Because by documenting the reasons for a dismissal, they can convincingly rebut a charge that the dismissal was based on impermissible criteria. They thus shield themselves from at least some baseless litigation.
From my wiki cite earlier in the thread:
So, companies document why they are firing or letting someone go to ensure they aren’t accused of discrimination and libel for damages. My state is an At Will state (and where I work there aren’t any unions), and that’s exactly what companies do…and why they do it. They don’t just arbitrarily fire people for the hell of it, or twirl their mustache and cackle in an evil tone while cutting all the employees salaries and benefits by a half or more…that just doesn’t happen, nor will it happen in Michigan now that they are going to be At Will.
I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing where anything I wrote would violate the new law.
Surely if an employee rescinds their membership in a union, they are no longer bound by the CBA, thus the employer would be free to seek to impose new employment terms, unfettered by any previous agreement. An employer could quadruple quotas, increase work hours, or any other thing they wanted to try and get an employee to do.
They could even transfer them to a new job if they wanted: “Oh yeah, I don’t need you as a welder anymore, but I do need you to dig and then keep clean the new latrines.”
The two states I have spent most of my life in, Florida and Nevada, are both RTW “at will” states, and I have seen people fired with no reason stated for the dismissal.
My anecdote beats your anecdote.
ETA: I listed most of the actual reasons for termination that are discriminatory. Firing someone because their services are no longer needed or wanted is not a discriminatory or wrongful firing.
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo]
The two states I have spent most of my life in, Florida and Nevada, are both RTW “at will” states, and I have seen people fired with no reason stated for the dismissal.
[/QUOTE]
What’s that got to do with companies documenting why they let someone go?? Or are you saying you have first hand knowledge that these companies fired someone with no reason and then were militantly stupid enough to not document anything at all?
You’d be laying them off, not firing them, but that’s true enough…companies do that all the time when they are downsizing in order to cut costs. You do realize that if a company gives no reason for firing someone then they have to pony up quite a bit towards unemployment though, right?
A Wiki link is an anecdote now? 
So in other words, you cannot choose to hire only union workers.
That seems to be what Bricker, XT and others are arguing is the case with the new Michigan law. If that is indeed the way it’s written, I’d like to see an acknowledgement that, in fact, this law is not about freedom at all, but about restricting and constricting unions.
The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed that nationwide in 1947.
The most likely answer is that power imbalances between wealthy and middle/lower class workers lead to disproportionate enrichment of the wealthy when society becomes richer as a whole. You most likely mean “should” in a moral sense, judging from context, but I don’t think that’s relevant to what I was trying to say. There may be an answer in the moral sense, but that’s meat for a different thread.
?
I see no distinction between those scenarios and don’t even know what you mean by “more productive on its own.”
I would contend that nothing in human society does something on its own. Generations of people don’t suddenly become either lazy or productive for no reason, just as the kids don’t really need to get off one’s lawn, and were never even on it in the first place. It’s merely a label of convenience to avoid doing the hard work of attempting to tease out socio-economic changes.
For example, even as automation and expertise improve the capacity of individual workers, other workers are unemployed due to the rising productivity outstripping demand. This isn’t a moral good or bad, it simply is.
I’m very curious to know how this doesn’t conflict with the court’s decision in Beck. AFAICT, it does and thus might not stand up in a court challenge.
ETA: Or at least parts of the new law might not stand up to a court challenge.
The Gov just signed it.
Six days from start to finish. Impressive. Disturbing.
I think the thread title needs a new word instead of “contemplates”.
Here is the act on Wiki. Where does it say that an employer can’t hire only union labor, if that is their choice (which was the original assertion)? I merely see that an employer can’t be forced to hire only union labor, which is a different thing. Maybe I’m missing something though.
I’ll ask you as well…where does it say an employer can’t, by choice, hire only union labor?? Where are you getting this from?
[QUOTE=wevets]
?
I see no distinction between those scenarios and don’t even know what you mean by “more productive on its own.”
[/QUOTE]
If labor became more productive through it’s own means (perhaps through training, or enhanced skill sets, etc) then they would be worth more intrinsically…they would add more value than what they brought before to the table, and thus would be worth more money. If productivity increased through capital expenditures by business, however (through, say, increased automation or expert systems) then labor doesn’t bring anything more to the table…so, why SHOULD they be paid more? Just because? That’s what I’m trying to get at here. You don’t continually pay labor more just for the sake of paying them more, or because it’s right or proper or a good thing to do. You pay them more if they are worth more to you, as a company…or you don’t, if they aren’t.
Sure…it’s all interconnected. But, if you don’t add value, you can’t expect, simply because, to have your labor worth more. It’s worth what someone will pay you for it…unless you put a gun to their heads and force them to pay more. Then they will have two choices…either find a way to otherwise lower their costs (through increased automation, or moving their production to places where folks aren’t holding a gun to their heads and demanding more than the labor is worth to the company) or going out of business. Well, I suppose a third choice is to have the government bail you out, reorganize, renegotiate onerous agreements, and try and work from there. I’d say there are plenty of examples of US manufacturing doing all of these things in the last 20 years. What it’s done is to make US manufacturing extremely productive, but at the cost of a lot of those previously high paying but low or medium skilled jobs.
I agree completely. Same with outsourcing and offshoring, be that to another state with cheaper labor or to another country with the same.
So are liberals supposed to be for freeloaders?
Tennessee has been right to work for decades, & the financial lot of the typical Tennessean has stayed pretty miserable.
Michigan took Unionism, too far, Tennessee not far enough.
Wisdom, as usual, lies somewhere in the Unexplored Country–the Unknown Middle Ground.
Only according to conservatives.
Have you ever seen a UAW-GM plant contract? At Framingham, it was a 500 page book. The main effect was to reduce the ability of management to run the plant, in favor of the union.
In any event, if the UAW is such an effective organization, how come nobody opens auto plants in Michigan? It ought to be the center of the industry..but (mysteriously) it ain’t.
I wonder why?
You seem to be under the impression that the UAW exists to build cars. It doesn’t.
Not all things are divided up between parties. That kind of thinking isn’t productive.
Specifically though, conservatives scream about freeloaders in their rhetoric. Welfare queens, illegal immigrants getting benefits and so on.