Forced Unionism

[el Gusano]

And in 27 states (may be 28 by now) if an employee and an employer want to associate with each other, they are denied that right, by the threat of law, without interference of the union.

Both are denied their Constitutional right to freely associate.

Based on a simple vote.

And you have yet to answer if you would approve of being forced to support the KKK based on a simple vote.

It doesn't matter if your opinion that unions help, reality shows that they hurt. But that doesn't matter.

Rights are violated in forced unionism states.

Substitute Disney World for the KKK in the scenario. A simple majority of the people decide that Disney helps everyone, so you must support Disney financially or you will be denied your right to freely associate.

Would you support that based upon a simple majority vote, why or why not?

[pompey]

Refusing to bargain collectively with the representative of the employer's employees. 8(a)(5)

Um, being required to "collectively bargain" is not the same thing as "forced into a labor contract".

You really don't understand this stuff, do you?

[el Gusano]

Jan 13, 2011 17:01:58 GMT -5 pompey said:

Sorry, but that lone vote does not belong to me.

Then since two people didn't understand it, I posted the basic outline.

When a third person doesn't, I'll go straight to the NLRA.

[el Gusano]

Jan 13, 2011 17:59:26 GMT -5 pompey said:

Um, being required to "collectively bargain" is not the same thing as "forced into a labor contract".

Really?

What's the difference?

The company can't refuse to negotiate. If they don't sign the contract, they cannot replace workers.

Oh, that's right, they have the right to simply go out of business.

No, that's not force.

So, when you have a mugger come up to you and he says, "Your money or your life", you're not forced to give him your money. You have the right to die.

[pompey]

Both are denied their Constitutional right to freely associate.

So to remedy this, you wish to limit management's Constitutional right to freely associate with the Union through a union security contract.

Sorry, but you have to choose one or the other, and states have the rights to choose which set of "free association" interests to prioritize.

Don't like it? Work in a state that better suits your political ideology. You don't even need a passport!.

[Police Moderator]

I gotta disagree with elgus and agree with pompey on this one as much as it pains me. Like red-hot-poker-in-the-eye-socket pains me.

No one should be forced to join a union as a prerequisite for getting, or retaining, a job of any kind.

Unions were a good thing in the sweatshop/child labor/7 day work week/no overtime/unsafe working environment days and then the national unions consistently abused the trust of employees during the boom days.

Now we are back to the sweatshop days (At least in the LE scheme of things) and it is time for LE to be allowed to collectively (And bindingly) arbitrate all work issues with their employers.

If unions became a bad thing, it was solely because the members allowed corruption, by their leaders, to exist. Just like Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidency, we elected them (and the ones that appointed people to these posts) so we are just as much to blame as the idiots supposedly "leading" us.

Call me a communist/pinko if you want, but the fact remains that there is POWER in numbers.

Me? I am just one vote.

Me and my likewise situated brothers/sisters? We are many votes.

[pompey]

Jan 13, 2011 18:02:24 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

The company can't refuse to negotiate. If they don't sign the contract, they cannot replace workers.

Yeah, because the workers have freely associated to form a labor union, as is their right under the US Constitution.

Sorry, your weird jihad against unions is simply barking lunacy. Did someone in a union run over your dog or something? Because the lack of logic in your argument makes it seem very likely that this grudge is personal in nature.

[printemps]

Jan 13, 2011 17:57:34 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

And you have yet to answer if you would approve of being forced to support the KKK based on a simple vote.

The KKK couldn't be certified as a legitimate bargaining agent.

Title VII:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization --

(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership or applicants for membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(c).

[pompey]

Then since two people didn't understand it, I posted the basic outline.

Only one person claims not to understand; it's becoming increasingly clear that that person is you.

[printemps]

Jan 13, 2011 17:57:34 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

Both are denied their Constitutional right to freely associate.

[/u][/i][/b]

Based on a simple vote.[/quote]

A simple majority vote can likewise de-certify a union and sack its leaders. It's not tyranny on either end. You'd be separated against your will from representatives you wanted and voted for. It's a bullshit grievance anyway. You're talking about a workplace where relationships between superiors and subordinates can result in disciplinary action.

And you're not being separated from your employer since you can stay or quit. The employer CAN hire replacement workers if contract talks hit an impasse. No one is forced to sign anything. Labor law passing appellate review is qualified to achieve a Constitutional balance.

There would be no collective bargaining authority at all if a company had to merely find one employee to oppose it.

[el Gusano]

Jan 13, 2011 18:33:07 GMT -5 printemps said:

A simple majority vote can likewise de-certify a union and sack its leaders.

The difference is, you have to jump through hoops to get a de-certification election, and you have to have a majority of everyone instead of just a majority of those who vote.

And PM, sorry to hear that you will be out of a job since crimes are now voluntary contractual transactions. As long as there are two criminals and one victim, he's outvoted.

And, PM, you mean to tell me that you favor forcing every single cop to join the union, even if one has an active objection to them?

[daworm]

Let's see, no one forces you to work with a union company, but if union companies are all that there are, where do you work? That's your definition of free choice?

[printemps]

Jan 13, 2011 20:08:05 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

The difference is, you have to jump through hoops to get a de-certification election, and you have to have a majority of everyone instead of just a majority of those who vote.

You made that up?

Union Facts

When the vote is held, a majority of the workers who participate favor decertifying the union, or if the vote results in a tie, then the NLRB will officially remove the union's recognition as the bargaining representative of the workers.

[el Gusano]

You're right, my bad. I was citing the rules for the deauthorization not decertification election. Deauthorization removes the forced unionism aspect in forced unionism states, plus holds the unions accountable to its members instead of giving them an unchallenged monopoly.

Winning a deauthorization election means that a majority of employees in the bargaining unit as a whole must vote in favor of deauthorization, not just a majority of those voting. Thus, an employee who skips the election votes, in effect, against deauthorization.

Deauthorization: The Union Workers’
Trump Card

However, it's still appalling that a vote is required to enforce a specific Constitutional right to an individual. (I wonder what would happen if they voted to force blacks to pay for the KKK?)

But, both require jumping through hoops to get an election.

The first rule is the "certification bar," which holds that petitions for a decertification election cannot be filed for 1 year after a union wins an NLRB conducted election.

Another important rule is the "contract bar," which holds that petitions for a decertification election cannot be filed during the first 3 years of a collective bargaining agreement, except for during a certain 30-day "window period." In most workplaces, the 30-day “window period” for filing a decertification petition with the NLRB occurs 60 to 90 days prior to the expiration date or 3 year anniversary of the contract, whichever comes first. In the health care industry (such as hospitals), the 30-day “window period” occurs 90 to 120 days prior to the expiration date of the contract or 3 year anniversary of the contract, whichever comes first.

A decertification petition can also be filed anytime after a contract expires or becomes more than 3 years old. However, if your employer and the union enter into a successor contract, the new contract will begin another 3 year "contract bar" on decertification elections. Thus, if you miss the "window period" for filing a petition for a decertification election, you may have to wait for another 3 years to request a decertification election.

[pompey]

Nice cut and paste from the NRTW website.

www.nrtw.org/decertification-election

[el Gusano]

So?

[Police Moderator]

And, PM, you mean to tell me that you favor forcing every single cop to join the union, even if one has an active objection to them?

No, I never said anything about forcing anyone to join, or not join, a union.

[pompey]

Jan 14, 2011 1:24:20 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

So?

It's copyrighted information, yet you provide no proper attribution. That's dishonest and possibly a violation of forum rules.

[el Gusano]

Jan 14, 2011 5:49:48 GMT -5 Police Moderator said:

No, I never said anything about forcing anyone to join, or not join, a union.

That's what this entire discussion is about, not the value of unions.

Although the value was mentioned in justifying forcing people to join and support them.

27 states support forcing individuals to join or support financially unions they oppose based on a simple majority vote of employees and thereby violate the right to freely associate of opposed employees.

[el Gusano]

So, let's see...

I'm copying from two sources, accidentally fail to attribute one (which, while it is from the nrtw, did not come from their web site, so the attribution would not have been what you claim) and you have no logical rebuttal...

Aha! I see your point! Obfuscate in the face of nothing with which to respond!

[printemps]

You never offer Constitutional case law for this "free association" grievance.

You have such?

A simple majority vote can decertify and thus separate you - against your will - from representatives you wanted and voted for. It's not tyranny on either end.

[pompey]

Jan 14, 2011 10:34:08 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

So, let's see...

I'm copying from two sources, accidentally fail to attribute one (which, while it is from the nrtw, did not come from their web site, so the attribution would not have been what you claim) and you have no logical rebuttal...

You lie.

The exact words that you pasted and failed to attribute are directly from the NRTW link that I provided.

[ssmynkint]

No Pompey, I don't think eG is lying. Lying is the DELIBERATE misrepresentation of facts/an issue. I believe eG is genuinely that confused and cognitively impaired.

[el Gusano]

Jan 14, 2011 10:48:43 GMT -5 printemps said:

A simple majority vote can decertify and thus separate you - against your will - from representatives you wanted and voted for.

That's not true.

Anyone can join a union at any time. I know many unemployed people who are members of unions.

You just can't force the employer to associate unwillingly with someone he has no desire to associate with.

[el Gusano]

Jan 14, 2011 10:50:37 GMT -5 pompey said:

You lie.

The exact words that you pasted and failed to attribute are directly from the NRTW link that I provided.

Ah, so you're back to using libel as the only arrow in your quiver.

Typical of the dung sack Ronad.

The title of the document is deauthrlspet.xps

It's in my "my documents" folder.

[el Gusano]

Jan 14, 2011 10:48:43 GMT -5 printemps said:

You never offer Constitutional case law for this "free association" grievance.

Not I, but the SCOTUS has, and they have equated freedom from association to be equivalent to freedom of association.

This freedom of association was the argument that was used to force unwanted collective bargaining on employers. But it's conveniently ignored on behalf of those who want nothing to do with it.

There's nothing in the Constitution that explicitly grants the freedom of association, only the freedom of assembly, but the SCOTUS has determined that the freedom of association is inherent in the freedom of assembly.

If that's true, then a double standard is being applied in applying force to support it in one group while denying it in the other. If it's not true, they have authority to enforce it in either group.

In either case, those who wish to disassociate from the union, but associate with the employer, are being prohibited from exercising their liberty.

The government needs to enforce it for both or enforce it for neither.

[printemps]

A workplace bargaining agent can be changed against your will by a simple majority vote. The people you approved and freely associate with no longer have a role in your work life.

This is about the workplace, right? You want to make a disparate practice claim under Title VII, go ahead. And throw in workplace superior-subordinate fraternization sanctions while you're at it. The claim that someone is being denied "free association" only in the creation of a bargaining agent but not its dissolution is patently ludicrous. There's no Constitutional case law reflecting either has merit.

And, for the fifth time, the employer is not required to make an agreement against his best interest. He can declare a contract impasse and hire replacement workers - highly skilled ones - who have no stake in the union and little risk honoring a picket line.

[pompey]

Jan 14, 2011 11:46:22 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

Jan 14, 2011 10:50:37 GMT -5 pompey said:

You lie.

The exact words that you pasted and failed to attribute are directly from the NRTW link that I provided.

Ah, so you're back to using libel as the only arrow in your quiver.

Typical of the dung sack Ronad.

The title of the document is deauthrlspet.xps

It's in my "my documents" folder.

It's not libel if it's demonstrably self-evident.

Saving it to your hard drive does not invalidate the copyright or in any other way change the document's original provenance.

I could save "War and Peace" to my hard drive, but it would be dishonest to claim that it is not the work of Tolstoy - which is essentially what you are doing with the copyrighted work of the NRTW LDF.

[el Gusano]

Really?

Where did I claim it was anything other than the NRTW's work?

Where?

Show it?

Can you show where I claimed it was anything else?

Why not?

[pompey]

Jan 14, 2011 23:14:28 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

Really?

Where did I claim it was anything other than the NRTW's work?

Where?

Show it?

Can you show where I claimed it was anything else?

Why not?

You failed to cite copyrighted information.