so only union management is protesting? The union members are not upset with the new legislation?
Are you ing serious? The guys that want to stay in the union can stay in the union. It doesn't affect them. If you saw guys waving signs at protests it's because the union was paying them to wave signs. Union Management is about power and enticing/forcing workers to pay dues to them so they can spend the money any way they want to. Right to work is exactly what it says. It is not anti worker. Unions used to be like AARP that the government forced you to join when you were 65. that.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 12-12-2012 at 06:14 PM.
Obviously I'm playing stupid here. I just find it amusing that you seem to actually believe that unions don't serve as an organizational counterweight to the power of those at the top.
Simply put, police and fire were excluded for purely political purposes. They are incredibly powerful unions in both political landscapes. It's one thing to have a thousand UAW members blaring horns and being arrested in Lansing and quite another to have striking police officers and firefighters being arrested in Lansing.
But why would the police and firefighters be striking? Now they get to choose whether or not they want to participate in the union. It's all about giving workers choices!
The stats about unionized states having better median incomes and low unemployment rates are misleading. North Dakota has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and it's a right to work state. The economy and unemployment rate are terrible in California and it's not a right to work state.
As much good as the unions once did, they now exercise more power than they should. I think we should leave that as a different argument, and I only bring it up as a reason why not everyone wants to be a union member.
In my case, I am stuck with a pay scale negotiated between my union and my employer. It is a set pay scale by job and time. Every employee in the same job is treated with equal pay only offset by pay steps that are fixed with how long you have worked. The downside for the employee is there is no incentive to work better than their coworkers. The downside for management is there is no way to reward better employees with a better pay and benefit package.
Unions uphold the lowest common denominator. I cannot negotiate as an individual for better pay, even though I should get paid more than most my coworkers. Unions are great for employees who are replaceable at a whim, but they really such for the people who distinguish themselves above others.
It's just the teachers who hold our children hostage for more pay.
It isn't because California isn't a right to work state, or because HD is. It has to do with the populous mindset, and who they elect into office, and what the elected officials do.
What about Ohio and NY? Unemployment is ty in Ohio and NY. The cost of living is a joke in NY. I'm just saying that you cannot make it seem like
States with unions = low unemployment and higher income
States that are right to work = high unemploment and lower income
The numbers just don't add up.
the 'unemployment' impact of right to work is fairly minimal... 2012 numbers look like this (seasonally adjusted):
- Collective-Bargaining States average unemployment rate 7.5%
- Right to Work average unemployment rate 6.9%
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
This whole thing is political wrangling which, as usual, hold the employees hostage.
Unions abuse their positions of power as much as corps do. Thinking otherwise is naive, imo.
Unions should be optional and by choice. Aren't liberals all about choice, tolerance, and being open minded?
Only when its the things they agree with.
The future location of Delta City.
Are the other employees in the company better at sitting on ass and watching Stargate DVDs? If so, that sucks to not to be able to outshine everyone in performance reviews by telling about the lost episode where Charles in Charge came home drunk and tried to rape Jamie, only to get blocked by Buddy Lebeck.
"they now exercise more power than they should."
evidence? esp now that unions are almost non-existent in USA due to VRWC union-busting the last 35 years?
Tell that to the SEICU
damn, you ing stupid
Tell that to the SEICU
"Union membership in the private sector has fallen under 7%"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_u..._United_States
the stagnation and loss of real household income in past 35 years has been largely due to the war on employees and union busting. Why do you think the Repugs want to destroy public sector unions? because they've pretty much fininshed off private sector unions.
Repugs MADE A HATED REGULATION blocking Homeland security PUBLIC employees from union membership, and want to kill public schools to kill teacher unions, etc, etc. It's the scorched earth campaign by Repugs/VRWC/ALEC to DEFUND the Dems (have nots) so the 1% and corps can over the 99%
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-13-2012 at 12:23 PM.
Labor legislation
Labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan attributes the drop to the long term effects of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which slowed and then halted labor's growth and then, over many decades, enabled management to roll back its previous gains.[31]First, it ended organizing on the grand, 1930s scale. It outlawed mass picketing, secondary strikes of neutral employers, sit downs: in short, everything [Congress of Industrial Organizations founder John L.] Lewis did in the 1930s.
The second effect of Taft-Hartley was subtler and slower-working. It was to hold up any new organizing at all, even on a quiet, low-key scale. For example, Taft-Hartley ended "card checks." … Taft-Hartley required hearings, campaign periods, secret-ballot elections, and sometimes more hearings, before a union could be officially recognized.
It also allowed and even encouraged employers to threaten workers who want to organize. Employers could hold "captive meetings," bring workers into the office and chew them out for thinking about the Union.
And Taft-Hartley led to the "union-busting" that started in the late 1960s and continues today. It started when a new "profession" of labor consultants began to convince employers that they could violate the [pro-labor 1935] Wagner Act, fire workers at will, fire them deliberately for exercising their legal rights, and nothing would happen. The Wagner Act had never had any real sanctions.
[…]
So why hadn't employers been violating the Wagner Act all along? Well, at first, in the 1930s and 1940s, they tried, and they got riots in the streets: mass picketing, secondary strikes, etc. But after Taft-Hartley, unions couldn't retaliate like this, or they would end up with penalty fines and jail sentences.[31]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Labor_legislatio n
^ Where's the 'secede' bumper sticker? oh wait...
The Proud Liberal and Obama bumper stickers don't make any sense together tbh.
How about these beauties?
Yeah, those are more accurate.
Ridiculous. "Proud Liberal" and "Green" bumper stickers can only be placed together on a Prius.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
