"A Better Deal": Democrats' Lie-riddled Scheme to Give Big Labor Everything

PTF · Nov 6, 2017

These Demos do not know when to quit. They seem to step up double time in creating lie after lie after lie. They have to ask themselves " What happened with the elections ? "
The list of lies provided by our host is shocking and outrages. Those who voted Demo should be ashamed...believing in the lies the liberals/Demos feed us.
This thread is spot on !

Neomalthusian · Nov 6, 2017

Nap said:
When someone offers you a job and you accept the salary they offer, are you being exploited or is that a voluntary transaction to the benefit of both parties?

What if someone offers you a job, but says that as a condition of accepting the job, you have to "voluntarily" become a member of some altogether other organization and pay your own money to that other organization, and that if you don't, that other organization will notify me and I will fire you, no just cause needed. Would that be ethical? Should it be legal?

What if the employer has business partnerships with altogether separate other businesses. Should the employer be able to dictate how employees spend their own money and make them spend it on those partner organizations' goods and services? Why should employers be allowed to compel payment of their employees' earned money to other organizations?

If I'm the employer and I have some interest in the success of a local fitness facility, should I be able to force my employees to become members of that fitness facility, and pay their own individual money to it, even if they don't want that membership and won't use the facility?

That's what unionism inherently is. It's two separate parties (employer and union) agreeing between themselves that someone else (future employees, unrelated parties to this contract) must, as a condition of selling their labor to the employer, also pay for services from the union.

This is what unionism is. It's a crooked deal between employers and unions that doing business with one party (i.e. selling labor to the employer) creates a legal requirement to also "voluntarily" do business with another (buy services from the union). It's wrong and tyrannical that selling your services to someone should create a requirement upon you to spend your proceeds pursuant to a contract the buyer made with some other entity. It's the same type of unethical behavior as the Company Store tactics from the 18th century, whereby as a condition of working, you have to spend your "money" at the Company Store or do without. Blatant violation of individual liberty. Thank goodness Company Store tactics are regulated (as they should be). Unfortunately, unions continue to get a complete pass and are allowed all manners of coercive tactics into people's wallets. Democrats want that access to be carte blanche. Disgusting.

Unitedwestand13 · Nov 6, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
Unionism is not about "wanting to have leverage in their wages," which doesn't even make coherent semantic sense, by the way. Unionism is not about "leverage." It's about coercion. Unions do not want individuals to have power or rights. They want individuals to be forced into their membership as a condition of accepting a job from someone else. That's what this is about.

Typical of unionists to spin vastly overgeneralized sob stories like this. This also isn't relevant to why unions say they need coercive privileges over people.

Unionism? I know. Thankfully Janus provides a ray of hope into the situation.

Unions give workers leverage over employers, because individual workers have no power over their employers.

Do we really want to return to the barbaric days of unrestrained capitalism of the early 20th century?

What if...? · Nov 6, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
What if someone offers you a job, but says that as a condition of accepting the job, you have to "voluntarily" become a member of some altogether other organization and pay your own money to that other organization, and that if you don't, that other organization will notify me and I will fire you, no just cause needed. Would that be ethical? Should it be legal?

What if the employer has business partnerships with altogether separate other businesses. Should the employer be able to dictate how employees spend their own money and make them spend it on those partner organizations' goods and services? Why should employers be allowed to compel payment of their employees' earned money to other organizations?

If I'm the employer and I have some interest in the success of a local fitness facility, should I be able to force my employees to become members of that fitness facility, and pay their own individual money to it, even if they don't want that membership and won't use the facility?

That's what unionism inherently is. It's two separate parties (employer and union) agreeing between themselves that someone else (future employees, unrelated parties to this contract) must, as a condition of selling their labor to the employer, also pay for services from the union.

This is what unionism is. It's a crooked deal between employers and unions that doing business with one party (i.e. selling labor to the employer) creates a legal requirement to also "voluntarily" do business with another (buy services from the union). It's wrong and tyrannical that selling your services to someone should create a requirement upon you to spend your proceeds pursuant to a contract the buyer made with some other entity. It's the same type of unethical behavior as the Company Store tactics from the 18th century, whereby as a condition of working, you have to spend your "money" at the Company Store or do without. Blatant violation of individual liberty. Thank goodness Company Store tactics are regulated (as they should be). Unfortunately, unions continue to get a complete pass and are allowed all manners of coercive tactics into people's wallets. Democrats want that access to be carte blanche. Disgusting.

