Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Indaswamp » Fri May 09, 2014 7:18 pm

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56839
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana


Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby cartervj » Fri May 09, 2014 7:27 pm

Hmmmmmmm :lol3:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby ScaupHunter » Sat May 10, 2014 12:38 pm

:lol3:

The house of cards continues to crumble.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun May 11, 2014 8:01 am

Or, to put it another, slightly more factual way.....

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, along with Rep. controlled state legislature, in 2012 signed a law which considers "in-home aides" as independent contractors and thus not eligible for union representation. This eliminated 44,000 of its 55,000 person membership. Let's see....how do those numbers pan out? Wow! What a coincidence....that is EXACTLY 80% of the membership!

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/view ... Healthcare

No wait.....the unions had to have a money-skimming hand in this somehow....they just had to.....look closer guys....find something!

But, I guess you're right, scaup....the House of Cards is, indeed, continuing to crumble! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby On the X » Sun May 11, 2014 8:38 am

Jim, if you had to move back home to tend to your mother/father would you want to be charged union dues for doing so? With the less than safe stunts you've been pulling lately lol , would you want your adult son/daughter to be charged union dues in the event they had to move back home and take care of you because you, lets say, fell or something?

EDIT: I left out paying union dues with none of the union benefits.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun May 11, 2014 8:45 am

On the X wrote:Jim, if you had to move back home to tend to your mother/father would you want to be charged union dues for doing so? With the less than safe stunts you've been pulling lately lol , would you want your adult son/daughter to be charged union dues in the event they had to move back home and take care of you because you, lets say, fell or something?

:lol3: In-home aides are not all family members, OtX. And Union dues come with Union representation, which, in the event of unfair practices by the "employer", in this case the State, can assist you in rectifying said problem. 80% of those aides signed on for Union representation, so they apparently saw an advantage to it, even with 2.75% going to the Union for its representation. Were you fired unfairly from a job, what percentage of your settlement do think an atty. would take to represent you?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun May 11, 2014 8:47 am

On the X wrote:Jim, if you had to move back home to tend to your mother/father would you want to be charged union dues for doing so? With the less than safe stunts you've been pulling lately lol , would you want your adult son/daughter to be charged union dues in the event they had to move back home and take care of you because you, lets say, fell or something?

EDIT: I left out paying union dues with none of the union benefits.


What makes you think that you would not recive union benefits as a dues-paying member?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby On the X » Sun May 11, 2014 8:58 am

Jim, where did I say ALL were family members? But a bigger question for you is, why did a state with such a large union representation elect a Republican government?
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby On the X » Sun May 11, 2014 9:13 am

Some aides are family members who assist with bathing, meals, medication and other tasks. They are paid with state subsidies but don’t get benefits such as vacation, pension or sick days like a typical state worker.


Now you can read this two ways
1. the family member wouldn't normally get these benefits unless he/she was a union member
2. Even though union dues were paid they still did not receive these benefits
The correct way to read this is #2....they were obviously being forced to pay union dues as far back as 2005 but according to this they received no vacation, pension, sick days etc. But as they shouldn't be forced to pay union dues, why should the state pay them to take care of their parents/family member?
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Rat Creek » Mon May 12, 2014 10:08 am

The reason Unions are against Right to Work is because when given a choice, most workers do not want nor need a Union to take money out of their paycheck.

If a Union brings enough value through their representation, people will freely join and many do. I live in a Right to Work state and know people who have chosen to pay the union. I know many more who have chosen not to pay the union.

That is why Unions hate Right to Work. They want everyone to be forced into it because most see little to no value in their so-called representation.
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby cartervj » Mon May 12, 2014 9:12 pm

Rat Creek wrote:The reason Unions are against Right to Work is because when given a choice, most workers do not want nor need a Union to take money out of their paycheck.

If a Union brings enough value through their representation, people will freely join and many do. I live in a Right to Work state and know people who have chosen to pay the union. I know many more who have chosen not to pay the union.

That is why Unions hate Right to Work. They want everyone to be forced into it because most see little to no value in their so-called representation.


I'm seeing a recurring theme. :lol3:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon May 12, 2014 10:22 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Or, to put it another, slightly more factual way.....

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, along with Rep. controlled state legislature, in 2012 signed a law which considers "in-home aides" as independent contractors and thus not eligible for union representation. This eliminated 44,000 of its 55,000 person membership. Let's see....how do those numbers pan out? Wow! What a coincidence....that is EXACTLY 80% of the membership!

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/view ... Healthcare

No wait.....the unions had to have a money-skimming hand in this somehow....they just had to.....look closer guys....find something!

