Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 89

Thread: Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    This isn't about internal union elections, it's about elections to determine whether a union will represent the employees. The rules for those elections are set by the government.
    I never understand why a vote is even necessary. Why can't someone simply announce that they wish to form a union and whoever wishes to join can sign up to be a member, and whoever's not interested doesn't sign up to be a member. I don't see how the desire of workers A, B, and C to have a union should in any way effect workers D and E who are not interested.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    01-09-12 @ 10:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,014

    Re: Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    I never understand why a vote is even necessary. Why can't someone simply announce that they wish to form a union and whoever wishes to join can sign up to be a member, and whoever's not interested doesn't sign up to be a member. I don't see how the desire of workers A, B, and C to have a union should in any way effect workers D and E who are not interested.
    Are you kidding? Then there would be 20 or 30 unions all with no clout. Personally I find no use for unions today...70-80 years ago, yes, but today, no way. Union workers make far too much for the little they do.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

    Quote Originally Posted by coolwalker View Post
    Are you kidding?
    No, I'm not kidding at all. If workers A, B, and C wish to form a union, what does that have to do with workers D and E who don't.

  4. #14
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    No, I'm not kidding at all. If workers A, B, and C wish to form a union, what does that have to do with workers D and E who don't.
    It doesn't. You see the Union Thugs want to their power and money. Before, they had to get a majority of workers to agree before they could unionize. This made it easier for workers that felt threatened voting to skip out and get their no in. Now all they have to do is hold an election... say middle of Super Bowl sunday when the work place is closed down, have 12 people there and oh, look 10 yes, 2 no! And every worker is now Unionized and paying fees at the work place. This is why states like Texas rock, you can Unionize all you want, but you cannot force me into your Union.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    It doesn't. You see the Union Thugs want to their power and money. Before, they had to get a majority of workers to agree before they could unionize. This made it easier for workers that felt threatened voting to skip out and get their no in. Now all they have to do is hold an election... say middle of Super Bowl sunday when the work place is closed down, have 12 people there and oh, look 10 yes, 2 no! And every worker is now Unionized and paying fees at the work place. This is why states like Texas rock, you can Unionize all you want, but you cannot force me into your Union.
    Absolutely ridiculous that worker A, B, and C can form a union that automatically includes workers D and E, despite the fact that D and E are not interested. Who cam up with that ridiculous scheme, and why doesn't the government protect workers D and E from this?
    Last edited by Centinel; 12-19-11 at 08:16 PM.

  6. #16
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    I never understand why a vote is even necessary. Why can't someone simply announce that they wish to form a union and whoever wishes to join can sign up to be a member, and whoever's not interested doesn't sign up to be a member. I don't see how the desire of workers A, B, and C to have a union should in any way effect workers D and E who are not interested.
    Because the union gets the right to negotiate a contract on behalf of all workers.

    I suppose you could have a situation where union members get different wages and benefits and must join the union to get them, but that probably wouldn't work when it came to things like work conditions, scheduling, etc.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

    This is a really stupid ass decision, and I say that on behalf of voting rights in general. For example, the same thing would apply to corporate shareholders.

    It's stupid because it lets people get away with calling up votes in inconvenient times, and getting away with bull**** just because members of an organization don't say anything.

    Put simply, silence does not imply consent, nor does it imply half-consent.

    For an example, imagine you have a room full of 100 people.

    26 of them vote to turn it into an orgy.

    24 of them vote no.

    50 of them don't vote.

    Does that give the 26 the right to **** the 50 in their sleep?

    What this country really needs for voting customs in general is for people to have to obtain a majority of ALL members. At the very least, that will demand that people go out to the polls for ordinary political elections and get people more involved.

    The reason we don't do this is because people are fricken lazy. It would probably take 10 ballots to get the country up off its ass and actually get a real majority. Before those 10 ballots are completed, current politicians would be entitled to massively long terms.
    Last edited by Daktoria; 12-19-11 at 08:26 PM.

  8. #18
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    Absolutely ridiculous that worker A, B, and C can form a union that automatically includes workers D and E, despite the fact that D and E are not interested. Who cam up with that ridiculous scheme, and why doesn't the government protect workers D and E from this?
    They can't. The workers don't have to join the union. In some states, they can be forced to pay a fee to the union though.

    If you get a job that enjoys union benefits, though, you shouldn't complain. Your wages were won by the union even if you don't join. Those who don't are freeloaders.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  9. #19
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

    This is a really stupid ass decision, and I say that on behalf of voting rights in general.
    Well, the courts upheld the decision by the NLRB that non-votes do NOT count as no votes. It's a victory for pro-union forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    It's stupid because it lets people get away with calling up votes in inconvenient times, and getting away with bull**** just because members of an organization don't say anything.
    Well, this is about elections on whether to form a union, which are conducted by the government and involve sending in cards over a matter of weeks. It's not union elections, and it's not held in the middle of the night (nor are union elections either).
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Why should abstention = no? I mean, normal elections don't work like that.
    Abstention =/= "no vote".

    Abstention is when you say you're present. A "no vote" indicates you're not.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •