View Poll Results: DO you support the (NLRA) allowing a "closed shop"?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • No I do not

    25 71.43%
  • Yes I do

    10 28.57%
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 70

Thread: Do you support (NLRA) allowing "closed shop"?

  1. #41
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Do you support (NLRA) allowing "closed shop"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    Ever heard of OSHA? Unions aren't necessary for safety regulations.

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Home
    Please try to follow the arguement. This has no relevance to anything I said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

  2. #42
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,253

    Re: Do you support (NLRA) allowing "closed shop"?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    To no one's surprise, I do not believe that employees should be forced to join a union whether they want to or not. Rather, I believe that unions should be of sufficient worth to employees that they wish to join, and when said unions start imposing senority over merit rules and other actions that are detrimental to the work force as a whole, members should be allowed to withdraw.
    Since a union exists to represent the interests of its members, why would it work against those interests, and even if it did try, why would the members go along with it if they didn't agree?
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  3. #43
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Do you support (NLRA) allowing "closed shop"?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    That is the implication of what you're saying. Work safety regulations require money to put in place, to regulate and to prosecute where failures occur. You are saying people choose dangerous jobs, if they don't want to work in dangerous places, just don't work there. So why spend all these money putting them in place, when people can always go work somewhere else if they don't want the danger that comes with the job?
    I am saying that some jobs despite massive amounts of safety regulations enforced present a higher level of danger then others. A secretary most likely might face at worst carpal tunnel syndrome or a paper cut. A Miner can face a cave in. Mining is more dangerous then being a secretary, all the safety regulations and enforcement will not change that. If a person feels that the danger level of being a miner in a mine that follows all the safety protocals and regulations is too high, he/she is the one to make that decision. That person can find a different job in that case.

    An entirely different situation then choosing to work at a mine that does not follow any safety protocals or regulations or being a secretary

    If you choose to work at a company that signed a CONTRACT with a union stating all workers must be part of the union, then you must be part of the union from a legal standpoint. If you dont want to be part of the union you have to find somewhere else to work. It is that persons job, but the employer's, the employer decided to work with a union as such any workers at that place will have to be part of a union. No one is being "forced" to join the union. they are choosing it as a condition of employement, much like it may be a condition to under go drug testing, safety training, retraining etc.

    If I an afraid of a cave in occuring, and dont want to work underground due to the higher risk, I certainly can not expect a mine operator to employe me as a miner, despite my refusal to work underground (again assuming the mine follows all safety regulations)
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  4. #44
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Do you support (NLRA) allowing "closed shop"?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    To no one's surprise, I do not believe that employees should be forced to join a union whether they want to or not. Rather, I believe that unions should be of sufficient worth to employees that they wish to join, and when said unions start imposing senority over merit rules and other actions that are detrimental to the work force as a whole, members should be allowed to withdraw.
    Senority rules were generally put in place to help prevent companies from laying off the more experienced, skillled and generally higher paid employees. Many companies would layoff the expensive workers and replace them with cheaper inexperienced workers when needed.
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  5. #45
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Do you support (NLRA) allowing "closed shop"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    I am saying that some jobs despite massive amounts of safety regulations enforced present a higher level of danger then others. A secretary most likely might face at worst carpal tunnel syndrome or a paper cut. A Miner can face a cave in. Mining is more dangerous then being a secretary, all the safety regulations and enforcement will not change that. If a person feels that the danger level of being a miner in a mine that follows all the safety protocals and regulations is too high, he/she is the one to make that decision. That person can find a different job in that case.

    An entirely different situation then choosing to work at a mine that does not follow any safety protocals or regulations or being a secretary

    If you choose to work at a company that signed a CONTRACT with a union stating all workers must be part of the union, then you must be part of the union from a legal standpoint. If you dont want to be part of the union you have to find somewhere else to work. It is that persons job, but the employer's, the employer decided to work with a union as such any workers at that place will have to be part of a union. No one is being "forced" to join the union. they are choosing it as a condition of employement, much like it may be a condition to under go drug testing, safety training, retraining etc.

    If I an afraid of a cave in occuring, and dont want to work underground due to the higher risk, I certainly can not expect a mine operator to employe me as a miner, despite my refusal to work underground (again assuming the mine follows all safety regulations)
    The CONTRACT is there because we have a law that says when you join a company, you must pay dues to that union. It need not be that way. We are discussing whether it should be struck down, and your rationale for allowing it is:

    "It is that persons job, but the employer's, the employer decided to work with a union as such any workers at that place will have to be part of a union. No one is being "forced" to join the union. they are choosing it as a condition of employement, much like it may be a condition to under go drug testing, safety training, retraining etc."


