Right to Pepsi!

[theDoctorisIn]

Its called contracts. Quit your bitching and STFU

And unions negotiating deals with companies are called what?!?!

The issue is Public sector Unions VS Privet sector Unions. For the most part no one cares about Privet sector Unions as they can't force people to join the Union and pay.

You knew this, but playing dumb comes naturally to you?

And people wonder why as a country the US is mid collapse...

You know that Right to Work laws are private sector laws, right?

 

[saveliberty]

I demand more than one union in the workplace from which to choose!!!

.

Sure, that will work...

That is far more analogous to the OP than the OP is to the right to work law.

McDonald's does not make you buy a Coke in order to eat there, and that is why it is apples to closed shop oranges.

The fact you can only buy Coke at McD's is like you can only join the Teamsters to drive a truck.

The OP fails through and through.

.

The author of the OP thought he was being clever, probably just gas.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I demand more than one union in the workplace from which to choose!!!

.

Sure, that will work...

That is far more analogous to the OP than the OP is to the right to work law.

McDonald's does not make you buy a Coke in order to eat there, and that is why it is apples to closed shop oranges.

The fact you can only buy Coke at McD's is like you can only join the Teamsters to drive a truck.

The OP fails through and through.


.

If McDonald's did force you to buy a Coke to eat there, would you support a law making it illegal for restaurants to require beverage purchases?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Its called contracts. Quit your bitching and STFU

Contracts - something that unions and businesses have no business making with each other - according to the right wing.

 

[saveliberty]

If McDonald's did force you to buy a Coke to eat there, would you support a law making it illegal for restaurants to require beverage purchases?

If more McDonalds would consider doing business in my state as a result, yep. How does a beverage purchase benefit me if I'm not thristy?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Its called contracts. Quit your bitching and STFU

And unions negotiating deals with companies are called what?!?!

country destroyin' obammer pinkos 'merica hater

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Its called contracts. Quit your bitching and STFU

And unions negotiating deals with companies are called what?!?!

Collective bargaining. Apples and oranges.

Ever heard of a collective bargaining CONTRACT? Its an agreement that business and unions freely enter into with each other - but in some states the NANNY STATE gets to dictate what terms that contract may have.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If McDonald's did force you to buy a Coke to eat there, would you support a law making it illegal for restaurants to require beverage purchases?

If more McDonalds would consider doing business in my state as a result, yep. How does a beverage purchase benefit me if I'm not thristy?

So arbitrary government regulation of the private sector is good, as long as it benefits employers?

 

[saveliberty]

If McDonald's did force you to buy a Coke to eat there, would you support a law making it illegal for restaurants to require beverage purchases?

If more McDonalds would consider doing business in my state as a result, yep. How does a beverage purchase benefit me if I'm not thristy?

So arbitrary government regulation of the private sector is good, as long as it benefits employers?

I know you THINK its arbitrary, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I demand more than one union in the workplace from which to choose!!!

.

Sure, that will work...

That is far more analogous to the OP than the OP is to the right to work law.

McDonald's does not make you buy a Coke in order to eat there, and that is why it is apples to closed shop oranges.

The fact you can only buy Coke at McD's is like you can only join the Teamsters to drive a truck.

The OP fails through and through.

Its apples to oranges because you've chosen an irrelevant point of comparison - the customers have nothing to do with it. You choose to compare apples to oranges and then blame it on me?



Union shop agreements and a contract to only buy coke products are the same thing - exclusivity agreements. In one case the product is a soda, in the other, its labor.

 

[TNHarley]

And unions negotiating deals with companies are called what?!?!

Collective bargaining. Apples and oranges.

Ever heard of a collective bargaining CONTRACT? Its an agreement that business and unions freely enter into with each other - but in some states the NANNY STATE gets to dictate what terms that contract may have.

The contract between a resturant and supplier are different than an employer and union. There is no relation. Coke to be the sole provider of sodas, MCd gets it cheap.

 

[Avatar4321]

Its called contracts. Quit your bitching and STFU

Contracts - something that unions and businesses have no business making with each other - according to the right wing.

Seriously, these straw men are pretty pathetic.

Stop trying to impose your contracts on others.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If McDonald's did force you to buy a Coke to eat there, would you support a law making it illegal for restaurants to require beverage purchases?

