Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

I think I'm starting to dislike unions...

124678

Posts

  • SmallLadySmallLady Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SmallLady wrote: »
    John Doe wants a job.
    John Doe does not want to be in a [unsafe work environment].
    John Doe can go get a job at a [safe] work site like mcdonlds or google or toyota or microsoft or small family run business as examples



    If you really want to work for that [company with an unsafe work environment], then you may have to accept the fact that you will be [in an unsafe work environment]. (again, talking about non [OSHA regulated] environment) and If you dont' like the way your [company] is run or you think it sucks, you have the power to [go elsewhere].

    This is what people are talking about about when they say this argument is identical to what was used by employers in the pre-union age. The one thing that invalidates this comparison is that union employees at least get a vote to alter the course of their union, but the nature of union politics can be discouraging.


    That's a good point.

    However, how would one then accommodate somebody who doesn't want to be in a union & pay dues, but wants a union job with all the bargained contractual benefits that others paid for? That also doesn't dismantle the union by right to work legislation / open shops


    (again, I'm going to point out that I don't know a lot about right to work other than what I've learned on these boards as this type of legislation doesn't exist in BC)

    SmallLady on
    "we're just doing what smalllady told us to do" - @Heels
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    If you honestly believe that southern states passed right to work laws to protect workers, you're delusional to the point of schizophrenia. They were passed to increase the power of employers, which has always been a big thing in the South.
    Southern workers are free to join, or not join, unions, like anyone else in the United States. I'm not aware of anything that makes it more difficult, legally, to organize a union in a Right to Work State. But, unlike States that do not have Right to Work laws, Southern workers can't be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.

    So, when it comes to deciding whether or not to join a union, who has more freedom- workers in Alabama or workers in Michigan?
    And finally, it's nice to note that you're really into majority rule when it comes down to denying rights to homosexuals, but when it comes to workers standing up for their interests, you think they should go take a hike. Sort of telling there, don't you think?
    Whatever the relevance of homosexual marriage to this discussion, it seems like you're the one telling non-union workers to take a hike. If people want to organize unions, so be it. But they should have no power to force other workers to either join their union or lose their job. It's the pro-union side that's trying to tell workers what to do.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    SmallLady wrote: »
    To clairfy, this is the senario I'm talking about.

    John Doe wants a job.
    John Doe does not want to be in a union.
    John Doe can go get a job at a non unionized work site like mcdonlds or google or toyota or microsoft or small family run business as examples
    That scenario is bad enough and I'm surprised any reasonable person can support such blatant discrimination in hiring. I wonder if you would be so supportive of a workplace that required new employees to join a church as a condition of employment?

    But, the even worse scenario is where you have a previously non-union workplace where a union organizes the workers. Do you really not have a problem with everyone in the workplace being told that their only options are to join the union (and thereby be forced to pay dues) or quit? You're basically admitting that you think you know what's best for the people who don't want to join the union.

    You want to be part of the collective bargaining unit, you have to pay for the collective bargaining. (And contrary to popular myth, you don't have to join, but you're still expected to pay for the fact that there's someone who is actually out there negotiating for your benefits) Again, you're not a fucking special snowflake, get over it.

    And again, it's telling that you're okay with the majority telling someone they're a second class citizen because of who they love, but when the majority tries to stand up for itself against an employer, you're suddenly all about "the rights of the 'oppressed'".

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If you honestly believe that southern states passed right to work laws to protect workers, you're delusional to the point of schizophrenia. They were passed to increase the power of employers, which has always been a big thing in the South.
    Southern workers are free to join, or not join, unions, like anyone else in the United States. I'm not aware of anything that makes it more difficult, legally, to organize a union in a Right to Work State. But, unlike States that do not have Right to Work laws, Southern workers can't be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.

    If I freely organize a union with a bunch of other workers, and we freely negotiate a contract with a business (also freely negotiating) that says only members of our union can work there, who are you to say that you get to just come in and disregard our freedom of association?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SmallLady wrote: »
    That's a good point.

