Jump to content





Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Union thugs gone wild. Sucker punch/rip down tent


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
82 replies to this topic

#25 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,864
  • Reputation: 2,553
SUPPORTER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:38 PM

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

#26 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,267
  • Reputation: 479
HUDDLER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:38 PM

Care to clarify your analogy?

#27 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 13,854
  • Reputation: 4,612
Administrators

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:40 PM

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 $$$

#28 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,864
  • Reputation: 2,553
SUPPORTER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:41 PM

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.

#29 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,267
  • Reputation: 479
HUDDLER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:48 PM

Right.

#30 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,846
  • Reputation: 1,430
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:20 AM

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"

#31 logic1977

logic1977

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • posts: 424
  • Reputation: 75
SUPPORTER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:34 AM

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.

#32 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    Dey Hate Us Because They Aint Us!

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,864
  • Reputation: 2,255
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:58 AM

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.

#33 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,117
  • Reputation: 184
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:42 AM

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


Are you advocating physical violence? Really?

#34 logic1977

logic1977

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • posts: 424
  • Reputation: 75
SUPPORTER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:51 AM

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.

#35 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    Dey Hate Us Because They Aint Us!

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,864
  • Reputation: 2,255
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:57 AM

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..

#36 GAme

GAme

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 07-August 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 398
  • Reputation: 62
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:24 AM

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.