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

[bozo]

theVoid,
If you bother to read labour history you will appreciate that real improvements in pay and conditions in the workplace were hard-won through collective struggle by organised labour, often at great cost to union activists. Ever heard of the Tolpuddle Martyrs for example? You will also discover about exploitation, for example the use of child-labour in mines, mills, brickworks, potteries and factories over a very long period until it was ended in the UK by the 1918 Education Act, or the mill or pit owner living a life of luxury whilst the very workers who generated the wealth led a life of meagre existence and premature death as a result of their toil.
You must look back way before the 1970's, young man, to appreciate the struggles that have gone before, but I suspect you will simply discount labour history as irrelevant.

Me authoritarian? On this issue you may call me that, if you choose to. Frankly, I don't give a fuck for your opinions of me personally or your world view. I find you quite unpleasant to debate with.

I maintain that where a closed shop is in operation and you want a job there, you join the union or fuck off somewhere else if that don't suit ya.

And don't be telling me " freeloaders " is a fantasy, sonny----- I've been around a lot longer than you have.

Finally, if you don't like the idea of workers uniting, tough shit, you'll just have to live with it, cause it happens. Not as much as I would wish but it still happens and always will.

[reverendjeremiah]

Here here Bozo..take Void to school.

Notice how Void says "thats something government takes care of". Well, they didnt use to.. that is...until organized labor worked to get the government to acknowledge such things.

as far as unions competing for jobs, we do have that as well Void. IBEW electrical union was formed in 1891. We have a LONG history of being a strong union, and one of the first American unions to be formed. We are so strogn willed, that some of our members broke rank and created UE 75 years ago. Our unions do compete..in a sense... but not in the cut throat way you might be suggesting. We are comrades in arms, but we do compete for jobs and memberships. Void, I suggest you take Bozo's suggestion and read some labor history before you jump around calling people "authoritarian". Labels like that dont mean shit to me when my survival is in question. IBEW is my livelyhood, and I will fight to protect it regardless of what your political views are. I am also an elected official of it (examiner) and I will be more than happy to walk you through the history of labor, labor laws (local and national for USA), and give you advice on handling employers and employees. I have personally helped non-union workers become aware of the tricks their emploers use to pocket extra wage money, such as breaking the Davis-Bacon military prevailing wages and they got their pay back from their employers. YES, employers fuck over their employess every day. Not ALL of them, but MOST of them do. When Davis-Bacon states you must pay prevailing wages, and you pay your employee 50% of that wage and pocket the rest, then you will quickly find me as your enemy.

[reverendjeremiah]

The workforce isn't being exploited, despite your assertions. Exploitation is defined as "The act of using something in an unjust or cruel manner" giving a person a wage they agree to work for under conditions they were informed of is not exploitation, it's the businesses who will break contracts, force labor and lie about the conditions that can be said to be exploitative - all such actions involve the use of force, fraud or coercion and thus the government has a legitimate moral authority to intervene.

You see Void, I KNOW you are intelligent. So when you say something like "The workforce isn't being exploited, despite your assertions" it really makes me wonder what you are trying to get at. Do you HONESTLY expect me to believe that line? Many employers drop new conditions into their employees laps and hold their livelyhood hostage in order to force them to accept poorer and poorer conditions, slack safety gear, and more work chores for less hours and pay. These all fly below the radar on "breaking contracts" and "lieing". It is also OBVIOUS that many contracts in the non-union sector are all rules of what the employee must and cant do. What employer makes an employee sign a contract stating "the employer cannot lie to the employee"? Let the record also show that labor history has fought for the government (sometimes sacrificing their lives in the process) to get the government to consider these issues legitimate.

What are you trying to get at void? I KNOW you are smart enough to know this basic information... yet why do you ignore it and write about the opposite?

And the benefits of unions isn't anywhere near the fantasy story you portray, we scrapped compulsory union membership in the 70s and wages have been rising faster... Clearly not a case of your bald-faced 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."

A 2005 study found that the Australian federal minimum wage was 58% of the median wage, compared to 45% in the UK and 34% in the U.S.[7] The typical minimum wage worker is in a middle-income household.[7]
In Australia, on 14 December 2005, the Australian Fair Pay Commission was established under the Workplace Relations Amendment (WorkChoices) Act 2005. It is the responsibility of the commission to adjust the standard federal minimum wage,[8] replacing the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission that took submissions from a variety of sources to determine appropriate minimum wages. The Australian Fair Pay Commission was replaced by Fair Work Australia in 2010.[9]
From 1 October 2007, the Australia standard Federal Minimum Wage is $13.74 per hour or $522.12 per week.[10]
From 1 October 2008, the Australia standard Federal Minimum Wage is $14.31 per hour or $543.78 per week.[11]
In 2009, the Federal Minimum Wage was not changed.[12]
In 2010, the Federal Minimum Wage was raised to $15 per hour or $569.90 per week[13]

You were saying? Minimum wage laws have ALWAYS been a staple of trade unions / guilds. Your wage is upward moving because of the fight that tradesmen have made to ensure that people have a good standard of living. DAMN! Your minimum wage is $8 less than what I make an hour (minus benefits). Your minimum wage can actually be lived on, where as ours is a joke. AND LOOK...the minimum wage in your country keeps going up and up. Making unions compulsory or not is not the issue. You will, regardless, always have union minded people and non union minded people regardless of membership or not. YES, some people join a union and hate unions at the same time.

You keep claiming I am stupid when it comes to economy..but it sure looks to me that wages in Australia have been upward mobile in direct comparison to minimum wage. Care to comment on that?

If people think they will benefit from union membership then I would encourage them to do so, I support their freedom of association completely and will stand up for them if any politician or employer thinks they have the right to fire people for joining a union, but I will likewise stand up for people who don't want to join a union but are forced to, or an employer who is told that they cannot freely negotiate with another consenting adult who has not agreed to the conditions of a third party.

I doubt you would stand up for them if employers threatened their jobs. I have been a union member for 15+ years now, and one thing I know, is that most people talk out of their ass when it comes to things like that. You dont really mean that... ESPECIALLY if your job is on the line. If me and you were on the same job, and I openly spoke of unionism, and our boss threatened my job, you want me to honestly think that you will risk your job to defend me even if you werent interested in joining that union?

BULLSHIT!

I talk the talk and walk the walk. I have stood up for others rights and have paid the consequences for it with my job. Your very paragraph indicates that you will easily flip flop. The fact that you glorified greed in later posts speak VOLUMES of what you would really do in that situation. You would think of yourself and not stand by me. I would bet my dues receipt on it.

Let me explain this a bit more in detail. I am a journeyman. That means "have tools, will travel" in laymans terms. I do industrial Electrical work, and it is extremely dangerous. I travel from job to job, and have slept in my truck on many a night because I had to send money back home to support my family. One day I am working in Maryland, the next day I am in Pennsylvania. Brotherhood is important in this situation.I have given union brothers hundred dollar bills, people I just met, to ensure they had a place to stay at night and food in their stomach. I have opened my doors and let union brothers stay, sometimes 5 at a time sleeping on the floor to help them get back on their feet. When an employer treats someone wrong, then I am next, and so are you! I step up and protest it immediately, job be damned. Someone with your mentality in this situation is counter productive. Your view point, although on the surface seems fair and all-inclusive, ultimately supports the abusive employers at the expense of the wage worker and their families.

There is no need for a union there, any wrongdoing falls under the jurisdiction of the government and compensation can be sought in a tribunal.

..and yet again you vote your approval of greed, and then hypocritically suggest that unions are not needed in such a situation. You just said a few paragraphs ago that; "If people think they will benefit from union membership then I would encourage them to do so". Not to mention that govt. labor laws protecting wage workers have been priority number one of trade unions and guilds throughout history. Honestly Void...why dont you just post "Im a hypocritical asshole who only cares about myself" and save us the time of sifting through this garbage you call a post.

