Kentucky Republicans Pass Right-To-Work, Dropping The Hammer On Unions
67 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sgman91;51642278]The solution to this is to change the law requiring unions to represent non-members, not force people into the union.[/QUOTE]
You know, for someone who pretends to put such a high degree of importance on factual correctness, that you failed to even read the article is incredibly disappointing.
Let me give you a choice quote from it:
[quote]Right-to-work laws forbid contracts that require all workers in a particular bargaining unit to pay fees to a union. Under U.S. labor law, a union must represent all employees in a unionized workplace, even those who may not want representation. Unions argue it’s only fair that all workers share the costs of bargaining and maintaining the union contract.
By allowing individual workers to opt out of paying union fees while benefiting from representation ― an arrangement unions call “free riding” ― right-to-work laws can drive down membership and weaken unions financially and politically. The conservatives who push right-to-work laws argue that they assure workers’ individual freedoms by not compelling anyone to support a union.
[/quote]
This, therefore, is a move about as subtle as a sledgehammer from conservatives who are determined to destroy the protections enjoyed by American workers, through a calculated weakening of their unions. They're taking advantage of federal legislation that ensures unions represent all workers equally by giving some workers the option to opt out of paying union fees, thereby starving unions of resources they need to properly represent their members. Typical.
[QUOTE=Skerion;51641139]What the fuck are we doing with this country[/QUOTE]
same thing we did in 80 and 00
It's not mandatory to join a union here, but I think it's worth it. I used to pay into USDAW and while you may never need it, it's nice knowing you've got representation if you have an issue at work.
I never onced recieved any written warning and I think it's thanks to having a union rep, we used to have a massive angry Scottish guy who was a good presence when it's you against some arsewipe manager. That alone was worth the £2.30 a week.
[QUOTE=Doozle;51642503]It's not mandatory to join a union here, but I think it's worth it. I used to pay into USDAW and while you may never need it, it's nice knowing you've got representation if you have an issue at work.
I never onced recieved any written warning and I think it's thanks to having a union rep, we used to have a massive angry Scottish guy who was a good presence when it's you against some arsewipe manager. That alone was worth the £2.30 a week.[/QUOTE]
that said, at my work we are talking about 401Ks and insurance and plenty of workers will do stuff contrary to their own interests because they "know" better. I can believe that not forcing people to take union representation hurts their overall membership
Good. Unions have devolved into corrupt organizations that have began to become a shitstain on this country. I shouldn't be forced to join one or pay fees if I don't want to.
[QUOTE=mcgrath618;51642677]Good. Unions have devolved into corrupt organizations that have began to become a shitstain on this country. I shouldn't be forced to join one or pay fees if I don't want to.[/QUOTE]
That Americans are so keen on destroying the little they have in terms of worker rights defense is astonishing. How can you support getting rid of your main bargaining chip and letting your employer walk all over you?
[QUOTE=mcgrath618;51642677]Good. Unions have devolved into corrupt organizations that have began to become a shitstain on this country. I shouldn't be forced to join one or pay fees if I don't want to.[/QUOTE]
I feel bad for you, because my union is great. Only reason I've even kept working where I am. Sucks for you, I guess.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51642353]You know, for someone who pretends to put such a high degree of importance on factual correctness, that you failed to even read the article is incredibly disappointing.
Let me give you a choice quote from it:
This, therefore, is a move about as subtle as a sledgehammer from conservatives who are determined to destroy the protections enjoyed by American workers, through a calculated weakening of their unions. They're taking advantage of federal legislation that ensures unions represent all workers equally by giving some workers the option to opt out of paying union fees, thereby starving unions of resources they need to properly represent their members. Typical.[/QUOTE]
I'm not quite sure how that quote refutes what I said. The fact that bad federal law exists doesn't mean that people should be forced into or forced to support an association that they don't want to be a part of.
Your argument should be against the federal law that forces unions to represent non-members, not with the state law that allows workers to have freedom of association.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51642784]That Americans are so keen on destroying the little they have in terms of worker rights defense is astonishing. How can you support getting rid of your main bargaining chip and letting your employer walk all over you?[/QUOTE]
Stupidity. "My company cares about me." "They'll look out for us." "They'd never fuck us over." "Damn unions are bad for the economy." Etc.
