard to unseat right-to-work supporters in 2014 and might try to recall some legislators even earlier.
"Whoever votes for this," Cook said, "is not going to have any peace for the next two years."
Unions are putting themselves out of business. Every strike they have, every time they whine and complain, etc. all they are doing is making themselves look self-serving, corrupt, and a real pain in the butt to everyone else out there. Its one thing if they are fighting for legitimate issues like safety that's one thing, its another if its over stupid crap like having to pay $50 a month for health insurance or having to work overtime or getting a bigger raise. If you really don't like where you work or you feel they aren't fair, find another job. There are plenty of people who would more than appreciate it.
Unions take money out of Families pockets.So glad Michigan is now a right to work State, Washington should do the same.Â
12% percent of workers belonged to a union. (Dept of Labor 2011) approx 1/2 were in the public sector. so if you do not have a gov't job, you have a 6% change of belonging to a union.  ok then. let the uniion workers rally and rage while the rest of us are working for a living.
Power to the people ! STAND UPÂ and against the DICTATORSHIP !
Funny how all the anti-Union people conveniently gloss over the fact that the right to work states all have lower average incomes than the other states, and while their unemployment rates are lower, their UNDERemployment rates are HIGHER. What does this mean? Crappy low paying and part time jobs that people can't survive on and still need welfare and food stamps, Congrats red states your people have jobs but the jobs are so bad they still need welfare.Â
@NorthwestEconomist Yes, but they have jobs.  Union workers have richer benefits that other workers. It is very naive to think that the average consumer can "buy American" with a "union label". That is why they shop at the oft mentioned Walmart. Call centers are frequently overseas because the wages that would be demanded by US workers would have our interest rates skyrocket. Further, It should come as no surprise in year(s) ahead, that the US simply does not need the extent of products and or services that the "workforce" can and could provide.  And by the way folks who "have" the money, tend not to spend it on items they do not need, and choosing instead to save their dollars.   I am sure you are a very good economist, but sometimes the real world plays havoc with otherwise sound economic advise.
 @jennieb  @NorthwestEconomist You seem to have forgotten why outsourcing is succeeding and why retailers like Walmart do what they do, the failure of our government to enforce our laws. One of the basic elements of capitalism is that corporations make bad citizens, so we have these things called laws to restrain their worst excesses. The labor and environmental standards that China is supposed to abide by is not enforced because big business bribes DC to ignore them. Walmart's basic business plan is a flat-out contradiction of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but they are not prosecuted because they have an army of lawyers and bribe politicians. Keep on thinking that the race to the bottom is good for you. You will find there is a high cost to these low prices and you are digging yourself a hole by going along with it.Â
@NorthwestEconomist @jennieb No of course not. My family is struggling like so many others. Unemployment/ subsidized rent/ food stamps/ no health insurance.  (But the one that really gets me is my working poor daughter who subsidizes the kids her neighbors could not afford to have -alas, not part of this conversation). . .But i do try to look at the other side of the coin so not to be blindsided later.  I also believe that America is currently being looted and picked clean from within.
 @jennieb It's a very short-term minded system. What happens when they drive prices so low that wages are so low that America ceases to be a good enough market? They move to "emerging markets" in eastern Europe, Asia and South America. They are locusts looking to feed and then move on. Do you want to see America looted and picked clean? Is this what you want?
Ahhhhhh, the joy of watching unions & democrats once acting like little spoiled petulant children 'cause they can't have it there way....waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
A pity party of tears with "Cry me a River" playing in the background.Â
But they'll show 'em......with their soap box acts of civil disobedience and recall attempts 'cause they're mad as helll and they're not going to take it anymore!!!!
Â
Give it a rest guys....you lost this round....time to take your ball and go home now.
Make yourselves feel better...have some warm cookies & milk...don't spill it though....you have enough to cry about already.
Unions are a dying species destined to go extinct. More and more companies want flexible workforce which can be increased and decreased based on the demand for their products. It is the inevitable truth that more and more folks are going to find that blue collar jobs do not hold a sense of security as they used to to.
Â
Doing away with Unions is just the starting point.
 @NickM1979 "More and more companies want flexible workforce" - which equates to shorter work hours, no benefits, and lower pay.
And it's interesting to see the right wing crying about how the current generation becoming the first American generation to do less well than their parents did - and now actively working to make that become reality. And of course, it will all be "government's fault"...and none of them will accept that the blame lies with themselves.
