• 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

The union rep has also probably seen the number of guys who set an unsustainable pace only to leave themselves crippled halfway through their career. Working for thirty years in a physically demanding career is about endurance, flash in the pans burn out quick, raise the bar unrealistically, and ultimately cost everyone more money.

:lamo

yeah that is why unions don't want people working hard
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Oh I know that but most scabs are those who are hired on after there is a strike

its far rarer for actual members of the striking union to cross the picket line. But yes such members would be called "scabs" by other members of the Union

Irrelevant to the meaning of the word "scab"
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Irrelevant to the meaning of the word "scab"

so you deny that scab normally means people hired on during a strike?
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

uh. no. That is literally the exact economic model that Unions push. You can't keep higher prices unless you are able to restrict supply.

Interesting hypothesis... especially when I see the right usually harping on how unions keep employee rolls wastefully bloated because no one can ever be fired.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

LOL

:dramallama::dramallama:

comma, momma, Obama, banana fanna fo hamma fee fi fo fa famma...
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I need not justify anything to you, My observation is clear.

Your attitude is clear. You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I deny that the word only applies to strikebreakers

so what else does it apply to?
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Your attitude is clear. You have no idea what you're talking about.

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

then you conceed the point thanks for playing. your definition is not the definition we use. there is the correct definition of a scab.
you are wrong period end of story.

I concedce nothing. You're making baseless ignorat statements about the struggle for fair and equitable labor versus cowardly back riding by those who are too afraid to join said struggle. The coward runs from the field.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702]

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.

It should be against the law to post their personal information on a website. Other than that, I don't see the problem in identifying who is not in the union. I mean, aren't the union members names posted? All you have to do is look for, say, John Doe's name in the union member list, and if he's not there, you know he doesn't belong. So not much difference to post his name in a "non-union" list.

People should stand by their union stance. Some of these guys who don't want to pay, just because of the money, because they reap the benefits of the union without paying. They should be proud of that, if that's their position, just like union members should be proud of their stance.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Any employee that works against a union

that's a rather interesting version I admit. that could be someone who say works for a GOP politician when off work for example.and most members of management.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Try again. A union is nothing more than something "created by the people through a (representational) democratic process and intended to be aid to those without" the balls to stand up for themselves and are only effective in non-right to work states...

come on now... it's not about someone not having the balls to stand up for themselves. It's simply a matter of whether or not you think your labor has value or not. When you are hired, by anyone anywhere, it is basically a contract, verbal or written, for the value of your labor. It'd be rather disingenuous to think that a corporation and a single person are anywhere near equal ground of compromise when entering into that contract. A union simply levels he playing field to barter for the contract on the what the value of your labor is.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers


yeah, especially a strikebreaker-which is what I said all along. of course, having a degree in labor relations I knew that:mrgreen:
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

those non-members are still required to pay for representation.... they just don't have to pay full dues. ( they pay agency fees or association fees, which are less than the full member dues) it's a myth that non-members don't pay anything.. the whole "free-rider" thing is pretty much a myth [...]

[...] every worker under a contract pays for his representation... full members just pay more ( they cover all the rest of the union spending, like on political contributions, overhead, union official salaries, etc).. non-members only pay agency fees. [...] ...union propaganda doesn't fly very far, my friend ;)
Speaking of propaganda, it seems that yours has changed its tune:

it would be correct if you said " agency fees are not required in 24 states". [...]

So, after all this myth talk (cough, propaganda, cough), it seems that you have decided that agency fees are not paid (not required) after all in the Right To Work states -- which informed people knew all along. Congratulations :thumbs:

"Right-to-work laws [...] are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from [...] requiring employees to pay a fee to unions that have negotiated the labor contract all the employees work under. [...]"

"[..] the agency shop, under which employees must pay the equivalent of union dues, but need not formally join such union. Section 14(b) of the Taft–Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states [...] to outlaw the [...] agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the open shop rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union [...][8] In other words, the employee has the right to work for a willing employer, regardless of whether or not he is a member or financial contributor to the union."

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now I think that any reasonable person will conclude that in Right To Work states, which utilize the "open shop" rule, the average non-union workers working under a union contract are not voluntarily paying a union fee that state law says they don't have pay. Of course I'm sure you can dig up some marginal exceptions, such as gov't workers (who work under open shop rules exclusive of state laws but still desire union representation), professional athletes (who have no shortage of money and more sensitive public relations image to maintain),.

