[Pops]

You seem to have prejudged this argument a bit. I believe, actually, that this argument does lie in your philosophical wheelhouse. Worker's rights and wages are important to you, as I understand your philosophy insofar as you have revealed it.

Workers rights are not in the republican wheelhouse, social grievance is.
Attacking immigrants because they take all the good lawn mowing jobs is just a way to attack immigrants.

The house just passed a pro-labor bill without republican support, it will die in the senate because republicans represent the corporations, not the workers.

Republicans take workers votes, but vote the owners' interest.

.

[Plantagenet]

Workers rights are not in the republican wheelhouse

Thats not true.

Consider the Rs effort to allow workers to opt out of forced union contributions if they aren't a member of the union and/or don't agree with the political use of their donations by the unions.

supreme-court-rules-against-mandatory-union-dues-for-public-employees

The recent SCOTUS decision endorsing that R position was a huge victory for worker's rights.

No one should forced to pay union dues if they aren't even a member of that union and they especially shouldn't be forced to pay if they don't agree with what the union does with the money.

Cheers!

[AdamB]

Workers rights are not in the republican wheelhouse

Thats not true.

Consider the Rs effort to allow workers to opt out of forced union contributions if they aren't a member of the union and/or don't agree with the political use of their donations by the unions.

And how does this contribute to worker's rights of a fair and safe work environment, and honest pay for honest work? if you don't like how the union collects or spends its dues, fine, don't join or work within one. That has always been a worker's right.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Workers rights are not in the republican wheelhouse

Thats not true.

Consider the Rs effort to allow workers to opt out of forced union contributions if they aren't a member of the union and/or don't agree with the political use of their donations by the unions.

And how does this contribute to worker's rights of a fair and safe work environment, and honest pay for honest work? if you don't like how the union collects or spends its dues, fine, don't join or work within one. That has always been a worker's right.

Yeah, so if a union moves into your company, you can quit your job. Absolutely fabulous.

And let's not even talk about how many outfits unions have ruined over the years, re the workers being overpaid and not required to actually work.

The argument is not all one side wins, no matter how hard the left, and especially the far left, might try to pretend that's the case.

A couple examples: A&P groceries went bankrupt. Due to the union, people weren't required to work, the management couldn't say, make them work instead of sleeping, and they went bankrupt because high prices, meh stock, etc. couldn't compete with outfits like Kroger.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-grea ... 8F20150720

Or take the railroads. Having to have a fireman (coal shoveler) when diesel trains didn't even burn coal wasn't exactly a reasonable thing. But the unions pushed it because they could get away with it, "reasonable" as they are. I had a friend who worked on a railroad who broke down a door to get to a guy who would rather sleep than work. And of course the guy wanting to do the right thing was sanctioned, and the sleeper vs. worker was let off scot free.

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/07/21/arch ... ettle.html

Which is the day my friend quit the railroad. The way railroads have declined overall, they've gotten what they've deserved, IMO, by allowing such shiite.

But unions are all good if liberals whine loudly enough. Of course, since that's a popular meme these days. (Life isn't fair, so let's steal other peoples' money).

[Plantagenet]

Workers rights are not in the republican wheelhouse

Thats not true.

Consider the Rs effort to allow workers to opt out of forced union contributions if they aren't a member of the union and/or don't agree with the political use of their donations by the unions.

And how does this contribute to worker's rights

People have a right to not be coerced into giving up their money. Forcing people to give up their money is called stealing.

if you don't like how the union collects or spends its dues, fine, don't join or work within one. That has always been a worker's right.

Your comment doesn't make any sense.

In the real world workers are forced to join unions when they are hired into some jobs. In other situations, workers can choose not to join the union, but they were still being forced to pay union dues.

The 2018 SCOTUS decision found that workers cannot be forced to join unions and cannot be forced to allow unions to take their money......because forcing people to give up their money against their will is called stealing.


Thanks to the 2018 SCOTUS "Janus" decision, individual workers now have the right to stop unions from taking their money without their consent

Cheers!

[AdamB]

Workers rights are not in the republican wheelhouse

Thats not true.

Consider the Rs effort to allow workers to opt out of forced union contributions if they aren't a member of the union and/or don't agree with the political use of their donations by the unions.

And how does this contribute to worker's rights of a fair and safe work environment, and honest pay for honest work? if you don't like how the union collects or spends its dues, fine, don't join or work within one. That has always been a worker's right.

Yeah, so if a union moves into your company, you can quit your job. Absolutely fabulous.

Not fabulous. But certainly a worker's right, if they don't like the terms of employment, is to leave. Applies to workers in both manufacturing/union type positions, or white collar folks.

I will admit up front that I am as far from a union worker as someone can get. Other than having 2 parents who were lifelong card carrying union members (school teacher and coal miner). I can see the benefits of their employment in a union even a decade or two after they've retired, but I am also someone who has supervised more than a few folks at a time, and the idea that I might need to call a union "electrician" to change a life bulb on the manufacturing floor because the union reserves that difficult task for only shop steward level union electricians rather than the intern I would otherwise have do it, is ridiculous. And don't get me started on the differences between seniority and capability of individual workers.

And let's not even talk about how many outfits unions have ruined over the years, re the workers being overpaid and not required to actually work.

Yeah, that one bothered me back in the 70's when folks were whining about not finding good jobs... i.e "union" work. The favorite was being the person holding the Stop/Go sign on road construction projects. They loved the idea of being paid top dollar to stand around all day smoking.

But unions are all good if liberals whine loudly enough. Of course, since that's a popular meme these days. (Life isn't fair, so let's steal other peoples' money).

Stealing other people's money isn't limited to Democans.

[AdamB]

And how does this contribute to worker's rights

People have a right to not be coerced into giving up their money.

Find that one for me in the Constitution. And then stop paying the IRS and see where it gets you.

Forcing people to give up their money is called stealing.

Fortunately there isn't much of the way of force involved, if there were it would be called, you know, misdemeanor theft, and you could have them arrested. If you don't like the terms of employment, you don't get to pretend those terms don't exist, join up, and pretend union dues are being "stolen" from you.

if you don't like how the union collects or spends its dues, fine, don't join or work within one. That has always been a worker's right.

Your comment doesn't make any sense.

In your lexicon, that means it makes too much sense and you don't have a cute and inane response pretending I said something else.

[Plantagenet]

People have a right to not be coerced into giving up their money [to unions].

..... stop paying the IRS and see where it gets you.

That is absolutely silly. No offense, but I have to laugh at that one.

Unions aren't the government.

Its just silly for you to suggest that because there is a law requiring citizens to pay taxes to the US governments that unions are somehow just like the government and they can demand money too.

The SCOTUS Janus decision found that unions have no rights and no powers to demand union dues or other monies from workers without their consent. Clearly Unions are not the government and they are not even like the government.

I'm surprised that you're so out of touch with reality that you think unions have the same rights and powers as the US government when it comes to requiring individuals to pay them money. I read your post above where you say you don't have any personal experience with unions......but where did you get the bizarre idea that unions have the right to demand money from workers without their consent, just like the government? Thats a bizarre thing to suggest, I must say, especially in light of the SCOTUS JANUS decision clearly showing you are wrong.

The whole reason I come to PeakOil is because each day there is something so outrageously silly that it makes me laugh out loud.

Thanks....because your post made me laugh today!



CHEERS!

[Pops]

And this black lady on welfare owned a Cadillac.

LOL, I love the anecdotes about how unions ruined America from people who are worse off as a result of the undermining of workers.

My dad was a Teamster, totally corrupt union, but he made a pretty good living on forklift driver pay. That was back in the 50-60s when America was great, you know, where we all want to go Again?

BTW unions can't force you to contribute to their political causes, and not just in "Right To Be Fired" states. Unions can charge you for their efforts to get you higher pay and benefits but thats all. See SCOTUS: PATTERN MAKERS v. NLRB(1985)

Of course you are free to work in a non-union shop and make less - without benefits and brag about how rich your boss is getting off your sweat, it's a free country. Back when I was a non-union carpenter in the '70/80s sometime, I was making $7/hr unless I accidentally fell in to a prevailing wage government job, then it was $15/hr. Boy was I glad to not be paying that $8 or $10 bucks a month in dues! Whew! 'Merica!

Things are lots better today, for CEOs. They've eliminated unions for the most part and their average pay has increased almost 1,000% since 1978

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%. Link

But hey, those "average workers" don't have to pay union dues! Freedom!!!

---

I gotta think that the upheaval in the republican party is in part, some small part, the realization that they have been getting screwed by the old tinkle-down reaganomics voo-ddo these last 40 years, compounded by the Clinton's Third-Way social pandering and offshoring, W's tax giveaway, and trumps bait and switch: "I'm gonna raise taxes on the wealthy...NOT! Suckers!"

No doubt there will always be the wannabes who aspire to be seen as sophisticated friends of the 1%, or defenders of whatever but at some point little folks are going to see the Libs enacting policies that actually help people and the Rs talking all this crap about how the market this and capital that and Mexicans are taking your jobs an Dr Suesse is getting CANCELED and tranny golfers are keeping your daughter from winning... Aren't they ever going to realize they've been getting screwed?

[yellowcanoe]

No one should forced to pay union dues if they aren't even a member of that union and they especially shouldn't be forced to pay if they don't agree with what the union does with the money.

Cheers!

I used to think that way. However, unions are able to negotiate better pay and benefits for most of their members than if each employee had to negotiate directly with the employer. Given that a union is providing an overall benefit to its members it is only fair that everyone contribute to the costs of running the union.

I agree that it is a problem if unions are making political donations that some of their members object to. I think it is small potatoes though in comparison to corporate donations. The solution in both cases is to prohibit political donations from corporations and unions, and limit the amount that individuals can donate. This is exactly what we have done at the Federal level in Canada -- political parties can only solicit donations from individuals and there is an annual limit of $1000 on donations per individual.

[yellowcanoe]

And let's not even talk about how many outfits unions have ruined over the years, re the workers being overpaid and not required to actually work.

The argument is not all one side wins, no matter how hard the left, and especially the far left, might try to pretend that's the case.

A couple examples: A&P groceries went bankrupt. Due to the union, people weren't required to work, the management couldn't say, make them work instead of sleeping, and they went bankrupt because high prices, meh stock, etc. couldn't compete with outfits like Kroger.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-grea ... 8F20150720

Or take the railroads. Having to have a fireman (coal shoveler) when diesel trains didn't even burn coal wasn't exactly a reasonable thing. But the unions pushed it because they could get away with it, "reasonable" as they are. I had a friend who worked on a railroad who broke down a door to get to a guy who would rather sleep than work. And of course the guy wanting to do the right thing was sanctioned, and the sleeper vs. worker was let off scot free.

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/07/21/arch ... ettle.html

Which is the day my friend quit the railroad. The way railroads have declined overall, they've gotten what they've deserved, IMO, by allowing such shiite.

But unions are all good if liberals whine loudly enough. Of course, since that's a popular meme these days. (Life isn't fair, so let's steal other peoples' money).

I think to a large extent corporations get the unions they deserve. If management are operating in a corrupt, unethical, unprofessional manner it should not be a surprise to see the union operating in the same way. Newfie had a good story about that. He once worked briefly for a company that had serious management and union problems. Not much fun working for a dysfunctional organization so he switched to another firm in the same field. Much better management and a cordial and professional relationship with the union even though it was the same union (but presumably a different local) as the first company.

I can relate a personal incident that illustrates that unions are not necessarily obstructionist. I was in a meeting with senior HR people regarding rolling out a questionnaire to our members as part of a project to deploy a new job evaluation system. The employers lawyer brought up the issue of members refusing to fill in the questionnaire. The response of our union president was along the lines of "It's a requirement of their job -- they have to fill it in!". My impression was that the employer representatives were surprised at how strongly our union president felt that our members had a responsibility to fill in the questionnaire and that anyone who refused wasn't going to get much sympathy from the union.

[Plantagenet]

I agree that it is a problem if unions are making political donations that some of their members object to.

Thank you.

You and I and the US Supreme Court all agree on that point.

The solution ... is to prohibit political donations from corporations and unions, and limit the amount that individuals can donate. This is exactly what we have done at the Federal level in Canada -- political parties can only solicit donations from individuals and there is an annual limit of $1000 on donations per individual.

You are very lucky to live in a wonderful country like Canada.

Unfortunately here in the US there are limits enacted on individual donations to political parties, but these limits don't apply to donations to other political groups, and so we have a multitude of anonymous donors giving huge amounts to various PACS. Basically we've weakened the political parties and created a giant loophole for these PACs that appear and often disappear when the election is over, after dumping huge amounts of money into the elections.



At that moment the laws for donations in the US are very beneficial to the Ds, as they have outspent the Rs by huge amounts in the last 4 presidential election years. Since the Ds now control the Federal government, IMHO it is highly unlikely that they will reform the same US campaign finance laws that are so beneficial to them.

Cheers!

[evilgenius]

Workers rights are not in the republican wheelhouse

Thats not true.

Consider the Rs effort to allow workers to opt out of forced union contributions if they aren't a member of the union and/or don't agree with the political use of their donations by the unions.

And how does this contribute to worker's rights of a fair and safe work environment, and honest pay for honest work? if you don't like how the union collects or spends its dues, fine, don't join or work within one. That has always been a worker's right.

Yeah, so if a union moves into your company, you can quit your job. Absolutely fabulous.

And let's not even talk about how many outfits unions have ruined over the years, re the workers being overpaid and not required to actually work.

The argument is not all one side wins, no matter how hard the left, and especially the far left, might try to pretend that's the case.

A couple examples: A&P groceries went bankrupt. Due to the union, people weren't required to work, the management couldn't say, make them work instead of sleeping, and they went bankrupt because high prices, meh stock, etc. couldn't compete with outfits like Kroger.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-grea ... 8F20150720

Or take the railroads. Having to have a fireman (coal shoveler) when diesel trains didn't even burn coal wasn't exactly a reasonable thing. But the unions pushed it because they could get away with it, "reasonable" as they are. I had a friend who worked on a railroad who broke down a door to get to a guy who would rather sleep than work. And of course the guy wanting to do the right thing was sanctioned, and the sleeper vs. worker was let off scot free.

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/07/21/arch ... ettle.html

Which is the day my friend quit the railroad. The way railroads have declined overall, they've gotten what they've deserved, IMO, by allowing such shiite.

But unions are all good if liberals whine loudly enough. Of course, since that's a popular meme these days. (Life isn't fair, so let's steal other peoples' money).

At lot of what you say may be right. I don't think, however, that you are admitting what portion of your complaints is not down to unions. There are things like poor management to consider.

I've said this before, but, to be transparent, I will say it again. The thing I don't like about unions is how they eat their young. They don't foster them, so much as ask them to run a Darwinian obstacle course.