Michigan Votes Forum

 So the effect of this law would be to make it legal for all big government liberal type organizations to preach the gospel of socialism. However, it would be illegal for people who risk everything they own on a business, to explain to their employees why higher taxes and more regulation will lead to fewer jobs and perhaps the end of their business.  Intrusions on our First Amendment rights like this make the Second Amendment even more important.  Wake up people! 

I agree with this bill. The workplace is no place to preach or politic. The words "captive audience" certainly apply here.

 Fine.  Then let me hire and fire whom ever I choose.

OK, long as you don't discriminate because of race , sex, creed, sexual orientation, or religion.

 That sounds reasonable, JMangan, but let's not forget that current law already creates a tilted playing field between unions and employers. Unions can do all kinds of harranguing to employees about their issues, but employers are severely constrained in what they tell employees on those same issues. I understand that this may have made sense in the context of the early 20th Century when the playing field was tilted the other way, but we are a much more mature society and workforce now - mature enough to allow everyone to make their own arrangements on such matters.

That's not really a threadjack, because it's the broader context for these bills.

If you mean we are a more mature society now, therefore don't need unions, I think you are mistaken. The same catalyst that spawned unions is at work today, in even greater force. Greed. We need them now as much as we did then. Companies now, in this global economy, have the advantage of relocating to another country with lower wages, putting workers at a distinct disadvantage when bargaining with them. This condition has led to a stagnation, and in many cases, such as the auto industry, a decline in wages, and a loss of jobs in this country.

This bill doesn't give unions any advantage it didn't have already, if it had one at all. It merely stops companies from preaching or politicing to their captive audience, the workers.

jmangan:

If you mean we are a more mature society now, therefore don't need unions, I think you are mistaken.

[of course you do, jman. you wholeheartedly support unions, no matter what.]

 The same catalyst that spawned unions is at work today, in even greater force. Greed.

[could you please tell me how many billions of dollars the unions spent on electing a democrat (any democrat) this year?]

 We need them now as much as we did then.

[which in my opinion is not at all. but you disagree.]

 Companies now, in this global economy, have the advantage of relocating to another country with lower wages, putting workers at a distinct disadvantage when bargaining with them.

[yes it does, doesn't it? it's tough to get unions to work in communist countries, or tin cup dictatorships.]

 This condition has led to a stagnation, and in many cases, such as the auto industry, a decline in wages, and a loss of jobs in this country.

[isn't the union supposed to HELP THE WORKER in those situations, not just sit back and elect more democrats? i'm wondering how popular the unions are going to be when the workers get told that all the money they gave to the unions for 'rainy day funds' has been spent on political electioneering and lobbying?]

This bill doesn't give unions any advantage it didn't have already, if it had one at all. It merely stops companies from preaching or politicing to their captive audience, the workers.

[no, it stops them from preaching ANTI-UNION politics to the workers. preaching about the union is just fine.]

 so, jman, which assembly line are you going to be laid off from soon?