But, I guess you're right, scaup....the House of Cards is, indeed, continuing to crumble! :lol3:


Unions have been skimming money for no real benefits to their members for the last 30 or so years. I have never seen a single benefit from the times I have been in one. I have invariable made more money and had better benefits when not in a union job.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 13, 2014 11:15 am

On the X wrote:
Some aides are family members who assist with bathing, meals, medication and other tasks. They are paid with state subsidies but don’t get benefits such as vacation, pension or sick days like a typical state worker.


Now you can read this two ways
1. the family member wouldn't normally get these benefits unless he/she was a union member
2. Even though union dues were paid they still did not receive these benefits
The correct way to read this is #2....they were obviously being forced to pay union dues as far back as 2005 but according to this they received no vacation, pension, sick days etc. But as they shouldn't be forced to pay union dues, why should the state pay them to take care of their parents/family member?

It simply depends on the contractual obligations that the state has with the union in question, OtX. Any particular union does not have to pay vacation, pension, sickdays, etc. to family members or anyone else, it's all part of a wage package that has been agreed to by the union and the state.
As to why the state should pay someone to take care of family members, I am sure that it is much cheaper and easier to pay a relative to care for someone than it is for the state to pay for someone that does not have the financial wherewithal to pay for it themselves. The state can either take it on themselves, through a system like Medicaid, or they can assist a family member to enable them to financially care for the person.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue May 13, 2014 1:35 pm

Either way Jim the union should not be skimming money off that payment to a family member. That is just another excellent example of legalized theft with no benefits for the lost money being recieved by the person loosing the funds.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 13, 2014 2:12 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:Either way Jim the union should not be skimming money off that payment to a family member. That is just another excellent example of legalized theft with no benefits for the lost money being recieved by the person loosing the funds.

We simply don't know that, scaup. I have no idea what the SEIU provides in the way of representation. I would guess, if nothing else, they fight for higher wages for their members.
When you said previously that you made more money in a non-union than union situation, that's fine. Many can say the same. There are several responses I can give. One, is that having unions fighting for their members wages and benefits raises the remuneration to all, not just those in the union. If a non-union member knows that he can go union and make 1/3 more money/benefits, that drives up his relative value in the market. Undeniably. Now, many are not overly skilled in their trade, or prefer not to go through a four or five year apprenticeship, so they are content to stay in the lower-paying situation. More power to them. But that still does not mean that there is no influence due to unions in their pay scale.
Secondly, just stating anecdotally, as you were, I was in a Union for over 30 years. I can say that I did better financially than a vast majority of the non-union workers in my trade. So you believe that the union does nothing for you but take money, I believe in toto that we get a lot for our relatively small percentage of pay that goes to union dues. Just remember, those that want to "bust" unions, are doing so in order to acquire more money for themselves at the expense of workers. One person can do little about that. A group of people can. That is why it is called "collective bargaining". If that person can't do profitable business while paying what has locally been agreed upon as a fair living wage, as others seem able to do, perhaps they shouldn't be in that business.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 13, 2014 8:59 pm

On the X wrote:Jim, where did I say ALL were family members? But a bigger question for you is, why did a state with such a large union representation elect a Republican government?


Where did we decide that it had a large union membership? This tale of the in-house aides, completely misrepresented initially, (which was completely ignored when it was proven to be a big fat conservative lie) does not imply a large union membership. I have no idea what the percentage is. It would probably take about 45 seconds to determine, however, were I so inclined.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed May 14, 2014 8:24 am

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304677904579533701943234122
In early 2005, the Michigan Employment Relations Commission set a vote-by-mail election for home-care workers. According to the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, of a total of some 41,000 workers who could join the new collective-bargaining unit, there were 6,949 votes to join the SEIU and 1,007 opposed to the unionization. The union did a victory dance and began collecting dues.

First off, how many of those people that received the ballot thought it was a joke? ONLY 17% voted in favor of it and 80%, 4 out of 5 did not vote at all. That should have made the vote null and void. That should not be sufficient for a valid election.

This was easy for the unions to get the votes they needed given there was no one to organize against it which as freedom shows was the vastly preferred alternative.

But why"organize" such a diverse group. That's easy. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

The schemes were promoted by Democrats, who then benefitted when union chiefs spent their mandatory dues windfall on electing more . . . Democrats. The Wolverine state's collective-bargaining agreement allowed the SEIU to take home 2.75% of a home health-care provider's Medicaid compensation. From 2006 when the dues vacuuming began until 2012 when state lawmakers voted to end it, the union sucked up more than $34 million from Michigan health-care workers.

