• 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

Their name is personal information as well as where they work.

Anyone with any sort of working brain cells would know that's obvious. That could explain why most of us don't have our real names and place of employment in our profiles.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

So by your own logic, the poor and unemployed are taking advantage of the protections and benefits taxpayers provide without paying for them right? And that would make the parasites too right?
No. The poor and unemployed aren't actively undermining their fellow workers.
Dey Terk Er JERB!!!!


Seriously. Using violence and the threat of violence to take money from others is wrong.....

Unless you do it in a union.

How does that make sense. ?
It doesn't make sense because it's a strawman.
I think you are thinking of "freeriders". People who come in and work are called "employees". People who do so while a union is busy throwing a fit about something are derisively called "scabs", but they aren't taking advantage of the Union's benefits, but rather of its stupidity and damage.
Then why work in a union shop if it's filled with damaging stupidity?
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Well, according to the Conservative definition they are "takers"; accepting union benefits without contributing to the cost of obtaining those benefits.

Now were they needy then I could perhaps see giving them a pass on paying their fair share, but no case is made to that effect.

You do realize that those benefits don't come from the union, but from the employer right? The union may have negotiated the benefits, but it is the employer that provides them. All the union does is take from the employees. I've worked in both union shops and non-union shops. I can tell you from personal experience that management treats their employees far better in a non-union shop than they do in a union shop. I've had far better benefits in a non-union setting than I ever got from a union setting and I worked for one one of the largest corporations in America who happens to be unionized.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

If she's on disability now, she's probably paid taxes in the past.

She was born blind and has never had a job where she paid taxes. You are jumping to conclusions based on incorrect assumptions and you still haven't answered the question I posed earlier. But hats off to you for sticking with the liberal/progressive playbook of divert, divert, divert.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

[...] She doesn't buy anything that sales taxes apply to?
If she's on disability, she doesn't pay a dime. ;)
She doesn't pay any sales tax? Come on, Maggie... some posts in this thread are part of a fast-and-furious mission to deceive, don't get caught up in the whirlwind . . . . .She doesn't pay any sales tax? Come on, Maggie... some posts in this thread are part of a fast-and-furious mission to deceive, don't get caught up in the whirlwind . . . . .
Sales taxes aren't income taxes
Reading is fundamental . . . .

. . . . and income taxes were never the criteria anyway:

[...] Both the poor and the unemployed pay taxes.

apdst score: Fail X2.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Well now this is an entirely different event (different employer, different union, different workers, different state). And you have no evidence that the union was even involved with the letter (they deny it).

Shouldn't this be a different thread? You are trying to tar the actions of one group with the actions of an entirely different group (in a different state, no less). Is that intellectually honest?

I was asked to provide evidence of the union posting personal information. I do so and this is your comeback? I see your like minded diversion machine also liked your post. Color me shocked...

Of course the union is going to deny it, it's what they do. I kind of feel sorry for you and your ilk who have been brainwashed into thinking that this country wouldn't be able to function without fine upstanding organizations like unions (sarcasm intended). I mean they've never done anything sneaky, criminal or morally wrong right? :roll:
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Then why work in a union shop if it's filled with damaging stupidity?

I've often thought that myself having worked in both a union shop and non union, I've enjoyed non union jobs much more than union jobs.
I was treated much better and had a better rapport with management. go figure....
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Oh you poor dear, is that what you really imagine you did? But of course it is. Of course it is.
Since you're new, I'll give you a tip: what you are doing is not debating. Now I realize you see others doing the same, but they are not debating either. Debating is a discussion about a topic or an event, not a discussion about people participating in the debate/discussion. I know that to many it is more fun to insult/demean other participants, but from a debate standpoint it is a logical fallacy (failure). FWIW.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

This has been argued and explained so many times I find the tactic of feigned non-understanding a massive fail. Pretty much everyone pays taxes of some sort (sales tax, property tax (even renters), excise tax, FICA, gasoline tax, etc)... but everyone knows that, so why the act? :roll:

And why derail the thread?

Proving you to post lies isn't derailing, it's entertaining.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I did not quibble over the title of the article. I refuted the claim that publishing an employee's name and where they can be found is proof of "intimidation"

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

And you don't have a problem with that?

I guess you need to have the courage of your convictions. The alternative is that union membership and non-union membership is secret, known only to a select few. Why is that a good thing. Union membership is certainly known to the management, who presumably can harass and intimidate if they are so inclined. You make your bed, you lie in it.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

The intent is to intimidate. Frankly, the union is encouraging a hostile work environment. Thought unions advocate for the exact opposite.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Your personal insight is irrelevant to the facts at hand, and itself is devoid of provable facts so therefore cannot be evaluated.
They're VERY relevant given my 5 years in the CWA Trenton Local 1000.

I would also caution against confusing comment with discussion/debate. Unless failure is your goal.
It's not confusing... I've yet to see you post to debate, your posts are to 100% further the far left perspective while ignoring facts. Well... 99%... the other 1% is attacking other posters.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I did not quibble over the title of the article. I refuted the claim that publishing an employee's name and where they can be found is proof of "intimidation"

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

Think Holder will appear? Not likely.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I did not quibble over the title of the article. I refuted the claim that publishing an employee's name and where they can be found is proof of "intimidation"

Just what would be a justifiable reason to publish the names and area of employment of those who aren't in the unions?
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

No. The poor and unemployed aren't actively undermining their fellow workers.

How are the "scabs" undermining their fellow workers? Are they taking money out of their pockets? Are they forcing them to work harder for their guaranteed raises? Are their benefits being reduced because of the "scabs"? The answer to each of these is no, but feel free to carry on with more ridiculousness, it's amusing to those of us capable of being able to think for ourselves.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

This union also tells people the names of their officers and where and when they can be found

E-MAIL PAGE

Obviously, they want union members to intimidate their officers

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:

"The following individuals are NON-dues paying workers. They have chosen to STOP paying Union Dues and still reap the rewards of your negotiated benefits,” the Tennessee “Scab Report” said. “If you work near one of these people listed please explain the importance of Solidarity and the power of collective bargaining.”

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

They're VERY relevant given my 5 years in the CWA Trenton Local 1000.

It's not confusing... I've yet to see you post to debate, your posts are to 100% further the far left perspective while ignoring facts. Well... 99%... the other 1% is attacking other posters.

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

Trenton? :shock:

Yep - I used to work on White Horse Ave, and the main CWA offices at the time were in Trenton.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Your unsubstantiated claims have nothing to do with the OP, but I think we can all see what's going on here -- one issue is being used as a vehicle to pile on other unrelated/unsubstantiated issues in order to make it (the OP) look worse than it is, and to attack unions in general.

So, since it appears that none of the outraged are interested in a continued discussion of the event in the OP on its own merits I think we can assume it is not as grievous as they claimed.

Further, if a union attack thread is desired then I would suggest one with that express purpose be created, outlining all these various points up front -- and with proper sourcing of the allegations.

You seek to dismiss the tactic by restricting discussion to just this one use ignoring the fact that this is a general tactic used by unions since their inception. Name and shame, with more than a little violence thrown in is an old, old union tactic that precedes so many of the posters here.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I was forced to scab by management to cover for a grocer's strike

I blatantly busted the local carpenter unions when I was a construction boomer.

I once had a welding job that ushered me into the union. That only lasted for six months.

I sometimes fantasize about unionizing the WalMart employees.

I don't have a dog in the hunt.

That said, I would address the OP as supposition. As there have been no known evils perpetrated upon anyone on the scab list, this is much ado about nothing.
That's usually how weak modern unions fall apart. It's the last dying vestige of the doomed. When high-rise builders dropped wages for carpenters in DFW, the union didn't even show up much less picket.

I don't care much for open ended OPs that feign danger! danger! Especially when I know that nothing is going to happen to those people. The unions can't even get rid of illegal workers from the south, much less non-union workers in their own town.

You can trap twice as many flies with honey.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I can only suggest a remedial course in collective bargaining, which I feel is beyond the scope of this thread.

This might get you started: Collective bargaining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His point still stands.

While the union may've been the impetus for the benefits by convincing/forcing the employer into providing them....ultimately it is still the employer providing those benefits.
 
Back
Top Bottom