Unions in the US

[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

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.

"And likewise, companies protect themselves regardless of how much damage it may cause to the country."


agreed.

 

[The Rabbi]

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 now-defunct Alien and Sedition Acts strictly limiting the rights of individuals. What we consider the First Amendment right to "association" was not yet in force.

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 Clayton Act of 1914 and insistence on clinging to that as modern antitrust law shows his ignorance of history, his lack of any concept of the entirety of the law 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.

I guess the term "irony" is not in your vocabulary. The more you explain the more you prove my point, that were it not for special legislation unions would be illegal monopolies. If there were no protection for unions they would have gone out of existence long ago. As it is, their membership and influence is declining, and has been for the last 40 years. The only exception is public sector unions, mainly because the economics of the public sector don't match the private.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

C
But the leaders should be workers and not a seperate group.

Bingo.

They are, for the most part, simply separate arbitration companies now.

And companies need customers. Therefore they will use means at their disposal to pressure workers to join unions.

Not to worry!!!

"con$ervative$" will come-to-the-re$cue!!!!​

"In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class."

 

[goldcatt]

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 now-defunct Alien and Sedition Acts strictly limiting the rights of individuals. What we consider the First Amendment right to "association" was not yet in force.

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 Clayton Act of 1914 and insistence on clinging to that as modern antitrust law shows his ignorance of history, his lack of any concept of the entirety of the law 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.

I guess the term "irony" is not in your vocabulary. The more you explain the more you prove my point, that were it not for special legislation unions would be illegal monopolies. If there were no protection for unions they would have gone out of existence long ago. As it is, their membership and influence is declining, and has been for the last 40 years. The only exception is public sector unions, mainly because the economics of the public sector don't match the private.

So in your oh so remarkable and singular opinion, if there were no antitrust exception for unions the legislation would trump the constitution and First Amendment jurisprudence?

Please enlighten us as to how that works in your world, because in the U.S. the Constitution and its associated rulings are at the very top of the hierarchy of law.

 

[The Rabbi]

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 now-defunct Alien and Sedition Acts strictly limiting the rights of individuals. What we consider the First Amendment right to "association" was not yet in force.

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 Clayton Act of 1914 and insistence on clinging to that as modern antitrust law shows his ignorance of history, his lack of any concept of the entirety of the law 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.

I guess the term "irony" is not in your vocabulary. The more you explain the more you prove my point, that were it not for special legislation unions would be illegal monopolies. If there were no protection for unions they would have gone out of existence long ago. As it is, their membership and influence is declining, and has been for the last 40 years. The only exception is public sector unions, mainly because the economics of the public sector don't match the private.

So in your oh so remarkable and singular opinion, if there were no antitrust exception for unions the legislation would trump the constitution and First Amendment jurisprudence?

Please enlighten us as to how that works in your world, because in the U.S. the Constitution and its associated rulings are at the very top of the hierarchy of law.

The point has been made and sustained.
Time to move on.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Right to work?

Are you guys pushing the euro version?


From my perspective, you have the right to work hard or be fired. Everytime I sense any employee developing an entiltlement mindset. I send them packing.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[goldcatt]

I guess the term "irony" is not in your vocabulary. The more you explain the more you prove my point, that were it not for special legislation unions would be illegal monopolies. If there were no protection for unions they would have gone out of existence long ago. As it is, their membership and influence is declining, and has been for the last 40 years. The only exception is public sector unions, mainly because the economics of the public sector don't match the private.

So in your oh so remarkable and singular opinion, if there were no antitrust exception for unions the legislation would trump the constitution and First Amendment jurisprudence?

Please enlighten us as to how that works in your world, because in the U.S. the Constitution and its associated rulings are at the very top of the hierarchy of law.

The point has been made and sustained.
Time to move on.

What point? That you're a mindless trashy loon who doesn't know what he's talking about so he has to evade having any actual argument and follow the women he can't hack debating around the board making rude sexual insults?

Way to go, big man! You RAWK!

 

[JBeukema]

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?

I wonder what Freud would say about how you view women...

 

[ABikerSailor]

Rabid Lie's debate formula is as follows..............

Make stupid ass comments, back 'em up with bullshit links to blogs, get his ass handed to him, declare victory and then quit.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

The unions were suppressed by the Law and State.

The Wobblies

On August 19, 1917, the Spokane office of the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, or Wobblies) is raided, leaders are arrested, and martial law is declared. The military authority is the National Guard, controlled by the U.S. War Department. This occurs in reaction to a demand by IWW leader James Rowan that all prisoners of the "class war" (he means Wobbly strikers and strike leaders involved in a statewide lumber strike) be released or Spokane would face a general strike. The repression of the democratic, radical union in Spokane and across the state takes place in the context of the ongoing, Wobbly-led loggers' and sawmill workers' strike for the eight-hour day and sanitary conditions in the camps.

HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

except the Govt.,could care less about its workers....

 

[uscitizen]

Like I said in the other thread...the modern incarnation of the Union has become what they sought to oppose... but organizer labor still has a function to serve.

The capitalist model where the rich get richer and the poor and middle class get poorer leads to the same destination as the pseudo-communist two-tiered systems of Soviet Russia or medieval Europe , albeit more slowly.

There will be peasants and there will be lords.

Organized labor can counterbalance big business and help bridge the wealth gap in America...but it will require a nearly complete remodel of Union objectives.

Unions need to be the voice of all American labor, not just Union labor.

The Democratic party used to be pretty much for labor, but they sold out to corporate interests just like the Republicans. Alas...

 

[The Rabbi]

Like I said in the other thread...the modern incarnation of the Union has become what they sought to oppose... but organizer labor still has a function to serve.

The capitalist model where the rich get richer and the poor and middle class get poorer leads to the same destination as the pseudo-communist two-tiered systems of Soviet Russia or medieval Europe , albeit more slowly.

There will be peasants and there will be lords.

Organized labor can counterbalance big business and help bridge the wealth gap in America...but it will require a nearly complete remodel of Union objectives.

Unions need to be the voice of all American labor, not just Union labor.

The Democratic party used to be pretty much for labor, but they sold out to corporate interests just like the Republicans. Alas...

So how do you explain the love relationship between the Dems and the unions now?

 

[gautama]

Like I said in the other thread...the modern incarnation of the Union has become what they sought to oppose... but organizer labor still has a function to serve.

The capitalist model where the rich get richer and the poor and middle class get poorer leads to the same destination as the pseudo-communist two-tiered systems of Soviet Russia or medieval Europe , albeit more slowly.

There will be peasants and there will be lords.

Organized labor can counterbalance big business and help bridge the wealth gap in America...but it will require a nearly complete remodel of Union objectives.

Unions need to be the voice of all American labor, not just Union labor.

The Democratic party used to be pretty much for labor, but they sold out to corporate interests just like the Republicans. Alas...

So how do you explain the love relationship between the Dems and the unions now?

It's true that EVERYONE, including the Dems (who aren't in the Unions) are against the Unions.

The disparity in pay and benefits (pensions) makes any comparison with non-union wokers ludicrous. Witness the poll: It's like 5 to 1 against Unions.

However, the dissatisfied Dems will STILL vote for Obamadinejad even though it is obvious as the nose on one's face that Obami Salaami blatantly and flagrantly bought off the Unions with bail-outs, Cadilliac Health Benefits, pension security etc.

Even though the Unions aren't in Obamadinejad's pocket as the Corrupt Racist Congressional Black Caucus is.......they (CBC) get ANYTHING they want because the DEM Party could not possibly exist without the ~13% Monolithic Black Racist vote, the Unions without any question will vote for the Political MARXIST Charlatan.

 

[Richard-H]

The problem with the economy is NOT the cost of labor. It's the cost of management!

Take away executive bonuses and excessive compenstaion and there'd be plenty of money to satisfy union (and non-union) demands.

Why the F***K should executives get bonuses anyway? They have an ownership stake and are supposedly in positions of responsibilty - that's what it means to be an executive officer.

Bonuses should be for the bottom of the rung employees - those people that are barely squeaking by.

 

[Richard-H]

Question:

On average, in the United States, how many Union workers could you pay with the average CEO's total yearly compensation?

I imagine quite a few....