As to the depth of the free-rider problem:

"Just over 17 percent of covered workers in Right To Work stats are nonmembers, while about 7 percent are nonmembers in non-Right To Work states."

http://sobelrs.people.cofc.edu/All Pubs PDF/Do Right-to-Work Laws Matter.pdf

A table at the same source indicates that 17% translates to ~340,000 free-riders in the all the RTW states combined. Assuming that the vast majority of that 340,000 don't pay jack to the union, that's a lot of lost dues that paying union members have to make up for (at, say, $500 in agency fees annually you'd be looking at a cool $150 million/year, conservatively) .
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I deny that the word only applies to strikebreakers
So do two major mainstream dictionaries (and no doubt more), but the right has retreated to their alternate reality (and daffynition dictionary ;)) and there is no shaking them out of that tree ;) . . . basically at this stage of 'debate' (some 25 pages back, actually) all you're going to are repeated automatonic responses.
 
Last edited:
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Corporations, or companies have one....repeat one mission....make money for their owners, and or shareholders

Not to employ people

Not to provide benefits

To garner as much profit as possible

I'm going off on a tangent but this is the same exact argument I make when people front the position of giving huge tax breaks to corporations because that will somehow make them hire more people.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

LOL - anything in the past century you'd like to bring up? :lamo

Keep trying sangha, it's hilarious!

Don't know about recent violence but recent threat?... sure. The governor of Tennessee stepped in and bullied the volkswagen plant to push against unionizatin and then Senator Bob Corker stepped in and lied to the employees of the Volkswagen plant there and said that if they voted yes to unionize then volkswagen specifically told him they'd not bring in their new line of cars to be done there. Volkswagen flat out said he lied. This was just earlier this year.

How Tenn. politicians killed Volkswagen unionization
 
Last edited:
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

You post was so comic I had to laugh! Here let me return the favor. What did the leaper say to the prostitute? Keep the tip. I see that you have no clue that insulting/demeaning other participants and throwing around stupid generalizations constitutes a lot of what you have posted in this thread. So the fact that you enjoy acting exactly as you are lamely whining I do? Because I noticed your dear pal Sanga's weak bait? Is a logical fallacy, you might want to learn what the words you are using actually mean. Because all I see here is a schizophrenic posting style devoid of much logic but heavy on fallacy. Now here is a free tip for you, each time you proceed to act like not only a hypocrite but start lecturing others like you are staff moderator? I'll do the same favor for you I did yesterday, and let the real thing do their job with you. I've got a funny feeling you don't enjoy a lot of respect and cache with the staff here, so let's not turn this into the Karl's dog and pony show and make it all about you and your schizophrenic posting style. But if you insist I can certainly be helpful in making sure that kind of weak posing gets the audience it deserves. Free tip. No charge.

Hey, how do you circumcise a leaper? Shake him.

You spent all this going after a poster or a poster's style after presenting yourself in post #48...

Hello folks, I'm new to DP. I can't say I'm shocked by this story. Anymore than I am the rather, um..............creative lengths some will go to in order to defend or dismiss the facts of the matter. Particularly when it comes to substantive discussions about the shortcomings and foibles of unions. In any case, I appreciate the (not surprisingly ignored) supporting data and links that have been posted. They really help to flesh out the big picture and I for one 'precipitate it.

your disconnect happened rather fast.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Why do you hate the first amendment right of freedom of association, and support authoritarian fear tactics?

As a supporter of unions I'm a fan of freedom of association.

I'm also a fan of free speech, like publicly labeling freeloaders as such.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

As a supporter of unions I'm a fan of freedom of association.

Thats an interesting dichotomy-unions are not only anti-competition but also anti-choice, reference how they treat non-union members. And what about those unions members who dont wish to be-but are forced to-because anything else would result in them losing their own jobs. This also impacts what say they have in how unions use influence that the individual may not agree with or want to support. Thats not freedom of association.

I'm also a fan of free speech, like publicly labeling freeloaders as such.
And yet you want that free speech stifled, by people acting as thugs. Interesting.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Thats an interesting dichotomy-unions are not only anti-competition but also anti-choice, reference how they treat non-union members. And what about those unions members who dont wish to be-but are forced to-because anything else would result in them losing their own jobs. This also impacts what say they have in how unions use influence that the individual may not agree with or want to support. Thats not freedom of association.


And yet you want that free speech stifled, by people acting as thugs. Interesting.

In case you're missed the other dozen times it's been pointed out in this thread, you can't force anyone to join a union. It's another right wing, anti worker myth.
 
Back
Top Bottom