"There will be blood..."

[bucfan64 307]

Doug Geiss (D) said yesterday that if this right-to-work initiative is signed into law, “there will be blood.â€

 

Now, if these words had been spoken by any conservative in Washington the lamestream media would be all over it, but as usual we are left listening to crickets.

 

Watch the cowardly Carney avoid the question....

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/12/11/Carney-on-the-there-will-be-blood-comment

 

"The president is against right to work laws."

 

I would argue that states that are RTW are in much better financial shape than those that are not.

[Lance 228]

 

I would argue that states that are RTW are in much better financial shape than those that are not.

 

 

 

of course they are...they can hire and fire people without cause or reason at will and the employee has very little, if any recourse. These laws, like most other things bought and sold on the steps of Capitol Hill by big business, are entirely slanted and geared towards the business and not the worker...being a RTW state doesn't help the workers any at all...if you can think of anything please share it.

 

That being said, if I owned a company and was looking for a place to call home, it would be in a RTW state....for sure.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

of course they are...they can hire and fire people without cause or reason at will and the employee has very little, if any recourse. These laws, like most other things bought and sold on the steps of Capitol Hill by big business, are entirely slanted and geared towards the business and not the worker...being a RTW state doesn't help the workers any at all...if you can think of anything please share it.

 

That being said, if I owned a company and was looking for a place to call home, it would be in a RTW state....for sure.

 

You're looking for a benefit of being right-to-work? That's simple, Lance.

 

Not being forced to join Unions is a benefit in and of itself. You are the master of your fate, the captain of your soul. Why willingly give up the right of self-governance to be bound by an organization without your best interests at heart?

 

But imagine the Union strikes because of something borderline insane, such as the belief that $71K/year isn't good enough pay anymore: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-17/news/ct-met-chicago-teachers-strike-details-20120917_1_cps-teachers-teacher-evaluation-chicago-teacher-strike. You're FORCED by the Union to sit out the strike. You face being unemployable in the entire state if you cross the picket line. Now, which do you think is more beneficial to the worker: earning a better wage than 99.6% of the world, or getting the lights shut off? What if you have a family? Which is more important: your union "solidarity" or feeding your kids? Common sense, no?

 

Let's go even farther. Unions work on a rigid seniority system, which is as inherently flawed as anything ever conceived. The bare minimum is lauded, and incompetence is rewarded. Any system that mandates preference on a 10-year employee who does jack squat over a 9-year employee who is the division's best producer is laughably idiotic.

 

Let's go even farther. When you know that you're going into a seniority system that requires everything short of an act of Congress to fire you, where's the incentive to achieve? If you're not getting one iota more praise for doing the maximum as opposed to doing the minimum, why try harder? In fact, trying harder means that production increases, and as production increases, the workforce must contract if the demand is the same. So, if you're too low on the ladder, you could work yourself out of a job if you overachieve. Bizarre, isn't it?

 

Let's go even farther. Say you want to work your way into management. Instead of trying your hardest and getting management to notice you, you have to wait on enough people to retire or die before you're even considered. Goodbye, any hope of getting your dream job before you're 60.

 

Let's go even farther. Do Unions even protect their workers, anyway? As best I recall, the UAW sat on its hands while LEAR transferred from GM to BMW and moved out of the area. 20 years of labor, POOF! Look at Hostess. Instead of contracting the workforce and allowing 60% of the workers to continue working, the Grain Millers forced Hostess, and its 18K workers, out of business. SOLIDARITY! Solidarity...as in...you're all out of jobs.

 

Once a Union is created, its survival and activities trumps the needs of the individual workers. You would think, as badly as the UMWA has failed this area, that more people would see it.

 

I don't care if people on this board blast me for what I've just written. But I tell you one thing. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ every waking day that I'm not forced into the constraints of being in a useless, gutless Union.

Edited December 12, 2012 by UVAObserver

[bucfan64 307]

My biggest beef with "Union" states does not concern private sector unions, my problem is with PUBLIC sector unions.

 

In a free market the job and or product is worth whatever the consumer/worker is willing to pay/work for it. Unions are necessary, but unions, especially public sector unions, are out of control and they are no longer representing their members best interest. And I would argue that private sector unions have long been out of control and self serving to the Union leaders and their political agendas.

