Right to Work, Ford's Hybrids MPG on Autoline After Hours

[mettech]

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/autoline

[LoveTaurus]

Which video? Autoline After Hours: #174?

[mackinaw]

Yes, episode # 174. If you like podcasts, it should be on iTunes very soon.

[LSFan00]

I think it is great. Only 18 percent of Michigan is unionized nowadays anyway. Around a third of union members will probably choose not to pay dues now, but that this was able to get passed is a reflection of the downward trend in manufacturing employment that the unions have been complicit in (and the fact that the union is overtly politicized now also made it much more possible;

 

Under freedom to work, Michiganders will have the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union. They won't be forced to pay union dues if they don't want to, and they won't lose their jobs because of it. And if they want to pay dues voluntarily, they have the freedom to do that, too.

There's one thing this proposal for workplace fairness and equality does not do, though. It does not end collective bargaining in Michigan. That bears repeating. Under freedom to work, Michiganders still have a guaranteed right to collective bargaining, as protected in federal law. What's more, this proposal has no impact on police or fire unions.

[mettech]

I thought the jump would go to show # 174.

 

Thanks for the clarification mackinaw

[grbeck]

Introducing legislation is one thing; getting it passed is another. Supporters of this legislation need to hold off on breaking out the champagne.

[SoonerLS]

Introducing legislation is one thing; getting it passed is another. Supporters of this legislation need to hold off on breaking out the champagne.

The article I read on the Chicago Tribune's site said it passed one chamber of the MI legislature, but the other can't vote on it 'til Tuesday at the earliest. A lot can happen between now and then, but getting it this far is an accomplishment for its backers.

[grbeck]

The article I read on the Chicago Tribune's site said it passed one chamber of the MI legislature, but the other can't vote on it 'til Tuesday at the earliest. A lot can happen between now and then, but getting it this far is an accomplishment for its backers.

 

Yes, I never thought that this type of legislation would move this fast in Michigan.

[cal50]

If passed you will see if the rank & file union members put their money where there mouth is.

Choice, what a concept.

 

 

The unions can blame politicians (repubs) but when the choice lies solely with union members to remain or opt out who is Bob King and friends more afraid of ?

[Mark B. Morrow]

Is the union in any way obligated to provide representation to non-members in a grievence? Does the union have to cover them where it administers the pension or other benefits plan?

[FordBuyer]

Yes, I never thought that this type of legislation would move this fast in Michigan.

 

It's because it's a lame duck legislature with more Demos coming in January. So the Repubs are trying to push through all kinds of pernicious legislation like making abortion less available. There is going to be a ton of protesters in Lansing over next two days. Talk about divisive bills. You know the Demos will make their number one goal getting all this nonsense repealed in coming years. Ironic about right to work with Big 3 hiring many Tier 2 workers making $16/hour, and seems like every new house being built around here is built by guys that don't speak English. So unions are hardly a threat anymore now that union jobs make up only 18% of MI work force, and that number is dropping even without right to work. Same in education with hudreds of charter schools up and running and teachers nonunion with no pensions. Talk about beating a dead horse. I used to be an independent, now I just hate the Repbulican Party and what it stands for. They should call themselves the anti-people, anti-worker party. They make Scrooge look compassionate.

[udontkno]

I hope I am wrong but this RTW legislation if passed will end up costing jobs. Right now the Big Three have the ability to discuss issues with the union and the union has been more than receptive. If the union losses its power or its power perception to the membership, the companies do not have the ability to easily change work rules or policies as this was done by the union. When the union rep. tells us whats going on, we tend to trust what they say because they are in the same position as us. Now if the company trys to push a new agenda through supervison, the blow back could be awful and eventually upper management will invest less not more in the state. No successful auto manufacturer is in business without unions. The Germans, Japaneese, S. Koreans all have unions in their home market and it is the working relationship with these unions that allowed them to become profitable.

