I’ve never belonged to a union and have never been a major supporter of unions. However, the recent action of the lame duck Michigan Republican-controlled legislature to introduce and pass in one day a bill to defund unions is despicable and speaks volumes of the hypocrisy and duplicity of Republicans.
Edward F. Murphy
Mesa
mesateacher posted at 8:03 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
Wow. What a thoughtful letter. In what way is it hypocritical? or duplicitous? Can you state ONE thing that makes it so? What I see is a thoughtful GOP giving citizens of Michigan something they should have had a long time ago: freedom of association. The freedom to belong IF THEY WANT and the freedom to not join a union which supports politicians and views the forced members may not agree with. This bill won't defund the unions: what will defund them is when members leave becuase they have a choice. If they choose to leave and take their money with them, what's wrong with that? And before any of you unionistas hammer away me, it's only fair to tell you that in my 30 year career I willingly paid into a union - it was MY choice!
Abstract01 posted at 8:18 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
Now, now, Mr. Murphy. You should know that nothing in any government is achieved in one day!
I wonder if the legislature truly is "lame duck"? Will the newly elected officials have a majority of democrats? Then yes, it is lame duck. If the power has not shifted, then your accusation is not valid.
Do you likewise condemn legislation that was passed without anybody reading the bill, much less studying the ramifications of it implementation? (sorry for the big words)
Do you despise congressmen who were bribed to vote for legislation that many people in the United States expressly did not want?
Do you treat dishonesty equally, regardless of political affiliation?
Ateam1 posted at 11:09 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
MR.MURPHY; IT is called a RIGHT TO WORK AGREEMENT! You lazy union people up north have created this mess! Get over it!!!
Mike McClellan posted at 7:35 am on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.
How's it hypocritical? Well, like Wisconsin's change, Michigan's law doesn't apply to the two costliest unions in the state, the police and fire.
Accuracy posted at 8:19 am on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.
To “non-union” Edward F. Murphy, the Republicans win on the right to work issue in the heavily pro-union, Democratic Michigan is a hypocrisy . . . or what he is calling a false appearance to be what one is not.
But, Michigan, one of the strongest union states in the nation, is now a right-to-work state. And is something Liberal Democrats thought they would never see happen in the heart of the U.S. auto industry state.
Yes Mike, like Wisconsin, Michigan is one of a number of states that have successfully challenged the unions.
Even the intimidation by union members and crows wasn't enough to stop the Republican governor from signing the new right-to-work law, so that Michigan could become the 24th right-to-work state.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:24 am on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.
mesateacher ... it is a one sided proposition.
Unions get their income from union dues in return for representing the members. In effect, members purchase representation services from the union.
Companies get their income from making products to sell to people.
How is it fair to say that unions can't spend their income from representing people anyway the union officials decide --- but companies can spend their income from selling products to people any way they want?
The legislation demands that unions have permission from each member in order to spend his dues on political activities ... but companies do not have to have the permission of each customer to spend the profits from their business relationship any way the BOD chooses to politically.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:26 am on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.
mesateacher ... both unions and businesses receive income from performing services.
The unions provide representation to members.
Businesses provide services and products to customers.
As my Sainted Dad used to say " same difference ".
But the legislation imposes restrictions on unions spending their income that it does NOT impose on businesses.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:44 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.
UNIONS GOT JUST WHAT THEY DESERVED.....MORE "RIGHT-TO-WORK" STATES AND A SHRINKING MEMBERSHIP.
MORAL = IF YOU ACT LIKE A PIG.....YOU WILL EVENTUALLY BE EATEN LIKE A PIG.
Arizona Willie posted at 5:27 pm on Tue, Dec 25, 2012.
Well Leon, if you want to talk about pigs lets talk about the top 2% who have gone from controlling 20% of the wealth of the country before Reagan became President and who now, after 30 years of tax cut after tax cut control 80% of the wealth of the country.
Just who is the pigs?
Yeah in your right wing view it's the common working man who expects to be paid enough to live on and raise his family.
If this wasn't a family board I would type in a hearty FU to you and you kind Leon.
PatrioticPerson posted at 6:12 pm on Tue, Dec 25, 2012.
AZ Willie,
IT looks like you are saying members are to unions as customers are to businesses.
Customers can go to other businesses if the don't like what the business does but union members cannot go to another union if they don't like what the union does.