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

[zakdavis]

What gives an employer the right to chisel their workers for unpaid overtime or loot their pension plan or just go years at a time without a payraise? It's how these things get started, not selfish lazy people just being unreasonably mean to the godly and always correct management.

Again with this?

Proof of this. Anecdotal proof will not suffice.

Where the **** have you been? What a stupid challenge to issue. Google "walmart lawsuit" and STFU.

Why do they have to supply it? And which lawsuit, more specifically?
On another note, a friend of mine was fired from walmart for being in a union at his second job, lol.
I am not saying that I agree with Walmart here, but am asking why they should supply benefits?


links
Warehouse Workers Move To Name Walmart In Wage-Theft Lawsuit
Walmart Fined By Labor Department For Denying Workers Overtime Pay, Agrees To Pay $4.8 Million In Back Wages
Walmart Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Allowed To Proceed, Judge Says
Those are the first three I found that deal with labor problems. The last one? Not so much.

 

[OKTexas]

Where the **** have you been? What a stupid challenge to issue. Google "walmart lawsuit" and STFU.

Google walmart lawsuit?

Are you serious?

You do have a study, right? Not some opinion piece?

I have never been forced to work a single minute without being paid.

So, where is your study?

What are you after? If it makes you feel better consider it a hypothetical question rather than a question based in everyday life as it is, If management starts trying to beat workers out of compensation are they justified in fighting it collectively?

Yep, it's called a class action law suit. Lawyers love'em.

 

[occupied]

Answer this. If an employer is offering something less than acceptable for a worker, why would they go to work there? Also what gives an employee the right to demand a change to the employment contract after accepting the terms in the first place?

What gives an employer the right to chisel their workers for unpaid overtime or loot their pension plan or just go years at a time without a payraise? It's how these things get started, not selfish lazy people just being unreasonably mean to the godly and always correct management.

Not paying overtime is a violation of LAW, pensions are protected by LAW, there is no such thing as a guaranteed pay raise but most employers will make sure the people that are true assets to the company are happy. It's very obvious you have never owned a business or been in upper management and have no real idea what it takes to run one.

It's very obvious you think workers have no right to collectively seek leverage in the employer-employee negotiation. The law is insufficient to protect either workers or their benefits seeing as how the main recourse is to file class action suits to regain fractions of what is so easily taken away.

 

[Darkwind]

What gives an employer the right to chisel their workers for unpaid overtime or loot their pension plan or just go years at a time without a payraise? It's how these things get started, not selfish lazy people just being unreasonably mean to the godly and always correct management.

Not paying overtime is a violation of LAW, pensions are protected by LAW, there is no such thing as a guaranteed pay raise but most employers will make sure the people that are true assets to the company are happy. It's very obvious you have never owned a business or been in upper management and have no real idea what it takes to run one.

It's very obvious you think workers have no right to collectively seek leverage in the employer-employee negotiation. The law is insufficient to protect either workers or their benefits seeing as how the main recourse is to file class action suits to regain fractions of what is so easily taken away.

Do the employers have rights? Do they also get the same right to seek leverage in the employer-employee negotiation?

 

[occupied]

Not paying overtime is a violation of LAW, pensions are protected by LAW, there is no such thing as a guaranteed pay raise but most employers will make sure the people that are true assets to the company are happy. It's very obvious you have never owned a business or been in upper management and have no real idea what it takes to run one.

It's very obvious you think workers have no right to collectively seek leverage in the employer-employee negotiation. The law is insufficient to protect either workers or their benefits seeing as how the main recourse is to file class action suits to regain fractions of what is so easily taken away.

Do the employers have rights? Do they also get the same right to seek leverage in the employer-employee negotiation?

They have all the leverage in the first place, no working class labor negotiation has ever been an equal contest.

 

[Darkwind]

It's very obvious you think workers have no right to collectively seek leverage in the employer-employee negotiation. The law is insufficient to protect either workers or their benefits seeing as how the main recourse is to file class action suits to regain fractions of what is so easily taken away.

Do the employers have rights? Do they also get the same right to seek leverage in the employer-employee negotiation?

They have all the leverage in the first place, no working class labor negotiation has ever been an equal contest.

You did not answer the question.

Do employers also have rights?

 

[syrenn]

So you think the government offers sufficient worker protections to make unions unnecessary and strikes punishable by management? This is a pretty loaded question, I would think before answering it.

getting replaced for quitting ie.. walking off your job.. is not punishment. They left, quit.... The employer should have the right to fill the positions........without..said... bloody affairs.

I think you are under the impression that labor disputes are somehow unprovoked, if management decides to cut wages, stop paying into the pension plan, demand unpaid overtime, cut breaks, any number of things, are the workers just supposed to take it? If not what other recourse do they have?

Its called a free market.

employees have the choice to stay or leave.... no one is being fired. If said person walks off the job..others should have the choice to accept what the company is offering... or not.

over time is federal labor law... so nice straw man
so are breaks....

the rest... is gravy.

the recourse is to leave and find a new job that is offering what they want..... walking off the job is quitting.

 

[zakdavis]

It's very obvious you think workers have no right to collectively seek leverage in the employer-employee negotiation. The law is insufficient to protect either workers or their benefits seeing as how the main recourse is to file class action suits to regain fractions of what is so easily taken away.

Do the employers have rights? Do they also get the same right to seek leverage in the employer-employee negotiation?

They have all the leverage in the first place, no working class labor negotiation has ever been an equal contest.

Hostess.

 

[syrenn]

Employers are about profit, NOT the interest of workers. Workers have to advocate for better working conditions, fair wages and benefits.

Collective bargaining allows workers to have strength to match corporate power. Unions represent the only organized check on business in the US.

Answer this. If an employer is offering something less than acceptable for a worker, why would they go to work there? Also what gives an employee the right to demand a change to the employment contract after accepting the terms in the first place?

What gives an employer the right to chisel their workers for unpaid overtime or loot their pension plan or just go years at a time without a payraise? It's how these things get started, not selfish lazy people just being unreasonably mean to the godly and always correct management.

and in my experience... union laborers are the laziest workers around.


ill give you an image

20 miles of cones...... 20 men standing around all looking at one guy in a hole...

 

[occupied]

Do the employers have rights? Do they also get the same right to seek leverage in the employer-employee negotiation?

They have all the leverage in the first place, no working class labor negotiation has ever been an equal contest.

You did not answer the question.

Do employers also have rights?

Of course they have rights, they are protected nine ways to Sunday by any number of property rights, their greater wealth and most of all their upper-hand in any labor negotiations, pretty obvious stuff, yet many love to chisel away at the pretty weak leverage workers have through labor law and the right to sue, never mind the rapidly diminishing union's ability to bring some lawyers along to keep management honest.

 

[occupied]

Do the employers have rights? Do they also get the same right to seek leverage in the employer-employee negotiation?

They have all the leverage in the first place, no working class labor negotiation has ever been an equal contest.

Hostess.

Ridiculous.

 

[syrenn]

A century ago, less than 10 percent of American workers were unionized. America's wealthiest 10 percent was earning 40 percent of all national income, a figure that widened to nearly 50 percent in the 1920s. But in 1935, the New Deal era granted workers basic collective bargaining rights. Union membership grew to more than 35 percent of the workforce while the upper 10 percent's share of salaried income fell to less than 35 percent. The result after World War II was a 30-year period of unparalleled prosperity in the United States.

The last 30 years has seen a reversal. Wages stagnated and earned income imbalance returned to near 50 percent. Government figures show the median full-time salary in 1980 was $46,889, when adjusted for inflation. In 2010, it was $47,715. During that same period, income for the top 1 percent of earning households grew 275 percent.

Meanwhile, private sector union membership fell from 27 percent to below 7 percent, roughly where it was in 1928. Every scholar I spoke with blames dwindling union membership for a shrinking middle class.

"For generations, unions were the core institution advocating for more equitable wage distribution," University of Washington sociology professor Jake Rosenfeld says.

Studies repeatedly show that in fields where union rates were high, nonunion members enjoyed better wages and benefits. Treating workers well helped management avert the threat of union organizing. In a way, unions created their own form of trickle-down economics.

Read more here: We need unions – so why are they fading? - California Forum - The Sacramento Bee

We've had plenty of threads about unions pro and con, I was after something more basic, what rights the union haters think workers themselves have in labor disputes and if the government should back up these rights with the law.

they have the right to try and get an employer to do what they want by striking.
they have the right to leave.

they also have the right to watch the position they just walked out on replaced with someone who is willing to work.

Should the government make laws to protect people who have quit their jobs..... no.

 

[Darkwind]

getting replaced for quitting ie.. walking off your job.. is not punishment. They left, quit.... The employer should have the right to fill the positions........without..said... bloody affairs.

I think you are under the impression that labor disputes are somehow unprovoked, if management decides to cut wages, stop paying into the pension plan, demand unpaid overtime, cut breaks, any number of things, are the workers just supposed to take it? If not what other recourse do they have?

Its called a free market.

employees have the choice to stay or leave.... no one is being fired. If said person walks off the job..others should have the choice to accept what the company is offering... or not.

over time is federal labor law... so nice straw man
so are breaks....

the rest... is gravy.

the recourse is to leave and find a new job that is offering what they want..... walking off the job is quitting.

You know, I can almost sympathize with occupied.

I work for Myself now, but the last employer I worked for was every bit as nasty and cruel as what he argues about. We were not allowed to take breaks 'away' from the press....though we were allowed to eat and sit if the press was running. We had to work 12 hour shifts, 4 days a week....but we were given 4 days off...generally, the work conditions sucked and the management team was horrendous.

However, if they asked for more, and people said no, then they moved on. There was no retaliation. They never said you will work without pay.. They did play a game with the 4 days on, 4 days off work schedule because often, the work week of your 4 days was split by the weekend, so you ended up working 48 straight hours, but were paid only straight time because your hours worked per week were less than 40.

