Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 100

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

  1. #51
    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 ludin View Post
    Sure they do. They demand unreasonable expectations from the company. Plenty of companies have just chosen to shut down or move operations instead of playing
    games with the unions.
    .
    Honestly.. you are being absurd. SO.. you are telling me that a union (made of up employees) would rather lose their jobs.. instead of getting a fair wage from their employer?

    That's ludicrous. Employers use unions as a scapegoat for the fact that they can find cheaper employees somewhere else. Its just that simple. The employer has the control. No union is going to say "sorry.. but you offered a fair wage..but we want 3 times market rate in compensation and so you go ahead and close".

    That's like saying that companies would go "you know what.. we are going to raise our prices 3 x the market rate.. even though we know we are going to lose all our customers".

    It just doesn't happen. Sure.. employees in Oregon.. in a union... may not be able to compete with 2 dollar an hour salaries in Mexico.. or even minimum wage in Idaho because the employees in Oregon face higher living costs.. than mexico,, or Idaho...

    but that doesn't make their need for a higher living wage.. "unreasonable".

    Which is why you would think that unions would make more reasonable requests than what they do.
    And they do. They do make reasonable requests.. all the time.. in fact.. the often bend backward for companies. Over the years.. unions have made more concessions than they have been getting increases.

    The problem is.. a union cannot compete against 2dollars an hour in mexico and china.

    ou just said it was free speech. i think you need to read your own post again.
    Protesting is fine...harassment is not..whether by unions or the right wingers...

    BUT.. its interesting that simply a union protesting.. is considered harassment by the right wingers... but threatening a lady and calling her names as she goes into planned parenthood.. is considered by them to be free speech.

    (I read my post just fine).

  2. #52
    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 Visbek View Post
    Then tell us where. I only see anti-union pundits making those claims.
    (B) In any case in which a majority of the valid votes cast in a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining have not been cast in favor of representation by the labor organization and the Board determines that the election should be set aside because the employer has committed a violation of this Act or otherwise interfered with a fair election, and the employer has not demonstrated that the violation or other interference is unlikely to have affected the outcome of the election, the Board shall, without ordering a new election, certify the labor organization as the representative of the employees in such unit and issue an order requiring the employer to bargain with the labor organization in accordance with section 8(d) if, at any time during the period beginning one year preceding the date of the commencement of the election and ending on the date upon which the Board makes the determination of a violation or other interference, a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit have signed authorizations designating the labor organization as their collective bargaining representative."

    Lots of words, but what they mean is that whenever an organizing election fails, the union can reverse the results and win by 1) alleging some sort of employer "interference" occurred during the election, and 2) convincing whatever minimum number of additional votes they needed to agree to sign authorization cards (card-check), which can be done in any sort of unsupervised/unregulated way.

    And again, solidarity strikes are legal in most nations, and yet it has not crippled capitalism around the world (surprise!). Nor do I see any problem with unions trying to amplify their leverage, especially in an environment where business owners can legally use similar mechanisms to amplify their leverage.
    Some things organizations might like to do to amplify their leverage are illegal. Group boycotts, price-fixing, exclusionary contracts, trade association deals, these are tactics that are regulated for good reason by the FTC. The statement that "you see nothing wrong" with amplifying leverage using these types of tactics isn't a compelling argument. They've been regulated for generations because they're considered unfair business practices that reduce competition, innovation, quality, and increase prices.

    It's "literal" in the sense that you're literally ignoring half the functionality of Right to Work laws.
    I'm not literally ignoring anything. Union security clauses are specific things, and Right To Work laws just say "union security clauses are illegal."

    No, the freeloader problem is that people benefit from collective bargaining even when they aren't in the union, don't have to pay dues, don't have to go to union meetings, don't have to go on strike, and so forth.
    You're not understanding what I explained. When a union chooses to certify as "exclusive representative" over a specified bargaining unit, then all of those employees in the bargaining unit are represented by that union. They don't have a choice to be represented or not, at that point. They can't opt out of the representation. This is what creates unions' Duty of Fair Representation, which is the only way anyone could "freeload" from that union. If a union were to choose not to certify as exclusive representative, then its only duties of fair representation would be over its dues-paying members. It would have no representational or other duties for anyone opting out of its membership/refusing payment to it. So unions have this choice. They can either certify as exclusive representative and absorb the free-loaders in the bargaining unit, or they could structure themselves as members-only and all free-loaders would be excluded. At this point they almost always choose to continue with exclusive representation and absorb the freeloaders. Here's a longer explanation: Labor at a Crossroads: In Defense of Members-Only Unionism - The American Prospect

  3. #53
    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
    Yep..you just made hyperbole about unions without considering that the reason for unions is employer malfeasance.
    I made up hyperbole/absurdism as a way of challenging you to explain where you draw the line on union tactics. I don't think you're considering the history of some of these practices and the entirely sensible reasons why Taft Hartley (which the PRO Act would roll back) was passed in the first place.