"right to work" says it all. Very few of us are priveleged enough to belong to a union. We have higher levels of unemployment.Â
If you like right to work move to Az. There you can work at a full time job and still qualify for welfare. Make sure your not doing drugs tho or you won't get any welfare. Waitress pay is $2.75/hr. Full time jobs with Mesa School Dist. pay 6-9$/ hour. Cool huh?
@Bdub Really? Thats interesting. I remember years back in the late 90s, before I joined the Army, I lived and worked in AZ, earning $5p/h doing construction and landscaping. Guess what? I didnt qualify for welfare. I also suggest you check your statistics; minimum wage is higher than $6 per hour. Furthermore, the average wage you suggested for current openings is inaccurate. Only support staff make less than $9p/h. See for yourself.
http://www.mpsaz.org/hr/general/salary/
Â
Effective January 1, 2012, Arizonaâs minimum wage is $7.65 per hour. Every employer covered under the Act is now required to pay each employee wages not less than this amount. Effective January 1, 2013, Arizonaâs minimum wage will increase to $7.80 per hour. Every employer covered under the Act will then be required to pay each employee wages not less than amount.                              Â
 @northwestsurfer  @Bdub "minimum wage is higher than $6 per hour."
Interesting that you use minimum wage - a benefit the unions worked hard to get - as a defense of union busting actions...
 @JeepRex You know, following the end of the First World War, many people felt that way about the military...
 @OrcasThunder Maybe 100 years ago, but now they are not needed.
 @northwestsurfer  @OrcasThunder  @Bdub "I have nothing to prove to you"
Never said you did. You offered an opinion, I countered with my own.
As to you not "owing" anything, that could be debated - especially with your earlier comment "not complaining and being greatfull for having a job would be a good start". Why should a union worker be "grateful", and you still not "owing anything" to unions for many of the accepted - and EXPECTED - working conditions American workers enjoy?
@OrcasThunder @Bdub Ha, I have nothing to prove to you, and I do not owe my success or minimum wage laws to you or any other union. Decades ago, unions were beneficial such as around the depression era; and they still are for unskilled and migrant workers. But anyone who who is in a skilled profession does not need a union. I'm not going to argue with you about this, you are the one throwing your money out the window each month with your union dues and every time you go on strike.
 @northwestsurfer  @OrcasThunder  @Bdub
You seem to ignore the full statement - which addressed YOUR point about how the minimum wage. Something that the unions DID work hard to achieve. Are you in favor of a minimum wage, or are you saying we shouldn't have it? If not for unions, we would not. THAT is the work of unions.
@OrcasThunder @Bdub You keep talking about how the "unions have worked hard..."
How come everytime I turn on the news, all I see or hear is a union going on strike, complaining and rejecting contract offers, walking a picket line, or not being productive? Doesnt look or sound to me like unions work hard for anything. Maybe if you want to convince non-union workers about how beneficial unions are, not complaining and being greatfull for having a job would be a good start.
Right to work is the way to go. Congrats to the citizens of Michigan for finally taking the steps to right your sinking ship of a state.
Too bad they cant sell off Detroit as well.
The first sentence of the third paragraph was as far as I got..."They've awakened a sleeping giant," United Auto Workers President Bob King ''.....  Why were you sleeping in the first place?  Is Michigan not close to Wisconsin?  Can you not see the writing on the wall that the powers the be are coming after the worker and their rights?You really have no one to blame but yourself and if the workers want to clean house, they really need to start with union management.Â
Unions need to go away, far far away.
 @DDG Enjoy your 60 hour week, with no OT, sick or vacation leave, and 49 % lower wages.
And yes, DO try to bargain your way to higher pay...when the company stops laughing, forget about unemployment...
@OrcasThunder  I don't need someone to talk for me. I'm man enough to talk for myself.
@OrcasThunder @DDG I do not belong to a union, I work as a consultant and not more than 40 hours a week on average, and earn $60p/h without a college degree. I bought my own insurance plan and pay $160 per month, If I want vacation or sick time I save up my money. I went to my employer after a year of employment and said I was leaving for another job offer if I did not get paid $5 more per hour.
I did bargain for higher pay and received it; unions are a crutch and a waste of time and money. Guess who lis laughing now?
