Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 31, 2020, 9:50 am

Poll: Labor Unions - are you for or against it and why?
This poll is closed.
I support it
90.32%
28 90.32%
I oppose it
9.68%
3 9.68%
Total 31 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Labor Unions - are you for or against it and why?
#51
RE: Labor Unions - are you for or against it and why?
(February 18, 2011 at 2:01 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: VOTING INSTRUCTIONS: Either you support a right for labor unions to exist or you do not. Example: If you support NYPNU's (Nurses Union) right to exist but you oppose IBT's (International Brotherhood of Teamsters) right to exist then you would vote "I support it". If you oppose any and all forms of labor unions then you would vote "I oppose it".

If you post on this discussion, I only ask that you vote in the poll (either before or after discussion) as well so that we can see how this strong atheist community views labor unions.

Thankyou
I cannot vote.
I support labour unions where the workers have chosen to join them freely, and have the right to eject them freely.

I do not support "closed-shop" laws where you cannot work unless you belong to a labour union; I do not see the difference in a monopoly in industry to a monopoly in labour, except that industry is forced to use the union and workers are forced through extortion to pay union dues for the privilege of a job.
James.

"Be ye not lost amongst Precept of Order." - Book of Uterus, 1:5, "Principia Discordia, or How I Found Goddess and What I Did to Her When I Found Her."
Reply
#52
RE: Labor Unions - are you for or against it and why?
(August 7, 2011 at 6:04 am)Anymouse Wrote:
(February 18, 2011 at 2:01 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: VOTING INSTRUCTIONS: Either you support a right for labor unions to exist or you do not. Example: If you support NYPNU's (Nurses Union) right to exist but you oppose IBT's (International Brotherhood of Teamsters) right to exist then you would vote "I support it". If you oppose any and all forms of labor unions then you would vote "I oppose it".

If you post on this discussion, I only ask that you vote in the poll (either before or after discussion) as well so that we can see how this strong atheist community views labor unions.

Thankyou
I cannot vote.
I support labour unions where the workers have chosen to join them freely, and have the right to eject them freely.

I do not support "closed-shop" laws where you cannot work unless you belong to a labour union; I do not see the difference in a monopoly in industry to a monopoly in labour, except that industry is forced to use the union and workers are forced through extortion to pay union dues for the privilege of a job.
James.

I will explain why I support the idea of a closed-shop. There is no half-way position on trade unionism, as far as I am concerned. There is no point in a union existing if it is not STRONG. Some employers welcome unions, as long as they " act responsibly " and that means, by implication, they do as the employer pleases. Strength comes from unity, the workers acting as one to defend and improve if possible their terms and conditions of employment. Thus, wherever possible, once a union has recognition in an organisation, usually because a majority of the workers want one, the ultimate aim should be for the union to enjoy 100% membership. In days gone by when unions were stronger than they are today, the closed-shop operated and was successful in making gains for the workers. Unfortunately, since the 1980's onwards, the idea of collectivism has been overtaken by individualism, looking out for number 1, and the big winner has been the employer.
HuhA man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Reply
#53
RE: Labor Unions - are you for or against it and why?
(August 7, 2011 at 7:25 am)bozo Wrote:
(August 7, 2011 at 6:04 am)Anymouse Wrote:
(February 18, 2011 at 2:01 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote:


I do not support "closed-shop" laws where you cannot work unless you belong to a labour union; I do not see the difference in a monopoly in industry to a monopoly in labour, except that industry is forced to use the union and workers are forced through extortion to pay union dues for the privilege of a job.
James.

I will explain why I support the idea of a closed-shop. There is no half-way position on trade unionism, as far as I am concerned. There is no point in a union existing if it is not STRONG. Some employers welcome unions, as long as they " act responsibly " and that means, by implication, they do as the employer pleases. Strength comes from unity, the workers acting as one to defend and improve if possible their terms and conditions of employment. Thus, wherever possible, once a union has recognition in an organisation, usually because a majority of the workers want one, the ultimate aim should be for the union to enjoy 100% membership. In days gone by when unions were stronger than they are today, the closed-shop operated and was successful in making gains for the workers. Unfortunately, since the 1980's onwards, the idea of collectivism has been overtaken by individualism, looking out for number 1, and the big winner has been the employer.
"Unfortunately, since the 1980's onwards, the idea of collectivism has been overtaken by individualism, looking out for number 1, and the big winner has been the employer."
Some time ago I led a union organizing effort at a place where I worked. One of the biggest obstacles I ran into was worker apathy. These people would continually b*tch and moan everyday about the way they were treated by management, but when one of us would approach them, and tell them that we could effect change by voting in a union they would respond with indifference saying that things would never change. They even refused to read any literature that informed them of their federal legal rights to organize a union and how unions could change their lives for the better. But, they continued to b*tch. Later, the management took away a lot of their vacation time and sick days...and they b*tched some more but put forth no effort to fight back. I don't feel sorry for these people, especially when the options are available to change their conditions. If they want to live in the squalor of apathy and not take responsibility to improve their lives, more power to them but as far as I'm concerned they have no right to b*tch! Throughout the organizing process workers who signed cards or who were just seen talking to me were interogated and harrassed by managers, and told to stay away from me. I was followed around everyday by managers and threatend by anti union co-workers. On one ocassion a co-worker threatened to kill me if I brought a union in. I reported the incident to a shift manager. He responded that people threaten to kill someone every day but don't really mean it. This was documented and witnessed. The begining of change can't be negotiated...it must fought for. Change is not content in the squalor of apathy. I'm a proud supporter of the AFL-CIO / RWDSU!


"Inside every Liberal there's a Totalitarian screaming to get out"

[Image: freddy_03.jpg]

Quote: JohnDG...
Quote:It was an awful mistake to characterize based upon religion. I should not judge any theist that way, I must remember what I said in order to change.
Reply
#54
RE: Labor Unions - are you for or against it and why?
(August 7, 2011 at 6:04 am)Anymouse Wrote: I cannot vote.
I support labour unions where the workers have chosen to join them freely, and have the right to eject them freely.

I do not support "closed-shop" laws where you cannot work unless you belong to a labour union; I do not see the difference in a monopoly in industry to a monopoly in labour, except that industry is forced to use the union and workers are forced through extortion to pay union dues for the privilege of a job.
James.

Yes you can vote. In this situation you would vote "I support them".

You also seem to need some education of unions as well, which is a common thing. Closed Shops are illegal in practically every country on this planet.. yet people STILL bring them up and complain about them as if they are thriving strong as of this day. Closed Shop concept has lost MUCH support, and has basically been drop for the last 30 years or so...yet that never stops anti-union voices (Im not saying that this is you, just giving out examples here) from bringing up "Closed Shops" as soon as the topic is brought up. There are so much anti-union ferver in the world, especially in America.
(August 6, 2011 at 2:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: And people think that redneck is an insult.

I dont really think so...well, it is and it isnt. Even Rednecks will use the word to describe themselves. Sort of like the word "nigger". Ive seen plenty black AND white people use it to describe themselves in a good way. Its all in the context. Its all about how you use it.

I'm a Redneck..know what Im sayin' my Nigger?!
Reply
#55
RE: Labor Unions - are you for or against it and why?
(August 7, 2011 at 9:36 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote:
(August 7, 2011 at 6:04 am)Anymouse Wrote: I cannot vote.
I support labour unions where the workers have chosen to join them freely, and have the right to eject them freely.

I do not support "closed-shop" laws where you cannot work unless you belong to a labour union; I do not see the difference in a monopoly in industry to a monopoly in labour, except that industry is forced to use the union and workers are forced through extortion to pay union dues for the privilege of a job.
James.

Yes you can vote. In this situation you would vote "I support them".

You also seem to need some education of unions as well, which is a common thing. Closed Shops are illegal in practically every country on this planet.. yet people STILL bring them up and complain about them as if they are thriving strong as of this day. Closed Shop concept has lost MUCH support, and has basically been drop for the last 30 years or so...yet that never stops anti-union voices (Im not saying that this is you, just giving out examples here) from bringing up "Closed Shops" as soon as the topic is brought up. There are so much anti-union ferver in the world, especially in America.
(August 6, 2011 at 2:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: And people think that redneck is an insult.

I dont really think so...well, it is and it isnt. Even Rednecks will use the word to describe themselves. Sort of like the word "nigger". Ive seen plenty black AND white people use it to describe themselves in a good way. Its all in the context. Its all about how you use it.

I'm a Redneck..know what Im sayin' my Nigger?!
Interestingly, the term Redneck was used to identify union coalminers in the 1910's,(the History Channel had an interesting segment about this). Workers wore red bandanas around their necks to signify that they belonged to a union, hence the term redneck. The West Virginia coalminers who marched through Blair Mountain after the assassination of pro-union sherriff, Sid Hatfield, wore the red bandanas around their necks to identify themselves with the coal miners union, UMW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck#Coal_miners

"Inside every Liberal there's a Totalitarian screaming to get out"

[Image: freddy_03.jpg]

Quote: JohnDG...
Quote:It was an awful mistake to characterize based upon religion. I should not judge any theist that way, I must remember what I said in order to change.
Reply
#56
RE: Labor Unions - are you for or against it and why?
Void Wrote: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.
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 to a point I can understand how much more efficient it would be to do such. Which is one of the reasons why authoritarian type socialistic/fascist countries ban labor unions (China, Nazi-Germany, Soviet Russia, etc..). Some Republics are just as Authoritarian in some aspects, such as America for the most part allows Unions, but the Department of Labor is appointed by our fearless leader, and not by popular vote during the elections. A union is worthless if its dues paying members cannot choose who represents them. That, in its most basic form, is taxation without representation...and we Americans have a long history of opposing such things. You must be more socialistic in your libertarian views. I have noticed this at least once before.. I think it was on health care. The closest I might come is if there was a strong Anarchosocialist group to vote for. I might just vote for them on certain things. I wish we had more options to vote for where I live. I would vote Green party on some things, and maybe even Republican on others. Its not the party to me.. I am an indep Progressive. I will vote for who is the most progressive on the ticket. So I think I understand what you are saying now. You are an indep Libertarian. Which makes sense, as when I was showing some things to you about the American Libertarian Party, you would turn your nose up to it. Maybe its best to clear things up that you might say "Indep Libertarian" instead of just "Libertarian", so that people will not automatically assume you are party minded.
Void Wrote: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.
So true. Im currently working for NATO staff college and I am well aware of how many countries will gladly send out troops at the request of America, for many different reasons. Many of those countries depend on America for many different things.
Void Wrote: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.
I would say that Shadow Stats is pretty close. I cant say for sure, but I would guess that 1 in 6, or 1 in 5 are out of work long term. I would say that yes, the "money police" as you generalize, has a part in it. Quantitative easing works when it is needed, but it will ruin an economy if abused. It doesnt help that our millitary complex IS the vast majority of our countries economy. An economy based on a millitary will quickly become a dictator and will rise and swell dependent on the tides of war and the booty you can pull from it.
Void Wrote: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.
I should have assumed that you didnt know that, but like I said before, I consider you to be very intelligent. I also realize now that you oppose this sort of thing. I am hoping that you too will realize that my point of view on this ultimately is that there will always be a "flux" in situations like this. Sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" thing. Staying neutral does NOTHING for this sytem. You have to pick a side if you want your views to be heard, and both choices can easily become abusive and authoritarian. And yes, that is the little Anarchist devil whispering in my ear right now...my guilty secret love affair with anarchy.
Void Wrote: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.
Yeah..if they would accept the proof handed for the first offense as evidence to take a company to court, but that is not the case. If you re-read the post I made, you will see that they specifically expect a HISTORY of abuse. This means that they need a long track record of complaints in order to do something about it. The only way you can get a track record of complaints heard properly is in a Class Action Lawsuit. Class Actions suits are currently being eroded more and more as the days go by. In other words, legally speaking: required history of abuse + innability to class action = corporate immunity from lawsuit wether individual or group.

