82 replies to this topic

[g5jamz]

Yeah, now ceos and corporations only act in labor's best interest.

Just as CEOs and corporations that are badly managed are kept in check via union threat...

unions themselves are kept in check simply by their representation to their members and their appeal to new ones.

No one is banning unions from being created...it's simply providing people a CHOICE.

[twylyght]

Yeah I'm just going to quote this so it can be referenced and unedited

Please do. I am all for more truth rather than less.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

Just as CEOs and corporations that are badly managed are kept in check via union threat...

unions themselves are kept in check simply by their representation to their members and their appeal to new ones.

No one is banning unions from being created...it's simply providing people a CHOICE.

as long as that CHOICE. isn't to enter into an exclusive contract between union labor and employers. right-to-work negates that contract, but i guess government interference is a-ok here

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

http://wonkette.com/...crowder-in-face

Like the mighty towers of the World Trade Center, a tent belonging to the Michigan chapter of Americans for Prosperity fell in Lansing today because it was attacked by terrorists who hate our freedom…to not pay union dues but still receive the protection organized labor provides workers.

lol

[g5jamz]

So as long as you pay protection money, we won't hit you and tear down your tents?

What's this...battered woman syndrome?

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

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

[logic1977]

as long as that CHOICE. isn't to enter into an exclusive contract between union labor and employers. right-to-work negates that contract, but i guess government interference is a-ok here

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.

[g5jamz]

"Free riders" are to assume people aren't capable of negotiating their own deals.

You must be a member of the collective to even have a job. Is that your opinion?

[cookinwithgas]

I see G5 is putting his "VoterID is totally needed and not discriminatory at all" logic to work on a new subject.

[cookinwithgas]

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

[g5jamz]

Care to clarify your analogy?

[Kurb]

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 $$$

[cookinwithgas]

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.

[g5jamz]

Right.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

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"