@OrcasThunder @DDG You just proved my point. Smart people are able to find work and benefits on their own, they dont need anyone holding their hand and telling them to pay dues. I have nothing to complain about, but thats all I ever here or see from union workers; complaining and bitterness.
 @northwestsurfer  @OrcasThunder  @DDG "I do not belong to a union,"
I wasn't aware there is a "consultant's union"...
What you are is a small business contract worker. Not the same as someone who works in a factory or shop or office.
 @OrcasThunder  @DDG I think that is why I went to college. You should try it, might make manager one day...
@Just a dude @OrcasThunder @DDG Or fry guy.
@Just a dude @OrcasThunder @DDG you cant sell logic to people who are firm about unions. For some reason, they are like the 23 year old kid who lives in the parents' basement and is afraid to move out on his own. Union workers are afraid to work on their own and fight for their own rights without having someone hold their hand and require monthly dues. Kind of like extortion to me.
 @OrcasThunder You're wrong about the 60 hour work week. It will much like the way Walmart operates. A 25 hour work week, no benefits and minimum wage.
simply stated.
 @jennieb  @Rockberry  @OrcasThunder "perhaps there is a correlation in pay structure"
There is - the Chinese model will become the US model.
 @Rockberry It could be either - or both. The point is, there will be a price for losing the unions.
@Rockberry @OrcasThunder Why does Walmart keep coming up in posts?   Walmart sells much that is made in China.  Folks buying from Walmart are often NOT buying US made goods. Walmart workers sell Chinese goods; the intended consequence is supporting Chinese workers.  perhaps there is a correlation in pay structure.
 @OrcasThunder Won't need unemployment, because I will be working instead of stoking the fire in a strike barrel.
 @OrcasThunder I can afford much more, because I'm still working. Ask many Boeing employees how much they really benefited from the last strike. Those that were able to keep their house...
 @JeepRex At least the strikers will be able to afford the barrel - you will have to do with a pile of sticks...
 Get over it the republicans won.
Good. Let's drive down wages so I can pay my drivers even less!  Muuaaahhhaaahhhaaa!!!!
Just the headline says it all about the union mafia...apparently there can be no "right to work" without their hand in your pocket and making you do what THEY say..
 @Citizen#3457899654 Well, you can have the right to work for less...
@OrcasThunder @Citizen#3457899654Â I would love to see your statistics that show union workers earn more on average than non union workers.
@northwestsurfer How about UAW folks who get paid 6 figures to sit around on their rears and do nothing.
Â
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070924073107AAuGk8O
Â
Why do you think cars cost so freaking much? Is it the technology? Partly. But more so, the manufacturers are passing the idiotic union charges to you and me.
Welcome to the fire-at-will jobs like so many of us belong too.... Good luck sniveling.... tissue?
unions were important back before there were laws to protect workers (they saved lives!) but being forced to join one as a condition of employment is wrong. Right to work doesn't mean "ban unions" it simply means you don't have to join a union to work, "but" unions can try to organize the workers. And if the workers say no, they need to stop. Less money is better than "no" job, as a lot of people in Michigan know.
 @chandler "unions were important back before there were laws to protect workers (they saved lives!)"
And when the unions are gone, what says the laws will not follow them?
You want a world with no unions? Look at the fires in the Indian factories that killed over 100 just last week...they were clearly not union shops.
"Right to work" is a farce, it is really the "right to fire and replace with cheaper labor". We all rant about the products built by cheap labor in China - soon we won't have to look off-shore, all the products will be Made in the USA by cheap labor. But at least they will be Made in the USA.
But who will be able to afford them?
 @OrcasThunder Ever heard of OSHA? MSHA? WISHA? They make sure that work conditions are not as those were in India.
 @JeepRex "Fact is, the laws are here to stay and unions have served their purpose."
Sure...just ask the many posters who participated in the discussions we've had on Intense Debate on the minimum wage - and argued against the minimum wage, calling it a "job killer"...almost every one of them who think that everyone ELSE is paid more than they are worth.
And you call ME "naive"...
 @OrcasThunder If you're that naive, then you can believe just that. Fact is, the laws are here to stay and unions have served their purpose. Time to trim the fat (fat workers protected by useless unions.)
 @tufa23  @JeepRex Suspected as much. Fun to toy with, though...for a while. Beats watching wrastlin' on SciFy...