[mettech]

I hope I am wrong but this RTW legislation if passed will end up costing jobs. Right now the Big Three have the ability to discuss issues with the union and the union has been more than receptive. If the union losses its power or its power perception to the membership, the companies do not have the ability to easily change work rules or policies as this was done by the union. When the union rep. tells us whats going on, we tend to trust what they say because they are in the same position as us. Now if the company trys to push a new agenda through supervison, the blow back could be awful and eventually upper management will invest less not more in the state. No successful auto manufacturer is in business without unions. The Germans, Japaneese, S. Koreans all have unions in their home market and it is the working relationship with these unions that allowed them to become profitable.

 

"...During a news conference explaining his decision, Snyder said he had been impressed by results in Indiana, another Rust Belt state and historical labor stronghold that enacted a right-to-work law earlier this year.

"They've had 90 companies in the pipeline for economic development say this was a factor in deciding to look to come to Indiana," he said. "That's thousands of jobs. We need more and better jobs in Michigan."

 

Spokeswoman Sara Wurfel said Snyder's comment was based on information provided by the Indiana Economic Development Corporation. She said the agency had reported that 67 of those prospective companies had "progressed to the pipeline stage."

"Of these 67 companies, 31 companies have already accepted the IEDC's offer, accounting for more than 3,700 projected new jobs and more than $431 million in investment," Wurfel said in an email, referring to information provided by the Indiana agency..."

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=166889473

[grbeck]

It's because it's a lame duck legislature with more Demos coming in January. So the Repubs are trying to push through all kinds of pernicious legislation like making abortion less available. There is going to be a ton of protesters in Lansing over next two days. Talk about divisive bills. You know the Demos will make their number one goal getting all this nonsense repealed in coming years. Ironic about right to work with Big 3 hiring many Tier 2 workers making $16/hour, and seems like every new house being built around here is built by guys that don't speak English. So unions are hardly a threat anymore now that union jobs make up only 18% of MI work force, and that number is dropping even without right to work. Same in education with hudreds of charter schools up and running and teachers nonunion with no pensions. Talk about beating a dead horse. I used to be an independent, now I just hate the Repbulican Party and what it stands for. They should call themselves the anti-people, anti-worker party. They make Scrooge look compassionate.

 

Maybe the unions would be more popular if they actually spent a large percentage of money collected via dues representing the workers:

 

When continually focusing in the media on being “forced” to represent people who don’t pay dues under a right-to-work law, union heads are implying that they spend the vast majority of their money on contract negotiations, representation or other non-political work. That is a myth.

 

For example, according to the most recent federal filings, the Michigan Education Association — the state’s largest labor union — received $122 million and spent $134 million in 2012. They averaged about $800 from each of their 152,000 members.

 

According to union documents, "representational activities" (money spent on bargaining contracts for members) made up only 11 percent of total spending for the union. Meanwhile, spending on “general overhead” (union administration and employee benefits) comprised of 61 percent of the total spending.

 

So MEA members who disagree with the leadership of the union are paying up to 90 percent of their dues, but the union is only spending about a tenth of the dues money representing them.

 

And the last time I checked, the non-union transplant factories owned by Honda, Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota aren't Victorian Houses of Horror, with exploited serfs straight out of a Dickens novel.

Edited December 12, 2012 by grbeck

[RangerM]

According to union documents, "representational activities" (money spent on bargaining contracts for members) made up only 11 percent of total spending for the union. Meanwhile, spending on “general overhead” (union administration and employee benefits) comprised of 61 percent of the total spending.

 

So MEA members who disagree with the leadership of the union are paying up to 90 percent of their dues, but the union is only spending about a tenth of the dues money representing them.

Regardless of non-Right-to-Work status in their state, the workers can only be legally obligated to pay that one-tenth of the dues (ie. only the portion used in collective bargaining, and administration of the contract and grievances). Under the law, NO worker can be compelled to pay 100% of the dues if any portion goes toward politics, union organizing, or lobbying--as a condition of employment.

 

See, Communication Workers of America v. Beck.

 

However, such a choice made by an individual could result in retaliation.

Edited December 12, 2012 by RangerM

[mettech]

Regardless of non-Right-to-Work status in their state, the workers can only be legally obligated to pay that one-tenth of the dues (ie. only the portion used in collective bargaining, and administration of the contract and grievances). Under the law, NO worker can be compelled to pay 100% of the dues if any portion goes toward politics, union organizing, or lobbying--as a condition of employment.

 

See, Communication Workers of America v. Beck.

 

However, such a choice made by an individual could result in retaliation.

 

What does that mean?

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/10/chrysler-workers-fired-for-drinking-back-on-job-against-automake/

 

 

 

 

 

"...We've seen a fair bit of social media discussion regarding the return to work of 13 Chrysler Group LLC employees who were dismissed from their jobs at the Jefferson North Assembly Plant in Detroit. We took that action after a September 2010 local news report exposed the workers' off-duty conduct.

 

The workers followed the grievance procedure process outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Chrysler and the United Auto Workers. The Company denied all of the grievances, leading us to arbitrate the matter. After more than two years, an arbitrator decided in the workers' favor, citing insufficient conclusive evidence to uphold the dismissals. This was a decision that Chrysler Group does not agree with.

 

I want you to know that Chrysler Group does not condone, in any way, this type of misconduct, but we're in the tough spot of having to accept the arbitrator's decision, just as the Union must when the ruling is in the favor of the Company

 

We take great pride in the quality and safety of every Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Fiat and SRT vehicle we build, and stand by it. The behavior of these 13 individuals is, in no way, indicative of the more than 27,000 men and women who work very hard, every day to build our cars and trucks.

 

Chrysler has invested millions to upgrade our manufacturing facilities and methods, through World Class Manufacturing. We take very seriously the fact that our company was given a chance to rebuild itself through the assistance of the federal government and the taxpayers.

 

I respectfully ask you to look at this situation as an unfortunate aberration and know that Chrysler does not take worker misconduct lightly. We will always pursue the strongest and most appropriate actions when this occurs..."

[udontkno]

I worked at a Ford/UAW represented plant in a RTW state. We had over 2000 employees with close to 3000 at times and in all that time we always had less than 10 of those workers who elected not to be in the union. Needless to say the union reps had to represent these workers, but a union rep. in a plant this size would have over 300 people to represent, therefore when the union rep walked the floor, those that were not in the union wouldnt get any conversation. Additionally, many workers lookout for each other, when one is sick that day, coworkers help them out, give them extra bathroom breaks ect... Those who were not in the union didnt get this from their coworkers. While there will be some getting out of the union, most will remain because they know this is their only outlet to an amped up supervisor.

 

The governor is either a liar or stupid or a little of both. RTW will not create jobs on its own. RTW does not prevent union organization of employers or any other law relating to the employee/employer relationship. RTW only pertains to workers who work in a shop that is unionized and whether or not the employee elected to be part of that union.

[grbeck]

I worked at a Ford/UAW represented plant in a RTW state. We had over 2000 employees with close to 3000 at times and in all that time we always had less than 10 of those workers who elected not to be in the union. Needless to say the union reps had to represent these workers, but a union rep. in a plant this size would have over 300 people to represent, therefore when the union rep walked the floor, those that were not in the union wouldnt get any conversation. Additionally, many workers lookout for each other, when one is sick that day, coworkers help them out, give them extra bathroom breaks ect... Those who were not in the union didnt get this from their coworkers. While there will be some getting out of the union, most will remain because they know this is their only outlet to an amped up supervisor.

 

The governor is either a liar or stupid or a little of both. RTW will not create jobs on its own. RTW does not prevent union organization of employers or any other law relating to the employee/employer relationship. RTW only pertains to workers who work in a shop that is unionized and whether or not the employee elected to be part of that union.

 

In other words, you are complaining about potential "free riders" or people who don't pay their share.

 

You apparently didn't get the memo - during the last election, anyone who raised this issue regarding, say, who actually pays taxes and who receives government largesse, was a racist or a hate-filled person.

 

Goose, meet gander...

[udontkno]

grbeck,

I am not complaining about free riders, my post simply states you get what you give. While the law requires the union to represent those that elect not to be part of the bargaining unit, the law dosnt legislate love. Coworkers do not have to go the extra mile for scabs and the union has no obligation to give scabs special attention. I would go one step further and say that if a scab gets fired, the union reps legal responsibility would be to be in the hearing if requested by the scab. But why would a scab request a union rep? Needless to say RTW will make the union stronger because everyone will know who is in it and that will create a bond between those workers. BTW we posted a list of names on the union board of those who chose not to be in the union.

[grbeck]

grbeck,

I am not complaining about free riders, my post simply states you get what you give.

 

Which is, stripped to its core, a complaint about "free riders." As I said, when people voiced those same concerns during the presidential campaign regarding who pays taxes and who receives various government benefits, they were criticized as racist, hate-mongers, selfish, etc.

 

Unions were happy to support the candidate who made hay with those criticisms, so I have no doubt that they will be willing to carry those people who aren't paying union dues. One would think that unions and their members would be thrilled to practice what they were so eager to preach...or has the campaign and its associated charges and counter-chargers been lost in the fog of a rather convenient case of amnesia?

Edited December 12, 2012 by grbeck

[udontkno]

grbeck,

 

Since you effectively got me off the subject, the way I see the election is the union supported the party that IS making people be responsible. Its called Obama Care. Now all of those who decided to ride the governments tit and not get medical insurance will be required to get medical insurance hence our taxes will not be paying for their hospital visit. Now if these moochers decide not to get insurance they will be taxed. Same goes for all of the employers who can afford to cover its employees but decided to let the government pay for its employees medical care. So go watch Fox news, since you so easily are buying what they are selling, dont cry to me you bought it and now you own it.

[grbeck]

grbeck,

 

Since you effectively got me off the subject, the way I see the election is the union supported the party that IS making people be responsible. Its called Obama Care. Now all of those who decided to ride the governments tit and not get medical insurance will be required to get medical insurance hence our taxes will not be paying for their hospital visit. Now if these moochers decide not to get insurance they will be taxed. Same goes for all of the employers who can afford to cover its employees but decided to let the government pay for its employees medical care. So go watch Fox news, since you so easily are buying what they are selling, dont cry to me you bought it and now you own it.

 

Nice attempt to change the subject, but no dice. It helps to stay on topic. The simple fact is that you are wailing about alleged "free riders" under Michigan's new right-to-work law. According to the union, and its preferred candidate in the presidential election, people were not supposed to complain about such things when the discussion centered on who pays for various government programs. Now unions get the chance to practice what they have preached...oops, you don't like it. Funny how that works.

 

Bringing up Fox News (which I don't watch) is an attempt to deflect the conversation from this salient fact. It's a red herring, and irrelevant to the discussion.

 

And you are apparently unaware that the new federal health care act contains government subsidies for various classes of people to purchase health insurance, along with an expansion of the current Medicare program. So, yes, you will still be paying for their hospital visit. If you really believe that this law will ensure that everyone pays for his or her own insurance, you apparently haven't read the fine details of the act.

Edited December 12, 2012 by grbeck

[aneekr]

"...Snyder said he had been impressed by results in Indiana, another Rust Belt state and historical labor stronghold that enacted a right-to-work law earlier this year."

 

Site Selection Magazine article about Indiana's right-to-work law, aptly titled 'The Box That Must Be Checked'

[RangerM]

What does that mean?

 

It could mean that you'd want to keep your daughter away from her soccer game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4ZB5722P6o

[goinbroke2]

BTW we posted a list of names on the union board of those who chose not to be in the union.

 

Threats and intimidation...very classy. And you wonder why peolple look at unions as thugs and bully's? Talk about malicious, sounds exactly like what so many on the left screamed about when bush said "either your with us or your against us". That was terrible, but saying your either with the union or your against the union...that's ok...f%^&ing hypocrites!