|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 21, 2011 10:09:40 GMT -5
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589 
|
Post by pompey on Jan 21, 2011 10:27:45 GMT -5
Among other things, this would effectively dismantle the police union, etc.
It's a popular bill among the corporate elite and their libertarian handmaidens (and Rand Paul fundraisers), but here in the real world it's going nowhere fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 21, 2011 12:42:28 GMT -5
Can you explain to me how this could be a negative?
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Jan 21, 2011 13:46:55 GMT -5
Can you explain to me how this could be a negative? I'd be happy to if you will admit that you honestly don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 22, 2011 7:56:34 GMT -5
Can you explain to me how this could be a negative? I'd be happy to if you will admit that you honestly don't know. I honestly don't know. If the unions can only exist if membership is required by law I can't see a negative in the unions going away. |
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Jan 22, 2011 13:31:22 GMT -5
I honestly don't know. If the unions can only exist if membership is required by law I can't see a negative in the unions going away. I suspect you understand perfectly. Freedom of assembly is "required by law" when denying it tends to vest all decision-making in authority. You might as well ask why entrepreneurs shouldn't "go away" if they need legal protection against the unscrupulous. Corporations have legal protection against shareholder lawsuits. Is that too un-libertarian for your tastes? Labor law is a balancing act. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeydokey on Jan 22, 2011 14:54:58 GMT -5
I believe "I honestly don't know" was directed to the (now known as pompey) and (formerly known as truefreedomfighter) poster (imposter); and not to you printertemp.
Now I cannot wait for TTF to happily explain how: " this would effectively dismantle the police union, etc. "
I especially want to hear him explain the etc. part. har, har, har!
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 22, 2011 15:12:16 GMT -5
I honestly don't know. If the unions can only exist if membership is required by law I can't see a negative in the unions going away. I suspect you understand perfectly. You give my level of intelligence way too much credit with your suspicions. I'm really very dense. I see no connection between shareholder lawsuits and forced union representation. Maybe you could explain that connection to me while Pompey explains how the demise of a union that can't stand on its own without forced membership is a negative. Labor law may be a balancing act because of unnecessary sections of the NLRA such as Section 9(a). Why burden the union with the responsibility of representing those who are not members? |
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 22, 2011 18:37:05 GMT -5
Since forced unionism doesn't exist, he can't do away with it, so Ronad doesn't need to worry about it.
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Jan 22, 2011 19:08:46 GMT -5
I see no connection between shareholder lawsuits and forced union representation. Maybe you could explain that connection to me while Pompey explains how the demise of a union that can't stand on its own without forced membership is a negative. "Forced union representation" is your stock-in-trade taunt. Society's need for counter-balance is not terribly abstract - unless you're being disingenuous instead of "dense". I trust you do NOT believe that entrepreneurs should "go away" if they can't "stand on their own" without legal protection against the unscrupulous and suborned. Or do you? Our nature is to exploit *every* advantage within rules that are proportional...and qualified. A bargaining agent serves at the pleasure of a simple majority, as does a CEO. Both are vested with singular authority and leverage. Overseers with oversight. "...an individual employee or a group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer and to have such grievances adjusted, without the intervention of the bargaining representative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of a collective- bargaining contract or agreement then in effect."Is THAT the part of Section 9(a) you find "unnecessary?" |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 22, 2011 21:46:42 GMT -5
I see no connection between shareholder lawsuits and forced union representation. Maybe you could explain that connection to me while Pompey explains how the demise of a union that can't stand on its own without forced membership is a negative. "Forced union representation" is your stock-in-trade taunt. Society's need for counter-balance is not terribly abstract - unless you're being disingenuous instead of "dense". I trust you do NOT believe that entrepreneurs should "go away" if they can't "stand on their own" without legal protection against the unscrupulous and suborned. Or do you? Actually, I do in certain cases. One of those cases being that if the good or service the entrepreneur is hawking is inherently impossible to secure. So out of a hundred employees if 51 want to be represented the other 49 are out of luck. Heck, with the way the NLRA is written if 15 of them would like to hire an agent they are out out of luck. There are places that a democracy just doesn't work. The work place is one of those places. You didn't have to go that deep into it to get to the part I have an objection to.: Sec. 9 [Sec. 159.] (a) [Exclusive representatives; employees' adjustment of grievances directly with employer] Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: It was very nice of congress to assume that every employee would want to be represented by the union. So take section 9(a), as a whole, and chunk it if you want to make me happy. It was a bad piece of legislation when it was written and it is even worse in today's environment. |
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Jan 23, 2011 2:50:06 GMT -5
Actually, I do in certain cases. One of those cases being that if the good or service the entrepreneur is hawking is inherently impossible to secure. I give up. "Inherently impossible to secure" means what? Yep. Just like all 9,216 of Delta flight attendants who sought bargaining representation in November have to live with the votes of 9,544 who opposed it. ALL 9,216 are out of luck, 49.1%. This is how we live in a diverse society to meet the needs of competing stakeholders. A 3-2 city council dictates smoking sections in bars and restaurants go away. A successive vote might go the other way, but neither decision disenfranchises the losing side. Fortunately, we ALL live on Big Rock Candy Mountain, where no unfair dismissal claims are righteous. Not every workplace that lacks a union lacks democracy, and not every workplace that has a union necessarily has a democratic way to resolve disputes. Not a big fan of the Family and Medical Leave Act, I'm guessing. Section 9(a) qualifies the union rights you so passionately despise. Any individual or group of employees can, at any time, present grievances to their employer and have them adjusted without the intervention of the bargaining representative. Employees do not need to be union members to be protected by the National Labor Relations Act. |
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Jan 23, 2011 11:48:52 GMT -5
It would seem to me that the 9216 should have been able to bargain as a group independent of the entirety of Delta flight attendants, and Delta would have two choices: Meet their demands, or let them quit and have to go through the time, trouble and expense to hire and train replacements. If Delta chose the former, and the new demands were met only for the original 9216, then if the 9544 thought they were now being shafted, they could either choose of their own free will to join the 9216, or form their own collective bargaining group, or live with the consequences of not joining. I don't see how either forcing the entirety of a group to join a union, when only a simple majority favor it, or denying a minority of forming a union when only a simple majority oppose it, can be considered in any way fair. And while the laws may not express it in those terms, that is pretty much the effect they have. Remember, most laws are written by lawyers, and they are very good at making things look one way and behave another. You say "(e)mployees do not need to be union members to be protected by the National Labor Relations Act" but how well does that work in reality? How well does it work when you can't even get hired in the first place if you aren't a member of the union? What is your workplace going to be like if you are a member of the union and go behind your union's back?
What's wrong with letting individual bar and restaurant owners decide if they want to allow smoking, individual employees to decide if they want to work in a place that allows smoking, and individual customers to decide if they want to patronize a place that allows smoking? I can understand a city council vote to ban smoking in city buildings, they are their building to do with as they see fit, but not private establishments.
Compared to the number of laws enacted, exactly how many like that do you think are ever repealed? I don't have any stats, but it would surprise me greatly if more than one in four ever were. There is a certain amount of hysteresis to the process. The inertia of the politicians is, "We just got through arguing that over and over, it's now settled, and there's no way I'm going to bring that back up again."
There are two competing goals always at work. (Using my own terms here.) On the one hand, there is "individualism", where the individual has a need to feel he is in control, and strive for as much as he can. On the other, there is "society", which suppresses the individual for the needs of the group. Too much "individualism" and you have anarchy, too much "society" and you have stagnation. You need "society" to provide a safe environment for the "individual" to succeed. But things can be made too safe. If taken to it's logical conclusion, "society" will lead to the complete suppression of the "individual", because he will not be allowed to do anything or own anything that the "society" doesn't deem appropriate. Innovation and invention will cease, when their is no reward for success. On the other side of the coin, everyone would go off and do their own thing without aim or direction if there were no penalty for failure.
This debate is a microcosm of the larger debate that has been going on for millennia. We are fortunate to live in a time that we, as ordinary people, are able to have such a debate, because for the vast majority of history, that hasn't been the case. People have lived in societies where their roles, rights and duties were spelled out from birth before, under various priests, kings, emperors and the like. We shouldn't replace those with a government by the people, only to have the people reduced to the same roles we had before, all in the name of "being fair".
It is a common fallacy that the concept of "all men are created equal" means that all men "are equal". Look around you, and you can see the absurdity of such a concept, and yet it seems much of the thrust of liberalism is to act as if that were true.
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Jan 23, 2011 12:25:03 GMT -5
Employment law firms contend it works in reality: * An employer fired a salesman for being an “outspoken critic” against special two-hour meetings which sales personnel were required to attend without compensation before the store opened. The employee was awarded reinstatement with full back pay plus interest. NLRB v. Henry Colder Co., 907 F2d 765 (7th Cir 1990). * An employer who fired two employees who composed a letter protesting change in the method of compensation committed unfair labor practice. The employees were awarded back pay with interest, plus reinstatement. Westmont Plaza, 298 NLRB 401 (1990). * An employer who fired employees who mailed a letter to the employer’s parent company complaining of working conditions and bonuses, due in part to the employer’s president requiring employees to spend large amounts of time on the president’s personal projects committed an unfair labor practice. The employees were entitled to reinstatement, and back pay plus interest. NLRB v. Oakes Machine Corp., 897 F2d 84 (2nd Cir 1990). * An employee who objected at an employee meeting to the supervisor’s lecture about the volume of radio headsets and received a written warning was engaged in protected activity; her discharge was an unfair labor practice. The employee was awarded reinstatement, plus back pay with interest. Rockwell International v. NLRB, 814 F2d 1530 (11th Cir 1987). * A restaurant owner/manager’s discharge of an employee who complained about the employer’s tip pool system violated the NLRA. The employee was awarded reinstatement, and back pay plus interest. Showcase, Inc., 277 NLRB 1444 (1986). * The employer committed an unfair labor practice when it discharged an employee after she and another employee told a third employee of their perception that the employer’s refusal to hire that employee’s daughter was unlawful race discrimination. The employee was engaged in protected activity and was awarded back pay with interest, and reinstatement with no loss of seniority or benefits. Dearborn Big Boy No. 3, 328 NLRB No. 92 (1999). * Employers must grant employee requests to have a coworker present during an investigatory interview even when they are made by employees who are not represented by a union. A non-union, non-supervisory employee who makes the request may be accompanied by a coworker of his/her choice during any meeting or investigatory interview which the employee “reasonably believes” may result in disciplinary action. Epilepsy Foundation of Northeast Ohio, 331 NLRB No. 92 (2000). LawMemo.com |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 23, 2011 14:10:49 GMT -5
Actually, I do in certain cases. One of those cases being that if the good or service the entrepreneur is hawking is inherently impossible to secure. I give up. "Inherently impossible to secure" means what? Outdoor theater is one thing I can think of. The old Red Bank Drive-in's screen was openly visible to a friend of mine's back yard. When they went to low power FM transmitters for transmitting the sound we found that we could tune in the movie on a radio and watch it from his back yard. The drive-in was selling something that was inherently impossible to secure. Let's look at the labor contract negotiator in this way. Even if the agent has only a single client by setting the value of that clients work any other worker of similar talent can point to the value negotiated by the agent for the job as a base value of that job. Should laws be passed so that that talent agent then gets a cut of the salary of every other worker in that position? No, the service he is rendering is paid for only by the clients he signs, not other workers that may also benefit but didn't sign. Why should unions be any different than any other talent agent out there? And I'll argue that they should be able to have representation for themselves. If they want to bargain as a block for wages and benefits, more power to them. If the 9,544 who opposed collective bargaining want to bargain individually, let them. If Delta decides it only wants to deal with a union then let it make union membership a condition of employment. This is a completely different issue but as much as I like non-smoking environments I can't condone a city council dictating where people can and can not smoke. No, I'm not. I honestly can't see how government can mandate that and still claim this to be a free market society. I don't believe any of the protections offered by the NLRA are necessary in a free market. |
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Jan 23, 2011 15:40:35 GMT -5
Printemps, not what I was asking about, and you know it. I wasn't asking about NLRB in general, I was asking about it in reference to unions. None of those examples, as you stated them, say anything about unions. Plus, the more important questions weren't even addressed.
1. How could any of these people have even gotten their job in the first place, if union membership were required and they did not want to join a union? What would the NLRB have to say about that? Would they support the person trying to get the job, or the union?
2. Even assuming all of your examples were union shops and the union was bypassed, for all of those who were reinstated, do you truly believe they lived happily ever after in that workplace? Regardless of the fact that the employer would can them again at any opportunity (everyone makes mistakes, so the opportunity would arise), would their union bosses and coworkers really not hassle them in any way for bypassing the union? Would the NLRB do anything to protect what unions call "scabs"?
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Jan 23, 2011 16:00:32 GMT -5
Best of luck dismantling the above. Hoping for frequent progress reports, Justin.
Are you so categorically opposed to public regulation of private enterprise that you cannot even bring yourself to say that the Woolworth lunch counter should've been desegregated?
