|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 4, 2011 17:22:30 GMT -5
Before I spend time weeding through individual state laws and NLRB regulations, I just want to know if he's the only one who doesn't understand the laws in the 27 states that force union monopolies or if there are others.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Jan 4, 2011 17:36:54 GMT -5
Before I spend time weeding through individual state laws and NLRB regulations, I just want to know if he's the only one who doesn't understand the laws in the 27 states that force union monopolies or if there are others. So you've been making assertions before doing your research? SHOCKING.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 4, 2011 17:51:09 GMT -5
Why would you claim that?
I've spent the better part of the last three years fighting forced unionism in Alaska.
Not every state has the exact same forced unionism laws, but all are supported by the NLRB.
It's not a federal law, as much as the current clown in the White House wants it to be.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Jan 4, 2011 17:56:47 GMT -5
I've spent the better part of the last three years fighting forced unionism in Alaska. Which makes your fundamental misunderstanding of the notion even more embarrassing.
|
|
Police Moderator
Global Moderator
On The Job and Tangled Up In Blue
Posts: 9,821
|
Post by Police Moderator on Jan 5, 2011 6:03:01 GMT -5
Glad y'all are going to Duke it out here.
I'll just go ahead and lock the union/anti-union thread over on the Blotter so as not to deepen the mud.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 8, 2011 10:12:45 GMT -5
Looks like you're the only one who doesn't understand forced unionism laws that are active in 27 states. So, I won't bother explaining them since you won't open your ears and eyes anyway.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on Jan 11, 2011 20:30:37 GMT -5
Come on Gus, are you or are you not in favor of "states rights"?
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Jan 11, 2011 23:03:49 GMT -5
The state does not have the right to take away the rights of the people. (I'm not talking about criminals.) When a state allows laws that say you can't be a garbage man without being in the garbage man union, or you can't hire a garbage man unless he is in the garbage man union, the state is taking away the rights of the people.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 11, 2011 23:52:52 GMT -5
I'm all for states rights within the framework of the US Constitution, which guarantees individual liberty and is SUPPOSED to protect that. Progressives have been ignoring it for long enough that the guarantee is about as worthless as the guarantee on a Yugo, though.
Since the US Constitution, the very framework for our nation, guarantees the right of freedom of association, the 27 states (may be 28 now) that legislated forced union monopolies deny that right to individuals. They have exceeded their authority.
Ironically, the current occupant of the White House has voiced support to force every employee in the USA to have to pay union dues for "all they've done".
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Jan 12, 2011 0:17:34 GMT -5
Since the US Constitution, the very framework for our nation, guarantees the right of freedom of association, the 27 states (may be 28 now) that legislated forced union monopolies deny that right to individuals. They have exceeded their authority. The 1st Amendment applies to *Congress* being able to prohibit freedom of association... and furthermore has a legal definition of "protected classes" upon which this freedom is measured against. Your definition doesn't apply to businesses or companies - and thus closed shops are not illegal under the 1st Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 12, 2011 7:17:54 GMT -5
If a business or company wants a closed shop that is one thing, for the state to require a business or company to operate a closed shop that is another. While the first amendment only prohibits congress from making laws denying a freedom of association it has been held that the 14th amendment applies this same prohibition to the states. I think Gus has a good argument for his definition.
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Jan 12, 2011 10:09:23 GMT -5
While the first amendment only prohibits congress from making laws denying a freedom of association it has been held that the 14th amendment applies this same prohibition to the states. "Freedom of association" is not textual language and is viewed an implicit right. When African-Americans were not allowed to share a taxi with whites, whose "freedom of association" was at issue? The right to assemble applies to limits on CONGRESS to make laws against peaceful assembly. It's a **CONSTRAINT** of Federal power -- not a "right" for workers. The 14th Amendment extends that constraint to states, qualified by their authority making open shop laws also constitutional. They do not restrict the right of an employer to enter into a voluntary contract with its labor union.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 12, 2011 11:16:10 GMT -5
We're not talking about voluntary contracts, we're talking about forced contracts, enforced by law, that are enforced simply based on a simple majority vote, which removes the right of the company from refusing to enter into that contract, and removes the right of the majority to freely associate with said company without interference and being forced into an association which they don't want.
Can we vote away the freedom of speech based on a simple majority vote?
And to bring up another hypothetical example, should the government be able to force you into the KKK based on a simple majority vote?
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Jan 12, 2011 11:40:53 GMT -5
No, the government has no authority to void freedom or speech or compel membership in the KKK. You are not being kidnapped by a gang and made to work in a factory or brothel against your will. Title VII defines protected classes which obtains to unions and companies.
Cite case law related the 1st and 14th Amendments that upholds your "freedom of association" argument. Congress cannot make laws against peaceful assembly. This is a **CONSTRAINT** of Federal power not a "right" for workers.
There are countless rules "a simple majority vote" enshrines that invade our freedoms. The right to bargain collectively is not unqualified nor should it be. Open shop laws are constitutional. Taft Hartley was a reasonable balance between "rights" and protections of competing interests.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 12, 2011 12:01:21 GMT -5
OK, let me ask you a simple straightforward question:
In forced-union states, if a simple majority of workers (50%+1) votes for the union, all employees, every last one of them*, are forced to join the union (or support them financially) and the company is not permitted to refuse to sign a contract with the union. It's against the law.
How is it not a violation of my right to freely associate with that employer without interference?
Simple question.
*The exemption is, since belonging to or supporting a union violates every principle put forth in the Bible (and is also a violation of many other religions), a Christian (or a member of another religion) can opt out, and send their money to a charity. But, what about the atheist who understands just how destructive unions are to the nation? There was one atheist who was filing suit that as a secular humanist, unions damaged his god, but he moved on to a better job that paid more before following through on the lawsuit.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Jan 12, 2011 12:40:42 GMT -5
In forced-union states, if a simple majority of workers (50%+1) votes for the union, all employees, every last one of them*, are forced to join the union (or support them financially) . The distinction you make here is important. No one is "forced to join the union" anywhere. It is illegal to compel anyone to join a union. Anywhere.Closed shops are ILLEGAL. Per the decision in Communication Workers v. Beck (1988), a worker could be compelled to pay only that portion of union dues and initiation fees used for collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance procedures. No worker can be compelled to pay dues for such things as politics, lobbying, and union organizing. On average, unions spend only 25 percent of their dues on the three activities for which they may collect forced dues.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 12, 2011 12:48:53 GMT -5
We're not talking about closed shops.
And what you cited still forces support of an organization that an individual may want nothing to do with.
Would it be OK with you if a majority voted that, although you don't have to join the KKK, you have to support them financially?
And the question wasn't directed at you anyway, since you have no concept of the forced unionism laws that are present in most states. (Look up the NLRA and get a clue.)
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Jan 12, 2011 13:07:53 GMT -5
And what you cited still forces support of an organization that an individual may want nothing to do with. It's fair that workers who benefit from collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance procedures pay for such services. It's FAR different from your hyperbolic shrieks of "forced unionism". You have argued in defense of free-riders in the context of health care insurance, and you do so again here. I'm starting to think that you have a serious soft spot for freeloaders who want to get the benefits of others' efforts but pay nothing. Show an analagous benefit in KKK membership and you might have the beginnings of a quasi-logical argument. In the meantime, drawing equivalency between collective bargaining and membership in a white supremacist group as a means of somehow "rebutting" the Beck decision remains a laughable notion - an obvious artifact of your bizarre anti-union psychodrama. In fact, it's one of the weakest critiques of a Supreme Court decision I've ever read.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 12, 2011 15:17:23 GMT -5
Since unions destroy the nation, what "benefit" should opposed employees be force to pay for?
Look at all they did for Appalachia; that's still like a third world country thanks to John Lewis and the UMW.
But, benefit or no, that's beside the point: why should someone who is opposed to their representation be forced to pay for that unwanted intrusion into their Constitutional right to freely associate with said employer?
Other than the organization that is receiving your money involuntarily, what is the difference between a union, which is helping destroy the nation, being able to extort money from you and the KKK, and organization that wants to separate part of the nation from another, extorting money from you, when both are based upon a simple majority vote? Before answering this simple question, please read: "Other than the organization that is receiving your money involuntarily" part. It's not a question about the positive or negative aspects of either organization. It's about a simply majority vote forcing you to support the organization financially.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on Jan 12, 2011 20:41:18 GMT -5
To be clear, I am not now nor have ever been a member of a union. Unions did have a very important place at one time, however I am not sure this is true in this time.
Be that as it may, I know that Gus and others know exactly what I mean about "state's rights".
