Stick a Fork Into the Ground 2 Miles outside Lebanon KS

[DeistPaladin]

It's nothing but the super wealthy buying elections. I don't think there we're even a republic or democracy any more.

What's your alternative?

Ban all paid political advertisement. Replace with weekly debates where the issues will be discussed in detail. Voters will have more than Madison Avenue talking points to go on when they make a decision.

Free speech is free but you shouldn't be able to buy more.

[lrh9]

I'll support corporate financing if employees can publicly dissent with upper management, the board of directors, corporate executive officers, corporate finance officers, and the business owner, etc. without fear of retaliation, without fear of losing their job.

[Mishka]

Financing corporations by whom? You can't ban their efforts at getting their viewpoints out. Citizens United decided that. Just as you can't ban any other spedcial interest group from buyig ads to get their message out. There are laws to prevent retaliation of whistle blowers. But if an employee dissents with the company they work for, the superiors may not believe they have the best interests of the company at heart. The employee has freedom of speech, but cannot shield themselves from the consequences of their speech. Unless the company uses false reasons to take adverse action against the employee, there is no law to protect them.

[lrh9]

I can with laws and with violence if necessary. One person, one vote. One person, one voice. As long as I'm alive and not imprisoned corporations will have no right to threaten or devalue a person's vote or voice with unlimited spending and firings. You can be a fascist, but you cannot shield yourself from the consequence of your oppression. Retaliation. If corporations aren't bought to heel their leaders and lap dogs will get a shotgun enema.

[Mishka]

Tell us how that works out for once they lock you up with people that have different ideas about enemas. What you accuse corporarions of is what unions have been doing for decades. You just hate the playing field getting leveled out.

[Autumnlicious]

I can with laws and with violence if necessary. One person, one vote. One person, one voice. As long as I'm alive and not imprisoned corporations will have no right to threaten or devalue a person's vote or voice with unlimited spending and firings. You can be a fascist, but you cannot shield yourself from the consequence of your oppression. Retaliation. If corporations aren't bought to heel their leaders and lap dogs will get a shotgun enema.

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo.

Tell us how that works out for once they lock you up with people that have different ideas about enemas. What you accuse corporarions of is what unions have been doing for decades. You just hate the playing field getting leveled out.

Unions developed as a reaction to industry exploitation. And yet you wish to "level" the playing field by giving corporations disproportionate power, instead of restraining in wayward unions.

What a fascist solution.

You can try to lock up others, but know that whenever a group of people holds disproportionate power over others, there will never be peace.

[Mishka]

I can with laws and with violence if necessary. One person, one vote. One person, one voice. As long as I'm alive and not imprisoned corporations will have no right to threaten or devalue a person's vote or voice with unlimited spending and firings. You can be a fascist, but you cannot shield yourself from the consequence of your oppression. Retaliation. If corporations aren't bought to heel their leaders and lap dogs will get a shotgun enema.

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo.

Tell us how that works out for once they lock you up with people that have different ideas about enemas. What you accuse corporarions of is what unions have been doing for decades. You just hate the playing field getting leveled out.

Unions developed as a reaction to industry exploitation. And yet you wish to "level" the playing field by giving corporations disproportionate power, instead of restraining in wayward unions.

What a fascist solution.

You can try to lock up others, but know that whenever a group of people holds disproportionate power over others, there will never be peace.

First, how do corporations hold disproportionate power? Hmmmm? Secondly, what you legal giants fail to realize is if you restrain what unions can say, that's prior restraint. Unconstitutional. What the Supreme Court said was that you cannot muzzle other groups as well. You don't get to pick and choose which interest group can say what about politics. The facist solution is the one you propose, restraining unions, wayward or not.

[Autumnlicious]

Corporations have the power to hire and fire people - the ability to arbitrarily remove income and potentially blacklist an employee. There are very few actions an employee can take over their termination unless one can show invidious circumstances. That is a fact of the system, one that can be easily abused.

Unions formed in response to that perceived or real unfairness. Although some very large unions can force companies to hire only union members, that is merely a consequence of overgrowth, which is dealt with by strike breakers and negotiations.

However, if one gives corporations, which are purely operating in the interests of a highly select few who pay your wages (as opposed to being a member or not in a small/medium sized union merely determining if your part of collective bargaining and nothing else), additional power, then you've upset the balance.

Unions (excepting the very large) operate on membership dues, like a Social Club. Their money comes from the members and that is it.

Corporations, on the other hand, have the FULL resources of all of their workers, union or not. Since large areas of industry are nonunionized, one has effectively given a large body of corporations additional power in uncontested circumstances.

In addition, I want to point this out:
The Union does not pay you.
The Corporation pays you.

You vote and contribute your own money to the Union if you are a member.
The Corporation (now) will spend profits, profits that would be diverted to expenses or salaries, and by extension, your work, to finance campaigns without your say.

You can live without a union. You cannot live without your work.

Therefore, corporations are given a free check to fund and influence campaigns that would be against the worker's best interests without their consent, with the only solution being to leave and suffer considerable financial punishment. Leaving a union (except in a few specific cases) won't have you deprived of an income.

---

No, my solution for restraining wayward unions is not fascist. Here's how you restrain overly powerful unions:
Make "union only" shops illegal. - This allows workers who don't want to be part of a union to work. It doesn't prevent them from joining a union - it just prevents unions from forcing people to join them.

Ooooohhhh. Sooo scaaaaary....

[Mishka]

Corporations have the power to hire and fire people - the ability to arbitrarily remove income and potentially blacklist an employee. There are very few actions an employee can take over their termination unless one can show invidious circumstances. That is a fact of the system, one that can be easily abused.

Unions formed in response to that perceived or real unfairness. Although some very large unions can force companies to hire only union members, that is merely a consequence of overgrowth, which is dealt with by strike breakers and negotiations.

However, if one gives corporations, which are purely operating in the interests of a highly select few who pay your wages (as opposed to being a member or not in a small/medium sized union merely determining if your part of collective bargaining and nothing else), additional power, then you've upset the balance.

Unions (excepting the very large) operate on membership dues, like a Social Club. Their money comes from the members and that is it.

Corporations, on the other hand, have the FULL resources of all of their workers, union or not. Since large areas of industry are nonunionized, one has effectively given a large body of corporations additional power in uncontested circumstances.

In addition, I want to point this out:
The Union does not pay you.
The Corporation pays you.

You vote and contribute your own money to the Union if you are a member.
The Corporation (now) will spend profits, profits that would be diverted to expenses or salaries, and by extension, your work, to finance campaigns without your say.

You can live without a union. You cannot live without your work.

Therefore, corporations are given a free check to fund and influence campaigns that would be against the worker's best interests without their consent, with the only solution being to leave and suffer considerable financial punishment. Leaving a union (except in a few specific cases) won't have you deprived of an income.

---

No, my solution for restraining wayward unions is not fascist. Here's how you restrain overly powerful unions:
Make "union only" shops illegal. - This allows workers who don't want to be part of a union to work. It doesn't prevent them from joining a union - it just prevents unions from forcing people to join them.

Ooooohhhh. Sooo scaaaaary....

How will you make union shops illegal. That's a states rights issue and obviously many feel the need to be able to have closed shops. There are reams of paperwork protecting employee rights and decades of case law.

[Autumnlicious]

The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947, but permits the union shop, except in those states that have passed right-to-work laws, in which case even the union shop is illegal. An employer may not lawfully agree with a union to hire only union members; it may, on the other hand, agree to require employees to join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues to it after a set period of time. Similarly, while a union could require an employer that had agreed to a closed shop contract prior to 1947 to fire an employee who had been expelled from the union for any reason, it cannot demand that an employer fire an employee under a union shop contract for any reason other than failure to pay those dues that are uniformly required of all employees.

A union shop is a form of a union security clause under which the employer agrees to hire either labor union members or nonmembers but where all non-union employees must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs.

I was right - there already is legislation to prevent unions from forcing people to join. Only the company can force an employee to join a union.

So why are corporations given additional power then?

Now comes the fun stuff.

Mishka - either put up or shut up. You've already show a consistent inability to shrink quotes, post evidence or contribute to a discussion except with small, few line sentences.

Grow a brain dammit.