Kristof is liberal.Originally posted by FreeportPanther:
Interesting read from a born again union basher.........
Are you opposed to the right to choose?Originally posted by FreeportPanther:
Or another way of putting it, allows workers to "freeload" and receive the benefits negotiated by the unions without having to pay for the expense of doing so....
Sounds like someone having a baby. Or not.Originally posted by NCPitt:
Are you opposed to the right to choose?Originally posted by FreeportPanther:
Or another way of putting it, allows workers to "freeload" and receive the benefits negotiated by the unions without having to pay for the expense of doing so....
Originally posted by NCPitt:
Are you opposed to the right to choose?Originally posted by FreeportPanther:
Or another way of putting it, allows workers to "freeload" and receive the benefits negotiated by the unions without having to pay for the expense of doing so....
What in the world are you talking about?Originally posted by BPKY:
I thought you were a libertarian, no?
If a Union contracts with a Corporation to run a closed Union shop, why should the government be able to stick its nose in and void a voluntary agreement?
Are you opposed to the right to choose?
Your answer belies your premise. When a condition (like forced payment of union dues) is paced on an employee, then there is no freedom of choice.Originally posted by BPKY:
A "right-to-work" law[/B] is a requiring employees to pay a fee to unions that have negotiated the labor contract all the employees work under.
So, a company and employees contract (choose) a closed shop. You want the government to come in and regulate business and labor. That's not libertarian.
No one has the right to work, i.e. be employed. They have the right to offer their labor and they have the right to work to create product for sale. But they don't have the right to tell an employer that the employer can't place a condition of union membership upon their offer of employment.
Right to work laws are just more big gubmit conservativim IMO.
That's really your answer?Originally posted by FreeportPanther:
He/She could choose not to seek employment there. Simply apply for employment at a non union shop. If you get a job at a closed shop, you know what you're signing up for. Trying to change the rules after the game starts is disingenuous, and belies the real motive, simply trying to destroy unions.
Not at all. The analogy is about the lack of free choice imposed by others. In that regard, the analogy is perfect.Originally posted by FreeportPanther:
Obviously a ridiculous analogy. You seriously equate working at a union shop with racism? So I guess its OK for non members to benefit from the work of the Union without having to pay for it?
My interpretation of your posts took me in that direction.Originally posted by FreeportPanther:
Thank you for a frank and honest reply. I totally disagree, but at least you showed your hand.
BTW, the original article did not go into "right to work". Simply made an observation that the demise of the middle class seems to correlate with the demise of unions IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
That's not at all what I said. I asked for clarification because I figured you got it wrong.Originally posted by FreeportPanther:
You said you could live with some form of trade unionism if they didn't support D policies. Not all unions support D's. The Teamsters often support R's, and a lot of the building trade unions support R candidates as well.
Originally posted by NCPitt:
That's really your answer?Originally posted by FreeportPanther:
He/She could choose not to seek employment there. Simply apply for employment at a non union shop. If you get a job at a closed shop, you know what you're signing up for. Trying to change the rules after the game starts is disingenuous, and belies the real motive, simply trying to destroy unions.
To use other examples that you have used in the past on other topics, blacks could choose to use a different diner.
Is that the kind of choice you want to encourage?
Methinks you don't really know what freedom means.Originally posted by BPKY:
Wow.
First, Freeport nailed it. (Blind squirrel finds acorn). There is no "forced payment of union dues". The employee may choose to work there and pay the dues or else seek employment elsewhere.
There is no freedom to demand your working condition when you ask for a job. It's mutual agreement. The employer tells you what he demands from you, and you either agree, or else hit the pavement.
So, you agree with Freeport that "blacks could choose to use a different diner" is not acceptable?
Now that you've admitted to be supporter of government regulation, it's just a matter of how far you're willing to wield that power over others. That's the dirty little secret about freedom. It includes freedom to discriminate. It also includes the freedom of companies and labor unions to refuse to hire you if you don't pay your union dues.
Freedom ain't for everyone, obviously.
So you believe it is freedom when someone else mandates where you must spend your money?Originally posted by BPKY:
It clears up nothing. You've provided no logic for your position. You just restated your position.
Freedom means an employer is free to require its employees to belong to a union.
You're saying the government can deny the employer that freedom. if so, what stops the government from denying an employer the right to require its employees to wear uniforms, or to shave?
I would like to know where you find this "right" of an individual to dictate the terms of his employment.
Since when is the union the employer?Originally posted by BPKY:
It clears up nothing. You've provided no logic for your position. You just restated your position.
Freedom means an employer is free to require its employees to belong to a union.
You're saying the government can deny the employer that freedom. if so, what stops the government from denying an employer the right to require its employees to wear uniforms, or to shave?
I would like to know where you find this "right" of an individual to dictate the terms of his employment.
Originally posted by The Zeke:
Since when is the union the employer?Originally posted by BPKY:
Freedom means an employer is free to require its employees to belong to a union.
I fully comprehend your side. There is no need to repeat it.Originally posted by BPKY:
Again, nobody is mandating anything. The company extends an offer of employment. That offer comes with conditions. You are free to accept those conditions for find employment elsewhere. The job doesn't come with rights. There is no right to work.
You want a job as a OTR truck driver? Why not just tell UPS that they can't make you pay for a commercial driver's license, and that you don't have to obey the rules of the road? Many companies require that tradesmen use their own tools, or to update their professional licenses.
As many of the lefties point out on here, especially SoufOaklyn4POTUS, conservatives seem to rant against government regulation, except when it benefits them. It's not like I don't have sympathy for you. I realize it's hard to balance being a corporatist with being a libertarian.![]()
If it's any consolation, I believed that same as you do until very recently.
I'm with you Zeke. I can't think of a situation where an employer would ever have a union requirement with one exception - where the union itself was the employer.Originally posted by The Zeke:
Not correct. I am sure the employers could care less if you join the union. It is the union that makes them join. Why would I care as an employer if you joined the union. That does not help me. It helps fund the union and influence policy. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the employer.
Excuse me for not taking you at your word, but I'm not taking you at your word.Originally posted by FreeportPanther:
There are thousands of these agreements in place. It may surprise you, but not all companies despise unions. The quality of work is generally better in union shops, the union contract sometimes protects the company's interests as much as the unions. Plus it is called bargaining, you negotiate things you want and don't want. Perhaps the company got a concession from the union by agreeing to the closed shop clause.
Any more, the companies and unions are more partners than adversaries and agree on many things.
Also, employees are entitled to a refund of that portion of their dues that go to things like PAC's that they don't agree to.
A quick web search indicates that closed shops were made illegal by the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947.Originally posted by FreeportPanther:
There are thousands of these agreements in place. It may surprise you, but not all companies despise unions. The quality of work is generally better in union shops, the union contract sometimes protects the company's interests as much as the unions. Plus it is called bargaining, you negotiate things you want and don't want. Perhaps the company got a concession from the union by agreeing to the closed shop clause.
Any more, the companies and unions are more partners than adversaries and agree on many things.
Also, employees are entitled to a refund of that portion of their dues that go to things like PAC's that they don't agree to.
Originally posted by The Zeke:
Not correct. I am sure the employers could care less if you join the union. It is the union that makes them join. Why would I care as an employer if you joined the union. That does not help me. It helps fund the union and influence policy. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the employer.
Originally posted by NCPitt:
It seems the problem is how we define freedom. You seem to be taking the side of those evil corporations you so despise. For me, freedom is defined by maximizing individual choice without constraints. Yes, an individual has the freedom to choose whether to take a job with conditions. And, yes, an employer has the freedom to set conditions. But there is a line where those 2 freedoms clash and it becomes a matter of individual perspective to determine where that line is. For me, the line is crossed when the employer requires dues to be paid for activities the employee disagrees with.
While I hate to allow government to make such decisions, I agree with this one.
By the way, I'm neither a corporatist nor a libertarian. I've always described myself as a constitutional conservative with libertarian leanings. I am not the anarchist that a pure libertarian entails.
Originally posted by BPKY:
I am not taking their side in this debate. I am distinguishing (or trying to) the difference between a right and a subjective freedom. It's immaterial to me whether or not the company is good or evil. I care only whether or not the company is violating someone's right. I think the confusion here is that I'm addressing a right and you're addressing a freedom.
Anyone can promote any freedom. If a company doesn't let you put a TV on your desk at work, they're denying your freedom. So, if your argument is that the corporation is minimizing your individual choice, I agree. But I don't care. There's no reason they can't minimize your individual choice if you want them to hire you, unless you use government to bully them..
Once you bring in "individual choice", this is no longer a discussion about rights. Liberals wield government to determine where these "fine lines" are all the time. Liberalism is all about clashing freedoms. I can no sooner argue against your decision where that line is crossed than I can argue over you favorite ice cream flavor.
Fair enough. We all lean differently. I thought you were totally against such government regulations, but I'm obviously wrong. Thank you for "clearing up any misconception" that you (don't) support government regulation.
And there's a big difference between "libertarian anarchy" and using government force to void a labor agreement so that you can avoid paying union dues.
Of course I'm not OK with it. That's the basis of my comment about never living in CA. But I accept that our system allows different states to do different things. In fact, I more than accept it. I think that's one of the best features of US as envisioned. Let socialists live in states where socialism rules and let freedom-lovers live in free(r) states. Where the country has gone astray is the imposition of socialist programs on all states through the feds.Originally posted by BPKY:
Okay, so you're more precisely a constitutionalist with conservative and libertarian leanings. So, are you okay with socialism at the state level, just not at the federal level?
I'm just busting your stones. Thanks for clarifying your position. We will have to agree to disagree on government's role in the affairs of private individuals.