Boeing, unions, and the right to work

[theDoctorisIn]

And who is calling for government?

Not me...

Government can go fuck off.....

What exactly do you think "Right to work" laws are?

They're government interference in the market.

Of course Union States where you MUST join the Union to be hired is not any interference right?

Not government interference.

You do realize that in 28 States such laws exist.

Nope. There's no such thing as a "non-right to work" law - it's simply the absence of those laws, not other ones.

In those States one does not even get hired EVER to a Union shop unless the Union approves it.

As per the private contract made between the union and the company, not the law.

Ohh they play semantics and claim things like you have 6 weeks or 6 months to join. But the reality is if it is a Union shop no one not already selected and approved by that Union ever gets hired.

That's not true at all.

So not only has the Government interfered they have delegated the sole power for hiring at private Businesses that are Unionized to a third party , the Union.

No, the legal contracts signed between the union and the company delegate that power to the unions - not any laws.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have a general question-

let us suppose for a moment that the Boeing board decided to close all operations in Washington and move it all to SC, why should this be against the law?

Let us suppose Boeing decides to move production to China?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have a general question-

let us suppose for a moment that the Boeing board decided to close all operations in Washington and move it all to SC, why should this be against the law?

Let us suppose Boeing decides to move production to China?

Explain EXACTLY when the US Federal Government was granted the power to tell a private Business that it can not chose the State OR Country they want to build their PRIVATE Factories, shops or businesses in? Provide for us the relevant portions of the Constitution that grant the power to the Federal Government to take to Court a private enterprise for the affront of choosing to relocate their base of operation to a willing State or even another Country.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What exactly do you think "Right to work" laws are?

They're government interference in the market.

Of course Union States where you MUST join the Union to be hired is not any interference right?

Not government interference.

Nope. There's no such thing as a "non-right to work" law - it's simply the absence of those laws, not other ones.

As per the private contract made between the union and the company, not the law.

Ohh they play semantics and claim things like you have 6 weeks or 6 months to join. But the reality is if it is a Union shop no one not already selected and approved by that Union ever gets hired.

That's not true at all.

So not only has the Government interfered they have delegated the sole power for hiring at private Businesses that are Unionized to a third party , the Union.

No, the legal contracts signed between the union and the company delegate that power to the unions - not any laws.

Wait let me get this right? If the State Government Guarantees its citizens the right to work irregardless of Union Status, that is an abridgement and a forced entity that is bad. But if Unions force companies to only hire people they approve of that is acceptable?

Last I checked the State Governments have the legal power and the will of the people to ensure hiring practices are, within the confines of that State, free from force or a system that denies its citizens a right to work based solely on the whims of a Group of thugs bent solely on enriching their pockets and not actually PAYING or providing the money for jobs.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have a general question-

let us suppose for a moment that the Boeing board decided to close all operations in Washington and move it all to SC, why should this be against the law?

Let us suppose Boeing decides to move production to China?

Explain EXACTLY when the US Federal Government was granted the power to tell a private Business that it can not chose the State OR Country they want to build their PRIVATE Factories, shops or businesses in? Provide for us the relevant portions of the Constitution that grant the power to the Federal Government to take to Court a private enterprise for the affront of choosing to relocate their base of operation to a willing State or even another Country.

They shouldn't. We must worship the 'corporation' because we workers are not worthy. We should be happy to work for less. We must be thankful and subservient to the superiors.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Of course Union States where you MUST join the Union to be hired is not any interference right?

Not government interference.

Nope. There's no such thing as a "non-right to work" law - it's simply the absence of those laws, not other ones.

As per the private contract made between the union and the company, not the law.

That's not true at all.

So not only has the Government interfered they have delegated the sole power for hiring at private Businesses that are Unionized to a third party , the Union.

No, the legal contracts signed between the union and the company delegate that power to the unions - not any laws.

Wait let me get this right? If the State Government Guarantees its citizens the right to work irregardless of Union Status, that is an abridgement and a forced entity that is bad.

I made no value judgements, but it is an "abridgement".

But if Unions force companies to only hire people they approve of that is acceptable?

How are the unions "forcing" anything? The companies signed the contracts, they weren't "forced".

Last I checked the State Governments have the legal power

Yes, from the Taft-Hartley act.

and the will of the people

Seriously? That's your argument?

to ensure hiring practices are, within the confines of that State, free from force or a system that denies its citizens a right to work based solely on the whims of a Group of thugs bent solely on enriching their pockets and not actually PAYING or providing the money for jobs.

This is just fancy talk for "States should be allowed to decide what clauses private contracts may or may not contain".

 

[code1211]

I have a general question-

let us suppose for a moment that the Boeing board decided to close all operations in Washington and move it all to SC, why should this be against the law?

Apparently, it's illegal to move jobs to SC, but not illegal to move jobs to China.

 

[editec]

The Right to Scab law definitely does attract some industries, without doubt.

 

[code1211]

I love when Conservatives call for government regulation of private contracts....

And who is calling for government?

Not me...

Government can go fuck off.....

What exactly do you think "Right to work" laws are?

They're government interference in the market.

In this case, we are discussing the rights of workers to work in the manner that they would prefer. In the real world today, this is turning more and more into work at all.

The individual worker will work under the rules of the company that pays him, of course. In states where unions are endorsed by the inaction of the government, that employee will work under those rules and the rules of the union. In the event that the provider of the job leaves the area, the union will not emply that worker.

In right to work states, the individual is protected from the compulsion to join the union. As with most of our rights, the weak are as protected as the strong by the power of government. In the Backward Land that Obamam endorses, the rights of the individual are sacrificed for the priviledge of the powerful unions.

Would you also argue for the right of gangs like the Klan to forcibly prevent individuals that they select from exercising their rights? That is another organization that existed by the inaction of government.

How about street gangs? Foreign invaders? Political action committees? Church groups?

There are many and various organizations that would like to increase their memebership and would do so to both control others and to gain power and wealth. Should the government be enjoined from regulating any of these? All of these?

You tell me. Are individual rights not important to you?

 

[DaGoose]

By having "right to work", you keep the unions honest. I don't want any unions giving my dues to politicians of any political party. Not having right to work laws is what liberals want. Then they can cry when their jobs go overseas from their own policies, but instead will blame those greedy republican corporotists. They're dumber than a monkey fuckin' a racoon.

1) If you're, in fact, a Union member you can pay a reduced fee whereby none of your dues go to political contributions. It's the law.

2) Do you honestly believe that if there were no Unions that no more jobs would be sent overseas or across the border?

.

 

[DaGoose]

And who is calling for government?

Not me...

Government can go fuck off.....

What exactly do you think "Right to work" laws are?

They're government interference in the market.

In this case, we are discussing the rights of workers to work in the manner that they would prefer. In the real world today, this is turning more and more into work at all.

The individual worker will work under the rules of the company that pays him, of course. In states where unions are endorsed by the inaction of the government, that employee will work under those rules and the rules of the union. In the event that the provider of the job leaves the area, the union will not emply that worker.

In right to work states, the individual is protected from the compulsion to join the union. As with most of our rights, the weak are as protected as the strong by the power of government. In the Backward Land that Obamam endorses, the rights of the individual are sacrificed for the priviledge of the powerful unions.

Would you also argue for the right of gangs like the Klan to forcibly prevent individuals that they select from exercising their rights? That is another organization that existed by the inaction of government.

How about street gangs? Foreign invaders? Political action committees? Church groups?

There are many and various organizations that would like to increase their memebership and would do so to both control others and to gain power and wealth. Should the government be enjoined from regulating any of these? All of these?

You tell me. Are individual rights not important to you?

Please explain how individual rights are threatened.

According the the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) only 6.9 percent of the private workforce are Union, and even less than that are Closed Shop.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Simply put....If you do not want to join the Union in a Closed Shop state then don't apply at a Unionized place.

See? You're free to work wherever you want. Now THERE'S your "Right to Work"!!

.

 

[bripat9643]

I love when Conservatives call for government regulation of private contracts....

Forced unionism is government regulation of private contracts, turd. "Right to work" prevents the federal government from forcing union membership on employees.

You would call the Bill of Rights, "regulation" of society.

 

[bripat9643]

Please explain how individual rights are threatened.

According the the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) only 6.9 percent of the private workforce are Union, and even less than that are Closed Shop.
.

Being forced to join a union is a violation of your rights. So what you're saying is that you don't give a damn that the government violates the rights of 7% of the private workforce.

