![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wow. hyperbole much?
Just got an email from the democratic party about the primary election. At the bottom they have this to say:
(emphasis mine)
this article reports that, "According to the U.S. government, poverty rates are 16 percent higher in right-to-work states. Due to poverty rates, these states have the worst infant mortality rates in the nation. Personal bankruptcies are also higher in right-to-work states."
That's not destroying the middle class, that's hurting the lower classes. at best the lower middle class...
Anyway, I'm not supporting or opposing the "Right to work" movement (here's another article against it) but I'm tired of people trying to play with my fear. I'm not afraid, people. Not more than is reasonable anyway.
BEWARE OF "RIGHT TO WORK" PETITION
At your polling site you may be asked to sign a petition to put Right to Work legislation on the november ballot.
Right to Work means Right to Work for Less. This legislation would:
Reduce wages and benefits
Weaken labor unions
Destroy the middle class
Please do not sign these petitions. This is an attempt by Corporations and out-of-state millionaires to further weaken Michigan's economy.
(emphasis mine)
this article reports that, "According to the U.S. government, poverty rates are 16 percent higher in right-to-work states. Due to poverty rates, these states have the worst infant mortality rates in the nation. Personal bankruptcies are also higher in right-to-work states."
That's not destroying the middle class, that's hurting the lower classes. at best the lower middle class...
Anyway, I'm not supporting or opposing the "Right to work" movement (here's another article against it) but I'm tired of people trying to play with my fear. I'm not afraid, people. Not more than is reasonable anyway.
no subject
no subject
The unions were the reasons a lot of the safety rules, agencies, etc... were put into place. Without them we wouldn't have what we have now that is for sure. But, that doesn't mean we have to shell out kudos to the current incarnation forever either.
When Toyota factories manage to pay a decent wage (those in the US) and it costs them approx $30/hr less than it does for the Big 3 there is a problem. I'm not exactly sure what they make but they do get health insurance, paid vactions, a decent wage, etc.
no subject
no subject
The ability to get news and updates on any shady dealings, wrong doings, etc of companies and governments is well beyond where they've ever been. Add onto the increased ability to communicate to people and you've taken most of what unions are good for away from them.
Company not paying OT? Post about it.. get a campaign going... bam...they not only stop but end up paying for it all; get media on their arse and all the bad publicity.
Government want to repeal something? Write to your congressmen and senators.
More so than ever; we have to stop assuming that someone else is going to do something for us; be it government, the media, the union, etc... and do it ourselves, organize it, promote it, just make it happen.
no subject
There are many skilled workers out there that never log on to the net.
A collective voice is a stronger voice, it allows the average guy to have legal representation and lobbyists equivalent to the big corporations.
A congressperson is much more likely to listen to a union that has many members in his riding than one person.
no subject
After a bit of research, I need to revise this statement. Federal law does allow union members to opt-out of the use of their money for political purposes. However, the default is to permit them...a ballot measure to change it to opt-in was recently defeated in California.
I'd be curious to know whether there's any social stigma attached to opting out this way.