Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wait so companies can keep doing business without retribution web when they violate laws? That's not good.
In other words, when it is percieved by the NLRB (without benefit of court proceedings or outside input), as it is in this case, that a company has broken the law, this Federal agency should have the authority to close down the business. And you think this is OK?
Outragious. Now instead of being innocent until proven guilty, there must only be a perception by the government that you may have broken the law in order to exact instant judgement and execution of the law.
In other words, when it is percieved by the NLRB (without benefit of court proceedings or outside input), as it is in this case, that a company has broken the law, this Federal agency should have the authority to close down the business. And you think this is OK?
Outragious. Now instead of being innocent until proven guilty, there must only be a perception by the government that you may have broken the law in order to exact instant judgement and execution of the law.
Guess what dip shit, that's kind of how are justice system works. If you were accused of being a pedophile, do you think the cops would let you go back to your day job at the pre-school before there was a hearing? Nope. They wouldn't. You seem to think that's "outragious" though!
Yo, DBS! Forgot it again!Where in the Constitution does it say the rights of union members trump the rights of union members?Where in the Constitution does it say the rights of a company trump the rights of citizens?
Yoo hoo! You forgot this one!
then why is union membership at an all time low, and dropping?
Because most states have effectively banned unions.
Please link to a single state law banning unions from said state.
I dare you.
The employees did. They're free to decide to sign a contract in which they have no negotiating power. That's not free in any meaningful sense of the word.
Good employees always have negotiating power. What your talking about is the power to extort money from private firms. You're talking about a license to steal, not freedom.
No, but I am saying that in most industries, outcomes would be better from the perspective of workers if firms were unionized. You're certainly free to argue that we should care more about the perspective of businesses than workers, but it's not a free lunch.
Yeah, the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies proved how unions are such a greet boon for workers. I suppose they are if they can get the government to shake down the taxpayers for them.
That's not true. States haven't given people the freedom of choice (they've had that all along). They've given people the right to take money out of the pockets of others.
Who is taking money out of who's pockets?
Because most states have effectively banned unions.
Well, if you outlaw extortion, then you've outlawed your conception of a union.
I asked Polk for a link showing a single state that has banned unions.
He ran away from the thread.
Well, if you outlaw extortion, then you've outlawed your conception of a union.
I asked Polk for a link showing a single state that has banned unions.
He ran away from the thread.
Went out for dinner, actually. Steak, rice, veggies. Good stuff.
Because most states have effectively banned unions.
Please link to a single state law banning unions from said state.
I dare you.
I shouldn't have said most. Only 22 states have passed "right-to-work" laws.
It would seem that unions are not banned by right to work laws after all.Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the open shop rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether or not he is a member or financial contributor to such a union.
I asked Polk for a link showing a single state that has banned unions.
He ran away from the thread.
Went out for dinner, actually. Steak, rice, veggies. Good stuff.
glad you enjoyed it. Now, about that link I asked for proving that there is at least 1 state that bans unions???
Went out for dinner, actually. Steak, rice, veggies. Good stuff.
glad you enjoyed it. Now, about that link I asked for proving that there is at least 1 state that bans unions???
Read close. I never said any state banned unions. I said states "effectively ban" unions.
Please link to a single state law banning unions from said state.
I dare you.
I shouldn't have said most. Only 22 states have passed "right-to-work" laws.
Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It would seem that unions are not banned by right to work laws after all.Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the open shop rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether or not he is a member or financial contributor to such a union.
I shouldn't have said most. Only 22 states have passed "right-to-work" laws.
Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It would seem that unions are not banned by right to work laws after all.Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the open shop rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether or not he is a member or financial contributor to such a union.
But there's more to it than that. Right-to-work requires that non-union employees receive any benefits the union is able to bargain for. The effect is that no individual has the incentive to join the union, because they'd get the benefits without having to pay dues.
glad you enjoyed it. Now, about that link I asked for proving that there is at least 1 state that bans unions???
Read close. I never said any state banned unions. I said states "effectively ban" unions.
semantics arguments. last bastion of those who know they've lost.
Please read my post on right to work laws, and how they do NOT ban unions.
Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It would seem that unions are not banned by right to work laws after all.
But there's more to it than that. Right-to-work requires that non-union employees receive any benefits the union is able to bargain for. The effect is that no individual has the incentive to join the union, because they'd get the benefits without having to pay dues.
does not equal banned.
Read close. I never said any state banned unions. I said states "effectively ban" unions.
semantics arguments. last bastion of those who know they've lost.
Please read my post on right to work laws, and how they do NOT ban unions.
I'm not arguing semantics. You attempted to lie about what I had said.
But there's more to it than that. Right-to-work requires that non-union employees receive any benefits the union is able to bargain for. The effect is that no individual has the incentive to join the union, because they'd get the benefits without having to pay dues.
does not equal banned.
Right, just like "grandfather clauses" didn't actively ban African-Americans from voting, but that was the impact.
semantics arguments. last bastion of those who know they've lost.
Please read my post on right to work laws, and how they do NOT ban unions.
I'm not arguing semantics. You attempted to lie about what I had said.
you're using semantics to weasel out of an UN-defendable position.