Simply put....If you do not want to join the Union in a Closed Shop state then don't apply at a Unionized place.

According to that logic, a protection racket isn't a violation of your rights since you can move to a neighborhood where they don't have one. Why should a third party have a right to interfere in a contract between you and an employer? It has no such right, and anyone who claims it does is no better than a common thug.

See? You're free to work wherever you want. Now THERE'S your "Right to Work"!!

.

It's hard to be civil to libtards when they are such obvious jackasses.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Competition is a major factor here, as it is with capitalism in general.

Unions demand their wages, while non-union workers wages are based on supply and demand principals.

So of course the states that have an option are doing better because the wages aren't loony and are actually based on economics.

In the non-right to work states union labor is extremely expensive hence the products they manufacture cost more.

This situation is a naked power grab by a socialist- clearly not capitalist- administration. The President himself appointed the leadership of the labor board that issued this corporatist doctrine...

In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes."
HolyCoast.com: Obama Admin. to Boeing: You Can't Build a Plant in a Non-Union State

1. "A 12-day strike by the 27,000-member International Association of Machinists against Boeing Co. in Seattle has cost the aerospace giant $1 billion in deferred revenue, but the worst may be yet to come, industry analysts say."

Read more from this Tulsa World article at Boeing walkout damage growing | Tulsa World

2. "...President Obama on Saturday used recess appointments to fill 15 administration posts without Senate confirmation, including Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board...."http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/27/obama-makes-recess-appointments-vacant-administration-posts/

3. “Mr. Becker’s previous statements strongly indicate that he would take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB and that he would pursue a personal agenda there, rather than that of the administration," Nelson said in a statement Monday. “This is of great concern, considering that the board’s main responsibility is to resolve labor disputes with an even and impartial hand." Senate stops Craig Becker nomination - Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com

There is no basis in law for this and other examples of this Chiago-Thug crony capitalism.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Davis Bacon Act must be repealed

 

[DaGoose]

Please explain how individual rights are threatened.

According the the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) only 6.9 percent of the private workforce are Union, and even less than that are Closed Shop.
.

Being forced to join a union is a violation of your rights. So what you're saying is that you don't give a damn that the government violates the rights of 7% of the private workforce.

Simply put....If you do not want to join the Union in a Closed Shop state then don't apply at a Unionized place.

According to that logic, a protection racket isn't a violation of your rights since you can move to a neighborhood where they don't have one. Why should a third party have a right to interfere in a contract between you and an employer? It has no such right, and anyone who claims it does is no better than a common thug.

See? You're free to work wherever you want. Now THERE'S your "Right to Work"!!

.

It's hard to be civil to libtards when they are such obvious jackasses.

And it's hard to be civil to wing nuts when they are obviously ignorant.

1) Being forced to join a Union is NOT a "violation of your rights". If you think it is prove it.

2) According to your logic I should be able to join any private organization and then petition the government to get them to change their rules to fit MY beliefs.

Why is it that people like you PREACH small government but then ask them to come to your rescue and interfere with private contracts?

.

 

[Jack Fate]

Whenever the left wants somethng they will holler "rights". It's an automatic reaction.

 

[DaGoose]

Please explain how individual rights are threatened.

According the the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) only 6.9 percent of the private workforce are Union, and even less than that are Closed Shop.
.

Being forced to join a union is a violation of your rights. So what you're saying is that you don't give a damn that the government violates the rights of 7% of the private workforce.

Simply put....If you do not want to join the Union in a Closed Shop state then don't apply at a Unionized place.

According to that logic, a protection racket isn't a violation of your rights since you can move to a neighborhood where they don't have one. Why should a third party have a right to interfere in a contract between you and an employer? It has no such right, and anyone who claims it does is no better than a common thug.

See? You're free to work wherever you want. Now THERE'S your "Right to Work"!!

.

It's hard to be civil to libtards when they are such obvious jackasses.

Whenever the left wants somethng they will holler "rights". It's an automatic reaction.

Are you saying bripat9643 is a member of the Left???

.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I love when Conservatives call for government regulation of private contracts....

Nobody's calling for any such thing.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Everybody's free to be a complete douche and join a union. I've never known anyone worth their salt that was a union member.