Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Union thugs gone wild. Sucker punch/rip down tent

83 posts in this topic

Posted

If unions really wanted to hurt people they'd hire the Pinkerton Detective Agency to do it for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Care to clarify your analogy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

AFP is funded by a couple multi-Millionaires, they preach a Conservative Message, but in reality they are just another Lobby group working for big $$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No, people that can think halfway decently can figure it out.

You will just go on spouting whatever you spout so theres really no need for me to work on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

not sure I follow you. Even in right to work states you are bound by the labor contract regardless of whether or not you pay dues or are in the union.

right to work negates the union's ability to collectively bargain, as people will simply opt out in hopes of continuing to receive the union's benefits.

why does the government have to step in and negate a contract between an employer and a collective of laborers? i thought republicans were all for that sort of thing. you know, laissez-faire, keep big gubmint out of my life

"right to work" is orwellian doublespeak. everyone should have the right to work at, at the least, a living wage. however, the republican version of "right to work" is simply "purposefully removing the ability to organize, and most certainly not guaranteeing any sort of actual right to work"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

right to work negates the union's ability to collectively bargain, as people will simply opt out in hopes of continuing to receive the union's benefits.

why does the government have to step in and negate a contract between an employer and a collective of laborers? i thought republicans were all for that sort of thing. you know, laissez-faire, keep big gubmint out of my life

"right to work" is orwellian doublespeak. everyone should have the right to work at, at the least, a living wage. however, the republican version of "right to work" is simply "purposefully removing the ability to organize, and most certainly not guaranteeing any sort of actual right to work"

That's garbage, and I think you know it.

Unions can organize just fine in a right to work state and generally have no trouble doing so.

If the union is well led and provides value to the membership, then right to work laws do not harm them in any way. Righ to work laws just sop the union for extorting the members for dues.

It's checks and balances, the company has the union to provide a check against ripping off the workers, the unions need a check against themselves and right to work is of way of doing that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Technically, in a right to work state, I could just ask everyone in a blue shirt to stand up and tell them to collect thier things and leave. It does not violate and federal or state labor laws.

Companies have now(last 6 years or so) seen how much they can push the envelope using the "economy" as a cure all to eliminate benefits, pensions, salary, and jobs without regard.

Eliminate the overhead(people) when profits are just missing projections now is a way of life where that was a last resort at one time and only when profits were flatlining or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

it's more like eliminating free riders, which i thought you republicans were all for

Are you advocating physical violence? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Technically, in a right to work state, I could just ask everyone in a blue shirt to stand up and tell them to collect thier things and leave. It does not violate and federal or state labor laws.

Companies have now(last 6 years or so) seen how much they can push the envelope using the "economy" as a cure all to eliminate benefits, pensions, salary, and jobs without regard.

Eliminate the overhead(people) when profits are just missing projections now is a way of life where that was a last resort at one time and only when profits were flatlining or worse.

It would violate the labor contract however so there are some protections built in.

I completely agree with your statement on eliminating people. It's one of the few reasons I still believe labor unions are needed for specific industries. I don't see anything on the horizon to break the trend of firing people to make next quarters Wall Street projection.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It would violateThe Labor contract? eliminating employees for "blue Shirts" would just be in bad taste, poor business practice and would typically never be supported by an HR department bc it would cause a LABOR union to appear real quick.

Maybe I am being Naive but I used to teach Labor Law in my old HR functions...but I always understood Right To Work, as verified with the labor department several times as you can be let go for ANYTHING, any reason at anytime..as long as it was not on the basis of Race, color, creed, sexual orientation, religion, or family status.

Regardless, some new version of a Union is needed as the the current UNION is now perverted by power and dollars like most organized groups intended to protect people: FDA, Unions etc..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

right to work negates the union's ability to collectively bargain, as people will simply opt out in hopes of continuing to receive the union's benefits.

why does the government have to step in and negate a contract between an employer and a collective of laborers? i thought republicans were all for that sort of thing. you know, laissez-faire, keep big gubmint out of my life

"right to work" is orwellian doublespeak. everyone should have the right to work at, at the least, a living wage. however, the republican version of "right to work" is simply "purposefully removing the ability to organize, and most certainly not guaranteeing any sort of actual right to work"

Exactly... You shouldn't be GUARANTEED anything. America is about free market, not entitlements and pensions. If you suck at your job, you get replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites