Or it could be because the police and firefighters unions still do some good instead of just trying to make themselves rich.
Some of you are more naive than I had imagined.
This RTW fight in MI, and the one in WI for that matter, has nothing to do with the rights of workers.
It's about diminishing the power of the unions that support Democratic candidates(their political opponents).
That's why the police and firefighters unions are exempt from RTW legislation because those unions give their money to Republican politicians rather than Democratic politicians.
Police and firefighters will still be forced to join their union and they will still be forced to pay union dues.
And those forced union dues will support the GOP cause.
The lawmakers in those states don't give a crap about workers' rights.
They care about consolidating their own power in office.
If it was really about workers rights the police and firefighters unions would have been the very first to fall under RTW legislation, not the last.
Those politicians would have fallen all over themselves giving the police and firefighters the RTW if it was really about workers' rights.
Public employee unions would be mostly teachers unions.I don't think that's correct.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=P04
Public employee unions represent workers at every level of government – federal, state and local. Since contract negotiations for these workers are dependent not on private corporations, but on the size of government budgets, this is the one segment of the labor movement that can actually contribute directly to the people with ultimate responsibility for its livelihood. While their giving pattern matches that of other unions (which overwhelmingly support Democrats), public sector unions also concentrate contributions on members of Congress from both parties who sit on committees that deal with federal budgets and agencies.
I pretty much disagree with giving the RTW to police & FFs. Those ppl are a whole different breed. Much like the military they're depending on their brothers to have their back and having two classes of employment contracts (union and non-union) would be divisive. I think you're slant here is to hinge UAW and SEIU unions onto the coat tails of public service unions and that doesn't wash.
Not that I believe the public service workers 'need' to have a union, I believe it's all or none. There shouldn't be a mix since the occupations involved have so much safety risk.
Police and firefighter unions contribute mostly to GOP candidates and that's the real reason they are exempt.
.
I remember it from the WI fight last year.Got any evidence? Or just pulling this out of thin air?
Enter your email address to join: