‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

Fishstyx · Oct 13, 2014

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

Karl said:
Correct, but that did not prevent anti-union posters from claiming that unions were no longer necessary, even though that really doesn't make any sense with respect to the topic. So, a factual counterclaim was called for to discredit the anti-unionists in general.

Well fine, quote them...not me.

Karl said:
Irrelevant with respect to the anti-unionists claims. If your interested in more stories of the abuse of non-union workers, you'll find them at the link provided. It seems the industry practice it to treat them as 'independent contractors', a shakey tax-dodge often employed by companies that want to dodge all benefits (FICA, Workers Comp, health insurance, etc), which means they have no benefits at all. For even more information on non-union employee abuse, Google is your friend.

Hardly irrelevant and I'm specifically interested in what abuses have been suffered by non-union reality TV staff. The author from Gawker seemed to stress that and since you felt that snip was important enough to highlight, you should have no problem with retrieving the data.

Great King Rat · Oct 13, 2014

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

One of the more obvious problems with the activity being carried out by unions that is the topic of this thread? Is that in the real world in 2014, this kind of disclosure is no longer acceptable. And publishing such information is a liability which leaves responsible entities vulnerable to prosecution due to intimidation and harassment issues that spring up from the publication of private information. Responsible companies no longer publish lists and guides to their employes telephone numbers and addresses precisely because of the real world real and what has happened to people as a result of such "list". In 2014 organizations are held financially liable and responsible for actions that have occurred as the result of such published list. For reasons varying from sexual harassment, outward. Whereas ten years ago, one could walk up to a schedule board at, oh say a restaurant? There would be the list of employees, and so as to make shift trades and communication amongst staff easy, there would be the phone numbers of all the staff. Namely all the pretty young servers. This does not occur anymore because no responsibly operated restaurant will be caught dead doing that in 2014, precisely because of the fact that there are always bad actors that can and will do "bad things" with this kind of personal information. So the practice is no longer acceptable and is considered a "no brainer" (as in don't do it) in 2014. But one that if a business ignores, might just lead to an expensive lawsuit.

Yet we are to accept the truly childish insistence of people on the internet that unions should get a pass, just the rest of America has to operate that way? Of course not, that would be idiotic. As always happens when the subject of unions comes up on internet boards, die hard union defenders will arrive to collectively offer the intellectual equivalent of "nuh-uh". To pretty much any fact or statement that is critical of the union in question. This thread has been very illustrative o in that way. One lamentable thing about some "unions" is that like many institutions in America in 2014? What started as a necessary and desirable reform protection has morphed into yet more institutions that are basically profiting at the expense of and taking advantage of the working class.

justabubba · Oct 13, 2014

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

Great King Rat said:
One of the more obvious problems with the activity being carried out by unions that is the topic of this thread? Is that in the real world in 2014, this kind of disclosure is no longer acceptable. And publishing such information is a liability which leaves responsible entities vulnerable due the problems of intimidation and harassment. Companies no longer publish lists and guides to their employes telephone numbers and addresses precisely because of the real world real history that surrounds what has happened to people as a result of such "list". Successful lawsuits in our courts have repeatedly found organizations financially liable and responsible for actions that have occurred as the result of such published list. For reasons varying from sexual harassment, outward. Whereas ten years ago, one could walk up to a schedule board at, oh say a restaurant. There would be the list of employees, and so as to make shift trades and communication amongst staff easy, there would be the phone numbers of all the staff. No responsibly operated restaurant will be caught dead doing that in 2014, precisely because of the fact that there are always bad actors that can and will do "bad things" with this kind of personal information. So the practice is no longer acceptable and is considered a "no brainer" (as in don't do it) in 2014.

