Unions in the US

[Full-Auto]

a lot of states already have right to work laws. Basically in a right to work state, closed shops are against the law.

So in so-called union states, once a shop is unionized it may force all employees of that particular shop to join the union - a closed shop. In right to work states, the employees have the choice to join or not, so the shop cannot be closed to non-union members.

I currently live in pa, which is a union state. I used to live in arkansas, which is a right to work state. The balance is approximately half and half last i checked, but i don't have the exact count in front of me. Somebody posted a map a while back in the thread, but i need more coffee before i do any serious digging.

if you don't have a union shop, right to work laws wouldn't really apply.

thank you very much for your input.

How about we do away with anything that interferes with employers and employees negotiating freely for their services and compensation?
What a concept!

Focus, unions dont even take that away

 

[The Rabbi]

thank you very much for your input.

How about we do away with anything that interferes with employers and employees negotiating freely for their services and compensation?
What a concept!

Focus, unions dont even take that away

Focus: OF course they do. What do you think their purpose is?

 

[Full-Auto]

How about we do away with anything that interferes with employers and employees negotiating freely for their services and compensation?
What a concept!

Focus, unions dont even take that away

Focus: OF course they do. What do you think their purpose is?

The negotiations are done collectively. Will a certain shop have differnt rules then the rest of the nation?

Say it isnt so.

 

[goldcatt]

Right-to-work laws are a good thing

And I hope you don't mind, JB. But our dear friend the rabbid gutter trash never responded to any of the the times this tidbit was put forward either.

Now hop to it, "rabbi". You have a LOT of backed up refutin' to do before you got time to fixate on hookers and bashing vets.

Is that a point you're trying to make?

Another evasion, another failure. Go back, read the bumped unanswered questions and arguments, and let's hear your oh so brilliant refutations, gutter boy.

Maybe you can start with an analysis of the structure and purpose of the Sherman antitrust acts, the status of First Amendment protections through the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, the contemporaneous developments in corporate law and labor relations and the application of the three culminating in the Loewe decision that prompted the first so-called "special exemption" for unions in Section 6 of the Clayton Act of 1914.

I just spoon fed you the first quarter of a semi-coherent argument, gutter boy. Are you smart enough to comprehend it and make it? I'm waiting with eager anticipation, I swear.

 

[The Rabbi]

Focus, unions dont even take that away

Focus: OF course they do. What do you think their purpose is?

The negotiations are done collectively. Will a certain shop have differnt rules then the rest of the nation?

Say it isnt so.

There ya go. Yes, unions get in the way of employees and employers negotiating their own wages and benefits.
Wasn't too hard to see, was it?
I say do away with it. It is paternalistic, outdated, ineffecient, and has cost far more American jobs and wealth than anything else.

 

[8537]

Sorry. You've proven yourself too stupid and/or dishonest to debate. On to iggy you go.

I'm sorry you aren't capable of backing up the lies that you spew.

Wanna clue me in to how you got Rabid Lie to put you on ignore?

I've been trying for a couple of years now!

Alas, his claim that he put me on ignore is yet another Rabbi Rabid Lie. He didn't put me on ignore.

He can't even be honest about that.

 

[The Rabbi]

And I hope you don't mind, JB. But our dear friend the rabbid gutter trash never responded to any of the the times this tidbit was put forward either.

Now hop to it, "rabbi". You have a LOT of backed up refutin' to do before you got time to fixate on hookers and bashing vets.

Is that a point you're trying to make?

Another evasion, another failure. Go back, read the bumped unanswered questions and arguments, and let's hear your oh so brilliant refutations, gutter boy.

Maybe you can start with an analysis of the structure and purpose of the Sherman antitrust acts, the status of First Amendment protections through the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, the contemporaneous developments in corporate law and labor relations and the application of the three culminating in the Loewe decision that prompted the first so-called "special exemption" for unions in Section 6 of the Clayton Act of 1914.

I just spoon fed you the first quarter of a semi-coherent argument, gutter boy. Are you smart enough to comprehend it and make it? I'm waiting with eager anticipation, I swear.

Did your pimp tell you to write that?
Can you explain why unions are not a combination in restraint of trade?

 

[The Rabbi]

This message is hidden because 8537 is on your ignore list.

 

[8537]

This message is hidden because 8537 is on your ignore list.

As I said, you lie like other people breathe.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3094830-post20.html

 

[goldcatt]

Is that a point you're trying to make?

Another evasion, another failure. Go back, read the bumped unanswered questions and arguments, and let's hear your oh so brilliant refutations, gutter boy.

Maybe you can start with an analysis of the structure and purpose of the Sherman antitrust acts, the status of First Amendment protections through the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, the contemporaneous developments in corporate law and labor relations and the application of the three culminating in the Loewe decision that prompted the first so-called "special exemption" for unions in Section 6 of the Clayton Act of 1914.

I just spoon fed you the first quarter of a semi-coherent argument, gutter boy. Are you smart enough to comprehend it and make it? I'm waiting with eager anticipation, I swear.

Did your pimp tell you to write that?
Can you explain why unions are not a combination in restraint of trade?

YOU made the claim. It's been countered. Your job now is to refute that counterargument with something other than yelling "fuck you", calling women hookers and bashing vets. That's how this whole "debate" thing works. I realize you don't know that, being the retarded gutter trash that you are, but it was just explained to you in simple terms even you can't possibly misunderstand. So do it.

 

[Full-Auto]

Focus: OF course they do. What do you think their purpose is?

The negotiations are done collectively. Will a certain shop have differnt rules then the rest of the nation?

Say it isnt so.

There ya go. Yes, unions get in the way of employees and employers negotiating their own wages and benefits.
Wasn't too hard to see, was it?
I say do away with it. It is paternalistic, outdated, ineffecient, and has cost far more American jobs and wealth than anything else.

Get in the way? No actually the employee uses the union to do that for them, united voices carry more weight. There are some industries that could use unionization to bring them in line with the real world. Other unions have become very much outdated and have gone far beyond what should have been thier scope.

My youngest son was just hired by Boeings, He must join a union, yet was able to negoitate his starting wage, leaving your point coming up a bit short. There is truth to both sides you just have to sort through it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Another evasion, another failure. Go back, read the bumped unanswered questions and arguments, and let's hear your oh so brilliant refutations, gutter boy.

Maybe you can start with an analysis of the structure and purpose of the Sherman antitrust acts, the status of First Amendment protections through the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, the contemporaneous developments in corporate law and labor relations and the application of the three culminating in the Loewe decision that prompted the first so-called "special exemption" for unions in Section 6 of the Clayton Act of 1914.

I just spoon fed you the first quarter of a semi-coherent argument, gutter boy. Are you smart enough to comprehend it and make it? I'm waiting with eager anticipation, I swear.

Did your pimp tell you to write that?
Can you explain why unions are not a combination in restraint of trade?

YOU made the claim. It's been countered. Your job now is to refute that counterargument with something other than yelling "fuck you", calling women hookers and bashing vets. That's how this whole "debate" thing works. I realize you don't know that, being the retarded gutter trash that you are, but it was just explained to you in simple terms even you can't possibly misunderstand. So do it.

You've already proven yourself that unions, like almost any other monopoly, exist solely due to government legislation. In the absence of such legislation they would be ruled illegal.
QED.

 

[goldcatt]

Did your pimp tell you to write that?
Can you explain why unions are not a combination in restraint of trade?

YOU made the claim. It's been countered. Your job now is to refute that counterargument with something other than yelling "fuck you", calling women hookers and bashing vets. That's how this whole "debate" thing works. I realize you don't know that, being the retarded gutter trash that you are, but it was just explained to you in simple terms even you can't possibly misunderstand. So do it.

You've already proven yourself that unions, like almost any other monopoly, exist solely due to government legislation. In the absence of such legislation they would be ruled illegal.
QED.

So in other words the answer to my question as to whether you're smart enough to comprehend and make the argument literally spelled out for you and handed to you on a silver platter is a resounding "NO". Which is no big shocker to anybody, I'm sure.

Tell me gutter boy, why do you ask questions to which you don't want to hear or know the answers? Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalala you're a hooker" is so babyish.

 

[The Rabbi]

YOU made the claim. It's been countered. Your job now is to refute that counterargument with something other than yelling "fuck you", calling women hookers and bashing vets. That's how this whole "debate" thing works. I realize you don't know that, being the retarded gutter trash that you are, but it was just explained to you in simple terms even you can't possibly misunderstand. So do it.

You've already proven yourself that unions, like almost any other monopoly, exist solely due to government legislation. In the absence of such legislation they would be ruled illegal.
QED.

So in other words the answer to my question as to whether you're smart enough to comprehend and make the argument literally spelled out for you and handed to you on a silver platter is a resounding "NO". Which is no big shocker to anybody, I'm sure.

Tell me gutter boy, why do you ask questions to which you don't want to hear or know the answers? Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalala you're a hooker" is so babyish.

You're so stupid you don't realize you've proven the case for me. There is nothing for me to add, you've odone it. That you don't realize that isn't my fault.
Now get back to "Doktah Longhair" or whatever his name is.

 

[kwc57]

You've already proven yourself that unions, like almost any other monopoly, exist solely due to government legislation. In the absence of such legislation they would be ruled illegal.
QED.

So in other words the answer to my question as to whether you're smart enough to comprehend and make the argument literally spelled out for you and handed to you on a silver platter is a resounding "NO". Which is no big shocker to anybody, I'm sure.

Tell me gutter boy, why do you ask questions to which you don't want to hear or know the answers? Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalala you're a hooker" is so babyish.

You're so stupid you don't realize you've proven the case for me. There is nothing for me to add, you've odone it. That you don't realize that isn't my fault.
Now get back to "Doktah Longhair" or whatever his name is.

Good GOD, are you still flailing on this?

 

[goldcatt]

So in other words the answer to my question as to whether you're smart enough to comprehend and make the argument literally spelled out for you and handed to you on a silver platter is a resounding "NO". Which is no big shocker to anybody, I'm sure.

Tell me gutter boy, why do you ask questions to which you don't want to hear or know the answers? Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalala you're a hooker" is so babyish.

You're so stupid you don't realize you've proven the case for me. There is nothing for me to add, you've odone it. That you don't realize that isn't my fault.
Now get back to "Doktah Longhair" or whatever his name is.

Good GOD, are you still flailing on this?

He's just dancing for my amusement now. The point goes so far over his pointy little head he needs interstellar space travel to try to find it. But watching him jerk and foam on command is mildly amusing, and the way he's started stalking me from thread to thread hurling sexual insults is most satisfactory in a gutter trash puppet on a string. Having my chew toys close at hand wherever I go is most convenient, after all.

 

[editec]

Did your pimp tell you to write that?
Can you explain why unions are not a combination in restraint of trade?

YOU made the claim. It's been countered. Your job now is to refute that counterargument with something other than yelling "fuck you", calling women hookers and bashing vets. That's how this whole "debate" thing works. I realize you don't know that, being the retarded gutter trash that you are, but it was just explained to you in simple terms even you can't possibly misunderstand. So do it.

You've already proven yourself that unions, like almost any other monopoly, exist solely due to government legislation. In the absence of such legislation they would be ruled illegal.
QED.

It's not remotely QED.

It's a assertion you've made but haven't demonstrated.

In fact your assertion is wrong since unions existed even BEFORE the SCOTUS ruled that they were legally entitled to exist.

Of course, up till that point the only rights they had were those they could take by force.

And for what it's worth the in absense of legislation corporations themselves could not exist since they are legal entities which exist solely as the descretion of the governments which grant them their tax status.

 

[goldcatt]

YOU made the claim. It's been countered. Your job now is to refute that counterargument with something other than yelling "fuck you", calling women hookers and bashing vets. That's how this whole "debate" thing works. I realize you don't know that, being the retarded gutter trash that you are, but it was just explained to you in simple terms even you can't possibly misunderstand. So do it.

You've already proven yourself that unions, like almost any other monopoly, exist solely due to government legislation. In the absence of such legislation they would be ruled illegal.
QED.

It's not remotely QED.

It's a assertion you've made but haven't demonstrated.

In fact your assertion is wrong since unions existed even BEFORE the SCOTUS ruled that they were legally entitled to exist.

Of course, up till that point the only rights they had were those they could take by force.

And for what it's worth the in absense of legislation corporations themselves could not exist since they are legal entities which exist solely as the descretion of the governments which grant them their tax status.

Yep. And the existence and operation of the labor union at the time frame rabbi here is stuck in, the late 19th century, was almost entirely outside the law. Congress and the Supreme Court got away with making speech acts illegal because of the support of the robber barons and the legacy of the Alien and Sedition Acts along with the extremely narrow interpretation of the First Amendment, strictly limiting the speech and assembly rights of individuals. What we consider the First Amendment right to "association" was not yet in place.

So the Sherman antitrust acts of the 19th century were worded in such a way that any individual or group of individuals who did so much as express an opinion in a newspaper against an industry selling goods across state lines could be guilty of illegal restraint of trade, and for most of that time unions were not protected associations of individuals because the term did not exist. They were considered criminal conspiracies, and workers had zero rights either individually or collectively.

What rabbi doesn't understand is that the law has undergone profound changes from the Dickensian 19th century to today, and his citation of the enactment of the Clayton Act of 1914 and insistence on clinging to that as exemplary of his claim that modern antitrust law acknowledges unions as monopolies shows his ignorance of history, his lack of any concept of the entirety of the law including and especially the 20th century expansion of First Amendment jurisprudence that caused the shifts in that legislation, and culminates in the utter hypocrisy of championing the Citizens United decision for upholding the (technically penumbral 1st and 9th Amendment) association rights of corporations but fails to address the portion that does the same for labor unions, in keeping with reams of established First Amendment law developed since his vague crumbs of knowledge stop in 1914 (and fail to take in the entire picture of even that small snapshot in history).

The fact that certain groups and/or activities are given exemptions from statutes in order to preserve the constitutionality of those statutes rather than to give them "special support" hasn't yet occurred to the poor boy, I'm afraid.

 

[rikules]

C

They used to be good but when they became their own entity they became too greedy.
Organized labor is a good thing in certain areas. But the leaders should be workers and not a seperate group.

TODAY; unions protect their own REGARDLESS of how much damage it may cause to the country or to non-union workers

in that way they are not much different from the mob or the government

 

[kwc57]

C

They used to be good but when they became their own entity they became too greedy.
Organized labor is a good thing in certain areas. But the leaders should be workers and not a seperate group.

TODAY; unions protect their own REGARDLESS of how much damage it may cause to the country or to non-union workers

in that way they are not much different from the mob or the government

And likewise, companies protect themselves regardless of how much damage it may cause to the country. How many companies refuse to move off shore because it would hurt the nation? Not many. They've been running in the opposite direction across the border from our neighbors to the south who are running here.