Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on March 23, 2011, to no longer exempt judge’s pension income from the state income tax, as proposed by Gov. Rick Snyder as part of a plan to reduce the state business tax. Under current law, government employee pensions are completely exempt, and private sector retiree pension is exempt up to $45,120 on a single return and $90,240 on joint returns

The vote was 57 in favor, 52 opposed and 1 not voting

(House Roll Call 95 at House Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 This really stinks.   Read my lips guys, NO NEW TAXES.

My meager pension is all I have right now.

Sad that you can't find other waste elimination within the state to help the economy.

It doesn't make sense to tax the pensions which will only keep us from spending any further than we already are, which isn't going to help local business and the overall economy. 

 So sad that the republicans need our  pension money to support big business. We will  have to be renamed our pensions to "Empty Pocket Pensions."  Judy Emmons and Snyder need to be voted out along with the others who voted for these new taxes.  Republicans are you listening to the PEOPLE ? The answer is no !  We will remember you next election if we can't recall you.

Frannie:

 So sad that the republicans need our  pension money to support big business.

I agree they shouldn't have raised taxes.  However, the taxes are needed to support big unions not big business.

changeagent:

I agree they shouldn't have raised taxes.  However, the taxes are needed to support big unions not big business.

Yea right. Public workers are getting fabulously wealthy on union wages, and CEO's are living in poverty. I heard this on Fox News.

In this case it's not the public workers I'm talking about.  The big union support is to keep the union bosses in the big money.  Half a million dollars a year for the head of AFSCME seems like pretty big money.  Face it, unions are just another form of big business, it's just that they get what they want through intimidation and coercion vs. free choice.  Note the quote from  this article at http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/03/03/2097/scores-union-leaders-earn-six-figure-salaries

"The Center for Public Integrity found compensation for leaders of the 10 largest unions ranged from $173,000 at the United Auto Workers to $618,000 at the Laborers’ International Union of North America and almost $480,000 for the president of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees. The latter is the target of GOP governors in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee and Kansas"

Those union leaders must be awfully greedy.  Why don't they give up some of their pay so the rest of the brotherhood can make more?

 

Boy, that seems like a lot of money for union leaders..... until you compare it to the highest paid 100 CEO's in the country, starting with the "lowest" paid one, the ceo of American Express, who only made $16,813,272 in 2010, going up to the highest one, the ceo of Liberty Media, who made $87,493,565 in 2009. Of course, these guys are not greedy, they're worth every penny, right?

Kind of makes half-a-mil look like chicken feed.

 Ceo's are producers union bosses are parasites.

Union leaders produce better living standards and a safer workplace for their members. CEO's produce, and get paid, for the profits they produce for their company. The former's responsibility is to people, the latter to profit. Looks like profit is more lucrative than people.

gypsy:

Of course, these guys are not greedy, they're worth every penny, right?

Apparently they are to the stockholders of the company since they choose the board of directors who hire the CEO's.  I think $87 million is a lot of money.  Then again I look at Ford Motor which was losing hundreds of millions of dollars a quarter under Bill Ford's leadership.  He was smart enough to hire Mulally who turned the company around through true business acumen and leadership and now they're making hundreds of millions.  Those skills are very rare and in a free market you are worth what you can get someone to pay you.  I've never heard a CEO claim someone is greedy because they have been able to get paid a lot of money while I hear that drivel out of most union believers.

gypsy:

Looks like profit is more lucrative than people.

Actually, it's profit that produces better living standards.

Actually, it's better pay and benefits that produce better living standards, making it possible for workers to buy the products and services that produce the profits for businesses. Consumer demand drives enterprise, not visa versa.

 You mean like the UAW did for GM,creating higher wages and better benifits though extortion and eventual bailout by the tax payers that will never be paid back?Flint and Detroit are wonderful examples of better living standards .

I mean like the UAW did for GM workers, not the GM corporation. And it was not done by extortion, it was done by collective bargaining, while GM was making huge profits for it's share holders. And it is, and will be paid back, and thousands of jobs have and will be preserved. Flint and Detroit are examples of cities that will lead this nation out of the depression bankers and hedge fund managers put us in. They will do it by making a product that sells, not shuffling paper notes, and betting on what goes up and what goes down.

 When did GM make huge profits for its shareholders? Flint and Detroit are the laughing stock of the country. There are the poster boys of liberal leadership.yes jobs have been preserved ,like Bloom said " I did it for the unions " .I also wouldn't hold my breath on GM ever paying back the bailout money, that was just a gift .

In the late 1990s, the U.S. economy was on the rise and GM gained market share producing enormous profits primarily from the sale of light trucks and sport-utility vehicles. Look it up.

By all means, don't hold your breath. Invest in tea, and have a party. That'll make you rich :)

 Profits were up right until the UAW decided to strike and close 5 plants for seven weeks in 1998. Then the  union bleed the company to its current state with massive losses that well more than erased the prior profits. Leaving shareholders holding the bag for the union.

According to you I already am rich, I was a owner of my own company. How much of your own money do you have in GM ?

The union didn't "decide" to strike for seven weeks in 1998. The company had an equal part in that decision. The union didn't "bleed" the company either, rather they gave concessions to try and save it. Ford dealt with the same union, and didn't need a government bailout to survive. Bad management decisions and poor business practices are what brought GM and Chrysler to their knees, not the unions.

I don't know if your rich or not, and don't care. I hope you are. Owning your own business is admirable, but no more admirable than someone working for wages. If time is money, I have a fortune in GM.

 Spin it any way you want ,but the company didn't strike itself. The union demands and strong arm tactics brought GM down,at the expense of shareholders and tax payers . If money is money then alot of taxpayers have a fourtune in GM , even if they didn't want it. Unions have never created a job only business's can do that. Working for a living is survival , but it is more admirable than  just getting a check.

Since you seem to be unaware of how collective bargaining works, allow me to explain. Both sides make demands on the other, and negotiation and compromise take place until they can agree. A strike, or lockout, occurs when one side or the other refuses to negotiate further. All this requires the participation of both sides.

Money is money, last time I checked, and taxpayers have a fortune in many corporations, not only GM. Some big banks come to mind. At least the taxpayer money invested in GM saved jobs, not banker's bonuses.

Unions don't create jobs, that is not their role. Their role is to protect workers and their right to a decent wage and safe working conditions. Working for a living should provide for more than just survival, it should provide the basis for our consumer economy. Without decent middle class wages, our country's economy would soon look like Mexico's. The super rich, and the desperate poor.

 Well I know how collective bargining is suppose to work without your speech. The collective bargining process with the UAW and many other unions, is to artificially increase wages in unionized industries,limit employment opportunities,depress wages in non -union jobs,lower rates of return on investment in unionized companies and slow the growth of productivity.

When the company makes a profit the UAW will demand more , when they lose money the UAW will not accecpt less.  The UAW will never deliver the quality and/or the efficiency of a non-union workforce because they do not hold workers accountable.

Fact is; Unions are the contributing factor in the decline of American manufacturing,espescially the Auto Industry.

Just read, The SEIU ( Service Employees International Union ) has a 70 page intimidation manual on how to bully employers and their families.

 SEIU...can I get a copy of that bulling employers and their families handbook?  You don't know what your talking about !  My point is this,  there is no such thing so don't tell lies..................you must be a Spider Snyder supporter.

gypsy:

Actually, it's better pay and benefits that produce better living standards, making it possible for workers to buy the products and services that produce the profits for businesses. Consumer demand drives enterprise, not visa versa

You are wrong on both accounts.  Without profits there is no need to produce.  Without production there is no need to purchase the labor of individuals so there are not jobs.  While consumer demand fuels production, consumer demand does not drive enterprise.  Desire for profit drives enterprise.  Most products are introduced into markets that did not even know they wanted the products.  Ten years ago there was no consumer demand for iPads because no one had introduced them to the market.  It wasn't until someone invented it with the intent of making profit that consumers decided they wanted them.  When was the last time the UAW invented something people wanted to buy?

 This came out in the the Sodexo Food Services Co. lawsuit. It was reported in the Washington Times on July 15 by Vincent Vermuccio. It is called the "Contract Campaign Manual " on " Pressuring the Employer " put out by the SEIU. Try getting outside the mainstream media for your information .I am sure you really did not mean to call me a liar. Just a Snyder supporter.

I'll answer your closing question first.

changeagent:

When was the last time the UAW invented something people wanted to buy?

1935, when the UAW was born.

I certainly have a different opinion than yours, but that doesn't make me wrong, on either account. Profit is the reward for production, not the need. The need is recognized first, the profit comes latter.

Consumer demand does drive the market. It doesn't create the need, it decides if the product is needed. The consumer decided the ipad was needed. It decided the Apple Newton wasn't. The consumer rules.

The only point I agree with you on is that without production, there is no need to purchase labor. There is also no product without labor. Sort of a stalemate, I'd say. Sounds like a good place to begin bargaining.

And what is wrong with a manual detailing to union organizers how to campaign to the workers and put pressure on the employer to allow the union the right to represent the workers? If you think that is unfair to the employer, you surely think the employer's putting pressure on workers not to join a union, by doing things like firing them, is unfair too, right?

gypsy:

And what is wrong with a manual detailing to union organizers how to campaign to the workers and put pressure on the employer to allow the union the right to represent the workers? If you think that is unfair to the employer, you surely think the employer's putting pressure on workers not to join a union, by doing things like firing them, is unfair too, right?

 

 The SEIU conspired to extort Sodexo by threatening finacial damage to the company unless they gave into its demands. They hacked the companies website ,which is illegal.They also started rumors about the company having rodent problems ,that they had rat droppings and maggots in they're foods . They harassed employees and accused them publicly of wrongdoing. the list of harassement goes on. So you think that forcing the Sodexo employees to unionize against they're will is OK ?

This is dated June 13th, 2011.

The regional director of the National Labor Relations Board in New Orleans has issued a formal complaint against Sodexo over its treatment of workers at two New Orleans universities. A trial date has been set for September over charges that Sodexo repeatedly violated U.S. labor law by spying on, threatening, and retaliating against workers for supporting a union - including firing a pro-union worker and using the Tulane University police to interrogate workers.

Where's your outrage over this, oldvet? If your accusations are true, and they are just accusations, I would support punishing the offenders. Would you support punishing Sodexo, a foreign owned company, for violating United States labor law?

 What your are saying "are just accusations "of a small suit brought before the NLRB , who just happens to be run by Wilma Liebman (bricklayers/ teamsters unions)and Craig Becker ( SEIU union ). This suit is doing as the union manual decribes, do anything you can to discredit the company . Just as you do by saying it is a " foreign" company . The truth still is that a RICO lawsuit against SEIU has uncovered the manual that promotes union thuggery. This company employs over 200,000 people in the US 18,000 of which are union represented, perhaps  you would like to run them out of the country like the unions have with our american companys.

I am not discrediting the company by telling the plain truth. Sodexo is a French multinational corporation headquartered in France. The NLRB is an independent agency of the US government charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and investigating and remedying unfair labor practices. It is governed by a five person board and a general counsel, appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. 

The RICO lawsuit has not come to a conclusion, and until it does, the "accusations" of Sodexo against the SEIU are just that.

People with your opinion are fond of referring to union members fighting for their rights as "thugs", but never seem to have the same distaste for thuggery when it is used by corporations against it's employees.

 Show me the thuggery you are refering to . The NLRB is run by union thugs,with only one agenda . Increase union members and fleece them by charging them dues . It is quite easy for a thinking person to see why the unions are losing members,and right to work states are doing better. The SEIU is a corrupt union with a history . Sodexo is a company that provides 120,000 jobs in the US.

I'll gladly help you find the incidents of corporate thuggery you seek. A good place to start is this site, http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2011/02/short-history-of-union-busting-in-usa.html. There are of course, many more. Enjoy your history lesson.

I don't think Brian Hayes, the Republican from Mass. who President Obama appointed to the NLRB, would consider himself a "union thug", since as a lawyer he represented management in legal disputes with labor. Your use of "union thug" as a talking point is quite worn.

I must agree with you though, it is quite easy for a thinking person to see that unions have lost membership since the Reagan presidency, and a subsequent stagnation in middle class incomes has prevailed. The parallel is very obvious.

The question is, who is doing better in the right to work for less states? The workers, or the corporations.

Sodexo "provides" jobs because it needs workers to function. Those workers need a living wage and decent working conditions. Their best method of achieving those goals is to collectively bargain for them.

 Your blogspot is a far left communist site, you just outed yourself, now we know where you get your talking points.  As for The NLRB even with that appointment Obama still has a 3-1 Union thug presence on the NLRB board. This board is anti-business and is helping to hinder job growth. In right to work states the corporations and the workers are doing better. You cannot be denied a job in a right to work state because you don't want to join a union. Your losing your argument faster than the unions are losing members. The NLRB should be done away with as it is a partisan commitee and a drain on the budget.

 Gypys , The US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis says The private job growth grew 39.6% in right to work states 29.2% in non-right to work states during the years 1990 -2008  GDP ( gross domestic product for you union types) grew 69.9% in right to work states 45.3 % in non-right to work states during the same period. Where forced union dues are legal , union officials use their power to dislocate labor markets ,jack up costs,and bankroll Tax and Spend regulation happy politicans.

You certainly have the talking points of the right wingnuts down pat oldvet. "Union thugs", "far left communist". You must have a dictionary full of them.

Maybe in your opinion I'm losing the argument, but that would be better judged by someone not arguing with me, don't you think? The history of corporate violence against workers seeking to organize is very well documented. Either you are uneducated, or you're just refusing to acknowledge historical fact. I'm certain it is the latter.

The higher job growth rates in right to work for less states reflect the trend of manufacturing, particularly auto manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, moving south, into states that were right to work for less, where the wages were lower and jobs historically paid much less than in the industrialized north. The workers at the domestic auto makers were still in the union, and foreign auto makers were forced to pay their workers at a near equal level. This also explains the growth in GDP, (thanks for explaining that for us "union types"). It's interesting to note in your referenced statistics the growth in jobs  and GDP in the non-right to work for less states. Proving that even in the higher wage and unionized north, where good paying manufacturing jobs were the basis of the economy since the 1930's, cheap and compliant labor is not the only lure for some manufacturers.

You have been spoon fed that union crap for so long you think it taste's good.Unions are over, the workers are reailizing that they are parasites. You have a 1930's mind set. Get up to the times ,Unions are not needed and are a thing of the past. As far as "well documented "' so is the thuggery of the unions, they not only try to intimidate the employer they try to intimidate the employee. But you just keep paying those dues, those union bosses need the money.

I know what unions have done for labor, and what they have done for our countries economy, helping to raise working men and women's incomes, making their workplace safer, and giving them security in their older age. Unions have supported and were partners in creating social security, workman's compensation, unemployment insurance, and medicare. They have also fought for civil rights and social justice for minorities. Today is Saturday. I hope you're enjoying it. It was made possible through the efforts of unions to establish a forty hour week. So yes, I do think that "union crap" taste good. Very good.

As for having a mindset of the 30's, I can assure you I live very much in the present. But those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

I will keep paying those dues, and support politicians who understand that a workers right to join together and collectively bargain for a fair share of the pie is a basic human right. As for the wages of the union bosses, I invite you to compare their six figure salaries to the millions of dollars salaries of the CEO's who head the corporations they bargain with. The head of the UAW makes $173,000. GM's former CEO, Rick Wagoner, the man who lead GM to bankruptcy, gets a pension worth $23 million.

 What you are saying is forced union dues for politicians that you do not support, or dues that go to activitives that you do not support is ok . You also seem to forget that the UAW  through extortion of higer wages and benifits was the main reason for GM and Chrsyler"s failure. Now  Obama has seized them from the bond holders and given part of it to the union and part is still owned by us taxpayers . So you keep paying those dues whether you want to or not. As for the salary of the the head of a private corporation , only the stockholders need be concerned , they have skin in the game and are paying him to  make them money on their investment. A  union boss collects dues from its members and should answer to them, if you want him to make more, pay more dues.As for your fair share of the pie , what makes you think you have any right to a share , you want a share buy it ! Go read your Solidarity magazine, and post your union drivel on HuffPo or some other leftist communist website. You are just a troll here and are always on the wrong side of every issue. Living in a right to work state allows you not to belong to a union if you choose not to, even if there is union presence. Whats wrong with that idea ? I was told in 1965 that if I didn't sign a card to have union dues deducted from my paycheck at aGM plant that I would be fired I refused and I was fired. I Then started my own business that I ran for forty years until selling it a couple years ago,because of high taxes and hostile regulations. I put in 70+ hrs a week and worked every saturday. I made my own pension I didn't extort it .

I pay my union dues willingly, and they go to activities I suppport. I would be a fool not to. The UAW was not the "main" reason for GM and Chrysler's failure. Bad management, poor quality control, and a product line not in tune with market demand were the biggest factors. Obama saved a huge chuck of our manufacturing base, and thousands of jobs by bailing out the auto companies. Our tax dollars were well spent, for a change. Beats poring billions into a war we didn't need to fight, like the previous president did.

What makes me think, as a worker, I deserve a fair share? The fact that without labor, business could not exist. You go buy your share, I'll work for mine.

If you don't like my opinions, feel free not to read them. Last time I checked, Michigan Votes was providing a forum for opinions and comment from the public. I am not a business owner, but I am a member of the public, being a voting citizen of the US and Michigan. Maybe you should get used to the idea that not everyone shares your opinion.

 

 Typical Democrat reply , blame the other guy !!!  It sure has been fun watching you implode, you have attacked every opinion made on this site that doesn't fit your view. It is very easy to discredit you. I have had fun. No you are not a business owner, you could not make it out in the real world with you union  (socialist )way of thinking ,you really do not have what it takes.