• Michigan Right-to-Work Protests "as big as Madison in 2011"- confirmed 4000, expecting "tens of thou
    54 replies, posted
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38789865']I would argue that "guaranteed profits yields terrible service" is incorrect though. This occurs when workers receiving a high wage from an employer don't see it as a return of their product, but as a handout from the employer. This is a common mindset in the US, but is fairly absent from workplaces and areas where there is a strong presence of workers' solidarity.[/QUOTE] I was exclusively referring to the unions themselves, and how their services will degrade. The mega unions may as well have CEOs with all the paycheck and bonuses that people bitch about large corporations giving to their CEOs. The union has guaranteed income because workers are forced to join it, and as soon as that happens, it is no longer in the union's best interest to cull shitty workers or to help good workers with legitimate complaints about working conditions. They all pay the same. The best interest of the union, which is effectively a corporation, becomes to have as many people employed at as high of a salary as possible, because that secures the largest income for the union. The only times I see government sanctioned monopoly/oligopoly situations working is when there are enormous fixed costs in an industry, and even then there are numerous examples of organizations hemorrhaging money. Airlines are actually a good example of this, though not because of unions, but because of government sanctioned oligopoly. Southwest kicked the living shit out of the competition following deregulation, despite what everyone said would happen. There have been degradations in quality after deregulation, such as greatly increased delays, but the cost of travel by flight dropped an astronomical amount.
i think that there is no perfect solution regarding the unions. the whole thing stinks of ulterior motives from all sides and it's become so polarized; you either support rtw and hate unions or support unions and coercive unionization. rtw would be alright if it wasnt done purposefully to limit the collective bargaining power of unions. or it might be alright if we didn't live an inherently coercive society to begin with. however both these things are true and therefore forced unionization is necessary to counterbalance the power of government and employers.
[QUOTE=Lazor;38786231] yes they do. don't be a disingenuous idiot, Strider*. Unions don't last in states with R2W laws, and that is exactly the intention of these laws, to kill unions.[/QUOTE] Ooh feisty Right to work laws may be enacted by certain political groups "to kill unions" but that was never their original intent. Unions exist in every right to work state, they just don't have as much power as in those states which give them reign over employees. [editline]11th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38786057] They prohibit workers from making contracts which affect their wages. Arguing it doesn't "prohibit unions" is semantics, that's like being okay with needless amputation of a person's left foot because they're still technically human.[/QUOTE] If the only way a union can effectively negotiate is if they are appropriated power over all employees, then maybe that is not a power they deserve or need. Unions should be able to represent the desires of its members without constraining the ones who dissent.
Well Snyder isn't getting reelected :v:
[QUOTE=Strider*;38791202]If the only way a union can effectively negotiate is if they are appropriated power over all employees, then maybe that is not a power they deserve or need. Unions should be able to represent the desires of its members without constraining the ones who dissent.[/QUOTE] That's not an argument and you know it. Unions are based on collective power, of course they can only effectively negotiate with a large body of people working in unison. If each individual employee negotiated with their employer they would have no ability to do anything whatsoever. Corporations run on collective power too. This is [I]not[/I] about the rights of people who don't want to join a union to work. This is about giving employers the right to buy labor at the lowest current market price. If I ran a corporation that bought rice farms, sold the rice, and entered into contracts with businesses stating I would only sell them rice contingent on them buying it for ten years at a price agreed upon in advance, you would consider it absurd for the government to make such contracts illegal. However, the moment glorified price ceilings becomes an issue with the labor market, you start seeing far less fans of the free market.
"Right-to-work" laws sound cushy on paper- why should I have to pay union dues if I'm not a member of the union? Why should the union intimidate me? Unfortunately the intent of right-to-work laws are hardly focused on that, but are written by business interests to make it easier for them to run the business. By breaking apart the ability of a union to collect dues from all members and essentially marginalize them out of the management of a workplace, it makes it easier for employers to manage their employees individually. I mean it should say a lot that at the end of the day, the big difference between a state with right-to-work laws and one without it is their pay and benefit differences, with those in right-to-work states receiving substantially lower fees. It may not "ban" a union, but it has had the side-effect of making it substantially harder to organize a workplace. What unions we have in Texas only engage in action that is taken on a nationwide level, and rarely on local or state issues (with the exception of the teacher unions in cities). If you're the loud kind trying to organize your fellow workers, there are ways the employer can remove you by relating it to something else (workplace harassment, creating an unsafe work environment, messing up productivity) that isn't simply agitating for a union, which would infringe on federal laws. Right-to-work isn't going to hurt just the corrupt and distant bosses, it hurts everyone including normal members. Yes, it may seem "irrelevant" and "minor" to you, but when you are working a blue-collar job, the thousands of dollars you stand to lose in pay and benefits because of the demagoguery of some teabagger fucks is overbearing and unfair. Almost every news article covering this have pointed out that studies have shown right-to-work states pay less as I mentioned above. As for the bitching about fees- this is how a union lives. Yes there are corrupt officials in the unions, especially those tied to the business like Kroger runs. However, if there is no money to run the union when it negotiates or is on strike, it essentially makes it difficult for a union to try and go on strike, much less secure a contract with the workplace. Yeah, it's "unfair" if you're paying union dues, but at the same time, can you expect to simply mooch off the union contract that the members of that union secured and fought for and not contribute to its continued existence? Conservatives always complain about a "free rider" problem, and this is what union dues address. Personally, I think if you are not willing to pay the union's dues, then you shouldn't expect to get the pay and benefits the members of the union are getting. I'm sorry if that's "unfair", but if they have put their money and time into fighting for it, you can't expect to get it too by not doing anything. Personally, I think in such cases you can opt out of the dues but you opt out of the contract and only receive what is guaranteed to you from the business and state. Texas is a right-to-work state. I had a friend who had worked in Ohio and West Virginia in some minimum wage places when he was in High School, and he has a vastly more improved perception of what benefit even the corporate unions in Kroger were able to do for him over the equivalent ones here in Texas (the same union in Kroger here have far less power and relevance). Pay was more fair, hours were better organized, it was generally more safe, and all around he was more 'happy' as far as a minimum wage job can make you happy. It's opposite in Texas for him. I swear, it's almost like a Stockholm syndrome with this sympathy for a bill that has been supported by corporations. "Right-to-work" is just another extension of trickle-down. Let the businesses have more flexibility with employees, allow them to make profit by allowing them to push against troublesome contracts- we all benefit! Way I've heard it, you and you alone are the employee that the employer will give a pay raise, the rest are the lazy bums. Then the other "lazy bums" each say the same thing and think they'll be the one who'll benefit without the freeriders from the rest of their union. And before anyone starts bitching about Democrats like they did to seed-eater, I'm with seed-eater here. The Republicans are unsurprisingly corporate stooges, but the Democrats have really not done much for unions either even though the large ones continue to support the democratic party on a "lesser of two evils" mindset. Under Obama's administration we've seen expansion of anti-union provisions without much opposition, and even here it's just Obama trying to get some political points without doing anything. The Employee Free Choice Act which unions were pushing for wasn't even able to be passed when both houses of Congress were still controlled by Democrats. Frankly Dems have done a lot of crap for unions too. I want to bring this up because people and keep talking about how Unions have "too much" power when in fact frankly they don't. If they did, this would not happen in Michigan, the heart of the UAW, and they would have been able to pass the ballot measure which would have protected collective bargaining as a right for all citizens of the state. If they had as much power, they would have been able to go back against anti-union actions in Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin. But guess what- businesses have the power and edge here. Is it really all that surprising? However the fact that this bill was passed in the way it was screams underhanded tactics to me, and indicates as well that the Republicans probably weren't confident they could pass it under normal circumstances when the state legislature formally reconvened. Another strike for the tea bagger promises for "transparency" and "politics as usual"...
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38792258]That's not an argument and you know it. Unions are based on collective power, of course they can only effectively negotiate with a large body of people working in unison.[/quote] Which is why they then should form an organization which people want to join, not one in which they are forced into. [quote]This is [I]not[/I] about the rights of people who don't want to join a union to work. This is about giving employers the right to buy labor at the lowest current market price. If I ran a corporation that bought rice farms, sold the rice, and entered into contracts with businesses stating I would only sell them rice contingent on them buying it for ten years at a price agreed upon in advance, you would consider it absurd for the government to make such contracts illegal. However, the moment glorified price ceilings becomes an issue with the labor market, you start seeing far less fans of the free market.[/QUOTE] What are you saying here? I'm not sure what to make of your example, are you implying that right to work laws introduce price ceilings on labor? It is about the right of people who don't want to join a union to work, though. There's no need to avoid a so called "race to the bottom", granting unions special privileges to avoid it is not compatible with our idea of a free economic system.
[QUOTE=mblunk;38786285]I was listening to you until you said this. Believe it or not, people can have their own opinions without supporting any particular party. Are you going to call me a Democrat for disagreeing with you? Because you'd be wrong. Are you going to assume that means I'm a Republican? Wrong again. So that means I'm third party, right? Nope. I support what I think is right, not what other people tell me to think. And right now I'm not sure what I think is right, but you're not giving your own viewpoint much credibility, which is a shame because you're one of the few people promoting it.[/QUOTE] Unions funnel millions of dollars into Democrat coffers. And if they enact card check like they want, your vote will be made public and you can be harassed by union officials over your decision.
[QUOTE=MercZ;38794282]wall of text[/QUOTE] How do you implement 'checks and balances' on a union, because like or not there are frequent examples of ridiculous corruption in them, and there are also countless examples of ridiculous policies put in place for 'union jobs' and other retarded shit. I believe that unions do a lot of good, but I've also seen unbelievable amounts of bullshit and corruption backed by them. You don't solve corruption by just handing it money. Regardless of how this legeslation was put into place (at a cursory glance to an untrained eye it seems shady as [i]fuck[/i]), mandated unions, as I see them, are of extremely inconsistent benefits and integrity. Healthcare? Wages? Reasonable working hours? Vacation time? Maternity and sick leave? Why not push for actual regulation and endorsement of those things. Having them as truly universal standards is a far better system, however idealistic, than dealing with a third party.
The fact that unions tend to give more support towards Democrats is because the Democratic Party tends to support the rights of workers more which is obviously important to people who believe workers should unionize. Because you support one aspect of something (workers rights) does not mean you support a political party that happens to push it forward. I'm against the war on drugs but that doesn't mean I support Libertarian groups.
[QUOTE=Strider*;38794824]Which is why they then should form an organization which people want to join, not one in which they are forced into.[/QUOTE] You aren't forced into it. You are not held at gunpoint and told to join a union or never work. If you are dealing with an employer which has a contract with a union, then you have to work through the union, the same way if I do business with a contractor that has a contract with another firm, if I want to do certain things, I have to go through that firm. That's the free market. You have a right to act contingent upon other variables beyond the numbers in the paycheck. [QUOTE=Strider*;38794824]What are you saying here? I'm not sure what to make of your example, are you implying that right to work laws introduce price ceilings on labor?[/QUOTE] Yes, because they do. A union is a set of freely associating people who work for compensation an in conditions of their choosing, and because single individuals rarely have the capability to negotiate with a firm comprised of multiple people operating in tandem, they also do so in tandem. Right-to-work laws say no, you cannot act in tandem if it prevents the sale of labor at the lowest possible price. That is effectively a flexible price ceiling on labor. [QUOTE=Strider*;38794824]It is about the right of people who don't want to join a union to work, though. There's no need to avoid a so called "race to the bottom", granting unions special privileges to avoid it is not compatible with our idea of a free economic system.[/QUOTE] There is no special privilege here. In a "free market", people have the right to associate with each other, they have the right to work of their own volition, and only for compensation and in conditions they find satisfactory. It follows, then, that people may decide it is in their best interests to only work given the hiring of other members of their union. That's not a privilege, that's a right in a free market. I have a right to only work for an employer that offers things I desire, if he is unwilling to do so then I do not have to work for him. If my demands are excessive, the market will correct that and I will not be employed until they are no longer excessive. This is removing a [I]right.[/I] Businesses can still act in this fashion. A gizmo sales company can refuse to sell you gizmos unless you agree to purchase them for a price agreed upon in advance and from their gizmo dealerships only. No one is arguing neoprene producers should have a right to cut in on existing DuPont contracts. Right-to-work laws infringe on [I]rights[/I] and inherently assume human capital is inferior to other capital. Does it not strike you absurd that if I establish a corporation in a right to work state which sells labor, and only sells it contingent on exclusive use of my laborers on a given job, it's not illegal? Why is an exclusivity agreement magically wrong in one case, but not the other?
Unfortunately, I wasn't unable to attend the protests like I had planned. I'm not unionized myself (for good political reasons), so I had planned to attend with my mother's union, which was taking buses up north to Lansing, but that didn't work out. Snyder passed the bill after a final senate vote. The protesters are still there, and Occupy is planning to plant themselves at the capitol. I'm wondering how that will go.
[video=youtube;u_F3oev06i0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0[/video]
[QUOTE=Ridge;38797106][video=youtube;u_F3oev06i0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0[/video][/QUOTE] And you'll notice that others on both sides were restraining them. The assault was unjustified, but violence was not common during the protests.
Violence is not always a bad thing. When it comes to wage-labor, you're talking about livelihood. Shame on the people that fight against unionization and union power, unions blunt the massive downsides to life as a commodity and give workers an alternative to the mercy of their atomized numbers in the market through solidarity. They give workers the chance to take a greater share of the wealth they produce, they help set a living standard the working class has a say in, instead of being determined by the alienated wages set by the market based on how scarce they are. These people fight against the interests of the vast majority of their countrymen. They deserve whatever retaliation they get. People think class warfare is just something a few radicals shout about. On the contrary, it starts with rightist scum holding state power and enacting laws to greater serve wage-labor on a silver platter, and their brainless lackeys on the street trying to fool people into thinking it's in their interests. Worse, some fools cry about union thuggery and coercion. What a sham, there is a coercive body with a monopoly on violence telling people how they can live, consume, and earn based on an alien mechanic, labor as a commodity, through laws passed by a government that only cares about the capital within its boundaries, because it is owned by capital. A working class answer to the class warfare being inflicted upon them is well-deserved, condemning violence on their part is just a demonstration of massive ignorance and anti-worker chauvinism. The system that fucks over workers [i]sits on a powerful coercive, armed body[/i], just to ensure it works for itself well enough. The rightists have no moral leg to stand on.
[QUOTE=Conscript;38797950]Violence is not always a bad thing. When it comes to wage-labor, you're talking about livelihood. Shame on the people that fight against unionization and union power, unions blunt the massive downsides to life as a commodity and give workers an alternative to the mercy of their atomized numbers in the market through solidarity. They give workers the chance to take a greater share of the wealth they produce, they help set a living standard the working class has a say in, instead of being determined by the alienated wages set by the market based on how scarce they are. These people fight against the interests of the vast majority of their countrymen. They deserve whatever retaliation they get. People think class warfare is just something a few radicals shout about. On the contrary, it starts with rightist scum holding state power and enacting laws to greater serve wage-labor on a silver platter, and their brainless lackeys on the street trying to fool people into thinking it's in their interests. Worse, some fools cry about union thuggery and coercion. What a sham, there is a coercive body with a monopoly on violence telling people how they can live, consume, and earn based on an alien mechanic, labor as a commodity, through laws passed by a government that only cares about the capital within its boundaries, because it is owned by capital. A working class answer to the class warfare being inflicted upon them is well-deserved, condemning violence on their part is just a demonstration of massive ignorance and anti-worker chauvinism. The system that fucks over workers [i]sits on a powerful coercive, armed body[/i], just to ensure it works for itself well enough. The rightists have no moral leg to stand on.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but how does that justify violence exactly? You don't see the other side as anything more than "scum" so they deserve to be assaulted for their opinions? They think unions are a bunch of thugs and scammers, so you're gonna beat them to prove them wrong?
[QUOTE=Ridge;38797106][video=youtube;u_F3oev06i0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0[/video][/QUOTE] Quick cuts away from a situation to another situation don't actually demonstrate anyone was assaulted. We have no way of knowing if the man asking the questions provoked someone or instigated himself. It's since been suggested [URL="http://youtu.be/rt6I8BrQCVY"]the tent was dropped by a non-union activist[/URL] and that union members pulled people back from the tent when they realized it was occupied, which would be in keeping with that last "assault". There [I]is[/I] footage of a dude being outright assaulted at this, which makes posting rigged shit even more pathetic. Grow the fuck up.
[QUOTE=Ridge;38797106][video=youtube;u_F3oev06i0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0[/video][/QUOTE] That looked provoked to me.
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;38798976]I'm sorry, but how does that justify violence exactly? You don't see the other side as anything more than "scum" so they deserve to be assaulted for their opinions? They think unions are a bunch of thugs and scammers, so you're gonna beat them to prove them wrong?[/QUOTE] What Conscript is saying, I believe, is that because the existing social order- rule capitalists and rightists- are the ones deciding the livelihood of the majority, then they are coercive. I would agree. Capitalists determining how you will live your life, spend your time- what you will make, and determine whether you will eat this week...it is coercive to have this "private tyranny" of capitalists determining the livelihood- indeed, whether you live or die- of the entire working class. In essence, the capitalists have the ability to- and often will- use what some refer to as economic violence. That an employer not only determines how I will spend ones time without his/her say; that the employer will take the value of the product of ones labor; that the employer will determine how much of the worker's product will actually be his, and keep the rest; that the capitalist will determine how to punish the worker, and determine how well the worker will eat today, or how long he will be able to pay his rent, etc... this is as coercive as the use of force, and is no different than someone achieving these means through violence. The results are the same. So is violence justified in response? I'm not so sure, but there are situations in which I absolutely believe that workers have a justification to use violence as a means to an end- and for a return on the use of economic violence? Always justified. Hence sabotage, organization, strikes, and using force to achieve a release from the grip of capitalist coercion is justified, as the capitalists already do this themselves in an effort to usurp from workers the product of their labor, and their natural wants to organize and hold power over themselves. Whether this guy going off on a counter-protester falls into any of those categories- I don't think so.
In my opinion, when I get to be 18 and must get a job, I don't wanna be forced into a union, especially with many being corrupt
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;38801380]In my opinion, when I get to be 18 and must get a job, I don't wanna be forced into a union, especially with many being corrupt[/QUOTE] Again, only large unions have the capabilities to be corrupt, and most unions are not so large. Chances are any union you have an option of joining is no larger than a few thousand members at the very most. If anything, I'd be more worried about your employer. A union may misuse your money and do under-the-table dealings with Democrats- oh no. An employer will actually hurt you and his company, and put your livelihood in jeopardy. You can usually leave a corrupted union- most of us don't have the luxury of leaving a bad workplace. If you're really so worried that you would have to be forced to pay 2-30$ a month to an organization intended to promote you, protect you, fund you, and get you better gains- over an unaccountable individual or group in a position that determines whether you eat next week, and is in a market defined in no small part by its backhanded tactics, wanting to minimize costs, and ruthless nature... then your priorities are wrong.
[QUOTE=Ridge;38797106][video=youtube;u_F3oev06i0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0[/video][/QUOTE] I flicked through a couple of this guys other videos. Sensationalist as fuck. Even ignoring the heavy cutting, I cannot take this seriously. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38802443']Again, only large unions have the capabilities to be corrupt, and most unions are not so large. Chances are any union you have an option of joining is no larger than a few thousand members at the very most.[/QUOTE] How is corruption limited to large unions? My neighbor got something like 70 people to leave his union of around 350 people in the span of a week because they caught the head siphoning a third of the money going into it off to build himself a house and a couple of nice vacations. Ironically enough he apparently only hired non union workers, but that's not really relevant. The point is. If it was mandatory, they would have been up the creek without a paddle. They mostly joined a union based a county over from what I know, but it took them a couple of months, and they were still doing work. It doesn't stop there either. If I had a dollar every time the usual union members proposed construction at town meetings...... It's absolutely ridiculous that they propose building shit "to create jobs". Every time the town wants to do something, they say it has to be bigger, better, and utilize union workers exclusively. They don't give a fuck about anyone else. They don't care that the town is never going to utilize half, sometimes a third of what they propose. It's all to server their interests at the expense of everyone else. That's is or is not corruption depending on how you view lobbying, but it's pretty damned absurd either way. People get seventeen different kinds of mad when corporations do this, but nobody seems to care when the union does the exact same thing. They incessantly heckle anyone who tries to ask questions about what they want at meetings, and they harass anyone who points out that their proposals are ridiculous. It's exceedingly fortunate that the town has it's head on relatively straight or we'd have a bunch of empty buildings rotting away, roads being completely resurfaced every 2-3 years and countless other fucking retarded projects that are not in the towns interests by any definition.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38802456] How is corruption limited to large unions? My neighbor got something like 70 people to leave his union of around 350 people in the span of a week because they caught the head siphoning a third of the money going into it off to build himself a house and a couple of nice vacations. Ironically enough he apparently only hired non union workers, but that's not really relevant. The point is. If it was mandatory, they would have been up the creek without a paddle. They mostly joined a union based a county over from what I know, but it took them a couple of months, and they were still doing work. It doesn't stop there either. If I had a dollar every time the usual union members proposed construction at town meetings...... It's absolutely ridiculous that they propose building shit "to create jobs". Every time the town wants to do something, they say it has to be bigger, better, and utilize union workers exclusively. They don't give a fuck about anyone else. They don't care that the town is never going to utilize half, sometimes a third of what they propose. It's all to server their interests at the expense of everyone else. That's is or is not corruption depending on how you view lobbying, but it's pretty damned absurd either way. People get seventeen different kinds of mad when corporations do this, but nobody seems to care when the union does the exact same thing. They incessantly heckle anyone who tries to ask questions about what they want at meetings, and they harass anyone who points out that their proposals are ridiculous. It's exceedingly fortunate that the town has it's head on relatively straight or we'd have a bunch of empty buildings rotting away, roads being completely resurfaced every 2-3 years and countless other fucking retarded projects that are not in the towns interests by any definition.[/QUOTE] And there you have your check: the fact that a significant portion of the union left because of corruption damaged the union. This is why it can't work- because the abusers are unable to continue their abuse when they are so close to the constituency (though this wouldn't have happened at all if it was a syndicated union). Essentially, when you democratize unions then they won't have the ability to do that much damage if there is corruption- just like local governments. This is one of the problems I have with large business unions, so we're on the same page with this. And you're right, they would have been in trouble- except that there's a large institutional infrastructure that exists in the US government to hold this type of thing up to legal ramifications. The NLRB has had a significant and great impact on beating down union corruption in large business unions. I'd also argue that what you're seeing in your town meetings is a political faction arguing to make gains for its faction. This is actually a natural and common process necessary for democracy- the founders made a big deal about this- specifically Madison in Federalist 10- and really, it's to be expected. Can you blame union workers for wanting to fight for more union contracts? Can you blame them for wanting to get more work in a stagnant economy that hurts the lowest portions of society the most? How is this any different than the incessant babble from businesses or the religious right who argue at every level of government for lower taxes, more business contracts from the state, and increases in religious symbolism or displays? These aren't a bad thing- it's the natural course of a healthy pluralist democracy. This isn't lobbying. What is lobbying is what both the big business unions and corporations both do on opposite ends of the isle. It's legalized bribery. But that's not the same as a bunch of union members arguing for themselves in a town hall.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.