Union busting gone too far?
- Thread starter FreeportPanther
- Start date
Kristof is liberal.
Private sector unions are chosen by the workers. How have "we" gone too far? I suppose that the left decries the movements in places like Wisconsin that have gone from closed shops to free-choice. But all that does is allow the worker to choose rather than have a gun pointed at their head.
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....
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?
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?
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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.
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.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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?
That's really your answer?
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?
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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?
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?
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
Given the choices you've set up for me, I would say yes, it is OK.
Frankly, I could live some middle ground in the private sector. A union could be formed that limits its activities to interaction with companies. There is no need for unions to be as deeply involved in politics as they are. I fully understand that they have a right to lobby and campaign just as companies do. But the difference is that the unions are monolithically Democratic while the union members who pay dues to support the union leaders' choice of Democrats are not.
Not at all. The analogy is about the lack of free choice imposed by others. In that regard, the analogy is perfect.
Given the choices you've set up for me, I would say yes, it is OK.
Frankly, I could live some middle ground in the private sector. A union could be formed that limits its activities to interaction with companies. There is no need for unions to be as deeply involved in politics as they are. I fully understand that they have a right to lobby and campaign just as companies do. But the difference is that the unions are monolithically Democratic while the union members who pay dues to support the union leaders' choice of Democrats are not.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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.
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.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
I think the demise of the middle class has little to do with unions. It has much more to do with government interference in the private sector from both parties who want more control and power.
What do you mean by I showed my hand? That sounds like a pejorative to me.
This post was edited on 3/18 2:47 PM by NCPitt
My interpretation of your posts took me in that direction.
I think the demise of the middle class has little to do with unions. It has much more to do with government interference in the private sector from both parties who want more control and power.
What do you mean by I showed my hand? That sounds like a pejorative to me.
This post was edited on 3/18 2:47 PM by NCPitt
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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.
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.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
I said that unions support politicians with dues paid by members who have different views. I used the example that unions support Ds while many members are not. My argument would be the same if unions supported Rs instead of Ds.
I believe in paying for a service. If a union helps to negotiate a better compensation package than the individual could, then the individual should pay for that service, If a union supports a candidate that the individual doesn't, then the individual shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
That's not at all what I said. I asked for clarification because I figured you got it wrong.
I said that unions support politicians with dues paid by members who have different views. I used the example that unions support Ds while many members are not. My argument would be the same if unions supported Rs instead of Ds.
I believe in paying for a service. If a union helps to negotiate a better compensation package than the individual could, then the individual should pay for that service, If a union supports a candidate that the individual doesn't, then the individual shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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.
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.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
And no, I don't agree with Freeport. I have always and continue to believe that people have the right to associate with whomever they choose.
I hope that clears up any misconception that you think I support government regulation.
Methinks you don't really know what freedom means.
And no, I don't agree with Freeport. I have always and continue to believe that people have the right to associate with whomever they choose.
I hope that clears up any misconception that you think I support government regulation.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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.
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.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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.
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.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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.
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.
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.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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.
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.
You guys need to get out more.........
A pre-entry closed shop is a form of union security agreement under which the employer agrees to hire union members only, and employees must remain members of the union at all times in order to remain employed.
A pre-entry closed shop is a form of union security agreement under which the employer agrees to hire union members only, and employees must remain members of the union at all times in order to remain employed.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
I can't reply to your post Freeport so I'll reply to my own.
Why would any company enter into any agreement requiring unionization and how many of these agreements exist?
While I can't understand why it would happen, I never denied the possibility. Not much surprises me these days...after seeing someone as incompetent be elected twice.
I can't reply to your post Freeport so I'll reply to my own.
Why would any company enter into any agreement requiring unionization and how many of these agreements exist?
While I can't understand why it would happen, I never denied the possibility. Not much surprises me these days...after seeing someone as incompetent be elected twice.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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.
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.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
The more accurate classification is "union shop" where employees are required to join the union within 30 or 60 days of hiring as a condition of continued employment. These requirements are negotiated and agreed upon by the Union and the Company. There are currently "right to work" laws in 24 states, in the other 26 these clauses are standard where companies are unionized.
I'm not sure how I can "prove" it to you, it is not published data that I'm aware of. I simply know from experience here in Pennsylvania that that's how it works. You may choose to believe it or not, that is your prerogative.
The more accurate classification is "union shop" where employees are required to join the union within 30 or 60 days of hiring as a condition of continued employment. These requirements are negotiated and agreed upon by the Union and the Company. There are currently "right to work" laws in 24 states, in the other 26 these clauses are standard where companies are unionized.
I'm not sure how I can "prove" it to you, it is not published data that I'm aware of. I simply know from experience here in Pennsylvania that that's how it works. You may choose to believe it or not, that is your prerogative.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
Distinction without a difference. The agreement between the union and management is that all employees must join the union. If management breaks the deal, the Union goes on strike. There's a lot of things management must do that they'd rather not.
If the employee refuses to join, it ain't the Union that fires him, it's the company that fires him.
Distinction without a difference. The agreement between the union and management is that all employees must join the union. If management breaks the deal, the Union goes on strike. There's a lot of things management must do that they'd rather not.
If the employee refuses to join, it ain't the Union that fires him, it's the company that fires him.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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.
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.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
Let me be even more clear. I don't support federal government regulation. I do support states doing what they choose re regulation. As the Constitution allows and as I have always stated. That doesn't mean that I agree with the regulation itself. I would never live in California, for example.
The Right-to-work issue is a states issue.
Let me be even more clear. I don't support federal government regulation. I do support states doing what they choose re regulation. As the Constitution allows and as I have always stated. That doesn't mean that I agree with the regulation itself. I would never live in California, for example.
The Right-to-work issue is a states issue.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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.
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.
Re: But your mythical employee would have a choice.....
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.