    However, how would one then accommodate somebody who doesn't want to be in a union & pay dues, but wants a union job with all the bargained contractual benefits that others paid for? That also doesn't dismantle the union by right to work legislation / open shops


    (again, I'm going to point out that I don't know a lot about right to work other than what I've learned on these boards as this type of legislation doesn't exist in BC)
    Simple- non-union workers in such a workplace negotiate their own wages and benefits on a case-by-case basis. I mean, the large majority of employees in the workforce are perfectly capable of handling this without having a union. I've had four jobs since I graduated from college, and I've always handled salary and benefits negotiations on my own.

    If the non-union workers see that their union co-workers are able to get a better deal, they'll join the union. But, for employees who want to be judged on their individual merits, a union isn't particularly attractive.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    I'd also challenge your contention that it's unions as opposed to bad products or poor management that has led to the economic malaise in the rustbelt (or anywhere else, really). The unions and the workers don't choose which cars get manufactured or what the specification for some product is going to be. They just make them - to blame the peons for the poor decisions of their employers is kind of unbelievable.
    I said unions were partly responsible for the economic malaise in the industrial sector of our economy. Don't get me wrong- management is as much to blame for the collapse of the auto industry, for example.

    But, many unions have treated their respective companies as a cash cow for their members, without thinking of the long-term consequences involved in their gold-plated union contracts. The Japanese and German car-makers opened plants in Right to Work States because labor costs were cheaper and unions could not force their plants to become unionized.

    And as for the point about the unions not having the power to decide which cars are made, unions have forced various car makers to keep making certain cars because they did not want the respective factories to close. And their contracts have kept unionized American automakers from automating their factories to the same extent as their Japanese and German competitors.

    American unions tend to treat management as the enemy (and vice versa) rather than a long-term partner.

    But, the American private sector unions are going the way of the dinosaur. The really powerful unions these days are the public-sector ones. And they are becoming even more destructive to the country than the private-sector unions ever were. California is in the shape its in right now in substantial part due to things like the Corrections Officers and Teachers Unions draining the treasury dry.

    You are criticizing unions for acting as rational economic actors, and attempting to get the best deal for their shareholders (see: members). I don't see how this is a bad thing. In fact, if we are going to accept the existence or the notion of the invisible hand and the basics of incentive economics, then we should be celebrating these sorts of actions as examples of incentives in action. The problem is that the union's interest and the company's interest don't always align. In fact, looking at a purely abstract notion of what the company is most interested in (profit) versus what the union is interested in (high wages/share in the profits that is commensurate with their labour) you'll find that in almost all cases, these interests conflict.

    When you read things this way, it seems that your criticism is basically that unions' interests and the interest of companies' are contradictory and that we should choose the companies' interest as being of prime importance, for whatever reason.
    I said unions were partly responsible for the economic malaise in the industrial sector of our economy.

    I'm still not ready to accept this. Why unions and not workers generally?

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    SmallLady wrote: »
    That's a good point.

    However, how would one then accommodate somebody who doesn't want to be in a union & pay dues, but wants a union job with all the bargained contractual benefits that others paid for? That also doesn't dismantle the union by right to work legislation / open shops


    (again, I'm going to point out that I don't know a lot about right to work other than what I've learned on these boards as this type of legislation doesn't exist in BC)
    Simple- non-union workers in such a workplace negotiate their own wages and benefits on a case-by-case basis. I mean, the large majority of employees in the workforce are perfectly capable of handling this without having a union. I've had four jobs since I graduated from college, and I've always handled salary and benefits negotiations on my own.

    If the non-union workers see that their union co-workers are able to get a better deal, they'll join the union. But, for employees who want to be judged on their individual merits, a union isn't particularly attractive.

    You must be a computer programmer, right?

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    saggio wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    SmallLady wrote: »
    That's a good point.