I belong to a union and I LOVE it.

I make about twice what non-union workers do for the same work.

So the 5% I pay in dues is money well spent.

I've always thought the solution is to allow folks who don't want to join to negotiate their own pay with the employer.

Shouldn't take long for them to see how much smaller their pay/benefit packages are.

And quite often, when employers "force" people to join a union its because they like the way their union does things and want the new people to meet the same standards and have the same "best practises".

Not always, and many unions are pretty bad.

But mine, the international alliance of theatrical and stage employees, is ability, availability and seniority. We have competition built in, and companies take folks from our local all over the country to make sure their shows go as well there as they do in here in San Diego.

Neomalthusian · Nov 6, 2017

Unitedwestand13 said:
Unions give workers leverage over employers

No, leverage derives from demand for the thing being sold. Unions don't use leverage, they use coercive power that they are uniquely allowed to assert. Most non-governmental organizations in our society are not permitted by law the use these coercive tactics.

, because individual workers have no power over their employers.

Inexcusable lie. Union workers have dramatically less leverage over their employers than non-union workers. Why? Because the contract prohibits them from even trying to negotiate directly and individually with their employer. Some employees are wanted and needed badly enough that, individually, they could ask for a raise based on their own work performance. Others can inform their employer they're job seeking or are considering a job offer elsewhere and see if their employer wants to match it. As with any negotiation, over the sale of anything, to anyone from anyone, there is no guarantee that the other will be open to negotiating or give the other what he or she ideally wants, but there is at least freedom to ask and negotiate individually. In cases where employees are highly valuable, employers sometimes decide to individually give them a raise based on merit. But if you're a union employee, you have zero individual power over that, because negotiation has to go through the union, and the union doesn't want you as an individual to be rewarded. It wants everyone to get a raise. So you as an individual are the union's pawn. You're not even allowed to try to negotiate directly with your employer, nor is your employer allowed to entertain proposals from you individually. To do so would violate the contract and the employer would face an Unfair Labor Practice claim.

Do we really want to return to the barbaric days of unrestrained capitalism of the early 20th century?

No, I want government regulations and policies to govern public sector compensation and working conditions.

Absentglare · Nov 6, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
Democrats Have An Ambitious Plan To Help Rebuild Labor Unions - Huffington Post

Lie #1: The subtitle. "Give Workers Freedom to Negotiate a Better Deal."

Inexucable ridiculous lie. Freedom to negotiate does not mean coercion of the other party to negotiate or agree. I can ask to negotiate with you on the price of something you have. You can choose to negotiate with me or not. You refusing to agree to the price I want to pay is not a violation of my freedom to negotiate. You refusing to negotiate with me at all is also not a violation of my freedom to negotiate. I can offer, you can accept, counter, or walk away and there is no sale. You can offer, I can accept, counter, or walk away and there is no sale. The union lie that unless they get whatever they want, a worker's rights and freedoms to negotiate are being violated is psychopathic perversion of what "rights" and "freedoms" mean.

In absolutely no way did you make your case that workers deserve the freedom to negotiate was a "lie". Your bitter diatribe basically suggests that you think workers should be subject to exploitation because you fail to understand the individual incentives in a real market economy.

Neomalthusian said:
Lie #2: "Federal labor law makes two fundamental promises to working people: 1) the right to freely choose whether to join with coworkers to form a union..."

No such right exists. A worker who wants to join with coworkers to form a union, but those coworkers are still a minority in terms of wanting a union, have no power to join a union if a vote over it "fails." If the majority vote no, they have no right to join a union as a function of that employment. On the other side of the coin, workers who actively do NOT want to be part of a union have no freedom not to be under union contract employment conditions, and in non-RTW states, they're even forced to pay when they don't want to. There is no right to opt in or out of unionism. It's an all-or-nothing system that impedes individuals' right to decide for themselves. They're either in one group or they're in the other, with no individual power over the decision.

Either Americans have the right to engage in voluntary associations, or they don't. None of your irrational anger about how people can unionize actually disproves that in any meaningful way.

Neomalthusian said:
Lie #3: "...and 2) the right to jointly determine their wages, benefits, and working conditions through negotiation with their employers."

No such right exists, for the same reasons as above.

Now this is just getting bizarre... Do you think slavery is legal...? ... Employees can negotiate employment terms...