 @OrcasThunder  @JeepRex ot, you do realize that cheap wrecks is a paid corporate tool who posts here don't you?
 @JeepRex "Ever heard of OSHA? MSHA? WISHA?"
Ever heard of laws and agencies being eliminated by Act of Congress?
Do you REALLY think that the corporate interests who are rumored to control Congress would stop at simply wiping out the unions?
REALLY?
 @chandler No one is forced to join a union to have a job.  But if you apply to a union job then yes  that means joining the union.  This argument is the same as a person applying to hooters for a job then refusing to wear the uniform. Â
Â
What is does mean is that now the companies can say we are cutting your pay and you have no right to fight it. Â You either take it or hit the street. Â take a look at the wages in other states that have right to work laws. Â you will see that the wages per hour are lower.
Â
 @FBrumfield  @chandler The wages may be lower , but the cost of living is far less. The cost of housing is far less,everything is less.The quality and pride is better because no unions to keep the non productive around. Remember the workers at Chrysler who were fired for drinking and smoking pot  ? Two years later they got their jobs back through union arbitration. Who wants to take a chance on buying a car that was put together by drunks and druggies ?Â
 @SeattleJoe  @FBrumfield  @Maynard G Krebbs  @chandler Unions, at the beginning, did serve a purpose. They helped get safer working conditions, 40 hour work weeks, overtime, and benefits. These days, they are there to protect the 'bad' employees. All the other employees who bust their butts, show up on time, and get sh#t done, don't benefit.  I see it at work everyday. Coworkers who make false allegations against others, show up whenever they want to because they have a doctors note for the other days, bad attitudes, constantly on their phones and taking 6 hours to do 2 hours worth of work, get the same pay and benefits as me. I knew before accepting my job offer, I was going to work in an Union shop, and I would be paying dues. It is frustrating as all get out that we are treated equally, even though I am quite a bit better. At my old job, you don't perform, you don't have a job. But I am thankful for my negotiated pay and benefits.  Being Union has its pros and cons.
 @FBrumfield  @Maynard G Krebbs  @chandler Yet there are countless thousands of people who have stories of horrible union employees that somehow keep their jobs etc. Unions can be a good thing, but not the way they are now since they have become just as corrupt as the companies that they originally were formed to fight. Damned it you do, damned if you don't.
 @Maynard G Krebbs  @FBrumfield  @chandler "but the cost of living is far less."
Where? In Bangladesh?
 @Maynard G Krebbs  @chandler Hate to tell you this but if I am not a productive worker then I get fired.  I am subject to random and pre employment drug testing.  If I don't pass the tests then I am out and the union does not back me.  If I am fired for no cause then the union has my back.
@FBrumfield @chandler Try becoming a teacher in a public school. You will join the union and you will pay what they say to the acounts they say or you will not have a job. They will use your money to buy the polititions they want regardles of what you wish. This is why the "right to work" movment is gaining ground. Time to take this country back from the special interests including the politions!!!
 @bustedupredneck  @FBrumfield  @chandler "Try becoming a teacher in a public school."
Well, there is always a charter school...
 @bustedupredneck  @FBrumfield  @chandler Once again.  If you want to apply for a union job then yes you have to join the union.  If you want a non union teaching job then don't apply to a union teaching job.  No one is forced to work union.
 @FBrumfield  @chandler "No one is forced to join a union to have a job..."
Guess again on that one.Â
@Furd @Citizen#3457899654 Benefits. They are that for sure. I'd love to make 6 figures for a high school education or less job...
 @Citizen#3457899654  @chandler So the only jobs out there are union ones?  If you don't want to work a union job there are other jobs you can do.  There are truck drivers that are not teamsters.  There are equipment operators that are not operating engineers and the same goes for carpenters, electrician and so on. Â
 @Citizen#3457899654 No, a person is NOT forced to join a union to have a job. However, when a person takes a job in a unit that has a collective bargaining agreement that person ALSO benefits from that agreement. That person ALSO receives UNION representation at any disciplinary hearing. The union is forced to represent that person even though the person is NOT a member of the union. For this the union negotiates what is called a "union security clause" with the employer and that clause in the agreement requires the worker to EITHER pay dues to the union (does not have to "join" the union) OR to pay an equivalent amount to a mutually agreed on charitable organization.
Â
So PLEASE tell me why a person who refuses to pay for his representation should receive the benefits of that representation?