• 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!

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

DO you support the (NLRA) allowing a "closed shop"?

  • No I do not

    Votes: 20 66.7%
  • Yes I do

    Votes: 10 33.3%

  • Total voters
    30
Yes I do

Given that any employee that is part of a union shop will benifit from the work of the union regarding labour contracts (wages and benifits) they should be expected to pay dues in order to pay for the representation the union provides

Do all the employees "enjoy" any percieved benefits from all the union action though? Maybe the employee objects to the union policy, for example a teacher union wants to advocate for test score as a valuation criteria, a majority vote for it, but the minority see it as against its interest. Is it still okay to force people to pay the union as a condition of having a job?

The person is not forced to join a union, he/she chooses to do so when they decide to accept a position at that place of employement (private or public).

I completely reject this arguement. It applies to work place safety as well. A person is never forced to take on a dangerous job, s/he chooses to accept the danger when s/he decides to accept the job. It doesn't mean the existence of danger is alright when something can be done to eliminate it.
 
Having to pay in order to get a job is idiotic in the extreme whether it is a private company or public.
Its not, paying to secure a job, its paying to belong to a union. It would be wrong to have a free ride.
If businessmen would treat the men better, if they would communicate WITH them, if they would respect the men, then there would be no need for unions..
We do have a ways to go.
Knowledge is part of the answer, and its a must on both sides.
And, I think we are approaching the time without unions, ever so slowly.
 
Do all the employees "enjoy" any percieved benefits from all the union action though? Maybe the employee objects to the union policy, for example a teacher union wants to advocate for test score as a valuation criteria, a majority vote for it, but the minority see it as against its interest. Is it still okay to force people to pay the union as a condition of having a job?
Of having job of course no, of having a job where the union and the company have signed a contract that requires all employees to be part of the union yes
I completely reject this arguement. It applies to work place safety as well. A person is never forced to take on a dangerous job, s/he chooses to accept the danger when s/he decides to accept the job. It doesn't mean the existence of danger is alright when something can be done to eliminate it.
Health and safety regulations are just that government regulations that are to apply to ALL jobs at any work site. The worker does not get a choice in that matter, legally nother does the employer. Of course certain jobs are more dangerous then others, and a worker generally accepts that increased risk when he/she takes the job.
 
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.
 
Of having job of course no, of having a job where the union and the company have signed a contract that requires all employees to be part of the union yes

So whether the worker gets any personal benefits in their work as a result of the union or not is not of importance. They still have to pay.

Health and safety regulations are just that government regulations that are to apply to ALL jobs at any work site. The worker does not get a choice in that matter, legally nother does the employer. Of course certain jobs are more dangerous then others, and a worker generally accepts that increased risk when he/she takes the job.

Not ALL jobs. Each job has different dangers and safety requirements. If I don't want to have rocks fall on my head, I shouldn't work in a mine, I should work in a restaurants, is what you seem to be saying. If there's a mine in town with compulsory union membership, if I don't want to join the union, I'll have to work elsewhere, isn't it?
 
So whether the worker gets any personal benefits in their work as a result of the union or not is not of importance. They still have to pay.
If they want to work at a place where the union and the employer signed a contract stating all workers are to be part of a union yes
Not ALL jobs. Each job has different dangers and safety requirements. If I don't want to have rocks fall on my head, I shouldn't work in a mine, I should work in a restaurants, is what you seem to be saying. If there's a mine in town with compulsory union membership, if I don't want to join the union, I'll have to work elsewhere, isn't it?

If the mine owner/operator signed a contract with the union stating all employees have to be part of the union yes.


As for safety. Certain jobs are by nature more dangerous then othes, even with stringent safety regulations. A prison guard is more likely to be injured then a secretary. All the safety regulations in the world will not change that. If a person is unhappy with the danger that some jobs present, then they should look for a position elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
As long as it's in the private sector, I have no problems with a closed shop. If people don't want to pay their union dues, they don't have to work at that particular company. Their compensation is paid by the free market.

In the public sector? Absolutely no.

Is there some reason an employer in private industry has to be compelled to hire only unionistas? What happened to his freedoms?
 
The employer made the choice to sign the contract with the union.

You mean after they're denied the freedom to fire union organizers, forbidden to replace strikers, and forced to the negotiating table by the courts?

Mayor Skorkum knows what a shotgun wedding is.
 
If they want to work at a place where the union and the employer signed a contract stating all workers are to be part of a union yes

If the mine owner/operator signed a contract with the union stating all employees have to be part of the union yes.


As for safety. Certain jobs are by nature more dangerous then othes, even with stringent safety regulations. A prison guard is more likely to be injured then a secretary. All the safety regulations in the world will not change that. If a person is unhappy with the danger that some jobs present, then they should look for a position elsewhere.


So work safety regulation is superfluous?
 
You mean after they're denied the freedom to fire union organizers, forbidden to replace strikers, and forced to the negotiating table by the courts?

Mayor Skorkum knows what a shotgun wedding is.

Union organizers may be from outside the company, I support hiring scab workers during strikes and lock outs
 
So work safety regulation is superfluous?

Did I say that?
,
A company may fully comply with safety regulations and in fact may go far above them. It does not change the fact that certain positions are by nature more dangerous then others. You can add alot of safety procedures to the position to limit dangers, but they will still exist. A secretary is not likely to get jumped by a bunch of convicts, a prison guard has that chance. A cashier is unlikely to get swept overboard during storm at sea, a fisherman might
 
While I am against forcing people to join a union, I am for unionized jobs requiring employees to pay the fees (aka dues) paid by union members since those employees share the same privileges and protections of union members.
 
Did I say that?
,
A company may fully comply with safety regulations and in fact may go far above them. It does not change the fact that certain positions are by nature more dangerous then others. You can add alot of safety procedures to the position to limit dangers, but they will still exist. A secretary is not likely to get jumped by a bunch of convicts, a prison guard has that chance. A cashier is unlikely to get swept overboard during storm at sea, a fisherman might

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?
 
While I am against forcing people to join a union, I am for unionized jobs requiring employees to pay the fees (aka dues) paid by union members since those employees share the same privileges and protections of union members.

This is not true. Not all union actions are unanimous. Some workers may find certain union actions to be against their interest.
 
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?
 
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)
 
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.
 
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:
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
 
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?
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom