These guys are dead serious about taking away your ability to make decisions on your own, and want to be sure the hooks into their meal tickets in government are well protected.
Over the next few weeks we'll look at the different things big labor wants to protect for its use, and those laws and protections it wants to overturn to make Michigan more vulnerable to the whims of a few elite thugs running today's organized labor in this once great state. Sadly some really good people who are skilled in their trades and those in education get caught up in the back and forth, and frankly I cannot blame them for being a little concerned where they will be when the dust settles.
I can tell you there are many who ought not be in those fields however. And those are the ones who are concerned about the push for RTW, or Right-To-Work legislation by tea party types, constitutionalists, and right minded thinkers all over.
The weak among the organized masses are afraid. The organizers know it, and are ready with their own editorial template to counter common sense and promote further, the tenets of mediocrity.
As seen below the line
Emotional plays seem to be the best thing out of their "tool box" Nothing says "danger" more than screaming like a little girl about the big bad wolf of individualism and logic.
"SAMPLE OP-ED Watch Out for `Right to Work' for Less
Every working person knows how bad the economy is. We all know someone who's without a job. Maybe we are that person.
So, when the leader of the [State] [House or Senate] recently said one of [his/her] top priorities is making this a so-called "right to work" state, it came as a bit of a shock. [His/Her] priority isn't, say, job creation? Instead of spending every waking moment creating jobs, many of our leaders are partnering with the same corporate CEOs who shipped our jobs overseas to chip away at workers' rights. For them, that starts with laws like "right to work" for less.
So it's important now to sort the facts about "right to work" for less laws from the loud, rhetorical fiction. Twenty-two states, mostly in the South and West, currently have enacted these laws. And the first thing to understand is that they give no one any rights--certainly not the right to a job.
What they do is require unions to represent all eligible employees--whether they pay dues or not. This forces unions to use their time and members' dues money to provide union benefits to co-workers who are not willing to pay their fair share.
That's simply not fair. It's like the person who drinks the office coffee but never drops a buck into the coffee kitty--only on a much more significant scale.
This legislation is being pushed by out-of-state corporate special interests that don't care about anyone in our state. It's part of a larger agenda to create a low-wage workforce with few job benefits and protections. Attacking unions is one of the best ways to make America's workforce more like China's--without the need to set up factories overseas.
It's laughable that the officeholders stalwartly pursuing these laws claim to abhor intrusive government. What's more intrusive than telling businesses they can't bargain terms of employment directly with their employees' union--that their contracts have a pre-determined clause bigfooted by the state politicians?
A few other important things to know about these laws (let's see, should we call them "Freeloader Protection?" laws?): States that have embraced them have:
Lower wages. Workers in the states with these laws make about $5,538 less a year than workers in other states. That means states without them have better family incomes and stronger state and local tax bases.
Weaker safety and health standards. The rate of workplace deaths, for example, is 52.9 percent higher in states with these laws, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, because unions are weaker and less able to demand better for workers.
Fewer people with health care. In states with these laws, 16.7 percent lack health insurance, compared with 13.5 percent in other states.
More poverty. The poverty rate in these states averages 14.5 percent, compared with 12.7 percent in other states.
But that's not all. This legislation is simply not needed. Contrary to the fiery claims you'll be hearing soon (if you haven't already), federal law already protects employees from being forced to join unions--or to pay into union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs.
If state leaders want to help workers, they should be spending their time, energy and political capital creating jobs--not trying to spin laws out of fiction."
Yep.. seen this before. When Polly wants a cracker, he instead gets crack, in the form of a reason killing emotionally driven propaganda template.
It would be wonderful if we all had the same skills and made the same, and by golly no one was better than anyone else! In the meantime we must pretend we are! Or at least we/you should all make the same amount dictated by some suit who has no idea what skill sets are available beyond the actual job.
Money is everything isn't it?
I wonder if I could make you an additional $10,000 a year, would you be willing to submit to me, all rights to choose what foods you eat? I'll imagine not. I'll bet if I choose what you eat, (whether or not I personally choose for myself these things) I could average you a savings of at least 10k a year in savings on your diet, your health care and hospitalization, or other miscellaneous sundries. Ten Grand a year on average. Minimum. But the catch is no exceptions, and nothing exotic.
Is that not the equivalent of allowing labor organizers to dictate and limit your work conditions, pay, and overall compensation and reward?
I return you again to Gray Glenn's speech to answer some of this hogwash: