Labor Unions - are you for or against it and why?

[reverendjeremiah]

Like I've said what, one hundred times already? I oppose ANY use of force, fraud, coercion or negligence. If you can find an example of it happening whether in business or in public it's the Government's job to stop it.I don't know what more I could possibly say if you don't get it by now, but time and time and time again I have things thrown at me, expected to defend, that if you take two fucking seconds to think about usually contain the use of one of those four things.

And I have said over and over again that the government DIDNT consider its job to step into business with labor laws until trade unions fought to FORCE the govt to do such a thing. If you took 2 fucking seconds and read some labor history you would know that. You keep falling back to "its the govt.'s job to fix such a thing", yet refuse to acknowledge the fact that it is NOW in the govt laws because of trade unions who fought and lobyied for them. Unless, of course, you are trying to suggest that since now the govt has labor laws, there is no reason to have unions or to personally fight, that we should expect the govt to intervene on our behalf.

LMFAO - a Libertarian suggesting that the govt should be trusted in matters of wage law and business. Never thought I would hear such words coming from the mouth of one who's parties own mantra is "government is the problem"

What the hell has this got to do with income as it relates to the abolishment of compulsory unions? Nothing, that's what. I never said a thing about their minimum wages, I never said anything about Australia, I never said about a minimum wage law, All I said was that real wages (the amount of goods and services you can get in exchange for your productivity) here (in New Zealand) have risen SINCE the end of compulsory union membership - This was a REFUTATION of Bozo's assertion that "All of the benefits the worker anywhere in the world has managed to win has been through struggle and through acting collectively and not as a result of largesse on the part of the employer."

My apologies. I forgot you lived in New Zealand and instead put down Australia. The same thing is happening in NZ. In fact your minimum wage is going up a dollar every other year it seems. your minimum wage is exactly the median wage for Virginian families. Your country was also the first to enact a minimum wage.

Clearly not just the tea party who can't find New Zealand on a map now is it Rev?

And clearly your homeland slipped my mind.. as I mistaken it for Australia instead of New Zealand. Again, I apologize.

Mine? No, Australia's, ours is slightly less, $12.75NZD or about $11USD at current rates, Australia's dollar buys about $1.10USD so $18 an hour US. Australia's dollar is doing phenomenally well, we unfortunately got crushed harder by your asset bubble being a country that has quite a lot of high liquidity property investment.

I agree, Australia is doing fantastic. Perhaps one of the resons why they do so well is that Australia isnt in the business of nation building like we Americans are. New Zealand is doing pretty good as well.

You also have much cheaper prices, while our wage is 32% higher than yours in terms of dollars your price index is much much lower, here it's at 4.6 on average this year and in the US I believe around 1.3, It's not a straight forward comparison but your prices are a fair bit lower.

It sure doesnt feel like it if you ask me. Infation over here is a mother fucker right now. Seems like my dollar is getting more and more worthless as the days go by.

If you call disagreement and considering someone stupid the same thing then it appears you consider me just as stupid on the economy.

No, I do not. In fact I have posted several times that I know you are intelligent. Its just sometimes you post things that make me scratch my head, such as you suggesting that "The workforce isn't being exploited." Other than that we merely have differing views.

Who are you to judge my character Rev? What makes you so special that you can speak to my values? Fuck you.

Nothing special needed. All one need to do is access the search option on this forum and view your past posts.

You do not need a UNION to deal with a legal matter.

You still arent getting it are you? Even WITH the labor laws here in America you WILL be trampled. In Virginia we have "right to work laws". These laws are EXACTLY what you are insisting should be implemented in your previous posts. Mandatory unionization is illegal in Virginia. This means that our union hall MUST give the same service to non-union workers who approach us as the paying members get. In other words, we must give them free services and protection because of this. What you consider non-interventionist and fair actually turns out to hurt those who organize. So now Unions, by default of this "neutrality" are now forced to give service for non-payment in the name of "right to work". The same system also gives so much leeway to employers that they can hire and fire you for whatever reason they want. Sure, you will say "but they cant fire someone for being black" Well, I have seen it done a few times so far, and the employee even makes a complaint to the government about it and the 2 things the govt. tells them is #1 - "you have no case to stand on unless YOU can prove that the employer has a history of such illegal activity." and #2 - "why dont you just go out and find another job.. you have a right to work in Virginia." So yeah, as I said before, being neutral when it comes to work looks fair on the surface, but when implemented always benefits the employer. Study the Walmart sexual discrimination suit and you will understand what I am talking about. Even though it was a class action lawsuit that spanned from shore to shore, they were drug under by the judges to "prove a history of abuse" from Walmart, yet their proof was not accepted as proof. The numbers were very clear, yet the ruled politically instead of unbiased. This rulling will hurt the next generation of workers as class action lawsuits were also weakened as a result of this case. And if employees are not able to pull their money together and address greivances with their employer, then what LEGAL actions can we take? Walmart is a moneyed giant. We employees are not and cannot afford to fight Walmarts army of lawyers. By weakening the class action standing in the name of labor neutrality we have lost the ability of the common worker to pull together and have our voices heard.

