Tweet
Michigan passes new laws making it impossible to organize private unions, and D’s adopt the Rethug language to refer to the change as; “Michigan is now a ‘right to work’ state.”
Well, what average, under-informed voter and citizen would be concerned about that particular statement?
At this moment, I’m not sure what to suggest as how the D’s should refer to this new law IN UNISON, but they practically give up the field of rhetorical competition by using the Rethug talking point explanation, instead of getting out THEIR spin on the assault on labor rights!
AGAIN!
13 Comments
OK . . . I gave it a little thought . . .
More than one responsive “talking point” is needed in any of these rhetorical battles to encapsulate a legislative bill in sound bites.
Here’s one suggestion for an anti-“right to work” meme;
Call the bill “The Paycheck Freeloader Bill”.
This highlights the way that non-dues paying workers reap the benefits of union organization, which typically includes a higher paycheck and improved benefits, but allows the “freeloaders” to wiggle away from paying for any part of the fight for the increase in their wages, etc..
That’s REALLY what “right to work” means.
How are Ds adopting the ‘right to work’ language?
. . . by using the phrase themselves to describe the effect of the legislation.
. . . “right to work” sounds laudable. Great. Who could oppose something that gives people the “right to work”??
“Payroll Freeloading” is a much more accurate description of the law’s real effect.
Do you get it now?
Thanks….I have always been confused by the “right to work” language; quite deliberate, I am sure.
Of course; it’s MEANT to confuse and slant the debate
toward the side that gets its way with what sound bite
frames the issue.
Again tonight, Ed Schultz used the phrase “right to work”
every clucking time he referred to the bill!
So did his guest, the Michigan governor, except at one point
he did make the observation that “right to work” was
a terrible way to describe the effect of the legislation.
He said it was more like “the right to be paid less”.
A good start, but the rhetorical change must be
immediate, consistant, and used by every D who
mentions the question.
I get it. I understand the concept, but you didn’t provide any evidence that the Ds are doing that, is all. Do you think that everyone should accept what you say just because you say so?
I live in Michigan, and I haven’t heard Democrats using ‘right to work’ language.
You are wrong.
Your governor uses the phrase! The number one D in the state.
Every time you hear the phrase,
you are hearing “the language” that I am referring to.
Half the people might be D’s, I would venture.
. . . and “just because I say so?”
If you want to have a better chance of winning a debate,
you simply can’t mimic the slanted language of your opponents.
“Right to work” is designed to immediately infer that its
opponents are against the right of people to work!
This is simple. I’m pointing out how stupid it is to
surrender the high ground in the rhetorical battle
as soon as it begins.
The worst thing is that the D’s do it over and over
on almost every topic on the table.
The Rethugs are better at this. For example,
they framed this debate by choosing to call this type
of legislation “right to work” a long time ago.
It is an enormous mistake for D’s to adopt that language!
Rick Snyder is a Republican.
Sorry. My mistake.
OK. I’m wrong again!
It was Mayor Virg Bernero, (D) Lansing.
How about a little bet about whether we hear a dozen D’s
on TeeVee and the radio today who call the bill
“right to work”??
$10,000?? A little bet?
Melissa Harris Perry JUST introduced the
Michigan union fight segment on her show
by calling the bill “right to work”.
. . . and she is repeating the phrase every time
she refers to the legislation.
Deafness is right! With the leadership of the Democrat Party in the hands of Mark Brewer, odds are you won’t hear anything from the party in Lansing, but excuses. Their voices are non-existent. New leadership is desperately needed for the Democrats.