Democrats Trying to Outlaw Right To Work Laws

[bripat9643]

22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,

All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.

I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.

YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES

Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics

IF

The same ban applied to corporate money.

Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.

But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.

"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."

Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?

I don't.

But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?

Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.

The reason is simple.

Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.

As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.

When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)

Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?

I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.

Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?

Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.

Unions are like parasites eventually killing their hosts.

If union demands kill a business, how is that good for the union workers who no longer have jobs?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice that machine gun held to the head of management forcing to sign a contract against their will.

GEEZ

Unions don't kill companies, bad management does.

The fact that the government doesn't reveal their guns doesn't mean they aren't used to enforce government policies.

 

[bripat9643]

22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,

All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.

I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.

YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES

Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics

IF

The same ban applied to corporate money.

Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.

But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.

"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."

Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?

I don't.

But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?

Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.

The reason is simple.

Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.

As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.

When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)

Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?

I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.

Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?

Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.

When corporations sign a contract with unions the government holds a gun to their heads and forces them to sign. Only morons like you don't understand how that works.

 

[Dadoalex]

22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,

All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.

I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.

YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES

Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics

IF

The same ban applied to corporate money.

Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.

But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.

"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."

Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?

I don't.

But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?

Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.

The reason is simple.

Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.

As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.

When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)

Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?

I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.

Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?

Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.

Union bosses don't have to worry about getting paid, they get their money strike or no strike. I don't "blame" the unions for taking what they can take at all. I'm just saying that innovative companies have no interest in turning over the store to the goombas in charge of the unions.

Sometimes the union bosses do get ways to extort employers into signing over the store. But they won't be able to with Bezos. Bezos faced down blackmailers who wanted to take him out with pics he was forwarding of his genitalia. I don't know what the La Cosa Nostra could possibly have on him.

And what happens to Bezo's income during a strike? does it go to zero?

Don't you fools have something beyond 30 year old Republican tag lines to go with?

Because we can go two ways.
Mine
or
The Russian/French/Chinese path.

If Big Labor would call a strike against Amazon, my guess is that Bezos would keep the doors open and most of the employees would go to work as per usual. And If the strike lasted more than a few weeks, Bezos would hire replacement workers.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that RWDSU would be able to shut down Amazon during a strike.

What the heck, let's give it a try.

Wrong place.
Go to Ohio, PA, MI and give it a try.
Amazon ight not honor a strike but if the Teamsters do ...

 

[daveman]

22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,

All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.

I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.

YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES

Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics

IF

The same ban applied to corporate money.

Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.

But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.

"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."

Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?

I don't.

But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?

Do you think shareholders want their income to go down?

And if you oppose Adelson's political activity, you must also oppose George Soros'.

Please! Not every conversation need a soros' complaint.

And you see that you are part of the problem.

A guy owning 500k shares of Amazon is not going to suffer if Amazon's profit falls 0.5%.
A guy owning 5 shares isn't going to notice either.
BUT, in your greed you think you have to hold on to every dime.
But what happens when you force more and more people into poverty by squeezing each and every dime?
Go ask France, Russia, China...

This conversation didn't need an Adelson complaint, either, but there you go. You opened the can of worms, you get to eat one.

And here's a protip: If we wind up like France, Russia, or China, it'll be because of the leftist desire for complete government control over individual lives.

YOU are part of the problem. YOU refuse to see it.

Adelson owns the companies in which he uses his political contributions to fight unions.
Soros does not own the companies for his political contributions supporting unions.

Your false equivalence is simply you avoiding the topic.

Yes, of course, because Russia, China, and France were being ruled by elected leftist governments.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Russia and China are ruled by leftist totalitarians.

You people simply can't be trusted with power.

Oh, and I knew you'd defend Soros' spending on politics. Exactly as programmed.

 

[Dadoalex]

Half of the reason our industrial base ended up in China is that republicans really desperately wanted to break the political power of Labor. Was it worth it?

Bullshit. China has no climate enforcement, no minimum wage, no unions, no liability while the US seeks to tax the shit out of businesses of all sizes. Prove me wrong.

There was never any good reason to make American workers directly compete with Chinese slave labor. Western countries are supposed to have higher environmental and labor standards and a higher standard of living. Don't blame the middle class reward for a life of labor that used to make America great. Upward mobility requires a national investment that American companies didn't want to make anymore.

The first part of your argument is the most socialist I’ve ever heard. Don’t insult US Middle Class by trying to pretend you care about “upward mobility”. Socialists despise upward mobility. Why and how in God’s name are you rewarding China for child labor while holding Western Countries accountable for environmental and labor standards. Seriously?

Don't blame me. Progressives are the only political segment that never supported any of that outsourcing shit. Are you old enough to remember when "protectionism" was the dirtiest word in conservative economic policy? Why are you blaming the only people who fought the "free market" dogma that made protecting jobs a virtual sin?

1992 I bought into Pirot's "sucking jobs" dogma but then over the next few years I saw NAFTA as a good thing then since 06-07 back to sucking. What NAFTA does is allow employers use the threat of moving jobs to force employees to accept less compensation.

Hey! A Dado can learn!

All you dumbasses attacked Trump for imposing tariffs.

Trump didn't impose tariffs. He tried to start a trade war.
Even in trumplandia there's a difference.

What utter horseshit. He imposed tariffs, and Dims like you went wild.

He tried to start trade wars with the EU and China.

He imposed tariffs and turned the working farmer in the Midwest into welfare queens.

Those are the facts.

 

[Dadoalex]

22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,

All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.

I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.

YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES

Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics

IF

The same ban applied to corporate money.

Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.

But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.

"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."

Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?

I don't.

But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?

Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.

The reason is simple.

Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.

As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.

When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)

Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?

I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.

Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?

Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.

Unions are like parasites eventually killing their hosts.

If union demands kill a business, how is that good for the union workers who no longer have jobs?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice that machine gun held to the head of management forcing to sign a contract against their will.

GEEZ

Unions don't kill companies, bad management does.

The fact that the government doesn't reveal their guns doesn't mean they aren't used to enforce government policies.

Well thanks. That was useless.

 

[Dadoalex]

22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,

All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.

I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.

YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES

Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics

IF

The same ban applied to corporate money.

Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.

But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.

"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."

Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?

I don't.

But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?

Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.

The reason is simple.

Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.

As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.

When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)

Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?

I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.

Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?

Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.

When corporations sign a contract with unions the government holds a gun to their heads and forces them to sign. Only morons like you don't understand how that works.

No, it doesn't.
The government says they have to negotiate with recognized unions.
But no one is forced to sign a contract outside of emergency situations and these types of contracts are null once the emergency passes.
You are a victim of anti-union propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

Half of the reason our industrial base ended up in China is that republicans really desperately wanted to break the political power of Labor. Was it worth it?

Bullshit. China has no climate enforcement, no minimum wage, no unions, no liability while the US seeks to tax the shit out of businesses of all sizes. Prove me wrong.

There was never any good reason to make American workers directly compete with Chinese slave labor. Western countries are supposed to have higher environmental and labor standards and a higher standard of living. Don't blame the middle class reward for a life of labor that used to make America great. Upward mobility requires a national investment that American companies didn't want to make anymore.

The first part of your argument is the most socialist I’ve ever heard. Don’t insult US Middle Class by trying to pretend you care about “upward mobility”. Socialists despise upward mobility. Why and how in God’s name are you rewarding China for child labor while holding Western Countries accountable for environmental and labor standards. Seriously?

Don't blame me. Progressives are the only political segment that never supported any of that outsourcing shit. Are you old enough to remember when "protectionism" was the dirtiest word in conservative economic policy? Why are you blaming the only people who fought the "free market" dogma that made protecting jobs a virtual sin?

1992 I bought into Pirot's "sucking jobs" dogma but then over the next few years I saw NAFTA as a good thing then since 06-07 back to sucking. What NAFTA does is allow employers use the threat of moving jobs to force employees to accept less compensation.

Hey! A Dado can learn!

All you dumbasses attacked Trump for imposing tariffs.

Trump didn't impose tariffs. He tried to start a trade war.
Even in trumplandia there's a difference.

What utter horseshit. He imposed tariffs, and Dims like you went wild.

He tried to start trade wars with the EU and China.

He imposed tariffs and turned the working farmer in the Midwest into welfare queens.

Those are the facts.

" Trump didn't impose tariffs. "

Which is it? Did he impose tariffs or not?

 

[bripat9643]

22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,

All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.

I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.

YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES

Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics

IF

The same ban applied to corporate money.

Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.

But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.

"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."

Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?

I don't.

But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?

Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.

The reason is simple.

Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.

As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.

When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)

Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?

I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.

Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?

Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.

When corporations sign a contract with unions the government holds a gun to their heads and forces them to sign. Only morons like you don't understand how that works.

No, it doesn't.
The government says they have to negotiate with recognized unions.
But no one is forced to sign a contract outside of emergency situations and these types of contracts are null once the emergency passes.
You are a victim of anti-union propaganda.

In other words, the government holds a gun to their heads and forces them to sign a contract with a union. You can't claim the government forces them to sign a contract with a union and them claim it doesn't

 

[bripat9643]

22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,

All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.

I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.

YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES

Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics

IF

The same ban applied to corporate money.

Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.

But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.

"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."

Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?

I don't.

But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?

Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.

The reason is simple.

Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.

As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.

When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)

Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?

I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.

Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?

Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.

Unions are like parasites eventually killing their hosts.

If union demands kill a business, how is that good for the union workers who no longer have jobs?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice that machine gun held to the head of management forcing to sign a contract against their will.

GEEZ

Unions don't kill companies, bad management does.

The fact that the government doesn't reveal their guns doesn't mean they aren't used to enforce government policies.

Well thanks. That was useless.

I know you view facts that are inconvenient for your narrative to be "useless."

 

[dblack]

The government says they have to negotiate with recognized unions.

So, they're forced to "negotiate"? What does that even mean? And how does it differ from being forced to sign with the union? I smell equivocation.

I'm pretty sure that if the employees go through NLRB election process and the union wins, the employer can't just ignore them and conduct business as usual.

 

[Polishprince]

22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,

All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.

I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.

YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES

Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics

IF

The same ban applied to corporate money.

Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.

But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.

"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."

Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?

I don't.

But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?

Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.

The reason is simple.

Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.

As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.

When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)

Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?

I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.

Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?

Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.

Union bosses don't have to worry about getting paid, they get their money strike or no strike. I don't "blame" the unions for taking what they can take at all. I'm just saying that innovative companies have no interest in turning over the store to the goombas in charge of the unions.

Sometimes the union bosses do get ways to extort employers into signing over the store. But they won't be able to with Bezos. Bezos faced down blackmailers who wanted to take him out with pics he was forwarding of his genitalia. I don't know what the La Cosa Nostra could possibly have on him.

And what happens to Bezo's income during a strike? does it go to zero?

Don't you fools have something beyond 30 year old Republican tag lines to go with?

Because we can go two ways.
Mine
or
The Russian/French/Chinese path.

If Big Labor would call a strike against Amazon, my guess is that Bezos would keep the doors open and most of the employees would go to work as per usual. And If the strike lasted more than a few weeks, Bezos would hire replacement workers.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that RWDSU would be able to shut down Amazon during a strike.

What the heck, let's give it a try.

Wrong place.
Go to Ohio, PA, MI and give it a try.
Amazon ight not honor a strike but if the Teamsters do ...

Doesn't matter. Amazon has its own delivery people. They can also use the US Mail system, which has to serve all Americans, whether they are scab or unionized

 

[Dadoalex]

Half of the reason our industrial base ended up in China is that republicans really desperately wanted to break the political power of Labor. Was it worth it?

