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

[zakdavis]

Your false assumption is that the NLRB should exist ad a government agency.

Then lets have really strong unions instead

Never forget in this debate that those who fund the lobbying efforts on this front are not after anything less than a Chinese work environment in America, why else should the same people who union bust also be after abolishing the minimum wage and have also pretty much killed the 40-hour work week?

That is a tad hyperbole, as some of us want right to work laws and stronger labor laws.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Your false assumption is that the NLRB should exist ad a government agency.

Then lets have really strong unions instead

Never forget in this debate that those who fund the lobbying efforts on this front are not after anything less than a Chinese work environment in America, why else should the same people who union bust also be after abolishing the minimum wage and have also pretty much killed the 40-hour work week?

Just cut the conspiracy theorist pro union bullshit.
Hey comrade, I grew up in the NY Metro area. Every time a union boss farted, we heard this rhetoric. It's not new. The "Chinese" just replaced the previous scapegoat.

 

[zakdavis]

Your false assumption is that the NLRB should exist ad a government agency.

Then lets have really strong unions instead

Let's have strong unions who make themselves strong by showing their value, not by coercing people to join.

The lawyers are free (union dues) on your part. I hadn't remembered that until the other day.

 

[occupied]

Then lets have really strong unions instead

Never forget in this debate that those who fund the lobbying efforts on this front are not after anything less than a Chinese work environment in America, why else should the same people who union bust also be after abolishing the minimum wage and have also pretty much killed the 40-hour work week?

That is a tad hyperbole, as some of us want right to work laws and stronger labor laws.

Not going to get them if you keep enabling the union busters, It is not that hard to find impassioned pleas for an end to federal minimum wage laws from the same people, coincidence? I think not.

 

[zakdavis]

Never forget in this debate that those who fund the lobbying efforts on this front are not after anything less than a Chinese work environment in America, why else should the same people who union bust also be after abolishing the minimum wage and have also pretty much killed the 40-hour work week?

That is a tad hyperbole, as some of us want right to work laws and stronger labor laws.

Not going to get them if you keep enabling the union busters, It is not that hard to find impassioned pleas for an end to federal minimum wage laws from the same people, coincidence? I think not.

Sure you can get them-you vote and campaign for people who want the strong labor laws. We already have several federal groups already in place, and it we could always give them more powers and abilities.

 

[Clementine]

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've got it backwards. Unions are fine and anyone wishing to join one should be allowed to do so, just so no one is ever forced to join in order to work.

Collective bargaining tends to protect the worst workers. I don't know why raises and such shouldn't be decided on an individual basis. It's dishonest to call collective bargaining an exploration of a right. Seems a way to get around incompetency. Doing the least amount of work for the most amount of money isn't a right.

It's not usually the workers who bargain and decide to strike. Often, they are simply told to strike by the union bosses and not all people are happy about it.

Do you think unions tend to tell people what is best for them and order them to bargain or strike based on what they think rather than what the workers really want?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 act like employees have a right to declare themselves partners in a business with no investment in that business other than their time for which they are compensated. Compensation I might add that they agreed to. There are laws in place that are available to them if the employer doesn't do as required. They have every right to make suggestions to the employer to improve the work place, but the guy that has his life and money in the company that has the final say. If they think that's not good enough there is no one holding a gun to their head to stay there. That gives both parties the FREEDOM to continue the relationship or not.

It’s ignorant and inappropriate to argue that the ‘solution’ to a workplace issue is for the adversely effected employee to ‘quit’ and find another job.

The notion that employer and employee are somehow on ‘equal ground’ is idiocy.

As the Supreme Court noted when upholding Washington State’s minimum wage law:

There is an additional and compelling consideration which recent economic experience has brought into a strong light. The exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power, and are thus relatively defenceless against the denial of a living wage, is not only detrimental to their health and wellbeing, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

The Constitutional right to form a union and bargain collectively is the only effective means afforded workers who individually would be at a great disadvantage.

 

[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've got it backwards. Unions are fine and anyone wishing to join one should be allowed to do so, just so no one is ever forced to join in order to work.

Collective bargaining tends to protect the worst workers. I don't know why raises and such shouldn't be decided on an individual basis. It's dishonest to call collective bargaining an exploration of a right. Seems a way to get around incompetency. Doing the least amount of work for the most amount of money isn't a right.

