• 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!

‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

That's good of you to refute such a claim.

IS THAT what you're saying the article is misrepresenting (I can't help but notice you've completely avoided my repeated requests to clarify your statement).

The bolded line in the article you claimed you had issue with did not claim that there was proof intimidation did happen, it stated that it makes intimidation or harassment EASIER.

The intent of the Fox article is clear and that is to portray the union as intimidating non-union employees which is propoganda. You can pretend that is not the point of the article, and this thread, but that is clearly the intention
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I didn't say she paid income taxes. [...]
The cons know that but they always play the intellectually dishonest semantics game when the topic of the poor paying taxes comes up. Every. Time. How they mentally endure so much fail is beyond me.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

The situation presented in the OP is not the result of a strike. The topic appears to be right-to-work freeloaders, not actual picket line crossers.



Right to work is one of the reasons States like Texas can provide job opportunities to the Millions of economic Refugees from plague States like California and Michigan.

Good hard working people come here to find jobs and raise their Families and calling them " freeloaders " is just a another example of pro-Union thuggery.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I'm referencing right to work state employees who don't pay dues yet are covered by union protections due to federal laws in this specific instance.

:lol: so suddenly even though the topic was workers that come into a factory or workplace during a strike, because you found yourself in an untenable position you are now shifting to state employees.

Okay. :)
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

"Freeloaders"? Are these people standing around and doing nothing for their paychecks? :shrug:
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

:lol: so suddenly even though the topic was workers that come into a factory or workplace during a strike, because you found yourself in an untenable position you are now shifting to state employees.

Okay. :)

I'll go ahead and let you reread the link in the OP. No apology necessary.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I'll be happier if I've increased their standard of living and they pay it forward to the next worker.

Oh I'm sure the griping, vitriol, and publishing their names for public pressure will just butter them right up.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

"Freeloaders"? Are these people standing around and doing nothing for their paychecks? :shrug:


No, anyone not ponying up Union dues is a "free loader " apparently.

And they deserve to be targeted and harrased
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

If you don't see that what the union did was intimidation, then you don't see clearly at all. You may now post more diversion and incoherent ramblings.

Yeah, yeah. I know

When the intentions of the right are pointed out, they are denied, even if there's proof. But when the right claims they know what the unions intentions are, there's no denying it, even if you can't quote any union leader saying they want to intimidate non-union employees.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Oh I'm sure the griping, vitriol, and publishing their names for public pressure will just butter them right up.
I'm tolerant of public shaming where public shaming is due.
No, anyone not ponying up Union dues is a "free loader " apparently.

And they deserve to be targeted and harrased
If you're working under a contract that other workers fought for and financially contributed to and are obligated to support you under, you should be paying the same contractual dues. If you don't you're a freeloader, yes.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

This is a really poor comparison.

These are names and locations of people listed as "officers" of the union, an inherently positive designation

The scab list are names and locations of people listed as "scabs" to the union, an inherently negative designation

Naturally one can assume there's a different reasonable expectation as to how people will react or use such information.

One would not suggest that the reason a news paper would publish a list of known sex offenders in a neighborhood and why a news paper would publish a list of high school graduates must be for the exact same reason, or that the expectation is for the readers to use the information in the exact same way...so why are you trying to act like the reason for, and the expected reaction to, this information must be exactly the same?

Similarly, was there any indication from the union that one should use that information to exert pressure upon the officers? Because the story preports that there was such a directive put forward regarding the scab list:



Now, one could easily debate whether or not such pressure is "harassment"...but a reasonable argument could be made that it is as it's reasonable to suggest it would be "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group" as it's reasonable to suggest that a person not wanting to be part of a union would find pressure to engage in "solidarity" with the union as "unwanted".

So it's just entirely unreasonable to attempt to equally compare the information on the SCAB page to the information on the EMAIL US page as it relates to suggesting that the purposes, and the expected or likely responses, to said information.

I think it would be incorrect to say posting the names on the SCAB page is inherently intimidating. However the claim in the story...that it makes intimidation and harassment EASIER...is absolutely accurate. And given the further encouragement by the union to continue to pressure people on the importance of the union, it's absolutely reasonable to say it at the very least is promoting harassment on the part of the union IF that pressure is unwanted.

Explaining "the importance of Solidarity and the power of collective bargaining” is neither harrassment nor pressure. Nothing the union or its' leaders have said can be reasonably construed as "promoting harrassment"
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I'm tolerant of public shaming where public shaming is due.

Then the only reason why you should be against employers doing the same is because you aren't one of them. If you want to be shameless, perhaps the most courtesy you could extend is to be completely honest.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I'll go ahead and let you reread the link in the OP. No apology necessary.

1. We were talking about "scabs", as you called them and

2. I did re-read the OP. You know what I didn't see? Any reference to state employees. :)

no apology necessary ;)
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Well I think immedietely jumping to initimidation is a stretch.

But would you not agree d0gbreath that a concerted effort by multiple union members to continually pressure them about the benefits of being part of a union would concievably be "unwanted" pressure for someone whose expressed their desire NOT to be part of the union, and thus could reasonable be considered an organized effort of harassment?

I don't think it's a stretch to state that someone whose expressed a desire to NOT be part of the union has no desire to hear about the importance of "solidarity" with said union.

I have a desire to not hear the whines of right wingers, but there's this thing called Free Speech which prevents my desires from being fulfilled.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Are you implying non union workers could face harassment or their tires being slashed or their homes being vandalized? This has never happened before!:lol:

It did in Nazi Germany with the Nazi's marking and listing Jews.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Heh...worker solidarity, unless you don't cough up yer dues to a voluntary organization. Who really should be accused of being a back stabber?
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Which I've stated multiple times may very well be the case in most instances

But that's irrelevant to the point of who PROVIDES those things.

All pointing that out does is act as a diversion. If someone says "The employer is the one providing the benefits" and someone goes "No they don't, that's the union" that's just simply wrong. The union doesn't PROVIDE it. They may be the impetus for WHY the employer provided it...but it's still the employer providing it.

IMO, it's the pendantic quibbling about the word "providing" that is the diversion. The point should be pretty clear that without the power of collective bargaining, the employer would probably not be providing everything it currently does provide.

And I'm pretty sure you understand that is the point.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Oh Jesus Christ. Grow up, would you? People who aren't in your group aren't going out of their way to screw you over. They are working, providing for themselves and their families, same as the rest of us.

Don't you dare presume to tell me to 'grow up'. You don't know me and you don't know anything about me. Non-union employees don't have to 'go out of their way' to screw union employees over. There very existence jeopardizes the job of every union employee.

On the other hand, you have apstd liking your post. It must make you so happy.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Then the only reason why you should be against employers doing the same is because you aren't one of them. If you want to be shameless, perhaps the most courtesy you could extend is to be completely honest.

It makes me wonder what these pro-list folks would think of the old Blacklists that Employers used to pass around of union agitators...

after all, consequences in employment is justified where it is due, eh?
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Don't you dare presume to tell me to 'grow up'. You don't know me and you don't know anything about me. Non-union employees don't have to 'go out of their way' to screw union employees over. There very existence jeopardizes the job of every union employee.

If an immature, self-centered idea comes from someone's mind, it will be called immature. Sorry, bub.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Don't you dare presume to tell me to 'grow up'. You don't know me and you don't know anything about me.

:lamo

Thank you, wiggen, for responding in such a way as to perfectly make his point. :) You sound precisely like a 15-20 year old.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

No one is screwing you....but you do want to harass them, and this is just proving the point of the OP. Thanks for your honesty

Don't mention it. If anybody is undercutting me by willing to work with non-union standards in place then yes, they are screwing me over and yes, I will react to that.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

IMO, it's the pendantic quibbling about the word "providing" that is the diversion. The point should be pretty clear that without the power of collective bargaining, the employer would probably not be providing everything it currently does provide.

And I'm pretty sure you understand that is the point.

That's a crock of **** given the fact we already have OSHA amongst other organizations that look after the workers..

Uninons are only in the game for the $$$$ and the heads of these unions are nothing more than criminals ripping off the workers...

At one point in history unions had a purpose but presently they're no better than the mafia (why you think the unions got in bed with the mafia in the first place?).
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

This is why people suggest it makes it easier to target them for harassment and why people think harassment may happen.

Definition for Harassment from Merriam-webster

"to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct."







Is anyone going to tell me that showing people "contempt", attempting to criticize, shun, and embaress them, and treating them like someone who is "screwing" you isn't going to creating an unpleasent or hostile situation and isn't being done via verbal contact?

If you think they have the harassment "coming to them" then so be it, but I hope some posters stop acting like it's entirely unreasonable to think this makes it easier for people to harass them

SO now every unpleasant experience at work is "harrassment"?

I once worked with a chronic nose-picker. Was I being harrassed?
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

:lamo

Thank you, wiggen, for responding in such a way as to perfectly make his point. :) You sound precisely like a 15-20 year old.

Criticism from you and all the other hard line right wing anti-union people on here just proves how right I am. And no, having served during the Vietnam War clearly doesn't make me a 15-20 years old. But thanks for the condescension.
 
Back
Top Bottom