People truly are not capable of looking our for themselves and knowing what's in their best interests. Or at least a lot of them in this country aren't capable.
What's even more disgusting than that kind of foolishness is the fact that people literally fought and died in the past in order to create and legitimize unions and worker's rights in this country. Now we're just letting these fucks throw it all away like it means nothing.
[QUOTE=mcgrath618;51642677]Good. Unions have devolved into corrupt organizations that have began to become a shitstain on this country. I shouldn't be forced to join one or pay fees if I don't want to.[/QUOTE]
Except now, unions are forced to represent [I]you[/I], and they have to pay for that. The way to solve bloated, corrupt unions is to regulate them, perhaps have an independent third-party examining union cases, not deliberately trying to undermine them so that they're less effective regardless of their actual 'goodness'.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;51643002]Except now, unions are forced to represent [I]you[/I], and they have to pay for that. The way to solve bloated, corrupt unions is to regulate them, perhaps have an independent third-party examining union cases, not deliberately trying to undermine them so that they're less effective regardless of their actual 'goodness'.[/QUOTE]
Holy fuck how many levels of bureaucracy are you supposed to have just to agree with your employer on a wage?
If people don't want to be a part of a union, they shouldn't HAVE to be. If a steel worker wants to work for a company for a price they both agree on then why should other people be allowed to get in the way of that, and demand money on top of it?
"Regulating" unions is just more useless bullshit.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;51643024]Holy fuck how many levels of bureaucracy are you supposed to have just to agree with your employer on a wage?
If people don't want to be a part of a union, they shouldn't HAVE to be. If a steel worker wants to work for a company for a price they both agree on then why should other people be allowed to get in the way of that, and demand money on top of it?
"Regulating" unions is just more useless bullshit.[/QUOTE]
This might be why wages have stagnated since the 70s.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51643033]This might be why wages have stagnated since the 70s.[/QUOTE]
>Go off gold standard and start exploiting fiat to spend way outside of your means
>Expect large multitude and various methods of taxation to solve every problem
Government intervention IS why wages are stagnant.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Greentext" - Novangel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=soulharvester;51643074]>Go off gold standard and start exploiting fiat to spend way outside of your means
>Expect large multitude and various methods of taxation to solve every problem
Government intervention IS why wages are stagnant.[/QUOTE]
Well more tax cuts certainly won't fix the problem.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51643086]Maybe it's both?[/QUOTE]
Now I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or blaming my arguments for wage stagnation.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51643086]Well more tax cuts certainly won't fix the problem.[/QUOTE]
What problem, wage stagnation? Why wouldn't it? Taxes directly reduce wages, both in real terms and what your employers can pay you for your work, reducing taxes would effectively raise worker income.
Obviously it would hurt government programs, but pretending that government programs aren't at the expense of worker income is kind of absurd.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;51643074]>Go off gold standard and start exploiting fiat to spend way outside of your means
>Expect large multitude and various methods of taxation to solve every problem
Government intervention IS why wages are stagnant.[/QUOTE]
are you one of those whackos that thinks going back to gold is the solution to every problem in america?
I live in Kentucky and I work at a UPS airport, I love and hate our union to death. They can get you your job back for any offence you can think of except theft or assault. One of my friends when he was working here 7 years ago was fired three days before Christmas for job abandonment, because he left 20 minutes early to start his other job. He and his supervisor had worked out an agreement because of his other job where he can leave early, but dumbfuck upper management saw time card discrepancies and freaked out. So of course he got his job back. Unions are a great safety net for people getting fucked over.
The problem is, they work the same for everyone. Three weeks ago someone passed out in my area and the EMS were called in a panic because they thought he might have had a heart attack. Turns out, nope, he was smashed drunk and passed out from dehydration. Was he fired? Hell no. Union secured his job status and after a 3 week leave he'll be back this monday, STILL WITH his setup position. This guy has always been a lazy pain the the ass sexual harasser with multiple HR calls against him, and we thought this was the last straw but nope. The lowest in the shit pile also get that safety net and it breeds laziness and incompetency, another person in my area [b]broke TSA security rules[/b], got his job back in 2 weeks, and then after 3 weeks quit so he could put on his future resumes that he wasn't fired. These people are untouchable because of unions.
Unions need an overhaul but it seems people are deadset on either destroying them or letting them continue being a handicap in some workplaces.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51643100]are you one of those whackos that thinks going back to gold is the solution to every problem in america?[/QUOTE]
I very much doubt it's possible to reasonably peg the dollar to gold at this point, it's the federal reserve inflating the currency that's one of the primary issues anyways, and the gold standard hardly stopped us from printing more dollars than we should have (Which is kind of why we dropped it).
[QUOTE=soulharvester;51643095]Now I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or blaming my arguments for wage stagnation.
What problem, wage stagnation? Why wouldn't it? Taxes directly reduce wages, both in real terms and what your employers can pay you for your work, reducing taxes would effectively raise worker income.
Obviously it would hurt government programs, but pretending that government programs aren't at the expense of worker income is kind of absurd.[/QUOTE]
You must have slept through class since the seventies if you believe tax cuts would lead to higher wages. The increase in market freedom under the Reagan administration is what lead to the stagnation in the first place.
[video]https://youtube.com/watch?v=Sxn2Ru5MmJw[/video]
And if you believe that employers are going to kindly raise wages in proportion to their increases in profit without any leverage on the workers' part and declawed unions, you're sorely mistaken.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51642804]I'm not quite sure how that quote refutes what I said. The fact that bad federal law exists doesn't mean that people should be forced into or forced to support an association that they don't want to be a part of.
Your argument should be against the federal law that forces unions to represent non-members, not with the state law that allows workers to have freedom of association.[/QUOTE]
Oh no, you're absolutely right. Blame the federal government for making it so that all workers require representation, not the GOP lawmakers trying to dismantle unions. You could represent your country as a mental gymnast in the Olympics.
Tell me, just how does such a law serve the interests of the people of Kentucky before first challenging and reforming the law regarding unions having to represent everyone?
[QUOTE=archangel125;51643241]Oh no, you're absolutely right. Blame the federal government for making it so that all workers require representation, not the GOP lawmakers trying to dismantle unions. You could represent your country as a mental gymnast in the Olympics.
Tell me, just how does such a law serve the interests of the people of Kentucky before first challenging and reforming the law regarding unions having to represent everyone?[/QUOTE]
Personally, I'm a fan of freedom of association and forcing workers to pay an association they want nothing to do with goes directly against that.
I'm also for the idea that people know what they want more than the federal government knows what they want. It strikes me as extremely paternalistic to say that we need laws that force people into unions because they wouldn't make that choice on their own, but that the elite liberals know better.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51643258]Personally, I'm a fan of freedom of association and forcing workers to pay an association they want nothing to do with goes directly against that.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but the big picture is what's important. Again, how does it serve the interests of people in Kentucky to have unions that are trapped in a Catch 22 because of GOP lawmakers and are unable to effectively represent their paying members?
[QUOTE=archangel125;51643262]Sure, but the big picture is what's important. Again, how does it serve the interests of people in Kentucky to have unions that are trapped in a Catch 22 because of GOP lawmakers and are unable to effectively represent their paying members?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure about your position. Are you saying that right to work legislation is wrong on it's face or that it's only wrong because of the federal laws about forced representation?
Imposing harsh regulations against employers that engage in conduct that victimizes their workforce would completely render unions obsolete, but thanks to our glorious free market that will never fucking happen.
I had a conversation with my boss at my previous security contract job about Capitalism and how the market evidently can't be regulated.
Boss: Let's say you impose statewide regulations on me, regardless of what it's for, and it affects my profit line, I'm just going to move my business to another state.
Me: So, basically, if you're punished for unethical conduct, you'll just go do it elsewhere?
Boss: Pretty much.
Me: You do realize that's what we do for a living, right?
He was furious.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51643267]I'm not sure about your position. Are you saying that right to work legislation is wrong on it's face or that it's only wrong because of the federal laws about forced representation?[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that the right to work legislation is designed to do one thing and one thing only - reduce the bargaining power of unions, allowing unscrupulous employers to walk all over Kentucky workers by deliberately weakening the organizations meant to protect them. This takes advantage of an oversight in Federal law, but it doesn't mean the Feds are to blame. If the law was really designed to *help* people in Kentucky, it would only have been enacted on the heels of the repeal or reform of that Federal law. No, this is yet another thinly veiled ploy by conservative lawmakers choking on corporate cock to damage worker protections in Kentucky.
I haven't even started on the repeal of the prevailing wage laws.
Contractors are known for overcharging the government - the wage laws at least ensured that the workers actually building the structures in government contracts were given a decent wage - tell me, how does repealing that help construction workers?
If I want to work for an employer, and we both agree on the wage I want to work at, why should other people be allowed to prevent that negotiation from taking place or being completed?
[QUOTE=archangel125;51643285]I'm saying that the right to work legislation is designed to do one thing and one thing only - reduce the bargaining power of unions, allowing unscrupulous employers to walk all over Kentucky workers by deliberately weakening the organizations meant to protect them. This takes advantage of an oversight in Federal law, but it doesn't mean the Feds are to blame. If the law was really designed to *help* people in Kentucky, it would only have been enacted on the heels of the repeal or reform of that Federal law. No, this is yet another thinly veiled ploy by conservative lawmakers choking on corporate cock to damage worker protections in Kentucky.
I haven't even started on the repeal of the prevailing wage laws.
Contractors are known for overcharging the government - the wage laws at least ensured that the workers actually building the structures in government contracts were given a decent wage - tell me, how does repealing that help construction workers?[/QUOTE]
Got it, so you're applying hidden and conspiratorial motivations instead of taking the given motivations.
Do you have any evidence that right to work states pass these laws out of a desire to deliberately take advantage of the federal law and not because they don't think workers should be forced to pay into a union? Do you honestly think the GOP wouldn't push for right to work laws if those federal laws didn't exist?
Personally, I don't think people should be forced to give up their freedom of association because liberals made a bad law about unions. I would rather the unions suffer than take away basic human rights.
[editline]8th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=archangel125;51643285]Contractors are known for overcharging the government - the wage laws at least ensured that the workers actually building the structures in government contracts were given a decent wage - tell me, how does repealing that help construction workers?[/QUOTE]
It helps the construction workers not in those unions? Remember, the first laws about "prevailing wage" were intended to keep black workers from taking white unionized jobs.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51643318]Got it, so you're applying hidden and conspiratorial motivations instead of taking the given motivations.
Do you have any evidence that right to work states pass these laws out of a desire to deliberately take advantage of the federal law and not because they don't think workers should be forced to pay into a union? Do you honestly think the GOP wouldn't push for right to work laws if those federal laws didn't exist?
Personally, I don't think people should be forced to give up their freedom of association because liberals made a bad law about unions. I would rather the unions suffer than take away basic human rights.
[editline]8th January 2017[/editline]
It helps the construction workers not in those unions? Remember, the first laws about "prevailing wage" were intended to keep black workers from taking white unionized jobs.[/QUOTE]
the motives are not conspiratorial because we know it's the modus operandi of the GOP.
and for your second point, yeah and what? it's not like this anymore, if you go by your logic you should not use your constitution because it was racist at first. lol
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51643363]the motives are not conspiratorial because we know it's the modus operandi of the GOP.[/QUOTE]
That's not evidence.
[QUOTE]and for your second point, yeah and what? it's not like this anymore, if you go by your logic you should not use your constitution because it was racist at first. lol[/QUOTE]
My point is that they don't establish high wages. The entire reason for their existence is to take out competition. By favoring certain unions you make all competitors unable to compete. Originally, it was black workers. Now, it's probably more likely to be hispanic workers, especially in place like California.
So I don't understand. If you are not in a union why does the union have to represent you?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.