We all know you hate labor unions but do you hate collective bargaining itself?

[bripat9643]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

What is undue retaliation?

What do you think is justified retaliation? Chances are they illegal under current labor laws, strikes used to be bloody affairs before the government extended protections to strikers both at the gates of the factory and at the negotiation table yet many seem to have a problem with this policy in the US government and would dismantle the NLRB entirely and the legal power they have to bring strikes to a peaceful conclusion.

You mean when the government gave union thugs the right to trespass on private property and to beat up scabs? Strikes were "bloody" because unions had no respect for private property. They attempt to prevent employers from operating their businesses while the union was on strike. The government also compels employers to "negotiate" with unions. In other words, the government holds a gun to the employer's head and forced him to concede to union demands.

 

[occupied]

What is undue retaliation?

What do you think is justified retaliation? Chances are they illegal under current labor laws, strikes used to be bloody affairs before the government extended protections to strikers both at the gates of the factory and at the negotiation table yet many seem to have a problem with this policy in the US government and would dismantle the NLRB entirely and the legal power they have to bring strikes to a peaceful conclusion.

I think if a strike goes on for so long the employer should have the right to fire people as another poster stated employees have the right to strike and try and get what they want through that process but there are consequences and risk to doing that. I think employers should have some choices other than bend over and take it up the ass I would say if the two sides could not reach a deal on their own have a third party come in mediate and if a deal still can 't be done tell the employer they can let them go and hire new people but they will have to pay them some kind of compensation package to be determined by the mediator.

That's pretty much current labor law.

 

[bripat9643]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

The First Amendment right to freely assemble (form/join a union, engage in collective bargaining) and the First Amendment right to engage in free expression (strike) have always existed, the issue has been the recognition and acknowledgement of those rights by employers.

Going on strike as a member of a lawfully recognized union is not ‘quitting’ or ‘walking off the job,’ and it’s incumbent upon employers to at least make a good faith effort to resolve issues before terminating or replacing workers.

What clause in the Constitution says that? corporations are private property. Their owners should be free to make whatever agreements they want to. That mean nothing is "incumbent on them."

 

[syrenn]

That would kind of negate the sole leverage workers have in a strike would it not? So the your answer is no?

now now... don't put words in my mouth. My answer is YES... they have a right to strike.

however...

actions have consequences..... if you want to walk off the job.... don't expect your job back.

As just firing strikers without due process or an honest attempt to negotiate is illegal I must still assume your answer is that workers do not have this right in the sense that they should be protected by law.

gotcha.. so this is about unions and right to work states...

you just defined "undue retaliation" as the bloody battles that once happened. Bloody battles should be unlawful... and applied to both sides.

firing someone for waling off their job..... is far and away from that.

If someone walks off of their job... they left of their own free will. Bah bye.... dont let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. They forfeit their "right to due process"... since walking off the job is the same as quitting.

 

[occupied]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

The First Amendment right to freely assemble (form/join a union, engage in collective bargaining) and the First Amendment right to engage in free expression (strike) have always existed, the issue has been the recognition and acknowledgement of those rights by employers.

Going on strike as a member of a lawfully recognized union is not ‘quitting’ or ‘walking off the job,’ and it’s incumbent upon employers to at least make a good faith effort to resolve issues before terminating or replacing workers.

The reason I posted this thread is that during the Wisconsin uproar of a couple of years ago I was on another board and several posters steadfastly proclaimed that collective bargaining rights were not in the constitution specifically and did not exist except as some kind of communist plot.

 

[syrenn]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

The First Amendment right to freely assemble (form/join a union, engage in collective bargaining) and the First Amendment right to engage in free expression (strike) have always existed, the issue has been the recognition and acknowledgement of those rights by employers.

Going on strike as a member of a lawfully recognized union is not ‘quitting’ or ‘walking off the job,’ and it’s incumbent upon employers to at least make a good faith effort to resolve issues before terminating or replacing workers.

I am not saying they cant have a union... or gather... or strike

I am saying.... actions have consequences....If you want to walk off your job dont expect to still have your job the next day.

walking off your job.. is quitting.

 

[blackhawk]

What do you think is justified retaliation? Chances are they illegal under current labor laws, strikes used to be bloody affairs before the government extended protections to strikers both at the gates of the factory and at the negotiation table yet many seem to have a problem with this policy in the US government and would dismantle the NLRB entirely and the legal power they have to bring strikes to a peaceful conclusion.

I think if a strike goes on for so long the employer should have the right to fire people as another poster stated employees have the right to strike and try and get what they want through that process but there are consequences and risk to doing that. I think employers should have some choices other than bend over and take it up the ass I would say if the two sides could not reach a deal on their own have a third party come in mediate and if a deal still can 't be done tell the employer they can let them go and hire new people but they will have to pay them some kind of compensation package to be determined by the mediator.

That's pretty much current labor law.

Then were good here.

 

[occupied]

now now... don't put words in my mouth. My answer is YES... they have a right to strike.

however...

actions have consequences..... if you want to walk off the job.... don't expect your job back.

As just firing strikers without due process or an honest attempt to negotiate is illegal I must still assume your answer is that workers do not have this right in the sense that they should be protected by law.

gotcha.. so this is about unions and right to work states...

you just defined "undue retaliation" as the bloody battles that once happened. Bloody battles should be unlawful... and applied to both sides.

firing someone for waling off their job..... is far and away from that.

If someone walks off of their job... they left of their own free will. Bah bye.... dont let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. They forfeit their "right to due process"... since walking off the job is the same as quitting.

Not in a labor dispute resulting in a legal strike, not in America, at least not yet.

 

[bripat9643]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

The First Amendment right to freely assemble (form/join a union, engage in collective bargaining) and the First Amendment right to engage in free expression (strike) have always existed, the issue has been the recognition and acknowledgement of those rights by employers.

Going on strike as a member of a lawfully recognized union is not ‘quitting’ or ‘walking off the job,’ and it’s incumbent upon employers to at least make a good faith effort to resolve issues before terminating or replacing workers.

The reason I posted this thread is that during the Wisconsin uproar of a couple of years ago I was on another board and several posters steadfastly proclaimed that collective bargaining rights were not in the constitution specifically and did not exist except as some kind of communist plot.

The liberal conception of "collective bargaining rights" means no right for those would don't want the union "bargaining" for them. Those posters are correct, there is no right to force others to accept the terms you have bargained for with an employer.

 

[syrenn]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

The First Amendment right to freely assemble (form/join a union, engage in collective bargaining) and the First Amendment right to engage in free expression (strike) have always existed, the issue has been the recognition and acknowledgement of those rights by employers.

Going on strike as a member of a lawfully recognized union is not ‘quitting’ or ‘walking off the job,’ and it’s incumbent upon employers to at least make a good faith effort to resolve issues before terminating or replacing workers.

The reason I posted this thread is that during the Wisconsin uproar of a couple of years ago I was on another board and several posters steadfastly proclaimed that collective bargaining rights were not in the constitution specifically and did not exist except as some kind of communist plot.

that is not quite what you asked in your op.

 

[occupied]

The First Amendment right to freely assemble (form/join a union, engage in collective bargaining) and the First Amendment right to engage in free expression (strike) have always existed, the issue has been the recognition and acknowledgement of those rights by employers.

Going on strike as a member of a lawfully recognized union is not ‘quitting’ or ‘walking off the job,’ and it’s incumbent upon employers to at least make a good faith effort to resolve issues before terminating or replacing workers.

The reason I posted this thread is that during the Wisconsin uproar of a couple of years ago I was on another board and several posters steadfastly proclaimed that collective bargaining rights were not in the constitution specifically and did not exist except as some kind of communist plot.

that is not quite what you asked in your op.

I was trying to get some genuine responses with a somewhat neutral question rather than knee-jerk reactions by bringing up past controversies.

 

[syrenn]

The reason I posted this thread is that during the Wisconsin uproar of a couple of years ago I was on another board and several posters steadfastly proclaimed that collective bargaining rights were not in the constitution specifically and did not exist except as some kind of communist plot.

that is not quite what you asked in your op.

I was trying to get some genuine responses with a somewhat neutral question rather than knee-jerk reactions by bringing up past controversies.

you asked for opinions... without bring unions into the convo. I did that

and you brought them into it..... so it was a loaded question with agenda.

go figure.

 

[dblack]

I think most of the antipathy toward labor unions comes from the perception that they aren't really about protecting rights as much as collecting special privilege for members. Labor law itself contributes to this by granting special provisions to qualifying groups, rather than directly to individuals. This mode of governance (aka corporatism) is designed to keep society factionalized as competing interest groups, fighting over special favors from the state, and subsequently less likely to join in opposition to overbearing government.

 

[Arthur]

The reason I posted this thread is that during the Wisconsin uproar of a couple of years ago I was on another board and several posters steadfastly proclaimed that collective bargaining rights were not in the constitution specifically and did not exist except as some kind of communist plot.

that is not quite what you asked in your op.

I was trying to get some genuine responses with a somewhat neutral question rather than knee-jerk reactions by bringing up past controversies.

That's funny. Collective bargaining as a communist plot.

 

[alan1]

I was trying to get some genuine responses with a somewhat neutral question rather than knee-jerk reactions by bringing up past controversies.

Yet you ignored my response.
Kerry on.

 

[Plasmaball]

If someone walks off of their job... they left of their own free will. Bah bye.... dont let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. They forfeit their "right to due process"... since walking off the job is the same as quitting.

Yes but its not the same as striking.

 

[Plasmaball]

I was trying to get some genuine responses with a somewhat neutral question rather than knee-jerk reactions by bringing up past controversies.

Yet you ignored my response.
Kerry on.

you should be used to that.....

 

[OKTexas]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

You act like employees have a right to declare themselves partners in a business with no investment in that business other than their time for which they are compensated. Compensation I might add that they agreed to. There are laws in place that are available to them if the employer doesn't do as required. They have every right to make suggestions to the employer to improve the work place, but the guy that has his life and money in the company that has the final say. If they think that's not good enough there is no one holding a gun to their head to stay there. That gives both parties the FREEDOM to continue the relationship or not.

 

[Arthur]

Should workers have the right to fight for fair wages, benefits and working conditions or not?

 

[syrenn]

If someone walks off of their job... they left of their own free will. Bah bye.... dont let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. They forfeit their "right to due process"... since walking off the job is the same as quitting.

Yes but its not the same as striking.

sure it is....

Cant they bargain with the employer and STILL work? Sure they can.

walking off the job... is quitting.