Bullshit. China has no climate enforcement, no minimum wage, no unions, no liability while the US seeks to tax the shit out of businesses of all sizes. Prove me wrong.

There was never any good reason to make American workers directly compete with Chinese slave labor. Western countries are supposed to have higher environmental and labor standards and a higher standard of living. Don't blame the middle class reward for a life of labor that used to make America great. Upward mobility requires a national investment that American companies didn't want to make anymore.

The first part of your argument is the most socialist I’ve ever heard. Don’t insult US Middle Class by trying to pretend you care about “upward mobility”. Socialists despise upward mobility. Why and how in God’s name are you rewarding China for child labor while holding Western Countries accountable for environmental and labor standards. Seriously?

Don't blame me. Progressives are the only political segment that never supported any of that outsourcing shit. Are you old enough to remember when "protectionism" was the dirtiest word in conservative economic policy? Why are you blaming the only people who fought the "free market" dogma that made protecting jobs a virtual sin?

1992 I bought into Pirot's "sucking jobs" dogma but then over the next few years I saw NAFTA as a good thing then since 06-07 back to sucking. What NAFTA does is allow employers use the threat of moving jobs to force employees to accept less compensation.

Hey! A Dado can learn!

All you dumbasses attacked Trump for imposing tariffs.

Trump didn't impose tariffs. He tried to start a trade war.
Even in trumplandia there's a difference.

What utter horseshit. He imposed tariffs, and Dims like you went wild.

He tried to start trade wars with the EU and China.

He imposed tariffs and turned the working farmer in the Midwest into welfare queens.

Those are the facts.

" Trump didn't impose tariffs. "

Which is it? Did he impose tariffs or not?

He started a trade ware and trade wars almost always involve stupid tariffs.

SO

Let us rephrase the question.
Did Trump impose meaningless tariffs in an attempt to start a trade war and in the process convert hard working farmers into welfare queens?

Yes, there is no denying it.

 

[Dadoalex]

22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,

All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.

I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.

YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES

Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics

IF

The same ban applied to corporate money.

Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.

But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.

"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."

Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?

I don't.

But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?

Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.

The reason is simple.

Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.

As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.

When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)

Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?

I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.

Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?

Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.

When corporations sign a contract with unions the government holds a gun to their heads and forces them to sign. Only morons like you don't understand how that works.

No, it doesn't.
The government says they have to negotiate with recognized unions.
But no one is forced to sign a contract outside of emergency situations and these types of contracts are null once the emergency passes.
You are a victim of anti-union propaganda.

In other words, the government holds a gun to their heads and forces them to sign a contract with a union. You can't claim the government forces them to sign a contract with a union and them claim it doesn't

Show me one, just one contract, where. exclusive of the previous exception, where the government imposed a contract and forced the parties to sign.

If a union is voted in the law says the company must negotiate. It does not force either party to sign. In the previously noted circumstance it can force the parties into binding arbitration IF the contract calls for arbitration.

You really don't know much about the subject beyond owner propaganda do you?

 

[Dadoalex]

22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,

All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.

I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.

YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES

Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics

IF

The same ban applied to corporate money.

Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.

But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.

"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."

Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?

I don't.

But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?

Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.

The reason is simple.

Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.

As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.

When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)

Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?

I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.

Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?

Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.

Unions are like parasites eventually killing their hosts.

If union demands kill a business, how is that good for the union workers who no longer have jobs?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice that machine gun held to the head of management forcing to sign a contract against their will.

GEEZ

Unions don't kill companies, bad management does.

The fact that the government doesn't reveal their guns doesn't mean they aren't used to enforce government policies.

Well thanks. That was useless.

I know you view facts that are inconvenient for your narrative to be "useless."

I view useless facts a useless because that is what they are.

The government has used force against workers far more often than the reverse.
The government has supported and defended owner use of force against workers WAAAAAY more often than the reverse.
The government using force against owners? SHOW ME!

 

[Dadoalex]

The government says they have to negotiate with recognized unions.

So, they're forced to "negotiate"? What does that even mean? And how does it differ from being forced to sign with the union? I smell equivocation.

I'm pretty sure that if the employees go through NLRB election process and the union wins, the employer can't just ignore them and conduct business as usual.

It means what it says.
They must negotiate and they must negotiate in good faith.
The owners are not forced to sign a contract and neither are the workers.
If the owners, after negotiating in good faith cannot reach an agreement they can hire outside the union once the contract expires. (Assuming it is a union shop)

Have you people actually never been around unions and unionized workers?
The level of ignorance on anything that is not owner propaganda is astounding.

 

[Dadoalex]

22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,

All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.

I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.

YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES

Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics

IF

The same ban applied to corporate money.

Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.

But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.

"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."

Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?

I don't.

But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?

Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.

The reason is simple.

Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.

As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.

When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)

Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?

I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.

Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?

Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.

Union bosses don't have to worry about getting paid, they get their money strike or no strike. I don't "blame" the unions for taking what they can take at all. I'm just saying that innovative companies have no interest in turning over the store to the goombas in charge of the unions.

Sometimes the union bosses do get ways to extort employers into signing over the store. But they won't be able to with Bezos. Bezos faced down blackmailers who wanted to take him out with pics he was forwarding of his genitalia. I don't know what the La Cosa Nostra could possibly have on him.

And what happens to Bezo's income during a strike? does it go to zero?

Don't you fools have something beyond 30 year old Republican tag lines to go with?

Because we can go two ways.
Mine
or
The Russian/French/Chinese path.

If Big Labor would call a strike against Amazon, my guess is that Bezos would keep the doors open and most of the employees would go to work as per usual. And If the strike lasted more than a few weeks, Bezos would hire replacement workers.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that RWDSU would be able to shut down Amazon during a strike.

What the heck, let's give it a try.

Wrong place.
Go to Ohio, PA, MI and give it a try.
Amazon ight not honor a strike but if the Teamsters do ...

Doesn't matter. Amazon has its own delivery people. They can also use the US Mail system, which has to serve all Americans, whether they are scab or unionized

REALLY? Their own delivery people?
And how does the product get from the source to the Amazon warehouse?
The package I got yesterday was delivered by mail.

Apparently unions are not the only thing you guys know little about beyond the OANN headline.

 

[bripat9643]

22 states have them and the Dems want to pass a Federal law to ban them. This would mean, if it passes, every worker in America would be forced to join a union in every shop which has one. Ya. the good ole dems don't like freedom of choice at all. I was in a union for 6 years, but I quit because the union kept giving my dues money to Bill Clinton, who I was vehemently opposed to. I wrote the union President about it and I never even got an answer.,

All the "right to work" for less laws have accomplished is flattening of wages, destruction of pensions, and diminishing worker rights and benefits.

I always laugh at opinions like this from "workers" because they're doing the owners dirty work for them.

YEAH ITS IN EVERY WORKERS BEST INTERESTS TO BE FORCED TO GIVE MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT FUNNELS THE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS OF THE WORKERS' WISHES

Already addressed in law and contract.
Members are allowed to specify whether any portion of dues can be used for election purposes.
Heck I'd be willing to support a ban on using union money for politics

IF

The same ban applied to corporate money.

Well, I gotta give you props for that. Most leftists think corporate money in politics is Satan's toe jam, but union money is good and righteous and holy.

But let's look at union political donations, like the AFGE.

"So far in the 2019-2020 election cycle, AFGE has donated $1,231,446 to candidates for elected office, either directly or through other political organizations. From this amount, $1,205,406 went to Democrats and liberal groups. $25,500 went to Republicans."

Do you believe 98% of government workers are Democrats?

I don't.

But then what about corporate money pushing anti-union legislation?
Do you suppose every shareholder agrees?
When Adelson drops $200M in an election cycle to promote anti-union legislation is that really one-man one-vote?

Most progressive thinking corporations that are looking to make innovations in their production processes aren't interested in bringing in Big Labor as their partners.

The reason is simple.

Union work rules make it impossible to get rid of staff even if they aren't needed any more because of technological change. Contracts dictate how many men have to be assigned to a job, even if new machines and techniques make it ridiculous.

As a result, unionized rackets lag behind Scab outfits in adopting new processes and they fall behind.

When I worked for the UFCW in a supermarket for a few seasons in the mid 1980's, their big thing was fighting against scanning machines. There were union members paying dues whose job it was to put prices on each individual item who would lose their jobs (or really just moved to other duties)

Yeah!
But wait...
Who signed the contracts?
Who held the actual gun of no pay over the other's head?

I've said union efforts need to stay in the pay/benefits/working conditions arena but don't blame unions for the tendency of management to think exactly this quarter ahead. The greed of shareholders demanding ever more profits in each and every quarter or fire management is the issue.

Do you blame the unions for taking what they can get?
Then I suppose you also blame management for giving as little as it can get away with?

Maybe give this some actual thought? Republican talking points are just so 30 years ago.

Unions are like parasites eventually killing their hosts.

If union demands kill a business, how is that good for the union workers who no longer have jobs?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice that machine gun held to the head of management forcing to sign a contract against their will.

GEEZ

Unions don't kill companies, bad management does.

The fact that the government doesn't reveal their guns doesn't mean they aren't used to enforce government policies.

Well thanks. That was useless.

I know you view facts that are inconvenient for your narrative to be "useless."

I view useless facts a useless because that is what they are.

The government has used force against workers far more often than the reverse.
The government has supported and defended owner use of force against workers WAAAAAY more often than the reverse.
The government using force against owners? SHOW ME!

Liberal Dictionary:
===========================================
Useless facts - facts that contradict the leftwing agenda

compulsory unionism is government using force against workers, dumbass.

Government protects private property. That isn't "using force against workers," unless you believe arresting hoodlums is "using force against people."

compulsory unionism - government use of force against owners and workers.

 

[bripat9643]

The government says they have to negotiate with recognized unions.

So, they're forced to "negotiate"? What does that even mean? And how does it differ from being forced to sign with the union? I smell equivocation.

I'm pretty sure that if the employees go through NLRB election process and the union wins, the employer can't just ignore them and conduct business as usual.

It means what it says.
They must negotiate and they must negotiate in good faith.

In other words, forcing private companies to comply with union demands. That isn't voluntary, moron.

The owners are not forced to sign a contract and neither are the workers.

They sure as hell are. This "in good faith" abracadabra doesn't alter the fact that the government is holding a gun to the heads of the company owners to sign a contract with a union. If the arrangement was purely voluntary, then the company could tell the union to go to hell.

If the owners, after negotiating in good faith cannot reach an agreement they can hire outside the union once the contract expires. (Assuming it is a union shop)

Who defines "good faith?" The government and the union, of course. How can anyone be stupid enough to swallow this hogwash?

Have you people actually never been around unions and unionized workers?
The level of ignorance on anything that is not owner propaganda is astounding.

I was in the carpenter's local #1391 once. The stuff you spout is union propaganda. Union members are thugs.

 

[dblack]

The government says they have to negotiate with recognized unions.

So, they're forced to "negotiate"? What does that even mean? And how does it differ from being forced to sign with the union? I smell equivocation.

I'm pretty sure that if the employees go through NLRB election process and the union wins, the employer can't just ignore them and conduct business as usual.

It means what it says.
They must negotiate and they must negotiate in good faith.
The owners are not forced to sign a contract and neither are the workers.
If the owners, after negotiating in good faith cannot reach an agreement they can hire outside the union once the contract expires. (Assuming it is a union shop)

Have you people actually never been around unions and unionized workers?
The level of ignorance on anything that is not owner propaganda is astounding.

I was in a union for fine years.

I'm pretty sure that if the employees go through NLRB election process and the union wins, the employer can't just ignore them and conduct business as usual. They are forced to play along.

Please continue equivocating.