And now you're on to personal attacks? What a DOUCHEBAG. Yeah I only care about myself, that MUST be why I spent WEEKS helping people during the rubble from the Earthquake, right? Shovelling the liquefaction on the road for hours on end, going in to a house to pack a bag for a neighbour who was in too much panic who felt unsafe, not to mention I give to several charities when I have the means, I give what I can when someone is collecting on the streets. Surely sounds like someone who doesn't care, right?

And you dont use personal attacks as well? Calling people "authoritarians", "haters of freedom", "douchebag", and such because they disagree with you? Sounds like you are just as much human as I, dont you think? :-) As far as you helping earthquake victims, I commend you for helping your community. You showed kindness and charity in a time of need and that is always a positive force.

..but the topic is "LABOR UNIONS" ...not "NATURAL DISASTERS". My description of aid is DIRECTLY related to the topic. Yours, although worthy of great praise, is not on topic. I realize you take great pride in avoiding fallacies... but lets face it, you fall victim to fallacies just as much as anyone else.

Wow... He said "CLOSED SHOPS", as in "If you don't join the union you can't work".

And you accuse me of not reading? Hilarious! Do you think you can put your foot in your own mouth any further? Telling someone what organisations they MUST or MUST NOT join is blatantly Authoritarian. Do you dispute this?

..and that accusation grows more after such a post. You really dont understand what a "closed shop" is do you? Closed shops are, for the most part, an agreement in good faith from the majority of wage workers between the salaried and owners of a SITE SPECIFIC industry of company. In other words, the vast majority of "closed shop" contracts are done NON-COMPULSORY for a specific shop. Once the agreement is made, all new hirings MAY OR MAY NOT be subject to joining the shop union, depending on the wording of the contract. Letely compulsive union membership is outlawed. A "closed shop" contract is not a generalized union contract (such as the IBEW, which has an international constitution), but a SHOP SPECIFIC contract in which the workers and employers reach agreements upon during negotiations under the banner of a specific companies name. IBEW, for example, has an international charter that we must folow, then as a LOCAL union we have our own contract that is negotiated with several contractors (companies) within our jurisdiction. THEN, we also "sponsor" site specific contracts. These are somewhat like closed shops (for example: we just recently helped a small group of underwater electricians negotiate a shop contract with their employer which is COMPLETELY seperate from our local contract) and are SITE SPECIFIC, other than forced union membership is illegal. We call them "shop contracts" now.
I will be more than happy to explain this in more detail with you if you are interested. or you can check out wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop
and yes, my union is classified as "hiring hall" in this article. This article is merely basic information, but can help you understand it better.

Telling someone what organisation they must or must not join is authoritarian. I will not mince words. But now that you see that Shop contracts are non compulsory do you not understand why I have pishawed your claim of "authoritarianism".

My biggest dispute with you is that you are using generalized concept in this argument, where as I am using actual laws and history vital to said argument. You speak of closed shops, but you do not specifically note that they are illegal in almost every country. You speak of "non-compulsory" conditions between worker and employer, while I specifically point out the actual wording of it as "right to work laws" and specifically break them down. In fact you mention no laws at all. You merely speak in generalized terms, where as I have mentioned the Davis-Bacon act, Virginia's right to work laws, and have broken down "closed shops" with real life and contemporary examples that I have witnessed personally. If you tire of me mis-interpreting your posts, then I highly suggest that you post more specifics and less generalities in the future to avoid this. I am not perfect, and I do make mistakes (again, sorry for forgetting you lived in NZ and NOT Australia).

Now, as far as me suggesting you as "a hypocritical asshole who only cares about myself", yes, perhaps I went too far in that suggestion. From what I have seen in your previous posts I felt justified for suggesting such. My personal experience is that most people are bullshitters when it comes to standing up for peoples rights...but..lets also be fair that you ARE glorifying greed. Greed encourages you to stab your relatives in the back and take advantage of your friends and society in general. Now if you really meant being "self-sufficient" instead of "greed", then that is something completely different. Care to clarify?