Neomalthusian said:
Lie #4: "Though unions created the middle class..."

No they didn't.

Yes, yes they did. The New Deal empowered individual freedom. Unions empower individual freedom. Those forces created the middle class as we know it.

Absentglare · Nov 6, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
Lie #5: "...and lifted many working families out of poverty..."

They didn't do that either. These ****ing blanket attributions of national and global economic and technological advancements to labor unions is ****ing mental. Five lies just on page 1 of this proposal to give unions everything.

Yes, yes they absolutely did. Your argument is that employees who received more income didn't receive more income.

Neomalthusian said:
Lie #6: "A Better Deal will secure workers' rights"

Union giveaways like this not only do nothing to secure workers' rights, they actively deprive individual workers of rights.

Another stupid statement. You're arguing that giving them more power, and therefore more freedom, took away their freedom.

Neomalthusian said:
Lie #7: "28 states have passed laws that strip workers of the resources they need to have a real voice to speak out..."

What?! This is has to be the most sinister and mind-boggling lie I've ever read from Big Labor, and that says a lot because they lie continuously. This is how Big Labor (using the Democratic Party as its mouthpiece) is now describing Right To Work laws, which literally do nothing but make union security clauses illegal. What are union security clauses? Union security clauses are optional (permissive subjects of bargaining, not mandatory subjects of bargaining) employer agreements to do unions' financial bidding by being voluntarily willing to fire employees who do not want their dues deducted from their paychecks. That's it. So to characterize this as "stripping workers of the resources they need" is an absolutely insane lie.

Right to work laws change the individual incentives so as to be poisoned against union membership. No amount of willful stupidity can change that fact. They erode the power of unions, which protect individuals from the abuses of their bosses.

Neomalthusian said:
Lie #8: "These state laws, which have been bankrolled by special interests, have one simple goal: destroy unions."

Absolutely false. The singular goal is not allowing employers and unions to agree that the employer will fire whoever the union tells it to based on dues payments. The broader goal of not allowing union security clauses between employers and unions is so that individuals are not coerced into being a part of something they do not want to be a part of as a condition of accepting a job and supporting their families.

This encompasses absolutely everything unions could ever ask for, giving them dictatorial control over employment in this country, and is an incomprehensible attack on employer/management rights. This is absolutely psychopathic. I've never seen a single document in my life more full of **** than this "Better Deal." There are countless more lies in it but I will stop there for now.

The Democratic Party could not possibly be more corrupted by Big Labor than it is. I will never vote Democrat until they divorce themselves from Big Labor. Not ever.

The irony of this particular rant is quite a spectacle to behold.

Neomalthusian · Nov 6, 2017

What if...? said:
I belong to a union and I LOVE it.

OH THAT'S FANTASTIC!

I make about twice what non-union workers do for the same work.

A testament to unions' special coercive monopoly privileges.

So the 5% I pay in dues is money well spent.

My argument is not that you shouldn't like your union. My argument is that your union shouldn't be able to agree with your employer that they will coordinate to coerce anyone into its membership as a condition of taking a job.

And if it's money so well-spent, why should unions require forcing anyone into their membership in the first place? If it's such a screaming deal, why the obsession with being able to force people?

I've always thought the solution is to allow folks who don't want to join to negotiate their own pay with the employer.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Shouldn't take long for them to see how much smaller their pay/benefit packages are.

Maybe. Maybe not. Whatever though. If you want a union's services, pay for them. If you don't, you shouldn't be coerced into doing so as a condition of accepting a job.

And quite often, when employers "force" people to join a union its because they like the way their union does things

There's no evidence of this.

Not always, and many unions are pretty bad.

I don't care to split hairs between what constitutes a "good union" or a "bad union." There is no need for forced dues, and there is no need for exclusive representation (which is what unions claim justifies their forced dues). Like every other service in society, you should get it if you pay for it, and not get it if you don't. Super easy. And hopefully Janus v. AFSCME and Hill v. SEIU will correct this insanity once and for all. No "free-riders," no "forced-riders," no compulsory dues.

But mine, the international alliance of theatrical and stage employees, is ability, availability and seniority. We have competition built in, and companies take folks from our local all over the country to make sure their shows go as well there as they do in here in San Diego.

If a "local" wins work by competitive bidding with no anti-competitive tactics involved, it's not intrinsically that different from any other firm that does the same. The difference between this sort of thing and, let's say, a unionized bunch of permanent benefited municipal or state government workers is vast.

Neomalthusian · Nov 6, 2017

Absentglare said:
Yes, yes they absolutely did. Your argument is that employees who received more income didn't receive more income.

My argument is that unions do not get to take exclusive credit they always claim for themselves over families who worked their way from poverty to financial well-being, nor do they get to claim exclusive credit, as they always try to take for themselves, for the post WWII economic boom, which is what that constantly-uttered statement from Big Labor is indirectly referencing.

Another stupid statement. You're arguing that giving them more power, and therefore more freedom, took away their freedom.

Nothing about this Democratic Labor Boss Giveaway gives workers in general more power. It gives unions more power which gives the Democratic Party more power. You cannot use Big Labor and "all workers" interchangeably, the way Big Unions and the Democratic Party do. Union workers have less individual power than non-union workers, because union workers are beholden to the union concerning anything related to their employment terms. They're not even allowed to attempt to approach their employer about it, and their employer is not allowed to deal with them directly. The union drives a wedge between individuals and their employers.

Right to work laws change the individual incentives so as to be poisoned against union membership.

Absolute garbage. Right To Work laws make union security provisions (which are optional as it is) illegal. That's it. That's all they do.

No amount of willful stupidity can change that fact. They erode the power of unions

Then you're admitting "the power of unions" derives exclusively from their ability to coerce people into their membership. That's pretty sad.

, which protect individuals from the abuses of their bosses.

This "Better Deal" aims to do nothing of the sort. It is merely an attempt to give Big Labor (the Democratic Party's most powerful ally) virtually everything they've ever wanted. Unions' coercive privileges, that exist by way of union security clauses, aren't what "protect individuals from the abuses of their bosses." That's not what the union security clause does. If we want individuals protected from abuses by their bosses, there are countless ways we can go about doing that (and already have and already do), starting with labor regulations (government ones) and the taxpayer-funded Departments of Labor that already exist across the country. There is already a framework for regulating labor across the country. Giving unions coercive access into people's wallets is not how that is done.

The irony of this particular rant is quite a spectacle to behold.

Articulate an argument.

What if...? · Nov 6, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
OH THAT'S FANTASTIC!

A testament to unions' special coercive monopoly privileges.

My argument is not that you shouldn't like your union. My argument is that your union shouldn't be able to agree with your employer that they will coordinate to coerce anyone into its membership as a condition of taking a job.

And if it's money so well-spent, why should unions require forcing anyone into their membership in the first place? If it's such a screaming deal, why the obsession with being able to force people?

I agree wholeheartedly.

Maybe. Maybe not. Whatever though. If you want a union's services, pay for them. If you don't, you shouldn't be coerced into doing so as a condition of accepting a job.

There's no evidence of this.

I don't care to split hairs between what constitutes a "good union" or a "bad union." There is no need for forced dues, and there is no need for exclusive representation (which is what unions claim justifies their forced dues). Like every other service in society, you should get it if you pay for it, and not get it if you don't. Super easy. And hopefully Janus v. AFSCME and Hill v. SEIU will correct this insanity once and for all. No "free-riders," no "forced-riders," no compulsory dues.

If a "local" wins work by competitive bidding with no anti-competitive tactics involved, it's not intrinsically that different from any other firm that does the same. The difference between this sort of thing and, let's say, a unionized bunch of permanent benefited municipal or state government workers is vast.

We don't. Most of our employers (I had 24 last year) are non union. Our contracts are with the properties themselves, and are because we are very good at what we do. While our union was one of the first, we aren't "powerful" in most jurisdictions.

I actually understand the issues with public unions and agree in general principle that those unions should perhaps be limited in scope. Things like safety, working conditions etc should remain, but wages/benefits could be less of a factor.

Our union, for instance, charges less for labor to the theater/opera/ballet etc because they were where we started and benefit our communities. And they tend to be struggling financially these days.

I personally try to evoke a more "European" union model as much as I can.

They have strong unions, but its a much more cooperative relationship over there, with unions actually sitting on Maynard boards. Which makes sense when you think about it. How often have you seen management come up with impractical ideas that someone actually doing the work would have seen when it was first suggested. And they are more flexible because they know where their paychecks come from and the realities of the businesses they work for.

Neomalthusian · Nov 6, 2017

Absentglare said:
In absolutely no way did you make your case that workers deserve the freedom to negotiate was a "lie".

Nothing Democrats are proposing here establishes any freedom to do anything. And in fact, if you're in a union, you lose the freedom to negotiate with your employer. Contracts forbid individual negotiation. That is a loss of freedom. If not being in a union means I can discuss my employment terms with my employer, and being in a union means I cannot, then unionism deprives me of freedom, not the other way around.

Your bitter diatribe basically suggests that you think workers should be subject to exploitation

No it doesn't. I am pro-government regulation of employment. Employment should be regulated to the degree necessary to prevent abuse and exploitation.

because you fail to understand the individual incentives in a real market economy.

Nonsensical. Dismissed.

Either Americans have the right to engage in voluntary associations, or they don't.

Generally, they do. Unions actually are associated with less of a right to engage in these associations, not more. Because if a vote for unionism fails, ALLLL those employees who so desperately wanted to join together, they can't. And if the vote is for unionism, ALLL those people who wanted nothing to do with the union, they're forced into it. This does not characterize a right to join voluntary associations. It's an all-or-nothing coercive scheme.

None of your irrational anger about how people can unionize actually disproves that in any meaningful way.

My anger is entirely rational and fact-based.

Now this is just getting bizarre... Do you think slavery is legal...? ... Employees can negotiate employment terms...

Not if they're in a union. Contracts forbid dealing on the side. You have less of an individual voice as a union member, because you're not even allowed to deal directly with your own employer. If I can't even walk into my boss's office and discuss my employment terms, because a union that represents me (even though I didn't ask them to) insists on speaking exclusively on behalf of me and a hundred others every 2-3 years or so, and you're saying that forced unionism has enhanced my individual freedoms and claim I can negotiate employment terms? Not in a union I can't. Wake up.

Don't call my comments bizarre and then ask if I think slavery is legal.

Yes, yes they did.

No they didn't. Unions try to take credit for the post-WWII economic boom, which is pathetically self-serving if you understand a lick of economic history.

The New Deal empowered individual freedom. Unions empower individual freedom.

There is no individual freedom associated with union shops. Individuals cannot act in ways that serve their own individual self-interest when union shop provisions exist. The contract between their employer and the union infringes on their freedoms. They can't deal directly or individually with their employer, they can't opt out if a vote was ever held for unionism, they can't opt in if a vote for unionism failed, hell it takes a miracle to even hold a vote to recertify/reauthorize or decertify/deauthorize one's own union. Did you know about 6% of union member employees nationwide have EVER had the opportunity to vote for or against unionism? That doesn't sound so good. Maybe we should pass the Employee Rights Act.

Those forces created the middle class as we know it.

Unions did not "create the middle class." This is a self-serving special interest group (Big Labor) trying to ram into our heads that the only reason the US was prosperous after WWII was because of them. It's delusional narcissism.

Neomalthusian · Nov 7, 2017

What if...? said:
We don't. Most of our employers (I had 24 last year) are non union. Our contracts are with the properties themselves, and are because we are very good at what we do. While our union was one of the first, we aren't "powerful" in most jurisdictions.

Then my complaints hardly apply to you or your union at all. A group of similar providers of some service that combine together to offer a competitive package of services are essentially like any firm. There is nothing wrong with having a "company" of similar workers, or you can call it a "firm" or "union" or whatever, but if the organization secures voluntary business by offering better quality, price, or combination thereof than competing sellers, what is there to complain about?

The difference between this and how most unions and their bargaining units function is fundamental. Night and day.

I actually understand the issues with public unions and agree in general principle that those unions should perhaps be limited in scope. Things like safety, working conditions etc should remain, but wages/benefits could be less of a factor.

That's reasonable.

I personally try to evoke a more "European" union model as much as I can.

They have strong unions, but its a much more cooperative relationship over there, with unions actually sitting on Maynard boards. Which makes sense when you think about it. How often have you seen management come up with impractical ideas that someone actually doing the work would have seen when it was first suggested. And they are more flexible because they know where their paychecks come from and the realities of the businesses they work for.

I'm not an expert in the nuances of unionism in the EU, but U.S. labor unions apparently place fundamental importance on their ability to deprive their own bargaining unit members as well as employers of individual rights or choice. If unions provide something valuable to their own members as well as employers, there should be no need to coerce people into their membership or force employers to deal exclusively with them, be legally entitled to non-competitive clauses, and so forth.