Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    04 Sep '11 00:08
    Rand Paul seems to think so. What's with this National Right to Work Committee?
  2. 04 Sep '11 00:19
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Rand Paul seems to think so. What's with this National Right to Work Committee?
    Of course not, and I don't believe that's what Rand Paul or the Right to Work movement believes.

    Nobody owes you a job, but nobody should have to join a union to be able to work, provided there are jobs and hiring is taking place.
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    04 Sep '11 00:21
    OK. It's really a National Suppression of Unions movement. Got it. Quite a bit of "spin" going on with that name it seems.
  4. 04 Sep '11 00:40
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    OK. It's really a National Suppression of Unions movement. Got it. Quite a bit of "spin" going on with that name it seems.
    No spin. You really aren't so naive or uninformed as to not know what 'right to work' is.
  5. 04 Sep '11 00:47
    Originally posted by normbenign
    No spin. You really aren't so naive or uninformed as to not know what 'right to work' is.
    Employers do have the option not to enter contracts with union workers.
  6. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    04 Sep '11 01:23
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Employers do have the option not to enter contracts with union workers.
    And employees have the option of the strike. They should use it once more with the frequency they used to.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Sep '11 01:51
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    And employees have the option of the strike. They should use it once more with the frequency they used to.
    In today's economy? Yeah, right. The companies would dump them so fast they wouldn't know what hit them.

    The recent Verizon strike was particularly comical. Overpaid workers in an obsolete field (old style copper wire phone line workers; the wireless and fios divisions didn't strike) in positions that would have had scores of applicants per spot had they been open, struck because Verizon wanted to decrease some of their legacy benefits that similarly situated workers in other companies did not get. So Verizon basically said "Go ahead. Strike. Stay out. The longer the better."

    So of course they capitulated after a couple of weeks.

    The only really effective unions in this economy are public worker unions because the politicians don't have the political will to fight them like a private company would. That, of course, was Scott Walker's main point.

    I have no problem with unions in general (in the private sector). On the contrary, they should have the right to negotiate as a group and the federal rules protecting them make sense. But let them not complain when management legally administers them a smackdown.
  8. 04 Sep '11 05:05
    Originally posted by sh76
    In today's economy? Yeah, right. The companies would dump them so fast they wouldn't know what hit them.

    The recent Verizon strike was particularly comical. Overpaid workers in an obsolete field (old style copper wire phone line workers; the wireless and fios divisions didn't strike) in positions that would have had scores of applicants per spot had they bee ...[text shortened]... ke sense. But let them not complain when management legally administers them a smackdown.
    Well there is this small little detail about the teachers unions having already ceded everything Walker wanted when it comes to pay and benefits.

    But apparently that wasn't enough. The dispute was over Walker wanting to take away their bargaining rights.
  9. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    04 Sep '11 06:05
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    OK. It's really a National Suppression of Unions movement. Got it. Quite a bit of "spin" going on with that name it seems.
    Actually, I think it is a national, you should not be forced into a union
    movement if you don't want to join. Which I do believe flies against, the you
    will work in a union if you want to work, and pay dues on top of that
    movement.

    Now if that suppresses unions, they need to be suppressed.
    Kelly
  10. 04 Sep '11 07:14
    Nobody has a moral "right" to collective bargaining, because everyone should have the FREEDOM to refuse to negotiate with a gang or anyone else.

    Do I have some sort of "right" to force you (or to have government force you) to negotiate with my gang (whether my gang be the crips, bloods, teamsters, or NEA)? No, I don't.

    If I own a business, I should have the freedom to say (if I so choose): "I will not hire any gangs. I will hire only individual persons." And if I am a government official, I have an obligation to give the tax payers the most bang for their tax dollar, and that means I must not hire or negotiate with gangs.
  11. 04 Sep '11 08:04
    What's this talk about workers being forced to join a union? How can unions be effective if workers do not have the option to cancel their membership if they think the union's management is ineffective?
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Sep '11 13:06
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Well there is this small little detail about the teachers unions having already ceded everything Walker wanted when it comes to pay and benefits.

    But apparently that wasn't enough. The dispute was over Walker wanting to take away their bargaining rights.
    Walker's position was much broader than that individual case.
  13. 04 Sep '11 13:07
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What's this talk about workers being forced to join a union? How can unions be effective if workers do not have the option to cancel their membership if they think the union's management is ineffective?
    This is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I've worked in union shops before. Just try it sometime and see how your coworkers feel about you dropping out of the union. Thanks for the laugh KN.
  14. 04 Sep '11 13:17 / 1 edit
    This anti union venom is so shortsighted. The Unions saved prior generations behind not so long ago.

    Wages and benefits were higher when unions abounded. I know that many of you are against higher wages, opportunity, and security.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Sep '11 13:24
    Originally posted by badmoon
    This anti union venom is so shortsighted. The Unions saved prior generations behind not so long ago.

    Wages and benefits were higher when unions abounded. I know that many of you are against higher wages, opportunity, and security.
    Unions are great and necessary at some times and in some places.

    At other times and places, they are wasteful and destructive.

    As with most anything else.

    Unions negotiating to obtain fair wages and benefits from companies doing well are great.

    Unions fighting companies on the verge of bankruptcy to preserve legacy benefits that are way beyond the benefits received by similarly situated people in the industry and which are based on economic conditions that are no longer applicable are wasteful and destructive.