We all know you hate labor unions but do you hate collective bargaining itself?

[bripat9643]

Employers should be forced to bargain with the workers. If not than people will be screwed by the employers.

Bunk. Although some employers will try things like that, smart employers treat their employees right. The market for skill labor is competitive. Employers who want the best talent will pay competitive wages and provide a good work environment. There are many corporations that became successful largely because they were able to hire and retain the best talent. Standard Oil is a classic example.

Of course, if you're a slug who never acquires any skill other than how to push a broom, then you are likely to get "screwed." In other words, you'll get what you deserve, which is nothing.

This did not happen until the unions were allowed into the workplace

Everything you take for granted in the workplace was fought for by the unions
Now, people are attempting to destroy what gave them a voice in the workplace

Wrong. It happened at Standard Oil long before "unions were allowed in the workplace." It also happened at Ford Motor Company that paid the unheard of wage of $5.00 day and established the 40 hour week before any FDR legislation giving union thugs the right to fun amok was passed. The idea that before FDR all jobs were hell-holes that paid starvation wages is a left-wing myth.

 

[Arthur]

It's good to get clear on your position. Posting with people who disagree helps that.

Consider why unions were created in the first place. Coal miners were getting sick and injured on the job because of unsafe conditions. They were nothing more than serfs, the companies took rent and food out of the workers pay making them shop at company owned stores.

We're going backwards in time instead of forward. That's conservatives for you.

Good for the unions of a century ago.

Now we have federal laws and regulations to protect all workers with respect to safety and exploitation, for example.

The unions are useless, now.

The unions are weak, not useless.

 

[jhc1983]

It's good to get clear on your position. Posting with people who disagree helps that.

Consider why unions were created in the first place. Coal miners were getting sick and injured on the job because of unsafe conditions. They were nothing more than serfs, the companies took rent and food out of the workers pay making them shop at company owned stores.

We're going backwards in time instead of forward. That's conservatives for you.

Good for the unions of a century ago.

Now we have federal laws and regulations to protect all workers with respect to safety and exploitation, for example.

The unions are useless, now.

The unions are weak, not useless.

Ask the workers at Wal Mart if they want the right to C.B. in the workplace or any corporation that has fascist laws towards unions.

They are never useless only not allowed or being destroyed

 

[gwennie]

That would kind of negate the sole leverage workers have in a strike would it not? So the your answer is no?

now now... don't put words in my mouth. My answer is YES... they have a right to strike.

however...

actions have consequences..... if you want to walk off the job.... don't expect your job back.

As just firing strikers without due process or an honest attempt to negotiate is illegal I must still assume your answer is that workers do not have this right in the sense that they should be protected by law.

If you walk off your job because you want to have a hissy fit about something......then yes, you deserve to be fired. Seems to me that many employees nowadays want to act like a bunch of 2 year olds who whine and scream for all sorts of goodies, but refuse to accept any consequences for their asinine behavior. Getting fair wages and decent bennies is one thing, but that's not good enough for them anymore......now they insist on forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for their huge wages, ridiculous cadillac bennies, and tie the hands of the employers from disciplining these assholes even when it's justified. We're not living in the stone ages anymore and the idiot occupiers, union thugs, and liberals get completely hysterical when unions get challenged in any way. Get over it. More and more states are going right-to-work......and it's the unions' fault. If they were more reasonable and willing to negotiate for fairness, RTW states wouldn't even exist. Bankrupting companies, teachers going on strike to fight against their employer being able to discipline them for rule infractions, forcing people to pay dues while the union bosses get 6 figure salaries and they do nothing to help the line workers......no, the unions have got to go NOW.

 

[syrenn]

now now... don't put words in my mouth. My answer is YES... they have a right to strike.

however...

actions have consequences..... if you want to walk off the job.... don't expect your job back.

As just firing strikers without due process or an honest attempt to negotiate is illegal I must still assume your answer is that workers do not have this right in the sense that they should be protected by law.

If you walk off your job because you want to have a hissy fit about something......then yes, you deserve to be fired. Seems to me that many employees nowadays want to act like a bunch of 2 year olds who whine and scream for all sorts of goodies, but refuse to accept any consequences for their asinine behavior. Getting fair wages and decent bennies is one thing, but that's not good enough for them anymore......now they insist on forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for their huge wages, ridiculous cadillac bennies, and tie the hands of the employers from disciplining these assholes even when it's justified. We're not living in the stone ages anymore and the idiot occupiers, union thugs, and liberals get completely hysterical when unions get challenged in any way. Get over it. More and more states are going right-to-work......and it's the unions' fault. If they were more reasonable and willing to negotiate for fairness, RTW states wouldn't even exist. Bankrupting companies, teachers going on strike to fight against their employer being able to discipline them for rule infractions, forcing people to pay dues while the union bosses get 6 figure salaries and they do nothing to help the line workers......no, the unions have got to go NOW.

what firing?

you walk off the job... you have quit. And you dont get unemployment for quitting.

they quit... and and employer should have the flat out right to fill the position...with a none union worker.

 

[alan1]

I was trying to get some genuine responses with a somewhat neutral question rather than knee-jerk reactions by bringing up past controversies.

Yet you ignored my response.
Kerry on.

you should be used to that.....

Happens all the time when my points are factual and unchallengeable.

 

[gwennie]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

The First Amendment right to freely assemble (form/join a union, engage in collective bargaining) and the First Amendment right to engage in free expression (strike) have always existed, the issue has been the recognition and acknowledgement of those rights by employers.

Going on strike as a member of a lawfully recognized union is not ‘quitting’ or ‘walking off the job,’ and it’s incumbent upon employers to at least make a good faith effort to resolve issues before terminating or replacing workers.

Then I would imagine that effort goes equally toward the employees......they should be making a good faith effort to resolve issues with their employers. You can't hold employers to one standard, but employees get off scot free. It's gotten to the point where employees can just walk off the job, knowing that they can't be fired (even though they should be). Or they walk off the job precisely during a critical time in an attempt to force employers to give in to their demands.....it's immoral, unethical, and should be criminal because that's extortion.

 

[gwennie]

Should workers have the right to fight for fair wages, benefits and working conditions or not?

The word "fair" is usually what causes problems. If most people for an occupation make between $40-50k, give or take, which would be considered fair by any standard.....but those in unions insist on being paid $70-80k.....is that fairness or robbing the state (taxpayers)??? And if most people get 3-4 weeks paid vacation, 10 sick days, 8 paid holidays, and 80/20 health insurance in which they have to pay $150/pay period, which is usually typical with many employers.....but those in unions insist on getting 6 weeks paid vacation, 15 sick days, 13 paid holidays, and 100% health insurance.....is that fairness or robbing the state (taxpayers)???? If most people for an occupation work between 40-50 hours per week, often without the benefit of being paid overtime, yet those in the union will threaten to clock out right at 40 hours unless they get paid time and a half for every minute over 40 hours per week.......is that fairness or robbing the state (taxpayers)??? There is some variation in these examples to be sure, but these are not gross exaggerations....it happens all the time with unions. "Normal" wages for the work being done isn't good enouhg for people anymore.....now they want to take and take and take and take until they bankrupt a company or the state, not giving a shit about how that affects other people. That's what most people don't like about unions anymore.......it's no longer about fairness, but rather about me-give-me-mine while telling their employers to go fuck themselves all the while forgetting that the employer was the person who gave them the job in the first place.

 

[Si modo]

It's good to get clear on your position. Posting with people who disagree helps that.

Consider why unions were created in the first place. Coal miners were getting sick and injured on the job because of unsafe conditions. They were nothing more than serfs, the companies took rent and food out of the workers pay making them shop at company owned stores.

We're going backwards in time instead of forward. That's conservatives for you.

Good for the unions of a century ago.

Now we have federal laws and regulations to protect all workers with respect to safety and exploitation, for example.

The unions are useless, now.

The unions are weak, not useless.

Call them whatever you want to call them, but in the RTW states, that seem to be ever growing in numbers, the legislators have decided to put choice about unions into the hands of the individuals.

Like abortions.

 

[occupied]

Good for the unions of a century ago.

Now we have federal laws and regulations to protect all workers with respect to safety and exploitation, for example.

The unions are useless, now.

The unions are weak, not useless.

Call them whatever you want to call them, but in the RTW states, that seem to be ever growing in numbers, the legislators have decided to put choice about unions into the hands of the individuals.

Like abortions.

You guys should really abandon this baloney where right-to-work legislation is a good thing for people who work because it's not. It has no positive effect in unemployment, wages, benefits, work conditions, nothing whatsoever. It does give management another tool to eventually get unions voted out of their hair, that's all, that's it, the whole ball of wax.

 

[syrenn]

The unions are weak, not useless.

Call them whatever you want to call them, but in the RTW states, that seem to be ever growing in numbers, the legislators have decided to put choice about unions into the hands of the individuals.

Like abortions.

You guys should really abandon this baloney where right-to-work legislation is a good thing for people who work because it's not. It has no positive effect in unemployment, wages, benefits, work conditions, nothing whatsoever. It does give management another tool to eventually get unions voted out of their hair, that's all, that's it, the whole ball of wax.

then unions will get voted out... to bad so sad for them...

they hand no issue getting voted in..... deal with it getting voted out.

 

[zakdavis]

The unions are weak, not useless.

Call them whatever you want to call them, but in the RTW states, that seem to be ever growing in numbers, the legislators have decided to put choice about unions into the hands of the individuals.

Like abortions.

You guys should really abandon this baloney where right-to-work legislation is a good thing for people who work because it's not. It has no positive effect in unemployment, wages, benefits, work conditions, nothing whatsoever. It does give management another tool to eventually get unions voted out of their hair, that's all, that's it, the whole ball of wax.

You make less, but RTW states are usually the cheapest to live in as well.

 

[Arthur]

Unions are in a weak position now.

 

[syrenn]

Unions are in a weak position now.

good... its about time people realized what they are.

 

[Arthur]

Unions are not perfect, but neither are managers and business owners.

 

[The Rabbi]

The unions are weak, not useless.

Call them whatever you want to call them, but in the RTW states, that seem to be ever growing in numbers, the legislators have decided to put choice about unions into the hands of the individuals.

Like abortions.

You guys should really abandon this baloney where right-to-work legislation is a good thing for people who work because it's not. It has no positive effect in unemployment, wages, benefits, work conditions, nothing whatsoever. It does give management another tool to eventually get unions voted out of their hair, that's all, that's it, the whole ball of wax.

Which is why right to work states have seen the strongest job growth. Right?

 

[Arthur]

Right to work states have cheap wages. Workers reap fewer benefits from economic growth. Business owners gain, workers lose.

GOP doesn't care about workers, just business owners.

Right to work states prevent workers from negotiating better wages from their employers. Living standards for workers decline.

 

[occupied]

Call them whatever you want to call them, but in the RTW states, that seem to be ever growing in numbers, the legislators have decided to put choice about unions into the hands of the individuals.

Like abortions.

You guys should really abandon this baloney where right-to-work legislation is a good thing for people who work because it's not. It has no positive effect in unemployment, wages, benefits, work conditions, nothing whatsoever. It does give management another tool to eventually get unions voted out of their hair, that's all, that's it, the whole ball of wax.

You make less, but RTW states are usually the cheapest to live in as well.

Cold consolation there guy, It seems we are going in the wrong direction in working class wages as things like energy, medicine and food just continue to get more expensive all the damned time. Wage growth for Americans is as dead as Elvis, with a legion of working class Americans willing to trade that for simply continuing to be employed is absolute proof that the American dream is dead as well. Who will be around to speak for them when the unions are finally dead too?

 

[syrenn]

Unions are not perfect, but neither are managers and business owners.

i never said managers or business were perfect.....


you did forget one part.... employees are not perfect either...and should be let go when they are not.

 

[tap4154]

Right to work states have cheap wages. Workers reap fewer benefits from economic growth. Business owners gain, workers lose.

GOP doesn't care about workers, just business owners.

Work for yourself.

Been doing it 30+ years.

Then you have nothing to whine about.

Of course, you can yell at yourself on occasion...