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.

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?

Every union contract is imposed by the government, moron. Otherwise the company would tell the union to go fuck itself and operate by contracting individually with the workers.

You live in a dreamland where the words government and unions use actually mean what they pretend they mean. A free agreement means a free agreement. It means the government doesn't get involved. You just admitted the government forces companies into "binding arbitration." What part of "binding" don't you understand, eh dumbfuck?

You're a hack spouting union propaganda. The proposition that unions aren't forced on employers doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[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?

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.

You're the one who said the following:

​

"Trump didn't impose tariffs. He tried to start a trade war. "​

Which is it? Did he impose tariffs or not?

 

[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!

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.

There is no compulsory unionization, dumbass.
That claim is as stupid as generally predicted by the tiny brain theory.
Congratulations.

 

[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?

Every union contract is imposed by the government, moron. Otherwise the company would tell the union to go fuck itself and operate by contracting individually with the workers.

You live in a dreamland where the words government and unions use actually mean what they pretend they mean. A free agreement means a free agreement. It means the government doesn't get involved. You just admitted the government forces companies into "binding arbitration." What part of "binding" don't you understand, eh dumbfuck?

You're a hack spouting union propaganda. The proposition that unions aren't forced on employers doesn't pass the laugh test.

Like a black hole your ignorance is so deep not a single rational thought can escape.

"In the previously noted circumstance it can force the parties into binding arbitration IF the contract calls for arbitration."

And apparently not a single rational thought can enter either.
Got reading, moron?

 

[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.

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.

companies have to negotiate in good faith with legally formed unions.
Companies do not have to sign contracts.

Apparently this thing that has never happened is the one thing you people cannot get into your tiny brains.

 

[BluesLegend]

Unions are a corrupted Dem money scam. Dems take money from taxpayers, gift it to unions to buy their votes, unions kick back part of the money to make sure the corrupt Dems get re-elected.

 

[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.

You're the one who said the following:

​

"Trump didn't impose tariffs. He tried to start a trade war. "​

Which is it? Did he impose tariffs or not?

He tried to start a trade war. tariffs only served to turn hard working farmers into welfare queens.

 

[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?

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.

You're the one who said the following:

​

"Trump didn't impose tariffs. He tried to start a trade war. "​

Which is it? Did he impose tariffs or not?

He tried to start a trade war. tariffs only served to turn hard working farmers into welfare queens.

All you leftwing turds supported tariffs until Trump got into office.

 

[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.
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.

companies have to negotiate in good faith with legally formed unions.
Companies do not have to sign contracts.

Apparently this thing that has never happened is the one thing you people cannot get into your tiny brains.

In other words, the government compels them to sign a union contract. That isn't voluntary, moron.

 

[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

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?

Every union contract is imposed by the government, moron. Otherwise the company would tell the union to go fuck itself and operate by contracting individually with the workers.

You live in a dreamland where the words government and unions use actually mean what they pretend they mean. A free agreement means a free agreement. It means the government doesn't get involved. You just admitted the government forces companies into "binding arbitration." What part of "binding" don't you understand, eh dumbfuck?

You're a hack spouting union propaganda. The proposition that unions aren't forced on employers doesn't pass the laugh test.

Like a black hole your ignorance is so deep not a single rational thought can escape.

"In the previously noted circumstance it can force the parties into binding arbitration IF the contract calls for arbitration."

And apparently not a single rational thought can enter either.
Got reading, moron?

The contract isn't agreed to voluntarily, moron.

Do you know what the word "voluntary" means?

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

You're the one who said the following:

​

"Trump didn't impose tariffs. He tried to start a trade war. "​

Which is it? Did he impose tariffs or not?

He tried to start a trade war. tariffs only served to turn hard working farmers into welfare queens.

All you leftwing turds supported tariffs until Trump got into office.

Dems who to LOVE to tax Americans even daring to speak about tariffs...stunning.

 

[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.

There is no compulsory unionization, dumbass.
That claim is as stupid as generally predicted by the tiny brain theory.
Congratulations.

Yes there is, turd. You have already admitted it. Employers are complelled to "negotiate" with union 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.

companies have to negotiate in good faith with legally formed unions.

"Legally formed unions" means the union is forced on the employer. That's the equivocation I'm talking about. Labor law is force. Deny that is lying.

Companies do not have to sign contracts.

Then what the fuck does "negotiate in good faith" mean???

If their position is "we don't want a fucking union contract", how do they "negotiate in good faith"??

You're lying. In the end, it's crammed down their throats.

 

[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.

You're the one who said the following:

​

"Trump didn't impose tariffs. He tried to start a trade war. "​

Which is it? Did he impose tariffs or not?

He tried to start a trade war. tariffs only served to turn hard working farmers into welfare queens.

All you leftwing turds supported tariffs until Trump got into office.

And I guess all you turd-munchers hated tariffs until....

It's just too too easy!

 

[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.

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.

companies have to negotiate in good faith with legally formed unions.
Companies do not have to sign contracts.

Apparently this thing that has never happened is the one thing you people cannot get into your tiny brains.

In other words, the government compels them to sign a union contract. That isn't voluntary, moron.

Please be stupid elsewhere.
That doesn't happen.
That can't happen except in situations involving national defense.
No business is forced to sign any contract, much less a stupid contract.
Put the blame for business failures where it belongs. Management and owner greed.
Neither the government nor the workers are responsible for that stupidity.

 

[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?

Every union contract is imposed by the government, moron. Otherwise the company would tell the union to go fuck itself and operate by contracting individually with the workers.

You live in a dreamland where the words government and unions use actually mean what they pretend they mean. A free agreement means a free agreement. It means the government doesn't get involved. You just admitted the government forces companies into "binding arbitration." What part of "binding" don't you understand, eh dumbfuck?

You're a hack spouting union propaganda. The proposition that unions aren't forced on employers doesn't pass the laugh test.

Like a black hole your ignorance is so deep not a single rational thought can escape.

"In the previously noted circumstance it can force the parties into binding arbitration IF the contract calls for arbitration."

And apparently not a single rational thought can enter either.
Got reading, moron?

The contract isn't agreed to voluntarily, moron.

Do you know what the word "voluntary" means?

Yes, it was.
while the govt can enforce binding arbitration if it is in the contract it cannot force either side to sign a contract including binding arbitration nor can it force arbitration on the parties if arbitration is not in the contract, nor can the government force either side to negotiate once negotiations break down as long as both sides are negotiating in good faith.

Can you understand the meaning of "IF"?

I thought not.

 

[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.

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.

companies have to negotiate in good faith with legally formed unions.

"Legally formed unions" means the union is forced on the employer. That's the equivocation I'm talking about. Labor law is force. Deny that is lying.

Companies do not have to sign contracts.

Then what the fuck does "negotiate in good faith" mean???

If their position is "we don't want a fucking union contract", how do they "negotiate in good faith"??

You're lying. In the end, it's crammed down their throats.

Understand what stock is?
So how is owners pooling their money and taking ownership in the form of stock then hiring someone to negotiate any different than workers pooling their assets, labor, and hiring someone to negotiate on their behalf?

What if, absent any government interference, the workers simply marched in and took the business for themselves?
OK with that?
No?

Then you finally begin to understand whose side government is really on.

Now go apply this newfound knowledge to the rest of your arguments and see just how silly you are.

You Are Welcome!

 

[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.

companies have to negotiate in good faith with legally formed unions.

"Legally formed unions" means the union is forced on the employer. That's the equivocation I'm talking about. Labor law is force. Deny that is lying.

Companies do not have to sign contracts.

Then what the fuck does "negotiate in good faith" mean???

If their position is "we don't want a fucking union contract", how do they "negotiate in good faith"??

You're lying. In the end, it's crammed down their throats.

Understand what stock is?
So how is owners pooling their money and taking ownership in the form of stock then hiring someone to negotiate any different than workers pooling their assets, labor, and hiring someone to negotiate on their behalf?

What if, absent any government interference, the workers simply marched in and took the business for themselves?
OK with that?
No?

Then you finally begin to understand whose side government is really on.

Now go apply this newfound knowledge to the rest of your arguments and see just how silly you are.

You Are Welcome!

Ok, good. At least now you're admitting that unions are forced on employers by law, and you've moved on to rationalizing it. We're making progress!

 

[dudmuck]

 

[justinacolmena]

They cant ban right to work laws. What hogwash.

Sure they can. They make higher wages and more pay at work on the job in the industry if they can deprive others of the right to work.