• 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

danarhea said:
Both sides intimidate. Corporations intimidate when people attempt to unionize the place.... But yes, just because corporations do it doesn't mean that unions should also do it. It's wrong, and shame on the union for engaging in this kind of behavior.
Click to expand...
What you're describing is illegal for companies to do. As a manager, the company I used to work for went through two separate unionization attempts and there are very clear laws about what a company can and cannot do once a unionization attempt is under way. I'd be interested to hear what intimidation companies do that you're referring to.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

cpwill said:
:lol: tell me more about how all those miners in WVa aren't unionized?

Hey, how is it working for all those unions up in Detriot? I imagine they must be doing way better than those poor ununionized auto shops down in the South :)
Click to expand...

It sucks to be undercut. The South did it to the Midwest the same way that freeloaders are doing it to their union counterparts.

The fallout? The rich get richer and the middle class shrinks.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

cpwill said:
We were discussing the much ballyhoo'd "scabs". :) Not all posts relate directly rather than indirectly to an OP. :)
Click to expand...
Then I suggest you consult a dictionary. Or, you can continue to be wrong
shrug.gif


scab

noun

[...]

4. a worker who refuses to join a labor union or to participate in a union strike, who takes a striking worker's place on the job, or the like.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
scab. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. Scab | Define Scab at Dictionary.com (accessed: October 10, 2014).
Click to expand...
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

ocean515 said:
My son is an EMT. A union recently tried to organize his company. On multiple occasions someone would show up at his home, wanting to talk to him about voting to approve the effort. He told me he was VERY intimidated, not only by the efforts the union was making, but by the fact they were showing up where he lived.

They eventually voted to reject the union attempt, but he continues to be really mad at the games they played to try to get the contract. It would seem this is how it works. To suggest all these union tactics aren't about intimidation is absurd.
Click to expand...

Despite your son's feelings, no one was hurt, there was no vandalism and no laws were broken even though the union was rejected.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Karl said:
Any rational analysis of the scabs described in the OP will conclude that they are freeloaders. What is silly and idiotic is your argument.
Click to expand...

Unions are supposed to be voluntary organizations. As a result, Unions cannot feel entitled to receive money from every employee. They certainly should not feel so entitled to this money that they would reduce themselves to public shaming.

While unions often provide benefits, nowhere is it expected that each employee experience the Union sucking the money from their paycheck.

One could just as easily argue that the leech is the one who feels that a completely voluntary act needs to be enforced through coercion.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Fiddytree said:
Unions are supposed to be voluntary organizations. As a result, Unions cannot feel entitled to receive money from every employee. They certainly should not feel so entitled to this money that they would reduce themselves to public shaming.

While unions often provide benefits, nowhere is it expected that each employee experience the Union sucking the money from their paycheck.

One could just as easily argue that the leech is the one who feels that a completely voluntary act needs to be enforced through coercion.
Click to expand...

The coercion is when the govt puts itself between a company and it's employees by making it illegal for an employer to sign a contract with a union agreeing to only hire union members.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Meister said:
Wow....good retort:shock:
Click to expand...
If you apply yourself you'll find that it is an excellent retort ;)
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Fiddytree said:
Unions are supposed to be voluntary organizations. As a result, Unions cannot feel entitled to receive money from every employee. They certainly should not feel so entitled to this money that they would reduce themselves to public shaming.

While unions often provide benefits, nowhere is it expected that each employee experience the Union sucking the money from their paycheck.

One could just as easily argue that the leech is the one who feels that a completely voluntary act needs to be enforced through coercion.
Click to expand...

Unions are voluntary.

A) You don't have to work in a shop that's under union contract. That's voluntary.

B) If you do work in a union shop, it's still voluntary as to whether you have to join. Even in non "right to work" states.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/12/myths-and-facts-about-right-to-work-laws/191810

C) If you've voluntarily chosen to work in a union shop and voluntarily decided not to join the union, the union is still obligated to represent you which costs money. You should be obligated to pay some of that cost.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Hard Truth said:
Despite your son's feelings, no one was hurt, there was no vandalism and no laws were broken even though the union was rejected.
Click to expand...

Correct. Doesn't rule out the intimidation truth is seems so many pro-union people are trying hard to deny.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Moon said:
[...] I'd be interested to hear what intimidation companies do that you're referring to.
Click to expand...

Federal officials have filed a complaint against Wal-Mart for allegedly retaliating against workers who staged Black Friday protests in 2012. The National Labor Relations Board [...] is taking a next step in a case against Wal-Mart (WMT) for alleged unfair labor practices.

An Administrative Law Judge found that a Burger King franchise in Detroit, MI violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by threatening to let an employee go for discussing protests while working, for maintaining and enforcing a ‘no solicitation’ rule on employees that prohibited them from being on premises unless they were either working or eating, and by sending a union worker home early for failing to “put pickles on her sandwiches in perfect squares as she was supposed to do.”

There are more (Google is your friend).
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

RedAkston said:
Pressure tactics: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers | Fox News



The last line is bolded for emphasis. These are the tactics that unions use and it's plain wrong. I dare anyone to defend what the union is doing here with a straight face.
Click to expand...

The worlds smallest violin is now playing a very very sad song for these freeloaders who want the benefits of working in a union plant but do not want to pay for them.

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

sangha said:
Yeah, right

Pretend that you don't understand the effects unionization have had on compensation all you like. I'll put that in the same category as your insistence that you know the unions intended to people intimidate non-members.
Click to expand...

One of the primary characteristics of the more extreme right wingers is that they deny that others contributed to their success. They think they achieved everything on their own when the truth is that their family, schools, community, and government made them who they are, plus, in many cases, their family's financial wealth, social class, gender and race were factors in their current status.

Union haters should look at the status of workers in nations where unions are banned or defacto prohibited.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Unrepresented said:
Unions are voluntary.

A) You don't have to work in a shop that's under union contract. That's voluntary.

B) If you do work in a union shop, it's still voluntary as to whether you have to join. Even in non "right to work" states.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/12/myths-and-facts-about-right-to-work-laws/191810

C) If you've voluntarily chosen to work in a union shop and voluntarily decided not to join the union, the union is still obligated to represent you which costs money. You should be obligated to pay some of that cost.
Click to expand...

A&B: If it is voluntary, there is no need for the intimidation. Grow up.

C) Take that to lawmakers. Do not take it out on employees.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Fiddytree said:
Unions are supposed to be voluntary organizations. [...]
Click to expand...
Yes and no. You do not have to join a union, and you do not have to take their job. Those two conditions go hand-in-hand.

There are plenty -- a vast majority, in fact -- of non-union jobs.

Now if you take a union job without paying the union (as typically all other union members do pay), that is technically theft. I'd be interested to hear your argument how theft is voluntary, at least to the victim.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Karl said:
Yes and no. You do not have to join a union, and you do not have to take their job. Those two conditions go hand-in-hand.

Now if you take their job without paying, that is technically theft. I'd be interested to hear your argument how theft is voluntary, at least to the victim.
Click to expand...

Is it the Union's job position, or is it the business owner's job position?
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Hard Truth said:
One of the primary characteristics of the more extreme right wingers is that they deny that others contributed to their success. They think they achieved everything on their own when the truth is that their family, schools, community, and government made them who they are, plus, in many cases, their family's financial wealth, social class, gender and race were factors in their current status.

Union haters should look at the status of workers in nations where unions are banned or defacto prohibited.
Click to expand...

So if what you are saying is true, those who complain they haven't achieved the success they think they deserve have been failed by their family, schools, community, and government.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Fiddytree said:
Is it the Union's job position, or is it the business owner's job position?
Click to expand...
I'm going to dismiss that as an intellectually dishonest question, to which you already know the answer. I would expect that from some others here, but I think you can do better.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Karl said:
Yes and no. You do not have to join a union, and you do not have to take their job. Those two conditions go hand-in-hand.

There are plenty -- a vast majority, in fact -- of non-union jobs.

Now if you take a union job without paying the union (as typically all other union members do pay), that is technically theft. I'd be interested to hear your argument how theft is voluntary, at least to the victim.
Click to expand...

If it's theft, why haven't they be cited, or even arrested?
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

sangha said:
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
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion requiring leaps in judgemeny and reading I to things and assuming what something means as opposed to what it says

By you claimed the specific line was misleading. Again I say, explain. I highlighted each part and clearly showed how all of it was accurate. You adding intent or words to something doesn't make it misleading

They posted their name
They posted something that identifies where in the building they work
They did note them as a negative entity
Those things do make it easier for someone to harass or intimidate them

What about that statement was misleading? I mean the actual words, not your assumptions and guesses as to what they "mean"by involve adding entirely different words to their statement

Back your own claims up
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Karl said:
I'm going to dismiss that as an intellectually dishonest question, to which you already know the answer. I would expect that from some others here, but I think you can do better.
Click to expand...

I'm getting the job from the business owner, not the union. It's not the union's job.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Fiddytree said:
A&B: If it is voluntary, there is no need for the intimidation. Grow up.

C) Take that to lawmakers. Do not take it out on employees.
Click to expand...
I agree that lawmakers should outlaw "right to work" laws that weaken worker strength and encourage freeloaders.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Karl said:
I'm going to dismiss that as an intellectually dishonest question, to which you already know the answer. I would expect that from some others here, but I think you can do better.
Click to expand...

I agree. Fiddy does not normally ignore inconvenient facts or make red herring type arguments, but many of his posts in this thread have done exactly that
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Karl said:
Any rational analysis of the scabs described in the OP will conclude that they are freeloaders. What is silly and idiotic is your argument.
Click to expand...

No, they're not freeloaders. Its not their fault your leaders negotiate for them also without getting paid to do so. Your leaders make that choice. Their responsibility. Not the non-union members.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom