Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 100 of 100

Thread: The truth about the PRO Act (pro-union dream bill)

  1. #91
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Jackson, MS
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,926

    Re: The truth about the PRO Act (pro-union dream bill)

    Luckily this will not even see the Senate floor.

  2. #92
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,856

    Re: The truth about the PRO Act (pro-union dream bill)

    Quote Originally Posted by eman623 View Post
    You are preaching to the choir.
    I know.

    Employees give up some of their free speech rights and don't have the right to walk off the job to strike for another company. Although they are welcome to march on the other company's picket line on their own time if they want.

    And while I have no problem with a union trying to persuade a neutral company to be sympathetic to its cause, that does not include slander and libel. If a union hires fake workers who misrepresent themselves striking a neutral company, then that's libel and should be addressable by the courts.
    It's not entirely clear to me how much of a free-for-all of "secondary actions" could be unleashed and protected by this bill. The way I see it is that there was good reason for the prohibition on secondary actions passed under Taft Hartley.

  3. #93
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:44 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,553

    Re: The truth about the PRO Act (pro-union dream bill)

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Public employees in general have unions because it is much easier for unions to thrive in non-competitive sectors than it is to compete in competitive sectors. Government jobs are low-hanging fruit for unions.
    No.. public employees in general have unions because the nature of the political nature of the work and that turnover in administration creates unique conditions in which employees need union protection. For example: Teachers are in a position in which to be effective.. they have to tell parents that their little darlings aren't perfect and are instead lazy and are not going to pass if their behavior continues.

    Without union protection.. teachers would be at the mercy of the administrations and parents who would force them to pass these students regardless of ability or effort or be terminated

    Firefighters would be at the mercy of changing administrations and would be afraid to speak the truth about unsafe buildings, and practices etc..

    The same with police. etc.

    Public employees would be at the mercy of changing administrations.. etc. That's why unions thrive in the public arena.. because they are needed.

  4. #94
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,856

    Re: The truth about the PRO Act (pro-union dream bill)

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    No.. public employees in general have unions because the nature of the political nature of the work and that turnover in administration creates unique conditions in which employees need union protection. For example: Teachers are in a position in which to be effective.. they have to tell parents that their little darlings aren't perfect and are instead lazy and are not going to pass if their behavior continues.

    Without union protection.. teachers would be at the mercy of the administrations and parents who would force them to pass these students regardless of ability or effort or be terminated

    Firefighters would be at the mercy of changing administrations and would be afraid to speak the truth about unsafe buildings, and practices etc..

    The same with police. etc.

    Public employees would be at the mercy of changing administrations.. etc. That's why unions thrive in the public arena.. because they are needed.
    This is all silly apologism for public sector unionism. Relatively speaking, there is basically no sector of our economy that needs unionism less than government employment. Your parade of horribles catastrophe theory about how the sky would fall on public employees were there not unions is not only without evidence, but it ignores the obvious reality that government itself makes the law, including the laws and regulations by which unions must operate, and the voting public, speaking through their duly elected representatives, are the ultimate authority in a democratic society.

  5. #95
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:33 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    476

    Re: The truth about the PRO Act (pro-union dream bill)

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    This is all silly apologism for public sector unionism. Relatively speaking, there is basically no sector of our economy that needs unionism less than government employment. Your parade of horribles catastrophe theory about how the sky would fall on public employees were there not unions is not only without evidence, but it ignores the obvious reality that government itself makes the law, including the laws and regulations by which unions must operate, and the voting public, speaking through their duly elected representatives, are the ultimate authority in a democratic society.
    Correct. The "cronyism" issues you are referring to can exist a thousand ways in every job, the problem is that when a public employee is unionized you lose the basic check and balance for a union. Generally if a union is too aggressive they kill off their host and the union gets hurt, this can't happen in public employees, or at least not nearly as easily. As a result you can demand endlessly more while just saying "raise taxes" or "borrow more", which is precisely what has happened in public employee union strong states. Why do you think NY/NJ/CA/PA/IL have some of the major problems they do?

  6. #96
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,856

    Re: The truth about the PRO Act (pro-union dream bill)

    Quote Originally Posted by bave View Post
    Correct. The "cronyism" issues you are referring to can exist a thousand ways in every job, the problem is that when a public employee is unionized you lose the basic check and balance for a union. Generally if a union is too aggressive they kill off their host and the union gets hurt, this can't happ en in public employees, or at least not nearly as easily. As a result you can demand endlessly more while just saying "raise taxes" or "borrow more", which is precisely what has happened in public employee union strong states. Why do you think NY/NJ/CA/PA/IL have some of the major problems they do?
    Government is not price sensitive. There aren't multiple municipal or state government organizations competing for taxpayers to make a choice between them each year. People can move cities or states, but it's not like when consumers choose between two available products all the time. Government is monopolistic, it doesn't have competitors (that's what makes it government). Government managers also often stand to gain by agreeing to pay government employees more money, because the overall pay hierarchy is generally maintained, and governments rationally go for uniformity of health and retirement benefits, and so forth. Whereas private sector employers stand to lose a lot (because they're paid in equity) if they make an imprudent business decision. All of these factors make government much softer toward union demands than private sector firms, which is why government unionism has not waned basically at all for over a half century, whereas in the private sector it has collapsed.