The owner was a drunk who like to come in on night shift and yell and threaten the workers with firings....but he never fired anyone and the one time he did it to Me, I shoved him against the wall and threatened to break his legs....he never bothered Me again....

But the point is, I took the job because NY unemployment said I had to....I would have said no to job because I understood the hour game they were playing...I vowed I'd be gone inside of 6 months...It took Me 18, but I left because I spent the entire time looking for something better.

An employer does NOT control Me, nor does he force Me to do things that are illegal.. It may be his job, but as a MAN, I have choices....and the balls to stand up to petty little tyrants.....and if it costs Me My job, so be it.

But I will NOT cry over losing a job I hate, and I will not be stupid enough to think that if we all just got together, that job I hate will get better.

You want to break an employer....walk off the job and take out ads detailing just how corrupt he is.....he'll go out of business.....

but if you lie about it, be prepared to pay the consequences of slander.

 

[occupied]

A century ago, less than 10 percent of American workers were unionized. America's wealthiest 10 percent was earning 40 percent of all national income, a figure that widened to nearly 50 percent in the 1920s. But in 1935, the New Deal era granted workers basic collective bargaining rights. Union membership grew to more than 35 percent of the workforce while the upper 10 percent's share of salaried income fell to less than 35 percent. The result after World War II was a 30-year period of unparalleled prosperity in the United States.

The last 30 years has seen a reversal. Wages stagnated and earned income imbalance returned to near 50 percent. Government figures show the median full-time salary in 1980 was $46,889, when adjusted for inflation. In 2010, it was $47,715. During that same period, income for the top 1 percent of earning households grew 275 percent.

Meanwhile, private sector union membership fell from 27 percent to below 7 percent, roughly where it was in 1928. Every scholar I spoke with blames dwindling union membership for a shrinking middle class.

"For generations, unions were the core institution advocating for more equitable wage distribution," University of Washington sociology professor Jake Rosenfeld says.

Studies repeatedly show that in fields where union rates were high, nonunion members enjoyed better wages and benefits. Treating workers well helped management avert the threat of union organizing. In a way, unions created their own form of trickle-down economics.

Read more here: We need unions – so why are they fading? - California Forum - The Sacramento Bee

We've had plenty of threads about unions pro and con, I was after something more basic, what rights the union haters think workers themselves have in labor disputes and if the government should back up these rights with the law.

they have the right to try and get an employer to do what they want by striking.
they have the right to leave.

they also have the right to watch the position they just walked out on replaced with someone who is willing to work.

Should the government make laws to protect people who have quit their jobs..... no.

We already know you think all workers should be on their own no matter how shitty they are treated, why repeat yourself?

 

[GWV5903]

They should use Detroit as their image for Union success stories, great example...

I mean who could argue with that...

 

[Darkwind]

They have all the leverage in the first place, no working class labor negotiation has ever been an equal contest.

You did not answer the question.

Do employers also have rights?

Of course they have rights, they are protected nine ways to Sunday by any number of property rights, their greater wealth and most of all their upper-hand in any labor negotiations, pretty obvious stuff, yet many love to chisel away at the pretty weak leverage workers have through labor law and the right to sue, never mind the rapidly diminishing union's ability to bring some lawyers along to keep management honest.

Then you should have no problem understanding the you don't always win these things....but unions don't do that, do they? When they lose, the do things like set fire to the employer's buildings, kill or maim people looking to feed their family who are not in the union....

In the game of negotiation, if the Unions had all the perceived leverage you claim the employers have, YOU would not feel sorry for the employer.

Why do you think that I would feel sorry for you?

 

[zakdavis]

They have all the leverage in the first place, no working class labor negotiation has ever been an equal contest.

You did not answer the question.

Do employers also have rights?

Of course they have rights, they are protected nine ways to Sunday by any number of property rights, their greater wealth and most of all their upper-hand in any labor negotiations, pretty obvious stuff, yet many love to chisel away at the pretty weak leverage workers have through labor law and the right to sue, never mind the rapidly diminishing union's ability to bring some lawyers along to keep management honest.

Can the company hire scabs? Can said scabs go to work without fear of having shit thrown through their windows? Will the striking workers be really drunk, throw beer bottles and cans at passing management? Will said striking workers block off the interstate entrance ramp? Should unions go on strike when it's benefits or company liquidation?

Curious, but have you been in a union or on strike?

 

[zakdavis]

They have all the leverage in the first place, no working class labor negotiation has ever been an equal contest.

Hostess.

Ridiculous.

How so?

 

[Darkwind]

They have all the leverage in the first place, no working class labor negotiation has ever been an equal contest.

Hostess.

Ridiculous.

Fact.

 

[ScienceRocks]

No,

I just hate unions that screw over tens of thousands of workers because they can't work with the employer. 18,000 jobs gone from hostess because they couldn't be reasonable.

There's a difference between getting the best for the worker and screwing the worker over.