Yep, you're a complete authoritarian!

Because he thinks all shops should be unionized?..not to mention you said you would support his freedom to do so not just a few paragraphs ago..then you claim he is authoritarian because of it. Are you not proof reading your posts? Or are you to stoned to review your typings? I guess he is also an authoritarian if he stands for something other than your economical and political views as well? If we dont conform to your beliefs, then we are authoritarians?

Nobody has ANY moral authority to force people to associate with any organisation, nor to tell them that they may not associate.

..versus...

There is no need for a union there..

Need I say more? Your own words expose your hypocrisy.

[theVOID]

You see Void, I KNOW you are intelligent. So when you say something like "The workforce isn't being exploited, despite your assertions" it really makes me wonder what you are trying to get at. Do you HONESTLY expect me to believe that line? Many employers drop new conditions into their employees laps and hold their livelyhood hostage in order to force them to accept poorer and poorer conditions, slack safety gear, and more work chores for less hours and pay. These all fly below the radar on "breaking contracts" and "lieing". It is also OBVIOUS that many contracts in the non-union sector are all rules of what the employee must and cant do. What employer makes an employee sign a contract stating "the employer cannot lie to the employee"? Let the record also show that labor history has fought for the government (sometimes sacrificing their lives in the process) to get the government to consider these issues legitimate.

I was responding to his absolute statement to the contrary, If he had said "a lot of the workforce are being exploited" I wouldn't have disagreed but his assertion was of exploitation full stop, no exceptions. I gave the definition of what I consider exploitation and then gave the things that the government has a real authority to intervene on, and they are more or less the examples you gave, Breaking contracts, neglecting their responsibilities to the employees health and safety and payment of less than agreed upon either through more unpaid hours or less hours than agreed upon - I think I've stated EXTREMELY CLEARLY what I do and do not believe the government has any moral authority to do and NONE of your examples show any acknowledgement of that.

The employer does not have to agree to not lie, they can not lie without breaking the law, it is a case of employment fraud, the Government has legitimate authority to deal with this.

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.

You were saying? Minimum wage laws have ALWAYS been a staple of trade unions / guilds.

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."

Your wage is upward moving because of the fight that tradesmen have made to ensure that people have a good standard of living.

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

DAMN! Your minimum wage is $8 less than what I make an hour (minus benefits).

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.

Your minimum wage can actually be lived on, where as ours is a joke.

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.

AND LOOK...the minimum wage in your country keeps going up and up. Making unions compulsory or not is not the issue.

It is an issue for freedom of association, but that's another issue, all I was intending is to show a counterexample to Bozo's assertion that it hadn't happened anywhere at all ever.

You will, regardless, always have union minded people and non union minded people regardless of membership or not. YES, some people join a union and hate unions at the same time.

I know, and as I said above I am for freedom of association, if someone wants to join a union they have a right to do so, if you're going to earn more and have better conditions there is no reason not to.

You keep claiming I am stupid when it comes to economy..

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

but it sure looks to me that wages in Australia have been upward mobile in direct comparison to minimum wage. Care to comment on that?

Seeing as I'm not an Australian I'd have to have a look now wouldn't I? If I found that (i) the unemployment levels have remained stable and (ii) the price of goods has risen less than the increase in wages (the real wage has risen) then I wouldn't be perfectly happy accepting that a minimum wage is one factor in the rising wages, but how much of a role it plays relative to their economy being in relatively excellent form compared to the rest of the world at large remains to be seen. For instance only 4% of their population is on a minimum wage, so while it may aid the bottom 4% of employed people the consistent raising of wages across the board strongly suggests a multitude of factors, it strongly suggests to me that other aspects of the Australian economy are more substantial.

Personally, I feel a better way to assist low income workers would be a tax-floor, don't charge anyone income taxes on the first $10k-20k and then raise that figure as much as possible relative to the increase in revenues.

I doubt you would stand up for them if employers threatened their jobs.

Yes, I would. All people are allowed representation on all contracts, just as you can't tell someone getting a loan they can't see their lawyer or other advice prior you cannot tell someone with an employment contract that they cannot be represented or seek advice. If an employer tried to do so they would be breaking the law and it should be taken seriously.

I have been a union member for 15+ years now, and one thing I know, is that most people talk out of their ass when it comes to things like that. You dont really mean that... ESPECIALLY if your job is on the line.

Yes I do. If someone was threatening my job if I didn't take a pay cut I would be considering the benefits from a Union as rather clear, well worth the dues. If someone told me I could not seek representation or advice I would be reporting them to the authorities because as I expressed above I believe it should be entirely illegal to coerce people with threats of job loss should they do something that they have a right to do. If a Union's members were being told to leave they too would report the employer to the government if it was illegal would you not?

If me and you were on the same job, and I openly spoke of unionism, and our boss threatened my job, you want me to honestly think that you will risk your job to defend me even if you werent interested in joining that union?

Yeah, I would, though if it was illegal I wouldn't have to! LIKE I SAID, The employer has no right to coerce you or threaten you and no right to chose who you do and do not associate with, it should be ABSOLUTELY punishable by law.

I talk the talk and walk the walk. I have stood up for others rights and have paid the consequences for it with my job. Your very paragraph indicates that you will easily flip flop. The fact that you glorified greed in later posts speak VOLUMES of what you would really do in that situation. You would think of yourself and not stand by me. I would bet my dues receipt on it.

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

Let me explain this a bit more in detail. I am a journeyman. That means "have tools, will travel" in laymans terms. I do industrial Electrical work, and it is extremely dangerous. I travel from job to job, and have slept in my truck on many a night because I had to send money back home to support my family. One day I am working in Maryland, the next day I am in Pennsylvania. Brotherhood is important in this situation.I have given union brothers hundred dollar bills, people I just met, to ensure they had a place to stay at night and food in their stomach. I have opened my doors and let union brothers stay, sometimes 5 at a time sleeping on the floor to help them get back on their feet. When an employer treats someone wrong, then I am next, and so are you! I step up and protest it immediately, job be damned. Someone with your mentality in this situation is counter productive. Your view point, although on the surface seems fair and all-inclusive, ultimately supports the abusive employers at the expense of the wage worker and their families.

Good on you for helping people, as an individual, you're NOT unique in that regard.

..and yet again you vote your approval of greed, and then hypocritically suggest that unions are not needed in such a situation.

It should be against the LAW. You do not need a UNION to deal with a legal matter. And what part of that makes me greedy or hypocritical?

You just said a few paragraphs ago that; "If people think they will benefit from union membership then I would encourage them to do so". Not to mention that govt. labor laws protecting wage workers have been priority number one of trade unions and guilds throughout history. Honestly Void...why dont you just post "Im a hypocritical asshole who only cares about myself" and save us the time of sifting through this garbage you call a post.

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?

Because he thinks all shops should be unionized?..not to mention you said you would support his freedom to do so not just a few paragraphs ago..then you claim he is authoritarian because of it. Are you not proof reading your posts? Or are you to stoned to review your typings? I guess he is also an authoritarian if he stands for something other than your economical and political views as well? If we dont conform to your beliefs, then we are authoritarians?

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?

Nobody has ANY moral authority to force people to associate with any organisation, nor to tell them that they may not associate.

..versus...

There is no need for a union there..

Need I say more? Your own words expose your hypocrisy.

No Need =/= Not permitted.

You're the one here who needs to read more carefully, sunshine.

[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?

[A Theist]

theVoid,
If you bother to read labour history you will appreciate that real improvements in pay and conditions in the workplace were hard-won through collective struggle by organised labour, often at great cost to union activists. Ever heard of the Tolpuddle Martyrs for example?