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Jan 23, 2011 16:21:19 GMT -5
Printemps, not what I was asking about, and you know it. I wasn't asking about NLRB in general, I was asking about it in reference to unions. None of those examples, as you stated them, say anything about unions. Yes, it was what you were asking about: "You say "(e)mployees do not need to be union members to be protected by the National Labor Relations Act" but how well does that work in reality? How well does it work when you can't even get hired in the first place if you aren't a member of the union?" Even assuming all of your examples were union shops and the union was bypassed, for all of those who were reinstated, do you truly believe they lived happily ever after in that workplace? They're non-union worker examples, as indicated. You're saying these workplaces were unionized? How did you reach such a conclusion? The header on the link refers to those who "commit an unfair labor practice without a union presence in the workplace." How could any of these people have even gotten their job in the first place, if union membership were required and they did not want to join a union? Same answer. |
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Jan 23, 2011 19:57:37 GMT -5
That question was asked in the context of the discussion about unions. You chose to ignore that.
I didn't reach any conclusion about those examples being union shops, I proposed a question of "what if they had been?".
It really isn't worth discussing things with you. You ignore plain questions, and are willfully obtuse. You pick and choose which parts you want and ignore everything else. I'm done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 23, 2011 19:59:55 GMT -5
Best of luck dismantling the above. Hoping for frequent progress reports, Justin. Are you so categorically opposed to public regulation of private enterprise that you cannot even bring yourself to say that the Woolworth lunch counter should've been desegregated? When were we talking about Woolworth for this to have even been requested of me to give my opinion? My opinion is that much of desegregation was handled the wrong way. I'm fairly confident that had Woolworth not been intimidated by the local power structure to have a segregated lunch counter they would have been serving anyone with the money to buy a lunch. It isn't in a business' best interest to turn away business. So my answer is that Woolworth's lunch counter would have been desegregated long before had the local toughs been brought under control and jailed for their intimidation tactics. Those same tactics I've seen used by union members against employers and fellow employees who needed to work rather than strike. |
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Jan 23, 2011 22:26:31 GMT -5
My God, JiT, do you really believe that? I was there then. I assure you, Woolworth's and all the others GLADLY followed the color line of the day based on the FACT that the amount of $ they would get from White patrons FAR out weighed what they would get from Blacks (and lose from Whites who wouldn't sit at the same counter as Blacks. Hell, I remember music gigs in Alabama where the drummer and pianist couldn't sit down because it was a White venue). NO!! As with all capitalism, it's a matter of the MOST money. The local managers were the toughs, and the corporate types were only too glad to go along. Your anti-union addeum is a nonsequitor. |
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 23, 2011 22:43:40 GMT -5
In Selma, the bus companies were forced to segregate against their will. Blacks were their best customers. Yet the bus companies were targeted for being racist. Same with many other businesses. A handful of powerful interests got laws passed, but others suffered. (And, ironically, many racist laws were passed at the behest of unions in order to put blacks out of the job market.) If Delta decides it only wants to deal with a union then let it make union membership a condition of employment. I agree with you, although the reason this is prohibited is because most of them "voluntarily" chose to require union membership because of threats, intimidation, and general thuggery by the unions that forced them to "voluntarily" do it. (Although the government in most states will let a simple majority of employees, who don't have a stake in the business, decide what the business can be forced to do, along with the rest of the employees.) |
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Jan 23, 2011 22:56:19 GMT -5
Companies "forced" to segregate. Sure. Just like the Germans were "forced" to gas Jews. Utter nonesense! The companies segregated in their own "best interest" knowing the Blacks had no other transportation resources. Your anti-union screed is just jingoist jabber.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 24, 2011 6:18:16 GMT -5
My God, JiT, do you really believe that? I was there then. Yes, you aren't the only old fart on this board. I lived through that time also and I know that, while the majority of whites did nothing about segregation due to their own racism and bigotry few would go as far as boycotting a business that served a mixed customer base. All that was needed from the federal government at the time was for them to ensure that law enforcement and government officials took the 14th amendment to heart and saw that equal protection under the law extended to blacks as well as whites. That act alone would have opened up 90% of the segregated lunch counters. Economic pressure would have finally opened up the last 10%..... or closed them down. |
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jan 24, 2011 10:29:27 GMT -5
Their own "best interest" was obeying the local laws.
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Jan 24, 2011 11:59:15 GMT -5
All that was needed from the federal government at the time was for them to ensure that law enforcement and government officials took the 14th amendment to heart and saw that equal protection under the law extended to blacks as well as whites. The government can "ensure" that the 14th Amendment is 'taken to heart' without mandating it? You're dancing all around the issue of public regulation of private enterprise. What about red-lining? Should banks be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Without government intervention, women would still be unable to vote in this country, blacks would still be drinking from separate water fountains, and kids would still be working in coal mines for a dollar a day. That’s what the free market, left to its own devices, gives us. And for lunch counter Libertarians to argue otherwise is to completely misunderstand both history and human nature. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 24, 2011 13:04:57 GMT -5
All that was needed from the federal government at the time was for them to ensure that law enforcement and government officials took the 14th amendment to heart and saw that equal protection under the law extended to blacks as well as whites. The government can "ensure" that the 14th Amendment is 'taken to heart' without mandating it? You're dancing all around the issue of public regulation of private enterprise. I think I've been pretty open and direct in answering any questions asked of me in this thread. I'd like for you to point to anything where I've been dancing around an issue. I don't believe anyone should be discriminated on the basis of their race but a bank should be able to lend money to whomever it believes is a good risk and be allowed to deny a loan to whomever it believes to be a bad risk. Changing that criteria based on race proved to be a formula for disaster in the very recent past. Do you want to see that repeated? If government, federal, state and local, is made to follow the Constitution women will continue to be allowed to vote and blacks will be able to drink from any public water fountain without any government intervention into private business. I've never agreed with the implementation of child labor laws. Denying a child the opportunity to work is one of the worse forms of age discrimination. For you to make that statement shows a complete misunderstanding of history and human nature. You are also showing me a complete lack of ability to stay on topic. This started out as a discussion about labor unions and you've turned it into one about the civil rights and women's suffrage movement. I'm guessing that if you can't support your argument on one topic you figure that you can dance around to another topic until you find something you can make a point on. |
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Jan 24, 2011 13:27:24 GMT -5
Changing that criteria based on race proved to be a formula for disaster in the very recent past. Do you want to see that repeated? Are you referring to the recent financial meltdown and more specifically to the bursting of the housing bubble? If so, then you are making a unfortunate but common error of attributing the causation of that crisis to bank lending practices as they pertain to race. Children over the age of 14 are not denied the opportunity to work; but the terms of that employment are proscribed. There's a silver lining for you, though - employers can pay minors less than the standard federal minimum wage. Hooray for that, huh? The Constitutional arguments being set forth by printemps are, in fact, quite relevant to the labor union issues that formed the genesis of this thread. Your effort to arbitrarily cordon off that topic from its relevant context isn't even slightly persuasive. |
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Jan 24, 2011 13:36:53 GMT -5
I think I've been pretty open and direct in answering any questions asked of me in this thread. I'd like for you to point to anything where I've been dancing around an issue. Is government right to COMMAND a private business serve blacks? Pretty simple, really. I understand you "don't believe anyone should be discriminated on the basis of their race." I don't know any Libertarian purists who do. The issue of public regulation of private enterprise perfectly identifies the union debate, just as the restaurant smoking bans and the Family and Medical Leave Act do. It's all public regulation of private enterprise. "To ensure that law enforcement and government officials took the 14th amendment to heart" is not a statutory remedy, it's a strongly-worded recommendation. You said you "can't condone a city council dictating where people can and can not smoke." You believe the NLRA upends a "free market." You suggest government can't mandate worker protection "and still claim this to be a free market society." Have I misrepresented your positions? |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 24, 2011 19:32:13 GMT -5
I think I've been pretty open and direct in answering any questions asked of me in this thread. I'd like for you to point to anything where I've been dancing around an issue. Is government right to COMMAND a private business serve blacks? In most circumstances, no. I will agree that if a private entity is taking government money or is operating on government property the government can place pretty much any stipulation on the operation of that private business they wish. I feel a need to clarify something here. I'm not a Libertarian. I may have some ideas that are common with libertarian thought but I am not now, nor have I ever been a Libertarian or a libertarian. So you believe that the government has an unfettered right to regulate private enterprise in any way it sees necessary? I see a huge difference in the way labor laws are implemented and the other regulations of private enterprise that you have pointed out. just as the restaurant smoking bans and the Family and Medical Leave Act do. It's all public regulation of private enterprise. "To ensure that law enforcement and government officials took the 14th amendment to heart" is not a statutory remedy, it's a strongly-worded recommendation. Actually, in that last one you have. I have no problem with OSHA regulations. I have no problem with collective bargaining with the resulting contract being enforced by the government. I do have a problem with everyone in a shop being forced to use the same bargaining agent if the company is willing to bargain with each employee individually or through each employees own chosen bargaining agent. |
|
