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

[syrenn]

No, I've never even had the joy to have a job that involves qualifications. Before my current job of sit in the motor pool and look pissed off, I was a rodbuster and box kicker.

On another note, I apologize for maybe being an ass earlier, but my statement still stands that it seems you want 100% job security.

It's getting late and I am kind of depressed now so I will just say that I had some expectation of having a certain amount of value to the marketplace after the years of continuing education, excellent job performance and just plain ass-kissing people who deserved ass-kicking instead. No one ever expects 100% job security but to suddenly find you have zero value in your chosen field is no way to go through a mid life crisis. All that effort was a hefty investment in myself and it was like a terrible stock market crash. I am terribly bitter about it and it has colored my view of corporate America ever since.

so this is all about you then. Gotcha.

I am very sorry for your life circumstance.... but expecting any more then what you got was and is the line that unions sell you.

 

[syrenn]

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.

Once the business owner accepts the benefits of incorporation (limited liability) , he/she has accepted social responsibilities that incorporation demands. It means that there are rules to follow...and that the owner doesn't always have the final say.

really? accepting social responsibilities?

 

[syrenn]

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.

Once the business owner accepts the benefits of incorporation (limited liability) , he/she has accepted social responsibilities that incorporation demands. It means that there are rules to follow...and that the owner doesn't always have the final say.

I incorporated my business. Please show me which document I signed accepting "social responsibilities" and where those might be spelled out.

The Left is fuzzy on detail.

i laughed too....

 

[Arthur]

GOP consistently support corporate interests against worker interests. Cheap labor is what it's all about. Outsourcing? They don't care. As long as they can make profit and not share it with their workers.

 

[syrenn]

GOP consistently support corporate interests against worker interests. Cheap labor is what it's all about. Outsourcing? They don't care. As long as they can make profit and not share it with their workers.

the point of having a business...is to make a profit. The unions are big business... and they make huge profits.


Where is it a law that you have to profit share?


but i know you wont answer that one sky.

 

[Si modo]

GOP consistently support corporate interests against worker interests. Cheap labor is what it's all about. Outsourcing? They don't care. As long as they can make profit and not share it with their workers.

Without corporations there are no workers for those corporations, so, yeah, I support regulations that make it easier for corporations to be profitable.

 

[Sallow]

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?

Do managers have the right to negotiate freely and fire anyone they don't want working for them anymore?

Sure.

And employees should have the right to strike, protest and negotiate without being molested by government agents at the behest of managers.

There should be NO government interference.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

Yes. So? If you want to be a union drone.. so be it. Personally,I wouldn't want anything to do with it.. thankfully, I prepared myself so that I can make it on my own rather comfortably.

But hey, that's just me.

 

[Arthur]

Businesses make profits off the backs of their workers. I think the workers ought to be be paid well for their work.

Corporations would rather take their factories to Third World countries to exploit workers. Unions came into being because company owners weren't sharing enough of their companies' wealth with the rank-and-file employees who helped produce it.

 

[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?

Do managers have the right to negotiate freely and fire anyone they don't want working for them anymore?

Sure.

And employees should have the right to strike, protest and negotiate without being molested by government agents at the behest of managers.

There should be NO government interference.

Exactly what Michigan and 22 other RTW states think, as well.

 

[Arthur]

America just isn't working right now.

It's not just Americans who aren't working. It's America itself, a country whose economy once worked for almost everyone, not just the rich.

In the old America, if you worked hard, you had a good chance of moving up.

In the old America, the fruits of people's labors accrued to the whole country, not just the top.

In the old America, there was a strong middle class, and their immense collective purchasing power drove the economy for decades.

No longer.



Read more: DEAR AMERICA: You Should Be Mad As Hell About This [CHARTS] - Business Insider

 

[syrenn]

Businesses make profits off the backs of their workers. I think the workers ought to be be paid well for their work.

Corporations would rather take their factories to Third World countries to exploit workers. Unions came into being because company owners weren't sharing enough of their companies' wealth with the rank-and-file employees who helped produce it.

 

[dblack]

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.

Surely you've noticed that, outside idealized games and sporting events, there are no 'equal contests' in the real world. I'm wondering, are you really imagining a government that makes it its mission to first "equalize" all sides's leverage before any dispute is resolved?

In any case, I see some merit in the view you're presenting here. Corporations already enjoy special privileges from government (corporate personhood, limited liability, perpetual lifespan, etc, etc...), and it's a natural inclination to want to address that by granting similar privileges to anyone who must 'compete' with them. But in reality, all it does is expand the problem by creating yet another privileged group.

Corporatism is a dangerous form of government and I want to be clear that it is exactly what you're proposing.

 

[Arthur]

Were you ever a member of a union? Yes or no.

How does that fact influence your position, if at all?

 

[NLT]

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?

Do managers have the right to negotiate freely and fire anyone they don't want working for them anymore?

yes.

Owners/mgrs have the right to fire for cause or for no reason at all.

Employees have no rights at all.

Sure you do ...you have the right to quit and find another job if you dont like the one you have now.

 

[Arthur]

The GOP has been very successful in exploiting workers by undermining and weakening unions in America.

They are the party of fat cats.

 

[Si modo]

The GOP has been very successful in exploiting workers by undermining and weakening unions in America.

They are the party of fat cats.

The Dems have been very successful in exploiting workers in management, engineering, science, etc. by giving special rights to others and not them.



For decades the first folks to get laid off in Detroit were lower management and engineers. That's because the Dems hate educated persons, of course.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Do managers have the right to negotiate freely and fire anyone they don't want working for them anymore?

Sure.

And employees should have the right to strike, protest and negotiate without being molested by government agents at the behest of managers.

There should be NO government interference.

OK. I'm fine with that. Employees make demands. Management responds. Employees go out on strike. Management decides they've had enough of these assholes and hires replacements.
It's all good.

 

[Arthur]

It's good to get clear on your position. Posting with people who disagree helps that.

Consider why unions were created in the first place. Coal miners were getting sick and injured on the job because of unsafe conditions. They were nothing more than serfs, the companies took rent and food out of the workers pay making them shop at company owned stores.

We're going backwards in time instead of forward. That's conservatives for you.

 

[dblack]

Were you ever a member of a union? Yes or no.

How does that fact influence your position?

Yes.

I don't think it influenced it much. I had a reasonable understanding of how the game works before I started - though I definitely saw much more of it during my time in the union.

The union I belonged to was mostly a protection racket. We made twice as much money as our equally skilled non-union counterparts. The main reason for this was that the contractors we worked for catered primarily to large scale projects, which almost always had enough government involvement to include a requirement that the contractors hire only from the union.

It was a 'level playing field*' for the companies bidding on the contracts - they were all required to use the union. They all had essentially the same labor costs, so they never really cared what those costs were. They were giving us $1-2/hr raise every year I was with the union. I actually talked to my boss about it one night, and he layed it out for me - much like I'm explaining here.

With the benefits required by the union contract, his payroll was roughly three times what it would be with a non-union workforce. But because all his competitors were under the same requirements, it didn't matter. He was making so much money on the big contracts it more than made up for it.

My experience of the union itself was primarily that of a 'good-old-boys' club. It was very difficult to get in (I only arranged it because my father and brothers were all members) and provided employers with only marginal advantage in terms of quality. Mostly it was an exclusive club of 'legacies' whose fore bearers had fought for the special perks.

*Orwellian doublespeak designed to obfuscate the reality of the situation.