• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Will radical Supreme Court destroy unions?

PhDeac said:
This is sound logic. So why do conservatives just want to end unions indiscriminately?

Skins, I see what you're saying and you love your boss, but your sample of one logic is as ridiculous as jhmd's "I know a guy. I don't know a guy" logic. So what if your boss pays good wages out of the kindness out of his heart. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be some infrastructure to encourage other bosses to do so.
Click to expand...

I can't answer for other Republicans, only myself. Why do Democrats want to force people to be in unions indiscriminately? Big business vs. Big labor is my guess.
 
Republicans want to end unions. Getting rid of laws that force people into unions is just a step toward that. That's why they meet resistance from Dems. Also people benefit from unions who don't pay in. This is an example of a situation where there is a simple area of compromise but neither side wants to give ground.
 
Wrangor said:
I can't answer for other Republicans, only myself. Why do Democrats want to force people to be in unions indiscriminately? Big business vs. Big labor is my guess.
Click to expand...

It's not forcing. It's about choice. If you choose to work at a company that has a union, you know it going in the first day. If you don't want to part of the union don't work there.

If you choose to work there, you should pay the dues.

Neither you nor anyone else has come up with a logical reason for not paying those who negotiate your pay and benefits. You knew this was happening going in. It's not a shock.

Please don't say,"I don't like the politics of my union". You are protected by federal law to not having to pay for the portion of your dues that goes to lobbying.

Why should you get the benefits of the union and not have to pay for them?
 
RJKarl said:
It's not forcing. It's about choice. If you choose to work at a company that has a union, you know it going in the first day. If you don't want to part of the union don't work there.

If you choose to work there, you should pay the dues.

Neither you nor anyone else has come up with a logical reason for not paying those who negotiate your pay and benefits. You knew this was happening going in. It's not a shock.

Please don't say,"I don't like the politics of my union". You are protected by federal law to not having to pay for the portion of your dues that goes to lobbying.

Why should you get the benefits of the union and not have to pay for them?
Click to expand...

RJ is right, it is about choice you should be free to work anywhere you want that is willing to employ you at a wage you both find acceptable. If the union is there and they provide a service you value, join and pay the dues, if not don't pay them. Union bosses and goons should not have the right to tell prospective employees where they can work and where they cannot. Denying someone the right to work a job because they do not want to join a union is despicable.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
It's not forcing. It's about choice. If you choose to work at a company that has a union, you know it going in the first day. If you don't want to part of the union don't work there.
Click to expand...

Of course it's about choice. There are plenty of jobs available. Anyone who is out of work can choose a job based on their preference regarding unions.
 
I like that rj is taking the "if you don't like the conditions of employment don't work here" stance. I will keep that in mind for future debates.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
This is sound logic. So why do conservatives just want to end unions indiscriminately?

Skins, I see what you're saying and you love your boss, but your sample of one logic is as ridiculous as jhmd's "I know a guy. I don't know a guy" logic. So what if your boss pays good wages out of the kindness out of his heart. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be some infrastructure to encourage other bosses to do so.
Click to expand...

I never said that it did. I said it was anecdote. My point was that unions often encourage behaviors that do not benefit quality employees because they are protecting the weaker. If they did a better job of encouraging a work place like my company it would benefit not only the worker but the company as well.
 
Then allow unions and let the employees decide what kind of leadership they want.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
I like that rj is taking the "if you don't like the conditions of employment don't work here" stance. I will keep that in mind for future debates.
Click to expand...

but be accurate....remember it's making that choice knowing the conditions AND it's choosing NOT to pay for something you knew going in that you'd have to pay for as a condition of employment.

Why won't you answer my very simple question? Why is it OK to take benefits that you knew you had to pay for in advance and then not pay that fee?
 
RJKarl said:
but be accurate....remember it's making that choice knowing the conditions AND it's choosing NOT to pay for something you knew going in that you'd have to pay for as a condition of employment.

Why won't you answer my very simple question? Why is it OK to take benefits that you knew you had to pay for in advance and then not pay that fee?
Click to expand...

Why should you have to pay for them? If the employer is footing the bill for the benefits and all workers get them, why should I pay a bunch of labor goons a cut? If I want the job and the employer wants to pay me I should be able to work there without the union getting any of my wages.
 
So I'm guessing that you're not in favor of unions entering new companies like say Wal-Mart as the employees there have chosen to join a non union employer. As a result the unions should respect that and voluntarily stay away. Right?

RJKarl said:
but be accurate....remember it's making that choice knowing the conditions AND it's choosing NOT to pay for something you knew going in that you'd have to pay for as a condition of employment.

Why won't you answer my very simple question? Why is it OK to take benefits that you knew you had to pay for in advance and then not pay that fee?
Click to expand...
 
olddke said:
Why should you have to pay for them? If the employer is footing the bill for the benefits and all workers get them, why should I pay a bunch of labor goons a cut? If I want the job and the employer wants to pay me I should be able to work there without the union getting any of my wages.
Click to expand...

Because you agreed to it in taking the job. You didn't negotiate your wages and benefits. Someone did it for you.
 
The Mangler said:
So I'm guessing that you're not in favor of unions entering new companies like say Wal-Mart as the employees there have chosen to join a non union employer. As a result the unions should respect that and voluntarily stay away. Right?
Click to expand...

If you take the job at WalMart you know what the pay is. You accepted the conditions. If the majority of your co-workers decide to unionize, you have a legitimate choice to make.

At the union company, you can also rally your co-workers to disenfranchise the union. But if you took the job knowing you'd have to pay the dues, you have no leg to stand to not pay the dues.
 
RJKarl said:
If you take the job at WalMart you know what the pay is. You accepted the conditions. If the majority of your co-workers decide to unionize, you have a legitimate choice to make.

At the union company, you can also rally your co-workers to disenfranchise the union. But if you took the job knowing you'd have to pay the dues, you have no leg to stand to not pay the dues.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Using your model outlined on the last 3 pages, if a group of walmart employees was unhappy with the wages they were getting, they should quit rather than try to unionize. After all, they knew what they were getting when they agreed to work at walmart.
 
RJKarl said:
but be accurate....remember it's making that choice knowing the conditions AND it's choosing NOT to pay for something you knew going in that you'd have to pay for as a condition of employment.

Why won't you answer my very simple question? Why is it OK to take benefits that you knew you had to pay for in advance and then not pay that fee?
Click to expand...

Take your post, and replace the word "union" with "racist". See if you see the problem.
 
I'd be happy to force them to pay me dues.

Oh wait, I think that came out wrong.

But seriously, I think $125 may actually be on the high end. NFL cheerleading is like a hobby that may open doors down the road, not a job. I'm sure some cheerleaders may get paid for if they become "known" for some reason or they're just that experienced or good. I just can't see how a cheerleader is working 25 hours a week for only a $125 game check.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Bullshit. Using your model outlined on the last 3 pages, if a group of walmart employees was unhappy with the wages they were getting, they should quit rather than try to unionize. After all, they knew what they were getting when they agreed to work at walmart.
Click to expand...

And there you have it...
 
The Mangler said:
So I'm guessing that you're not in favor of unions entering new companies like say Wal-Mart as the employees there have chosen to join a non union employer. As a result the unions should respect that and voluntarily stay away. Right?
Click to expand...

The better question is why union management and labor supporters want to abolish secret ballots during new unionization efforts. Why would anyone support getting rid of secret ballots? Voter intimidation in any context is odious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top