Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

[edthecynic]

UNIONS are the Money Laundering ARM of the Democrats. All there is to it.

Only to DittoTards stupid enough to believe the lies of their MessiahRushie.

 

[HenryBHough]

UNIONS are the Money Laundering ARM of the Democrats. All there is to it.

Only to DittoTards stupid enough to believe the lies of their MessiahRushie.

Wow, you believe there is more than ONE Messiah? You are gonna be in deep pucky with The Unified Church of Barak O'Bubbles!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When you have unions trying to protect teachers who molest their students it's no wonder so many people have soured on them.

 

[JQPublic1]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

I voted YES for the following reasons and more! These benefits were paid for by he blood, sweat and tears of Union members, not tomention hard cold dues money. No leeching RW anal retentive jerk should get a free ride; especially when they scream and bray incessantly about "welfare queens" and constantly conjure apparitions of poor people getting something for nothing.

Does any sane worker really want a relaspe of the following:

1. The Unions gave us the week end leisure time.

2. Unions helped end child labor

3. Unions won Widespread Employer Based Health Coverage!

4. Unions Spearheaded the Fight for the Family and Medical Leave Act!

5. The Unions helped to build the Middle-Class!

 

[Publius1787]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

I voted YES for the following reasons and more! These benefits were paid for by he blood, sweat and tears of Union members, not tomention hard cold dues money. No leeching RW anal retentive jerk should get a free ride; especially when they scream and bray incessantly about "welfare queens" and constantly conjure apparitions of poor people getting something for nothing.

Does any sane worker really want a relaspe of the following:

1. The Unions gave us the week end leisure time.

2. Unions helped end child labor

3. Unions won Widespread Employer Based Health Coverage!

4. Unions Spearheaded the Fight for the Family and Medical Leave Act!

5. The Unions helped to build the Middle-Class!

Ignoring most of what you posted as I could write extensively about each category, from what I can tell your answer is (YES) because unions know what's best for the worker despite whatever the worker may feel on the issue. Therefore, freedom of association and individual liberty be damned, we should force him to pay up!?

 

[rdean]

Republicans want them to work without benefits for minimum wage. That, or "let him die".

 

[Publius1787]

Republicans want them to work without benefits for minimum wage. That, or "let him die".

Good statement for campaigning. Bad if you have any sense of reality.

 

[MikeK]

In the ought-70's one condition of my summer employment was that I join the union. Pay was good (for that time), but the only time union reps made a visit to the plant was after it flooded. We worked our asses off drying and cleaning tons of bare steel.

Their response? It essentially was our fault it happened in the first place.

Then there were the older union farts that spent most their time standing around flapping jaw.

You said the pay was good. Do you think that was so because of the inherent generosity of the employer? The pay was good for someone like you, who just walked into the job, because those old time jaw-flapping "union farts" did all the heavy-lifting it took to make the pay "good."

So you paid a few bucks to the union but you got it back tenfold in terms of "good pay."

 

[Publius1787]

In the ought-70's one condition of my summer employment was that I join the union. Pay was good (for that time), but the only time union reps made a visit to the plant was after it flooded. We worked our asses off drying and cleaning tons of bare steel.

Their response? It essentially was our fault it happened in the first place.

Then there were the older union farts that spent most their time standing around flapping jaw.

You said the pay was good. Do you think that was so because of the inherent generosity of the employer? The pay was good for someone like you, who just walked into the job, because those old time jaw-flapping "union farts" did all the heavy-lifting it took to make the pay "good."

So you paid a few bucks to the union but you got it back tenfold in terms of "good pay."

Pay has always had less to do with unions and more to do with a high demand for skilled labor. If the population is 10000 and you only have enough jobs for 3000, chances are you aren't going to get paid much because you are easily replicable. If you are highly skilled and there are jobs for 9750 among a 10000 population you are likely to get paid more. That's simple economics, not the benefits of unionization.

 

[MikeK]

Not only NO...but HELL NO. It's an affront to liberty, plain and simple.

Liberty is having the right to form a union. And without the union movement there would be no such things as the 8-hour day, the 40-hour work-week, no paid vacations, no sick leave, no break-time, etc. People suffered, bled, and some died to achieve the many benefits which many in today's generation take for granted.

Unions are not perfect. Some unions are utterly corrupt -- which is mainly the fault of the membership. Because a union is a democracy the leadership of which is elected, and if the members are too lazy to attend meetings and take the trouble to learn who the best candidates for Shop Steward and Business Agent are, then decline is inevitable.

There are some bad unions, but the fact is there are some really great ones. And the union movement is one of the best things ever happened in America. Don't take it for granted.

 

[Publius1787]

Not only NO...but HELL NO. It's an affront to liberty, plain and simple.

Liberty is having the right to form a union. And without the union movement there would be no such things as the 40-hour work-week, no paid vacations, no sick leave, no break-time, etc. People suffered, bled, and some died to achieve the many benefits which many in today's generation take for granted.

Unions are not perfect. Some unions are utterly corrupt -- which is mainly the fault of the membership. Because a union is a democracy the leadership of which is elected, and if the members are too lazy to attend meetings and take the trouble to learn who the best candidates for Shop Steward and Business Agent are, then decline is inevitable.

There are some bad unions, but the fact is there are some really great ones. And the union movement is one of the best things ever happened in America. Don't take it for granted.

Liberty is lost the moment one man can dictate what another man does with his property. Unions act under the supposition that by virtue of opening a business the owner is subject to theft so as long as the workers agree. It comes from the Marxian idea that the workers are the true producers and not the person who busted his ass to build up, invest, or take all of the risk in creating a business. A business owner should be able to hire on the condition that a worker does not unionize as much as a union should be able to demand dues as a condition of employment. But then there would be no unions?

 

[MikeK]

In the ought-70's one condition of my summer employment was that I join the union. Pay was good (for that time), but the only time union reps made a visit to the plant was after it flooded. We worked our asses off drying and cleaning tons of bare steel.

Their response? It essentially was our fault it happened in the first place.

Then there were the older union farts that spent most their time standing around flapping jaw.

You said the pay was good. Do you think that was so because of the inherent generosity of the employer? The pay was good for someone like you, who just walked into the job, because those old time jaw-flapping "union farts" did all the heavy-lifting it took to make the pay "good."

So you paid a few bucks to the union but you got it back tenfold in terms of "good pay."

Pay has always had less to do with unions and more to do with a high demand for skilled labor. If the population is 10000 and you only have enough jobs for 3000, chances are you aren't going to get paid much because you are easily replicable. If you are highly skilled and there are jobs for 9750 among a 10000 population you are likely to get paid more. That's simple economics, not the benefits of unionization.

What about the Teamsters Union? Truck-drivers are not highly skilled, nor are warehousemen.

My son-in-law works for UPS. He owns a fine home on Long Island and supports his family very nicely. He never graduated high-school. Where would he be without the union?

What about the International Longshoreman's Association? And the Service Employee's International (janitors, window-washers, etc.)? There are many unions that serve the interests of unskilled workers who otherwise would be working like slaves for pitiful wages.

 

[MikeK]

Not only NO...but HELL NO. It's an affront to liberty, plain and simple.

Liberty is having the right to form a union. And without the union movement there would be no such things as the 40-hour work-week, no paid vacations, no sick leave, no break-time, etc. People suffered, bled, and some died to achieve the many benefits which many in today's generation take for granted.

Unions are not perfect. Some unions are utterly corrupt -- which is mainly the fault of the membership. Because a union is a democracy the leadership of which is elected, and if the members are too lazy to attend meetings and take the trouble to learn who the best candidates for Shop Steward and Business Agent are, then decline is inevitable.

There are some bad unions, but the fact is there are some really great ones. And the union movement is one of the best things ever happened in America. Don't take it for granted.

Liberty is lost the moment one man can dictate what another man does with his property. Unions act under the supposition that by virtue of opening a business the owner is subject to theft so as long as the workers agree. It comes from the Marxian idea that the workers are the true producers and not the person who busted his ass to build up, invest, or take all of the risk in creating a business. A business owner should be able to hire on the condition that a worker does not unionize as much as a union should be able to demand dues as a condition of employment. But then there would be no unions?

You obviously are an educated fellow and what you've said there is impressive in an academic context. But if you believe the imposition of a union is "theft," what you've said withers when confronted with reality. So I respectfully suggest you acquire a more practical education on the subject of unions in America, and the following is one way to pursue it:

Some very educational, dramatized but fact-based movies about unions.

How Green Was My Valley
The Grapes Of Wrath
Native Land
On The Waterfront
The Pajama Game
Harlan County USA
The Organizer
Norma Rae
Matewan
The Molly Maguires
Hoffa


Some truly educational books about unions.

Rebuilding Labor
Why Unions Matter
Unions At The Crossroads
The Transformation of U.S. Unions
Look For The Union Label
What Do We Need A Union For
The CIO
Infighting In The UAW

 

[Publius1787]

You said the pay was good. Do you think that was so because of the inherent generosity of the employer? The pay was good for someone like you, who just walked into the job, because those old time jaw-flapping "union farts" did all the heavy-lifting it took to make the pay "good."

So you paid a few bucks to the union but you got it back tenfold in terms of "good pay."

Pay has always had less to do with unions and more to do with a high demand for skilled labor. If the population is 10000 and you only have enough jobs for 3000, chances are you aren't going to get paid much because you are easily replicable. If you are highly skilled and there are jobs for 9750 among a 10000 population you are likely to get paid more. That's simple economics, not the benefits of unionization.

What about the Teamsters Union? Truck-drivers are not highly skilled, nor are warehousemen.

My son-in-law works for UPS. He owns a fine home on Long Island and supports his family very nicely. He never graduated high-school. Where would he be without the union?

What about the International Longshoreman's Association? And the Service Employee's International (janitors, window-washers, etc.)? There are many unions that serve the interests of unskilled workers who otherwise would be working like slaves for pitiful wages.

The Teamsters union got their start robbing their employers via dropping off their payload to the mafia in exchange for a plethora of favors/intimidation. The SEIU got its start by communist ideologues, and later, former members of the socialist "Students for a Democratic Society" rose to prominence amidst their ranks. They are the reason SEIU is currently demanding a hike in the minimum wage-They can't compete against non-unionized labor. The ILS had their own communist news paper, though, I would hardly consider them unskilled. The reason why UPS was largely able to compete was because , what can I say, the government makes for a very uncompetitive postal service. Who wouldn't choose ups over the post office? Without the union your son-in-laws ignorance would not have been rewarded.

 

[Publius1787]

Liberty is having the right to form a union. And without the union movement there would be no such things as the 40-hour work-week, no paid vacations, no sick leave, no break-time, etc. People suffered, bled, and some died to achieve the many benefits which many in today's generation take for granted.

Unions are not perfect. Some unions are utterly corrupt -- which is mainly the fault of the membership. Because a union is a democracy the leadership of which is elected, and if the members are too lazy to attend meetings and take the trouble to learn who the best candidates for Shop Steward and Business Agent are, then decline is inevitable.

There are some bad unions, but the fact is there are some really great ones. And the union movement is one of the best things ever happened in America. Don't take it for granted.

Liberty is lost the moment one man can dictate what another man does with his property. Unions act under the supposition that by virtue of opening a business the owner is subject to theft so as long as the workers agree. It comes from the Marxian idea that the workers are the true producers and not the person who busted his ass to build up, invest, or take all of the risk in creating a business. A business owner should be able to hire on the condition that a worker does not unionize as much as a union should be able to demand dues as a condition of employment. But then there would be no unions?

You obviously are an educated fellow and what you've said there is impressive in an academic context. But if you believe the imposition of a union is "theft," what you've said withers when confronted with reality. So I respectfully suggest you acquire a more practical education on the subject of unions in America, and the following is one way to pursue it:

Some very educational, dramatized but fact-based movies about unions.

How Green Was My Valley
The Grapes Of Wrath
Native Land
On The Waterfront
The Pajama Game
Harlan County USA
The Organizer
Norma Rae
Matewan
The Molly Maguires
Hoffa


Some truly educational books about unions.

Rebuilding Labor
Why Unions Matter
Unions At The Crossroads
The Transformation of U.S. Unions
Look For The Union Label
What Do We Need A Union For
The CIO
Infighting In The UAW

Thanks for the suggestions. I enjoy reading books from all points of view. My latest book dealing with unions was this one. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Stayin-Alive-1970s-Working-Class-ebook/dp/B0042RUF7K]Amazon.com: Stayin' Alive: The 1970s and the Last Days of the Working Class eBook: Jefferson R. Cowie: Kindle Store[/ame] > Jefferson Cowie is an excellent Labor Historian. You should check him out. I also watched Norma Rae, Hoffa, and the Grapes of Wrath. Not to mention the ever popular blacklisted Salt of the Earth. Having gone to a very leftist private liberal arts college, (understatement) I couldn't escape studying about labor history.

Say, are you getting booted out of the forum (having to log back in) from time to time or is it just me?

 

[JQPublic1]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

I voted YES for the following reasons and more! These benefits were paid for by he blood, sweat and tears of Union members, not tomention hard cold dues money. No leeching RW anal retentive jerk should get a free ride; especially when they scream and bray incessantly about "welfare queens" and constantly conjure apparitions of poor people getting something for nothing.

Does any sane worker really want a relaspe of the following:

1. The Unions gave us the week end leisure time.

2. Unions helped end child labor

3. Unions won Widespread Employer Based Health Coverage!

4. Unions Spearheaded the Fight for the Family and Medical Leave Act!

5. The Unions helped to build the Middle-Class!

Ignoring most of what you posted as I could write extensively about each category, from what I can tell your answer is (YES) because unions know what's best for the worker despite whatever the worker may feel on the issue. Therefore, freedom of association and individual liberty be damned, we should force him to pay up!?

You are not ignoring most of what I posted you just haven't had time to concoct a plausible answer for it. My "YES" vote was given for the reason I stated. Your elaboration is nothing more than an illusion given credence by groupthink.

As an entity, operationally akin to a corporation, I think it is fair to echo the GOP's claim and say that Unions are people. After all, they do enter into collective bargaining contracts with corporations whereas the corporate bosses decide to have an "open" or "closed" shop.
An "open shop" is one that allows Unions to operate but restricts mandatory membership in Unions. A "closed" shop means people who refuse to join the Union will not be allowed to work for the company or corporation. One example: The US Postal Service is an "open shop."

 

[Publius1787]

I voted YES for the following reasons and more! These benefits were paid for by he blood, sweat and tears of Union members, not tomention hard cold dues money. No leeching RW anal retentive jerk should get a free ride; especially when they scream and bray incessantly about "welfare queens" and constantly conjure apparitions of poor people getting something for nothing.

Does any sane worker really want a relaspe of the following:

1. The Unions gave us the week end leisure time.

2. Unions helped end child labor

3. Unions won Widespread Employer Based Health Coverage!

4. Unions Spearheaded the Fight for the Family and Medical Leave Act!

5. The Unions helped to build the Middle-Class!

Ignoring most of what you posted as I could write extensively about each category, from what I can tell your answer is (YES) because unions know what's best for the worker despite whatever the worker may feel on the issue. Therefore, freedom of association and individual liberty be damned, we should force him to pay up!?

You are not ignoring most of what I posted you just haven't had time to concoct a plausible answer for it. My "YES" vote was given for the reason I stated. Your elaboration is nothing more than an illusion given credence by groupthink.

As an entity, operationally akin to a corporation, I think it is fair to echo the GOP's claim and say that Unions are people. After all, they do enter into collective bargaining contracts with corporations whereas the corporate bosses decide to have an "open" or "closed" shop.
An "open shop" is one that allows Unions to operate but restricts mandatory membership in Unions. A "closed" shop means people who refuse to join the Union will not be allowed to work for the company or corporation. One example: The US Postal Service is an "open shop."

Indeed, that subject matter is not what this thread is about. Close enough though. And my previous statement stands.

 

[Politico]

No.

 

[ScienceRocks]

no

 

[longknife]

You said the pay was good. Do you think that was so because of the inherent generosity of the employer? The pay was good for someone like you, who just walked into the job, because those old time jaw-flapping "union farts" did all the heavy-lifting it took to make the pay "good."

So you paid a few bucks to the union but you got it back tenfold in terms of "good pay."

Pay has always had less to do with unions and more to do with a high demand for skilled labor. If the population is 10000 and you only have enough jobs for 3000, chances are you aren't going to get paid much because you are easily replicable. If you are highly skilled and there are jobs for 9750 among a 10000 population you are likely to get paid more. That's simple economics, not the benefits of unionization.

What about the Teamsters Union? Truck-drivers are not highly skilled, nor are warehousemen.

My son-in-law works for UPS. He owns a fine home on Long Island and supports his family very nicely. He never graduated high-school. Where would he be without the union?

What about the International Longshoreman's Association? And the Service Employee's International (janitors, window-washers, etc.)? There are many unions that serve the interests of unskilled workers who otherwise would be working like slaves for pitiful wages.

If any union truly cared about their members they would provide educational and training sources to help them rise above the unskilled level to one where they could be productive AND make a decent living.

As it is, union bosses care for nobody but themselves. As FDR pointed, letting public employees unionize was a cause for less production and responsiveness.