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

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

They expect the nanny state to dictate to unions and business what kinds of agreements they make between one another.

Its completely anti-free market. MARKET FORCES should determine whether or not a business is a union shop - not the NANNY STATE.

Exactly. That's why nanny state laws are being decimated with RTW legislation.

RTW legislation dictates to business and unions what kinds of agreements they made mutually make with one another. That's ANTI-FREE MARKET and PRO-NANNY STATE. You don't want a union job? Don't apply for one.

 

[occupied]

The whole idea of everyone walking off the job is to bring what every the job is.... to a screeching halt.

fine... if they can get an employer to bow to that pressure.... fine.

if not... and an employer digs in and replaces everyone..... then they lost. Pretty simple.

I saw an HBO special on a Stella D'Oro bakery plant in the Bronx, NY. Now of course the show was biased toward the workers, but I watched it anyway. I wanted to see the attitudes of the workers as they were interviewed and the camera views of their homes, cars boats, where they went out to eat, how they dressed, etc..
As the show progressed, the viewer would realize that these people all made LOTS of money. They all lived in single family homes in the suburbs, some had multiple cars. Some had boats. A couple of them had vacation homes in upstate NY...All very good for them. They worked for it, their union got them the pay so they could afford all of these things.
What pissed me off about it was many things. One the workers portrayed the company as cheap. They all said they were just simple working people trying to get by. One guy lamented that the company was jeopardizing his kid's opportunity to go to a private High school in New York City?....HUH?!!!!!!
Toward the last segment, the story turned to the lengthy strike and how the workers were losing their lifestyle. here's the galling aspect of this....These people made gobs of money. They saved NONE OF IT...Or so it would seem. They were so used to living very nice lives, they never bothered putting some of the money aside for a rainy day. They had no savings.
SO the sob story was the focal point in the last segment of the show..
Ok, so the union brings the plant management to court. The judge issues an injunction in support of the union in that Stella D'Oro had to let the workers have their raises, etc with NO concessions. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY...The workers cheered. We go out jobs back..Whoooooopie"..Meanwhile the whole issue was the plant owners told the union the costs to run the planet had gotten to the point that without reductions in wages and employees paying a larger portion of their benefits, the plant was in jeopardy.
Two days after the judge issued the injunction, the plant owners called in the workers and told them the plant was shutting down. Done...
The bottom line is the strike cost the company so much money in lost profits AND the fact that soon afterwards the Stella D'oro brand was sold to I think Nabisco.
All of this because of the union. Had the union not been there, yeah, those workers would not have had boats, kids in private schools or vacation homes, but they would have still been making livable wages and providing for their families.

I've seen stuff like that before and while it is perhaps shocking to some that regular people make good money for what is essentially a regular job it is important to note that these non-representative people represent how the American dream was presented to us and the average worker an example of how it was all a lie. Many of us look at an extremely wealthy person with solid gold fixtures and lear jets and polo ponies etc. and say: "Somehow they did something to deserve all that", we excuse them their wretched excess but when it comes to a wage earner, some of us feel that there is some kind of limit beyond which where the person at hand is making too much. Why is that? That some Jaguar driving trust fund kid who never did a worthwhile thing in his life is somehow entitled to his excess but a working class guy should be making just enough to survive if nothing unexpected happens. I feel that this double-standard is one of the flaws of our society, a sort of glass ceiling that has already killed social mobility and removed the possibility of a working class to middle class jump that was once the incentive to work hard and be responsible.
I know this is kind of long but it's questions like this I feel people should put some thought into rather than some knee-jerk reaction to a working man with a speedboat.

 

[SniperFire]

They expect the nanny state to dictate to unions and business what kinds of agreements they make between one another.

Its completely anti-free market. MARKET FORCES should determine whether or not a business is a union shop - not the NANNY STATE.

Exactly. That's why nanny state laws are being decimated with RTW legislation.

RTW legislation dictates to business and unions what kinds of agreements they made mutually make with one another. That's ANTI-FREE MARKET and PRO-NANNY STATE. You don't want a union job? Don't apply for one.

Nanny State collective bargaining laws protect union security agreements which require union membership of all employees.

Eliminate the Nanny State collective bargaining laws, and there is no need for RTW legislation.

We agree with you! WIN WIN

 

[Si modo]

They expect the nanny state to dictate to unions and business what kinds of agreements they make between one another.

Its completely anti-free market. MARKET FORCES should determine whether or not a business is a union shop - not the NANNY STATE.

Exactly. That's why nanny state laws are being decimated with RTW legislation.

RTW legislation dictates to business and unions what kinds of agreements they made mutually make with one another. That's ANTI-FREE MARKET and PRO-NANNY STATE. You don't want a union job? Don't apply for one.

Not, that's NOT what RTW legislation does. What it does is give choice to the worker to join a union or not join..no mandatory contributions either. That's all it does. It give freedom of choice to workers.

Why are you anti-choice?

 

[syrenn]

Perhaps things are on a turn-around but fixing thirty years of plutocratic corporate ass-kissing might take a while and face some stiff resistance, especially with people like you cloaking all their anti-worker agendas in patriotic lies. You know this union busting crap is entirely a corporate agenda that favors the greed of a few and just don't care, typical you also go to the stupid "dear leader" crap when you are prepared to sell out every single American worker to your dear billionaire leaders.

You really have no idea of the corrupt and abusive leviathans your advocating for do you. I can speak with first hand knowledge of the UAW, my mothers family were in the UAW at GM and Fisher Body and fairly high up in the union. They came to our house on vacation while some one at the plant punched them in and out for weeks at a time. They were thieves that abused their positions in the union, and it was a common practice. They were a large part of the reason they US tax payer got to bail out GM. Then to add insult to injury your dear leader gave the freaking union 40% of the company. The major unions are as corrupt if not more so than the corporations they rail against. So get over your fantasies about the benevolent unions and try facing reality for a change. Unions abuse their members money by contributing to political organizations they disapprove of, so have your unions but don't force the people that disagree with their policies to pay their tribute.

Once again I'll ask, do you think workers are smart enough to decide if a union is of real value to them?

I'm supposed to buy your anecdote at face value while you jump to defend anything a predator in a $1000 suit does to make a pile? You do not give shit about fraud and corruption when the plutocrats do it, why should I believe you care about anything in the issue other than making it even easier to exploit people? All through this you have not moved an inch to admit that there might be problem with anything other than "corrupt unions" standing in the way of progress, which sometimes includes fucking working people over without remorse. Shove your question up your ass, I gave you my answer already, you just didn't like it.

And you dont think top union leaders dont wear $1000 dollar suits? LOL. Sure they do. The unions are BIG business...

you asked about collective bargaining.... why cant employees collective bargain without the union?

 

[dblack]

You really have no idea of the corrupt and abusive leviathans your advocating for do you. I can speak with first hand knowledge of the UAW, my mothers family were in the UAW at GM and Fisher Body and fairly high up in the union. They came to our house on vacation while some one at the plant punched them in and out for weeks at a time. They were thieves that abused their positions in the union, and it was a common practice. They were a large part of the reason they US tax payer got to bail out GM. Then to add insult to injury your dear leader gave the freaking union 40% of the company. The major unions are as corrupt if not more so than the corporations they rail against. So get over your fantasies about the benevolent unions and try facing reality for a change. Unions abuse their members money by contributing to political organizations they disapprove of, so have your unions but don't force the people that disagree with their policies to pay their tribute.

Once again I'll ask, do you think workers are smart enough to decide if a union is of real value to them?

I'm supposed to buy your anecdote at face value while you jump to defend anything a predator in a $1000 suit does to make a pile? You do not give shit about fraud and corruption when the plutocrats do it, why should I believe you care about anything in the issue other than making it even easier to exploit people? All through this you have not moved an inch to admit that there might be problem with anything other than "corrupt unions" standing in the way of progress, which sometimes includes fucking working people over without remorse. Shove your question up your ass, I gave you my answer already, you just didn't like it.

And you dont think top union leaders dont wear $1000 dollar suits? LOL. Sure they do. The unions are BIG business...

you asked about collective bargaining.... why cant employees collective bargain without the union?

Because the purpose of collective bargaining laws isn't to protect workers' rights. It's to grant special privilege to organized voting blocks. It's the old corporatist game of buying off powerful interest groups with ad-hoc policy favors.

 

[The Rabbi]

They expect the nanny state to dictate to unions and business what kinds of agreements they make between one another.