My wife is a cousin to Sid Hatfield, a pro union sherriff in Matewan West Virginia, and union hero of the Matewan Massacre. On the morning of May 19, 1920, 13 Baldwin Felts detectives, hired union busting thugs of the coal companies, came into town to evict the families of pro union workers who were living in company housing. They were confronted by Sid Hatfield and six other towns people, including the town's mayor. Hatfield told the hired detectives that he did not allow guns in his town, that he was the law, and he ordered them to surrender their firearms. A gun fight erupted and 7 Baldwin Felts thugs and 4 towns people lay dead, including the town's mayor. Hatfield was later aquitted of murder. However, better than one year later, Sid Hatfield and his deputy were ambushed and shot to death by Baldwin Felts detectives as he was entering the court house in McDowell County WVA. on bogus gun charges. Both Hatfield and his deputy were unarmed, and Hatfield was shot 17 times. His assassination led to the Battle of Blair Mountain. Many union patriots have had to pay with their lives in the struggles for better living conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Hatfield

[bozo]

theVoid,
If you bother to read labour history you will appreciate that real improvements in pay and conditions in the workplace were hard-won through collective struggle by organised labour, often at great cost to union activists. Ever heard of the Tolpuddle Martyrs for example?

My wife is a cousin to Sid Hatfield, a pro union sherriff in Matewan West Virginia, and union hero of the Matewan Massacre. On the morning of May 19, 1920, 13 Baldwin Felts detectives, hired union busting thugs of the coal companies, came into town to evict the families of pro union workers who were living in company housing. They were confronted by Sid Hatfield and six other towns people, including the town's mayor. Hatfield told the hired detectives that he did not allow guns in his town, that he was the law, and he ordered them to surrender their firearms. A gun fight erupted and 7 Baldwin Felts thugs and 4 towns people lay dead, including the town's mayor. Hatfield was later aquitted of murder. However, better than one year later, Sid Hatfield and his deputy were ambushed and shot to death by Baldwin Felts detectives as he was entering the court house in McDowell County WVA. on bogus gun charges. Both Hatfield and his deputy were unarmed, and Hatfield was shot 17 times. His assassination led to the Battle of Blair Mountain. Many union patriots have had to pay with their lives in the struggles for better living conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Hatfield

I TRUST YOUR WIFE IS PROUD OF HER ASOCIATION WITH SUCH A MAN. We can all learn a lot from history

[The Grand Nudger]

And people think that redneck is an insult.

[bozo]

theVoid,
If you bother to read labour history you will appreciate that real improvements in pay and conditions in the workplace were hard-won through collective struggle by organised labour, often at great cost to union activists. Ever heard of the Tolpuddle Martyrs for example?

My wife is a cousin to Sid Hatfield, a pro union sherriff in Matewan West Virginia, and union hero of the Matewan Massacre. On the morning of May 19, 1920, 13 Baldwin Felts detectives, hired union busting thugs of the coal companies, came into town to evict the families of pro union workers who were living in company housing. They were confronted by Sid Hatfield and six other towns people, including the town's mayor. Hatfield told the hired detectives that he did not allow guns in his town, that he was the law, and he ordered them to surrender their firearms. A gun fight erupted and 7 Baldwin Felts thugs and 4 towns people lay dead, including the town's mayor. Hatfield was later aquitted of murder. However, better than one year later, Sid Hatfield and his deputy were ambushed and shot to death by Baldwin Felts detectives as he was entering the court house in McDowell County WVA. on bogus gun charges. Both Hatfield and his deputy were unarmed, and Hatfield was shot 17 times. His assassination led to the Battle of Blair Mountain. Many union patriots have had to pay with their lives in the struggles for better living conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Hatfield

Your post got me thinking and whilst I can't claim any union heroes in my family that I know of, a cousin started tracing our family tree a few years ago which revealed a family member who was a suffragette. How active she was I know not, but I'm proud that she was part of that movement for change, achieved through organised, direct action.

[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.