Why does the Rightwing Conservatives Hate Unions?

[boedicca]

You can not stop people from peaceful assembly

You nattering nabob of ninniness. Nobody has said they don't have the right to peacefully assemble.

 

[Truthmatters]

Then you would have to agree the first amendment makes unions unbannable

 

[Skull Pilot]

You can not stop people from peaceful assembly

Collective bargaining and the right to assemble have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Big Fitz]

Because they do not believe in the right to assembily

Oh good gawd!

Explain the Tea Parties and it's relation to the right of assembly.

Don't I remember you complaining they should be shut down?

 

[Tech_Esq]

The animosity is chilling, but never the less consistent and irritating. Maybe we could actually have a discussion without the name calling, and find out exactly what is the right cons problem with Unions.

It seems to me Unions are a role model for what Capitalism stands for. To exploit the corporation for fair living wages & benefits, in exchange for an honest days work. And to get a fair working package a negotiation takes place and a contract written explaining what each side expects from the other side (labor vs. business). Nothing is hidden.

Capitalism allows workers to negotiate their own wage & benefits as individuals or as a collective, with the idea of extracting the maximum from the employer for each hour of work performed. The employer hires as many people as he wishes, from those that will work for him, and exploits workers for the lowest wages & benefit packages he can get for his hour of labor.

So the Union member or private sector worker gives an honest days work, and the employer gives an honest days wages & benefits.

So why do rightys hate Unions? They support America and prefer capitalism?

I think when Unions first started they had a point. People had no protections and corporations needed people to work. Since most people were poor, they could get people to work themselves to death for practically no money. Although the market would have eventually corrected most of this, it might not have been moral to wait for the market to burn through all of the people who would have died or been maimed in the mean time. Thus, unions performed a valuable service in creating protections and increasing wages.

In the current day, they have out-lived their usefulness to society. Since they exist and unionized workers must pay dues to the organization, they feel obligated to do something for the money they get. Thus, even if you get a fair wage. They want more. Even if you have good benefits, they ask for more. Even if you get a decent vacation, they want more. Enough is never enough.

When those unions represent public sector employees, the "more" comes out our "our" pockets. The way the parties have broken out, the Dems are the party of "Unions" so unionized workers, knowing where their bread is buttered, try like hell to get Dems in office. Dems, knowing where their bread is buttered, try like hell to get a better deal for unions.

Again, when it comes to the public sector, that means the unions are on one side of the table and the people they put in office are on the other side. This arrangement amounts to self dealing or "pay to play" Chicago-style politics.

I think that private sector unions are responsible, in part, for ensuring that jobs left this country and making American labor unprofitable in a global market.

 

[boedicca]

Then you would have to agree the first amendment makes unions unbannable

Freedom of assembly is not the right to force another into a group contract.

 

[Truthmatters]

Your right I never did.

I am consistant

 

[Big Fitz]

The day of the big union is over.

They did some good things for the USA and even the world.

However they went too far.

Recently we had a hospital close because of a Nurses Union. (I think they were affiliated with the teamsters or some other big union)

The hospital employed over 600 people, because of 80 people in a Union they all lost their jobs. I heard 2 of the union reps talking on a local radio program the following day, congratulating themselves because they won. I had to call and ask them what they won, all of their members plus another 500+ people were out of a job.

Unions are nothing today but a way for the lame and lazy to keep their jobs, no matter how worthless they are.

The pendulum swings both ways. What was started in the early 1900's had reached it's apex and is swinging back the other way faster than expected.

 

[Mr Natural]

One needs only to look to the most conservative part of the country, the South.

Cheap labor is in their DNA. Heck, they even went so far at point to start a war to secure their right to free labor.

And if they can't have their free labor, they'll settle for the next best thing which is cheap labor.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Personally i don't want some idiot union rep looking out for me.

I was forced to join a union once and all it did was cost me money. Union reps spent more time defending the fuck ups who should have been fired than anything else.

I was told I couldn't work through my lunch break and that I couldn't skip my 15 minute breaks. Really what the fuck does the union care if I work through lunch so I can leave 30 minutes earlier? The owner didn't care the idiot union rep gave me all kinds of shit about it.

Unions are for sheep.

 

[Truthmatters]

Then you would have to agree the first amendment makes unions unbannable

Freedom of assembly is not the right to force another into a group contract.

When the people who do this assembling deside to act in unison you have no right to force them to not act as a group.


All your hate for unions is a hate for freedom

 

[boedicca]

As usual, TMN uses words and phrases she does not understand.

 

[Big Fitz]

Then you would have to agree the first amendment makes unions unbannable

Walk me through that logic please, but first establish, with fact, how Unions are protected by the first Amendment.

 

[Truthmatters]

Freedom of assembly.

When these free people assemble they can talk about what they want.

If they talk about acting together to acheive their goals you can not make it illegal for them to act as a group.


You dont get to shut down their efforts to act in unison.

 

[rightwinger]

That's not what they are seeking. The always want MORE and expect everyone else to sacrifice to give it to them.

The Employer wants MORE too...he wants more labor for lesser compensation

In the last 30 years, the employers have gotten MORE than the employees

 

[boedicca]

They can talk and associate with each other as much as they would like. What they don't have the right to do is to force others into such as association against their wills.

It's telling that Unions are trying to get rid of secret ballot elections (although I doubt you understand why) via the Card Check bill.

 

[Dutch]

The shrinking middle class directly is affected by the declining union memberships.

"One more that I'll throw in as a personal observation and opinion. From post-WWII to the late 70's union members averaged about 33% of private sector employees. Today that number is less than 8%. I don't think it was just coincidence that about the time union membership took a downturn worker's wages started to stagnate and the income gap began to widen dramatically."

The Shrinking Middle-Class - The Daily Hurricane

 

[WillowTree]

Freedom of assembly.

When these free people assemble they can talk about what they want.

If they talk about acting together to acheive their goals you can not make it illegal for them to act as a group.


You dont get to shut down their efforts to act in unison.

Let them assemble til the cows come home and the moonshinesinarticle15ingsmanhole, just don't ask us to pay for their pensions. asshole.

 

[rightwinger]

The animosity is chilling, but never the less consistent and irritating. Maybe we could actually have a discussion without the name calling, and find out exactly what is the right cons problem with Unions.

It seems to me Unions are a role model for what Capitalism stands for. To exploit the corporation for fair living wages & benefits, in exchange for an honest days work. And to get a fair working package a negotiation takes place and a contract written explaining what each side expects from the other side (labor vs. business). Nothing is hidden.

Capitalism allows workers to negotiate their own wage & benefits as individuals or as a collective, with the idea of extracting the maximum from the employer for each hour of work performed. The employer hires as many people as he wishes, from those that will work for him, and exploits workers for the lowest wages & benefit packages he can get for his hour of labor.

So the Union member or private sector worker gives an honest days work, and the employer gives an honest days wages & benefits.

So why do rightys hate Unions? They support America and prefer capitalism?

I think when Unions first started they had a point. People had no protections and corporations needed people to work. Since most people were poor, they could get people to work themselves to death for practically no money. Although the market would have eventually corrected most of this, it might not have been moral to wait for the market to burn through all of the people who would have died or been maimed in the mean time. Thus, unions performed a valuable service in creating protections and increasing wages.

In the current day, they have out-lived their usefulness to society. Since they exist and unionized workers must pay dues to the organization, they feel obligated to do something for the money they get. Thus, even if you get a fair wage. They want more. Even if you have good benefits, they ask for more. Even if you get a decent vacation, they want more. Enough is never enough.

When those unions represent public sector employees, the "more" comes out our "our" pockets. The way the parties have broken out, the Dems are the party of "Unions" so unionized workers, knowing where their bread is buttered, try like hell to get Dems in office. Dems, knowing where their bread is buttered, try like hell to get a better deal for unions.

Again, when it comes to the public sector, that means the unions are on one side of the table and the people they put in office are on the other side. This arrangement amounts to self dealing or "pay to play" Chicago-style politics.

I think that private sector unions are responsible, in part, for ensuring that jobs left this country and making American labor unprofitable in a global market.

It is up to the workers to decide whether they need a union or not. If they are happy with their employment conditions, then no...they don't need one

 

[Truthmatters]

When a governor strips tries to strip SOME of his people of their rights then it seems to me Unions are needed very badly in this country.