Posts tagged Michigan
Cognitive Dissonance
"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg
‘Firearms instructor’ hired as school guard leaves handgun in student bathroom
Seriously:
A prosecutor in Lapeer, Michigan says, “No harm, no foul,” after a charter school took the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) advice and hired a armed security guard who promptly left his handgun unattended in a student bathroom.
Chatfield School co-directors Matt Young and Bill Kraly announced last week that they had hired retired Lapeer County Sheriff’s Dept. firearms instructor Clark Arnold as a security guard in response to the December mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
“It’s a tremendous asset to the safety of our students,” Young told WNEM in a report that aired on Tuesday.
But by Wednesday, the school had admitted to The Flint Journal that the retired firearms instructor had “made a breach in security protocol and left his unloaded handgun unattended in the school restroom ‘for a few moments.’”
It’s his fault, right? With all those executive orders… or something. It’s not like the instructor should be expected to keep track of his weapon at all times. That’s just placing restrictions on his Second Amendment rights. </sarcasm>
![theheritagefoundation:
simple truths.
Oh, you guys wanna play? Let’s play.
First off, in right to work states, the median income is $6,690 lower per year than in non-right to work states. That’s $555.75 a month. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time workers who are members of unions make over one-third more per week than those with no union representation. Workers who are just represented by unions, without formal membership, still make about 30% more than their non-union counterparts. Here’s an example:
Jim works in the construction industry. He pays union dues and belongs to a union. His weekly salary is approximately $1,017. His co-worker, Mary, chooses not to pay union dues or have formal union membership, but is still covered under the contract her employer has with the union. Her average salary is $1,010. Mary’s brother, Bob, has no union representation. His weekly salary, on average, is $647 — or 64% of Bob’s salary.
Or try this one:
Jim works as a groundskeeper and is a member of a union. His weekly pay is, on average, $635. Mary, who is covered under the union contract, but does not pay dues, still makes $626 per week. Bob, who is non-union, makes $431 per week.
Now, Mary is capitalizing on federal labor law if she pays no fees to be covered by the union. Why? Federal law already guarantees that no one can be forced to be a member of a union, but in a right to work state, workers can freeload. According to the Economic Policy Center:
Right-to-work laws allow some workers to receive a free ride, getting the advantages of a union contract—such as higher wages and benefits and protection against arbitrary discipline—without paying any fee associated with negotiating on these matters.
That’s because the union must represent all workers with the same due diligence regardless of whether they join the union or pay it dues or other fees and a union contract must cover all workers, again regardless of their membership in or financial support for the union. In states without right-to-work laws, workers covered by a union contract can refuse union membership and pay a fee covering only the costs of workplace bargaining rather than the full cost of dues.
There’s no evidence these laws increase job growth, and studies show that these laws actually decrease workplace safety. Right to work laws also depress wages through declining union membership, meaning small businesses get hurt. In fact, right to work states employ over two-thirds of the nation’s minimum wage workers and have higher poverty rates, higher usage of the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program [SNAP], and a higher gender wage gap. They also employ a higher percentage of part-time versus full-time workers.
Now, you can howl all you like about correlation not equaling causation, and you’d be right. It doesn’t.
But then your graphic would be completely wrong. Which it actually is anyhow.
According to the latest numbers from the BLS, unemployment in right to work states is actually 7% and 7.5% in non-right to work states. And of the states that saw a statistically significant decrease in unemployment from Oct. 2011 to Oct. 2012, right to work states saw less of a decrease than non-right to work states (1.2% to 1.4% respectively).
Oops.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/fead20abb04a189eeeb0ab6c8dc84e75/tumblr_mexuwmH0Lf1r5wy5wo1_500.jpg)
simple truths.
Oh, you guys wanna play? Let’s play.
First off, in right to work states, the median income is $6,690 lower per year than in non-right to work states. That’s $555.75 a month. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time workers who are members of unions make over one-third more per week than those with no union representation. Workers who are just represented by unions, without formal membership, still make about 30% more than their non-union counterparts. Here’s an example:
Jim works in the construction industry. He pays union dues and belongs to a union. His weekly salary is approximately $1,017. His co-worker, Mary, chooses not to pay union dues or have formal union membership, but is still covered under the contract her employer has with the union. Her average salary is $1,010. Mary’s brother, Bob, has no union representation. His weekly salary, on average, is $647 — or 64% of Bob’s salary.
Or try this one:
Jim works as a groundskeeper and is a member of a union. His weekly pay is, on average, $635. Mary, who is covered under the union contract, but does not pay dues, still makes $626 per week. Bob, who is non-union, makes $431 per week.
Now, Mary is capitalizing on federal labor law if she pays no fees to be covered by the union. Why? Federal law already guarantees that no one can be forced to be a member of a union, but in a right to work state, workers can freeload. According to the Economic Policy Center:
Right-to-work laws allow some workers to receive a free ride, getting the advantages of a union contract—such as higher wages and benefits and protection against arbitrary discipline—without paying any fee associated with negotiating on these matters.
That’s because the union must represent all workers with the same due diligence regardless of whether they join the union or pay it dues or other fees and a union contract must cover all workers, again regardless of their membership in or financial support for the union. In states without right-to-work laws, workers covered by a union contract can refuse union membership and pay a fee covering only the costs of workplace bargaining rather than the full cost of dues.
There’s no evidence these laws increase job growth, and studies show that these laws actually decrease workplace safety. Right to work laws also depress wages through declining union membership, meaning small businesses get hurt. In fact, right to work states employ over two-thirds of the nation’s minimum wage workers and have higher poverty rates, higher usage of the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program [SNAP], and a higher gender wage gap. They also employ a higher percentage of part-time versus full-time workers.
Now, you can howl all you like about correlation not equaling causation, and you’d be right. It doesn’t.
But then your graphic would be completely wrong. Which it actually is anyhow.
According to the latest numbers from the BLS, unemployment in right to work states is actually 7% and 7.5% in non-right to work states. And of the states that saw a statistically significant decrease in unemployment from Oct. 2011 to Oct. 2012, right to work states saw less of a decrease than non-right to work states (1.2% to 1.4% respectively).
Oops.
(Source: foundry.org)
Michigan women lawmakers to perform ‘Vagina Monologues’ at state capitol
Now you’ve gone and done it, Michigan, because THIS:
Women legislators in Michigan will be joined by author Eve Ensler in a performance of Ensler’s 1996 play, “The Vagina Monologues,” on Monday, June 18, according to the Detroit Free Press.
The event is intended as a public response to Republican legislators, who, on Wednesday, indefinitely banned two Democratic women legislators from speaking in the Capitol. Their offense? Using the word “vagina.”
What she said was offensive. It was so offensive, I don’t even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company.
Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville, on Rep. Lisa Brown’s use of the word “vagina” on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives.
And yet, you’ll legislate away our bodily autonomy in mixed company…
#VaginaMovieLines is the best thing tonight
Someone take Twitter away from me before I die from lulz…
I would not want to be the staff person explaining to the Michigan GOP officials why #VaginaMovieLines is trending.
I’d sell tickets to watch that explanation though.
Click here to enlarge
Well, the Michigan Republican Party is scrubbing the shit out of their Facebook page, so if you want to join in the fun…
My response to their assertions about vulgarity:
You know what’s vulgar? Emergency financial managers, silencing of female colleagues, allowing Detroit and Flint to fall to pieces, shuttering schools, food deserts, voter ID laws… need I continue?
You may scrub the page, but screen shots are forever.
And thanks for the lulziest twitter trend in awhile.
Oh yeah: Vagina.
And this:
Click photo to enlarge
Suggested by joegressivism:
So do we get to call this Vagina-gate yet? Because I really want to. I really want that to exist.
I agree, it should exist. Now it does.
In addition:
Rep. Jase Bolger
Phone: 517.373.1787
Email: jasebolger@house.mi.gov
