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

[theVOID]

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.

You speak as if I had argued that unions never did any good, I never said any such thing. I have absolutely no problem acknowledging the roles of unions in bringing employment issues to the attention of government, nor do I have any problem acknowledging the role of churches in establishing charities, civil rights activists in promoting racial equality or consumer advocates in bringing the need for government intervention to trade, the people who fought for their freedoms and the freedoms of others should be commended.

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.

Yeah, that's more accurate, what I was describing was how things would work were my political philosophy to be adopted and in my view the primary role of the government is to protect the rights of the people in all aspects, including their freedom of association.

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"

My party? I belong to no political parties. I will vote for whomever I feel best represents my views at the time, with an election here in November that is likely to be the Libertarianz.

And my "mantra", if I have one at all is the same one you have heard and ignored time and time again, that adults should be free to do whatever they like with their minds, bodies and property so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others - That is put simply but it gives you the general idea of what my beliefs are. It says no such thing as "government is the problem" though the government can be the problem, then again people, organisations, religions, the environment and many other things can also present problems, the solution I seek to the various issues people face is always the one that promotes freedom.

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

That's fine.

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.

Well, they're not exactly "in the business" but they do interfere at the request of the USA, as does New Zealand. I oppose a lot of what our troops do at the request of your government, I believe Padriac feels the same about the Australian troops. The American militarism is likely the single biggest drain on the prosperity of your people.

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.

As is it here but to much less of an extent - The 'shadow statistics' put inflation in your country at much higher than the government figures, though I doubt you'd accept them as it would mean accepting a lot more of their figures on unemployment, GDP and the like that show just how much your government is lying about the shape of your economy and the effects of their stimulus package.

The weakness of the American dollar can be largely attributed to the monetary policy enacted by your government and central bank, largely through the mechanism known as Quantitative easing where they literally create dollars out of thin air to buy treasuries, except they can't buy them directly so they tell Goldman and the like that they want to buy them, Goldman buys a ton of treasuries and then the Fed buys them 3rd party, giving Goldman a nice cut for their efforts.

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.

As I've said, that was a refutation of Bozo's assertion.

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

Such as?

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.

As it should be, it's a matter of freedom of association.

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".

That strikes me as completely unfair, if people don't want to pay their dues they shouldn't receive services. It sounds more like your state is shafting off it's responsibilities to unions without compensating them for it.

And contrary to your assertion, this is NOT "exactly" what I am insisting should be implemented. People should be free to associate, that includes people being free to chose whether or not to belong to a trade union and trade unions being free to provide services only to their members - Forcing or coercing a trade unions to provide it's services to non-members is yet another example of a coercive state, something that you are fully aware of my opposition to.

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."

Well of course the person in question has to prove wrongdoing, do you expect the accused to prove their innocence? No, the accuser has to prove guilt, that is how it is in all legal settings and is and employment law should not be exempt from the rigours of the legal system - The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim - That likewise applies to an employer who fires a person for a given reason, they need to demonstrate that the person in question did in fact break their contract, you can't fire a person and then expect them to prove they did nothing wrong.

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.

I'm not familiar with the case but I'll look into it.

And I'm also of the opinion that seeing as the courts are supposed to belong to the people they should not have to pay to use them - This is one of my biggest pet peeves with the structure of legal systems the world over, changing this is one of many things that could be done in principle to make it easier for people to pursue claims of wrongdoing - Not the end of the story by any means but there is an enormous amount of research into legal reform aimed at meeting these specific criteria.

And you dont use personal attacks as well? Calling people "authoritarians",

Telling people who they can or can not associate with is EXPLICITLY authoritarian. Bozo might not like to admit it but that is exactly what such a position is.

"haters of freedom"

Go find me ONE time I called someone that.

"douchebag"

You made this personal, you don't get to cry foul.

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.

You might not like being labelled as Authoritarian but advocating a system where by people are forced to join private organisations makes you exactly that.

..but the topic is "LABOR UNIONS" ...not "NATURAL DISASTERS". My description of aid is DIRECTLY related to the topic.

Hey, when you attack my character you've gone FAR beyond the realm of the discussion, now you to complain that I defend an off-topic attack with off-topic examples?

..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.

You might want to take it up with Bozo on this, after all I was using the term as he defined it; "I support the idea of the " closed shop " where a Union has sole representation rights at a business. ( for those that don't know, this means you MUST be in the Union to work there )."

Emphasis mine.

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".

I have no problems with what you described, it was Bozo's concept I took issue with.

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.

I took issue with what Bozo had said HE would like to see implemented and he made it abundantly clear that these were MANDATORY unions - To fault me for responding in general to a proposition stated in general is ridiculous, as is taking issue with my using the word "closed shop" specifically as he stated it.

If you want to raise specific laws I'll respond to them as presented, the right to work laws that require unions provide their services to anyone is not something I condone, it's a situation where paying members are receiving a less than ideal service while having to pay to defend people who couldn't be bothered paying dues.

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.

I said no such thing. Greed is by it's self amoral, when manifest as force it is immoral - I've already gone over specifically this with you in great detail on another thread - NONE of this is "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?

Neither.

Self-interest is neither good nor bad, it is only when it manifests in a way that thwarts the rights of others that I consider it immoral.