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

[OKTexas]

Public, unions, yes. We didn't have to go to court, we got what we wanted.

And I'll grant the lawyers.

It's really the entire point of unions these days, from negotiating contracts to recognizing breech of contract to taking it to court they are the real power behind the labor union, not the stereotypical thug many are fond of envisioning. You can bet management can afford lawyers galore but what about a non-unionized workforce who feel cheated? Even if a non-unionized workforce pools their resources how can they afford to pay lawyers or even know where to start in a class action lawsuit or protect themselves from retaliation?

If ya have to get a lawyer, why do we pay the NLRB?

 

[occupied]

Actually, lawyers are exactly the kinds of thugs I envision when it comes to this kind of corruption.

I suppose the legal team every big business has on retainer are filled to the brim with integrity? The quickest way to get robbed in this country is by contract and corporate lawyers are quite skilled at doing it. It almost sounds like you think workers should be disarmed in this situation.

Not at all. The problem is the privilege and perks our government grants to corporations. The answer is not to "balance" the corruption by granting "equal" perks and favors to other favored interest groups (in this case the unions). The answer is to end the corporatism that creates the injustice in the first place, and replace it with genuine rule of law where government protects equal rights for everyone, not special rights depending on which group you belong to.

That's fine but I suppose you would be OK with them stripping unions and workers of their rights and getting around to taming the corporations later? In this current political environment where standing up for the working poor= socialist class warfare it will be much, much later.

 

[occupied]

And I'll grant the lawyers.

It's really the entire point of unions these days, from negotiating contracts to recognizing breech of contract to taking it to court they are the real power behind the labor union, not the stereotypical thug many are fond of envisioning. You can bet management can afford lawyers galore but what about a non-unionized workforce who feel cheated? Even if a non-unionized workforce pools their resources how can they afford to pay lawyers or even know where to start in a class action lawsuit or protect themselves from retaliation?

If ya have to get a lawyer, why do we pay the NLRB?

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

 

[OKTexas]

It's really the entire point of unions these days, from negotiating contracts to recognizing breech of contract to taking it to court they are the real power behind the labor union, not the stereotypical thug many are fond of envisioning. You can bet management can afford lawyers galore but what about a non-unionized workforce who feel cheated? Even if a non-unionized workforce pools their resources how can they afford to pay lawyers or even know where to start in a class action lawsuit or protect themselves from retaliation?

If ya have to get a lawyer, why do we pay the NLRB?

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

Hell if we are to believe you libs the commiecrats are going to be in the WH for the rest of time or the Mayan apocalypse which ever comes first, so whats the problem. Won't your dear leader fix it, or should I ask, hasn't your dear leader fixed it already?

 

[occupied]

If ya have to get a lawyer, why do we pay the NLRB?

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

Hell if we are to believe you libs the commiecrats are going to be in the WH for the rest of time or the Mayan apocalypse which ever comes first, so whats the problem. Won't your dear leader fix it, or should I ask, hasn't your dear leader fixed it already?

Perhaps things are on a turn-around but fixing thirty years of plutocratic corporate ass-kissing might take a while and face some stiff resistance, especially with people like you cloaking all their anti-worker agendas in patriotic lies. You know this union busting crap is entirely a corporate agenda that favors the greed of a few and just don't care, typical you also go to the stupid "dear leader" crap when you are prepared to sell out every single American worker to your dear billionaire leaders.

 

[asterism]

It's really the entire point of unions these days, from negotiating contracts to recognizing breech of contract to taking it to court they are the real power behind the labor union, not the stereotypical thug many are fond of envisioning. You can bet management can afford lawyers galore but what about a non-unionized workforce who feel cheated? Even if a non-unionized workforce pools their resources how can they afford to pay lawyers or even know where to start in a class action lawsuit or protect themselves from retaliation?

If ya have to get a lawyer, why do we pay the NLRB?

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

You are falsely equating union member or supporter with worker. The vast majority of the workforce is not union. The overwhelming majority of workers vote against unionization when they have the option.

 

[SniperFire]

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

Hell if we are to believe you libs the commiecrats are going to be in the WH for the rest of time or the Mayan apocalypse which ever comes first, so whats the problem. Won't your dear leader fix it, or should I ask, hasn't your dear leader fixed it already?

Perhaps things are on a turn-around but fixing thirty years of plutocratic corporate ass-kissing might take a while and face some stiff resistance, especially with people like you cloaking all their anti-worker agendas in patriotic lies. You know this union busting crap is entirely a corporate agenda that favors the greed of a few and just don't care, typical you also go to the stupid "dear leader" crap when you are prepared to sell out every single American worker to your dear billionaire leaders.

Labor's share of total income has dropped to a 60 year low.....
........ in Europe.

Not even the socialists can make the modern union work for the good of the common man.

Europe clings to scorched-earth ideology as depression deepens - Telegraph

RTW will force the Unions to re-invent themselves for the 21st century. This is a good thing.

 

[occupied]

If ya have to get a lawyer, why do we pay the NLRB?

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

You are falsely equating union member or supporter with worker. The vast majority of the workforce is not union. The overwhelming majority of workers vote against unionization when they have the option.

I look at the entire anti-worker campaign as a whole rather than split it up into issues. Unions have been under legal, legislative and ideological attack for thirty years or more. The people leading this attack often say things like "unions used to be a good thing but they no longer serve a purpose as there are now laws to protect workers" while simultaneously sabotaging and circumventing the government's ability to enforce those laws. Conservatives have become so anti-worker that it sickens me, Anti-union is just a small part that includes attacks on all worker protections including minimum wage, working hours, paid overtime, pensions, safety, environmental, etc.

 

[OKTexas]

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

Hell if we are to believe you libs the commiecrats are going to be in the WH for the rest of time or the Mayan apocalypse which ever comes first, so whats the problem. Won't your dear leader fix it, or should I ask, hasn't your dear leader fixed it already?

Perhaps things are on a turn-around but fixing thirty years of plutocratic corporate ass-kissing might take a while and face some stiff resistance, especially with people like you cloaking all their anti-worker agendas in patriotic lies. You know this union busting crap is entirely a corporate agenda that favors the greed of a few and just don't care, typical you also go to the stupid "dear leader" crap when you are prepared to sell out every single American worker to your dear billionaire leaders.

You really have no idea of the corrupt and abusive leviathans your advocating for do you. I can speak with first hand knowledge of the UAW, my mothers family were in the UAW at GM and Fisher Body and fairly high up in the union. They came to our house on vacation while some one at the plant punched them in and out for weeks at a time. They were thieves that abused their positions in the union, and it was a common practice. They were a large part of the reason they US tax payer got to bail out GM. Then to add insult to injury your dear leader gave the freaking union 40% of the company. The major unions are as corrupt if not more so than the corporations they rail against. So get over your fantasies about the benevolent unions and try facing reality for a change. Unions abuse their members money by contributing to political organizations they disapprove of, so have your unions but don't force the people that disagree with their policies to pay their tribute.

Once again I'll ask, do you think workers are smart enough to decide if a union is of real value to them?

 

[Si modo]

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

You are falsely equating union member or supporter with worker. The vast majority of the workforce is not union. The overwhelming majority of workers vote against unionization when they have the option.

I look at the entire anti-worker campaign as a whole rather than split it up into issues. Unions have been under legal, legislative and ideological attack for thirty years or more. The people leading this attack often say things like "unions used to be a good thing but they no longer serve a purpose as there are now laws to protect workers" while simultaneously sabotaging and circumventing the government's ability to enforce those laws. Conservatives have become so anti-worker that it sickens me, Anti-union is just a small part that includes attacks on all worker protections including minimum wage, working hours, paid overtime, pensions, safety, environmental, etc.

Those promoting RTW are pro-workers and pro-equality. In non-RTW states, only certain workers are protected.

In RTW states, ALL workers have equal protection under the law.

You, on the other hand, being the authoritarian nutcase that you are, do not want folks to have equal protection under the law and want to rob workers of making choices for them selves.

 

[occupied]

Hell if we are to believe you libs the commiecrats are going to be in the WH for the rest of time or the Mayan apocalypse which ever comes first, so whats the problem. Won't your dear leader fix it, or should I ask, hasn't your dear leader fixed it already?

Perhaps things are on a turn-around but fixing thirty years of plutocratic corporate ass-kissing might take a while and face some stiff resistance, especially with people like you cloaking all their anti-worker agendas in patriotic lies. You know this union busting crap is entirely a corporate agenda that favors the greed of a few and just don't care, typical you also go to the stupid "dear leader" crap when you are prepared to sell out every single American worker to your dear billionaire leaders.

You really have no idea of the corrupt and abusive leviathans your advocating for do you. I can speak with first hand knowledge of the UAW, my mothers family were in the UAW at GM and Fisher Body and fairly high up in the union. They came to our house on vacation while some one at the plant punched them in and out for weeks at a time. They were thieves that abused their positions in the union, and it was a common practice. They were a large part of the reason they US tax payer got to bail out GM. Then to add insult to injury your dear leader gave the freaking union 40% of the company. The major unions are as corrupt if not more so than the corporations they rail against. So get over your fantasies about the benevolent unions and try facing reality for a change. Unions abuse their members money by contributing to political organizations they disapprove of, so have your unions but don't force the people that disagree with their policies to pay their tribute.

Once again I'll ask, do you think workers are smart enough to decide if a union is of real value to them?

I'm supposed to buy your anecdote at face value while you jump to defend anything a predator in a $1000 suit does to make a pile? You do not give shit about fraud and corruption when the plutocrats do it, why should I believe you care about anything in the issue other than making it even easier to exploit people? All through this you have not moved an inch to admit that there might be problem with anything other than "corrupt unions" standing in the way of progress, which sometimes includes fucking working people over without remorse. Shove your question up your ass, I gave you my answer already, you just didn't like it.

 

[Amelia]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

You're really making me think here.

I believe that unions have hurt their own prospects by excess.

However, you're making me think about what the alternative is, and making me realize I don't understand the laws which protect striking workers. It's easy to say people have the right under the constitution to form a general union, but how do they get effective leverage when there is a real need for it? How much is this interwined in law and how much should it be?

A lot to consider.

 

[occupied]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

You're really making me think here.

I believe that unions have hurt their own prospects by excess.

However, you're making me think about what the alternative is, and making me realize I don't understand the laws which protect striking workers. It's easy to say people have the right under the constitution to form a general union, but how do they get effective leverage when there is a real need for it? How much is this interwined in law and how much should it be?

A lot to consider.

It is a lot to consider, I've spent my life thinking about it and am frequently faced with moral dilemmas, I am fully aware of the abuses of trust committed by labor unions in the past but overall I feel them to be better than what the death of the labor movement will mean to American workers.

 

[OKTexas]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

You're really making me think here.

I believe that unions have hurt their own prospects by excess.

However, you're making me think about what the alternative is, and making me realize I don't understand the laws which protect striking workers. It's easy to say people have the right under the constitution to form a general union, but how do they get effective leverage when there is a real need for it? How much is this interwined in law and how much should it be?

A lot to consider.

It is a lot to consider, I've spent my life thinking about it and am frequently faced with moral dilemmas, I am fully aware of the abuses of trust committed by labor unions in the past but overall I feel them to be better than what the death of the labor movement will mean to American workers.

You really want to know how to fix it? Try dissolving the national unions and make all unions local, and require them to re-certify periodically. That would make the union more accountable to their members. If the union wants to milk the company in good times, have built in concessions in the contract, should the economy turn to shit. That would make a company more willing to share the wealth during the good times if the know they aren't going to be stuck with the same terms during the bad times. As it is now unions make demands regardless of the natural business cycle, unions tend to think short term, where the company has to think long term.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

I oppose collectives of any kind.
That includes the act of collective "bargaining"..
Labor collectives breed mediocrity and complacency.
In a collective there is no room for merit because there is no allowance for individual achievement. The enigma of labor collectives is that the most mediocre worker is rewarded just as well as the outstanding.
Collective bargaining is a misnomer. Basically the management of a company was taken to a room to meet with a union boss and maybe an attorney. The union boss would TELL the company the terms of the next contract and the attorney would be there to make sure the contract was signed.
To answer your question directly, yes, workers have the right to be represented in collective bargaining. DO they have that right in all states? Yes.
The point of this thread is actually moot. The right to collective bargaining is the law.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

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


however.... the employer should ALSO have the right to fire anyone who walks off the job, obstructs others from doing their jobs or preventing anyone from patronizing the employer....and replacing them.

That would kind of negate the sole leverage workers have in a strike would it not? So the your answer is no?

No..In the presence of a labor collective to represent workers, the ownership of the employing firm, should have the right to terminate all business with the union at the end of a contract.
For example, if the labor agreement between the union and the company ends, the company should at it's sole discretion choose to no longer do business with the union.
If the union should advise their members to cease work, the relationship is over and the company simply hires new people and everyone goes on about their business.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The whole idea of everyone walking off the job is to bring what every the job is.... to a screeching halt.

fine... if they can get an employer to bow to that pressure.... fine.

if not... and an employer digs in and replaces everyone..... then they lost. Pretty simple.

I saw an HBO special on a Stella D'Oro bakery plant in the Bronx, NY. Now of course the show was biased toward the workers, but I watched it anyway. I wanted to see the attitudes of the workers as they were interviewed and the camera views of their homes, cars boats, where they went out to eat, how they dressed, etc..
As the show progressed, the viewer would realize that these people all made LOTS of money. They all lived in single family homes in the suburbs, some had multiple cars. Some had boats. A couple of them had vacation homes in upstate NY...All very good for them. They worked for it, their union got them the pay so they could afford all of these things.
What pissed me off about it was many things. One the workers portrayed the company as cheap. They all said they were just simple working people trying to get by. One guy lamented that the company was jeopardizing his kid's opportunity to go to a private High school in New York City?....HUH?!!!!!!
Toward the last segment, the story turned to the lengthy strike and how the workers were losing their lifestyle. here's the galling aspect of this....These people made gobs of money. They saved NONE OF IT...Or so it would seem. They were so used to living very nice lives, they never bothered putting some of the money aside for a rainy day. They had no savings.
SO the sob story was the focal point in the last segment of the show..
Ok, so the union brings the plant management to court. The judge issues an injunction in support of the union in that Stella D'Oro had to let the workers have their raises, etc with NO concessions. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY...The workers cheered. We go out jobs back..Whoooooopie"..Meanwhile the whole issue was the plant owners told the union the costs to run the planet had gotten to the point that without reductions in wages and employees paying a larger portion of their benefits, the plant was in jeopardy.
Two days after the judge issued the injunction, the plant owners called in the workers and told them the plant was shutting down. Done...
The bottom line is the strike cost the company so much money in lost profits AND the fact that soon afterwards the Stella D'oro brand was sold to I think Nabisco.
All of this because of the union. Had the union not been there, yeah, those workers would not have had boats, kids in private schools or vacation homes, but they would have still been making livable wages and providing for their families.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

They expect the nanny state to dictate to unions and business what kinds of agreements they make between one another.

Its completely anti-free market. MARKET FORCES should determine whether or not a business is a union shop - not the NANNY STATE.

 

[Si modo]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

They expect the nanny state to dictate to unions and business what kinds of agreements they make between one another.

Its completely anti-free market. MARKET FORCES should determine whether or not a business is a union shop - not the NANNY STATE.

Exactly. That's why nanny state laws are being decimated with RTW legislation.

 

[SniperFire]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

They expect the nanny state to dictate to unions and business what kinds of agreements they make between one another.

Its completely anti-free market. MARKET FORCES should determine whether or not a business is a union shop - not the NANNY STATE.

Correct!

Then again, if market forces actually dictated instead of the NANNY STATE LABOR LAWS which protect Unions, we wouldn't have a problem.