Its completely anti-free market. MARKET FORCES should determine whether or not a business is a union shop - not the NANNY STATE.

Exactly. That's why nanny state laws are being decimated with RTW legislation.

RTW legislation dictates to business and unions what kinds of agreements they made mutually make with one another. That's ANTI-FREE MARKET and PRO-NANNY STATE. You don't want a union job? Don't apply for one.

NO it does not. You are a dunce if you believe that.
RTW simply states no one is required to join a union to work. As typical the libs have it backwards. No wonder they support homosexuality.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They expect the nanny state to dictate to unions and business what kinds of agreements they make between one another.

Its completely anti-free market. MARKET FORCES should determine whether or not a business is a union shop - not the NANNY STATE.

Exactly. That's why nanny state laws are being decimated with RTW legislation.

RTW legislation dictates to business and unions what kinds of agreements they made mutually make with one another. That's ANTI-FREE MARKET and PRO-NANNY STATE. You don't want a union job? Don't apply for one.

The union does not hire employees the business does. If an employee does not want to be in the union then he should not be forced to join.

The union does not own the jobs the business owner does.

 

[thereisnospoon]

They expect the nanny state to dictate to unions and business what kinds of agreements they make between one another.

Its completely anti-free market. MARKET FORCES should determine whether or not a business is a union shop - not the NANNY STATE.

Exactly. That's why nanny state laws are being decimated with RTW legislation.

RTW legislation dictates to business and unions what kinds of agreements they made mutually make with one another. That's ANTI-FREE MARKET and PRO-NANNY STATE. You don't want a union job? Don't apply for one.

FAIL!
Right to work does two things. It guarantees workers the right to gain employment where ever they wish. Prevents labor collectives from compelling workers to wither be an existing member of the labor collective( closed shop) or become a member of a labor collective, to procure employment.
This is a worker's rights issue. A freedom issue.
Unions and their members object because they see choice as a threat to the rigid environment of labor collectives.
Unions lost any grip they may have had long ago. Right to work is a graduation of sorts. Or more accurately, a leaving from the nest. Americans no longer are in need of protections from big bad management. We are all as individuals capable.

 

[The Rabbi]

They expect the nanny state to dictate to unions and business what kinds of agreements they make between one another.

Its completely anti-free market. MARKET FORCES should determine whether or not a business is a union shop - not the NANNY STATE.

Exactly. That's why nanny state laws are being decimated with RTW legislation.

RTW legislation dictates to business and unions what kinds of agreements they made mutually make with one another. That's ANTI-FREE MARKET and PRO-NANNY STATE. You don't want a union job? Don't apply for one.

How is it nanny state when employer and employee bargain with each other free of gov't interference?
There is no such thing as a "union job" unless the union is actually doing the hiring and paying.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Public, unions, yes. We didn't have to go to court, we got what we wanted.

And I'll grant the lawyers.

It's really the entire point of unions these days, from negotiating contracts to recognizing breech of contract to taking it to court they are the real power behind the labor union, not the stereotypical thug many are fond of envisioning. You can bet management can afford lawyers galore but what about a non-unionized workforce who feel cheated? Even if a non-unionized workforce pools their resources how can they afford to pay lawyers or even know where to start in a class action lawsuit or protect themselves from retaliation?

Lets clear up an issue here. There was NEVER a "negotiation" between a union and a business. At least not in the sense of give and take.
Unions were able to hold companies over a barrel until they gave in.
How the hell else could any organization get a business to agree to pay ALL or most of the cost of a pension and health benefits? I will tell you. That happened to business owners that were told, "take this deal or we will shut you down".
Business owners and investors simply got tired of being push around as though they were nothing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's really the entire point of unions these days, from negotiating contracts to recognizing breech of contract to taking it to court they are the real power behind the labor union, not the stereotypical thug many are fond of envisioning. You can bet management can afford lawyers galore but what about a non-unionized workforce who feel cheated? Even if a non-unionized workforce pools their resources how can they afford to pay lawyers or even know where to start in a class action lawsuit or protect themselves from retaliation?

If ya have to get a lawyer, why do we pay the NLRB?

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

Oh please....

 

[thereisnospoon]

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

Hell if we are to believe you libs the commiecrats are going to be in the WH for the rest of time or the Mayan apocalypse which ever comes first, so whats the problem. Won't your dear leader fix it, or should I ask, hasn't your dear leader fixed it already?

Perhaps things are on a turn-around but fixing thirty years of plutocratic corporate ass-kissing might take a while and face some stiff resistance, especially with people like you cloaking all their anti-worker agendas in patriotic lies. You know this union busting crap is entirely a corporate agenda that favors the greed of a few and just don't care, typical you also go to the stupid "dear leader" crap when you are prepared to sell out every single American worker to your dear billionaire leaders.

You have a vivid imagination and one hell of an awareness of conspiracy.

 

[alan1]

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

Your false assumption is that the NLRB should exist ad a government agency.

 

[zakdavis]

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

Your false assumption is that the NLRB should exist ad a government agency.

Then lets have really strong unions instead

 

[Amelia]

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

Your false assumption is that the NLRB should exist ad a government agency.

Then lets have really strong unions instead

Let's have strong unions who make themselves strong by showing their value, not by coercing people to join.

 

[occupied]

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

Your false assumption is that the NLRB should exist ad a government agency.

Then lets have really strong unions instead

Never forget in this debate that those who fund the lobbying efforts on this front are not after anything less than a Chinese work environment in America, why else should the same people who union bust also be after abolishing the minimum wage and have also pretty much killed the 40-hour work week?

 

[thereisnospoon]

It might have to do with the NLRB being the most underfunded and politically sabotaged agency in Washington. When republicans are in office the unions have to sue to even get those positions appointed and when they are they put a bunch of hateful CEO types on the board. Face it, the republicans and conservatives in general have lost all right to even pretend to be on the side of anyone who works for a living.

You are falsely equating union member or supporter with worker. The vast majority of the workforce is not union. The overwhelming majority of workers vote against unionization when they have the option.

I look at the entire anti-worker campaign as a whole rather than split it up into issues. Unions have been under legal, legislative and ideological attack for thirty years or more. The people leading this attack often say things like "unions used to be a good thing but they no longer serve a purpose as there are now laws to protect workers" while simultaneously sabotaging and circumventing the government's ability to enforce those laws. Conservatives have become so anti-worker that it sickens me, Anti-union is just a small part that includes attacks on all worker protections including minimum wage, working hours, paid overtime, pensions, safety, environmental, etc.

First, let's dispense with the overtly biased terms such as "anti worker"..
Newsflash, anti union is in no way to be confused with anything else.
No one is "attacking" unions. If anything , people are walking away from organized labor.
In many instances over the last 30 years, unions have lost certification votes. In fact this is the reason why "Card Check" legislation has been proposed and lobbied for by big labor.
Now please. Feel free to provide examples of widespread or pervasive "sabotaging or circumventing" of labor laws for the sole purpose of beating up unions.
The logic of the pro union argument escapes me because 93% of us work outside the scope of labor collectives.

 

[occupied]

You are falsely equating union member or supporter with worker. The vast majority of the workforce is not union. The overwhelming majority of workers vote against unionization when they have the option.

I look at the entire anti-worker campaign as a whole rather than split it up into issues. Unions have been under legal, legislative and ideological attack for thirty years or more. The people leading this attack often say things like "unions used to be a good thing but they no longer serve a purpose as there are now laws to protect workers" while simultaneously sabotaging and circumventing the government's ability to enforce those laws. Conservatives have become so anti-worker that it sickens me, Anti-union is just a small part that includes attacks on all worker protections including minimum wage, working hours, paid overtime, pensions, safety, environmental, etc.

First, let's dispense with the overtly biased terms such as "anti worker"..
Newsflash, anti union is in no way to be confused with anything else.
No one is "attacking" unions. If anything , people are walking away from organized labor.
In many instances over the last 30 years, unions have lost certification votes. In fact this is the reason why "Card Check" legislation has been proposed and lobbied for by big labor.
Now please. Feel free to provide examples of widespread or pervasive "sabotaging or circumventing" of labor laws for the sole purpose of beating up unions.
The logic of the pro union argument escapes me because 93% of us work outside the scope of labor collectives.

The sole reason is not just beating up unions, it is to remove the American worker from all protections either governmental or collectively. The plutocrats like the way the Chinese allow their citizens to be used unmercifully till they drop or off themselves. When labor unions are dead do you think these people will be satisfied? Hell no, they are after nothing short of a powerless workforce which no union, no court, no evil regulation, nothing will ever stand in the way of the rather innocent sounding "maximizing productivity". They have already trained conservatives to settle for less from their lifetime of labor but I can promise you that the rest of us will fight this insidious trend even if you and the rest are all too willing to participate in the murder of American working class upward mobility.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The whole idea of everyone walking off the job is to bring what every the job is.... to a screeching halt.

fine... if they can get an employer to bow to that pressure.... fine.

if not... and an employer digs in and replaces everyone..... then they lost. Pretty simple.

I saw an HBO special on a Stella D'Oro bakery plant in the Bronx, NY. Now of course the show was biased toward the workers, but I watched it anyway. I wanted to see the attitudes of the workers as they were interviewed and the camera views of their homes, cars boats, where they went out to eat, how they dressed, etc..
As the show progressed, the viewer would realize that these people all made LOTS of money. They all lived in single family homes in the suburbs, some had multiple cars. Some had boats. A couple of them had vacation homes in upstate NY...All very good for them. They worked for it, their union got them the pay so they could afford all of these things.
What pissed me off about it was many things. One the workers portrayed the company as cheap. They all said they were just simple working people trying to get by. One guy lamented that the company was jeopardizing his kid's opportunity to go to a private High school in New York City?....HUH?!!!!!!
Toward the last segment, the story turned to the lengthy strike and how the workers were losing their lifestyle. here's the galling aspect of this....These people made gobs of money. They saved NONE OF IT...Or so it would seem. They were so used to living very nice lives, they never bothered putting some of the money aside for a rainy day. They had no savings.
SO the sob story was the focal point in the last segment of the show..
Ok, so the union brings the plant management to court. The judge issues an injunction in support of the union in that Stella D'Oro had to let the workers have their raises, etc with NO concessions. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY...The workers cheered. We go out jobs back..Whoooooopie"..Meanwhile the whole issue was the plant owners told the union the costs to run the planet had gotten to the point that without reductions in wages and employees paying a larger portion of their benefits, the plant was in jeopardy.
Two days after the judge issued the injunction, the plant owners called in the workers and told them the plant was shutting down. Done...
The bottom line is the strike cost the company so much money in lost profits AND the fact that soon afterwards the Stella D'oro brand was sold to I think Nabisco.
All of this because of the union. Had the union not been there, yeah, those workers would not have had boats, kids in private schools or vacation homes, but they would have still been making livable wages and providing for their families.

I've seen stuff like that before and while it is perhaps shocking to some that regular people make good money for what is essentially a regular job it is important to note that these non-representative people represent how the American dream was presented to us and the average worker an example of how it was all a lie. Many of us look at an extremely wealthy person with solid gold fixtures and lear jets and polo ponies etc. and say: "Somehow they did something to deserve all that", we excuse them their wretched excess but when it comes to a wage earner, some of us feel that there is some kind of limit beyond which where the person at hand is making too much. Why is that? That some Jaguar driving trust fund kid who never did a worthwhile thing in his life is somehow entitled to his excess but a working class guy should be making just enough to survive if nothing unexpected happens. I feel that this double-standard is one of the flaws of our society, a sort of glass ceiling that has already killed social mobility and removed the possibility of a working class to middle class jump that was once the incentive to work hard and be responsible.
I know this is kind of long but it's questions like this I feel people should put some thought into rather than some knee-jerk reaction to a working man with a speedboat.

The point is this. These workers had accumulated material things and gave their kids educational opportunities at levels far beyond than what was in proportion to their level of skill and education. So be it.
The problem is this. These people held themselves out as "the little guy". The poor downtrodden working stiff. That is unrealistic. A guy who works in a cookie factory with three kids in private school and a boat docked at a $2000 per month slip out on Long Island is NOT the little guy.
No one is begrudging the great wages and benefits. It's the fact that these people live far better than most others. When the conditions suddenly turn against them, they run around telling anyone who will listen that their "rights" are being trampled by an oppressor.

Anyway, the other point is, these people appeared to have not saved a dime. Incredible.
How could anyone be that out of touch with reality?