    This is the same arguement that is used against work safety regulations. Why have work safety regulations that cost money to private companies and the public? No one is being "forced" to accept any job. If we struck down work safety regulation, then if a person feels that the danger level of being a miner in a mine is too high, he/she is the one to make that decision. That person can find a different job in that case.
    Last edited by nonpareil; 03-06-11 at 09:39 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

  6. #46
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Do you support (NLRA) allowing "closed shop"?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    The CONTRACT is there because we have a law that says when you join a company, you must pay dues to that union. It need not be that way. We are discussing whether it should be struck down, and your rationale for allowing it is:

    "It is that persons job, but the employer's, the employer decided to work with a union as such any workers at that place will have to be part of a union. No one is being "forced" to join the union. they are choosing it as a condition of employement, much like it may be a condition to under go drug testing, safety training, retraining etc."


    This is the same arguement that is used against work safety regulations. Why have work safety regulations that cost money to private companies and the public? No one is being "forced" to accept any job. If we struck down work safety regulation, then if a person feels that the danger level of being a miner in a mine is too high, he/she is the one to make that decision. That person can find a different job in that case.
    Safety regulations apply to all jobs not just specific ones at one work site. Going from GM to Toyota will not change the safety regulations (assuming same jurisdiction of course). Working at a ABM mine or a Newmont(sp) one will not see a change in the safety regulations (same jurisdication again) and so no potential worker will have much to choose regarding potential safety hazards for positions within the same industry. He/she will have the choice of working as part of a union or not within the same industry. A Lawyer does not have much choice but to join the Bar association if they want to become a practicing lawyer, a RN has to become registared and pay for that registration if he/she wants to work as an RN. Those are far more restrictive issue then having a person who works at Ford on the assembly line having to become part of a union to work at Ford on the line.

    To summarize

    Safety regulations not voluntary within an industry (with a specific jurisdication)

    Joining a union to work within an industy voluntary as a person can choose to work at a differeng employer within that industry. Same job same safety regulations different employer
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Last Seen
    10-27-11 @ 08:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    132

    Re: Do you support (NLRA) allowing "closed shop"?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    This is not true. Not all union actions are unanimous. Some workers may find certain union actions to be against their interest.
    Did I say it was unanimous? How many actions in a Democracy are unanimous? Was the election of George Washington for President unanimous? Ratification of the 19th Amendment? Why hold union actions to a different standard?

  8. #48
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Do you support (NLRA) allowing "closed shop"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Divine Wind View Post
    Did I say it was unanimous? How many actions in a Democracy are unanimous? Was the election of George Washington for President unanimous? Ratification of the 19th Amendment? Why hold union actions to a different standard?
    You are deliberately missing the point. Because of the non-unanimity, some union actions do not benefit all members << this is the point. Contradicting what you said: employees share the same privileges and protections of union members. The point again: some of them don't share the percieved "privileges and protections".
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

  9. #49
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Do you support (NLRA) allowing "closed shop"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    Safety regulations apply to all jobs not just specific ones at one work site. Going from GM to Toyota will not change the safety regulations (assuming same jurisdiction of course). Working at a ABM mine or a Newmont(sp) one will not see a change in the safety regulations (same jurisdication again) and so no potential worker will have much to choose regarding potential safety hazards for positions within the same industry. He/she will have the choice of working as part of a union or not within the same industry. A Lawyer does not have much choice but to join the Bar association if they want to become a practicing lawyer, a RN has to become registared and pay for that registration if he/she wants to work as an RN. Those are far more restrictive issue then having a person who works at Ford on the assembly line having to become part of a union to work at Ford on the line.

    To summarize

    Safety regulations not voluntary within an industry (with a specific jurisdication)

    Joining a union to work within an industy voluntary as a person can choose to work at a differeng employer within that industry. Same job same safety regulations different employer
    But no one "forced" them to work in the mining industry. Why can't we take away work safety regulations, and if they don't like the danger, they can work in a restaurant instead. Let someone else who doesn't mind the danger work at a mine.

    If someone can't get a job at Toyota, and GM forces them to join a union, it amounts to the same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

  10. #50
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Do you support (NLRA) allowing "closed shop"?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    But no one "forced" them to work in the mining industry. Why can't we take away work safety regulations, and if they don't like the danger, they can work in a restaurant instead. Let someone else who doesn't mind the danger work at a mine.

    If someone can't get a job at Toyota, and GM forces them to join a union, it amounts to the same thing.
    GM did not force the person to join the union, the person voluntarily decided to join the union as a condition of accepting the position to work at GM.
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 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
  •