As always happens when the subject of unions comes up on internet boards, die hard union defenders will arrive to collectively offer the slightly less than intellectual equivalent of "nuh-uh". To well, pretty much any fact or statement that is critical of the union in question. And this thread has been quite illustrative of that idiocy. One lamentable thing about "unions" is that like many institutions in the America of 2014? What started as a necessary and desirable reform has now, many decades later, largely morphed into yet more institutions that are basically profiting at the expense of and taking advantage of the working class.

wow
so many words for so little information

let's examine what the union ACTUALLY did:

it listed the names/departments of the non-dues paying bargaining unit employees

how heinous was that?

blackjack50 · Oct 13, 2014

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

justabubba said:
wow
so many words for so little information

let's examine what the union ACTUALLY did:

it listed the names/departments of the non-dues paying bargaining unit employees

how heinous was that?

Why did they do that?

justabubba · Oct 13, 2014

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

stonewall50 said:
Why did they do that?

to provide information to their membership is my GUESS
those non-dues paying bargaining unit members; have they made a conscience decision to be a free rider and enjoy the benefits of union representation without incurring the costs to maintain those union provided benefits? are they employees who have never been approached to sign up? are they co-workers who do not understand what the union has negotiated for the bargaining unit, and would pay their way if they only knew what had been done on their behalf and the expenses associated with such representation? are they co-workers who are cozy with management and recognize that it is their relationship with management rather than their union affiliation that will likely advance their career? are they co-workers the bargaining unit members would find trustworthy to share information with, or should important information be withheld from them - possibly because they are management moles? are those on that list also those who receive preferential treatment from management? are they the ones who have been promoted instead of union members?
by knowing who is and is not dues paying the union membership can help identify to the union any appearance of disparate treatment, which favorable/unfavorable treatment based on union participation is an unfair labor violation

clownboy · Oct 13, 2014

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

Karl said:
The numbers don't lie.

Yeah, but in this case you're not reading them correctly.

Karl said:
A "relationship" is a matter of opinion. Numbers are a matter of fact. My post above is based on fact. Sorry those don't work out for your claims. Perhaps OpinionPolitics would be better suited for your argument than DebatePolitics?

Actually, it's you not reading the numbers correctly. The opensecrets link does not confirm the original assertion. GE itself gives to dems and repubs equally. Some individuals within the org give more to repubs. The WORKERS give more to repubs by a large amount.

When did you stop being for the workers?

clownboy · Oct 13, 2014

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

justabubba said:
wow
so many words for so little information

let's examine what the union ACTUALLY did:

it listed the names/departments of the non-dues paying bargaining unit employees

how heinous was that?

In context, very.

CycloneWanderer · Oct 13, 2014

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

Karl said:
It's close enough to debunk the poster's original claim:

The fact is the Democracy Alliance, the mothership of the Progressive Machine, has done more to influence legislation in Washington, draft bills, influence anti-business legislation, fund elections, and spread propaganda across the United States than ALEC or any conservative group could dream to have done. [...]

He, or you, are welcome to provide your own data proving your claims. I won't be holding my breath. In the meantime, he has clearly failed.

You have only given information that could even reasonably act against one of his items: fund elections. Even then, your argument has a significant flaw because it does not allow for a direct and proportional comparison. I'm not saying I disagree with your point on election funds, but you did nothing to convincinly dissuade anyone who does.

justabubba · Oct 13, 2014

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

clownboy said:
In context, very.

share examples where heinous outcomes resulted from the union's actions

Great King Rat · Oct 13, 2014

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

justabubba said:
wow
so many words for so little information

let's examine what the union ACTUALLY did:

it listed the names/departments of the non-dues paying bargaining unit employees

how heinous was that?

Let me ask you a few honest questions that immediately sprung to mind when I read your so called reply to my post. Do you expect to be taken seriously? With a post like that? Do you have issues with words, or having to read them in a forum like this? Is this text like grammatically challenged method of posting words you are using an affectation? It looks to me like you just proffered up an excuse (having to read?) for not actually addressing a thing I said. I'm aware of what the union did. Nothing about this story surprises me, except that in 2014 people servile to the unions will ignore and reject any and everything that is not equally so. As evidenced by a lot of posts in this now over 1,000 post "debate".

I'm not persuaded by arguments based upon obtuse postures that the publication of the information in question can't and won't be used as information like that invariably and historically has been used. Mainly because in my opinion that is an idiotic stance. The aforementioned "no brainer" term comes to mind. I like how you introduce the concept that something "heinous" has occurred and then demand that others illustrate that to you. Again, you expect that to be taken seriously?

Karl · Oct 13, 2014

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

CycloneWanderer said:
You have only given information that could even reasonably act against one of his items: fund elections. [...]

1. Funding elections can influence his other criteria.
2. He provided no information whatsoever.

CycloneWanderer said:
Even then, your argument has a significant flaw because it does not allow for a direct and proportional comparison.

Again, since his claim was purely hot air with zero substantiation an informed rebuttal, even if not direct and proportional, is sufficient to debunk his claim. Generally speaking, they never bring any research or citations, they just make it up as they go. Give the proliferation such an easy approach permits, we can't spend an inordinate amount of time doing their research for them in order to prove them wrong... otherwise they would win just by sheer numbers (it is easier to make things up than to 'prove' them). So a wedge will suffice, given their inability -- and typically subsequent in-your-face refusal -- to provide any documentation whatsoever. A house built of cards does not require complete demolition; simply removing a key item or two will accomplish the same task.

As the old saying goes, "a lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on". The purveyors of falsehood, or opinion-as-fact, are likely well aware of that and use it to their advantage.

justabubba · Oct 13, 2014

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

Great King Rat said:
Let me ask you a few honest questions that immediately sprung to mind when I read your so called reply to my post.

i will gladly answer your 'honest' questions. actually, i look forward to reading anything from you which would be found 'honest'

Do you expect to be taken seriously?

usually. and when i do not, i try to give some indication that what i post is offered tongue-in-cheek

With a post like that?

absolutely

Do you have issues with words,

no. do you have issues?

... or having to read them in a forum like this?

you do recall that each of us forum members freely chose to participate here. so, i cannot fathom why you would question whether a forum member has issues with having to read words

Is this text like grammatically challenged method of posting words you are using an affectation?

an affectation as in like choosing to engage in like valley talk? no

It looks to me like you just proffered up an excuse (having to read?) for not actually addressing a thing I said.

reading your posts is to learning what eating empty calories is to nutrition

I'm aware of what the union did.

then share that with us instead of the insipid comments about the posting styles of those with whom you disagree

Nothing about this story surprises me, except that in 2014 people servile to the unions will ignore and reject any and everything that is not equally so.

i am going to try to finish the thought you began but failed to complete. my speculation is that you intended to express that unionists reject that which is not favorable towards collective bargaining principles. and you would be wrong. as a unionist, i might challenge that which is in opposition to collective bargaining; but to ignore that with which i do not agree would be juvenile

As evidenced by a lot of posts in this now over 1,000 post "debate".

and the fact that there are now over 1000 posts on this topic 'evidences' what exactly

I'm not persuaded by arguments based upon obtuse postures that the publication of the information in question can't and won't be used as information like that invariably and historically has been used.

then please share with us how the proposed use of the information is a new application and not one which has been previously utilized when processing the data

Mainly because in my opinion that is an idiotic stance.

you got me with this pronouncement. on things idiotic, i will defer to you

The aforementioned "no brainer" term comes to mind.

i looked but failed to identify where the useage of "no brainer" occurred other than in your sentence immediately preceding this

I like how you introduce the concept that something "heinous" has occurred and then demand that others illustrate that to you.

i am delighted that you like it. thank you

Again, you expect that to be taken seriously?

did i stutter when i responded to the question the first time you asked it?

gdgyva · Oct 13, 2014

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

NIMBY said:
Let us all know when yer ready to go back to pre-TR days when corporations were getting away with what current corporations want to do.

And do volunteer to work weekends for free since that is exactly what Unions got rid of,
not to mention safety in the workplace, such as at hospitals .

What the unions did for the average worker 50, 75, or 100 years ago means nothing today

Can you tell me any significant contribution since say 1975?

The unions were needed for years....they did a lot of good

That was in the past......

