Union-busters: the real defenders of civil rights!
This is true. However, there is a tremendous difference between being excluded from a social club, and a union that does not allow you to join signing a security agreement that ensures only union members will be hired in your industry.
The law enjoys 58% support from Michiganders, so I don’t think this is some sort of elite cabal sneaking in a law against the public trust.
Right, but unions were mostly integrated long before society in general.
Sure, in the case of CIO unions. I’m not hanging my hat on the racial past of the organized labor movement, I’ve brought it up twice: once to elucidator’s arguement that laws like minimum wage were a response to the lack of “humanity and egalitarianism of employers” (I think that’s what he meant, there was sarcasm involved), and once to MOIDALIZE when he credited the Right-to-Work idea to a “racist Texas political huckster” with KKK affiliations, and thus dismissed it.
It’s something of a sideline to the main issues.
No, I dismiss it because it represents a feudalistic notion of how the economy should work. I brought up its racist origins in order to denounce the euphemistic language employed to describe it, and to highlight the scumbags who originally pushed this crap and what their motivations were. All this talk of free markets is the real sideline, because “Right to Work” laws have nothing to do with the economic well-being of workers and society.
Ah! So they did campaign on that promise, to curtail the power of unions? Then I am misinformed, and await your citation.
[QUOTE=Human Action]
…The law enjoys 58% support from Michiganders, so I don’t think this is some sort of elite cabal sneaking in a law against the public trust.
[/QUOTE]
New polling data in Michigan suggests that RTW is not as popular as we thought. And that Governor Snyder is terribly, terribly unpopular.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/snyders-popularity-plummets.html
There’s mine. Yours?
I didn’t say that, because I don’t know if they did or not. The 58% figure came from earlier in this thread, post #73 from I Made French Toast For You.
And it seems that figure is obsolete. I was unaware.
Oh, alright then. I was just going by the post I had to work with, which only brought up a racist angle.
I reject the comparison to feudalism, which is utterly incomparable with free-market capitalism. They differ in nearly every way two economic systems can differ.
The talk of free markets comes from a desire to have a free market for labor, which neither existing federal labor law nor state-level Right-to-work laws achieve. I’ll agitate for the repeal of RTW once federal reform has been done. Until then, it’s a reasonable step for states to take, in the absence of other choices.
About that appropriations “rider”.
Which is to say, the option of bringing this question to a referendum to the voters is thus neatly sidestepped. The appropriation so urgently required?
Well, now, isn’t that special? The appropriation that renders this bill immune to a voter referendum is the appropriation to implement the very same! Which is prudent, since there is little likelihood that the law will be turned back. Yes, that’s probably it. Prudence and restraint, the very hallmarks of Republicans everywhere.
Well, the very same cite offered above, from Fox Gnaws, characterized it as a “surprise move by Michigan Republicans”. I accept their observation relying upon their unblemished record for candor.
(Oh, dear, that was sarcasm Sorry, HA, I will try to be mindful of your delicate sensibilities, but it is a burden for the innately ironic. Fish gotta sing, birds gotta swim, you understand…)
Just come on out and call him a liar.
Well, now that you mention it, what are we to believe about this exercise in political judo? That it is all very high-minded, a noble effort to protect the Free Market (blessings and peace be upon it!)?
Or is it, like so many of us darkly suspect, an effort by a sinking and floundering political party to shore up its waning prospects? Is it merely a coincidence that this follows along with efforts to restrict the voting rights of the undesirable?
Accounts I have read suggest that if the Republicans in Michigan had not rushed this through during their ruptured duck session, they would not have been able to do it after the newly elected legislature takes office. Not that they won’t have a Republican majority, but not enough true believers, not enough Republicans willing to nail their pecker to a tree, and set the tree on fire for the Good of the Party.
Now, I am not deep enough in the weeds of Michigan politics to appraise that. I tend to believe it, for reasons I deem sufficient. If anyone can offer a convincing rebuttal…which is to say, fact based rather than a witness of faith…then I am certainly willing to listen.
Takers? Bueller? Boehner? Bricker?
The Democratic process, by which the law in question was enacted.
Well you were the one using the term “free market” and describing it in glowing terms. Clearly, regulation is needed for a free market. Now your rule of thumb indicates a fundamental difference the two of us have. I judge the effectiveness of an economic system by how well it contributes to the economic well-being of ALL members of a society, which is why for my money the best economic/political systems are the social democracies in Europe, particularly the Scandanavian ones.
The matter of free vs. coerced transactions is all very nice, but if free transactions fuck people in a society up (looking at you, NAFTA), and more coerced ones are beneficial (looking at you, labor laws that permit unions to negotiate as a group with employers), I will happily go with coerced. I really don’t give a rat’s ass about some stupid abstract like "freedom’ applies to economic transactions.
I’m not fooling myself. I look at the recent Justice Dept. decision not to prosecute the execs of HSBC who oversaw billions of dollars laundered for Mexican drug cartels, for Al Qaeda, and for Iran, and I think, “Those motherfuckers have got some MOTHERFUCKING influence over our government!”
Sure it can. In a person, as our Supreme Court has declared corporations to be, sociopathy is inability to feel emotion, to feel empathy for human beings, to care about the moral consequences of one’s behavior. I have been assured that the only responsibility of a corporation is to its shareholders, who define that duty as increasing the value of their shares. Extend working hours, cut benefits, hold salaries for ordinary employees dead level while giving CEOS and top officers multi-million bonuses … corporations do all these things. It’s all about the shareholders, and the managers who serve them. Sociopaths, you bet.
I can’t, others can and have. Not gonna make a run at it tonight, I’m tired. And there are several good ideas to counteract, I’ll mention those later.
Nor am I. I’d rather discuss RTW laws and the state of U.S. labor law, which is easily divorced from the context of the passing of this particular example of a RTW work law. Far worse shenanigans accompanied the passage of the 13th Amendment, but that wouldn’t prevent a discussion on the merits of the Amendment, after all.
If you really want to discuss the political background, the appropriations rider, and similar topics, feel free, but I don’t have much to contribute in that area. The bill was passed in a lawful manner, that’s all that I find particularly relevant.
Agreed. A free market can only exist with a government to enforce contracts, prohibit fraud and theft, and so forth. It does not follow that all regulations contribute to a free market, however.
That’s a fundamental difference, I agree. I would argue that a system of free choices is not only morally right, but produces better outcomes. You make a good point that the differences between the U.S. and Scandinavian systems are not only economic, but also political.
Sure, but they aren’t alone. Look at the massive price support & subsidy programs that channel taxpayer dollars directly to farmer, a group that represents 3% of the population. Or, the aforementioned favoritism for unions. Resolved: regulation that economically favors select groups are wrong, and anathema to a free and equal society, regardless of which group benefits.
That’s not the DSM definition. But regardless, none of the things you listed are morally wrong. I think this disagreement may stem from the businesses as economic actors vs. businesses as agents of social welfare division I mentioned earlier. What do YOU feel are the responsibilities of a business are? (Not sure why you’re focusing on corporations specifically, if there’s a good reason, please elaborate).
Ok, I’ll wait.
Those aren’t the DSM-IV characteristics. “By definition, Antisocial Personality cannot be diagnosed before age 18 years.” DSM-IV-TR, 301.7.
If you’re going to myopically squeal that corporations are people, then how can you justify not applying the actual diagnostic criteria?
Name a corporation that qualifies under the DSM-IV criteria. Go ahead.
What? You say we can’t literally apply these because a corporation is not a natural person?
Ahhhhh…
You got me there, podnuh! The processes that the Republicans are perverting and twisting to their own partisan ends are one hundred percent Democratic processes. Must make you very proud.
Goldman Sachs.
“Perverting and twisting” in your lingo must mean “passing legislation I don’t like.”
Well, its certainly true I don’t like it. On the other hand, I have offered evidence that Michiganders aren’t thrilled to pieces either. If you have some evidence that this is a wildly popular legal maneuver, now would be a good time to offer it.
“Will of the people”, right? See any evidence that this reflects that will? And if you think so, perhaps you can explain the extraordinary effort to rush this through, and to prevent any unseemly interference by the people. If someone is confident that the will of the people is reflected in one’s efforts, why would one go to the trouble of preventing a referendum? If you are acting in accordance with the will of the people, why is it necessary to block them from a referendum?
I’m assuming, of course, that, like me, you hold the will of the people to be paramount, exceeding even the sacred status of “legal and Constitutional”. I confess that may be an entirely unwarranted assumption on my part, giving you the benefit of a doubt.
Did they run on this issue, did they promise the voting public to free them from the crushing burden of union thugs? My sources say no, they didn’t. Even Fox News describes it as a “surprise”. Have you any countering evidence? Any explanation for why this needed to be done in such unseemly haste? My sources suggest its because they could not pass it except in a ruptured duck session. Have you any evidence to offer that this is not so?
Or would you prefer to simply cast aspersions on my character and motivations?