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 12, 2011 21:17:52 GMT -5
To be clear, I am not now nor have ever been a member of a union. Unions did have a very important place at one time, however I am not sure this is true in this time. Be that as it may, I know that Gus and others know exactly what I mean about "state's rights". I understand what you mean by it. I'm not at all sure how the context you mean it in comes into play with this subject, though.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Jan 13, 2011 0:26:41 GMT -5
Be that as it may, I know that Gus and others know exactly what I mean about "state's rights". Ah yes, that states have a right to refrain from abrogating the freedom of companies to enter into voluntary contracts with labor unions.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 13, 2011 12:55:37 GMT -5
So, forcing companies into signing a contract they want nothing to do with is "protecting" their rights?
What kind of bizarre world do you live in?
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Jan 13, 2011 13:21:17 GMT -5
So, forcing companies into signing a contract they want nothing to do with is "protecting" their rights? As noted repeatedly, companies enter into union agreements and collective bargaining agreements on a voluntary basis and do so in their own best interest, as consensus between labor and management is essential for the proper functioning of a capitalist arrangement. You've been asked repeatedly, but you have yet to cite a specific provision within a single law that "forces" management into labor contracts. Why is that? I'll tell you why: because such provision does not exist outside the chambers of your imagination.
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Jan 13, 2011 14:28:54 GMT -5
nautilus.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 13, 2011 16:55:06 GMT -5
You seem to be the only person on this entire forum that cannot comprehend that they do not have a choice. Based upon a simple vote. The poll shows that you seem to be the only one.
Even the union sycophant Printemps understands that and approves of it wholeheartedly and doesn't see anything wrong with it. But at least is honest enough to understand that forced unionism is enforced upon employees in 27 states and upon employers in all 50.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Jan 13, 2011 17:01:58 GMT -5
You seem to be the only person on this entire forum that cannot comprehend that they do not have a choice. Based upon a simple vote. The poll shows that you seem to be the only one. Sorry, but that lone vote does not belong to me. You are the one who has supposedly been "weeding through individual state laws and NLRB regulations" since January 4. How's that going? Once again, you fail to produce a single provision of a single law that "forces" management into labor contracts. Yet you continue argue by mere assertion. I need to assign that statement a hotkey to save time in responding to your 100% fact-free claims. Here's a piece of advice you might want to consider: repeating your lie doesn't make it more likely to become true.
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Jan 13, 2011 17:18:35 GMT -5
Even the union sycophant Printemps understands that and approves of it wholeheartedly and doesn't see anything wrong with it. But at least is honest enough to understand that forced unionism is enforced upon employees in 27 states and upon employers in all 50. Total fabrication. Your employment at the company is *your choice*. Did anyone force you to work there? To apply for the job? Then just like a company has the right to enforce a dress code, they have a right to decide how they'll run their business so much as it's fair and even to all applicants and employees. The employer can hire replacement workers as contract talks hit an impasse or a work action is pending. No one is forced to sign anything. Replacement agencies supply "managers and non-union employees borrowed from facilities that are not directly impacted by the strike" on a long-term basis.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 13, 2011 17:52:07 GMT -5
Printemps, keep up.
We're not even talking about that at this moment. I know that you support forced unionism. But Ronad is denying its existence.
But, read the NLRA: They do not have the option to not negotiate, and federal mediators will step in, and under Obama's new suggestions will go a step further and simply make the decision for them.
No company in the US can refuse to negotiate if a simple majority votes for a union.
Even Wikipedia understands that much:
The National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act (after its sponsor, Senator Robert F. Wagner) (Pub.L. 74-198, 49 Stat. 449, codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 151–169), is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in support of their demands. The Act does not apply to workers who are covered by the Railway Labor Act, agricultural employees, domestic employees, supervisors, federal, state or local government workers, independent contractors and some close relatives of individual employers.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 13, 2011 17:54:34 GMT -5
The NLRA, as enacted in 1935, defined and prohibited five unfair labor practices. These prohibitions still exist, while others have been added under later legislation. The original employer unfair labor practices consisted of:
* Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in their rights under Section 7. These rights include freedom of association, mutual aid or protection, self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively for wages and working conditions through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other protected concerted activities with or without a union. Section 8(a)(1)
* "Dominating" or interfering with the formation or administration of any labor organization . Section 8(a)(2)
* Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization. 8(a)(3)
* Discriminating against employees who file charges or testify. 8(a)(4) * Refusing to bargain collectively with the representative of the employer's employees. 8(a)(5)[/u] [/b]
|
|