• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-union group’s ad scores in Super Bowl

Prof. Peabody

Prof. Peabody

Debate MMA
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,361
Reaction score
325
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Anti-union group’s ad scores in Super Bowl

Spot for Hill bill breaks new ground

By Tim Devaney - The Washington Times

Monday, February 6, 2012

Only Washington-area viewers got to see it, but a $150,000 Super Bowl ad broadcast Sunday night threw an unexpected spotlight on a push by Capitol Hill Republicans to rewrite labor rules to weaken the power of union officials over individual workers.

The Employee Rights Act, introduced last August by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina, both Republicans, was broadcast amid the top-dollar ads for cars, beer and Internet domain companies.

The bill would require workers to reaffirm the continued existence of their unions with new votes every three years. It also would place limits on strikes, how quickly a union can organize a work site, and how membership fees may be used to support political candidates. It has yet to receive a committee hearing in either chamber.

“The reaction has been great,” said Rick Berman, founder of the Center for Union Facts, the conservative lobbying group that sponsored the Super Bowl ad. “This is a campaign to educate people about what’s wrong with labor law in this country.”

Anti-union group's ad scores in Super Bowl - Washington Times
Click to expand...

It is so nice to see the Union Thugs coming under scrutiny by the masses. Folks should be able to choose whether they want representation or not. They should be able to choose whether their union Dues supports the political candidates they want. Folks should also have the right to work free from union pressure to join their political organization. I can only hope this spreads from coast to coast. The taxpayers deserve to get a fair shake with the politicians that the unions routinely purchase for their own benefit.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't help but wonder, while watching this ad during the game, what the "Employee Rights Act" would actually do to improve the rights of employees. Gutting their ability to unionize and allowing employers to pressure them into staying out of unions, so as to weaken their ability to bargain as a group, doesn't really seem to do much to expand the rights of employees at all. Weakening unions does nothing to strengthen employees.
 
Paschendale said:
I couldn't help but wonder, while watching this ad during the game, what the "Employee Rights Act" would actually do to improve the rights of employees. Gutting their ability to unionize and allowing employers to pressure them into staying out of unions, so as to weaken their ability to bargain as a group, doesn't really seem to do much to expand the rights of employees at all. Weakening unions does nothing to strengthen employees.
Click to expand...

All the things the unions used to fight for are now currently incorporated into labor law. So, what exactly is their purpose today?
 
Paschendale said:
I couldn't help but wonder, while watching this ad during the game, what the "Employee Rights Act" would actually do to improve the rights of employees. Gutting their ability to unionize and allowing employers to pressure them into staying out of unions, so as to weaken their ability to bargain as a group, doesn't really seem to do much to expand the rights of employees at all. Weakening unions does nothing to strengthen employees.
Click to expand...

I doubt that anyone wants to gut their ability to unionize, but there are union members who oppose some of the candidates that their unions support. They don't want their union dues supporting said candidates. There was a time when unions were overall good for their employees, but they have become little more than left-wing thugs in many respects these days.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
All the things the unions used to fight for are now currently incorporated into labor law. So, what exactly is their purpose today?
Click to expand...

Political fundraising?
 
Prof. Peabody said:
All the things the unions used to fight for are now currently incorporated into labor law. So, what exactly is their purpose today?
Click to expand...

To keep people like you from unincorporating them.
 
Paschendale said:
I couldn't help but wonder, while watching this ad during the game, what the "Employee Rights Act" would actually do to improve the rights of employees. Gutting their ability to unionize and allowing employers to pressure them into staying out of unions, so as to weaken their ability to bargain as a group, doesn't really seem to do much to expand the rights of employees at all. Weakening unions does nothing to strengthen employees.
Click to expand...

Some people don't like to be in unions, and not just because they're pressured by their employers.
 
Republic Now! said:
Some people don't like to be in unions, and not just because they're pressured by their employers.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, they're undemocratic as hell. Well at least, closed shops. Sorry, if what they offer is soooo beneficial, then people shouldn't be coerced to join.
 
Paschendale said:
I couldn't help but wonder, while watching this ad during the game, what the "Employee Rights Act" would actually do to improve the rights of employees. Gutting their ability to unionize and allowing employers to pressure them into staying out of unions, so as to weaken their ability to bargain as a group, doesn't really seem to do much to expand the rights of employees at all. Weakening unions does nothing to strengthen employees.
Click to expand...


Doesn't a right imply that you have a choice? For example the right to keep and bear arms.It implies that you have a choice in whether or not you want to keep and bear arms,it doesn't mean you are forced to a keep and bear arms. A closed shop means you have to join a specific union if you wish to have a certain job,you can't even pick or form another union if you don't like the one that is available.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
All the things the unions used to fight for are now currently incorporated into labor law. So, what exactly is their purpose today?
Click to expand...

The National Labor Relations Board does not protect certain employees.

