Right to Pepsi!

[asterism]

I'm sick of walking into a McDonald's and not being able to buy Pepsi. You know what I can't? Because McDonald's and Coca-Cola have an agreement whereby McDonald's may not sell Pepsi.

In keeping with the new libertarian spirit of getting the nanny state to forbid business arrangements that I don't personally like, I think we need to pass laws forbidding this kind of exclusive arrangement. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to have exclusivity agreements with unions - OR the soda manufacturers - OR anyone.

Is there a government agency that forces a vote on beverages at restaurants?

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Unions and businesses have every right to make agreements with each other should they choose to do so... unfortunately, a contract with a union very closely resembles a "shot gun wedding" where one party (the union) is a willing participant and the other is forced into the contract at the barrel of a gun.

Immie

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Because clearly allowing people to work without forcing them to join a union is somehow a breach of contract. Forcing people to pay money to belong to an organization they dont want to belong to is a breach of contract.

People don't have to be forced into things if they are a party to a contract unless they are trying to violate that contract. Employers and non-union employees have no contract between themselves. The union is not involved in their employment. The union has no right to impose themselves in a contract that isn't a union contract. Stop pretending it has that right. And it sure as heck doesnt have the right to force people who arent interested in their "services" to pay them.

 

[tjvh]

I'm sick of walking into a McDonald's and not being able to buy Pepsi. You know what I can't? Because McDonald's and Coca-Cola have an agreement whereby McDonald's may not sell Pepsi.

In keeping with the new libertarian spirit of getting the nanny state to forbid business arrangements that I don't personally like, I think we need to pass laws forbidding this kind of exclusive arrangement. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to have exclusivity agreements with unions - OR the soda manufacturers - OR anyone.

So McDonalds is supposed to maintain fifty different soda dispensers just because you're too lazy to venture elsewhere.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

"Arbitrary" as in it's a random hypothetical example of government regulation in the private sector.

I could come up with a thousand similar hypothetical situations.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes, that is why they became right to work states, to reverse the poor economies they had.

LOL! Well how fucking long is it supposed to take to work? With the exception of Indiana and Michigan the rest of the RTW states have been RTW states for OVER A DECADE! And many of them for far longer than that. Does it take longer than trickle down economics because we're still waiting on that one, too!

This is too much!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Because clearly allowing people to work without forcing them to join a union is somehow a breach of contract. Forcing people to pay money to belong to an organization they dont want to belong to is a breach of contract.

When the contract between the company and the union requires union membership, it is a breach of contract.

People don't have to be forced into things if they are a party to a contract unless they are trying to violate that contract. Employers and non-union employees have no contract between themselves. The union is not involved in their employment.

Sure it is - if the union negotiated the their contract

The union has no right to impose themselves in a contract that isn't a union contract.

There's no such thing as a contract that isn't a union contract in a union shop.

Stop pretending it has that right. And it sure as heck doesnt have the right to force people who arent interested in their "services" to pay them.

No one is "forced" to do anything. If you don't want a union job, get a job somewhere else.

Isn't that the conservative mantra?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm sick of walking into a McDonald's and not being able to buy Pepsi. You know what I can't? Because McDonald's and Coca-Cola have an agreement whereby McDonald's may not sell Pepsi.

In keeping with the new libertarian spirit of getting the nanny state to forbid business arrangements that I don't personally like, I think we need to pass laws forbidding this kind of exclusive arrangement. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to have exclusivity agreements with unions - OR the soda manufacturers - OR anyone.

Indeed – in a true ‘free market’ all vendors should be allowed to compete, subject to neither public nor private regulation or restriction.

Otherwise, thank goodness for KFC.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sick of walking into a McDonald's and not being able to buy Pepsi. You know what I can't? Because McDonald's and Coca-Cola have an agreement whereby McDonald's may not sell Pepsi.

In keeping with the new libertarian spirit of getting the nanny state to forbid business arrangements that I don't personally like, I think we need to pass laws forbidding this kind of exclusive arrangement. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to have exclusivity agreements with unions - OR the soda manufacturers - OR anyone.

If you had a brain you would understand that the right to work debate in Michigan is not about telling people they can't make a contract, it is about telling unions they cannot force non union members to pay dues to unions. Then, if you were honest, you would realize how absurd your statement is. In order to make your analogy accurate McDonald's would have to be forcing their customers to buy Coke even if they bought Dr Pepper.

Then again, facts are not your friends.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you arent in a union, a union doesn't negotiate your contract. This is not exactly rocket science.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Because clearly allowing people to work without forcing them to join a union is somehow a breach of contract.

It is if you've signed a contract agreeing to not do it. Fucking DUH.

People don't have to be forced into things if they are a party to a contract unless they are trying to violate that contract.

They aren't you fucking idiot, no one is FORCED to apply for a job at a company with a union shop agreement. You're creating a massive pile of stupidity.

The union has no right to impose themselves in a contract that isn't a union contract.

They aren't. You're an idiot. The contract between union and business tells union and business what they can, cannot, and must do. A employee in a union-shop that refuses to pay union dues has not violated a contract - its the business owner that is violating his contract with the union by not firing that employee because the contract they have REQUIRES him to do so.

Do you understand this or are you too stupid?

And it sure as heck doesnt have the right to force people who arent interested in their "services" to pay them.

Its not. If you don't want to pay union dues all you have to do is not apply for work at a company with a union shop agreement. Why don't you understand that? Are you retarded or something?

 

[koshergrl]

Did the county tell McDonald's that they can't sell Pepsi?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If you arent in a union, a union doesn't negotiate your contract. This is not exactly rocket science.

If its a union-shop, they have. The contract you will get from the employer at a union-shop was negotiated by the union, and the employer is contractually obligated not to negotiate another. If you don't want it you're free to look for work elsewhere.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If you arent in a union, a union doesn't negotiate your contract. This is not exactly rocket science.

That doesn't really have anything to do with Right to Work laws.

In a union shop, the contract between the employer and all of the employees is negotiated by the union.

Right to Work laws make it illegal for unions to negotiate contracts that include a requirement of union membership. That's all they are - government regulations manipulating private contracts.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm sick of walking into a McDonald's and not being able to buy Pepsi. You know what I can't? Because McDonald's and Coca-Cola have an agreement whereby McDonald's may not sell Pepsi.

In keeping with the new libertarian spirit of getting the nanny state to forbid business arrangements that I don't personally like, I think we need to pass laws forbidding this kind of exclusive arrangement. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to have exclusivity agreements with unions - OR the soda manufacturers - OR anyone.

If you had a brain you would understand that the right to work debate in Michigan is not about telling people they can't make a contract, it is about telling unions they cannot force non union members to pay dues to unions. Then, if you were honest, you would realize how absurd your statement is. In order to make your analogy accurate McDonald's would have to be forcing their customers to buy Coke even if they bought Dr Pepper.

Then again, facts are not your friends.

The "debate" and the "law" aren't the same thing.

The rhetoric is about "telling unions they cannot force non members to pay dues".
The law is about government interfering with the contracts between unions and corporations.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'm sick of walking into a McDonald's and not being able to buy Pepsi. You know what I can't? Because McDonald's and Coca-Cola have an agreement whereby McDonald's may not sell Pepsi.

In keeping with the new libertarian spirit of getting the nanny state to forbid business arrangements that I don't personally like, I think we need to pass laws forbidding this kind of exclusive arrangement. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to have exclusivity agreements with unions - OR the soda manufacturers - OR anyone.

If you had a brain you would understand that the right to work debate in Michigan is not about telling people they can't make a contract, it is about telling unions they cannot force non union members to pay dues to unions. Then, if you were honest, you would realize how absurd your statement is. In order to make your analogy accurate McDonald's would have to be forcing their customers to buy Coke even if they bought Dr Pepper.

Then again, facts are not your friends.

The "debate" and the "law" aren't the same thing.

The rhetoric is about "telling unions they cannot force non members to pay dues".
The law is about government interfering with the contracts between unions and corporations.

That's a good point.

Policy and rhetoric are often miles apart from one another, and its mostly the right wingers that have trouble seeing the divide. As I heard from a commentator on the radio once, to put it nicely, they "don't have the leisure" to learn the distinction.

 

[saveliberty]

Yes, that is why they became right to work states, to reverse the poor economies they had.

LOL! Well how fucking long is it supposed to take to work? With the exception of Indiana and Michigan the rest of the RTW states have been RTW states for OVER A DECADE! And many of them for far longer than that. Does it take longer than trickle down economics because we're still waiting on that one, too!

This is too much!

Obama can't get half the job done in four years, so that remains a question. With the accelerated foreign competition, it should speed up now. Of course, the left can drag it out with law suits...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sick of walking into a McDonald's and not being able to buy Pepsi. You know what I can't? Because McDonald's and Coca-Cola have an agreement whereby McDonald's may not sell Pepsi.

In keeping with the new libertarian spirit of getting the nanny state to forbid business arrangements that I don't personally like, I think we need to pass laws forbidding this kind of exclusive arrangement. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to have exclusivity agreements with unions - OR the soda manufacturers - OR anyone.

If you had a brain you would understand that the right to work debate in Michigan is not about telling people they can't make a contract, it is about telling unions they cannot force non union members to pay dues to unions. Then, if you were honest, you would realize how absurd your statement is. In order to make your analogy accurate McDonald's would have to be forcing their customers to buy Coke even if they bought Dr Pepper.

Then again, facts are not your friends.

The "debate" and the "law" aren't the same thing.

The rhetoric is about "telling unions they cannot force non members to pay dues".
The law is about government interfering with the contracts between unions and corporations.

Which law? The law in Michigan allows unions to collect dues and fees from non members. Nothing in the law, or in union contracts with the business, forced people to actually join the union. That changed yesterday, and the only thing that changed is that unions can no longer collect does and fees from non union members.

Want to go dig up the links in an attempt to prove me wrong, or are you simply going to sputter and demand that the government stop interfering in the right of unions to force people to join them?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you had a brain you would understand that the right to work debate in Michigan is not about telling people they can't make a contract, it is about telling unions they cannot force non union members to pay dues to unions. Then, if you were honest, you would realize how absurd your statement is. In order to make your analogy accurate McDonald's would have to be forcing their customers to buy Coke even if they bought Dr Pepper.

Then again, facts are not your friends.

The "debate" and the "law" aren't the same thing.

The rhetoric is about "telling unions they cannot force non members to pay dues".
The law is about government interfering with the contracts between unions and corporations.

That's a good point.

Policy and rhetoric are often miles apart from one another, and its mostly the right wingers that have trouble seeing the divide. As I heard from a commentator on the radio once, to put it nicely, they "don't have the leisure" to learn the distinction.

It is only a good point if facts are not your friends. Since I love facts, I know the only issue in Michigan is that unions collect dues from non union members.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If you had a brain you would understand that the right to work debate in Michigan is not about telling people they can't make a contract, it is about telling unions they cannot force non union members to pay dues to unions. Then, if you were honest, you would realize how absurd your statement is. In order to make your analogy accurate McDonald's would have to be forcing their customers to buy Coke even if they bought Dr Pepper.

Then again, facts are not your friends.

The "debate" and the "law" aren't the same thing.

The rhetoric is about "telling unions they cannot force non members to pay dues".
The law is about government interfering with the contracts between unions and corporations.

Which law? The law in Michigan allows unions to collect dues and fees from non members.

There's no law in Michigan that does that.

Nothing in the law, or in union contracts with the business, forced people to actually join the union.

It's called a Union Security Agreement. There are different types of them - some require membership in the union, some don't, but require dues from non-members. That's not a law, it's a clause in a contract.

That changed yesterday, and the only thing that changed is that unions can no longer collect does and fees from non union members.

No. What happened yesterday is that the State of Michigan decided to make Union Security Agreements illegal.

Want to go dig up the links in an attempt to prove me wrong, or are you simply going to sputter and demand that the government stop interfering in the right of unions to force people to join them?

I notice that you didn't provide any links to back up your nonsense, but here's one from the State of Michigan:

SOM - The Facts about Freedom to Work

I don't see anything about "collecting dues from non-union members".