The Right to Work for less money

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you have a chart showing which states have the highest unemployment rates?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In a "right to work" state, aren't older workers pitted against younger workers? Can a company layoff older workers who are union members and replace them with younger workers who are willing to work for less pay and benefits?

Wouldn't that violate federal labor laws?

 

[Gadawg73]

Nothing. They're workers, like all workers, who have job requirements, and pay the same taxes we all do on their income. They are not property of the state, and Righties seem to think.

Maybe I did not word my point very well so I will try again.
We all pay taxes. Government has union workers. Businesses have union workers in the private sector. Government is not in the private sector.
When unions negotiate in the private sector they negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
When government unions in the government sector negotiate THEY DO NOT negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
Until they do they should not be able to unionize in the government sector. Government gives them what they want BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE ONES PAYING THEIR WAGES AND BENEFITS.

No; they don't. They negotiate with management (representatives of the shareholders)

In public employee negotiations, they negotiate with the governor (representative of the people in the state.)

Samo-samo.

No they don't. They negotiate with the cities and municipalities they work for. City of Atlanta workers negotiate with the City of Atlanta.
Management in the business, they pay their salaries.
Shareholders have AN INTEREST as they have their MONEY in the equation invested there.
Taxpayers have AN INTEREST, as they have property and pay taxes.
TAX MONEY IS USED TO PAY THE SALARIES OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS.
We are not in the equation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ahhh, could someone post that correlation and causation article again for this guy?

You have a problem understanding that given the fact that the primary function of unions is to negotiate the best deals they can for employees regarding wages, benefits, etc.,

the weaker unions are the less likely they will be able to best negotiate such deals?

Strong unions are just as bad as corporations that get too big. If hate the fact that the government supports corporations you should hate the fact that they support unions. The fact that you chose one side and arbitrarily decree it to be less evil indicates just how out of whack your worldview is.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Help me make sure I understand how union negotiations work. Is it kind of like when Guido comes to your donut shop and tells you that giving him $100 a week will ensure no windows are broken in your shop?

Sometimes it's the private armies, police and government powers that come to your picket line, take away your right to self defense, kill or maim or imprison you, because you chose to negotiate a labor agreement collectively. Your derogatory anti-Italian myth shows what an intellectual light weight you are. I'm sure you'll get some pos reps who believe that organized crime is the main reason organized labor exists, but you're living a wet dream.

BTW, the only person I know as Guido is the the stage name of a comedian, who played a Catholic priest who liked to party. His real likfe sister was the Surgeon General, appointed by GWH Bush. Fuck you, and your ethnic slurs.

 

[eflatminor]

What is wrong is the government telling labor and employers what they can and can't negotiate. Where is the public good in that? Why is it a good thing to limit the ability to negotiate a binding contract?

What is wrong is the government allowing government workers to unionize.The folks that pay the freight, the taxpayers, do not get a seat at the negotiating table.

Nothing. They're workers, like all workers, who have job requirements, and pay the same taxes we all do on their income. They are not property of the state, as Righties seem to think.

FDR himself disagreed with you. While he certainly supported the right of private sector workers to bargain collectively, he stood firmly against public sector unions.

FDR made this point clear on several occasions but never so clear as he did in a letter to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, on August 16, 1937, when he wrote:

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.

and

I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

and

Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of pubic employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

So, FDR, along with many others on this board, disagree with you.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Ahhh, could someone post that correlation and causation article again for this guy?

You have a problem understanding that given the fact that the primary function of unions is to negotiate the best deals they can for employees regarding wages, benefits, etc.,

the weaker unions are the less likely they will be able to best negotiate such deals?

Strong unions are just as bad as corporations that get too big. If hate the fact that the government supports corporations you should hate the fact that they support unions. The fact that you chose one side and arbitrarily decree it to be less evil indicates just how out of whack your worldview is.

That's quite a Marxist idea, i.e. unregulated capitalism will implode. I think that part is true. I also think that workers tend to have more skin in the game than cupon clippers.

 

[Darkwind]

Nothing. They're workers, like all workers, who have job requirements, and pay the same taxes we all do on their income. They are not property of the state, and Righties seem to think.

Maybe I did not word my point very well so I will try again.
We all pay taxes. Government has union workers. Businesses have union workers in the private sector. Government is not in the private sector.
When unions negotiate in the private sector they negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
When government unions in the government sector negotiate THEY DO NOT negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
Until they do they should not be able to unionize in the government sector. Government gives them what they want BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE ONES PAYING THEIR WAGES AND BENEFITS.

No; they don't. They negotiate with management (representatives of the shareholders)

In public employee negotiations, they negotiate with the governor (representative of the people in the state.)

Samo-samo.

