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


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.

Check the thread title, I asked about the legal under-pinnings that give labor unions the power to negotiate and make sure management sticks to the deal. I thought it was a fairly simple question, to be simpler, does the government have any business getting involved in either side of labor disputes?
 
Should workers have the right to fight for fair wages, benefits and working conditions or not?


the government sets minimum wage.... meeting that or anything above that is a "fair" wage.

working conditions should be up to government standards as well.

They can fight for anything they want.... actions have consequences though.
 
Employers are about profit, NOT the interest of workers. Workers have to advocate for better working conditions, fair wages and benefits.

Collective bargaining allows workers to have strength to match corporate power. Unions represent the only organized check on business in the US.
 
Last edited:
Should workers have the right to fight for fair wages, benefits and working conditions or not?


the government sets minimum wage.... meeting that or anything above that is a "fair" wage.

working conditions should be up to government standards as well.

They can fight for anything they want.... actions have consequences though.

So you think the government offers sufficient worker protections to make unions unnecessary and strikes punishable by management? This is a pretty loaded question, I would think before answering it.
 
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.

Check the thread title, I asked about the legal under-pinnings that give labor unions the power to negotiate and make sure management sticks to the deal. I thought it was a fairly simple question, to be simpler, does the government have any business getting involved in either side of labor disputes?

who says that employees

need unions

to collective bargain?
 
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.

that would defeat the point.
 
Employers are about profit, NOT the interest of workers. Workers have to advocate for better working conditions, fair wages and benefits.

Collective bargaining allows workers to have strength to match corporate power. Unions represent the only organized check on business in the US.

bingo!

no one is forcing anyone to work for them.... its a free country and they can leave any time they dont like their employer.

Do you really thing unions are not a "for profit" business sky, i mean margret?
 
Employers are about profit, NOT the interest of workers. Workers have to advocate for better working conditions, fair wages and benefits.

Collective bargaining allows workers to have strength to match corporate power. Unions represent the only organized check on business in the US.

No labor dispute has ever matched management's power over the negotiations, collective bargaining provides some leverage to get management to the table, that's all, and more often than not result in concessions by the union than management in these days of outsourcing and scarce jobs.
 
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.

Check the thread title, I asked about the legal under-pinnings that give labor unions the power to negotiate and make sure management sticks to the deal. I thought it was a fairly simple question, to be simpler, does the government have any business getting involved in either side of labor disputes?

Only if one side or the other is violating sane criminal law (assault, fraud, theft, etc ...).
 
Organized labor is needed to empower workers to assure their wages, benefits and working conditions are fair.
 
Should workers have the right to fight for fair wages, benefits and working conditions or not?


the government sets minimum wage.... meeting that or anything above that is a "fair" wage.

working conditions should be up to government standards as well.

They can fight for anything they want.... actions have consequences though.

So you think the government offers sufficient worker protections to make unions unnecessary and strikes punishable by management? This is a pretty loaded question, I would think before answering it.


getting replaced for quitting ie.. walking off your job.. is not punishment. They left, quit.... The employer should have the right to fill the positions........without..said... bloody affairs.
 
Organized labor is needed to empower workers to assure their wages, benefits and working conditions are fair.

Something is needed to counterbalance potential owner/management dictatorship. Unions have the long-term interests of the companies they're involved with at heart. If those companies don't thrive, then neither do the unions or workers.
 
Last edited:
Employers are about profit, NOT the interest of workers. Workers have to advocate for better working conditions, fair wages and benefits.

Collective bargaining allows workers to have strength to match corporate power. Unions represent the only organized check on business in the US.

bingo!

no one is forcing anyone to work for them.... its a free country and they can leave any time they dont like their employer.

Do you really thing unions are not a "for profit" business sky, i mean margret?

You act like there are just tons of jobs out there where a person can walk off a job they've had for years and get another for the same wage and keep their insurance.
 
Too much hate from the Republican Party.

They hate labor unions, gays, women's rights, education, science, minorities. Most of all, they hate being wrong all the time.

There really is more to life than hate.
 
Employers are about profit, NOT the interest of workers. Workers have to advocate for better working conditions, fair wages and benefits.

Collective bargaining allows workers to have strength to match corporate power. Unions represent the only organized check on business in the US.

bingo!

no one is forcing anyone to work for them.... its a free country and they can leave any time they dont like their employer.

Do you really thing unions are not a "for profit" business sky, i mean margret?

You act like there are just tons of jobs out there where a person can walk off a job they've had for years and get another for the same wage and keep their insurance.

no i dont think that at all....

no one is holding a gun to anyone's head.. and forcing the to work a job.

If they don't want to work... then they should expect to be replaced. By one of the people willing ...to work.
 
Organized labor is needed to empower workers to assure their wages, benefits and working conditions are fair.

Organized labor isn't the problem. Granting them special privileges is. It's a violation of equal protection and an affront to egalitarian government.
 
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?


they have very right to get together and try and bargain all they want. The also have every right to strike and walk off the job to try an force their employer to meet their terms and do as they want...


however.... the employer should ALSO have the right to fire anyone who walks off the job, obstructs others from doing their jobs or preventing anyone from patronizing the employer....and replacing them.
That would kind of negate the sole leverage workers have in a strike would it not? So the your answer is no?
So, you think that they should have the right of leverage over their opponent? You favor one group having more power and rights over another?

Think carefully.
 
Organized labor is needed to empower workers to assure their wages, benefits and working conditions are fair.

Organized labor isn't the problem. Granting them special privileges is. It's a violation of equal protection and an affront to egalitarian government.

I don't know what you're referring to that you consider "special privileges". What "special privileges" do you think organized labor has?
 
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?

Do managers have the right to negotiate freely and fire anyone they don't want working for them anymore?

yes.

Owners/mgrs have the right to fire for cause or for no reason at all.

Employees have no rights at all.

They have the right to fire, only for cause, period...

Just STFU...

You give stupid a bad rep...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top