[LinearPhilosopher]

http://front.moveon....zRUMep.facebook

came up on my feed

[Vengeance]

Nice one


Here is my favoriteBurns and the fiscal cliff

[worry]

Right-to-Work only good for some, apparently: http://www.mlive.com...umus_lyons.html

[Morgoth]

The idea that you should be forced to join a union is completely alien to me, and I'm from a socialist utopia with a very strong union presence.

[worry]

Nobody's forced to join a union.

[Morgoth]

Isn't the whole right to work based on not having to join a union to work?

[worry]

That's the tricky language the anti-union cohort uses to frame their opposition, and it's a widely held misconception as a result, but no. In fact the "closed shop" has been illegal in the US since the 1940s. In non-Right-to-Work states, where some employer/union negotiations have led to security agreements in contracts, employees may have to contribute a portion of their pay towards the operations of collective bargaining -- but this is because regardless of whether they join the union or not, they are protected in that contract from the same abuses that union members are. But again, this is as a result of private employer/union contracts and have nothing to do with government enforcement. "Right-to-work" laws are the government imposition. You've no more joined a union by financially contributing to collective bargaining than you have joined the army by paying your taxes.

[Morgoth]

Ah, well if I was opposed to unions (being a bit daft if so) I wouldn't be particulatly pleased having to support them at all. Nor do I think freeloaders, as I believe the term to be, is something that unions necessariyl should be bothered by.

A union is not a corporation. They are not here to make profits, or only work for their members. A union should work to improve the situation of all workers, at least within the areas they are represented. Freeloaders are anoying for sure, but they should hardly be forced to do anything. If the union feels they're not receiving enough in fees to work efficiently, they clearly need to change their approach in order to bring in new members. Having laws that force everyone to pay removes the main incentive for change within the union.

[Obdigore]

Morgoth, on 14 December 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

Ah, well if I was opposed to unions (being a bit daft if so) I wouldn't be particulatly pleased having to support them at all. Nor do I think freeloaders, as I believe the term to be, is something that unions necessariyl should be bothered by.

A union is not a corporation. They are not here to make profits, or only work for their members. A union should work to improve the situation of all workers, at least within the areas they are represented. Freeloaders are anoying for sure, but they should hardly be forced to do anything. If the union feels they're not receiving enough in fees to work efficiently, they clearly need to change their approach in order to bring in new members. Having laws that force everyone to pay removes the main incentive for change within the union.

Unions must negotiate for the worker group in its entirety, per federal law. They must litigate to protect them from wrongful termination and everything else, per federal law. This federal means that when a group of people enter into a Union (see: freedom of association) in an attempt to have any kind of power while bartering better workplace conditions and compensation, that Union, due to the Taft-Harley act, is required to work for all employees of any position that the union represents workers. However, with the 'right to work' state laws, people can now decide to work for a corporation in a 'union-job', getting the benefits of union negotiation and protection, but without having to pay dues. This decreases the funds the the union has to protect its members as well as donating to politicians that will support union (no and low skill jobs are unionized, highly skilled ones almost always are not). Not to mention that Right-To-Work states (which is doublespeak ala 1984) have over 50% more on-job fatalities and injuries, pay less, offer less healthcare, and the states in question are almost always poor, poverty ridden states that take more money from the federal government than they contribute. In addendum, closed shops are already outlawed.

As more wealth accumulates at the top, as there is less at the bottom and in the middle, the economy slows down due to a lack of spending by the consumer (note: those at the top don't spend as much as they make by ratio as those in the middle/bottom do), and so we have economic problems as people at the top, now, want they money, fuck everyone else and fuck the future of the US economy. The government isn't supposed to enable a US caste system, but rather the very opposite, which is not what it is doing now. Libertarianism is dumb. Trusting a company who is already making profits hand over fist to decide to just pay you more for shits and giggles is about as dumb as trickle down/voodoo economics. And it all comes from the same idiotic fucking source.

Unions receive no tax money from the state or federal governments. You know when you apply for a job if the job is a union job. You know when you accept a job offer that the job is a union job. No one is being 'forced' to join a union, any more than they are forced to show up to work a reasonable amount of time to not get fired or show up without being absolutely hammered every day. You can even opt out of your union contribution going to political activities, which keeps all money in the union, used for pensions and defending other union members from unjust termination.

I wont say all unions are good, because they aren't. Trying to crush unions is something no one should approve of, unless they want quick profits at the expense of the workers, the country, and the future of the US.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 14 December 2012 - 09:46 AM

[worry]

I didn't mention incorporation or profits, those aren't directly relevant issues. I would like to mention that the hypothetical anti-union you would probably be even less pleased with no weekends, no vacations, no contract, no safety regulations, and 80+ hour workweeks. Again, nobody is forced to do anything, because you're not forced to apply to a job with a union-security contract in place. But if you do apply for such a job, be prepared to pay your fair share for all of the protections you will already have in place in that contract due directly to the efforts of that union, and all the protections to come, directly from the efforts of that union. In fact there are millions of non-union workers right now -- they certainly outnumber union members by a landslide -- whose quality of life and standard of living are indisputably, exponentially higher from the gains unions have made. And it's not a big surprise that income inequity has grown the last forty years or so right alongside the decline in union support.

All that said, I repeat, these requirements are the results of private contracts reached through collective bargaining between private entities, the employer and the union. The only laws in question are Right-to-Work laws which are top-down government intrusions on private contracts. There do of course exist public sector unions, but in terms of the employer/union bargaining mechanics, contracts are derived much the same way as far as I know. And there are probably more complications for them (PR, budgetary, and otherwise), but on the other hand, these are jobs like any other, they feature employment contracts like any other, and these people deserve protection from abuses like any other.

[worry]

Obdigore, on 14 December 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Libertarianism is dumb.

If libertarians weren't so full of crap, they would recognize Unions as exactly the kind of private, bottom-up, uber-capitalistic, non-gov-interventionist, people-taking-their-own-initiative answers they pretend to champion, in opposition to the "greed is good" monsters who ruin capitalism for everyone. But they're hypocrites, so they don't.

[Morgoth]

But we have none of those requirements, and yet our unions are much much more potent than those found in the US. The same can be said for pretty much any other western country. Union deals cannot exclude non union members, yet you cannot be forced to pay into a union. You cannot make a workplace union membership exclusive, and you cannot in any other way differentiate between union and non-union members.

There are 2 different unions present in my workplace (in other places there are more, or less, depending on the size and nature of the work done). The two unions represents us in negotiation with the company, and all employees get the benefits from that. Be they members or not. I'm a union member by the by, and have been since I started working at the age of 15. Though I was a member of a different union back then. These days I pay to the lawyers association, and I have a coffee mug to prove it.

I joined a union because I think unions are important, but also for the added security offered in the form of representation in case I ever end up in a conflict with my employer. In addition they offer great insurance benefits to members.

Now, I don't understand why american unions need much more protection than unions elsewhere. I have a 5 day working week even though there are no such rules present as mentioned above in worryworts and obdi's posts. In fact, the protections and benefits I enjoy are on average wastly superior to that of an American worker. Why is that? Why is that the case of all of Western Europe?

[Obdigore]

Morgoth, on 14 December 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

But we have none of those requirements, and yet our unions are much much more potent than those found in the US. The same can be said for pretty much any other western country. Union deals cannot exclude non union members, yet you cannot be forced to pay into a union. You cannot make a workplace union membership exclusive, and you cannot in any other way differentiate between union and non-union members.

There are 2 different unions present in my workplace (in other places there are more, or less, depending on the size and nature of the work done). The two unions represents us in negotiation with the company, and all employees get the benefits from that. Be they members or not. I'm a union member by the by, and have been since I started working at the age of 15. Though I was a member of a different union back then. These days I pay to the lawyers association, and I have a coffee mug to prove it.

I joined a union because I think unions are important, but also for the added security offered in the form of representation in case I ever end up in a conflict with my employer. In addition they offer great insurance benefits to members.

Now, I don't understand why american unions need much more protection than unions elsewhere. I have a 5 day working week even though there are no such rules present as mentioned above in worryworts and obdi's posts. In fact, the protections and benefits I enjoy are on average wastly superior to that of an American worker. Why is that? Why is that the case of all of Western Europe?

Different cultures and different government protections. It isn't the unions themselves that need protection, but rather the freedom of association and the rights of the low/medium income workers.

[worry]

Also, American unions are largely weak, undermanned, and underfunded. Robber barrons want them gone, period (and are largely successful); the major plutocratic party naturally despises them; and the other party mostly pays them lip service these days at best (for a variety of reasons, some political some not). You seem to be under the impression that the government affirmatively protects unions, and that's pretty much the opposite of the case. The law, as is, already leashes them. Right-to-Work laws declaw, defang, neuter/spay, and tranquilize them. Meanwhile multiple national-level US politicians this year -- this year -- argued that child labor laws should be abolished. I dunno if Obdi's answer covers it. It doesn't help that what we call the "conservative" party here is actually, fundamentally, regressive. Like it's not mostly reasonable people and then a bunch of fringe kooks. There is a massively powerful cohort of extremely cold-hearted living caricatures who actively seek to do whatever necessary to increase profits. Collateral damage, in the form of people's lives, means nothing.

And so far we're talking about this in generalities, but if you want to see what is specifically happening here right now: http://www.msnbc.msn...193887#50193887

[HoosierDaddy]

If only those kindergardeners had been armed this tragedy wouldn't have taken place.

But, of course there isn't time for a debate on national gun control. The NRA has bought everyone in Washington off and it's a non-starter anymore. The above is more likely to happen than anything productive.

From Reddit's threads starter about mental illness:

"Yup. I was really pissed at first too, and I'm not anti-guns, so my first thought was to arm everyone. But there is no amount of restricting or distributing guns that will address that people can be fucked up in the head."

"Prohibition on drugs and alcohol didn't work."

"It's not the guns it's the manics."

"Guy in China stabbed 22 kids."

Any excuse to not admit that without the sickening prevalence of firearms things like this would be much harder to do.

[worry]

I agree with you. It's really hard to hope that even this will lead to strong legislation from either party. What I would hope is that the President calls for people to make their voices heard -- I'm almost certain that when you talk about raw numbers, rather than districts subject to gerrymandered micro-elections, that most Americans actually disagree with the NRA and would like to see tighter firearm regulations. And with the heft of that -- however informal a "poll" it might be -- the President could introduce legislation on the issue. He needs a groundswell first, basically. That doesn't mean either chamber of congress would vote for it. Maybe the Senate would if the filibuster is reformed in January, but even Dems in the House would shy away due to the 2014 elections.

[Gnaw]

Edit: moved to new topic

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 14 December 2012 - 11:34 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, if you want to be an Originalist: How long would it take you to fire your musket, reload it, and fire it again, 27 times. While also being a member of an official state Militia.

You want an M16? Join the National Guard.

[Gnaw]

HoosierDaddy, on 14 December 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, if you want to be an Originalist: How long would it take you to fire your musket, reload it, and fire it again, 27 times. While also being a member of an official state Militia.

You want an M16? Join the National Guard.

reply is here
http://forum.malazan...showtopic=25171

[worry]

Let's hope this is the month that Boehner and Cantor destroy each other for good.
http://www.politico....bill-85661.html