Right to Pepsi!

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.

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".

The Wagner Act guarantees unions the power to negotiate security agreements, nothing any state can pass would be able to counter that monstrosity. Since you, obviously, don't understand the situation, and cannot find anything that actually proves me wrong, why should anyone even listen to anything you have to say?
 
Wonder how many liberals wandered in here thinking the government was doing a Pepsi entitlement program?
 
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.

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.
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".

The Wagner Act guarantees unions the power to negotiate security agreements, nothing any state can pass would be able to counter that monstrosity. Since you, obviously, don't understand the situation, and cannot find anything that actually proves me wrong, why should anyone even listen to anything you have to say?

...and the Taft-Hartley Act amended the Wagner Act, giving the right for states to pass "Right to Work" laws, which by definition outlaw security agreements. This is pretty basic stuff.

For reference:Taft

It's rather ironic that you say that I don't "understand the situation".
 
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 want a Pepsi go to KFC or some other store that sells it.
 
There's no law in Michigan that does that.

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

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".

The Wagner Act guarantees unions the power to negotiate security agreements, nothing any state can pass would be able to counter that monstrosity. Since you, obviously, don't understand the situation, and cannot find anything that actually proves me wrong, why should anyone even listen to anything you have to say?

...and the Taft-Hartley Act amended the Wagner Act, giving the right for states to pass "Right to Work" laws, which by definition outlaw security agreements. This is pretty basic stuff.

For reference:Taft

It's rather ironic that you say that I don't "understand the situation".

I guess that means I was right that the law in Michigan allowed unions to collect dues from non members then, wasn't I? Unless you are going to tell me the Wagner Act suddenly only applies to Minnesota because of the provisions of Taft-Hartley.

By the way, I was making a point about stupid laws, the solution to stupid laws is to get rid of the laws, not make more stupid laws. If you actually wanted freedom you would be just as outraged about the Wagner Act as you are about Taft Hartley instead of looking for the government to impose your views on others and protect you from the views of people you disagree with.
 
The Wagner Act guarantees unions the power to negotiate security agreements, nothing any state can pass would be able to counter that monstrosity. Since you, obviously, don't understand the situation, and cannot find anything that actually proves me wrong, why should anyone even listen to anything you have to say?

...and the Taft-Hartley Act amended the Wagner Act, giving the right for states to pass "Right to Work" laws, which by definition outlaw security agreements. This is pretty basic stuff.

For reference:Taft

It's rather ironic that you say that I don't "understand the situation".

I guess that means I was right that the law in Michigan allowed unions to collect dues from non members then, wasn't I? Unless you are going to tell me the Wagner Act suddenly only applies to Minnesota because of the provisions of Taft-Hartley.
Sure, you were right about that.

But you were wrong about pretty much everything else we've been talking about.

By the way, I was making a point about stupid laws, the solution to stupid laws is to get rid of the laws, not make more stupid laws.
And I was making the point that "Right to Work" laws aren't "getting rid of laws", they're making more.
If you actually wanted freedom you would be just as outraged about the Wagner Act as you are about Taft Hartley instead of looking for the government to impose your views on others and protect you from the views of people you disagree with.
I don't believe I've expressed any "outrage" at Taft-Hartley.
 
...and the Taft-Hartley Act amended the Wagner Act, giving the right for states to pass "Right to Work" laws, which by definition outlaw security agreements. This is pretty basic stuff.

For reference:Taft

It's rather ironic that you say that I don't "understand the situation".

I guess that means I was right that the law in Michigan allowed unions to collect dues from non members then, wasn't I? Unless you are going to tell me the Wagner Act suddenly only applies to Minnesota because of the provisions of Taft-Hartley.
Sure, you were right about that.

But you were wrong about pretty much everything else we've been talking about.

By the way, I was making a point about stupid laws, the solution to stupid laws is to get rid of the laws, not make more stupid laws.
And I was making the point that "Right to Work" laws aren't "getting rid of laws", they're making more.
If you actually wanted freedom you would be just as outraged about the Wagner Act as you are about Taft Hartley instead of looking for the government to impose your views on others and protect you from the views of people you disagree with.
I don't believe I've expressed any "outrage" at Taft-Hartley.

You aren't expressing outrage about right to work laws?
 
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.

There is no "libertarian spirit" that wants to forbid business arrangements that you don't like. That's purely your own peculiar fetish. No business wants an "exclusive" agreement with a union. The federal government forces such arrangements on business.
 
From wiki: [right to work laws] are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers or requiring fee payment to unions that have negotiated the labor contract the workers work under.

What this means is that unions must benefit employees that do not belong to the union and cannot receive compensation from said employees.

It is a government regulation, an interference between contracts negotiated in good faith. It is nanny state interference to benefit business.

Own it.
 
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.

By law, does the gubmint force McDonald's to negotiate with Pepsi as they force businesses to negotiate with unions?


/thread
 

Forum List

Back
Top