In fact, it is NOT always the same. Unless the unions have spent money to put the shareholders into their positions.

Unions spend inordinate amounts of money to get elected people who will negotiate favorably with them at the bargaining table. If the elected official wishes to remain in their plush job and need money to keep getting reelected, they play nice with the Union.

This is known as the Unions sitting on both sides of the table.

So, your analogy fails.

Notice what happens to the Unions bargaining power when they fail to purchase an elected official? One has just to look at the two states that have taken up labor union excesses.

 

[kwc57]

Help me make sure I understand how union negotiations work. Is it kind of like when Guido comes to your donut shop and tells you that giving him $100 a week will ensure no windows are broken in your shop?

Sometimes it's the private armies, police and government powers that come to your picket line, take away your right to self defense, kill or maim or imprison you, because you chose to negotiate a labor agreement collectively. Your derogatory anti-Italian myth shows what an intellectual light weight you are. I'm sure you'll get some pos reps who believe that organized crime is the main reason organized labor exists, but you're living a wet dream.

BTW, the only person I know as Guido is the the stage name of a comedian, who played a Catholic priest who liked to party. His real likfe sister was the Surgeon General, appointed by GWH Bush. Fuck you, and your ethnic slurs.

You have a little spittle in the corner of your mouth Dick Lick. Oh, my bad.......that isn't spittle.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When competent union officials negotiate with corporate management you may rest assured their analysts have provided them with an accurate profile of the corporation's financial status and projections. They know what the corporation can and cannot afford and they base their demands on that information.

It may seem that the union is being unreasonably forceful but with very few exceptions they know exactly what they are doing.

But again the premise is the problem. As such we have to go back to the factors that determine what a person's wages should be.[...]

Referring to the same premise we must go back to the factors which determine what an employer's profit level, which is the direct result of his employees' labor, should be. Should the employer take more profit by sharing less with the employee, or does the employee deserve a more equitable share of the fruits of his labor?

If we conclude that a given wage demand is excessive based on the employees' "skill set," then we must equally evaluate the employer's profit margin based on the value of his product or service.

Consider the wealth accumulated by the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan and other corporate giants of the Gilded Age, who rose to financial nobility by greedily exploiting the labor of workers who were paid what today would be considered starvation wages. This abusive practice, which is the natural course of events within an unregulated capitalist system, is in fact what led to the union movement and the rise of the American Middle Class -- which embodies the greatness of America.

Eliminating the unions will lead to the rise of a new Gilded Age, indications of which already are plainly visible in the upward redistribution of America's bounty occurring over the past three decades.

Companies that have more money are able to invest in new technology and equipment to make the job easier, increase productivity, and make employees safer. By demanding that all the profit a company makes go to employees in the form of wages and benefits unions make companies less flexible, less productive, and, ultimately, less safe to work for. We can see the end result of that process in Detroit. Your insistence that employee wages should be based on factors that are detrimental to the health of the company means that the company will, inevitably, fail.

Want to explain why I should negotiate away my future in order to have a false sense of security now?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is wrong about giving the person a choice???

This is what this is about.

What is wrong is the government telling labor and employers what they can and can't negotiate. Where is the public good in that? Why is it a good thing to limit the ability to negotiate a binding contract?

That means you oppose laws that give unions control over who can be hired at a shop, good to know.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is wrong is the government telling labor and employers what they can and can't negotiate. Where is the public good in that? Why is it a good thing to limit the ability to negotiate a binding contract?

What is wrong is the government allowing government workers to unionize.The folks that pay the freight, the taxpayers, do not get a seat at the negotiating table.

Nothing. They're workers, like all workers, who have job requirements, and pay the same taxes we all do on their income. They are not property of the state, as Righties seem to think.

That was not a question, when are people going to learn English before they post?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nothing. They're workers, like all workers, who have job requirements, and pay the same taxes we all do on their income. They are not property of the state, and Righties seem to think.

Maybe I did not word my point very well so I will try again.
We all pay taxes. Government has union workers. Businesses have union workers in the private sector. Government is not in the private sector.
When unions negotiate in the private sector they negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
When government unions in the government sector negotiate THEY DO NOT negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
Until they do they should not be able to unionize in the government sector. Government gives them what they want BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE ONES PAYING THEIR WAGES AND BENEFITS.

No; they don't. They negotiate with management (representatives of the shareholders)

In public employee negotiations, they negotiate with the governor (representative of the people in the state.)

Samo-samo.

You think every fracking job in the US is part of a corporation?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Try to go into a McDonald's and order a Pepsi.

Won't work.

Why? McDonald's has a deal with Coca-Cola to exclusively buy and sell Coca-Cola soda products.