This is VERY damaging to a free trade economy
Void Wrote: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.
Fucking court fines are usually more than the legal fine in my state...regardless of wether you win or lose in some matters. Im glad that you too are aware of how bullshit that is. Im all for legal reform. I am in favor for less laws that are simple and efficient.
Void Wrote:You made this personal, you don't get to cry foul.
LMFAO - I can cry foul all I want. So can you. Besides..didnt it make you feel good to call me a douche bag? This is Trade unions and the sub connected topic of economics we are discussing here.. of course people are going to take it personal.

..at least I havent called you HITLER yet... LOL...which is usually what most people in these types of discussions do to each other...lol...this is one of the FEW forums where Godwins law rarely rears its ugly head.
Void Wrote:I have no problems with what you described, it was Bozo's concept I took issue with.
I can understand his point of view as well. I support closed shops for certain situations, such as very dangerous and highly skilled work...like underwater electrical/welding, Nuke plant maintenance, higly specialized and dangerous jobs should have a guild overseeing certification requirements and taking QC personally in good faith with the owners of the means of production (either private or public). But as far as closed shop for McDonalds or construction..hmm, some shop contracts, or maintenance contracts do just as well without making membership mandatory. The employer should not be FORCED to agree to a closed shop..but the idea of making closed shops illegal I also oppose. So flat out I oppose right to work laws because of that view. If I were the owner of a Nuke maintenance shop, I would personally want a closed shop full of dedicated and skilled workers. Right to work laws would forbid me from doing such and would force me to hire possibly inexperienced and uncaring workers.

Now do you see how difficult this "right to work law" is? There will NEVER be an easy fix for it.
Void Wrote: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. 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.
I understand that to a point. Greed usually manifest negatively in respects of the whole society. Greed in a clean laboratory sense is merely amoral. Greed in society has led to millions of deaths, rapes, and so much harm that there is not enough room on this entire forum to properly approach the amount of such throughout written history.
Self interest is not greed. Self interest is self interest. I can keep my self interests intact without stabbing others in the back. Greed is SELFISHNESS. This leads to paranoia, anger, envy, and other deplorable emotions and actions. Sure, self interest can lead to selfishness, but not as a matter of property. Selfishness is anti-social. In a society dominated by greed, the one with the most power is the dictator. Being human, you cannot avoid self interest, regardless of how much Budhism claims it can remove such things from humanity with the concept of Nibbana. Greed and selfishness is ALWAYS harmful to society.

Flatly put - Greed kills. Greed is addictive. And greed can be the cause of the destruction of most everything it comes in contact with.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Trump labor pick Pizella promoted sweatshops. The Industrial Atheist 9 484 August 24, 2017 at 11:15 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  Why oh why are people on the righ so against LGBT folk? NuclearEnergy 10 1176 July 26, 2017 at 11:36 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  Why is the Democratic Party against the only person who could save them? Luckie 63 10487 June 3, 2017 at 9:25 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  This Is What You're Up Against With Drumpfucks Minimalist 20 1505 March 18, 2017 at 5:45 pm
Last Post: Tiberius
  Do you know why wars happens and why middle east is robbed? Safirno 12 1354 July 9, 2016 at 11:48 am
Last Post: account_inactive
  Remember Progressives.... This Is What You Are Defending Against Minimalist 19 1710 May 27, 2016 at 2:28 am
Last Post: Humanoid Escapee
  Just another reason why I'm against guns. Fierce 12 1179 May 12, 2016 at 1:49 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  Secular reasons for and against legalising abortion Dolorian 80 7690 October 29, 2014 at 11:35 am
Last Post: Cato
  Happy Labor Day Minimalist 0 461 September 1, 2014 at 12:45 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Solving Illegal Immigration: Labor Unions in Latin America! CristW 27 4289 July 26, 2014 at 8:14 am
Last Post: CristW



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)