Freedom First
Regular Member
Unions at their best...
Video from Michigan
How do you protect your job? Violence and intimidation. Yeah.
Video from Michigan
How do you protect your job? Violence and intimidation. Yeah.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Proud to be union?
- Thread starter Freedom First
- Start date
tattedupboy
Regular Member
Let me be clear and say that I'm not anti-union. What I'm against is people being required to join unions whether they want to or not. I believe in free association, not forced association. Let unions collectively bargain only on behalf of the workers who are members, and let those who don't belong to the union hire attorneys for whatever grievances they have.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Freedom First
Regular Member
I will say that I am.
The union concept has far overstayed it's welcome. You should get a job because you are the best, not because you are willing to "play the game". I have never joined and I never will. The video shows the true nature of the machine they have constructed: violent, vulgar, abusive, tyrannical. They can suck eggs.
IBEW has been very busy damaging my ability to work and feed my family here in Washington State by abusing the regulatory systems of the State. They and their willing cohorts in Tumwater are doing their very best to ensure that only union members from larger companies can flourish in the market.
Anonymouse
Regular Member
I did my apprenticeship with IBEW local 26 after leaving the army.
You know what I was told the most? Slow down man, you'll work yourself out of a job.
It was a lot of groupthink and god forbid if there were "scabs" working on site with us. People would screw with them all the time.
Tap'n while driving...
Last edited:
Ca Patriot
Regular Member
Obama will issue his condemnation any minute now...........oh wait, he is busy in a meeting with the labor unions.
Once he is done though he will issue a strongly worded denouncement of the cowardly and brazen violent filmaker who dared to ask questions of his labor goons.
I expect the filmaker will be in jail shortly.
Once he is done though he will issue a strongly worded denouncement of the cowardly and brazen violent filmaker who dared to ask questions of his labor goons.
I expect the filmaker will be in jail shortly.
carsontech
Activist Member
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
But federal labor law does not allow for that, if a union is certified for a worksite then they must represent a worker even if he's not a member.
remember, if the big business owners had just played fair the first time around their would be no such thing as unions. unions are nessecary even today. just read up Wal-Marts issues, having been sued many times for forcing employees to work off the clock, locking employees in with no means to leave the store, refusing to give senior employees more then 34 hours to avoid paying benefits.
but that never happened to me, beucase if it did then UFCW local 21 would've stood up for me.
if you're so against union shops then don't work for a union shop and you wont have to join. I find it just stupid how people gripe and female-dog over union shops and them being "forced to join the union" and they're nearly always the same people who say "don't like what this business does then don't shop there"
don't like a union shop then don't work in one, you have that option. in the mean time states shouldn't be standing passing "right to work laws" becuase they encourage viotation of federal labor law, in fact any state with such a law should automatically lose all federal funding (which would tank the economies of every right to work state because every single right to work state except texas sucks at the teat of the US taxpayer, only texas recieves less federal money then they contribute. lets see how well the right to work states do when they have to pay for schooling and medicaid and everything like that by themselves....
all of the top contributer states (meaning states that pay in more then they take out) are union states. the right to work states have good economies only bcause they're being subsidized.
EDIT
if the union members don't think the union is doing a bang-up job they can always gather signatures and attempt a de-certification election too, it's not like there's no recourse against a union...
Last edited:
First. So called union shops are owned by the company. Second. Sounds like your for options, just as long as we ask you first if its optional.
More union douchbaggery..http://michellemalkin.com/2012/12/11/video-gallery-of-union-thuggery-in-michigan/
I was OC'ing when i wrote this.
tattedupboy
Regular Member
Sorry, but I still can't agree with forced association. Unions are organizations, and no one should be forced to join any organization they don't want to join. And no union should be forced to represent anyone who isn't a member. If I want to work somewhere, I'm working there because that is what I want to do for a living; why should union membership be a caveat of me working there? Union membership, as well as the unions deciding to represent their own, should all be voluntary.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
OC for ME
Regular Member
A little research would clearly show that you are incorrect regarding your assertion that "right-to-work" encourages violation of federal labor law.
You desire the citizen who does not wish to be a member of a union to be compelled, under threat of termination, to financially support that union. That is anti-liberty and anti-citizen.
This issue is settled law. Right-to work is a desirable manifestation of what the SCOTUS has previously ruled. The only draw back is that the right-to-work laws do not address the union dues to cover only union specific functions. If my money could not under the law be used to fund liberal candidates then I would not complain. I do not cite conservative candidates cuz they are as rare as the California Condor.
MSG Laigaie
Campaign Veteran
This is Truth. Unions had there place, but that time is gone. Only 12% of the gen pop is union (just said on q13) so why so much power and so much "shove it down your throat" tactics from them?
This is anecdotal evidence shows that employment INCREASES with this sort of legislation.
http://www.mackinac.org/16278
Right-to-work means low unemployment. Between 1999 and 2009, non-farm private-sector employment grew 3.7 percent in right-to-work states, but decreased 2.8 percent in non-right-to-work states. Further, the vast majority of jobs created during the Obama administration have been in states with a right-to-work law. According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, right-to-work states (excluding Indiana, which passed a right-to-work law in early 2012) “were responsible for 72 percent of all net household job growth across the U.S. from June 2009 through September 2012.”
Michigans race to the bottom begins.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2005-11-29-wage_x.htm
Per capita income by state. The BOTTOM TWENTY STATES are Right to WORK.
The TOP TWENTY except Virginia are NOT, Michigan just passed yesterday, naturally a year from now the wages will be lower.
A poorer, sicker population
Workplace safety suffers even more under RTW laws. The rate of workplace deaths is 52.9 percent higher in RTW states. When it comes to health care, only 50.3 percent of employers in RTW states offer health insurance, compared to 56.7 percent in those with union rights. People in RTW states are 23.7 percent more likely to be uninsured, and their kids are 38.7 percent less likely to be insured.
http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2012/07/right-to-work-laws-hurt-all-workers-and-the-economy/
28.3 percent of jobs in RTW states are classified as “low-wage occupations,” while only 19.5 percent are classified as low-wage in workplace fairness states. It’s easier to create third-world level pay and benefits, which some multi-national employers absolutely love. But it’s a disaster for workers, their kids, and for America’s middle class.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2005-11-29-wage_x.htm
Per capita income by state. The BOTTOM TWENTY STATES are Right to WORK.
The TOP TWENTY except Virginia are NOT, Michigan just passed yesterday, naturally a year from now the wages will be lower.
A poorer, sicker population
Workplace safety suffers even more under RTW laws. The rate of workplace deaths is 52.9 percent higher in RTW states. When it comes to health care, only 50.3 percent of employers in RTW states offer health insurance, compared to 56.7 percent in those with union rights. People in RTW states are 23.7 percent more likely to be uninsured, and their kids are 38.7 percent less likely to be insured.
http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2012/07/right-to-work-laws-hurt-all-workers-and-the-economy/
28.3 percent of jobs in RTW states are classified as “low-wage occupations,” while only 19.5 percent are classified as low-wage in workplace fairness states. It’s easier to create third-world level pay and benefits, which some multi-national employers absolutely love. But it’s a disaster for workers, their kids, and for America’s middle class.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
They shouldn't have. We have had a fairly steady decrease in crime. Why do police demand more every year?
I was told by the fire marshal when he was touring a rather large house I framed. "With the way you build now, you are building us out of work", my reply was "then why are we still paying you?" , the tour ended very shortly.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
QFT
Again he complains about the states "sucking at the Federal Teat" ignoring the fact the feds don't have milk they didn't steal from us to begin with.
Freedom of association, why can't I work for my friends business at a lower rate just because his employees decided to unionize?
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I used to think the same thing until I started delving more into the history of that a bit.
Unions were a way for socialist/progressives to gain control. They also were and still are major problems with protectionism which harms the consumers more. Similar to how mercantilism in England were able to lobby for the King to make protectionist rules and laws that actually thwarted a thriving economy and the quality of life for many, but enriched the few.
Real increase in wages and our quality of life came from technology. Once an employer started making money and reaping profits because he was helping others, socialist convinced the employees they needed to have a share of those profits. Which then helped make those items cost more, and thwarted the amount of goods we could by with our wages.
The union idiots destroyed this street vendor's hot dog cart. This guy's been in downtown lansing for years... I can't believe they would do something like this...
http://www.gofundme.com/SupportClint
http://www.gofundme.com/SupportClint
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
yes when you're working 12 hours a day with one day off a year, working in dangerous and dirty conditions and then when you ask management for more consideration and they tell you to pound sand, that does have the effect of encouraging socialism. so if you want to avoid socialism the answer is not to abuse people, its all good and well to talk about your theoretical libertarian system, but it doesn't account for human factors. people don't exist in a vacuum, they won't just happily slave away at whatever "the market" determines they're worth if they don't see it as fair, nor do the business owners want capitalism either. pure capitalism means less profits.
true libertarianism is simply not possible on a macroeconomic scale, because people will only take so much before they violently overthrow the system or organize like the unions did. if the coal miners were being paid fairly and given proper safety equipment and the mine owners did it without being forced to then unions woud've never emerged... which proves my point that you always refuse to address, all unchecked capitalism leads to is socialism
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
Your premise seems to be that the abolishment of unions would also mean the abolishment of federal laws that mandate workplace safety requirements.
Also, there are laws that mandate the "basic" 40-hour workweek.
What prevents a non-union shop from only paying the federally mandated minimum wage?
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
I responded to the claim that unions were established to promote socialism, my response was "yes" because of the conditions that people worked in during the time they were formed would tend to make people sympathetic to socialist ideas.
after the big corporations are done destroying the unions, the workplace safety laws and OSHA are next, and SVG probably believes they should all be abolished anyway, because "The free market" will mandate workplace safety, just like they did circa 1870. no problems at all.
as far as the mimimum wage it's getting their, if every employer suddenly charged only mimimum wage then there would be an uproar, like the frog put in boiling water, they're easing their wages down, or if wages do go up, the banks and federal reserve will simply loosen monetary police until we're all making the inflation adjusted equivelant of minimum wage. but they're doing it slowly so people become normalized to the idea.