The thing is, those workers in that shop garner the benefits of the union contract. If you get the benefits, you should pay the dues...

The employer would have the option to pay a two tiered system. One for Union members and one for Non-Union members. SIMPLE AIN'T IT? Once the Union members see that the Non-Union members make without paying monthly dues they would quit the Union. Just look what happened to the AFSMCE in Wisconsin. They lost more than half their membership once they were given the chance. All Wisconsin did was stop collecting the Union dues. Once the members actually saw how much they paid they quit!

I was in local 6 operators union and let me tell you, it is run by mob mentality. I need my job and then have to go on strike with NO choice at all... sucks strike pay is BS and 2 yrs later half are union workers have no jobs..typical and yes I have to pay dues even though I haven't worked in 1 1/2 cause if I dont i lose my benefits and seniority level...

RRS in MN

The thing is, those workers in that shop garner the benefits of the union contract. If you get the benefits, you should pay the dues...

In other words, the unions don't care about all the workers, just the ones who pay up.

OOPS!! AFSMCE should be AFSCME--American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees.

Maybe the Michigan "Unions" can get on the Detroit City Councilwoman's bandwagon and march on D.C. DEMANDING that Mr. Obama send them home some BACON.

The Unions have turned into nothing more than a "special interest group of thugs" where everyone has to pay dues to work then their Union bosses turns around and use the worker's fees to either hold strikes/protests in other States or just give the Union Fees to some Turkey running for political office (not necessariarly the one a Union worker would vote for).

Might want to find out how much these Union Bosses get in Union Fee Paid SALARIES each year and what kind of mansion they live in. Suck it up......Union members.

The "Unions" are dinosaurs and scavengers.

I too live in a right to work state. There are good and bad points to the law. The good is you can leave your job without notice but the flip side is to that is the employer can fire you without listing a reason. Employers can fire you if you look at them crosseyed. As for starting a union in a non union shop, that gives the employer a reason to fire you. Unions are overpaid. It does not take money to get someone to speak on behalf of employees but without unions, we would all be working 70hrs a week for 50 cents a day. It is true though with this law the employers have total control.

I was brought up Union, had the opportunity to negociate labor contracts and had to deal with discipline issues on the Labor side and later as an (Union) Employer against another Union for their members working for our Union. Without "Reaping any 'Payoffs', I am at a point in my life to be in a position to seriousely consider hiring employee's to work for me as I have since started my own business. I understand both sides arguements completely.

I feel that Employers needs to keep their business going and Employee's need that scense of ownership. The answer is quite simple really, If people want to become Union members and pay dues for their Representaion - Fine, let them have it. However, If there are Employee's who do not seek UNION protection - Let them have it... - The Company should not be "Forced to offer the same 'Benefits' to both sides and the 'Union' should not be 'Forced' to 'Represent' non members. As long as an "Employer follows State and Federal employment laws, No Company lockouts and no union stikes allowed, All labor disputes settled through an 'Mutually agreed Arbitrator' Perid.

This does bring up an interesting fact that being the "State of Michigan", one automacilly thinks of the auto industry. Specifically GM - at least somewhat Federally owned - All labor disputes should come from "ALL Taxpayers" and only "ALL" the taxpayers - not Congress, Senate or the President. Of course, I think that the "only job that the Presedent, Senate, and Congress should do is introduce bills and resolve ties, all matters should be voted by all taxpayers - including their salaries and benefits...

This legislation is a lose, lose proposition. Michigan's Governor and conservative leaders will face a costly, nasty recall. The State's workers will lose benefits and wages. The State, major corporations, and schools will see costly strikes. The Grand Old Party is digging a grave for itself when Michigan needs leadership not sour grapes.

I have also worked both sides of the aisle.

Why do workers need a sense of ownership for a business THAT IS NOT THEIRS?

They are employees, plain and simple. They do not own the business, dictate how and who it does business with, etc.

That's the problem, unions have somehow brainwashed people in this country that they can BULLY their employer and shut things down, etc.

Didn't work at Hostess and we need a lot more companies willing to shutter their doors than to allow the unions and their union employees to bully their way through a job.

You DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO WORK.

It is at the employer's discretion to hire you and should be.

@Randy #1.7: You are confusing two laws. Every state has "at will" employment laws. It simply means that the employee or the employer can terminate employment in the absence of a contract. However, a "right to work" state simply means that employers do not have to collect union dues on behalf of the union and employees do not need to belong to a union in order to work in a union shop.

Also, a person cannot be fired for attempting to unionize his fellow workers. With that said, a company can terminate the employment of an employee who is soliciting other employees during company paid time.

Finally, the majority of the country are not unionized. There are state laws and federal laws that stipulate work weeks, overtime, health benefits, unemployment benefits etc. Talking about 70 hour work weeks at 50 cents a day has no basis in reality in the US.

Finally, the majority of the country are not unionized. There are state laws and federal laws that stipulate work weeks, overtime, health benefits, unemployment benefits etc. Talking about 70 hour work weeks at 50 cents a day has no basis in reality in the US.

And how was it that workers got these laws to begin with? And wouldn't businesses just love to chip away at the laws. No, we won't go back to a 70 hour work week, but I can easily see some lobbying to try to push it up to 45 and then 50. And while we won't go back to 50 cents a day or even an hour, it is very easy to keep the minimum wage stagnant as inflation continues to push the cost of living upwards.

As for right to work laws, I can see both sides of the issue. I don't think employers should be forced to make everything easy for unions, but neither should they be allowed to block unions by firing people who attempt to unionize.

Also, it is true that unions can be sickeningly greedy, in refusing to make necessary concessions, but then again, they take a look at the overpaid management who runs their companies into the ground and then expects the workers to bear the brunt of the pain. If I were a union leader, I'd demand that for every dollar per hours that the workers have to give back to the company (either through wage concessions or benefit cutbacks/premiums) the CEO and all the other top execs must reduce their salaries by at least 100K. You'd see the employers think long and hard about screwing the workers if you took this hardline stance. Also, for every golden parachute a CEO gets for running the company into the ground and then leaving, at least half of that parachute must make its way back to the workers.

"Right-to-Work"? I suspect the wording of these titles were purposely chosen by the right-wing to deceive the public in order to mask their actual intent.

-------------------------------

Excerpts:

These techniques are being used by unethical pollsters like Frank Luntz, who craft frames, poll test the language, and focus group approve the final product for use by right wing authoritarian (RWA) politicians, and other true believers to manipulate public perception in favor of this authoritarian ideology.

Radical right wing governors across the country are actively implementing laws to discriminate against minority groups by suppressing their right to vote in the presidential election. To get people on board with this radical agenda, the frame "voter fraud" was created.

GOP politicians are passing laws to ship our jobs overseas. The frame used in this case is "illegal immigrants" are taking our jobs.

GOP politicians are passing laws that force us to work for less, and take away our rights to fight back when our wages and pensions are raided by vulture capitalists like Mitt Romney. This is being framed as "right to work."

GOP politicians are implementing laws to control women's reproductive health, framed as "religious freedom."

GOP politicians are spending taxpayer money to enrich the super wealthy elite, framed as "tax relief." Coincidentally, the funneling of taxpayer money to the richest among us is being framed as using taxpayer money to give to "welfare recipients."

http://stopframingus.com/tag/deceptive-language/

I fully support right to work legislation. The unions should not be allowed to have these closed shops and basically extort union dues from anyone who wants to work at a company. Membership in a union should be a choice of the worker, not a requirement in order to get a job. In many cases today, the union does little for the members. The union bosses collect fat paychecks and live high on the hog off the dues that workers are forced to pay. With current labor laws, the value of union membership has decreased significantly from what it once was and union dues take a bite out of the workers' paychecks. Also, union dues are often used to support a political agenda that the union members individually may not support. This is why CA just had a ballot initiative to try and change the law so that mandatory union dues can not be used for political contributions. Unfortunately, by flooding the airwaves with ads spewing disinformation about the initiative, the unions were able to defeat it. Unions basically have the power to force their members to contribute to political causes supported by the union bosses, whether the member agrees with the political cause or not. This should not be allowed and right to work laws are one way to put a stop to it.

to JS in SD, You don't know what you talking about. You have never been a member of a union and have not any Idea's about gov regulations for union member's. Our due's can not be used for political uses but we can pay into a PAC. do you recognize the term? Republicans use it all the time. If you want the benefits then you pay the dues

FDR warned that public employees should not be allowed to unionize. He knew that it would be abused. They take peoples money under the ruse of tax dollars thru legislation and use that money to get even more money from the tax payers.

This sneaky last minute trick is what you get when you elect Republicans. Remember that for the next election. Isn't it funny how they don't curtail the big businesses lobbyists, but they go after the worker's unions?

radko

its not just the gop it was a dem that opened trade with china which opened the off-shore craze. if you want to blame anyone that would be clinton do some unbiased research next time

This sneaky last minute trick is what you get when you elect Republicans.

Yeah, like when they rammed healthcare reform through without even reading it! Oh, wait. That wasn't the republicans. Never mind.

In the southern states this law is used to discriminate against people.

So, it doesn't surprise me that a KKK Republican is behind it.

Playa...

ogreugly

to JS in SD, You don't know what you talking about. You have never been a member of a union and have not any Idea's about gov regulations for union member's.

I was a member of Carpenter's Local #55 in Denver. I agree with JS in SD. Regarding government regulations: Are you going to make a case that the evil corporations flaunt government regulations but the pristine unions don't? I'll be interested to see it. (By the way, I left the union because they couldn't negotiate a better deal for me than I could get for myself.)

Police doused demonstrators with pepper spray in Michigan’s state Capitol building Thursday, but the protests didn't stop right-to-work legislation from passing the state legislature.

Looks like Michigan may have taken the first step in revitalizing it's economy. As for a recall it was tried in Wisconsin and it didn't work. Any thinking Michigander would realize something needs to be done. Detroit was once the auto manufacturing capital of the world. Detroit has been losing population since the 50s and has been going down hill ever since. Now you have Councilwoman JoAnn Watson wanting a bail out for all the votes she delivered to Obama. It sickens me to see the state I was born in having sunk so far. Until the citizens of Michigan get back the ideals of the American dream, personal responsibility, hard work, and individualism they will remain another pathetic example of the failed leftist utopian dream.

Peel Layer, you obviously have no idea what your talking about. I work in a factory in Louisiana, we are a right to work state and our factory is very diverse,we have employees of all races. Unions have tried to get in here many times and failed, the people don't want them. This Corporation I work for is NOT EVIL, they are very good to their employees and pay us well. The Southern States are all right to work for a reason, they want corporations to come here and employ people, and they are. Nissan , Toyota, Honda, the list goes on and on and on. Unlike in Union factories ,where the Union Mafia bosses tell their people, Corporations are Evil, in the south we love our companies and they treat us well. Unions have tried to get into every factory down here , many times and failed every time in every factory, we don't need you. So you go on and keep calling us names and keep supporting your RICH Union Bosses, as long as the jobs keep coming down here , we rally don't care. See ya later , I gotta go to work at my $25.00 per hour, Non Union ,job. Oh and by the way , you ought to see how big my Christmas bonus is this year, WOW, life is good!!!!

in the south we love our companies and they treat us well.

Manufacturing corporations move to the south because of cheap land, cheap labor and taxpayer money given to the corporation's executives. $25/hr is good pay and well above the average in the south but how is your retirement package, medical benefits and other reasons for working? You must be new to the work force because your post doesn't relate the history of the non union southern worker, it is very different than "we love our companies." Unions in the south created the middle class and established decent wage perspectives, without them your $25/hr wouldn't exist and you would still have to buy from the company store.

Here are the reasons an employee does not want right-to-work legislation to pass in their state.

From Wikipedia:

A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found:

• Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
• The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
• The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

Right to work laws are merely business incentives enacted into law.

The thing is, those workers in that shop garner the benefits of the union contract. If you get the benefits, you should pay the dues...

ding ding ding, we HAVE a winner!

"Right to work" legislation is the equivalent of forcing a restaurant to give everyone a steak even if they only pay for a salad (non-union employees) because SOME of the patrons (union employees) ponied up and paid for a steak themselves. The non-union employees get all the benefits of the union without ponying up any of the cost.

"Right to work" legislation should be called what it IS, that is "right to work for less..."

Finally, the majority of the country are not unionized. There are state laws and federal laws that stipulate work weeks, overtime, health benefits, unemployment benefits etc. Talking about 70 hour work weeks at 50 cents a day has no basis in reality in the US.

Keep thinking that. And when their is no (or very little) union membership left in this country, watch how fast corporate lobbyists and special interest groups work tirelessly to get those "federal laws that stipulate work weeks, etc.," stripped from the books.

If you don't think it can happen here, I suggest you reconsider, cause it can and WILL if we let it.

Yeah, like when they rammed healthcare reform through without even reading it! Oh, wait. That wasn't the republicans. Never mind.

When did that happen? I don't seem to remember it. Do you mean the 15 month period of time from when Obama first came into office and pitched "Obamacare" to when it was signed in March of 2010? Cause if you can't read 2,000 pages in 15 months, you probably shouldn't be in congress.

Oh wait, what am I saying, many in congress probably can't even read, THAT'S why they keep insisting "Obamacare" was "shoved down their throats." Apparently they didn't realize the large stack of paper on their desk was the bill they should READ at some point during the 15 months it was being debated...

The employer would have the option to pay a two tiered system. One for Union members and one for Non-Union members. SIMPLE AIN'T IT? Once the Union members see that the Non-Union members make without paying monthly dues they would quit the Union. Just look what happened to the AFSMCE in Wisconsin. They lost more than half their membership once they were given the chance. All Wisconsin did was stop collecting the Union dues. Once the members actually saw how much they paid they quit!

I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you people to understand if business likes it, it's not good for the employee.

How can you not understand this a way for business to set their own rules for employment. First benefits will be cut. No paid vacations or holidays and then wages will slide, because effectively the worker will have no recourse.

Don't you get it? Unions set a bar for all employers even in non-union shops. If a person can go over to the Union shop and get paid X why would they work for Y in a non-union shop.

Cause -> Effect.

Your stubborn idiocy on this topic is going to have us all working for 2.00 an hour and a bowl of rice.

Grow up.

@grover, can't tell you how many times I heard from co-workers "if you want a union, go work in a company that already has one." Conversely, I say, if you don't want to pay union dues go work in an industry that doesn't have unions or an employer that is not a union shop.

Especially in the airline and transportation industry where the Railway Labor Act preempts federal and local labor laws an employee without a CBA is at a disadvantage in their relationship with their employer.

Plainly put most employees are just dumb and can't understand how these laws actually affect them. They are the ones who need unions the most!

@And the horse you rode in on, as a former owner of a shop that had both organized and merit sides, those numbers you are flaunting are flawed. While the union encumbrance gets rolled into the numbers and union employee wages, the benefits package I provided my merit employees did not get rolled into their wage total. Additionally, I could have my merit shop guys work a couple of hours late on Thursday, then give them Friday off with pay and they would come out ahead (big benefit to me and them both when finishing out a project). I couldn't do that with the union guys because if the union caught me doing that they would fine me. There is good and bad to both.

The unions are to the point of serving themselves more than their members, they have huge overhead and they take it off their members backs and out of their pockets.

This should shed a little light on the unions:

Hey, Fat Cat Unions: Pay Your "Fair Share" By Michelle Malkin (Dec 07, 2012)

Plainly put most employees are just dumb and can't understand how these laws actually affect them. They are the ones who need unions the most!

couldn't agree more. Many employees seem to think that companies happily pay them what they earn, and that if industry had their way they'd continue paying high wages that support a middle class lifestyle.

Strip away union protections, and we won't necessarily have another triangle shirtwaist incident, but you can be damn sure your wages will go down precipitously and you'll lose any and all benefits you once had. It won't happen overnight, but it'll get there (hell, median wages for the middle class have barely kept up with inflation for the past 30 years, and this is WITH unions and federal protections. Can you imagine wage decline without them?!?)

This should shed a little light on the unions:

Hey, Fat Cat Unions: Pay Your "Fair Share" By Michelle Malkin (Dec 07, 2012)

Oh, you linked a Michelle Malkin article. That's surely unbiased and informative (:rollseyes:)

Yeah, I take my economic advice from THIS woman:

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

...and the horse you rode in on.

@grover, can't tell you how many times I heard from co-workers "if you want a union, go work in a company that already has one." Conversely, I say, if you don't want to pay union dues go work in an industry that doesn't have unions or an employer that is not a union shop.

Especially in the airline and transportation industry where the Railway Labor Act preempts federal and local labor laws an employee without a CBA is at a disadvantage in their relationship with their employer.

Plainly put most employees are just dumb and can't understand how these laws actually affect them. They are the ones who need unions the most!

How flipping insulting is that, you just called most unionized worker idiots? Jesus, glad you are not representing me!

So you are saying that unions have all right once they start a single shop in any particular industry, and anyone else has no rights? That sounds more like old Soviet Union thinking to me

The unions are to the point of serving themselves more than their members, they have huge overhead and they take it off their members backs and out of their pockets.

^this I'll actually AGREE with (even though I'm generally in favor of unions as a whole and think they are a necessary and vital part of any vibrant and fair economy).

Unions must realize that they are under attack from all sides, and must therefore be sure to check their own behavior, trim the fat, and become more efficient at fighting for their employees (rather than enriching themselves). The fat cats at the top of ANY industry (be it Wall St., pharmaceuticals, technology, and unions) have grown fat, lazy, and entitled over the last 30 years of economic "growth" and lavish riches bestowed upon them (which of course, was financed by the tremendous "growth" of our national debt).

Union leaders need to get serious and work hard to show their current members, and potential future members, just WHY unions came into existence in the first place and how, historically, they are very good for the economy as a whole.

and the horse,

Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states

LOL!!! That's probably the difference in the cost of union dues. For someone commenting on those individuals that don't want to work in a union being stupid you're not the sharpest tool in the shed either Jack!

Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states

That is of course on average. The thing I like to factor in is that you can get into trouble by performing too well in a union shop... thus squelching your ability to climb the ladder faster than your less ambitious, but higher seniority, co-workers. I'm a go-getter. I like to set myself apart from my coworkers in terms of my productivity and the quality of my work. Unions hold someone like me back.

Speaking as a union member, I'm disgusted with unions. I'm in a state government union and I think it's awful. They extort the state (in doing so, the taxpayers) into ridiculous contracts that benefit very few (ie union members) at the expense of every taxpayer in the state.

Unions are not the answer. They are an antiquated notion that needs to fall by the wayside. If you want worker protection, guess what, we have it! We have governmental regulation and it's pretty strict. You want more protection? Tell the republicans that you WANT universal healthcare, so those benefits can't be taken away. Something happens at work that is against the law? Sue them, the courts are very pro-worker when it comes to civil rights complaints or unfair labor practices.

I'm an attorney and I work at a state department of labor. I'm well versed in employment issues. Unions are not necessary. Unless of course your in them, then you can expect to pull down over a $100,000 per year, amazing benefits and virtually no work ethic, with little to no education. Meanwhile, those of us with graduate and post graduate degrees struggle to make $40,000/year. Yeah, unions are great... they haven't driven up the taxes for all of us at all...

Dick-2100935

in the south we love our companies and they treat us well.

Manufacturing corporations move to the south because of cheap land, cheap labor and taxpayer money given to the corporation's executives. $25/hr is good pay and well above the average in the south but how is your retirement package, medical benefits and other reasons for working? You must be new to the work force because your post doesn't relate the history of the non union southern worker, it is very different than "we love our companies." Unions in the south created the middle class and established decent wage perspectives, without them your $25/hr wouldn't exist and you would still have to buy from the company store

Dick – as another southerner who works in for a nonunion employer (this one in Texas), we really are doing great and we do love our companies. I make a little more than Joe, though not much. My insurance is excellent (PPO with low deductibles with a very reasonable rate), my retirement package is great (match on all I put back up to 10% of my income), work/family friendly policies that allow me to be where I need to be when I need to be while taking care of my family, great perks that include a great wellness program with free gym and free access to health and financial advisors. Great working conditions, no health/safety issues, boss that appreciates what I do and tells me so, yearly raises and bonuses, etc.

I agree that unions did indeed help the current workers but that was back in a time when we didn’t have the choices we do now. Today, if you don’t like how your employer operates, you can find another position and – if you have marketable skills – employers compete for you. If you don’t have marketable skills, then you are doing yourself a disservice. Are there bad companies here, sure, but then a union wouldn’t change that because you can’t force someone to do what is right. They would just be a bad company that you had to pay for the privilege of working for.

If unions were such a great deal, you wouldn’t have to force people to join. They would be lining up at your door begging to get in.

The employer would have the option to pay a two tiered system. One for Union members and one for Non-Union members. SIMPLE AIN'T IT? Once the Union members see that the Non-Union members make without paying monthly dues they would quit the Union. Just look what happened to the AFSMCE in Wisconsin. They lost more than half their membership once they were given the chance. All Wisconsin did was stop collecting the Union dues. Once the members actually saw how much they paid they quit!

Except that some unions aren't very expensive at all. When I worked at a grocery store as a teenager, everyone was union. The dues were like six dollars a paycheck. It was nothing. Plus we made more than the non-union stores, where people my age were making minimum wage. If there was an issue with management we could have a union rep there. If we went on strike, the union gave you money to get through it. There were also scholarships and tuition re-imbursement all fought for by the union. In most cases, unions are very beneficial to the workers.

@Drowning

You obviously are not just a glass eyed worshipper, I am glad to see. Everything works better when labor and ownership work together toward making both sides more money instead of spending so much money and effort battling each other. The unions have to learn to recognize the good owners and get off their a$$, and the bad owners have to step up and get better or get the hell out of the way to get this country going again. Everyone needs to cinch up their belt a little bit to make it work. That is of course my opinion as a former business owner, but I think it is at least somewhat valid.

@ogreugly

You don't know what you talking about. You have never been a member of a union and have not any Idea's about gov regulations for union member's. Our due's can not be used for political uses but we can pay into a PAC. do you recognize the term? Republicans use it all the time. If you want the benefits then you pay the dues.

Either cite this government regulation you are talking about or go away. You are the one who does not know what you are talking about. The CA ballot measure would have made absolutely no sense if what you are saying is true. The reality is that unions can use dues money to fund their PACs. The dues money may not go directly to the politicians, but it definitely gets there. The unions takes union member's dues money and "donates" it to their own PACs and then uses it political purposes. The union member has no control over whether or not some of his dues money goes into the PAC. While technically it is not dues money going directly to the politicians, the result is exactly the same, union members being forced to support political causes though their dues whether they want to or not!! If you want to play semantics and claim that this is not dues money going to politicians go right ahead, but it is a difference without a distinction - the dues money still eventually gets to the politicians without the member having any say in the matter.

The law should be called, "the right to work for less money".

@tracy, No, I called most workers dumb. What I should have said was - many union and most non-union workers are either dumb, uninformed or apathetic. My comment is in direct correlation to the previous one and together they state that employees don't know how these laws affect them.

Since you disagree and dislike generalizations apparently as much as I do, sven, I'll challenge you to prove me wrong, EDNY. Any and all of you who think that my statement is wrong need to inform yourself, here's a little test.

Go to a major airport where there are thousands of union and non-union employees. Find an employee in an Airline uniform(not an airport or restaurant employee). Ask them these simple questions and write down their answers.

1) What is the Railway Labor Act?

2) How is the RLA relevant to your employment?

3) Do you benefit from the RLA, how?

4) What is a Collective Bargaining Agreement?

5) Are you a union employee? If yes, how much are your union dues? If no, how much do you think Labor Unions charge in union dues?

Believe me, I work with these people and I'm surprised at how little they know. But you can send your results to me in a PM from my profile page.

@sven, your comment is as short sighted as the employees that I was commenting about. Thing is, sven, union employees get much more than more income, like standardized work rules that can keep them from having to work 4 hours in the morning and 4 hours at night with a 4 hour break in between. Yeah, that guy that you accuse of losing your luggage has a crappy job and an employer that wants him to work like that!

@mark, I have personal knowledge of a worldwide transportation company that employs unionized labor from the most powerful union in the country where employees who have the best performance are actually given less work while the poor producers who complain and file grievances have work piled on them, are scrutinized and held accountable for their performance. While these employees can't simply be fired on the spot, many, many, many are fired every day and I'm sure they blame the union for not supporting them.

@EDNY, since you are so well versed in employment issues, why don't you tell all of those posting on here who an airline employees should talk to at the Department of Labor if they have a problem with an airline repeatedly shorting them on their paycheck! Hmmm?

Right back to my original point which was that many union and most non-union employees are dumb, uninformed or apathetic.

@Drowning

You obviously are not just a glass eyed worshipper, I am glad to see. Everything works better when labor and ownership work together toward making both sides more money instead of spending so much money and effort battling each other. The unions have to learn to recognize the good owners and get off their a$$, and the bad owners have to step up and get better or get the hell out of the way to get this country going again. Everyone needs to cinch up their belt a little bit to make it work. That is of course my opinion as a former business owner, but I think it is at least somewhat valid.

The part I bolded is the key here. For many small businesses, this is already the case (i.e., that ownership works in tandem with labor to foster a communal and mutually beneficial work environment). These owners should be extolled and commended.

With large, multinational conglomerates, this is rarely the case. They'd rather offshore labor to 3rd world nations, and beatdown unions in THIS country until our labor rates are "competitive" with those countries they outsource to. These are the people who are we need to be wary of, and unfortunately they are the ones leading the charge of anti-unionism in this country.

I'd be inclined to live with some "union busting" in this country if I felt like those doing the "busting" had American economic interests in mind, rather than their own, personal self-interest.

The thing is, those workers in that shop garner the benefits of the union contract. If you get the benefits, you should pay the dues...

That is the line used to justify it .... still doesn't make it right. You should NOT have to pay to work. If you want to join a union, it should be your CHOICE to join, not a requirement of the job. That's extortion.

JS ... Either cite this government regulation you are talking about or go away.

You are right ... and wrong. Unions CAN take your money (and often do illegally) for PACS, but it IS illegal.

It is unlawful for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization. Recently, the Federal Election Commission has audited some well-known national union PACs to see if they had written authorizations from employees for the contributions the PACs were receiving. The results were astonishing. One national union PAC, according to the FEC audit, could not produce written authorizations for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined. Another national union PAC was unable to show authorizations for at least 67% of the contributions the FEC examined. This suggests a widespread problem: union PACs are making political contributions to federal candidates with employees' money taken without their written authorizations. http://www.nrtw.org/d/illegalpac.htm

Of course that's on a federal level. California's law refers to state level "contributions".

Beth for the comments the other day....

Here is a little retaliation....

"COLLAPSE"

LOL....

Joe, I did not comment on the behavior of the unions because I'm sure they abuse many of their powers as well.
I'm speaking on the fact that in the South where the right to work states are prevalent.
The corporations abuse their rights by making employees afraid of doing the right thing by exposing corruption due to being afraid of being fired for any reason at all.

If we are going to have "The Right To Work States", then measures need to be in place to prevent this type of abuse.

I never have been in a union and don't care to be in one if they are abusing their powers.
But, all that I've seen is no protection for the working class that needs to be protected.

PLAYA....

The part I bolded is the key here. For many small businesses, this is already the case (i.e., that ownership works in tandem with labor to foster a communal and mutually beneficial work environment). These owners should be extolled and commended.

I have never been a big fan of the huge multi-corp farm, or construction shop or anything else for that matter. I personally believe it takes away what America did best to get where it is and makes people a bunch of slugs stuck on their position instead of striving for excellence.

I guess being smaller my view is different, I had 64 field employees most of the time (I don't count office as they can not being unionized). Approximately 1/2 were merit shop and 1/2 were Union force. With the merit shop employees, I could do jobs that I could not have otherwise done with Union forces and the same is true the other way around. The biggest problem I had was jealousy of each other, grass is always greener syndrome.

Wow Peel -- what are you, 7 maybe 10? You sure act like a little kid in the playground.

If you want to collapse a comment, go right ahead ... in fact, if YOU are collapsing one of MY comments, I'll take that as a good thing.

In the meantime, enjoy since I find it rather boring to duel with an unarmed person.

Tracey, I love your post...
It is my belief that corporations should have a ceiling on how large they can grow because this is the ultimate reason why many people aren't afforded an opportunity to take care of themselves.

if Wal-mart for instance is making all of the money on just about every household product sold as well as food products it drives the small, "Moms and Pops" shops out of business.

The reason we need to place a ceiling on many organizations is so that more Americans can share in the wealth and make a living for themselves.

This relieves the few corporations of various powers regarding whether or not many families can have liveable wages.

NOTE: not really associated....

Even Google a company that I love more than hate "who I'm also mad at for not accepting the responsibility of having people who are found to be innocent of charges against them. Pictures and information placed on their search engine, they are even partly responsible for destroying the lives of innocent individuals."
And there is nothing that these individuals can do Google will tell them to "BEAT IT"

Where are the monopoly laws in this situation???????

PLAYA......

@Peel,

I think everyone should be able to play on a level playing field, however, the big corps have gotten so fat and gluttonous that the field is tipped to far in their favor, I am still furious about the bailouts of these types of companies that were funded with my tax dollars without my permission while mom and pop business were told to go take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut. The companies that got too fat and stupid should have died by natural selection, but this was not allowed to happen. Now we have a bunch of disease ridden mad cows who should be long since dead trying to lead the herd. These same corps that took millions in govt bail bought these now dying mom and pop business's and farms and creating more of a high leverage position for themselves to go after the next size up businesses.

The BIG problem is that the unions, by the nature of how they do business, required the continuation of these megacorps even though is is not in the best interest of the unionized workforce nor in the best interest of the continuation of prosperity for America. Pretty screwed up isn't it.

BTW, yes, I do wonder where the anti-trust/anti-monopoly laws went.

"Lucy, you gots lots of splainin' to do." - Desi

The question all you union advocates need to ask yourself is, are you worth your wages and benefits?
If you are, you don't need a union to negotiate for you.
If you're not, you're the reason jobs get outsourced or offshored.

Beth,

I don't believe physically hurting others in order to get my point across.
Especially, using weapons because that is the most cowardly way to settle a dispute.

I believe in allowing for truth to prevail in every situation.
Sometimes we are on the wrong side sometimes we are on the right.
With the help of other individuals those of us who are on the wrong side will hopefully find our way.

I don't dislike you Beth.
I just felt as though I needed to respond to your comment that sought to keep me quite when I did not fire the first insult.

PEEL LAYA....

Just to answer the question about my benefit's , I have a 401 where my company matches 100% ,up to my 6%. I also have a pension plan that cost me nothing. I also have a accumulated 8 weeks of PTO this year, my max. To answer the question of my age , I am 51 years old and know very well the history of this country and it's Unions. Unions at one time ,were a very good thing for the working man and had allot to do with the rights and benefits we all enjoy today but like everything else, money has destroyed them and given them way too much power. I just heard the story where Chrysler reinstated 13 union workers who were fired for drinking and smoking weed , during lunch hours. Now does anyone out there think that is right, I have always bought Chrysler and supported American car companies, but I will no longer buy Chrysler products , I don't want drunken alcoholics,pot heads, building my cars. unions have lost their way and are obviously not looking out for me, the American car buyer. Maybe next time i will buy one of those Nissan's made in Mississippi, I heard you cant get stoned at lunch break there, guess that's why their quality is so good.

So if you don't like your wages JOIN A UNION. Start a Union where you work. The Employer can't stop you from making your work place a Union Shop. Only requirement is the a majority of workers vote to join a Union. Right to Work doesn't mean Unions are unlawful.

I live in a right to work state and wages are NOT in the toilet.

But, there are issues all over the country, and Iowa--not surprised.

Move, further your education, find a better job - it's all out there - you just have to make a choice to go out and get it and get up off the couch.

"Move, further your education, find a better job..." It's NOT "all out there," Kimbo.

MOVE? Someone who is barely able to make rent can't afford to move. What do you do? Abandon any and all family members where you're from, move somewhere else where you HOPE the cost of living is cheaper? Who is going to pay for the moving van, the gas, the relocation money required (first month's rent, last month's rent, security deposit, utilities, etc.) at this new place if you can't even survive where you are? What about relocating your children, finding a proper school and arranging day care? And how are you going to magically jump from one job to another in a different location and not take time off for such things as this?

FURTHER YOUR EDUCATION? You mean, go deep into student debt that your family will be saddled with if you die, because it is unforgivable debt. Spend the next ten or twenty years of your life paying off your education... in any field that you educate yourself in, there are NO guarantees that you will even find work related to your major. And exactly how many people already in debt from mortgage and credit card issues can afford to take on, and subsequently pay off, additional debt for an education they might be able to do nothing with?

FIND A BETTER JOB? Have you not been keeping up with the news? Have you seen the reality of how much bull the "job websites" like CareerBuilder and Monster really are? The majority of the listings for jobs at CareerBuilder, for example, are MILITARY jobs. Other sites list that employers have already decided to hire within for, but are required by law to make public. Or there are the spammers. Employers are laying off workers left and right. You think the job market isn't flooded with overqualified, underpaid workers?

I love the "get off the couch" argument. Of course, it is an argument used by the truly lazy, and is pretty insulting. And what "right to work" state do YOU live in (if there was EVER a stupid name for legislation, "right to work" would be it - do states that do NOT have such legislation not allow people to work?).

As far as simply unionizing your shop goes, why not try it and let us know how it works out for you. Of course, in a "right to work" state, you will likely be organizing from the outside, as you will probably be fired. See, "right to work" does not mean that you have the right to organize...typically just the opposite. What these righties fail to tell you is that passage of "right to work" legislation usually entails the right to work for less while most other workers' rights go out the window. Yeah, the right is surely looking out for the common man...and I have a bridge to sell you.

Check the statistics on right to work states. Lower average income. More poor people. Here in SC pay is low and jobs are scarce. High unemployment.

Oh, but you just made several of my points.

Why can't they barely afford their rent? Low paying job - why is that? Lack of education, having children they couldn't afford, living beyond their means - has to be a reason and usually it's one of choices they have made.

If you're poor, you don't have to go into deep student debt. If you are TRULY POOR, then you get a $5,000 Pell Grant that does not have to be paid back and you can also get other grants through other organizations--if you are TRULY POOR - then you can get a free ride - so that is NOT an excuse.

And why are they using credit cards if they are POOR? They can't make the payments so add that to bad choices along with not furthering their education, having children they couldn't afford and applying for credit cards they can't pay back.

In a later post, I said I wasn't talking about ANYONE who DID make the right choices and death, disease and job loss, through NO fault of their own was not who I was talking to.

But guess what - they could have joined the military right out of HS, before those kids, mortgages and credit card debt came along - I did.

It's exactly what I said - all about choices we make in our lives - a LOT of people make the wrong ones and they have no one to blame but themselves and then you have those of us (me included), that DID make the right choices.

I have absolutely NO sympathy for those that put themselves in a bad situation. Why can't they pay the rent? Why do they have children they couldn't afford? What are the choices THEY MADE that put them in a dead-end, low paying job. I didn't put them there, you didn't.

Nobody wants to take responsibility for their OWN lot in life and you appear to be one of those too.

"Most" people are in the positions they CHOSE, because of bad choices THEY MADE.

Here in WI, wages have been in the toilet and we are a "Closed Shop" state. Our outlook looks grimmer than ever with Rep controlled in all three branches of state gov.

It is called INNOVATING your way out of a poor income and bad life...

Unions do neither....

Have some integrity and work... if you do NOT like the pay find a new job, career, school, profession, idea, dream, product, inspiration, motivation.... etc etc etc.

It is called INITIATIVE ... you either have it or you do not...

Unions are a burden on America. Here in California they get TRIPLE PENSION with loop-holed contracts and it has brought down major communities when they go broke paying a clerical worker 200k a year in pension funds. The liberal corruption is HORRID... look up BELL in California to see REAL corruption.

Look up San Bernadino who just filed bankruptcy in California recently...one of the LARGEST COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA AND THE COUNTRY.

YOU KNOW WHY? UNION PENSIONS BROKE THE COUNTY PERIOD.

YOU KNOW WHY CALIFORNIA IS SERIOUSLY IN DEBT BEYOND BELIEF??? UNIONS!!!

I too live in a so-called "right to work" state and I just don't get the whole union thing. The economy is a competitive environment for both employers & employees. If I feel like I'm not getting paid enough, or my benefits are good enough, or whatever, it's a free country and I'm well within my rights to flip the bird to my employer and go to his competitor if that company offers me a better deal. Likewise, if my employer pays better than others or offers better benefits, more vacation or whatever, then we will attract the best & brightest away from our competitors. It's simple supply & demand. If either party tries to take unfair advantage of the other, beyond the normal & customary wages & benefits for the job position, they will eventually get screwed by supply & demand. I've seen it time and time again in my career -- a company tries to cut costs too much and gets too lean & mean with its employees, and before you know it, the ones that were most able to make the company successful & profitable have jumped ship and now work for the competitor.

Why the he11 would I want to give my hard-earned money to what is basically a political organization that claims to be looking out for my rights? So they can tell me I can get more? So they can require me to go on strike if we all don't get more?

I know my rights and I can take care of my own career, thank you very much. I am more than able to compete with my peers anywhere in my industry, and I am perfectly happy with the natural interaction of labor supply & demand.

Barry if you do not like it go else where..... There is nothing forcing you to stay there..... If you do not have the guts to stand up for yourself then just move on.....

YOU KNOW WHY CALIFORNIA IS SERIOUSLY IN DEBT BEYOND BELIEF??? UNIONS!!!

It also has a lot to do with how much money exits the state in the form of federal taxes and comparatively little returns via federal funding. If California didn't have to pay red-state welfare (like most blue states) and got back in funding what they paid out, they'd actually run a SURPLUS as a state! Look it up, you can find the info on wikipedia.

For example, in 2005, they paid $47B in more than they received, their budget deficit was $15B.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005

www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1327

The law should be called, "the right to work for less money".

Drowing , are you serious? California's problems have nothing to do with the RED STATES. California is in the pinch their in because they have spent and taxed their way into it. Corporations are packing up and leaving everyday, because of high corporate taxes and all of the regulations you Liberals have passed. California is like a small Europe, they also have taxed and spent their way into bankruptcy. Don't blame your problems on anyone but yourself and don't forget to pay your outrages Property taxes this year. LOL

That tells me that Mr. Obama's Stimulus plan did not work then and another Stimulus plan will not work in the future.

Wait a dad gum minute....mabye those Union Jobs are "shovel ready".

ldo, what does the right to work law have to do with Obama? Your party lost, GET OVER IT!

Ido, you might want to actually read a newspaper or something, instead of just listening to Beck and Limbaugh. Tell us, oh smart one, just how is Chrysler doing nowadays? Oh, and if there were no stimulus in place, things would be far worse...but don't let facts get in your way.

Hey liberal tools... I am going to say OBAMA BLOWS and good luck with your Obamacare, and Hostess, Denny's, Papa Johns and the strikes on the Los Angeles DOCKS and lets not forget Wal-MArts bombshell of doing away with health insurance as of 2013 for ALL NEW HIRES below management etc. etc. etc.... shall i go on???

Good luck with that... and guess what, it is not ROMNEY'S FAULT so when I mention Obama you are very correct he won the election and NOW OWNS IT ALL. So keep deflecting that anyone who thinks Obama blows is BITTER from the election... they are not bitter... they are vigilant in knowing Obama is truly a poor poor leader who got voted in by the entitled youth, pandering liberals and special interest gay groups of America.

Unions blows period..this is not 1920 and sweat shops. ALLOT of companies already left or closed... you think the economy is getting better?? I beg to differ.

I cannot wait until you see your paychecks jacked up for around 6-10% more taken out when those 1600 new IRS agents, hired just to track YOU and your MEDICAL TAXES, make sure you pay your fair share into the medical system, to carry all the poor people.

Guess what?.... that all kicks in, in 2013 and 2014...all the kewl stuff. like parents carrying kids until there 26. started in 2012... you remeber all thats stuff that sounded SOOO good? ...now all the BAD stuff hits the fan in 2013 and especially 2014... you know the part where the IRS puts a new LINE on your pay stub before you ever see it. Someone has to pay for it... you think the 1% are going to cover all that with OBAMAS TAXES??? LOL ...You will directly before you see you paycheck ...good luck with that one alone next election when people see their checks between now and 2014 CHANGE DRASTICALLY.

Lets see...paycheck deductions

• State and federal income tax
• Unions dues
• Medicare medicaid
• and now MEDICAL INSURANCE

Lets see who is "crying that they lost" in two years... Oh and when you think your going to go get the republicans money (of course the 1%ers are ONLY republican)to pay for your welfare thru strong arming, rhetoric and usurping federal laws?....that is where you learn about the second maybe amendment huh?

But wait... all those illegal immigrants will save you...

Is this really Mr. Beck? Sure sounds like it...

Shame on you, Shosyn.

However you may feel about our President and his policies, he does not deserve to be characterized in such vulgar terms. To be sure, there is no statute on the books that requires you to respect any elected official, nor is it considered treason or libel to criticize him (what a great country we live in!). Clearly from the tenor of your post, you have no respect for President Obama. But what about respect for the principles of conduct your parents tried (but apparently failed) to instill in you?

Have you no sense of decency?

Your party lost,

Randy-394876 - Republican Governor, Republican Upper House, Republican Lower House. Not really seeing a loss there for the Republicans in Michigan.

If the people of Michigan voted in Republicans then they get what they deserve.

The law should be called, "the right to work for less money".

Eric,

The law should be called, "the right to work for less money".

Yeah, we all heard. You're really creative.... Give it a rest already.

The lie that "right to work laws" "will create" jobs is easy to prove if the supporters of this idiotic law is forced to do so. All that needs to be done is ----- for every dollar saved because of cutting salary's and cutting benefits, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN, check every other state that allowed this to pass, THAT SAVINGS SHOULD BE USED TO CREATE ANOTHER JOB FOR A WORKER IN EVERY INSTANCE THIS LAW IS USED. If existing workers are cut 2 million in pay and benefits 2 MILLION HAS TO BE USED EMPLOYING WORKERS IN THOSE SAME JOBS. I am positive "management" will not agree to this BECAUSE THEIR REAL DESIRE FOR THIS LAW IS TO INCREASE THEIR PROFIT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE WORKER THAT MAKES THOSE PRODUCTS. All "right to work " laws do is allow corporate thieves to rape their employees however they want. IT IS NO WONDER REPUBLICRAPS DEMAND THIS, THEY PROSPER FROM OUR WORK AND BECAUSE YOU WORK FOR THEM THAT GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO MAKE YOU MISERABLE.

You should negotiate your own pay and benefits if you so choose, and if you do not choose, then pay the union. But to be forced to pay dues when you dont want the union to represent you is just dumb. Well done MI.

WHAT benefits?

I was in a Union for ten years, and when I got layed off.

All I got from them was late notices on my overdue dues.

SCREW your UNIONS.

"WHAT benefits?

I was in a Union for ten years, and when I got layed off.

All I got from them was late notices on my overdue dues."

@ Viewer_Ready: Did it ever occur to you that if you aren't paying your dues, you don't deserve the benefits? Talk about entitlement issues!

LOL did it ever occur to YOU that if you have paid them for ten plus years you should get some return?

Call us when you wake up.

Look, everybody, Viewer_Ready wants entitlements! Yeah, why not call US when you wake up...did somebody tell you that union dues were a pension fund? Did they? Talk about uneducated.

if he lost his job, how do you expect him to pay dues?

@ Viewer_Ready: If you're getting late notices, you're obviously not paying, are you? Entitlement issues much, troll?

I love the righties on here that blather in one post how great they are doing and in another how awful it is that they have been let go from their job and nobody gave them a parting gift. These are the same types of people that post things like "I once had a friend who..." or "I know a guy who knows a guy...". And they are also the ones that know all the right ways to do EVERYTHING and know that anybody that fails at anything is merely a loser that didn't try hard enough.

They have a word for this in the dictionary: delusional.

The ones that post @!$%# like "When I was in a union" are people that have NEVER been in a union. More FOX trolls spreading GOP garbage. Again if you get a job in a union shop then you have to join the union but you can opt out of paying dues. You will loose representation rights and can not vote on any contracts. But if you hate unions so much why are you getting a job in a union represented employer?

Yep, and I call that being a "freeloader". Enjoy the benefits of union representation and not paying for it. You don't lose representation rights, the union has to represent you in a grievance, or if you are getting a disciplinary action against you even if you don't pay dues. The union is legally bound to represent you. That's why it's called "freeloading".

Another bit of truth: The reason almost all unions negotiate for a pay raise is that is how they get paid. Most union dues are based on the hourly rate of pay, or a variant thereof. So if the union doesn't negotiate a raise in the contract for the workers, then the dues won't go up, and the union doesn't get a raise.

Thanks for the correction KY.

Get educated and get a better job.

I doubt they twisted your arm to take that waitress job (and by the way, they are called servers now).

I furthered my education and make the $$ I want, everyone has the opportunity to do so, so why haven't you?

If you are in a situation you don't like - then change it - only you can do so. If not, then you are where you CHOSE to be.

I don't get it with republicans. They tell people if they don't like their pay, go to school and get educated to get a better job. Who pays for this education?? Go to the government so you can bitc$ about the debt the government has?? Get a loan (if you make low wages who's gonna loan it) so you can whine about the borrowers not making payments??? You guys make me sick. Be careful , don't fall off those fat wallets and break a hip, a low paid healthcare person might take care of you. Can you trust a low paid healthcare worker????

Hey, Kimbo - tell us, all knowing one, are you CERTAIN that only "servers" is used? You also may not be aware of this, but there are "servers" that make a very good wage. But of course such a position is far too lowly for one as great as you are.

The weak argument that one merely needs to get an education and try harder is utter nonsense, used by those that like spouting right wing talking points. There are people with college educations, including PHDs, that are unemployed or underemployed. What would you like to tell them? That they are too lazy? That they didn't try hard enough? Or maybe you could admit that you are merely spewing dreck. Everyone is NOT who they choose to be, and such an utterance is garbage.

I'm not a Republican, but if you are TRULY POOR, you don't have to pay for a college education. It is based on income and if you are TRULY POOR, then you can get a free ride with NO STUDENT DEBT.

People do it all the time, it's just another excuse for people who do not want to get up off their arse and better themselves.

Easier to bitch and collect a government check every month.

And THAT is what is wrong with America today. Bitch, whine and do nothing but bitch and whine about how your life sucks when the reason it SUCKS is because of YOU.

The government and the American people DO NOT OWE YOU ANYTHING just because you exist.

Randy, I paid for my own education and so did my son. I joined the military for the GI bill and when I got out I drove my a$$ of in an 18 wheeler and stashed money away for a couple of years then quit and went back to school. While in school I lived off a small military retirement and my savings. Now I am doing just fine and I did it all myself.

Kimbo, where do you get this free education? Living in a fantasy world are you? You know what sucks? Having people like you that blow smoke and pretend like they know everything...people that are REALLY good at pointing fingers at others. You may not be a Republican, but you sure sound like one.

are there waitress unions? good grief...

texasbob, good on you! did basically the same route myself. didn't have to rely on the great union "help"

Hats off to you texasbob.

Randy is one of those that whine's and blames all his problems on other people. Nothing that happens to him could have anything to do with lousy choices he may have made in his own life.

And Randy, I was a SERVER twice while I was in the military when we needed extra income and I DID NOT WANT TO ASK FOR A HANDOUT.

So I know they can make good money.

And I also know that NO ONE CHOOSES to become a server - it's a stop-gap job when you need one and/or you are not qualified for anything else. Been there - done that. Didn't want to be 52 years old and serving at Chili's so I made BETTER choices for myself and my family.

I'm sick and tired of people screwing up their own lives and expecting the American people and government to be there with a handout.

How about graduating from HS?

How about closing your legs or keeping your pants zipped up and not having children you can't afford to feed?

How about that $200 a month cell phone while you are collecting food stamps?

How about that shack you live in while you have that brand new truck in the driveway?

All about choices and a lot of Americans have made some choices that SUCK - for them and their family and they have no one to blame but THEMSELVES - PERIOD - THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE PERSON IN THE MIRROR (except for those that have experienced death, disease and job loss through no fault of their own).

Left Wing Nut Job,

You apparently KNOW NOTHING about government education assistance - I DO.

My nephew, who is 30 and low income got a $5K Pell Grant (doesn't have to be paid back), and another $5K government grant to go to school with NO PAY BACK - simply because of his low income.

It's out there alright, people are just too lazy to take advantage of it.

And by the way, if you AREN'T POOR and don't qualify, then you should have the $$ for college anyway.

Turn in that cell phone, buy a used car, quit having those kids and living above your means and you will have no problems affording higher education. People do it everyday - at least those who want to better themselves.

Those that don't will come up with excuse after excuse and whine and bitch about their lot in life - just like you.

Well, thank you for devining how much I know. And how old I am. And what I earn. Can you tell me what the winning lottery numbers are for the week as well?