The same logic that says it should be illegal for a business to have an exclusive deal with a union to buy only the union labor would say it should be illegal for Coke and McDonald's to have such an agreement. Call it a "right to Pepsi" law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No; they don't. They negotiate with management (representatives of the shareholders)

In public employee negotiations, they negotiate with the governor (representative of the people in the state.)

Samo-samo.

Management has a responsibility to the shareholdres as does the governor to the people. (thanks for agreeing.)

So tell me...*

Seeing as how many states are in the red......how is that panning out?

Seems it EXACTLY supports Gadawgs premise.

*Okie doke, even if it's OT. In 2011, 8 states had surpluses. Let's therefore assume the other 42 had balanced (some by law) or deficit budgets.

Meanwhile, the biotech my live-in girlfriend works for has never turned a profit, but still pays the prevailing wages in biotech, to their employees.

Point being, because you're fucking up or having to borrow / seek VC does not remove your responsibility to pay the prevailing wage to workers you need.

Give me the name of that green tech company so I can see how much of those prevailing wages are coming from the taxpayer's pocket.

 

[Gadawg73]

Try to go into a McDonald's and order a Pepsi.

Won't work.

Why? McDonald's has a deal with Coca-Cola to exclusively buy and sell Coca-Cola soda products.

The same logic that says it should be illegal for a business to have an exclusive deal with a union to buy only the union labor would say it should be illegal for Coke and McDonald's to have such an agreement. Call it a "right to Pepsi" law.

Burger King next door has your Pepsi.
You have A CHOICE.
We as taxpayers WANT A CHOICE.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe I did not word my point very well so I will try again.
We all pay taxes. Government has union workers. Businesses have union workers in the private sector. Government is not in the private sector.
When unions negotiate in the private sector they negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
When government unions in the government sector negotiate THEY DO NOT negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
Until they do they should not be able to unionize in the government sector. Government gives them what they want BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE ONES PAYING THEIR WAGES AND BENEFITS.

No; they don't. They negotiate with management (representatives of the shareholders)

In public employee negotiations, they negotiate with the governor (representative of the people in the state.)

Samo-samo.

No they don't. They negotiate with the cities and municipalities they work for. City of Atlanta workers negotiate with the City of Atlanta.
Management in the business, they pay their salaries.
Shareholders have AN INTEREST as they have their MONEY in the equation invested there.
Taxpayers have AN INTEREST, as they have property and pay taxes.
TAX MONEY IS USED TO PAY THE SALARIES OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS.
We are not in the equation.

You forgot to mention that shareholders have the option to sell their shares if they don't like the union contract that is negotiated on their behalf, while taxpayers are forced to pay no matter what.

 

[Koios]

No; they don't. They negotiate with management (representatives of the shareholders)

In public employee negotiations, they negotiate with the governor (representative of the people in the state.)

Samo-samo.

No they don't. They negotiate with the cities and municipalities they work for. City of Atlanta workers negotiate with the City of Atlanta.
Management in the business, they pay their salaries.
Shareholders have AN INTEREST as they have their MONEY in the equation invested there.
Taxpayers have AN INTEREST, as they have property and pay taxes.
TAX MONEY IS USED TO PAY THE SALARIES OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS.
We are not in the equation.

You forgot to mention that shareholders have the option to sell their shares if they don't like the union contract that is negotiated on their behalf, while taxpayers are forced to pay no matter what.

Move to another state if you do not like how yours is being run. Or sell your stock and buy another if you think your current percentage-owned company is poorly run.

Samo-samo

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have a problem understanding that given the fact that the primary function of unions is to negotiate the best deals they can for employees regarding wages, benefits, etc.,

the weaker unions are the less likely they will be able to best negotiate such deals?

Strong unions are just as bad as corporations that get too big. If hate the fact that the government supports corporations you should hate the fact that they support unions. The fact that you chose one side and arbitrarily decree it to be less evil indicates just how out of whack your worldview is.

That's quite a Marxist idea, i.e. unregulated capitalism will implode. I think that part is true. I also think that workers tend to have more skin in the game than cupon clippers.

Where the fuck did I say that? The problem here is that government supports large corporations, and large unions, with regulations that skew things in their favor, not that there is no regulation. Only an absolute moron would confuse the two situations.

And, yes, I do know who I am responding to, which is why I am explaining the facts of life to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Try to go into a McDonald's and order a Pepsi.

Won't work.

Why? McDonald's has a deal with Coca-Cola to exclusively buy and sell Coca-Cola soda products.

The same logic that says it should be illegal for a business to have an exclusive deal with a union to buy only the union labor would say it should be illegal for Coke and McDonald's to have such an agreement. Call it a "right to Pepsi" law.

Not the same thing at all, idiot.