Freedom wins...big government loses...Boeing Bill passes

[bripat9643]

Workers have that choice even in the absence of "right-to-work" laws. What "right-to-work" laws do is give non-union employers the power to freeload off of the bargaining efforts of the unionized employees.

"Freeloading is a union thug euphemism meaning "take a job that's been offered."

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. You really should learn to read. Unions negotiate for a higher wage/benefit package, then the non-union freeloader in the shop get the same package, even though they didn't pay any of the costs of negotiating it.

That's pure union propaganda. When union thugs can't use extortion to impose higher wages on a business, then the pay offered will depend on your skill level and performance. There's no "freeloading" involved. That only occurs when lazy union employees get paid the same rate no matter how hard they work.

 

[Dragon]

Wrong. He states the simple fact that union strikes cost Boeing billions of dollars and threaten it's ability to stay in business. That isn't "retaliation." That is stating the business reason for the move.

It's also retaliation. The law says that a business cannot end the jobs of union members in retaliation for any lawful union action, including a strike. As this relocation would end the jobs of union members and is being done in retaliation for the strike, it is unlawful.

When the company adds that the strike cost the company a lot of money, that's not adding anything pertinent. It's just whining. A strike is supposed to cost the company money, otherwise there's no point to striking at all. In any case, a company can no more relocate so as to break a union than it can fire people for trying to form one.

 

[bripat9643]

So you're saying we should assume the business owner is so irrational that he'll agree to a deal that puts himself out a business? That's a bizarre belief.

He has no choice if union thugs are holding a gun to his head, and that's exactly what the NLRB does. It forces businesses to agree to union extortion. That is exactly what is going on in the case of the Boeing plant. Either Boeing caves to union extortion, or the NLRB forces them to shut down their plant and lose billions of dollars.

The NLRB is a criminal organization.

 

[Dragon]

That's pure union propaganda.

No, it's entirely true and a documented fact. Strong unions raise the pay of everyone across the board, including those who don't belong to unions. The reason this happens is that the owner of a non-union company in an industry with a strong union presence has to pay his people something in the range of union scale, or he risks both losing people to union companies and increasing his own employees' incentive to organize.

When union thugs can't use extortion to impose higher wages on a business, then the pay offered will depend on your skill level and performance.

Companies never pay employees what they deserve based on skill level and performance. Companies pay the wages that they must, just as they pay the cost that they must for all expenses of doing business. The only way to increase wages paid is to make companies pay more, in one way or another.

EDIT: Oh, and as already noted, this isn't going anywhere, it will die in the Senate. And as for the Democrats being punished for supporting unions:

http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/04/01/new-poll-numbers-show-support-for-unions-over-union-busting-governors/

 

[Full-Auto]

Wrong. He states the simple fact that union strikes cost Boeing billions of dollars and threaten it's ability to stay in business. That isn't "retaliation." That is stating the business reason for the move.

It's also retaliation. The law says that a business cannot end the jobs of union members in retaliation for any lawful union action, including a strike. As this relocation would end the jobs of union members and is being done in retaliation for the strike, it is unlawful.

When the company adds that the strike cost the company a lot of money, that's not adding anything pertinent. It's just whining. A strike is supposed to cost the company money, otherwise there's no point to striking at all. In any case, a company can no more relocate so as to break a union than it can fire people for trying to form one.

It is not ending union jobs, there numbers just increased. They are attempting a monopoly of where the aircraft are built.

 

[Dragon]

It is not ending union jobs, there numbers just increased.

The number of union jobs increased with this move? Document that, please.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not extortion. Any sort of business dealing has costs.

ROFL! Yeah, like the cost he incurs when Guido the leg breaker says pay for his "protection" or you might have an "accident" of some kind. Those are the kinds of "costs" that unions impose.

I just love all the subtle euphemisms organized labor has developed to explain their "services." They are so similar to the language the Mafia uses that it's hilarious.

 

[bripat9643]

Your problem is that you assume that because it's not the first-choice deal for the business, that it would destroy them. That's not even remotely accurate.

Yeah, and the deal offered by Guido the leg breaker is also not a "first choice deal" for the business.

 

[Dragon]

I just love all the subtle euphemisms organized labor has developed to explain their "services." They are so similar to the language the Mafia uses that it's hilarious.

A better set of terms might perhaps be borrowed from the military. You know, arming ourselves so that we can fight with business as equals instead of being slaughtered without any ability to fight back, that sort of thing. Because that's really what it is.

 

[Full-Auto]

It is not ending union jobs, there numbers just increased.

The number of union jobs increased with this move? Document that, please.

Did I say this move? I said their numbers have increased. Due to the new liner. So the union couldnt have possibly lost jobs. They have increased. Boeing is also trying to double production. But the union is trying to block it and trying to force its existing capacity run double shifts for production.

 

[dcbl]

So you're saying we should assume the business owner is so irrational that he'll agree to a deal that puts himself out a business? That's a bizarre belief.

He has no choice if union thugs are holding a gun to his head, and that's exactly what the NLRB does. It forces businesses to agree to union extortion. That is exactly what is going on in the case of the Boeing plant. Either Boeing caves to union extortion, or the NLRB forces them to shut down their plant and lose billions of dollars.

The NLRB is a criminal organization.

Just another day in paradise in the new Peoples Republic of Amerika!

 

[bripat9643]

They don't have to negotiate a contract they're happy with. "Right-to-work" gives them the ability to free-ride on the negotiations of the union.

Only the criminal mentality would condone that idea that a union has the right to tell people who they can work. What gives 'A' the right to interfere in any negotiation between 'B' and 'C?' If I go to car dealer 'A' and he offers to sell me a car for 'X' and then I go to car dealer 'B' and he offers to sell me the same car for 'X-y,' according to you, dealer 'B' is a "free loader." It's obviously just a derogatory term for anyone who offers a better deal.

No one wants the deal the union offers.

Live with it.

 

[Full-Auto]

So you're saying we should assume the business owner is so irrational that he'll agree to a deal that puts himself out a business? That's a bizarre belief.

He has no choice if union thugs are holding a gun to his head, and that's exactly what the NLRB does. It forces businesses to agree to union extortion. That is exactly what is going on in the case of the Boeing plant. Either Boeing caves to union extortion, or the NLRB forces them to shut down their plant and lose billions of dollars.

The NLRB is a criminal organization.

Just another day in paradise in the new Peoples Republic of Amerika!

Isnt this meaningless? will the senate pass its version? Would Mr big union himself sign it into law?

Not a fat chance in hell.

 

[Dragon]

Did I say this move? I said their numbers have increased. Due to the new liner.

Then you are introducing irrelevant factors. The point is that the company is accused of relocating the factory to another state in retaliation for a strike. What goes on elsewhere in the company has nothing to do with that. Either they actually did make the move in retaliation for the strike or they did not. If they did, they broke the law. The matter is in court at this time, I believe.

The bill passed by the House is intended to remove the NLRB's ability to enforce the law.

 

[bripat9643]

They don't have to negotiate a contract they're happy with. "Right-to-work" gives them the ability to free-ride on the negotiations of the union.

It also gives them the right to negotiate their own contract, should they choose to.

I know waht I would be satisfied with... what I need... what would make me happy... a shit lot more than some union jagoff.

But that ends up being an irrelevant point, since almost all workers would get more under the union deal than they would get via individual negotiation. The result is that all workers prefer the union deal to individual deals, but if they can get the union deal without paying the costs for the union, why would they do so? The result is that the union collapses because no one joins it (no one has incentive to do so if they can get all the benefits of union membership without being a member). Think of it like a country club. If you could get all of the benefits of club membership for free, why would you ever join?

Of course, when you join a country club, you are negotiating with the owners. The union doesn't own your job or the corporation. It's a third party with no skin in game. It has no right to insert itself in the negotiations if neither part is interested in it's "assistance."

 

[Full-Auto]

Did I say this move? I said their numbers have increased. Due to the new liner.

Then you are introducing irrelevant factors. The point is that the company is accused of relocating the factory to another state in retaliation for a strike. What goes on elsewhere in the company has nothing to do with that. Either they actually did make the move in retaliation for the strike or they did not. If they did, they broke the law. The matter is in court at this time, I believe.

The bill passed by the House is intended to remove the NLRB's ability to enforce the law.

Then you entered a false claim of stating they are losing jobs.

THATS FALSE.

 

[dcbl]

Did I say this move? I said their numbers have increased. Due to the new liner.

Then you are introducing irrelevant factors. The point is that the company is accused of relocating the factory to another state in retaliation for a strike. What goes on elsewhere in the company has nothing to do with that. Either they actually did make the move in retaliation for the strike or they did not. If they did, they broke the law. The matter is in court at this time, I believe.

The bill passed by the House is intended to remove the NLRB's ability to enforce the law.

The law will get shot down.

We'll use it as campaign fodder - more votes for the good guys!

We'll pass the law in 2013.

And the beat goes on...

 

[mudwhistle]

This is good news.

Harry Reid and Obama are more interested in keeping unions happy then they are in creating jobs.

It will never come to a vote in the Senate as long as the Dems control it.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. He states the simple fact that union strikes cost Boeing billions of dollars and threaten it's ability to stay in business. That isn't "retaliation." That is stating the business reason for the move.

It's also retaliation. The law says that a business cannot end the jobs of union members in retaliation for any lawful union action, including a strike. As this relocation would end the jobs of union members and is being done in retaliation for the strike, it is unlawful.

No union jobs are being ended. No one is being laid off in the Seattle plant.

Furthermore, the law is just plain immoral. Why shouldn't a company be allowed to retaliate against a union? Why shouldn't it be able to take its jobs elsewhere if it can't abide the contract the union and the NLRB rams down its throat?

When the company adds that the strike cost the company a lot of money, that's not adding anything pertinent. It's just whining.

ROFL! It's only "not pertinent" to thugs. making money is the only thing pertinent to a business. That's the only reason businesses exist.

A strike is supposed to cost the company money, otherwise there's no point to striking at all. In any case, a company can no more relocate so as to break a union than it can fire people for trying to form one.

Boeing isn't "relocating." That being said, I seen no reason private firms can't run union thugs off of their premises. All the NLRB does is legalize thuggery.