  7. #97
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:44 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,553

    Re: The truth about the PRO Act (pro-union dream bill)

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Your ownership of a business does not demonstrate that you to know what a Right To Work law is. To demonstrate that you know what a Right To Work law is, you'd have to state things about it that are true and correct, which you are not doing. A Right To Work law is a law that says union security clauses (requiring all bargaining unit employees to pay either dues or agency fees) in contracts between employers and unions are illegal. That's it. Right To Work is not about at-will employment. If a state passes a different law that has to do with at-will employment, then that's what it did, but that's a different law.
    .
    Pooh.. what you don't understand is that the "right to work" laws... have OTHER CLAUSES IN THEM... which include things like at will employment.

    Sure.. they LAW is NAMED "RIGHT TO WORK" because its sold to the people as well.. a right to work...when it reality its a law with a host of amendments and other clauses that do things to make it hard to collectively bargain and make it at will employment. I know the laws where I own businesses.

    I don't know, but you haven't read the link about members-only unionism, because you're balking at the notion that it can exist despite the fact that it does exist
    Pish.. I am NOT balking at the idea that it "can exist".. sure it can... but the reason its rare.. is because the nature of collectively bargaining.. is rarely effective with members only unionism.
    Like I said.. if the union is only representing 20% of my workforce... I am not bargaining with them.. I am telling them to pound sand.

    Obviously you don't own a business.. but tell me.. if you did.. and the union only represented 20% of the workforce.. would YOU deal with them? Or would you tell the to pound sand?

    Currently most unions say the downsides of members-only are worse than the downsides of exclusive representation.

    Bingo.. see above.. and why? Because it dramatically reduces their power to collectively bargain. So stop arguing.

    See my links.
    I know they exist. So what? Sure.. there are rare and selective instances when it works for them.. particularly when they are members that have really rare skills, or the worker set is really small. or there is regional issues (like being really rural or some place that workers don't want to flood to.. etc) . etc.

  8. #98
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:44 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,553

    Re: The truth about the PRO Act (pro-union dream bill)

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    This is all silly apologism for public sector unionism. Relatively speaking, there is basically no sector of our economy that needs unionism less than government employment. Your parade of horribles catastrophe theory about how the sky would fall on public employees were there not unions is not only without evidence, but it ignores the obvious reality that government itself makes the law, including the laws and regulations by which unions must operate, and the voting public, speaking through their duly elected representatives, are the ultimate authority in a democratic society.
    BWAAAHH... you are too funny. No "apoligism" from me. Just cold hard facts and logic. You speak the typical uneducated, illogical anger at unions.. without thinking about reality

    but it ignores the obvious reality that government itself makes the law, including the laws and regulations by which unions must operate, and the voting public, speaking through their duly elected representatives, are the ultimate authority in a democratic society.
    Bingo.. which is why unions are especially necessary in the public sector. The "public".. always want two things when it comes to public services. They want great services that are immediately available and that conform to what they want at the moment
    and.
    2. They don't want to pay for it.

    That's why unions are prevalent and necessary in public services. No private sector business.. goes out and promises "we will provide you great services, tailored to whatever you want.. and we are going to not charge you market rate for it. Instead we are going to operate at a loss!!!"..

    Not even non profit private sector entities do that..

    BUT POLITICIANS DO MAKE THOSE PROMISES. Oh.. they make all sorts of promises on how services will be better.. and taxes and fees will be low. Doesn't matter that the market rate for employees.. they make those promises.

    And the public buys into it. Guys like you buy into it. Oh.. when it comes to YOUR jobs.. you go "well.. you have to pay more for good employees.. that's supply and demand.. if you want good employees.. you have to reward them.. and employees like ME..are why the company made 100 million more last year.. so that's why I deserve a raise".

    The policeman, the firefighter, and the teacher? You say "they get paid to much"..and don't think supply and demand applies to them...

    You don't think that firefighters and police and teachers, to be effective.. needs supplies, infrastructure and logistical support. And that costs money.

    And that's why you have unions in public sectors. Because the politicians control the public sector.. get elected by making a promise that they can't keep and isn't even logical. And the people that vote for the politicians.. buy into the lie.. besides the fact the vast majority can't run a business.

    Just take the issues with teachers.

    Now..folks like BAVE..will tell you all how teaching is easy.. and has no marketable skills in the private sector.. etc.. so they shouldn't get paid like the private sector.

    Well..thats because BAVE doesn't own or run a business. He has never,,nor have most people.. started a business up from scratch.

    Now.. go ask anyone who has.. ask them this.

    Hey.. how valuable would this employee be. You take an employee/manager.. and put him in a room with 30 employees who are at 20% productivity.(or some such objective level)..and its the responsibility of that employee/manager.. that at the end of the year..those 30 employees all have to reach 30% productivity or better.

    Oh.. and.. the thirty employees in the room? They don't want to be there and don't care if they improve.

    Oh.. and the employee/manager responsible? He cannot fire or discipline any of those employees if they fail to improve, or become unruly etc.

    So..how valuable is the employee that can take 30 people..who don't care if they get better,, who are not under any real threat if they don't improve.. and that employee can take those 30 people and get them all to improve.

    Any.. businessman in the private sector.. would tell you any employee that can do that.. is tremendously valuable and that employee would command a high salary..

    Well..thats teachers. That's what we expect them to do. Yet the public doesn't see their value.

  9. #99
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:44 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,553

    Re: The truth about the PRO Act (pro-union dream bill)

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Government is not price sensitive. There aren't multiple municipal or state government organizations competing for taxpayers to make a choice between them each year. People can move cities or states, but it's not like when consumers choose between two available products all the time. Government is monopolistic, it doesn't have competitors (that's what makes it government). Government managers also often stand to gain by agreeing to pay government employees more money, because the overall pay hierarchy is generally maintained, and governments rationally go for uniformity of health and retirement benefits, and so forth. Whereas private sector employers stand to lose a lot (because they're paid in equity) if they make an imprudent business decision. All of these factors make government much softer toward union demands than private sector firms, which is why government unionism has not waned basically at all for over a half century, whereas in the private sector it has collapsed.


    Nope.. completely wrong. See my above post.

  10. #100
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,856

    Re: The truth about the PRO Act (pro-union dream bill)

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    BWAAAHH... you are too funny. No "apoligism" from me. Just cold hard facts and logic. You speak the typical uneducated, illogical anger at unions.. without thinking about reality

    Bingo.. which is why unions are especially necessary in the public sector. The "public".. always want two things when it comes to public services. They want great services that are immediately available and that conform to what they want at the moment
    and.
    2. They don't want to pay for it.

    That's why unions are prevalent and necessary in public services. No private sector business.. goes out and promises "we will provide you great services, tailored to whatever you want.. and we are going to not charge you market rate for it. Instead we are going to operate at a loss!!!"..

    Not even non profit private sector entities do that..

    BUT POLITICIANS DO MAKE THOSE PROMISES.
    That doesn't demonstrate a thing about why public sector unions are necessary, in fact it demonstrates the opposite of what you want it to demonstrate, which is that governments are low-hanging fruit for unions to capitalize on those promises. As you said, politicians promise all sorts of goodies (because everyone wants goodies) without having to pay for it (because no one wants to pay for it). The imprudence of lofty government promises without the immediate penalty of loss of customers that private sector firms face is what makes government such an easy place for unions to maintain their stronghold.

    This exchange has backed you into a corner whereby you have to conjure up some sort of argument that government employees need union protection more than private sector employees -- which is preposterously silly.

    The policeman, the firefighter, and the teacher? You say "they get paid to much"
    No I don't.

    The rest of your rambling didn't connect with anything I had just said. Government employees are not more needy of protection than private sector ones. And secondly, unions' "power" over government is illusory. I have seen this logical fallacy of an argument more times than I can count: "We need government to protect government unions so that government unions can protect government employees from our bad government."

    Government unions need government to be nice to them and enable them in order for unions to do any of what they do. Unions rely on government to pass laws and staff a judicial system that enables unions to do anything. Government unions utterly depend on government enabling them and being nice to them. So to turn around and then say "we need government unions because government cannot be trusted," you've just stepped into an absurd circular argument.

    Government makes the laws by which unions operate. Elected legislatures could squash a collective bargaining agreement that was awarded by binding arbitration. No legislature can be compelled by an arbitrator to ratify or fund a collective bargaining agreement. Any government manager can simply decide to disagree with the union security clause in bargaining. Any elected legislature can pass laws that say "no collective bargaining agreement shall be ratified unless if it contains the following language, and no bargaining agreement shall be ratified unless it contains all the following language. Democratically elected governments can pretend they are somewhat controlled and counterbalanced by unions, to keep up whatever pretenses they feel they want to uphold to convince whomever that they are nice to workers and play nice with unions, but at the end of the day, nothing trumps the power of the democratically elected government.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •