Michigan Votes Forum

 Oh wow! Now they want to use Medicaid money to pay union dues. From a Republican sponsor to boot! Time to move him out.

I must admit I don't understand the purpose of this bill. Why would a union need to be "authorized" ? If these home personal assistance providers want to organize and join a union, they have a right to. Anyone out there able to explain this bill, and it's implications?

 It looks to me like sooner or later anyone who receives state money for anything will be forced into a union, like it or not. That would include anyone with a state contract for goods or services, private EMS companies (Medicaid payments), doctors (Medicaid payments), every retail store of any kind who accepts Bridge Cards, etc. It's a complete scam. A free country? Not Michigan.

As a long time union member, I don't know of anyone who complained about wages and benefits gained for them through collective bargaining. They may have complained about being "forced" to pay union dues, but they certainly didn't want to give up their wages and benefits.

With Republicans like Jason Allen.  Who needs Democrats?  Time to purge the Republican party.

I was in a union for over 20 years and I have found that unions destroys personal initative.   Work at a unionized facility, be it a plant, hospital or where ever, is always done to the lowest common denominator.  Unions are really nothing more socialism in action, and I detest socialism.

Well, I've got you beat by at least 15 years papa, and I didn't see any personal intiative destroyed. What I did see were living wages and benefits being paid for honest work, and workers rights being defended and their safety being protected. The union label is on Social Security, Workman's Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Civil Rights and more.

" It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize." Teddy Roosevelt

I wouldn't call Teddy Roosevelt a socialist, although he might not have minded, judging from this quote.

gypsy:

I wouldn't call Teddy Roosevelt a socialist, although he might not have minded, judging from this quote.

I would call Teddy Roosevelt a socialist. 

I've also been in a union (though I quit long before 35 years) and if you claim you didn't see initiative destroyed, you are either delusional or a liar.  Adversarial relationships don't belong in the work place and unions are all about promoting adversarial relationships.  I've seen highly productive workers ridiculed by much less productive workers (some would say lazy) for working too hard and making them look bad until the more productive workers give in and become less productive.  Pay is based on how long you have been there rather than how much you contribute in skill and effort, which drives everyone down to the lowest common denominator.  This is happening in our schools right now!  The children's education is not the highest priority, union membership is.

Yes, it's true very few union members complain about the pay and benefits they have blackmailed their employers to provide.  However, the laws of economics are just as solid as the laws of physics and introducing violence and coercion into the laws of supply and demand doesn't change them, it just temporarily distorts the results.  We see this in Michigan where the chickens have come home to roost and years of unnaturally high pay have now destroyed most of our industry.  The era of manufacturing in Michigan is over because no one will locate here so they can pay labor twice as much for half the productivity.  I support everyone's right to form a union as long as they support the business owner's right to replace whoever they choose whenever they want.

changeagent:

... I've also been in a union (though I quit long before 35 years) and if you claim you didn't see initiative destroyed, you are either delusional or a liar.  Adversarial relationships don't belong in the work place and unions are all about promoting adversarial relationships.  I've seen highly productive workers ridiculed by much less productive workers (some would say lazy) for working too hard and making them look bad until the more productive workers give in and become less productive.  Pay is based on how long you have been there rather than how much you contribute in skill and effort, which drives everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

In my own experience you have well described the non-unionized US military.  Also, you have pretty well described the ambience in about every non-unionized organization where I've worked (more than 50 years experience).  Interesting.

Yes, it's true very few union members complain about the pay and benefits they have blackmailed their employers to provide.  However, the laws of economics are just as solid as the laws of physics and introducing violence and coercion into the laws of supply and demand doesn't change them, it just temporarily distorts the results.

Unionization stems from a very simple important concept/principle:  For those who work for wages, their own labor is an important commodity in the marketplace of commerce.  In other words, lacking capital the worker's labor is his/her prime asset to be invested and husbanded to his or her own best advantage.  At one point in history it became clear that the best way for individuals to maximize return on their prime asset (labor) was to form a coalition (union) to bargain collectively, at arm's length for the best price with those who wish to use that commodity.  It really is a free market idea in the very best sense, even if blindered capitalists wish to howl otherwise.

I support everyone's right to form a union as long as they support the business owner's right to replace whoever they choose whenever they want.

You speak with forked tongue, here.  If you support the right to unionize, then you must support the right to collective bargaining, which is the keystone of the system.  But you only support putting all power -- "rights" -- in the hands of the business owner, which effectively negates the purpose of unionization.  Either you are confused, or are being hypocritical in making a statement with such obvious internal contradictions.

changeagent:

I would call Teddy Roosevelt a socialist. 

And I think he would call you a robber baron, or at least a wannabe robber baron.

changeagent:

I've also been in a union (though I quit long before 35 years) and if you claim you didn't see initiative destroyed, you are either delusional or a liar. 

I am neither delusional, nor a liar. I saw lazy people for sure, on both sides of the table, but those people never had initiative, nor would they ever acquire it, I suspect. I saw people move from labor to management, driven by their ambition and initiative. I never once saw the Union do anything to hold them back.

changeagent:

However, the laws of economics are just as solid as the laws of physics

You apparently don't know the laws of either, or you would never compare the two. It's like comparing fog to rock.

changeagent:

The era of manufacturing in Michigan is over because no one will locate here so they can pay labor twice as much for half the productivity. 

This statement shows how little you know about manufacturing and productivity.

“Workers today produce twice as much manufacturing output as their counterparts did in the early 1990s and three times as much in the early 1980s, thanks to innovation and advances in technology that have made today's workers the most productive in history," Professor Mark J. Perry, University of Michigan-Flint.

Michigan has not lost jobs because the skilled and productive work force is paid too much, rather because the American automobile industry has allowed foreign companies to expand into their market share, mostly due to quality control issues in the past, and anticipating market trends recently. These are management issues, not labor issues. As a matter of fact, the UAW prodded the auto companies for years to improve quality.

changeagent:

I support everyone's right to form a union as long as they support the business owner's right to replace whoever they choose whenever they want.

Thank you for your support. I regret to inform you that when we do form a union, the first thing on our agenda is a collective bargaining agreement, in which both sides will agree that neither side can do whatever they want to whoever they choose.

gypsy:

This statement shows how little you know about manufacturing and productivity.

Wrong, as usual.  Increases in productivity have occurred because of the artificially high cost of labor forced by government sanctioned union blackmail.  It's not because union workers are more productive, it's because manufactures have figured out ways to use less of them to produce more goods, mostly through automation and other technology.

I really do believe you should be free to form a union, I just don't think you should be forced to join one in order to get a job.

I have to wonder if you and freespeaker are on some union payroll, hired to reply with this socialist union trash?  Do you really believe the stuff you spew or do you just tow the party line?

BTW, How come none of the Japanese or Korean automakers have plants in Michigan?  We have all of these skilled workers available.  We have, or at least had, a huge supplier base.  Why would they spend the money to locate in the middle of nowhere down south?

FreeSpeaker:

For those who work for wages, their own labor is an important commodity in the marketplace of commerce.

As far as I know, we all work for wages and we all labor, whether it's turning a wrench or choosing where to invest capital.  A person's labor is an important commodity and each person has a different set of skills and different abilities.  Forcing everyone into a collective and using the lowest common denominator as the basis for abilities is demeaning to all human beings accept those with the lowest skills.

FreeSpeaker:

But you only support putting all power -- "rights" -- in the hands of the business owner, which effectively negates the purpose of unionization.

Not at all.  The employee has the right to sell his labor to whomever he chooses.  Frankly, employees have many more rights than employers, regardless of whether it is a union shop or not.  I don't recall anything in our Constitution that gives the Federal government the right to regulate the relationship between employers and employees.

changeagent:

... Increases in productivity have occurred because of the artificially high cost of labor forced by government sanctioned union blackmail. 

Bingo!  In a perverse sort of way.  You acknowledge, then, that unions have been the driving force behind increased worker productivity.

It's not because union workers are more productive, it's because manufactures have figured out ways to use less of them to produce more goods, mostly through automation and other technology.

Truth is, of course, that vastly improved technology (tools and methods) adopted by industry in pursuit of profit have been instrumental in increasing productivity.  But the fact remains, of course, that American workers are a darned productive lot, unions or otherwise.

I really do believe you should be free to form a union, I just don't think you should be forced to join one in order to get a job.

You continue to speak with forked tongue.  The keystone concept in unionization is solidarity -- without it you have the "every man for himself" system, which results in low wages, poor benefits and lousy working conditions.  Be honest for a change:  You just don't want unions to exist, especially as any kind of effective force in helping workers realize a decent return on the investment of their own labor.

I have to wonder if you and freespeaker are on some union payroll, hired to reply with this socialist union trash?  Do you really believe the stuff you spew or do you just tow the party line?

Your assumptions about me are simply the prattling of a fool.  I "tow" my own weight, and always have.  Never have worked in a union shop or been a union member.  Have been self employed for close to 30 out of a working lifetime of (so far) more than 50 years.  But I do recognize the value and importance of the union movement to all who labor for wages.

Advances in technology and automation have not occurred solely to reduce labor cost. Technological improvements in production have been driven mostly by the need to build more complicated products, and to build more of them at a faster pace. High tech production methods require fewer non-skilled workers, and more skilled workers.

China has a vast pool of non-skilled and cheap labor. They therefore are able to produce many small and simple products to supply the world, although quite inefficiently. You may notice that the American auto makers are in China building plants, and American skilled workers are teaching them how to do these more complicated manufacturing projects. Eventually they will master this, as the Japanese have, and will be paying their skilled workers higher wages. So I must reiterate, your knowledge of manufacturing and productivity seems to be limited by your ideology.

Funny you accuse freespeaker and I of being on some union payroll, when you so readily espouse the mantra of the Mackinac Center wanting to make Michigan a "right to work" state. By the way, no one can be forced to join a union to get a job, in any state. That would be a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act. Your knowledge here seems to be limited also.

Ask the Japanese or Korean automakers what tax abatement's and incentives they received for locating in southern states, and you might understand some of their motives. With today's transportation efficiency, a supplier base doesn't need to be next door, and suppliers can readily move to where they are needed. As for worker's wages, they pay about the same as their union counter parts in the north. Look it up.

FreeSpeaker:

I "tow" my own weight, and always have.  Never have worked in a union shop or been a union member.  Have been self employed for close to 30 out of a working lifetime of (so far) more than 50 years.  But I do recognize the value and importance of the union movement to all who labor for wages.

I commend you on a long, and I would assume successful, working life, and "towing" your own weight. I also commend you on recognizing the value of the union movement to those who work for wages.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." 
-- December 3, 1861 - Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress

gypsy:

As for worker's wages, they pay about the same as their union counter parts in the north.

I don't need to look it up, I've worked in the industry for years.  It's not the wages, it's the work rules that create most of the problems.

BTW, I didn't accuse you, I only wondered because of your blind faith in your ideology despite the facts.

TTFN!

If you truly have worked in the industry for years, we probably have crossed paths. I say if, because you should know the UAW has been adjusting their contracts for years to accommodate the new "work rules" desired by the auto manufacturers. You would also know that the Japanese idea of a "team concept" originated not in Japan, but in the US. It took hold in Japan much easier because of the Japanese people's innate tendency to conform.

Many factors are considered by corporations when choosing to locate their manufacturing plants in a foreign nation. Most of those factors, if not all, have dollar signs in front of them.

I will readily admit ideology is the basis for most of my opinions, as it is yours. But opinions are not facts, and I strive always to fit my ideology into reality. You should try it sometime.

TTFN to you.

I will comment once again and hope my comments are not 'disappeared' this time -apparently for political purposes.

The comments here show the ignorance of the people of Michigan as to what this bill is. First, this relates to the forced unionization of home care workers-independent contractors who are paid by the State. They are NOT employees-they are business owners! They are the neighbors and relatives, and small day care home providers who care for children and are reimbursed by the State. There IS no bargaining unit! The home day care workers were unionized by stealth - most of them had NO IDEA this was going on. They were sent a form letter that told them to vote - most threw the letter away as they didnt think (rightly) that it applied to them. The first thing they knew, union dues were being remove from the reimbursement checks they got from the State. So, essentially, due to complicity between the governor and the ideological marxist unions, these people are now being robbed to pay for political activity. This is Democratic machine politics at it's worst: a money-laundering scheme where tax dollars go to support one party. Part of the investigation of Rod Blagojevic and his corruption involves the statement by SEIU that they made a deal to get him elected if he allowed unionization of home care providers. Granholm jumped in and made a production of signing the order to have the State remove the dues from the reimbursement checks! This has happened in 14 states so far-all Dem-controlled states.

These day care providers are attempting to sue to be removed from this non-representing, paycheck-stealing union. Now they're working on forcing unionzation of home care workers . . .the friends and relatives who care for the elderly and disabled. There are no benefits from unionization for these people - only union dues from a distant and unresponsive union that sees them as no more than cash cows to obtain taxpayer dollars for partisan purposes! This is an obscene abuse of power and will skirt the limits of legality only if legislation such as this is passed. Why Jason Allen is supporting this, I dont know. I know people in his district should look very critically at his voting records, if this is the kind of thing he supports!

truckingal:

There are no benefits from unionization for these people - only union dues from a distant and unresponsive union that sees them as no more than cash cows to obtain taxpayer dollars for partisan purposes!

From the Senate analysis:

"The employees would have to be given seniority credits and sick leave, vacation, insurance, and pension credits in accordance with the records or labor agreements from the transferring employer."

I am disheartened, once again, by government seeking to subjugate its citizens.  And the fact that this was introduced by Jason Allen makes it all the more disturbing.  Our government does not have the right to unionize anyone without their consent.  As a matter of fact I see no reason at all for government to be involved in unions in ant way, shape, or form.  I strongly oppose this bill and intend to inform Mr. Allen of my feelings.

 NO FORCED UNIONIZATION! Vote NO on this unconstitutional bill.  What right does Lansing have to force a union on unsuspecting self-employed people.  Stay OUT.  Small business does not need any more unwanted regulations from the state.  NO UNION.  Vote No.  Lansing stay out.  It is so difficult to believe that people we voted for and trusted to do right by the people and for the people have come to this end.  Stop the government take-over of our lives.  Lansing just as Washington has forgetten thier oath and forgotten who they work for.  You do not work for Unions and you do not work for big business.  You work for the PEOPLE.  It is time to remember.  I will remember in NOVEMBER!

 You people in the government have absolutely no sense whatsoever.  I suggest every one of you that voted for this, should be thrown out immediately, dont wait for the next election, do it now.  Lansing along with Washington is out of control.

This bill is as creepy as Jason Allen's picture on his web site. Why can't you guys do something useful? None of you idiots have any common sense or knowledge of what you are doing. You are not doing what the people want, but what you yourself wants.

Please, quit being so narcissistic.

Sen. Jansen you promised this would not come to the floor for a vote. You said Sen Jason Allen had tricked you with this bill.  That it was a different bill when you co-signed.  When you were at our tea party I asked if you would withdrawal your name.  You said you didn't have to because it would not get this far.  Was that all a lie?  Were you attempting to deceive your constituents?

Good news for these home personal assistance providers.

 Senator Valde Garcia -

Why would you support an unnecessary, ineffective, unionizing, bill resulting in more growth of state interference in private sector economics?  Your S-3 "Sense of legislature" is meaningless.  This bill should have been tabled before it even reached this committee.

I expect you to withdraw your co-sponsoring of this bill, and to vote against it should it make it to the floor. 

Whats with the popularity of legislation everywhere that "authorizes" people to do something they already have the ability to do on thier own. If workers have grievances they are unable to resolve with their employer, do they really require big brother to tell them they have the right to assemble or form a union? NO!

I will certainly be watching how my rep(s) vote on this, I hope many others are as well...

 Oh I think I got it! We are not smart enough to decide these "complicated issues" on our own, so we just need to let the government handle it for us! Whew, now I can relax...

Any politician who supports this should be dragged out into the light of day so their constituents can see who they are really voting for!

To allow a person under age 10 to hunt if accompanied by an adult approved by a new government “mentored youth hunting program” the bill would establish. viagra generique

That''s interesting portfolio and I am always looking for this kind of stuff. I hope you will be adding more in future. Thanks for sharing . Team Development

Has this bill gone into effect already? I am going to start massage therapy school April 6th, 2009. I was told that the bill goes into effect on September 1st, 2009. Is this accurate and true? Please advise at your earliest convenience.

water tanks

Introduced in the Senate on December 13, 2001, to revise and update the registration and licensure provisions in the state pesticide regulation law, increase license fees, provide new and updated definitions, and increased felony penalties for certain violations.buy backlinks

I must admit I don't understand the purpose of this bill. Why would a union need to be "authorized" ? If these home personal assistance providers want to organize and join a union, they have a right to. Anyone out there able to explain this bill, and it's implications? income instruments review

I do not know why this bill was passed when there was unemployment and recession problem already there in 2009. It is not the necessary use of the taxpayers money.

Regards

 Jay Baker