Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Union thugs gone wild. Sucker punch/rip down tent


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#31 logic1977

logic1977

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts

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

    The holy ghost of Mr. Miyagi

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,072 posts
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,082 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts

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

    The holy ghost of Mr. Miyagi

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,072 posts
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts

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.

#37 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,933 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:25 AM

In what way are labor unions not part of a free market? seems to me like the the ultimate in free market. Self regulation.

#38 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    The holy ghost of Mr. Miyagi

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,072 posts
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:29 AM

No one is talking about a tenure system like a state-federal job has..that is counterproductive.

#39 GAme

GAme

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:05 PM

In what way are labor unions not part of a free market? seems to me like the the ultimate in free market. Self regulation.

In the way that they control who does what, how and where contracts/payrolls are paid, and how much. All those journeyman protesting are just making sure they get paid for the rest of their lives like they were promised. Why is it that just because you work for the gov't or some corrupt union hall you get paid for life? that's bullshit to me. Mofo's didn't risk their lives in Iraq, they're just whiners.

#40 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,082 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:38 PM

In what way are labor unions not part of a free market? seems to me like the the ultimate in free market. Self regulation.


In the way that they want to force people to join the union ... what part of that is "free"?

#41 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,933 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:32 PM

I'm not in a union, so they're not doing a very good job of forcing people.

#42 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:35 PM

I'm not in a union, so they're not doing a very good job of forcing people.


You're not in a union because you have a choice. You're not forced to be in one to have a job.

#43 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:32 PM

apparently these fat farks are racist too...

Posted Image



Don't hold your breath waiting on Diane Sawyer to report.

#44 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:03 PM

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.


lol

yeah those unions are just too powerful, that's the real problem here; now that they've been effectively neutered in "right to work" states, we can really see those "checks and balances" do their work

the fact that you call a contract between employers and employees "extortion" is p funny when you have the nerve to start your post with "That's garbage, and I think you know it."

please, run back to rushbo and let me know what he thinks while claiming it as the product of your own free thinking again

#45 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:05 PM

In what way are labor unions not part of a free market? seems to me like the the ultimate in free market. Self regulation.


that's the funny part about these free market dipshits taking such a stand against unions. why would they do that? (it's because they were told to by monied interests)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com