Yep, 34 million dollars in windfall profits for the unions because they got 17% of the vote. It's a beautiful scam to enrich the union leaders. This things are just like the giant class action lawsuits where the benefactors get a couple dollars or a coupon and the lawyers get 10's of millions. Of course, in this case, the money came from the workers and not some evil corporation who passes the cost on to consumers.

I have no problem with private sector unions as long as they have to face competition and are a specific group of workers (e.g., a factory, a craft union local, etc.). Unions are like government. When small and narrowly focused and people are free to walk away :thumbsup: When large and broad and the people are captive, they are dangerous and destructive. No different than businesses, which the left obsesses about this danger, but totally ignores the same risks from unions and government. All have their place and all have their risks. When given a monopoly, they do not serve the people. They serve the powerful. SEIU serves the powerful, but like Chavez or any charismatic leadership, they can rally a mob and use the power of mob rule to serve the powerful and suppress the weak while claiming to do the exact opposite and if you disagree :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

Government employee unions should be illegal as FDR said long ago. They should not be allowed. They collude with politicians to fleece Americans. It is an inherently corrupt system.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16075
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed May 14, 2014 8:58 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:Either way Jim the union should not be skimming money off that payment to a family member. That is just another excellent example of legalized theft with no benefits for the lost money being recieved by the person loosing the funds.

We simply don't know that, scaup. I have no idea what the SEIU provides in the way of representation. I would guess, if nothing else, they fight for higher wages for their members.
When you said previously that you made more money in a non-union than union situation, that's fine. Many can say the same. There are several responses I can give. One, is that having unions fighting for their members wages and benefits raises the remuneration to all, not just those in the union. If a non-union member knows that he can go union and make 1/3 more money/benefits, that drives up his relative value in the market. Undeniably. Now, many are not overly skilled in their trade, or prefer not to go through a four or five year apprenticeship, so they are content to stay in the lower-paying situation. More power to them. But that still does not mean that there is no influence due to unions in their pay scale.
Secondly, just stating anecdotally, as you were, I was in a Union for over 30 years. I can say that I did better financially than a vast majority of the non-union workers in my trade. So you believe that the union does nothing for you but take money, I believe in toto that we get a lot for our relatively small percentage of pay that goes to union dues. Just remember, those that want to "bust" unions, are doing so in order to acquire more money for themselves at the expense of workers. One person can do little about that. A group of people can. That is why it is called "collective bargaining". If that person can't do profitable business while paying what has locally been agreed upon as a fair living wage, as others seem able to do, perhaps they shouldn't be in that business.



Yes, Jim we do know that and it has been proven repeatedly across the spectrum of non-licensed jobs managed by unions. Lets take another tangent hear. Lets talk about all of the jobs being driven out of areas by unions. Lets discuss Magpul in particular. They are moving to a right to work state. Why? Unions and an unfriendly state government that is anti-gun. The government going mental on them was not enough to drive them out of state and their existing facilities. What did drive them out was the Union making unreasonable demands related to the Ocare and medical costs BS that was forced on all of us. The company looked at the economics of the union demands and costs. They negotiated as required and when the Union was intractable they told them to go pound sand and are spending millions to move instead of giving in to extortion from the very thugs that helped elect the idiots that caused the problem in the first place. Are you starting to see the chain of events yet? Unions worked to elect Obummer twice, They got screwed by Obummer and Ocare when their exemption was denied. They then try and take their complete F up and shove it down the company owners throat. That is straight up extortion Jim. Many of those workers are loosing their jobs. Just exactly who in the Union benefitted from that.

I for one have no issue with unions that are a trade related co-op. Electricians, Plumbers, etc... People who work hard to apprentice and get journeyman and masters licenses are regulated, disciplined, and managed properly in most cases. They offer a higher level of skill and can demand a higher wage. Some guy running a fork lift doesn't quality as a professional at anything and has not real position to push for high wages. Fork lift operators are a dime a dozen.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed May 14, 2014 9:32 am

ScaupHunter wrote:Electricians, Plumbers, etc... People who work hard to apprentice and get journeyman and masters licenses are regulated, disciplined, and managed properly in most cases. They offer a higher level of skill and can demand a higher wage.
And they face the competition from non-union workers. It's the competition that keeps them honest just like competition keeps businesses honest when it comes to supplying the best value for the customer.

ScaupHunter wrote:Some guy running a fork lift doesn't quality as a professional at anything and has not real position to push for high wages. Fork lift operators are a dime a dozen.
Again, if there is competition, there is no problem with the guys pushing the mop being part of a union. If the warehouse or factory wants to unionize, that's fine. They won't get to charge over market rates if there is competition. If they are a dime a dozen, a dozen will make a dime, but the union can ensure that they use that dime to get good insurance, good retirement, etc. and ensure legitimate grievances are raised and taken seriously.

The competition is the key and not the skill level.

If union electricians have a de facto monopoly, they will charge monopoly rates.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16075
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Rat Creek » Wed May 14, 2014 10:27 am

Value and Competition: what freedom loving people want and what unions hate. As scaup and spinner stated, in some jobs, unions provide good value and people with join voluntarily. Sadly, that is the minority of situations. In the vast majority of cases, people are forced to join the union and to pay dues. It is little more than a shakedown for union bosses.

And to have public sector unions is the worst of the worst. Unskilled and unmotivated workers organizing against their neighbors (tax payers) who do not have a seat at the negotiation table. The negotiation table has only unions and politicians. What a mess.
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed May 14, 2014 10:38 am

SpinnerMan wrote: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304677904579533701943234122
In early 2005, the Michigan Employment Relations Commission set a vote-by-mail election for home-care workers. According to the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, of a total of some 41,000 workers who could join the new collective-bargaining unit, there were 6,949 votes to join the SEIU and 1,007 opposed to the unionization. The union did a victory dance and began collecting dues.

First off, how many of those people that received the ballot thought it was a joke? ONLY 17% voted in favor of it and 80%, 4 out of 5 did not vote at all. That should have made the vote null and void. That should not be sufficient for a valid election.

Really? When did that law come into effect? I always thought it was majority win.

SpinnerMan wrote: This was easy for the unions to get the votes they needed given there was no one to organize against it which as freedom shows was the vastly preferred alternative.


Which "as freedom shows"? Umm, what's that mean?
SpinnerMan wrote: But why"organize" such a diverse group. That's easy. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

The schemes were promoted by Democrats, who then benefitted when union chiefs spent their mandatory dues windfall on electing more . . . Democrats. The Wolverine state's collective-bargaining agreement allowed the SEIU to take home 2.75% of a home health-care provider's Medicaid compensation. From 2006 when the dues vacuuming began until 2012 when state lawmakers voted to end it, the union sucked up more than $34 million from Michigan health-care workers.
Yep, 34 million dollars in windfall profits for the unions because they got 17% of the vote. It's a beautiful scam to enrich the union leaders. This things are just like the giant class action lawsuits where the benefactors get a couple dollars or a coupon and the lawyers get 10's of millions. Of course, in this case, the money came from the workers and not some evil corporation who passes the cost on to consumers.

It's a scam to enrich the union leaders? The members got nothing from it? Let's do the math....$34,000,000/55,000 = 618/yr 618/year/12 mos = $51/mo $51/4 weeks= $13/week $13perweek/40 hrs = .32 cents per hour. So, if the union helps the worker attain a pay scale of over .32 cents/hr higher than their previous contract, then it is a win for the member. Any other benefits provided are gravy.
Doesn't sound quite so onerous in that respect, does it?


SpinnerMan wrote: I have no problem with private sector unions as long as they have to face competition and are a specific group of workers (e.g., a factory, a craft union local, etc.). Unions are like government. When small and narrowly focused and people are free to walk away :thumbsup: When large and broad and the people are captive, they are dangerous and destructive. No different than businesses, which the left obsesses about this danger, but totally ignores the same risks from unions and government. All have their place and all have their risks. When given a monopoly, they do not serve the people. They serve the powerful. SEIU serves the powerful, but like Chavez or any charismatic leadership, they can rally a mob and use the power of mob rule to serve the powerful and suppress the weak while claiming to do the exact opposite and if you disagree :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

Government employee unions should be illegal as FDR said long ago. They should not be allowed. They collude with politicians to fleece Americans. It is an inherently corrupt system.


Of course it is corrupt....the average working man has a chance for stability, upward mobility, a better lifestyle.....it must be corrupt.
So unions collude with politicians? Scandalous....the Koch Bros. would certainly never act in such an egregious manner, we all know that! :thumbsup:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed May 14, 2014 10:43 am

Oh...and whatever happened to calling out the media, in this case "The Gateway Pundit", for publishing such vociferously biased lies about what this was all about? I showed the truth. If it were MSNBC, the MSN, or the White House distorting the facts so blatantly, you would be up in arms and posting in font big enough for a High School football game banner. :huh:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed May 14, 2014 11:11 am

Did you hit your head while waiting on that cliff Jim? Your seeming to be a bit more dopey than usual.

I have lots of experience with unions and none of them were found to be of any real use. The idea that someone should be allowed to skim 32 cents an hour off the top of a family member who is keeping another family member in need alive and well is repugnant at best.

Your over generalizations are feeble. Stop avoiding the real issue while defending your personal bias that all unions are good. It simply doesn't play here. The union forced through a law that allowed them to fleece citizens of money the did nothing to earn. The law countered that action. It was in essence a union tax on state tax dollars being used to protect citizens in need.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed May 14, 2014 12:42 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304677904579533701943234122
In early 2005, the Michigan Employment Relations Commission set a vote-by-mail election for home-care workers. According to the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, of a total of some 41,000 workers who could join the new collective-bargaining unit, there were 6,949 votes to join the SEIU and 1,007 opposed to the unionization. The union did a victory dance and began collecting dues.

First off, how many of those people that received the ballot thought it was a joke? ONLY 17% voted in favor of it and 80%, 4 out of 5 did not vote at all. That should have made the vote null and void. That should not be sufficient for a valid election.

Really? When did that law come into effect? I always thought it was majority win.

So what's the point of quorum? :huh:

Do you really think 1 out of 5 is sufficient to claim a quorum exists?

Glimmerjim wrote:It's a scam to enrich the union leaders? The members got nothing from it? Let's do the math....$34,000,000/55,000 = 618/yr 618/year/12 mos = $51/mo $51/4 weeks= $13/week $13perweek/40 hrs = .32 cents per hour. So, if the union helps the worker attain a pay scale of over .32 cents/hr higher than their previous contract, then it is a win for the member. Any other benefits provided are gravy.
Doesn't sound quite so onerous in that respect, does it?

I NEVER said onerous. I said a scam like the class actions lawsuits which work to raise 10's of millions because they take a small amount from a large number. It's a very common scam for that very reason. People are less likely to notice and complain.

However, if it were a good deal, do you think the 80% that quit, essentially the exact same fraction that did not vote :huh: , are stupid? Why did they quit? I think they know a hell of a lot better than you do, what THEY were getting for their money. :yes:

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:Government employee unions should be illegal as FDR said long ago. They should not be allowed. They collude with politicians to fleece Americans. It is an inherently corrupt system.


Of course it is corrupt....the average working man has a chance for stability, upward mobility, a better lifestyle.....it must be corrupt.

The collusion between the politicians and the unions is what makes it corrupt :fingerhead:

Vote for me and I'll take someone else's money and give it to you. That is literally what is being "negotiated" between the union and the politicians that they fund.

Now, if like in a court of law, those with a conflict of interest were forced to recuse themselves from the process, it wouldn't be as bad, but there are still flaws because the incentives to negotiate aggressively only exist on one side of the table.

Should politicians that accept campaign contributions from unions recuse themselves from negotiating contracts with unions? Is this not a huge and obvious conflict of interest? Isn't this precisely the thing Democrats are wailing about when they claim money corrupts?

If we had these contracts voted on by the entire legislative body, that too would be a big improvement.

The average working man doesn't need unions to be upwardly mobile. What a sad pathetic view of life in 21st century America. In fact, there is probably nothing that suppresses upward mobility more than getting a union job at a young age. Your income and quality of life are set for life no matter how good or bad you are, assuming they don't agree to insane risks in terms of the pension fund or you sit in an obsolete job in a failing company.

Glimmerjim wrote:So unions collude with politicians? Scandalous....the Koch Bros. would certainly never act in such an egregious manner, we all know that! :thumbsup:
The last resort. This wrong is no worse than some other random wrong. It's a sad pathetic argument.

It seems that liberals most definitely believe two wrongs do make a right. Nope, just two wrongs as every little child with halfway decent parents taught their children. You would never have tolerated this as an excuse from your children, yet it is an argument for politicians and unions colluding to increase the amount of tax money given to union members and therefore fed back in to the system (you know that money that corrupts politics) to get more politicians they can collude with elected so they can fleece the taxpayers even more.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16075
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed May 14, 2014 1:10 pm

Glimmerjim wrote: Really? When did that law come into effect? I always thought it was majority win.

SpinnerMan wrote: So what's the point of quorum? :huh:



And what was the legally required quorum in this specific case, Spinner? :huh: Does "quorum" even apply or is just a strawman argument because you are painted into a corner and have no logical argument?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10828
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Next

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests