On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com>wrote:
> Unfortunately, the "right to work" stuff being passed in Michigan doesn't > represent any sort of sane attempt to fine tune union representation and > fix some of the flaws. It's just trying to do away with unions. Perhaps I am read the wrong description of the proposed change to the law. All I see is "you couldn't choose before, now you can". Period. > Instead of trying to do away with unions, I'd really much rather see > unions encouraged but serious work go into curbing the worst behavior > (which can be as nasty as corporate) and improving how they work. > I don't see anything in the law change that explicitly gets rid of any unions unless they can't stand on their own two feet without mandatory participation. I guess the way I see it, if certain unions are going to collapse immediately and catastrophically the instant that this law passes, something is very very wrong with the union in question. Why would virtually everyone choose to simultaneously leave the union, causing it's collapse, if it's doing so much good? -Cameron ... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:359039 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
