Mark your calendars that December 6, 2012 was the day that the majority party in Lansing slammed the door on any vestige of cooperation between the two political parties that had been a hallmark of the Milliken years when civility and a degree of bi-partisanship was more the rule than the exception.
With Governor Snyder leading the charge the Senate and House Republicans cast propriety to the wind and passed bills (in some cases without referral to committees or public hearings) that are as divisive and poorly thought out as any possibly in history.
The Republican leadership went so far as to close the Capitol Building to the public so they wouldn’t have to hear the objections of people from across the state. A Court Order reopened the building, after Democratic leaders filed an emergency law suit.
Whether you support the legislation or oppose it, the entire episode is a blot on the record of state politics and doing “the people’s business” in a fair and proper manner.
There was no question the anti-union, anti-women’s rights bills, so much a part of
the reactionary right’s agenda would likely have the votes to pass but the unwillingness of the legislative leaders to allow the public input, historically a hallmark of our system of government, in an attempt to ram the legislation through in a lame duck session is a disservice to the state and to the communities they represent.
Apparently the legislation in both houses differed and thus must go through a conference committee process to make the bills the same and then be voted on again, supposedly all on Tuesday. Therefore, there is still time to make opinions known and force the leadership in Lansing to retake control of the majority party from the extreme reactionary right wing that has seized its control and then take the proper action. The question is, will they have the courage to do so.
And if Snyder has his way, you'll be staffing your plants with imported immigrants at minimum wage, and zero benefits, rather than jobless citizens of Michigan.
This is a freedom issue. Freedom to associate or not to associate with a union. Public sector union membership has steadily declined over the years as workers have decided not to join unions. It’s a free country, folks, last I checked. Workers are free to leave their jobs and find better ones. The private sector is forced to compete in the marketplace to sell products, while public sector employees and “non-profits” like Planned Parenthood use tax money to lobby for more tax money from parents for education, etc. As jobs have been lost in high cost states, workers have migrated to lower cost states, where there is more economic growth. This so-called War on Middle Class Families is really a war on the Union Leadership that the hard-working families support with their union dues. Enough of the class warfare; let’s focus on real private sector economic growth policies, not government growth policies.
http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/public-sector-unions-the-next-budget-challenge Everywhere they have been tried, conservative policies work for growing the private sector. Socialist Big Government policies result in growth too: public sector growth. It would be nice if we had an unlimited deep pocket – but we do not. We are overspending by 40% and are on a fast track toward Greece unless we solve our overspending problem. Meanwhile our leaders in Washington play chicken with the fiscal cliff, establishment Republicans compromise and kick conservatives off committees as President Obama plays chicken with our country’s future, ready to blame Republicans if things go wrong, which they certainly will if we go off the cliff. While Obama points his finger at conservatives for obstructing “progress”, three are pointing back at himself.
This is not a central issue for many voters and some hold the opposing view. America is supposed to have freedom for all views, however. At the 2012 convention the Democratic party platform was strengthened from making abortion “safe, legal and rare” to having abortions and abortifacient drugs (the Plan B morning after pill) be available ALL women, regardless of their ability to pay (tax funded abortions)? Meanwhile, principled pro-life candidates like Paul Ryan are treated with derision by fellow Catholics: http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/joe-the-scoffer-vs-paul-the-planner If Americans do not keep the freedom of conscience, what do we have left of our common social fabric? http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/freedom-of-conscience-the-foundational-freedom Big-city mayors try to block legitimate businesses from locating in their cities because “they don’t meet community values.” http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/chicago-and-boston-mayors-attack-chick-fil-a
It makes my stomach turn to hear people maligned on talk radio as trying to block Obamacare for religious reasons. Those people have no right to disrespect the sincerely held beliefs of others. There are pro-lifers of evangelical, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, agnostic and atheist religious faiths.
Seems like you are still thinking like a kid. The news of the modern economy is that your work ethic and dedication to your JOB is no longer a reliable pathway to progress nor prosperity. As a member of that union, you were paid a starting wage negotiated by that union. This union question is like the mechanics of a condo association. When you buy into one, you become part of and subject to the rules of that association. It is justified by insisting all members have a vote in the management of that association. You do not get to say "I don't want your snow cleaning services so I'm not going to pay association dues." Why, because although you didn't want to ay for it, you would get the same benefits from having to area streets cleared of snow without paying a dime. The same is true of union shops. The people who work there democratically vote on whether to have a union or not, and then they vote on the leadership of the union. The option for every individual is to leave the union shop and find an employer that does not have a union. Why should a person be able to live in the beneficial climate of a union and not have to pay for it?
To help people understand the questions at hand, consider this: A “right to work” law stops employers and employees from negotiating an agreement with a union security clause - it requires all workers who receive the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement to pay their share of the costs of representing them. #Right2Work4Less laws say that unions must represent every eligible employee, whether he or she pays dues or not. In other words, these laws allow workers to pay nothing and still get all the benefits of union membership. If a worker who is represented by a union and doesn’t pay dues is fired illegally, the union must use its time and money to defend him or her, even if that requires going through a costly, time-consuming legal process. Amazingly, nonmembers who are represented by a union can even sue the union is they think it has not represented them well enough! That is part of the reason why the GOP did not allow any public debate on the legislation it intends to pass! And with Devos and the Koch's behind the lying ad campaigns, you know it is an attack by plutocrats on the rest of us.
As for the issue of Gov. Snyder and RTW I would refer you to the editorial in the Sunday Free Press lambasting Snyder and his position. I do stand on my position that the rights of a woman to make a decision on abortion or contraception should be her's and should follow the dicates and beliefs of her heart and not mandated by a law based on the religious views of any organization. That view is I believe Constutionally unassailable.
"This is the piece of the Right to Work legislation that you SHOULD be concerned about. "Republicans also put a $1,000,000 appropriation into their bills that prevents a citizen referendum on the new law once it’s passed. So, not only did Michiganders not have any input into the process before the Republicans steamrolled it through, there will be no input afterwards either." http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/12/michigan-when-plutocrats-rule.html
"The argument maintains that “nobody is forced to be in a union,” which is technically true, but a distinction without a difference — employees who work for the government or a unionized private company don't have to belong to the union; they just have to pay the “association fees.” Association fees, or agency fees, vary, but can represent up to 90 percent of the dues of full union members. This is established by U.S. Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck, which held that an employee can opt out of the political portion of union dues. That is, employees should not have to be forced to pay for union lobbying or political work. Unfortunately, the types of activities workers can opt out of are very small. Even if workers resign their union membership because they do not want to pay for union politics they still must pay for things like “internal communications,” attempts to persuade members to vote a certain way, food for workers rallying outside the capitol and get-out-the-vote drives aimed only at the union’s members. These expenses can be much higher and are harder to track."
As for further debating RTW through posts- no more. I've had my say and respect yours too. However, expect no more replies from me as I have work and studies to attend to- not to mention physical organizing against RTW.