|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 28, 2013 7:46:31 GMT -6
WTF?? Why did we bother then? Link
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Jan 28, 2013 10:02:56 GMT -6
The Governor is playing down the right to work law for good reason. It's salt in the wound of many rabid union groups/people. The majority of the people in Michigan wanted right to work. Right to work will make a difference in Michigan as it has in Indiana. I also think that a portion of the current union members will leave as they now have a right to leave the union and keep their jobs. More important is that Michigan may now attract industry instead of discouraging it to move in with the union rules.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 28, 2013 10:06:03 GMT -6
I am looking at Michigan from the perspective of an outsider.
Michigan probably had a large percentage of the auto manufacturing capacity in the world from the 1910s up through the 1970s. They were in a sellers market from 1945 until the 70s. Life was good and the unions demanded and got all kinds of things that worked until competition set in, largely as a result of the unions getting all kinds of things.
When the new US car plants were built in the last 20 or 30 years, Michigan had a much more skilled pool of auto workers than the southern states where the plants were located, but Michigan priced themselves out of the market - too much money, too many benefits, adversarial attitude toward employers, etc. They couldn't produce cars to compete with overseas manufacturers.
Michigan still has a small edge in the skilled auto labor pool, but it is dwindling and will be gone altogether in a few years.
Michigan inherited great things, but like many inheritors, they pissed it away and maye also like inheritors, many of them think they are special snowflakes and shouldn't have to work as hard as the other folks out there in the marketplace. Human nature is such, that you might think people could learn from the experiences of others, but maybe the cycle just has to play itself out - no shortcuts.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Jan 28, 2013 10:15:41 GMT -6
It's called "sour grapes," a classic example of cognitive dissonance. He can't get what he wants, so he decides he never really wanted it in the first place. Textbook behavior.
PS - I'm assuming he was against the "right to work" legislation. If he was in favor of it, then he's just a lying, double-talking politician.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 28, 2013 11:08:43 GMT -6
It's called "sour grapes," a classic example of cognitive dissonance. He can't get what he wants, so he decides he never really wanted it in the first place. Textbook behavior. PS - I'm assuming he was against the "right to work" legislation. If he was in favor of it, then he's just a lying, double-talking politician.He signed the bill into law
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 28, 2013 11:15:58 GMT -6
The way I would take his comment is that many of the private sector union jobs are already gone and that the new jobs would likely not be union. There is some truth in what he said but he is alos being a politician trying to smooth over ruffled feathers with the hard core union people.
|
|