If more McDonalds would consider doing business in my state as a result, yep. How does a beverage purchase benefit me if I'm not thristy?

RTW states on average have worse economies. Even though close to half the states are RTW - only 2 of the top ten GDP per capita states are RTW.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Its called contracts. Quit your bitching and STFU

Contracts - something that unions and businesses have no business making with each other - according to the right wing.

Seriously, these straw men are pretty pathetic.

Stop trying to impose your contracts on others.

I'm not imposing any contracts on others you incompetent moron, it is RTW laws which dictate to business and labor what kinds of contracts they may have with each other. That's what RTW laws do. Perhaps you should look them up before you open your ignorant trap.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Collective bargaining. Apples and oranges.

Ever heard of a collective bargaining CONTRACT? Its an agreement that business and unions freely enter into with each other - but in some states the NANNY STATE gets to dictate what terms that contract may have.

The contract between a resturant and supplier are different than an employer and union. There is no relation. Coke to be the sole provider of sodas, MCd gets it cheap.

So? What business of it is yours what a business gets in return for an exclusivity agreement? How do you even know what's in the McDonald's/Coke contract? Maybe Coke won't sell their products to McDonald's AT ALL if they sell Pepsi.

Unions and businesses shouldn't be able to make agreements with each other that the NANNY STATE hasn't pre-approved as being beneficial? That appears to be what you're saying.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If more McDonalds would consider doing business in my state as a result, yep. How does a beverage purchase benefit me if I'm not thristy?

So arbitrary government regulation of the private sector is good, as long as it benefits employers?

I know you THINK its arbitrary, but that doesn't make it true.

Let's stick with the conversation thread we were on.

You said that you'd support a law banning a "drink minimum" at McDonald's if it "brought more McDonald's" to your area. That's about as arbitrary as it gets.

 

[saveliberty]

If McDonald's did force you to buy a Coke to eat there, would you support a law making it illegal for restaurants to require beverage purchases?

If more McDonalds would consider doing business in my state as a result, yep. How does a beverage purchase benefit me if I'm not thristy?

RTW states on average have worse economies. Even though close to half the states are RTW - only 2 of the top ten GDP per capita states are RTW.

Yes, that is why they became right to work states, to reverse the poor economies they had. It starts with attracting new business, then as new business com and the labor market tightens, wages rise. Try not to sleep through the next economics class you take.

Most of the top ten are defense industry heavy states, unions have little to do with that.

 

[Immanuel]

Sure, that will work...

That is far more analogous to the OP than the OP is to the right to work law.

McDonald's does not make you buy a Coke in order to eat there, and that is why it is apples to closed shop oranges.

The fact you can only buy Coke at McD's is like you can only join the Teamsters to drive a truck.

The OP fails through and through.


.

If McDonald's did force you to buy a Coke to eat there, would you support a law making it illegal for restaurants to require beverage purchases?

Nope, I would just quit going to Mickey D's unless I wanted to buy a coke with my Quarter Pounder and Large Fries.

Immie

 

[TNHarley]

Ever heard of a collective bargaining CONTRACT? Its an agreement that business and unions freely enter into with each other - but in some states the NANNY STATE gets to dictate what terms that contract may have.

The contract between a resturant and supplier are different than an employer and union. There is no relation. Coke to be the sole provider of sodas, MCd gets it cheap.

So? What business of it is yours what a business gets in return for an exclusivity agreement? Unions and businesses shouldn't be able to make agreements with each other that the NANNY STATE hasn't pre-approved as being beneficial? That appears to be what you're saying.

Since you are so against people having choices, and purchasing things they dont need, why dont you packup and take the ACA and the union with you to Uzbekistan!

 

[saveliberty]

So arbitrary government regulation of the private sector is good, as long as it benefits employers?

I know you THINK its arbitrary, but that doesn't make it true.

Let's stick with the conversation thread we were on.

You said that you'd support a law banning a "drink minimum" at McDonald's if it "brought more McDonald's" to your area. That's about as arbitrary as it gets.

No idiot I'm allowing the customer to decide, not the drink company. I'm allowing McDonalds the opportunity to sell more burgers and grow. If the drink company wants to make their product more attractive they are welcome to do so and possibly draw in more customers to buy their product. It applies to ALL business, so its hardly arbitrary.