What if you have too much to be considered "poor" enough for a free ride (it isn't as easy as you make it sound, but if YOU know half as much as you pretend, you already knew that as well)? But not enough to go to school and keep your family fed and sheltered? What if you are in that middle ground, as many are, between being so broke you get a "free ride" and having enough to go to school on your own?

Me? I have a job, one that pays well. I have three used cars, thank you, and need that cell phone for my job. I quit having kids 17 years ago. I live in the same house I have owned (with no mortgage) for almost thirty years. But, hey, thanks for the holier than thou attitude. Oh, and thanks for proving my point.

You are whining and bitching more than anybody else on these boards, so get over yourself.

And I'm happy that you have had a good life.

And based on your responses I would be willing to BET that the good paying JOB is a union job, am I right? Come on, tell me, am I right?

You have COMPLETELY missed my point.

The point being - why do you have a family you can't afford?

Why are you having kids you can't afford?

For those that have lost jobs, have death and disease in your family that was unexcepted - I'm not talking to them.

I'm talking to the 34 year old, married with 4 kids he can't support.

That unmarried mother who had two children out of wedlock that she couldn't afford.

I'm talking about people getting food stamps while paying $200 a month for a cell phone bill.

THOSE PEOPLE.

They made BAD choices, they chose to have children they couldn't afford, a cell phone they had no business having.

Does everyone have a right to a family? Sure - BUT YOU NEED TO SUPPORT THAT FAMILY. IF YOU CAN'T, then you HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPECT ME as a taxpayer to support it.

And THAT is the problem with this country. A sense of entitlement - I get what I want, and I'll get someone else to pay for it.

And BTW, NOBODY needs a cell phone for a job. How do you think we all did our jobs before cell phones came along? We did them just fine thank you - even in the military.

It's all about NEEDS, not WANTS and the American people have it backa$$ wards where that is concerned.

I'm not holier than thou - I've been down, but I PULLED MYSELF UP, I made the right choices in my life and didn't expect anyone to give me a handout and that is what EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD DO.

And for those that don't, well no sympathy here...sorry.

No, Kreskin, I do NOT have a union job. Once again, you have failed with your amusing attempts at "thinking" through issues.

I have not had a union job for years, but when I did it was with a union where I was not even allowed to strike or take any job actions - but I did not complain about paying dues, as I got represented well. My parents both belonged to unions and it was a good thing they did, as those unions made sure they both had health insurance for them and for my sister and myself. Sorry if you resent such things.

You do NOT know what job I have, and I most CERTAINLY need a cell phone for mine. Once more with the holier than thou crap. I didn't need one in the military, which is a good thing, since they weren't invented yet. Once again, get over yourself. If you knew half as much as you apparently think you do, you would be a force to be reckoned with; as it stands, not so much.

When unions are "abolished" or otherwise disappear, this country will pay dearly.

Kimbo47, what if when the kids were born, the family had a decent income and health care to pay for the babies that were born or the niece and nephews that was either going to go into a foster home or be taken in by a family member?

Quit blaming children for existing, and parents for thinking that their lives are on track. No one asks for a train wreck. I agree that people who aren't married should keep their jean on and their genes apart.

But there are those who planned, dream, work, and get hit by stuff out of the blue with floods, droughts, car wrecks, sick parents, handicapped children, deserting spouses, strokes, cancer, whatever. You can do everything "right," make all the "right" choices and still end up angry, miserable and full of pain because the world didn't work out the way that you thought it should. No one is getting out of this life without something that will tear him or her apart.

And you will be one of them, because life happens, and the things you've typed here are going to come back and haunt you, if they haven't started to already, not because of what anything that can be blamed on anyone else-- although you will try to-- but because life happens.

Children are part of life, and those kids will be the ones working in your nursing home.

I have to wonder just how many US citizens and posters to this article who decry big government are either current or ex-military. Our country has the largest defense budget in the history of the world, and all of you who claim to have 'bootstrapped' your way into financial security or gotten a debt-free education (courtesy of the GI Bill) seem to delight in reminding us spineless civilians how we can better ourselves, if only. . . if only. . . we would JOIN THE GOVERNMENT'S ARMED SERVICES, arguably the largest 'union' in America. Exercise your 'right to fight', perhaps the only one it allows you. . .

After all, isn't that how we managed to pull ourselves out of the Great Depression? Any nation on a permanent war footing can achieve full employment, no problem. Ask the Germans, the Soviets. Unless, of course, some of its citizenry prefers peace to the chest-thumping hypocrisy of those enthralled with the military as a means to economic and political 'freedom'.

So, all you unemployed whiners, what are you waiting for? Sign up today! Uncle Sam wants YOU!

Not so well read as your statement proves out. I am not a vet and to decry the so called free ride GI bill shows you to be on the wrong side of viewing vets. Any idea what they were paid during thier Service, how they pay for more of thier military lives than most know, you don't and should apologize here publically.

The persuit of is how it is written, you don't persue, you don't get, pretty simple actually. Fair too.

I have to wonder just how many US citizens and posters to this article who decry big government are either current or ex-military.

Both Kimbo47 and texasbob are ex-military. They both admitted it.

My personal favorite is texasbob telling others to, in essence, "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps," when he admits to joining the military for the GI Bill and that "while in school (he) lived off his small military retirement."

Okey dokey then...

@Drowning Grover: You can't advocate for "contract work" and oppose "contract work" at the same time. That would make you a hypocrite.

Choosing to join the military, the individual enters into a contract with the federal government. Anyone who qualifies to join the military...can. There are multiple options that benefit individuals from the GI Bill to Student Loan Repayment. Keep in mind, that entering into that contract, you are forfeiting many of your rights as well.

The America of Charles Dickens. By the way, when you get the full knowledge of what actually happened with Hostess, why not come back and apologize for your lies...? Those people watched their employer do a lot of good: failed to update failed practices and antiquated ways of running an operation, gave themselves ample raises and bonuses while multiple times demanding their workers take cuts in benefits and salaries, raided the pension plans of workers and then failed to put anything back, etc. Yeah, if you do good for you employer, they will do good by you. Hack. It may take two to tango, but it only takes one to fall down and take you with them.

charles dickens? seriously? is that the kind of boogie man stories they tell you to get you to join the union?

Yes, seriously. If you used your head instead of just going zombie with right wing talking points, you might understand...it is not a "boogie man" story (is that a guy that dances well?). The England of Charles Dickens is one without unions; a "right to work" country, if you will. And it was so delightful, was it not? Ours was also a country without unions not so long ago; I suggest you actually crack open a book or two and learn what it was like back in the "good ol' days" - if that isn't too hard for you, that is.

oh boy, you're gonna be fun. straight to the "right wing talking points" comeback. did you think of that all by yourself? sounds pretty original! only a small fraction of the american workforce is union represented, 12% according to the BLS, and half of those work in government, i.e. teachers, police, etc... so that leaves about 6% of the workers in a union. the small minority. how is it that the vast majority of the public is NOT represented by a union, but somehow manages to make ends meet, and many many prosper? i know the overexaggerated scare tactics of how things were a century ago, and that we will go back to those dark ages ways without the unions defending us, is the best argument for unions, but unfortunately, it's not remotely realistic.

Yeah, I thought of it all by myself, unlike you when you repeat those talking points.

As far as unions and their percentages, well wait until there aren't any at all.

Over-exaggerated. Yeah, right. Tell that to the Triangle families, or, more recently, those in Bangladesh (no unions there, either). Tell them how unrealistic it all is.

Most of these people have no idea about history or how the unions gave us a middle class. Since unions have gotten weaker and weaker the middle class has been on the decline. It all started in 1980. Ronnie boy destroyed the unions with the air traffic control. He also allowed millions on Mexicans to stay in this country to ruin the United Farm Workers. Before unions, we had no 40 hour weeks, we had no retirement plans, no health care, no rights. Oh gee that is what is going on right now. The top 1% are making most of the profit and paying their workers less and less. My grandfather worked for a company that paid their workers and by the end of the month he owed the company more than he made. They lived in company housing, company stores, and company doctors. It was not until unions came in he had health insurance, bought a house, and a retirement plan.

again, more scare tactics and over-eggageration. this is the US, not Bangladesh, an apples to oranges comparison. there was a time where unions served a purpose, and laws were created to protect people. the unions were successful in their intended purpose. too successful. now all that is left is fighting for high wages and entitlements for low skill work that people in other countries can do. and those people in other countries are doing it, at the expense of jobs here. this isn't the early 20th century, and this isn't a 3rd world country. we aren't going to devolve back to what once was anymore than we are all going to ride horse and buggy to work.

Yeah, you keep thinking that. And while you're thinking that, remember the phrase "those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it." Not that it will matter to you...your favorite phrase is probably "my mind's made up - don't confuse me with facts!".

would you like me to bring you up to speed on how the world has changed and evolved since those Dickens days? we aren't doomed to repeat the slave labor days of a century or more ago. where we are doomed is if we don't evolve to the realities of a changed world and learn how to deal with that, instead of the boogie man storiesto cling to the days of yore. isn't that how they said it? and ye olde? Dickens days are ancient history. The heydays of the 50-70s, where america was the only game in town, have come and gone. It's been a new world for decades, far past time for america to wake up to the realities of it.

tiredboy, the unions did not give us a middle class. we had a middle class bubble in the decades after WWII, where the US was the only game in town. we had the only intact industrial complex, in overdrive, as well as the logistical apparatus to get our products to market. a competitive advantage. then we sat back and got fat. along came the japs with cheap product and higher quality. then efficient lean production and product development. nex nail in the coffin was computers and robotics, and improvements in transportation and communications. suddenly the world is a much smaller place. the bubble has burst, time for people to realize and move on to the realities of the new world. no-skill, low-skill, and semi-skilled labor is no longer worth what it used to be in the US, especially with a billion screaming chinamen an email and plane flight away...

Can all the people bleating on and on... and on... and on... about how necessary and how swell the unions are explain to me that when finally given the choice, why people leave the unions in droves? Look at WI, why was there a mass exodus out of the union when people had the choice to leave?

People defending the "right" of unions to take union dues from non-union employees is nauseating. States like WI and MI, are finally waking up, with soon more to follow, I'm sure.

This is true AA.

First it helps to educate yourself beyond the point of being a pawn.

Sure, some ass holes take advantage.

But few will try and screw over someone with an education.

Wanna bet? Plenty of folks with "educations" get taken advantage of. Can't you righties come up with something a little more clever? Nah, probably not.

You seem to whine more than anybody else on this board - and your last sentence proves you have little to contribute other than to flaunt some unfounded superiority.

Without unions, the middle and lower classes of this country would be working 80 hours a week at junk pay, with little or no time off. But, hey, don't let history cloud your feelings of superiority.

Whine, I don't whine.

I'm sick of listening to the rest of these people whine about their lot in life.

Quit bitching and get up off your butt and change your life.

I'm not superior - but NOBODY that doesn't at least have a HS diploma DESERVES to be paid above minimum wage - period.

I have a great life - WHY - because I made the right choices and didn't expect to be paid more than what my skills were worth and that's what unions do - can you really support paying a janitor that only made it thorugh the 8th grade $21 an hour? BS!!

So, Kirk Kerkorian, Peter Jackson, and Richard Branson should all make minimum wage at a maximum, huh? Yeah, sure.

someone without a high school education deserves to make whatever he or she can. and the rest of us who bothered to complete school deserve the ability to pay that person what we feel they are worth, not what the union extorts or demands from us...

They are SELF MADE.

They weren't making $21 as a union member as a janitor with no HS diploma.

You apparently cannot read, because you have completely missed the point of any of my posts.

It's all about responsibility for the choices EVERYONE makes in their own lives. Own it, deal with it, quit expecting taxpayers to bail you out and then you won't have anything to bitch about, huh?

I can read, Einstein - you said:

I'm not superior - but NOBODY that doesn't at least have a HS diploma DESERVES to be paid above minimum wage - period.

That was your statement, one you have made more than once, and YOU emphasized "nobody" all on your own. And with the "period" garbage added as well. But go ahead, attack me for what you said...typical.

That nephew of yours taking government handouts. Shameful. 30 years old and on the dole.

according to the BLS (bureau of labor statistics) only about 12% of american workers are union represented, and 1/2 of those are in government jobs. seems the other 88% are able to get along just fine...

Congratulations.

I did the same.

But Obama will tell you that "you didn't build that".

And I don't give a sh**t about Obama. HA

Congrats to you too!

@Kimbo47: Thank you for your service brother. I did the exact same thing as you. Except, I indulge moderately with an alcoholic beverage now and then.

Now, working retail, got the pension and 4 rental properties of which two are paid off. Life is good!

Congrats Dave20121--thank you for your service.

People do it everyday, except those that want to live off the government and do nothing with their lives except whine about what they don't have.

Like your nephew. You should have helped that derilict out.

nope. and thats a major factor in why their numbers have declined, the labor intensive low skill/technology jobs that the unions once occuppied have globalized.

Then you need to find another employer or a different line of work.

Your employer got where he or she is today by means of American capitalistic values.

YOU TOO can achieve.

Yet you would rather whine.

I just can't see an auto union worker getting $45 per hour for shining hood ornaments.

So lawerence if you hire someone to mow your lawn. do you believe the lawn guy then has the right to comeback and mow your lawn whenever he wants to and demand payment whether you want it mowed or not?

i live in arizona and am doing just fine. then again, i bothered with the inconvenience of an education, so I don't do monkey work...

Or you can have a union, and you can have a co-worker who sucks and slacks off forever and they fight to keep his

job for him (or her).

There might be a hard worker out there waiting in the wings to take the slackers spot in the real world.

I got a union for you.

And you can put it where the sun don't shine.

Every employer should HAVE THE RIGHT to hire and fire at will.

Employer's should not be held hostage by employees.

And THAT is what unions do, they are simply sanctioned bullies.

@ Viewer_Ready : Or you can fix the things that don't work with unions...just because you don't like some of the ways they operate these days doesn't mean they can't be fixed. It's foolish to throw away something that gave us a living wage, the 40 hour work week, worker's rights, and collective bargaining. Only a moron (or an idiotic troll) with no grasp on history would think that's a good idea.

The Ludlow Massacre. I wouldn't be surprised if you have no idea what that is, because you don't seem to understand what unions have given us. Google it for a better understanding of what capitalism is without checks and balances. Fix the problems, don't throw it away like a moron.

And that's why it's called HISTORY.

It's in the past, unions served their purpose, they are over and done and need to be abolished.

jonal, libertarians would back the employers right to fire your butt...

Yeah, sure. Anybody want to buy a bridge?

Employers should be able to hire and fire at will. It's THEIR COMPANY!!!

I just don't understand the mindset of people who think they have the RIGHT to tell a company who to hire/fire, when, etc.

You want to do that - THEN START YOUR OWN COMPANY.

Geez...I just do not understand people.

You don't understand people because you are so superior to most of them.

Right?

This is most of the reason why there are so many hundreds of thousands of hard working people out of work being laid off for no actual valid reason and are or have foreclosed on their homes...

Do you even believe the idiocy that you type?

People are out of work because the economy sucks, demand is low, people don't have as much disposible income to consume, the housing market's barely started to recover (if at all), etc...etc.... it's not because employers all across the country decided to "fire thousands of people for no reason at all."

Companies don't owe you a job just because the economy sucks...in fact, they NEVER owe you a job.

Actually, Jax A, if there is idiocy in statements, one need look no further than your posts. But thanks for being an apologist for the corporate classes.

One of the biggest reasons our economy sucks is greed. People ARE laid off or not given the opportunity for employment because of greed, which is NOT a valid reason. Their jobs are shipped overseas because of greed. Shifts are halved because of greed. People are canned because they have been around too long and make too much because of greed. Yeah, those "job creators" do a fine job...except they don't.

Eventually, the tools out there will realize the job creators are the consumers, not the wealthy. If there is nobody to buy anything, why would you bother making anything? But, hey, let's give those wealthy folks tax breaks and everything else we can because they are the "job creators" - except they are NOT. They have had these tax cuts for years now, so where are all these jobs?

Class warfare? Yeah, we've got it and the right does nothing but stoke the fires.

NutCase -You spewed everything but the "FAIR" word, you hate success, thats too bad, and you can't get your head around someone running a business to succede and make money for themselves. No dude you didn't build it, and have NO rights to what they make, aside from wages for time worked.

Hey moron, if the business can still meet demand with half the workforce then it should.

Hey moron, if the business can do it with half the workforce, then it should....