Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-14/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Fiscal cliff negotiations appear stuck in neutral. The Fed ties interest rates to jobless numbers. And the Michigan governor signs a “right to work” law. Diane and a panel of guests discuss the week's top domestic stories.
Guests
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Ron Elving
senior Washington editor for NPR.
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter at The Washington Post.
Friday News Roundup Video
After Michigan passed an anti-union measure Thursday amid protests and criticism, the panel looked at what right-to-work laws actually mean and what's next for the nation's organized labor movement.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
THX,
Allow me to take your thinking apart piece by piece.
1. You're a typical conservative conspiracy theorist...you can't accept the fact that the people/group you love (i.e., The Republican Party) is capable of the same kind of thing you accuse those you are against of (i.e., "A total sham...?"). The cold cruel fact is that Obamacare was given a public airing...the anti-union law wasn't. Case closed. Don't add your opinion to the facts. Why was this anti-union law was pushed through within the span of a week, with no public discourse of debate if the law was so great (defend that if you please...if you can)?
2. If "right-to-work" is such a great piece of public policy, why do 5 of the "right-to-work" states currently have the highest unemployment rates--Nevada as the highest (explain that if you can)?
3. If Republicans in Michigan had such faith that it was a "pro-worker law," then craft it in such a way as to prevent it from being pulled/recalled by popular referendum?
4. You cite statistics to support your anti-union bias. Selective figures & facts can be used to justify any belief...including conspiracy theories. Allow me to demonstrate. Another leader was also anti-union:
"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike.” That was Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933. You're in great company dude!
5. You don't have to spend all day responding to everyone here who doesn't embrace the same political dogma that you do...we're not all liberals (or conservatives).
6. Calling my blog a "virus?" Jealousy is SUCH an unbecoming trait. Also, if you're not the webmaster, then maybe you should keep your mouth shut and your mind open...especially since YOU'RE the only one whining...like a liberal. ;)
mnemecek,
I usually disagree with you on most things but on the Detroit to Canada idea you have my full support. It would however, kill Matty Mouron's empire as we would no longer need the Ambassador Bridge.
Mike Sergeant wrote:" I think the point was that at least there was public discussion on the bill, there was NONE, ZIP, ZERO, NADA public discussion on the bill."
It was HIS "Beyond The-Spectrum" comparison not mine, take it up with him.
Senator Kerry is far more qualified than UN ambassador Rice. Rice is much more of an interventionist and Senator Kerry who has been to war knows the real price of intervening militarily in other countries.
Two points: The Republicans were attacking Susan Rice so that she would be removed from consideration for sec of state and John Kerry would be removed from the Senate - possibly opening up a seat for the Reps and weakening Dem control of the senate.
"Right to Work" is an ALEC agenda to weaken the unions and their voting block in order to help the Reps win elections.
Why don't any of you know this or why don't you at least say this?
ecgberht wrote:
Beyond The-Spectrum wrote:
"I thought the Republican Party was the party of "less government regulation" and "less intrusion? "
Correct, and thanks for pointing it out. Forcing individuals who want to work for a company to join a union exists only because of the regulation that enforces it. "Right to work" represents quiticential "less intrusion". It means that the marketplace, not union thugs controls.
It occurs to me that if you didn't want to pay the union dues, then go work for the company that doesn't have the union. As far as I can tell there was no law that required any company to have a union. Isn't that the free market?
Mike Sergeant wrote:
mnemecek,
I usually disagree with you on most things but on the Detroit to Canada idea you have my full support. It would however, kill 's empire as we would no longer need the Ambassador Bridge.
Matty Mouron is one of the main reasons I want to give it away.
Unemployment rates are lower and wages are higher in right-to-work states
According to Michigan's Mackinac Center, using data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics, private-sector, inflation-adjusted employee compensation in right-to-work states increased by 12% between 2001 and 2011 compared with just 3% over the same period in forced-unionization states.
These good wages came from good jobs. Employment in right-to-work states expanded 2.4% over the same stretch vs. a 3.4% decline in non-right-to-work states. Ironically, Obama is taking credit for jobs created in RTW states.
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121112-636665-right-to-work-mea...
Good morning Diane and company,
You made a very good point about the name "right to work".
It is intentionally misleading.
This also goes for "citizens united", which has nothing to do with citizens being united.
It should be law that laws are named so that their intent can be clearly understood by all.
Steve
Beyond The Spectrum wrote:
"The cold cruel fact is that Obamacare was given a public airing...the anti-union law wasn't. Case closed. Don't add your opinion to the facts."
Want to close the case, Beyond? Let's close it with this ... "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it". N. Pelosi. Sound like a public airing to you? How about this?
"Doorgate. No Republicans currently have access to meeting rooms in the Capitol Building. Harry Reid is to hold fourth secret meeting on Obamacare tomorrow. No one besides committee members are to be allowed into any meetings. There will be no press coverage allowed. There will be no statements given. Reports from the Capitol say the locks have been changed. Democrats are working on merging the 1,500 + page Baucus bill with other Democrat bills. Despite Article V of the Constitution which says:
“…and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
The House version of this argument would be to cite Article IV Section 4:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”
By locking out the representatives of those who voted Republican, Pelosi is denying a “republican” (representative) form of government, since she’s only allowing the representatives that she approves of to participate in governing."
Now, do you still think "The cold cruel fact is that Obamacare was given a public airing"?
The Republicans should give nothing to Obama. Let's go over the cliff. The Republicans should just put all their effort into blaming Obama for higher taxes.
As to Michigan, this is great news. Public unions across the country need to go. The criminal enterprise that exists between the democrats and teacher's unions is over, and the theft of property taxes perhaps can be reversed.
Mike Sergeant wrote:
"It occurs to me that if you didn't want to pay the union dues, then go work for the company that doesn't have the union. As far as I can tell there was no law that required any company to have a union. Isn't that the free market?"
No. A "free market" is that you be able to work for any company that will hire you without being extorted for money to do so.
THX1138 wrote:
Mike Sergeant wrote:" I think the point was that at least there was public discussion on the bill, there was NONE, ZIP, ZERO, NADA public discussion on the bill."
It was HIS "Beyond The-Spectrum" comparison not mine, take it up with him.
I know and you tried to do the classic deflection maneuver of misdirection. Bringing up Obamacare has nothing to do with RTW in Michigan. I will agree no Republicans voted for ObamaCare, but I fail how this compares to no public discussion on Michigan RTW
Beyond The-Spectrum wrote: "Calling my blog a "virus?" Jealousy is SUCH an unbecoming trait'
You should have put this first, the BS would have come into focus that much sooner. Jealous, you have got to be kidding.
sdaniels wrote:
"Right to Work" is an ALEC agenda to weaken the unions and their voting block in order to help the Reps win elections. Why don't any of you know this or why don't you at least say this?"
Well, I'll give you credit for one thing; at least you admit that Union Dues are nothing but money-laundering for Democratic candidates.
Several observations:
1. The one commenter was correct, right to work laws have two specific purposes; defund the democratic party and reduce wages.
2. The fiscal cliff was designed by the republican party to cut services and end the New Deal policies. This is a long held goal of the republican party.
3. Until the American public understands the propaganda machine of the right, and stands up to it the middle class will continue to suffer and stagnate.
The southern economic model may have lost the civil war but their winning the current battle. Bosses rule and workers are just another commodity no better than hog bellies.
I think that we need to recognize, in these conversations, that there are two radically distinct issues... One of the issues has to deal with principles and the other with politics...
As a matter of principle, I am uncomfortable with the notion that you must join (or pay dues to) a union to work for a particular employer. When it comes to the politics related to this issue, I am uncomfortable with the process that makes it possible to pass a law without allowing sufficient democratic debate to take place...