Now...mostly they are political organizations now.....and the negotiations they do on behalf of employees has almost become secondary

Great King Rat · Oct 13, 2014

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

justabubba said:
i will gladly answer your 'honest' questions. actually, i look forward to reading anything from you which would be found 'honest'

usually. and when i do not, i try to give some indication that what i post is offered tongue-in-cheek

absolutely

no. do you have issues?

you do recall that each of us forum members freely chose to participate here. so, i cannot fathom why you would question whether a forum member has issues with having to read words

an affectation as in like choosing to engage in like valley talk? no

reading your posts is to learning what eating empty calories is to nutrition

then share that with us instead of the insipid comments about the posting styles of those with whom you disagree

i am going to try to finish the thought you began but failed to complete. my speculation is that you intended to express that unionists reject that which is not favorable towards collective bargaining principles. and you would be wrong. as a unionist, i might challenge that which is in opposition to collective bargaining; but to ignore that with which i do not agree would be juvenile

and the fact that there are now over 1000 posts on this topic 'evidences' what exactly

then please share with us how the proposed use of the information is a new application and not one which has been previously utilized when processing the data

you got me with this pronouncement. on things idiotic, i will defer to you

i looked but failed to identify where the useage of "no brainer" occurred other than in your sentence immediately preceding this

i am delighted that you like it. thank you

did i stutter when i responded to the question the first time you asked it?

As I suspected, you don't expect to or apparently want to be taken seriously. Because if you seriously think I'm going to bother wading through that illiterate mess of a chopped up copied and pasted contortion and somersaults? You would be wrong. Do you imagine that anything that looks like that kind of post is ever or has ever held a hidden gem of an intelligent discussion within it? Ever? If so, why? Never mind rhetorical question.

blackjack50 · Oct 13, 2014

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

justabubba said:
to provide information to their membership is my GUESS

For what reason? I see you aren't going to answer that.

those non-dues paying bargaining unit members; have they made a conscience decision to be a free rider and enjoy the benefits of union representation without incurring the costs to maintain those union provided benefits? are they employees who have never been approached to sign up? are they co-workers who do not understand what the union has negotiated for the bargaining unit, and would pay their way if they only knew what had been done on their behalf and the expenses associated with such representation? are they co-workers who are cozy with management and recognize that it is their relationship with management rather than their union affiliation that will likely advance their career? are they co-workers the bargaining unit members would find trustworthy to share information with, or should important information be withheld from them - possibly because they are management moles? are those on that list also those who receive preferential treatment from management? are they the ones who have been promoted instead of union members?

Basically...are they people who work hard, know the right people, or are they people who make sure that certain lazy workers don't get away with their crap?

by knowing who is and is not dues paying the union membership can help identify to the union any appearance of disparate treatment, which favorable/unfavorable treatment based on union participation is an unfair labor violation

So the union needs to know who isn't paying money...so they can have a list of people to try to get money from? That doesn't even begin to answer why others need that information.

Unions had a place a long time ago. The more you describe what they do...the more it just seems like an extortion racket to help the lazy.

justabubba · Oct 13, 2014

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

Great King Rat said:
As I suspected, you don't expect to or apparently want to be taken seriously. Because if you seriously think I'm going to bother wading through that illiterate mess of a chopped up copied and pasted contortion and somersaults? You would be wrong. Do you imagine that anything that looks like that kind of post is ever or has ever held a hidden gem of an intelligent discussion within it? Ever? If so, why? Never mind rhetorical question.

your post received all of the attention it begged for
now, care to address the union topic
again, i ask, what was it that the union did which would be found heinous?

blackjack50 · Oct 13, 2014

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

gdgyva said:
What the unions did for the average worker 50, 75, or 100 years ago means nothing today

Can you tell me any significant contribution since say 1975?

The unions were needed for years....they did a lot of good

That was in the past......

Now...mostly they are political organizations now.....and the negotiations they do on behalf of employees has almost become secondary

Number 1 democrat campaign contributor. Actually...look up the largest campaign contributors in the country.

blackjack50 · Oct 13, 2014

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Lol unions

Great King Rat · Oct 13, 2014

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

justabubba said:
your post received all of the attention it begged for
now, care to address the union topic
again, i ask, what was it that the union did which would be found heinous?

Simply returning to your proffered question, what would be "heinous" and expecting me (or anyone else for that matter) to answer it? You really may imagine it to be seriously important. Unfortunately following first your complaint about "so many words" but then posting a wall of chopped up copied and pasted contortions and somersaults couched in an equal amount of words? Is not exactly a substantive discussion of anything. If you can find someone here at DP that wants to get into a typical message board "debate" about the word heinous, for the benefit of your bromide? Well, happy hunting. I'm afraid the idiotic and painfully obvious nakedly self serving question has gotten all the attention it begged for, from me. The trappings of a high school command of grammar, would still not help that so called question even if such was present. Which it is not. That is pretty much why I asked, is that an affectation?

Grant · Oct 13, 2014

stonewall50 said:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.phpLol unions

It's organized crime. As others have mentioned, it certainly served it's purpose in the past but now they are a hindrance to free speech, free association, and the democratic process.

Great King Rat · Oct 13, 2014

Grant said:
It's organized crime. As others have mentioned, it certainly served it's purpose in the past but now they are a hindrance to free speech, free association, and the democratic process.

While I agree with many of those sentiments, let's not lump ALL unions together with the most obvious and historically documented ones that deserve derision and serious dismantling. I saw the Teamsters were mentioned earlier in the thread. Given their history, your description certainly is fitting with regard to them IMO.

blackjack50 · Oct 13, 2014

‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

Grant said:
It's organized crime. As others have mentioned, it certainly served it's purpose in the past but now they are a hindrance to free speech, free association, and the democratic process.

I think a good example and one of the greatest travesties is the teacher's union. It is a detriment to the education system. It protects bad teachers, bargains for more pay, and all the while is inconsiderate of student needs. And that isn't to say all members of the teachers' union are bad either. A lot want what is best for their kids. They just don't see the detriment they cause with the union.

Honestly one of my biggest problems with unions is that they protect the lazy and stupid. And most who support them don't realize it. They are looking out for themselves and not the good of people outside the union.

TurtleDude · Oct 13, 2014

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

poweRob said:
riiight. In the face of republican corporate butt buddies boldy saying how they want to abolish minimum wage and overtime and the like... I'd say we need unions pretty badly.

unions are dinosaurs whose power is gradually being destroyed by global labor markets. Only in captive industries such as government workers, will the Unions survive and unions should be banned in the public sector since oftentimes those negotiating "against" the Union are beholden to the Union for their office

TurtleDude · Oct 13, 2014

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

poweRob said:
right wing lie #1

right wing lie #2

Except, adjusted for inflation, middle class income has collapsed with the unions' collapse... go figure.

right wing lie #3

add in some right wing bs propaganda flair for effect... aaaaannnnnnd scene!

you deny that public sector unions don't drive up the costs to taxpayers. what about crap like Davis-Bacon or union controlled municipalities that have "prevailing wage" requirements in their contracts?

rabbitcaebannog · Oct 13, 2014

Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

stonewall50 said:
I think a good example and one of the greatest travesties is the teacher's union. It is a detriment to the education system. It protects bad teachers, bargains for more pay, and all the while is inconsiderate of student needs. And that isn't to say all members of the teachers' union are bad either. A lot want what is best for their kids. They just don't see the detriment they cause with the union.

Honestly one of my biggest problems with unions is that they protect the lazy and stupid. And most who support them don't realize it. They are looking out for themselves and not the good of people outside the union.

Right, your proof positive is Texas. It is illegal for teachers to collectively bargain with a union and has been that way for years. There school system can compete at the top internationally while union loving schools like MA score at the very bottom. Union loving MA bad for students. Union hating Texas good for students- Sarcasm over

‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

Fishstyx

Great King Rat

justabubba

long standing member

blackjack50

justabubba

long standing member

clownboy

clownboy

CycloneWanderer

justabubba

long standing member

Great King Rat

Karl

justabubba

long standing member

gdgyva

Great King Rat

blackjack50

justabubba

long standing member

blackjack50

blackjack50

Great King Rat

Grant

Great King Rat

blackjack50

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

rabbitcaebannog