    However, how would one then accommodate somebody who doesn't want to be in a union & pay dues, but wants a union job with all the bargained contractual benefits that others paid for? That also doesn't dismantle the union by right to work legislation / open shops


    (again, I'm going to point out that I don't know a lot about right to work other than what I've learned on these boards as this type of legislation doesn't exist in BC)
    Simple- non-union workers in such a workplace negotiate their own wages and benefits on a case-by-case basis. I mean, the large majority of employees in the workforce are perfectly capable of handling this without having a union. I've had four jobs since I graduated from college, and I've always handled salary and benefits negotiations on my own.

    If the non-union workers see that their union co-workers are able to get a better deal, they'll join the union. But, for employees who want to be judged on their individual merits, a union isn't particularly attractive.

    You must be a computer programmer, right?

    Actually, he's said that he's a lawyer in the past. But that attitude among programmers has somewhat baffled me, until I realise how many of them have read Atlas Shrugged unironically.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • SmallLadySmallLady Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    That scenario is bad enough and I'm surprised any reasonable person can support such blatant discrimination in hiring. I wonder if you would be so supportive of a workplace that required new employees to join a church as a condition of employment?

    But, the even worse scenario is where you have a previously non-union workplace where a union organizes the workers. Do you really not have a problem with everyone in the workplace being told that their only options are to join the union (and thereby be forced to pay dues) or quit? You're basically admitting that you think you know what's best for the people who don't want to join the union.

    How is it discrimination when ANYBODY can work at [Union Job X]?

    Is it discrimination when a condition of employment is you have to wear business casual clothes?
    Is it discrimination when you have to sign a non discloser agreement with your employer.

    The Union & the Employer have a contract that says X positions are under this collective agreement. If somebody wants a one of those positions, they are a part of that contract.



    as for organizing
    (again, this is my understanding of it, I don't have a lot of education yet on the ins and outs of organizing, so I may be incorrect.)

    Also, if say the employees at a Buy More [woo chuck] decide to unionize and they have a vote and enough people vote for unionization, you have a union. Now, the people who do not want to be part of the union can choose not to sign and pay dues, and are still represented by the union[it's called granfathering] but if they leave, and that position is filled, then that person would have to join the union, as the position is under the contract.



    but again, what it boils down to for me (as in my personal opinion) is if you are in a union and you don't like. then change it. You can't tell me it can't be done when I've SEEN it happen with the power of a single person standing up.


    is the system perfect? probably not.
    am I going to work my ass off to make it the best I can? your damn straight.


    Edit: off to appointment, won't be able to reply for a while, sorry :(

    SmallLady on
    "we're just doing what smalllady told us to do" - @Heels
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    You want to be part of the collective bargaining unit, you have to pay for the collective bargaining. (And contrary to popular myth, you don't have to join, but you're still expected to pay for the fact that there's someone who is actually out there negotiating for your benefits) Again, you're not a fucking special snowflake, get over it.
    You're missing the point. In Right to Work situations, non-union employees aren't part of the collective bargianing unit. They're completely separate from it. No one is demanding to get the benefits of a union without joining. They simply want the right to work without being forced to join a union.
    And again, it's telling that you're okay with the majority telling someone they're a second class citizen because of who they love, but when the majority tries to stand up for itself against an employer, you're suddenly all about "the rights of the 'oppressed'".
    I've repeatedly said I have no problem with people organizing unions. I'm just opposed to anyone being forced to join a union as a condition of employment. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that, since it does not force anyone to do anything they do not want to.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    90% of everything is crap. This applies to Unions, too.

    The shop I currently work for is unionized, which is extremely atypical in IT (here). It's a mixed bag. I get far more vacation here than I would in a non-unionized shop, and I can actually use it. On the other hand, I definitely work with some people who would have been shitcanned ages ago in a non-unionized shop. I have seen incompetent people get fired here, but it takes longer than "Let me get this straight, you shut down a production server because you didn't think anyone was using it? Pack your bags and get the fuck out, asshat"

    Man I have worked in right to work states all my life and I still wish they would fire more people. Lazy fuckers everywhere.

    Tarranon on
    You could be anywhere
    On the black screen
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If you honestly believe that southern states passed right to work laws to protect workers, you're delusional to the point of schizophrenia. They were passed to increase the power of employers, which has always been a big thing in the South.
    Southern workers are free to join, or not join, unions, like anyone else in the United States. I'm not aware of anything that makes it more difficult, legally, to organize a union in a Right to Work State. But, unlike States that do not have Right to Work laws, Southern workers can't be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.

    If I freely organize a union with a bunch of other workers, and we freely negotiate a contract with a business (also freely negotiating) that says only members of our union can work there, who are you to say that you get to just come in and disregard our freedom of association?
    Used to be that certain workplaces were "whites only" or had signs up saying "no Jews need apply."

    Who are you to disregard those workers' freedom of association by requiring the workplace not discriminate based on race or religion?

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    You want to be part of the collective bargaining unit, you have to pay for the collective bargaining. (And contrary to popular myth, you don't have to join, but you're still expected to pay for the fact that there's someone who is actually out there negotiating for your benefits) Again, you're not a fucking special snowflake, get over it.
    You're missing the point. In Right to Work situations, non-union employees aren't part of the collective bargianing unit. They're completely separate from it. No one is demanding to get the benefits of a union without joining. They simply want the right to work without being forced to join a union.
    And again, it's telling that you're okay with the majority telling someone they're a second class citizen because of who they love, but when the majority tries to stand up for itself against an employer, you're suddenly all about "the rights of the 'oppressed'".
    I've repeatedly said I have no problem with people organizing unions. I'm just opposed to anyone being forced to join a union as a condition of employment. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that, since it does not force anyone to do anything they do not want to.

    There is no "right" to work. It's ridiculous to say that I, as someone not currently employed, should be able to walk up to a business and say "I have the right to work, hire me!" And not be laughed at, anyway.

    You're trying to say that the right to work states are somehow "more free" than states without those laws, when "right to work" is really nothing more than another infringement on the ability to enter contracts. Which is fine and all, you can support that position for a lot of reasons, but it doesn't make sense to do so because of "more freedom."

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If you honestly believe that southern states passed right to work laws to protect workers, you're delusional to the point of schizophrenia. They were passed to increase the power of employers, which has always been a big thing in the South.
    Southern workers are free to join, or not join, unions, like anyone else in the United States. I'm not aware of anything that makes it more difficult, legally, to organize a union in a Right to Work State. But, unlike States that do not have Right to Work laws, Southern workers can't be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.

    If I freely organize a union with a bunch of other workers, and we freely negotiate a contract with a business (also freely negotiating) that says only members of our union can work there, who are you to say that you get to just come in and disregard our freedom of association?
    Used to be that certain workplaces were "whites only" or had signs up saying "no Jews need apply."

    Who are you to disregard those workers' freedom of association by requiring the workplace not discriminate based on race or religion?

    not-a-union-member isn't a protected class, so I'm not sure where you're going here

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SmallLady wrote: »
    How is it discrimination when ANYBODY can work at [Union Job X]?
    Not without joining a union, they can't. A union membership requirement discriminates against people for their refusal to join a certain group.
    Is it discrimination when a condition of employment is you have to wear business casual clothes?
    No.
    Is it discrimination when you have to sign a non discloser agreement with your employer.
    No.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Is it discrimination when a condition of employment is you have to wear business casual clothes?
    No.

    why not?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    There is no "right" to work. It's ridiculous to say that I, as someone not currently employed, should be able to walk up to a business and say "I have the right to work, hire me!" And not be laughed at, anyway.
    In the context of Right to Work States, the right in question is the right to not be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. It's basically an extension of existing laws that ban discrimination in the workplace based on such things as race and sex.
    You're trying to say that the right to work states are somehow "more free" than states without those laws, when "right to work" is really nothing more than another infringement on the ability to enter contracts. Which is fine and all, you can support that position for a lot of reasons, but it doesn't make sense to do so because of "more freedom."
    What right to enter into contracts is infringed by Right to Work laws?

    How does being required to join a union as a condition of employment create more freedom for workers?

