In response to:

Jimmy Hoffa, on Michigan: "We're Going to Have a Civil War"

Marlette John Wrote: Dec 12, 2012 1:14 PM
I agree. People should not be forced to join unions. Michigan has for YEARS allowed people to quit unions in "closed shops". The diference is that since federal law makes the union provide benefits to these people, they have been required to pay an administrative fee (Not full dues) to pay for the benefits. Now the unions still have to provide benefits-except for free- that is not fair and not American.
scrow Wrote: Dec 12, 2012 2:10 PM
So your beef is with the Federal law, the law that's been on the books for the last four years and will continue to be on the books.

Who was the President in charge, and did you vote for or against him?
psydoc Wrote: Dec 12, 2012 1:21 PM
That is not quite correct, Marlette John.

If the worker opts out of joining the union they receive no benefits from the union. They would still receive the same benefits from the company.
Marlette John Wrote: Dec 12, 2012 1:27 PM
Maybe, maybe not. But fedreal law does require the unions to represent non-members as the law is today. If the non-members were excluded, the employers may decide to cut costs by paying them less...or maybe pay them more to keep them out of the union. If the second comes true, as soon as the union is gone, wages will go back down.
psydoc Wrote: Dec 12, 2012 2:11 PM
There is no precedent to back the claim that if unions are gone, wages will go down. In fact, just the opposite has been proven. The ATF hired a statistician to compare wages of teachers in right-to-work and union states, and when adjusted for cost of living, and federal and state income taxes, right to work states paid teachers an average of $484/wk as opposed to $468 in union states.

U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of
the U.S., 2001; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,Employment
& Earnings, May 2001; AFT Survey &Analysis
of Teacher Salary Trends, 2001; BNAUnion
Data Book, 2001 edition; Federal Tax Burdens & Expenditures,
Tax Foundation, July 2002; State Policy
Institute of NY State,
psydoc Wrote: Dec 12, 2012 2:11 PM
Joseph64 Wrote: Dec 12, 2012 1:20 PM
Then they do not have to provide union representation to those who do not pay. Simple solution. Let the union kick out anyone who does not pay and do not include non-union employees in contract negotiations then they are not providing them with anything but the non-union employee is still free to work there under his own terms negotiated separately with the employer.
Marlette John Wrote: Dec 12, 2012 1:22 PM
Right! I agree with that-the federal law does not allow it currently.
getthelibsout Wrote: Dec 12, 2012 1:20 PM
in the 1st place, unions don't provide any benefits
nimh2 Wrote: Dec 12, 2012 1:19 PM
Not entirely true ... union officials obfuscate and make it difficult for one to invoke their "Beck" rights. When I attempted to get an accurate accounting of what percentage my union spent on "collective bargaining activities, I was told that it amounted to around fifty cents per month.
In addition, unions place onerous roadblocks on those that choose to "leave the plantation". By the way, there have been no "closed shops" since the 1940s. They are properly known as "agency shops".

Yes, this is the same elegant creature who screeched about "taking out" Tea Party "son-of-a-bitches" [sic] at a presidential event last year.  In case you'd forgotten, both the White House and the DNC conspicuously declined to repudiate his vituperation at the time.  Now Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. has taken his anger mismanagement show to CNN, seething about an incipient "civil war" in Michigan:

Jimmy Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said Tuesday he expects Michigan unions and lawmakers to break out into "civil war" after the state...