It's not usually the workers who bargain and decide to strike. Often, they are simply told to strike by the union bosses and not all people are happy about it.

Do you think unions tend to tell people what is best for them and order them to bargain or strike based on what they think rather than what the workers really want?

What a crock, workers are not told to go on strike, they vote to go on strike and they vote frequently to continue to strike otherwise it is not a legal strike protected by federal 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?

You act like employees have a right to declare themselves partners in a business with no investment in that business other than their time for which they are compensated. Compensation I might add that they agreed to. There are laws in place that are available to them if the employer doesn't do as required. They have every right to make suggestions to the employer to improve the work place, but the guy that has his life and money in the company that has the final say. If they think that's not good enough there is no one holding a gun to their head to stay there. That gives both parties the FREEDOM to continue the relationship or not.

It’s ignorant and inappropriate to argue that the ‘solution’ to a workplace issue is for the adversely effected employee to ‘quit’ and find another job.

The notion that employer and employee are somehow on ‘equal ground’ is idiocy.

As the Supreme Court noted when upholding Washington State’s minimum wage law:

There is an additional and compelling consideration which recent economic experience has brought into a strong light. The exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power, and are thus relatively defenceless against the denial of a living wage, is not only detrimental to their health and wellbeing, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

The Constitutional right to form a union and bargain collectively is the only effective means afforded workers who individually would be at a great disadvantage.

Umm. While the US Constitution states the right to freedom of assembly( or association) may not be abridged by the government, the constitution is silent on labor collectives.
Don't confuse the right to peacefully assemble with anything close to what you suggest. That seems to be" we have the right to form labor unions and employers must accept them"..Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

[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?

You've got it backwards. Unions are fine and anyone wishing to join one should be allowed to do so, just so no one is ever forced to join in order to work.

Collective bargaining tends to protect the worst workers. I don't know why raises and such shouldn't be decided on an individual basis. It's dishonest to call collective bargaining an exploration of a right. Seems a way to get around incompetency. Doing the least amount of work for the most amount of money isn't a right.

It's not usually the workers who bargain and decide to strike. Often, they are simply told to strike by the union bosses and not all people are happy about it.

Do you think unions tend to tell people what is best for them and order them to bargain or strike based on what they think rather than what the workers really want?

What a crock, workers are not told to go on strike, they vote to go on strike and they vote frequently to continue to strike otherwise it is not a legal strike protected by federal law.

Workers are not told to strike. They are told not to show up for work. They are then told by the local bosses and shop stewards, "you had better not show up for work"....Or, "if you try to work tomorrow, you'll lose your card".
Then the more militant co-workers say " you want yer fuckin windshield busted?"

 

[occupied]

You act like employees have a right to declare themselves partners in a business with no investment in that business other than their time for which they are compensated. Compensation I might add that they agreed to. There are laws in place that are available to them if the employer doesn't do as required. They have every right to make suggestions to the employer to improve the work place, but the guy that has his life and money in the company that has the final say. If they think that's not good enough there is no one holding a gun to their head to stay there. That gives both parties the FREEDOM to continue the relationship or not.

It’s ignorant and inappropriate to argue that the ‘solution’ to a workplace issue is for the adversely effected employee to ‘quit’ and find another job.

The notion that employer and employee are somehow on ‘equal ground’ is idiocy.

As the Supreme Court noted when upholding Washington State’s minimum wage law:

There is an additional and compelling consideration which recent economic experience has brought into a strong light. The exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power, and are thus relatively defenceless against the denial of a living wage, is not only detrimental to their health and wellbeing, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

The Constitutional right to form a union and bargain collectively is the only effective means afforded workers who individually would be at a great disadvantage.

Umm. While the US Constitution states the right to freedom of assembly( or association) may not be abridged by the government, the constitution is silent on labor collectives.
Don't confuse the right to peacefully assemble with anything close to what you suggest. That seems to be" we have the right to form labor unions and employers must accept them"..Nothing could be farther from the truth.

As the constitution was written before the industrial revolution and did not deal with the many future problems involved with that we have been left to interpret the constitution and decide what is best for us. I feel labor rights should have been protected by amendment but alas we are left with labor rights being decided by easily corrupted judges and politicians in an unacceptably wishy-washy fashion unlike most of our other rights which are pretty settled.

 

[occupied]

You've got it backwards. Unions are fine and anyone wishing to join one should be allowed to do so, just so no one is ever forced to join in order to work.

Collective bargaining tends to protect the worst workers. I don't know why raises and such shouldn't be decided on an individual basis. It's dishonest to call collective bargaining an exploration of a right. Seems a way to get around incompetency. Doing the least amount of work for the most amount of money isn't a right.

It's not usually the workers who bargain and decide to strike. Often, they are simply told to strike by the union bosses and not all people are happy about it.

Do you think unions tend to tell people what is best for them and order them to bargain or strike based on what they think rather than what the workers really want?

What a crock, workers are not told to go on strike, they vote to go on strike and they vote frequently to continue to strike otherwise it is not a legal strike protected by federal law.

Workers are not told to strike. They are told not to show up for work. They are then told by the local bosses and shop stewards, "you had better not show up for work"....Or, "if you try to work tomorrow, you'll lose your card".
Then the more militant co-workers say " you want yer fuckin windshield busted?"

You are wrong, strikes have to be approved by vote. Sometimes they vote ahead of time on an if then condition to strike but the vote is there.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[zakdavis]

You act like employees have a right to declare themselves partners in a business with no investment in that business other than their time for which they are compensated. Compensation I might add that they agreed to. There are laws in place that are available to them if the employer doesn't do as required. They have every right to make suggestions to the employer to improve the work place, but the guy that has his life and money in the company that has the final say. If they think that's not good enough there is no one holding a gun to their head to stay there. That gives both parties the FREEDOM to continue the relationship or not.

It’s ignorant and inappropriate to argue that the ‘solution’ to a workplace issue is for the adversely effected employee to ‘quit’ and find another job.

The notion that employer and employee are somehow on ‘equal ground’ is idiocy.

As the Supreme Court noted when upholding Washington State’s minimum wage law:

There is an additional and compelling consideration which recent economic experience has brought into a strong light. The exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power, and are thus relatively defenceless against the denial of a living wage, is not only detrimental to their health and wellbeing, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

The Constitutional right to form a union and bargain collectively is the only effective means afforded workers who individually would be at a great disadvantage.

Umm. While the US Constitution states the right to freedom of assembly( or association) may not be abridged by the government, the constitution is silent on labor collectives.
Don't confuse the right to peacefully assemble with anything close to what you suggest. That seems to be" we have the right to form labor unions and employers must accept them"..Nothing could be farther from the truth.

While the Constitution is silent on the issue, the supreme court said it was okay.

 

[zakdavis]

Shit, there goes the neighborhood.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What a crock, workers are not told to go on strike, they vote to go on strike and they vote frequently to continue to strike otherwise it is not a legal strike protected by federal law.

Workers are not told to strike. They are told not to show up for work. They are then told by the local bosses and shop stewards, "you had better not show up for work"....Or, "if you try to work tomorrow, you'll lose your card".
Then the more militant co-workers say " you want yer fuckin windshield busted?"

You are wrong, strikes have to be approved by vote. Sometimes they vote ahead of time on an if then condition to strike but the vote is there.

Yeah, ok. You can believe that if it makes you feel better.
How long do you think those who vote against the strike would last in the workplace?
Imagine this, a strike vote loses 50% plus one....Now, where does the anger get placed?
No, genius, the bosses decide whether there will be a job action. The vote is symbolic.
In any event, the very idea of "I am not coming to work and you have to let me keep my job" is absurd.
Is it any wonder that in many states and cities it is illegal for public workers to strike?
Strikes mean nothing anymore. Most companies will issue ultimatums. Return to work, or be replaced. Happens all the time.
Unions are so over.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Collective Bargaining and Unions are fine. What is not fine is when Unions mandate/force/coerce all workers join and pay (Closed Shop). Let Union membership succeed or fail on its own merits.

 

[syrenn]

Collective Bargaining and Unions are fine. What is not fine is when Unions mandate/force/coerce all workers join and pay (Closed Shop). Let Union membership succeed or fail on its own merits.

dont tell the scubatuba that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Collective Bargaining and Unions are fine. What is not fine is when Unions mandate/force/coerce all workers join and pay (Closed Shop). Let Union membership succeed or fail on its own merits.

Welcome to the Republican Party.