 

Our dads both worked in a non-union environment and I know that my dad is in much better financial shape than his UNION employed brothers who only collect a pension. There are pros and cons to both, but I personally do not think that the only reason a RTW start is financially successful is because of mistreatment. I believe that the financial burden is not placed on the state government in the same manner or way that it is in a Union dominant state.

Edited December 12, 2012 by bucfan64

[bucfan64 307]

You're looking for a benefit of being right-to-work? That's simple, Lance.

 

Not being forced to join Unions is a benefit in and of itself. You are the master of your fate, the captain of your soul. Why willingly give up the right of self-governance to be bound by an organization without your best interests at heart?

 

But imagine the Union strikes because of something borderline insane, such as the belief that $71K/year isn't good enough pay anymore: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-17/news/ct-met-chicago-teachers-strike-details-20120917_1_cps-teachers-teacher-evaluation-chicago-teacher-strike. You're FORCED by the Union to sit out the strike. You face being unemployable in the entire state if you cross the picket line. Now, which do you think is more beneficial to the worker: earning a better wage than 99.6% of the world, or getting the lights shut off? What if you have a family? Which is more important: your union "solidarity" or feeding your kids? Common sense, no?

 

Let's go even farther. Unions work on a rigid seniority system, which is as inherently flawed as anything ever conceived. The bare minimum is lauded, and incompetence is rewarded. Any system that mandates preference on a 10-year employee who does jack squat over a 9-year employee who is the division's best producer is laughably idiotic.

 

Let's go even farther. When you know that you're going into a seniority system that requires everything short of an act of Congress to fire you, where's the incentive to achieve? If you're not getting one iota more praise for doing the maximum as opposed to doing the minimum, why try harder? In fact, trying harder means that production increases, and as production increases, the workforce must contract if the demand is the same. So, if you're too low on the ladder, you could work yourself out of a job if you overachieve. Bizarre, isn't it?

 

Let's go even farther. Say you want to work your way into management. Instead of trying your hardest and getting management to notice you, you have to wait on enough people to retire or die before you're even considered. Goodbye, any hope of getting your dream job before you're 60.

 

Let's go even farther. Do Unions even protect their workers, anyway? As best I recall, the UAW sat on its hands while LEAR transferred from GM to BMW and moved out of the area. 20 years of labor, POOF! Look at Hostess. Instead of contracting the workforce and allowing 60% of the workers to continue working, the Grain Millers forced Hostess, and its 18K workers, out of business. SOLIDARITY! Solidarity...as in...you're all out of jobs.

 

Once a Union is created, its survival and activities trumps the needs of the individual workers. You would think, as badly as the UMWA has failed this area, that more people would see it.

 

I don't care if people on this board blast me for what I've just written. But I tell you one thing. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ every waking day that I'm not forced into the constraints of being in a useless, gutless Union.

 

Slow clap!

 

I couldn't agree more........

[barondawg77 115]

You're looking for a benefit of being right-to-work? That's simple, Lance.

 

Not being forced to join Unions is a benefit in and of itself. You are the master of your fate, the captain of your soul. Why willingly give up the right of self-governance to be bound by an organization without your best interests at heart?

 

But imagine the Union strikes because of something borderline insane, such as the belief that $71K/year isn't good enough pay anymore: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-17/news/ct-met-chicago-teachers-strike-details-20120917_1_cps-teachers-teacher-evaluation-chicago-teacher-strike. You're FORCED by the Union to sit out the strike. You face being unemployable in the entire state if you cross the picket line. Now, which do you think is more beneficial to the worker: earning a better wage than 99.6% of the world, or getting the lights shut off? What if you have a family? Which is more important: your union "solidarity" or feeding your kids? Common sense, no?

 

Let's go even farther. Unions work on a rigid seniority system, which is as inherently flawed as anything ever conceived. The bare minimum is lauded, and incompetence is rewarded. Any system that mandates preference on a 10-year employee who does jack squat over a 9-year employee who is the division's best producer is laughably idiotic.

 

Let's go even farther. When you know that you're going into a seniority system that requires everything short of an act of Congress to fire you, where's the incentive to achieve? If you're not getting one iota more praise for doing the maximum as opposed to doing the minimum, why try harder? In fact, trying harder means that production increases, and as production increases, the workforce must contract if the demand is the same. So, if you're too low on the ladder, you could work yourself out of a job if you overachieve. Bizarre, isn't it?

 

Let's go even farther. Say you want to work your way into management. Instead of trying your hardest and getting management to notice you, you have to wait on enough people to retire or die before you're even considered. Goodbye, any hope of getting your dream job before you're 60.

 

Let's go even farther. Do Unions even protect their workers, anyway? As best I recall, the UAW sat on its hands while LEAR transferred from GM to BMW and moved out of the area. 20 years of labor, POOF! Look at Hostess. Instead of contracting the workforce and allowing 60% of the workers to continue working, the Grain Millers forced Hostess, and its 18K workers, out of business. SOLIDARITY! Solidarity...as in...you're all out of jobs.

 

Once a Union is created, its survival and activities trumps the needs of the individual workers. You would think, as badly as the UMWA has failed this area, that more people would see it.

 

I don't care if people on this board blast me for what I've just written. But I tell you one thing. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ every waking day that I'm not forced into the constraints of being in a useless, gutless Union.

 

Well said UVAO!

[gridironguru 11]

You're looking for a benefit of being right-to-work? That's simple, Lance.

 

Not being forced to join Unions is a benefit in and of itself. You are the master of your fate, the captain of your soul. Why willingly give up the right of self-governance to be bound by an organization without your best interests at heart?

 

But imagine the Union strikes because of something borderline insane, such as the belief that $71K/year isn't good enough pay anymore: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-17/news/ct-met-chicago-teachers-strike-details-20120917_1_cps-teachers-teacher-evaluation-chicago-teacher-strike. You're FORCED by the Union to sit out the strike. You face being unemployable in the entire state if you cross the picket line. Now, which do you think is more beneficial to the worker: earning a better wage than 99.6% of the world, or getting the lights shut off? What if you have a family? Which is more important: your union "solidarity" or feeding your kids? Common sense, no?

 

Let's go even farther. Unions work on a rigid seniority system, which is as inherently flawed as anything ever conceived. The bare minimum is lauded, and incompetence is rewarded. Any system that mandates preference on a 10-year employee who does jack squat over a 9-year employee who is the division's best producer is laughably idiotic.

 

Let's go even farther. When you know that you're going into a seniority system that requires everything short of an act of Congress to fire you, where's the incentive to achieve? If you're not getting one iota more praise for doing the maximum as opposed to doing the minimum, why try harder? In fact, trying harder means that production increases, and as production increases, the workforce must contract if the demand is the same. So, if you're too low on the ladder, you could work yourself out of a job if you overachieve. Bizarre, isn't it?

 

Let's go even farther. Say you want to work your way into management. Instead of trying your hardest and getting management to notice you, you have to wait on enough people to retire or die before you're even considered. Goodbye, any hope of getting your dream job before you're 60.

 

Let's go even farther. Do Unions even protect their workers, anyway? As best I recall, the UAW sat on its hands while LEAR transferred from GM to BMW and moved out of the area. 20 years of labor, POOF! Look at Hostess. Instead of contracting the workforce and allowing 60% of the workers to continue working, the Grain Millers forced Hostess, and its 18K workers, out of business. SOLIDARITY! Solidarity...as in...you're all out of jobs.

 

Once a Union is created, its survival and activities trumps the needs of the individual workers. You would think, as badly as the UMWA has failed this area, that more people would see it.

 

I don't care if people on this board blast me for what I've just written. But I tell you one thing. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ every waking day that I'm not forced into the constraints of being in a useless, gutless Union.

 

Totally Agree

[frontierman95 10]

Unions have served their purpose in this country. I have not joined the union for my profession because I don't want my money going to support the campaign of a person(s) who have launched a full fledged attack on my rights.

 

If anyone can counter UVAO's points........

[Lance 228]

I agree on the Union issue...I'm talking about the other side of things...it's slanted toward the company...workers have no rights or recourse...you can be fired for no reason other than doing your job.

 

I've worked in a union place before, here and in another state...it's worthless...you'll get no argument from me on that point.

 

This is not just about unions...it goes much deeper than that.