On the issue of Ms. Rice, I do not know whether Ms. Rice is qualified or not to be the secretary of state, although she is very obviously an accomplished individual. But the attacks against her appear to be totally fabricated for political expediency... The fact that party politics have replaced intellectual discourse on matters of policy seems to me to be a particularly dangerous trend. Wouldn't it tend to make this country ungovernable?
Mike Sergeant wrote:" I know and you tried to do the classic deflection maneuver of misdirection. Bringing up Obamacare has nothing to do with RTW in Michigan."
Is your head made of concrete? he brought it up.
ecgberht wrote:
Mike Sergeant wrote:
"It occurs to me that if you didn't want to pay the union dues, then go work for the company that doesn't have the union. As far as I can tell there was no law that required any company to have a union. Isn't that the free market?"
No. A "free market" is that you be able to work for any company that will hire you without being extorted for money to do so.
Not as I understand what the conservatives purport the free market is. I continually hear from conservatives that if you don't like your job get another that pays better, better benefits, or better chance of advancement. Doesn't the same condition apply here. If you don't like paying union dues go find a job where you don't have to pay them.
You cannot have it both ways here.
Ok here's the post:
You wrote,
Beyond The-Spectrum wrote: "Even Obamacare allowed townhall meetings"
That was a total sham, it was rammed through with ZERO republican support, and where were the promised televised debates over the legislation.
The original post from Beyond was aimed at stating there was not public input into the Michigan RTW bills. Regardless of the outcome of ObamaCare, it had one thing the Michigan RTW bills didn't have, public input.
You chose to ignore this point (the only point in the post) and rant about ObamaCare a position we all know you have.
Mike Sergeant wrote:
"Not as I understand what the conservatives purport the free market is. I continually hear from conservatives that if you don't like your job get another that pays better, better benefits, or better chance of advancement. Doesn't the same condition apply here. If you don't like paying union dues go find a job where you don't have to pay them.
You cannot have it both ways here."
Sorry, you're mixing apples and kumquats. You are conflating union leadership, which is essentially a tumor attached to a company, with the leaders of the business itself. Union leadership forces individuals to pay the dues, business owners do not. The truely free market allows workers to organize if they choose, but also allows businesses to hire workers that don't want to join the union as well. If unions do a good job for the workers, workers will join. THAT is free market. Without Right to Work, having to join a union is little more than conscription.
"Ladyingreen wrote:
Several observations:
1. The one commenter was correct, right to work laws have two specific purposes; defund the democratic party and reduce wages.
2. The fiscal cliff was designed by the republican party to cut services and end the New Deal policies. This is a long held goal of the republican party.
3. Until the American public understands the propaganda machine of the right, and stands up to it the middle class will continue to suffer and stagnate.
The southern economic model may have lost the civil war but their winning the current battle. Bosses rule and workers are just another commodity no better than hog bellies."
I would tend to agree with you, at least on points 1 and 2...
As to your point 3, I think the issue could be slightly different. The mechanics of global economics must be made clearer to the general population and to the members of congress. As it is, it seems that nobody has a clue about how the economy works... There is much nonsense heard from one side and the other...
Workers and employers must realize that, ultimately, they must work together. It is not a zero sum game...
Unions are partially responsible for the lack of competitiveness of the US based manufacturers. So are the corporations...
Republicans asked voters.'were you better off 4 years ago'.. They will never,never,never ask us,WERE YOU BETTER OFF WHEN 37% OF AMERICAN WORKERS WERE IN UNIONS...
NO,NO,NO... They won`t ask you that... Were you better off with Ozzie and Harriet families? Were you better off with moms at home vs 1.7 workers need per household to maintain that home today? Were you better off having 2 weeks off in August to share family time? No,No,No they won`t ask you that...
Family Values? Start with caring about families.
ecgberht wrote:
Now, do you still think "The cold cruel fact is that Obamacare was given a public airing"?
It got more that the Michigan RTW bills did. I at least had the chance to e-mail, Tweet or Facebook by representative about my views on the bill/concept. We did not get the same treatment in Michigan. It was passed before most of the workforce arrived home from work.
Mike Sergeant wrote: "Ok here's the post:"
His point was that democrats on Obamacare allowed honest input on legislation and republicans did not on the RTW legislation. I merely pointed out that his use of Obamacare hearings was a false comparison because in the end THEY DID NOT ALLOW PUBLIC INPUT INTO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT LEGISLATION .
An earlier caller referred to the power of terms to incite and to divert us from the truth. The media outlets all were complicit when they continually repeated calling the Affordable Care Act, "OBAMA CARE". The media used to be the defender of facts and truth, almost no people outside of the media employees themselves believe that today.
John Wilson
PO Box 5201
Oswego,NY 13126
315-343-3682
Clifford wrote:
"They will never,never,never ask us,WERE YOU BETTER OFF WHEN 37% OF AMERICAN WORKERS WERE IN UNIONS..."
Coincidence does not imply causality, Clifford. This is not complicated. To the largest extent, what we've witnessed in the last 50 years is the parasite of unions devouring its host (manufacturing businesses) instead of practicing symbiosis with businesses to keep more jobs in America. That has finally come to a head with the death of manufacturing in this country. Hope you're happy.
I am an independant, and think that breakdowns to namecalling accomplish nothing but division. I can't believe some of the comments keep to the spirit of this show.
That said, I am a teacher in Illinois. I have a temporary position at a state university. In order to work there (regardless of status or security), money is taken from my check each month to pay the salary of those who negotiate for benefits I do not receive and do not think affordable for this state. I have the current "right" to submit my reasoning for why I don't want to be in the union, and if it's accepted, I need "only" pay 80% of those lobbyist salaries.
I see right to work as my right to work in the career I can contribute to (my evaluations are very strong), while negotiating my salary based on my contribution. Those who support unions could still support them, while receiving the negotiated benefits.
I've seen good work ethic and poor work ethic in my time at the university. I don't feel that being in a union means slovenliness, but I have seen where unecessary jobs are protected and poor work ethic has been supported. This adds incredible cost in salaries and pensions. I don't feel I or my sons should be shackled to this debt.
ecgberht wrote:
The truely free market allows workers to organize if they choose, but also allows businesses to hire workers that don't want to join the union as well.
You seem to have left out a possibility of the free market, and a market is not truly free if it doesn't have access to all possibilites. The possibility is that a free market allows the worker to work for a business that has chosen not to organize. This option is just as valid as joining a business that is organized. A free market allows me as the worker to go to work for the business that has a organization that the workers have chosen because it gives me benefits that I think are valuable. I can also choose to work for a business where the workers have chosen not to organize because it gives me benefits that I think are valuable. There is no law, nor has there ever been in this country, that states I MUST work for an organized business. Even in the heyday of the unions, I still could make the choice to work for a non union shop.
How is my choice not to work for an organized business NOT a free market?
Here's something I bet we can all agree on--the probable effect of "right-to-work" or "anti-dues" laws.
I assume you're familiar with "The Prisoner's Dilemma"? How about "The Tragedy of the Commons"? In both of those problems, the point is that individuals will hedge to try to get the best deal for themselves, while actually savaging their own best interests, mostly because they're not the only one who got the same idea.
So, here's the issue. Some people who don't want anything to do with organized labor will proceed to happily not pay dues, and that's fine. Really, it is.
But others will see value in a union--better pay, better benefits, etc. So they want to work someplace with union representation. But, they think, since the union has to bargain for its benefits for EVERYONE regardless of membership, why should I share in the costs (dues) when I can share in the benefits anyway?
So they won't pay dues. Trouble is, others are also making that "strategic" decision, and lo and behold, without dues, the union collapses.
If any DRshow commentors are psychologists I'd be interested to know if there's a name for this.