Most employees in the private sector are covered by the NLRA. However, the Act specifically excludes individuals who are:

employed by Federal, state, or local government
employed as agricultural laborers
employed in the domestic service of any person or family in a home
employed by a parent or spouse
employed as an independent contractor
employed as a supervisor (supervisors who have been discriminated against for refusing to violate the NLRA may be covered)
employed by an employer subject to the Railway Labor Act, such as railroads and airlines
employed by any other person who is not an employer as defined in the NLRA
https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights
Click to expand...

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration doesn't cover certain workers either.

State and Local Government Workers:

Employees who work for state and local governments are not covered by Federal OSHA, but have OSH Act protections if they work in a state that has an OSHA-approved state program. Four additional states and one U.S. territory have OSHA approved plans that cover public sector employees only. This includes: Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands. Private sector workers in these four states and the Virgin Islands are covered by Federal OSHA.
Workers
Click to expand...
 
CriticalThought said:
To keep people like you from unincorporating them.
Click to expand...

And do what? As I said all the things including family medical leave are incorporated into current labor law. So again what is their purpose today besides what fishstyx said political fundraising?
 
Utility Man said:
The National Labor Relations Board does not protect certain employees.



The Occupational Safety & Health Administration doesn't cover certain workers either.
Click to expand...


If they aren't covered by the law, what on earth can the union do for them? please provide an example from a reliable news source with a link.
 
Fishstyx said:
First and foremost, they're undemocratic as hell. Well at least, closed shops. Sorry, if what they offer is soooo beneficial, then people shouldn't be coerced to join.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, if they are beneficial, workers don't deserve to free-ride on benefits that others have bargained (or paid others to bargain) to obtain. So it's a bit of a two-way street.
 
StillBallin75 said:
On the other hand, if they are beneficial, workers don't deserve to free-ride on benefits that others have bargained (or paid others to bargain) to obtain. So it's a bit of a two-way street.
Click to expand...

That would mean the Union failed at getting their message of benefits across to all the workers. Besides, non union members in a union shop must pay their fair share of the cost to negotiate contracts, just no extra for the unions political activities. How is that unfair?
 
Prof. Peabody said:
It is so nice to see the Union Thugs coming under scrutiny by the masses. Folks should be able to choose whether they want representation or not. They should be able to choose whether their union Dues supports the political candidates they want. Folks should also have the right to work free from union pressure to join their political organization. I can only hope this spreads from coast to coast. The taxpayers deserve to get a fair shake with the politicians that the unions routinely purchase for their own benefit.
Click to expand...

Here's the ad

 
Republic Now! said:
Some people don't like to be in unions, and not just because they're pressured by their employers.
Click to expand...
Sure.

They like the higher pay, they like the benefits, the like the jobs security, they just DON'T LIKE to pay the small fee to pay for all the work their representatives and coworkers did to get those bennies.
 
Last edited:
fiddlerdave said:
Sure.

They like the higher pay, they like the benefits, the like the jobs securit, they just DON'T LIKE to pay the small fee to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Hi Dave! Welcome!
 
LuckyDan said:
Here's the ad

Click to expand...
I find the video quite amusing.

Union fees are small, what a bunch of whiners!

But what is MOST amusing is that the guy whose "fault" it all is, "Harold", is the only guy who is working instead of standing around whining. That old-timer KNOWS just how bad companies will screw you without someone on your side.

I guess a new generation is going to get to find out just how much companies can suck when there are not unions to provide a competitive wage base for companies to have to match. In fact, they already are finding that out as wages and benefits drop like a rock since most of the unions have been busted!
 
Last edited:
Prof. Peabody said:
Thanks for posting that Dan! It says a lot about the employee rights act and why it's necessary.
Click to expand...

Glad I could help.

Being a Texan I've never had to deal much with union stuff, though some communcations companies were unionized, or were union targets, such as the one I worked for back during the "long distance" wars. I dunno. I've just always gotten a creepy vibe from them.

I understand why they were necessary as the country became more industrial. Just seems more like a racket today.
 
LuckyDan said:
Glad I could help.

Being a Texan I've never had to deal much with union stuff, though some communcations companies were unionized, or were union targets, such as the one I worked for back during the "long distance" wars. I dunno. I've just always gotten a creepy vibe from them.

I understand why they were necessary as the country became more industrial. Just seems more like a racket today.
Click to expand...

And rightfully so. I negotiated labor contracts with labor unions for 12 years, I am very familiar with the beast. If the average union member only knew the deals made behind their backs and dues, they'd never pay dues again. I know of one deal where the Union negotiator got a set of keys for the owners ski lodge in Aspen CO to use anytime it was available in exchange for some major concessions in the contract they were negotiating. Oh I forgot the skydiving plane use too!
 
Much like the gun ad during the superbowl, I'll say again....I just dislike political motivated ad's during the game. Feels like cheap exploitation of the fact you have a captive audience who are watching for something entirely different than politics.
 
Zyphlin said:
Much like the gun ad during the superbowl, I'll say again....I just dislike political motivated ad's during the game. Feels like cheap exploitation of the fact you have a captive audience who are watching for something entirely different than politics.
Click to expand...

I don't mind politically motivated ads so much. If you're willing to pay up, you deserve the airtime. I didn't mind this ad so much, even if it did espouse a politically different point of view from my own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom