RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Sun Jul 15, 2018 10:43 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 343 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:31 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35984

You act as if every strike is a good strike. You act as if every union is a good union. You act as if every recommendation to come out of a union is a good idea. They aren't. Many are but quite a few aren't. I have watched plants close growing up and men and women who are in their 50's have to go out and start over because they supported a strike. So not every decision turns out great and not every decision is a good one. The people who run unions are human beings and are not always right. So I reserve the right to make my own decisions. It isn't about pissing on anything. My obligation is to do what I think is right. Not what you think is right and not what 51% of my fellow workers think is right and not what my employer thinks is right. If that bothers you, then you will just have to be bothered.

You're the one that has to live with it. Of course, since conservatives don't have consciences, I'm sure you won't have a problem.

Strikes only happen when a company forces people up against the wall. Yeah, not every strike is successful. I just pointed out that men, women and children died at Ludlow.

You would blame the union. You obviously blame the unions for the strikes and plant closures you mentioned in your posts. Of course, the companies are never to blame.

And when there's a strike, it's because the workers, NOT the people that run the union, that decide to strike. That's what gets me - you never can argue on facts, you have to make shit up constantly.

You just keep lying. Here's the demands the workers at Ludlow had:

  1. Recognition of the union as bargaining agent
  2. Compensation for digging coal at a ton-rate based on 2,000 pounds[21] (Previous ton-rates were of long-tons of 2,200 pounds)
  3. Enforcement of the eight-hour work-day law
  4. Payment for "dead work" (laying track, timbering, handling impurities, etc.)
  5. Weight-checkmen elected by the workers (to keep company weightmen honest)
  6. Right to use any store, and to choose their boarding houses and doctors
  7. Strict enforcement of Colorado's laws (such as mine safety rules, abolition of scrip), and an end to the company guard system


They lost the strike. The only person convicted of murder, of course, was one of the union members.

But hey, the rights of the mine owners were ultimately all that matters, right? After all, they had a duty to their stockholders, right? And that is the most important, right?

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:37 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6300
Again, this is all blowing smoke. If you believe the company ultimately has the right to fire the strikers and permanently replace them, then you don't believe in the rights of workers, period. Nothing more needs to be said.

*edit to add* It's kind of like the "rights" of the Student Council in middle school. They have rights to make pronouncements, until they piss off the Principle. Then they don't have any rights.


So what is your solution? Which group of people's rights are superior? Business owners and managers are people, creditors are people and they have employees who are also people, investors are people, land owners are people and labor are people. So whose rights would you like to codify as superior? Justice is supposed to be blind. Our system is designed to at least try to be fair and unbiased. So whose rights are we to make superior? Because in the end, most of us all work for a living, most of us have a boss. Do you want to make the 5% of the workforce you represent superior to the rest of the workforce? Is that it? Do you want to make your members superior to the folks who work at the bank?

I am all for you organizing to better your lives and to try to get better conditions on the job. As I have said before, I am supportive of people who seek to form a union. That's their right under our laws and under our system of government. But I don't believe your rights are superior under the law to anybody else's rights. Other people also have a right to join together to make a better life for themselves. The fact that you have different jobs and organizational models doesn't put your rights ahead of theirs or theirs ahead of yours.

So I support your right to forma union and recruit whichever members of the workforce to join your cause and I support my right not to join and not to be responsible for your expenses. My rights do not have to conflict with yours. We both should be free to do as we please.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:39 pm 
Offline
Political Junkie

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:01 pm
Posts: 903
Location: Home of the DFL
i always found this interesting.....

The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States.[c] Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

Rather interesting, eh, Joe?

_________________
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. - Will Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:44 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35984

So what is your solution? Which group of people's rights are superior? Business owners and managers are people, creditors are people and they have employees who are also people, investors are people, land owners are people and labor are people. So whose rights would you like to codify as superior? Justice is supposed to be blind. Our system is designed to at least try to be fair and unbiased. So whose rights are we to make superior? Because in the end, most of us all work for a living, most of us have a boss. Do you want to make the 5% of the workforce you represent superior to the rest of the workforce? Is that it? Do you want to make your members superior to the folks who work at the bank?

I am all for you organizing to better your lives and to try to get better conditions on the job. As I have said before, I am supportive of people who seek to form a union. That's their right under our laws and under our system of government. But I don't believe your rights are superior under the law to anybody else's rights. Other people also have a right to join together to make a better life for themselves. The fact that you have different jobs and organizational models doesn't put your rights ahead of theirs or theirs ahead of yours.

So I support your right to forma union and recruit whichever members of the workforce to join your cause and I support my right not to join and not to be responsible for your expenses. My rights do not have to conflict with yours. We both should be free to do as we please.

My solution? Pretty simple - take the law back as it was - a company does NOT have the right to fire and permanently replace strikers. That's pretty simple. I would give a government entity the right to force a company and it's workers into binding arbitration, but no, I'm not for strikebreaking.

You are. Yes, you are saying the rights of the company trumps the rights of the workers. The workers can be simply tossed aside and replaced if they make the company mad enough. The right of paternalism rules.

And freedom? You want to tell the strikers at Ludlow about "freedom". The ONLY way to have ANY true measure of "freedom" on a job is to have a union.

By the way, I like having these discussions because anyone else that comes here can see how the conservative mind works, and how they pretend differently. You can throw all the smokescreen you want, Joe, but we can see that, in the end, you're about the rights of the company to rule, and the only right you want to see from workers is the right to break the union.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:47 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6300
You're the one that has to live with it. Of course, since conservatives don't have consciences, I'm sure you won't have a problem.

Strikes only happen when a company forces people up against the wall. Yeah, not every strike is successful. I just pointed out that men, women and children died at Ludlow.

You would blame the union. You obviously blame the unions for the strikes and plant closures you mentioned in your posts. Of course, the companies are never to blame.

And when there's a strike, it's because the workers, NOT the people that run the union, that decide to strike. That's what gets me - you never can argue on facts, you have to make shit up constantly.

You just keep lying. Here's the demands the workers at Ludlow had:

  1. Recognition of the union as bargaining agent
  2. Compensation for digging coal at a ton-rate based on 2,000 pounds[21] (Previous ton-rates were of long-tons of 2,200 pounds)
  3. Enforcement of the eight-hour work-day law
  4. Payment for "dead work" (laying track, timbering, handling impurities, etc.)
  5. Weight-checkmen elected by the workers (to keep company weightmen honest)
  6. Right to use any store, and to choose their boarding houses and doctors
  7. Strict enforcement of Colorado's laws (such as mine safety rules, abolition of scrip), and an end to the company guard system


They lost the strike. The only person convicted of murder, of course, was one of the union members.

But hey, the rights of the mine owners were ultimately all that matters, right? After all, they had a duty to their stockholders, right? And that is the most important, right?


Okay, so the strike in Ludlow 100 years ago was justified. Company behaved badly. Their fault.

But not every labor dispute is the same. We have had lots of disputes in 100 years and I would bet that a vast majority of them were resolved. Some were not resolved. I did not blame the unions. Failing to reach an agreement can be blamed on one or the other or both.

You seem to want to argue that the company is always at fault. That labor is always reasonable in their demands. They are not. Similarly management is not always right or reasonable. That is the nature of things. One is a buyer and one is a seller. They do not always agree. You can't legislate that they do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:57 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35984

Okay, so the strike in Ludlow 100 years ago was justified. Company behaved badly. Their fault.

And yet you support the right of the company to fire and replace workers.

Companies behave this way naturally. Because of our strikes and laws, our companies can't... quite... behave this way here (but a union-busting mine owner whose uncaring for safety killed a bunch of miners is now a conservative hero and is running for Senate as a Republican in West Virginia), but they sure as hell behave that way in other countries.
Quote:
But not every labor dispute is the same. We have had lots of disputes in 100 years and I would bet that a vast majority of them were resolved. Some were not resolved. I did not blame the unions. Failing to reach an agreement can be blamed on one or the other or both.

You seem to want to argue that the company is always at fault. That labor is always reasonable in their demands. They are not. Similarly management is not always right or reasonable. That is the nature of things. One is a buyer and one is a seller. They do not always agree. You can't legislate that they do.

I've never seen a strike - especially in modern times - that was called and continued that wasn't CAUSED by company actions. Oh, there's a few were a workforce gets pissed over minor things and makes a statement. But those end quickly. The ones that go on are because workers are forced into a corner. So I don't buy your "both-siderism". It just isn't borne out by the facts.

Look at the recent teacher strikes. Those prove my point.

What you CAN legislate is a level playing field where both sides have some power and leverage, where worker rights are on the same level as employer rights.

Which is something, of course, that you don't want to see.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:58 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6300
My solution? Pretty simple - take the law back as it was - a company does NOT have the right to fire and permanently replace strikers. That's pretty simple. I would give a government entity the right to force a company and it's workers into binding arbitration, but no, I'm not for strikebreaking.

You are. Yes, you are saying the rights of the company trumps the rights of the workers. The workers can be simply tossed aside and replaced if they make the company mad enough. The right of paternalism rules.

And freedom? You want to tell the strikers at Ludlow about "freedom". The ONLY way to have ANY true measure of "freedom" on a job is to have a union.

By the way, I like having these discussions because anyone else that comes here can see how the conservative mind works, and how they pretend differently. You can throw all the smokescreen you want, Joe, but we can see that, in the end, you're about the rights of the company to rule, and the only right you want to see from workers is the right to break the union.


Allowing people to make their own decisions is not paternal. It's called freedom otherwise known as liberty. Look it up. Interesting concept.

Limiting people's choices to just those you decide are acceptable is paternalism. That's what you are advocating. And when someone says "I would like to think for myself and make the decisions which I believe are right for me", you respond with an attack and say they are selfish and self centered. If you truly are concerned about workers rights you would support their right to make their own decisions and be willing to support them in any decision they choose rather than working to have them terminated so you can have your "happy shop". You talk about abusive companies and then you adopt their tactics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:59 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35984
i always found this interesting.....

The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States.[c] Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

Rather interesting, eh, Joe?

The road of the power of the people over the power of the despot, be it government or corporate - has been a very long one.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:02 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6300
And yet you support the right of the company to fire and replace workers.

Companies behave this way naturally. Because of our strikes and laws, our companies can't... quite... behave this way here (but a union-busting mine owner whose uncaring for safety killed a bunch of miners is now a conservative hero and is running for Senate as a Republican in West Virginia), but they sure as hell behave that way in other countries.

I've never seen a strike - especially in modern times - that was called and continued that wasn't CAUSED by company actions. Oh, there's a few were a workforce gets pissed over minor things and makes a statement. But those end quickly. The ones that go on are because workers are forced into a corner. So I don't buy your "both-siderism". It just isn't borne out by the facts.

Look at the recent teacher strikes. Those prove my point.

What you CAN legislate is a level playing field where both sides have some power and leverage, where worker rights are on the same level as employer rights.

Which is something, of course, that you don't want to see.


I am all for level playing fields. Not sure what you propose or how it works. I have a feeling that what you call a level playing field and what I call a level playing field are two different things. But that should come as no surprise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:03 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35984

Allowing people to make their own decisions is not paternal. It's called freedom otherwise known as liberty. Look it up. Interesting concept.

Limiting people's choices to just those you decide are acceptable is paternalism. That's what you are advocating. And when someone says "I would like to think for myself and make the decisions which I believe are right for me", you respond with an attack and say they are selfish and self centered. If you truly are concerned about workers rights you would support their right to make their own decisions and be willing to support them in any decision they choose rather than working to have them terminated so you can have your "happy shop". You talk about abusive companies and then you adopt their tactics.

Nope. Unions are democratic. Corporations are not. Workers have no rights in corporations. Workers without a union can't make their own decisions. How many rights do Nike shoe-making children in Guatemala have? None. How many rights do Foxxcon workers in China have? None.

Unions are the ONLY organizations that represent workers, and are made up of workers. They have Democratic Union Constitutions.

You keep proving the ONLY worker right that concerns you is the right not to pay for a union. You don't hold ONE OTHER worker right as important.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:05 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35984

I am all for level playing fields. Not sure what you propose or how it works. I have a feeling that what you call a level playing field and what I call a level playing field are two different things. But that should come as no surprise.

Of course. Your idea of a level playing field is that workers can form a union, but workers can opt out at will, and then if, after all that, the union becomes too much of a distraction to the company, the company can just get rid of the union.

So, no, you really AREN'T for a level playing field. You are pro-corporate and anti-worker. You think the corporation will just take care of all workers.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:17 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6300
Nope. Unions are democratic. Corporations are not. Workers have no rights in corporations. Workers without a union can't make their own decisions. How many rights do Nike shoe-making children in Guatemala have? None. How many rights do Foxxcon workers in China have? None.

Unions are the ONLY organizations that represent workers, and are made up of workers. They have Democratic Union Constitutions.

You keep proving the ONLY worker right that concerns you is the right not to pay for a union. You don't hold ONE OTHER worker right as important.


I don't dispute that unions have votes. But the fact they are democratic does in no way justify working to have a fellow employee terminated because they do not choose to join. I get that your MEMBERS choose that option of their own free will. What you ignore is that a minority of employees also have rights. You would impose your will on them using the same coercive tactics as the companies you condemn. Claiming that your members choose the union freely doesn't justify abusing other workers who have done nothing wrong other than tell you no and I don't wish to pay for your union expenses. The fact that you run your organization democratically does not excuse working to terminate employees who wish to exercise their rights in a different way.

You keep proving over and over that you only care about your members and whether they have a "happy shop". You do not care about the employees you would force onto the street because they won't do as you say.

What worker right have I opposed? I support your right to organize. I support your right to bargain collectively with your employer. I support your right to strike if you choose. I don't oppose any of those fundamental rights of the employee. I just don't agree with your contention that you have a right to extract payments from my paycheck for union fees/expense against my will when I have not joined your organization. I don't agree that you should terminate employees who don't wish to associate with your union or pay your fees.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:22 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6300
Of course. Your idea of a level playing field is that workers can form a union, but workers can opt out at will, and then if, after all that, the union becomes too much of a distraction to the company, the company can just get rid of the union.

So, no, you really AREN'T for a level playing field. You are pro-corporate and anti-worker. You think the corporation will just take care of all workers.


I support you being able to hold your members to their membership agreements. How long those agreements last and how they renew is between you and your members. It's a contract as far as I am concerned and should be dealt with as any other employment contract. Similarly you should be able to hold the company to the collective bargaining agreement you negotiate on behalf of your employees as long as it does not impair the rights of nonunion employees. I don't think the company can "throw" out the union under our laws. I support your right to bargain collectively as I said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:29 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35984

I don't dispute that unions have votes. But the fact they are democratic does in no way justify working to have a fellow employee terminated because they do not choose to join. I get that your MEMBERS choose that option of their own free will. What you ignore is that a minority of employees also have rights. You would impose your will on them using the same coercive tactics as the companies you condemn. Claiming that your members choose the union freely doesn't justify abusing other workers who have done nothing wrong other than tell you no and I don't wish to pay for your union expenses. The fact that you run your organization democratically does not excuse working to terminate employees who wish to exercise their rights in a different way.

You keep proving over and over that you only care about your members and whether they have a "happy shop". You do not care about the employees you would force onto the street because they won't do as you say.

What worker right have I opposed? I support your right to organize. I support your right to bargain collectively with your employer. I support your right to strike if you choose. I don't oppose any of those fundamental rights of the employee. I just don't agree with your contention that you have a right to extract payments from my paycheck for union fees/expense against my will when I have not joined your organization. I don't agree that you should terminate employees who don't wish to associate with your union or pay your fees.

No, you don't support any union rights, not when you support the right of a company to get rid of the union by firing all employees and permanently replacing them.

Union members have the right to make changes to their union, and to their leadership. Rights that workers do not have with their employers.

I know, the most important fucking right to you is the right to freeload, and to be a strikebreaker. Near as anyone can tell, those are the ONLY worker rights you actually recognize.

Again, how many right does a Nike-shoe making child in Guatemala have? That's how you want it.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:38 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35984
You know, the anti-union right is trying to completely do away with unions, and they need to be careful what they do. People won't take it laying down. There have been quite a few successful strikes lately, both union and non-union strikes. Union strikes have a lot of rules under the NLRA. The idea was, you made companies recognize the unions and bargain with them, and limited the scope of strikes, but the companies had to let the workers back after a strike.

In turn, unions could not have sympathy strikes, where other unions under contract joined the striking unions - union contracts have no-strike-no-lockout provisions where a union can't strike during the length of their contract, so if someone else struck, they couldn't honor those picket lines.

And the company couldn't be surprised by a strike.

But the teachers have shown that if you take unions away from workers, they can strike at any time, they can have sympathy strikes, even city-wide strikes.

At one time, we had a level playing field. Unions were recognized, and there were rules both sides had to play by. It was fair. But over time, and with laws like Taft-Hartley, corporations took the rules away protecting workers and unions, but kept their rules on unions, so no it's unfair and the corporations have far more power than the unions.

Shall we go back to the free-for-all?

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:49 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6300
No, you don't support any union rights, not when you support the right of a company to get rid of the union by firing all employees and permanently replacing them.

Union members have the right to make changes to their union, and to their leadership. Rights that workers do not have with their employers.

I know, the most important fucking right to you is the right to freeload, and to be a strikebreaker. Near as anyone can tell, those are the ONLY worker rights you actually recognize.

Again, how many right does a Nike-shoe making child in Guatemala have? That's how you want it.


You said workers rights. Not union rights. I support workers rights and freedom. Whatever your union does in that effort is okay with me. I am not okay when you work to have some workers terminated over others. You aren't for workers rights in that case. You are for the rights of the workers who belong to your union and are willing to sacrifice the others for a "happy shop". Workers rights is a comprehensive term meaning all workers and not just the workers who pay your fees.

Paying ones own expenses is not freeloading. Expecting someone else to pay your expenses is freeloading. If I joined your union you would have every right and expectation that I would pay the fees. But if I choose not to join, you have no right to charge me for services I did not agree to purchase or pay. If you cared about workers rights and not union rights you would respect the decision and not work to have me terminated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:54 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35984

You said workers rights. Not union rights. I support workers rights and freedom. Whatever your union does in that effort is okay with me. I am not okay when you work to have some workers terminated over others. You aren't for workers rights in that case. You are for the rights of the workers who belong to your union and are willing to sacrifice the others for a "happy shop". Workers rights is a comprehensive term meaning all workers and not just the workers who pay your fees.

Paying ones own expenses is not freeloading. Expecting someone else to pay your expenses is freeloading. If I joined your union you would have every right and expectation that I would pay the fees. But if I choose not to join, you have no right to charge me for services I did not agree to purchase or pay. If you cared about workers rights and not union rights you would respect the decision and not work to have me terminated.

Okay, here's the reality: In the real world, no one gets fired. The vast majority - 99%+ - join the union. It's a hell of a deal. Give an hour of your pay every month for the union, and you get much better pay, better benefits, better working conditions and rights on the job, such as you can't be fired without just cause. Even if they voted for the union, they say "it's a good deal!" That's why people who DON'T have unionized jobs WANT unionized jobs. That's also why there are very few times workers decertify unions.

Here's how things work in a non-RTW state with a Union Security Clause as to what are termed "Dues Objectors":

Workers who object to paying union dues either on religious grounds or because they don't support the union's political or other activities (usually those that are unrelated to representing the workers in the bargaining unit) are also entitled to alternative arrangements, even in states that allow union security agreements.

A worker who refuses to join a union or pay union dues for religious reasons may be exempt from paying dues or fees. However, these workers can be required to make a similar contribution to a nonlabor, nonreligious charity organization. And the union can require them to pay the reasonable cost of any grievances the union handles on their behalf.

In states that allow union security agreements, nonmember workers who object to the union's use of fees for political or other nonrepresentational activities are entitled to get that money back. However, they still have to pay their fair share of union money spent on representing the bargaining unit's workers -- including the costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance processing.


In large workplaces of thousands of members, there may be a small handful, five or six, that are Dues Objectors. Even fewer take the religious objector status. This is even though organizations like the Right to Work Foundation push for workers to do so.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:01 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35984

You said workers rights. Not union rights. I support workers rights and freedom. Whatever your union does in that effort is okay with me. I am not okay when you work to have some workers terminated over others. You aren't for workers rights in that case. You are for the rights of the workers who belong to your union and are willing to sacrifice the others for a "happy shop". Workers rights is a comprehensive term meaning all workers and not just the workers who pay your fees.

Paying ones own expenses is not freeloading. Expecting someone else to pay your expenses is freeloading. If I joined your union you would have every right and expectation that I would pay the fees. But if I choose not to join, you have no right to charge me for services I did not agree to purchase or pay. If you cared about workers rights and not union rights you would respect the decision and not work to have me terminated.

Getting the benefits of the union, enjoying the ability to file a grievance, but not paying your part of those expenses IS freeloading. It's that simple.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 343 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group