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If you honestly believe that southern states passed right to work laws to protect workers, you're delusional to the point of schizophrenia. They were passed to increase the power of employers, which has always been a big thing in the South.
    Southern workers are free to join, or not join, unions, like anyone else in the United States. I'm not aware of anything that makes it more difficult, legally, to organize a union in a Right to Work State. But, unlike States that do not have Right to Work laws, Southern workers can't be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.

    If I freely organize a union with a bunch of other workers, and we freely negotiate a contract with a business (also freely negotiating) that says only members of our union can work there, who are you to say that you get to just come in and disregard our freedom of association?
    Used to be that certain workplaces were "whites only" or had signs up saying "no Jews need apply."

    Who are you to disregard those workers' freedom of association by requiring the workplace not discriminate based on race or religion?

    not-a-union-member isn't a protected class, so I'm not sure where you're going here
    Under certain State laws, it is. States can expand the list of protected classes beyond what is required under Federal law. Witness, for example, how certain States ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    How does being required to join a union as a condition of employment create more freedom for workers?

    Because collectively they can get the company to treat them well, instead of getting cornholed individually?

    Newsflash - you are not John Galt, nor is anyone, for that matter. Please stop acting like you are.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Is it discrimination when a condition of employment is you have to wear business casual clothes?
    No.

    why not?
    Because no particular class of people is being discriminated against in that example. Everyone fits into the category of "people who can wear business casual clothes."

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    There is no "right" to work. It's ridiculous to say that I, as someone not currently employed, should be able to walk up to a business and say "I have the right to work, hire me!" And not be laughed at, anyway.
    In the context of Right to Work States, the right in question is the right to not be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. It's basically an extension of existing laws that ban discrimination in the workplace based on such things as race and sex.
    You're trying to say that the right to work states are somehow "more free" than states without those laws, when "right to work" is really nothing more than another infringement on the ability to enter contracts. Which is fine and all, you can support that position for a lot of reasons, but it doesn't make sense to do so because of "more freedom."
    What right to enter into contracts is infringed by Right to Work laws?

    How does being required to join a union as a condition of employment create more freedom for workers?

    I'm not claiming it does. I'm claiming that if workers and bosses want to sign an exclusionary contract, in a Perfectly Free™ society they would be able to do that. The "Right to Work" is an infringement of that right. You are trying to claim that right to work laws necessarily increase freedom, which isn't true.

    And if you are willing to say that 'not-a-union-member' is to be placed on equal footing with 'black' or 'jew,' why isn't 'dresses-casually' to be placed on that footing as well?

    edit: everyone also fits into the category of "is able to join a union."

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    There is no "right" to work. It's ridiculous to say that I, as someone not currently employed, should be able to walk up to a business and say "I have the right to work, hire me!" And not be laughed at, anyway.
    In the context of Right to Work States, the right in question is the right to not be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. It's basically an extension of existing laws that ban discrimination in the workplace based on such things as race and sex.

    You just don't like the idea of anyone but CEOs having power.

    That's cool.

    Don't pretend like making the worker go at it alone makes things better for the worker. That's just not true.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SmallLady wrote: »
    I don't see why it's disingenuous to say people have a choice.

    Do I want all working people to have decent jobs with a livable wage? Yes
    Hell, do I want non working people and children to not live in abject poverty? Hell yes
    Do I realistily think that every employer in Canada will be unionized in my lifetime? No



    Do I want to listen to people bitching waaa waaa I don't want to be in a union waaaa? NO! I don't. Frankly, I work my damn ass off for people. many of them appreciate the hard work I do. and they are why I do it.

    But if somebody is going to whine and complain about, go work at mcdonalds or google and be happy with your choices.

    However, If somebody has genuine concerns about how things in their union are run and want to make it better. I'll talk and help to the best of my ability.
    Again, this is the exact same argument management can and does make with regards to people who are unhappy with management. Wahhh wahhh you want more pay or more benefits or a safer work environment, why don't you just go work for someone else? Seriously, coming from a union manager this is a massively hypocrtical argument.
    How about "you're not a fucking special snowflake, so get over yourself?"

    The people at that job have decided to unionize, to get the benefits of collective bargaining. This is a decision that they made collectively, and thus they all hold up to it collectively. You're not some special snowflake who gets to come in and say "hey, I don't like your decision, and I should have the right to tell you all to go fuck off."
    Again...
    SmallLady wrote: »
    Sorry, clearly my lack of sleep is getting to me.

    To clairfy, this is the senario I'm talking about.

    John Doe wants a job.
    John Doe does not want to be in a union.
    John Doe can go get a job at a non unionized work site like mcdonlds or google or toyota or microsoft or small family run business as examples

    If you really want to work for that unioized lock smith, then you may have to accept the fact that you will be unionized. (again, talking about non "right to work" environment) and If you dont' like the way your union is run or you think it sucks, you have the power to change it.
    Again... and even more this time. If you don't like your job opportunities, you have the power to improve yourself, learn new skills, and move up into the ranks of professionals who don't get to unionize because their work is valuable in its own right. All of this is the exact same reasons given for why unions are "evil." If you don't like your job, get another.

    Yar on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    How does being required to join a union as a condition of employment create more freedom for workers?

    Because collectively they can get the company to treat them well, instead of getting cornholed individually?

    Newsflash - you are not John Galt, nor is anyone, for that matter. Please stop acting like you are.
    As I've said numerous times, if some workers think they can get a better deal from their employer by organizing, have at it. Right to Work laws don't prevent them from doing so.

    On the other hand, if some workers don't want to join the union because they think they are better off not doing so, why do you want to deny them that freedom? I find your hostility to workers making their own decisions on whether or not to unionize puzzling.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    You just don't like the idea of anyone but CEOs having power.

    That's cool.

    Don't pretend like making the worker go at it alone makes things better for the worker. That's just not true.
    I'm curious where you're getting the idea that I want to make workers "go at it alone." I certainly haven't posted anything to that effect.

    I want workers to be free to choose whether they want to be part of a collective bargaining unit, or go it alone.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Because no particular class of people is being discriminated against in that example. Everyone fits into the category of "people who can [join a union]."

    Well, I did it to the lady, gotta be an equal opportunity asshole else I'm discriminating :P

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    You just don't like the idea of anyone but CEOs having power.

    That's cool.

    Don't pretend like making the worker go at it alone makes things better for the worker. That's just not true.
    I'm curious where you're getting the idea that I want to make workers "go at it alone." I certainly haven't posted anything to that effect.

    I want workers to be free to choose whether they want to be part of a collective bargaining unit, or go it alone.

    You keep using the word "free" as the lynch-pins of your arguments.

    This is a misnomer. Eliminating the power of unions, which is what you're talking about, through laws which "allow" them to "choose" is nothing more than the empowerment of the bosses to hire non-union workers. Who do you think holds the power to hire a worker? the worker? or the boss?

    This has zero effect on the "freedom" of the workers, and total effect on the freedom of the bosses to hire workers who will increase their surplus value.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Because no particular class of people is being discriminated against in that example. Everyone fits into the category of "people who can [join a union]."

    Well, I did it to the lady, gotta be an equal opportunity asshole else I'm discriminating :P
    If you are okay with union membership being a requirement for employment, are you okay with membership in a church or some other organization being a requirement? How about requiring someone to take on a certain status, such as being married to a member of the opposite sex?

    Requiring you to wear business casual clothes to work doesn't require any change of status or membership in any group or organization. It's apples and oranges.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I guess part of the problem is that a lot of our views of Trade Unions are coloured by horror stories from back in the day, in my case the 1970s, when NZ unions peaked in power/influence. In our case they no longer have anything like that power, having been broken in the 80s, but the stories persist to tar their reputations, but it is possible to see why though, given the power they had.

    For example, a story I assume to be true as it was from an authoritative source happened a local meat packer/abattoir in the 70s (or as we call them, Freezing Works), now they have/had very well paid seasonal jobs for a rural service town and were quite often heavily unionised. A friend's father, who is now a prominent left wing academic with a focus on trade unions had his first summer job there during college and was dismissed after a month as the role was redundant, due to lack of work and he was the last employed person. His floor steward upon seeing this guy packing to leave, told him to stop packing his gear up while he went to talk to the chief union man in the plant, who then told management that if they didn't retract the dismissal the plant would walk out then and there. Management retracted the dismissal and that was that, my friend's father then became a life long union man, despite soon leaving the plant. The union had the power to challenge dismissals of even short serving temporary holiday staff and would do so at the drop of a hat. I somehow doubt that they still can do this

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Kalkino wrote: »
    For example, a story I assume to be true as it was from an authoritative source happened a local meat packer/abattoir in the 70s (or as we call them, Freezing Works), now they have/had very well paid seasonal jobs for a rural service town and were quite often heavily unionised. A friend's father, who is now a prominent left wing academic with a focus on trade unions had his first summer job there during college and was dismissed after a month as the role was redundant, due to lack of work and he was the last employed person. His floor steward upon seeing this guy packing to leave, told him to stop packing his gear up while he went to talk to the chief union man in the plant, who then told management that if they didn't retract the dismissal the plant would walk out then and there. Management retracted the dismissal and that was that, my friend's father then became a life long union man, despite soon leaving the plant. The union had the power to challenge dismissals of even short serving temporary holiday staff and would do so at the drop of a hat. I somehow doubt that they still can do this

    This is what a union's purpose is.

    This is also not nearly what an American union looks like. At all.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    You keep using the word "free" as the lynch-pins of your arguments.

    This is a misnomer. Eliminating the power of unions, which is what you're talking about, through laws which "allow" them to "choose" is nothing more than the empowerment of the bosses to hire non-union workers. Who do you think holds the power to hire a worker? the worker? or the boss?
    I'm arguing for bans on discrimination based on union membership. You seem to be taking the pro-discrimination position.
    This has zero effect on the "freedom" of the workers, and total effect on the freedom of the bosses to hire workers who will increase their surplus value.
    If workers in Right to Work states thought that unions were attractive, they'd organize more than they currently do. It seems, though, that when given the choice to organize or not, the latter is more attractive to workers.

    Union leaderships knows this- they have no interest in workers freely choosing to organize or not, because they tend to lose in those situations. Unions want every legal advantage for organization that they can get. Look at the recent fight to institute "Card Check."

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    You keep using the word "free" as the lynch-pins of your arguments.

    This is a misnomer. Eliminating the power of unions, which is what you're talking about, through laws which "allow" them to "choose" is nothing more than the empowerment of the bosses to hire non-union workers. Who do you think holds the power to hire a worker? the worker? or the boss?
    I'm arguing for bans on discrimination based on union membership. You seem to be taking the pro-discrimination position.
    This has zero effect on the "freedom" of the workers, and total effect on the freedom of the bosses to hire workers who will increase their surplus value.
    If workers in Right to Work states thought that unions were attractive, they'd organize more than they currently do. It seems, though, that when given the choice to organize or not, the latter is more attractive to workers.

    Union leaderships knows this- they have no interest in workers freely choosing to organize or not, because they tend to lose in those situations. Unions want every legal advantage for organization that they can get. Look at the recent fight to institute "Card Check."

    Fine. I'm done with this.

    You're a dirty capitalist and I'm a Marxist.

    This isn't going to end well.

    But I understand your argument. I can just see through the bullcrap to where it's about the almighty dollar of profits, over the well being and protection of working people.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    But I understand your argument. I can just see through the bullcrap to where it's about the almighty dollar of profits, over the well being and protection of working people.
    I suppose it's easy to win an argument if the opponent you're fighting is full of straw.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    But I understand your argument. I can just see through the bullcrap to where it's about the almighty dollar of profits, over the well being and protection of working people.
    I suppose it's easy to win an argument if the opponent you're fighting is full of straw.

    No, it's just a completely different economic framework in which "the good" is defined in opposing and incompatible ways. It makes the argument un-winnable in the context of our isolated conversation.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Kalkino wrote: »
    For example, a story I assume to be true as it was from an authoritative source happened a local meat packer/abattoir in the 70s (or as we call them, Freezing Works), now they have/had very well paid seasonal jobs for a rural service town and were quite often heavily unionised. A friend's father, who is now a prominent left wing academic with a focus on trade unions had his first summer job there during college and was dismissed after a month as the role was redundant, due to lack of work and he was the last employed person. His floor steward upon seeing this guy packing to leave, told him to stop packing his gear up while he went to talk to the chief union man in the plant, who then told management that if they didn't retract the dismissal the plant would walk out then and there. Management retracted the dismissal and that was that, my friend's father then became a life long union man, despite soon leaving the plant. The union had the power to challenge dismissals of even short serving temporary holiday staff and would do so at the drop of a hat. I somehow doubt that they still can do this

    This is what a union's purpose is.

    This is also not nearly what an American union looks like. At all.

    Which bit - to protect the member's interests, or to pointlessly second guess management decisions?

    If it is the former, then agreed, and it is quite normal for a trade union to do so even when the decision they oppose is quite reasonable.

    I should also mention that this guy wasn't a trade union member, rather pertinent to the story! The Union seems to have acted on the basis that management shouldn't make any firing decisions without consultation with the Union, even when it doesn't affect their members. Of course, he did become a member afterwards in gratitude, so maybe they were being astute recruiters

    Also, I don't think NZ trade unions work that way anymore. There has been a lot of legislation in the last 30 years which has vastly changed the rules on strikes in a way that would make the above highly illegal for one

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I'm generally pro-union, especially considering their historic influence, but the card-check thing was just so fucked. I don't see how that can even be defended.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    You keep using the word "free" as the lynch-pins of your arguments.

    This is a misnomer. Eliminating the power of unions, which is what you're talking about, through laws which "allow" them to "choose" is nothing more than the empowerment of the bosses to hire non-union workers. Who do you think holds the power to hire a worker? the worker? or the boss?
    I'm arguing for bans on discrimination based on union membership. You seem to be taking the pro-discrimination position.
    This has zero effect on the "freedom" of the workers, and total effect on the freedom of the bosses to hire workers who will increase their surplus value.
    If workers in Right to Work states thought that unions were attractive, they'd organize more than they currently do. It seems, though, that when given the choice to organize or not, the latter is more attractive to workers.

    Union leaderships knows this- they have no interest in workers freely choosing to organize or not, because they tend to lose in those situations. Unions want every legal advantage for organization that they can get. Look at the recent fight to institute "Card Check."

    I'm trying to figure out if you're delusional, a moron, or both.

    Workers in "right to work" states don't unionize because - guess what - most of those states are also "at-will" states, and the combination of the two means that unionizing just gives the bosses a list of who gets fired and made an object example of.

    And please, tell me how workers submitting cards stating that they seek to organize is not freely organizing, but businesses hiring anti-organization experts, forcing employees to listen to "Unions Are The Spawn Of Satan" speeches, looking for every loophole to fire the people leading the organization charge, and disingenuously calling elections not because they want one, but because doing so gives them more time to pull all this bullshit is?

    You really should stop drinking the Kool-Aid before you choke on it.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I'm generally pro-union, especially considering their historic influence, but the card-check thing was just so fucked. I don't see how that can even be defended.

    it doesn't seem like there's any "fair" way to set up a union election, really

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    workers submitting cards stating that they seek to organize

    I may have misunderstood the card check thing, but my understanding was that this is not an accurate representation. The ability of workers to vote to unionize is unchanged, but my understanding of "card-check" is that it removed anonymity from such votes. That's fucked.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I'm generally pro-union, especially considering their historic influence, but the card-check thing was just so fucked. I don't see how that can even be defended.

    it doesn't seem like there's any "fair" way to set up a union election, really

    Secret ballots are good enough for every other election.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
Sign In or Register to comment.