    Sure..just like unions can't kidnap children and hold them ransom until employees vote for a union. The truth is.. that companies do far and away worse to each other than what unions do to companies. . I contract with facilities that are union. My greatest challenge is what my competitors do against me. Some worry about "what if the union decides to picket you"...if far far far far.. down the list of worries when you have competitors that push forth legislation that would increase my costs.. but they would get an exemption to that legislation. Or competitors that will "buy up".. physician practices to control more of the referral stream... or a myriad of other ways my competitors compete in ways other than price and quality.
    These arguments are basically a diversion from the issue. Being able to identify other anticompetitive practices that are occurring does not demonstrate why we should pass laws that explicitly try to legalize anticompetitive practices that were made illegal a long time ago for completely decent reasons.

    Pooh... you are still dealing out hyperbole. The only concerning part of the regulation is the getting rid of secret ballots. And that provision has come about because of EMPLOYER intimidation of employees.
    That's incredibly naive. Unions are always going to allege employers did something wrong if making that allegation is in their interests. That doesn't mean they should necessarily be believed. For example, pretty much every time a union goes on strike for more money (which is inherently an economic strike), they first file at least one unfair labor practice. Why? Because the employer committed an unfair labor practice? No. Because merely alleging a ULP allows the union to declare it is conducting a ULP strike. Why do this? Because ULP strikers cannot be permanently replaced. It is extremely easy to allege an employer ULP in bargaining. They can just send a letter to the labor relations agency stating "the employer engaged in regressive bargaining and/or surface bargaining," and that's it. The ULP claim is filed, they declare the strike is ULP, thus extinguishing any risk (however remote) of any permanent replacements of the strikers.

    Similarly with this, it would be extremely easy to allege "employer interference" in an election as a pretense for resorting to card-check. If I were a union organizer, I would absolutely develop an entire set of strategies and tactics aimed at intentionally provoking an employer response that I could use and construe as as "intimidation" or "coercion" or "interference," and I would do this for no other reason than to be able to resort to card-check if the election fails.

    The fact is.. that there has been an assault on the right of workers to collectively bargain for that last 40 years or so.
    That is not a fact. It is an extremely biased unsupported opinion. Specifically identify what "right to collectively bargain" has been assaulted and the law or regulation that assaulted it. Usually whenever any attempt is made to explain how anyone's right to be in a union has been attacked, a bunch of things are mentioned that have nothing to do with whether someone has a right to join a union or not.

  4. #54
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    1,746

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bradt99 View Post
    In right to work states you make $5,000 less than in non-right to work states. I don't think those laws are beneficial. As a Trump supporter, I'm pro-union and believe in workers rights.
    I am pro union and believe in workers rights

    Then why would you vote.republican or be a trump supporter?

  5. #55
    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
    I made up hyperbole/absurdism as a way of challenging you to explain where you draw the line on union tactics. I don't think you're considering the history of some of these practices and the entirely sensible reasons why Taft Hartley (which the PRO Act would roll back) was passed in the first place.
    .
    Pooh.. you are making up hyperbole to try to make it appear that poor employers are the victims of unions. While completely ignoring the tactics that employers have and continue to use. The history of these "practices".. or pretty much non existent. Can you show me a history of unions doing abuses ANYWHERE CLOSE.. to the abuses that I can find employers doing in the past and STILL doing? I think not.

    Like I said.. I don't agree with getting rid of the secret ballot because I can see the POTENTIAL for abuse. And that's about it.

    Being able to identify other anticompetitive practices that are occurring does not demonstrate why we should pass laws that explicitly try to legalize anticompetitive practices that were made illegal a long time ago for completely decent reasons.
    Why yes it does. Because it points out that the reality is that these "anti competitive practices".. ONE.. are not really anticompetitive practices in the grand scheme of things. Two.. the regulation you are advocating is merely to be used as a means to curtail the right of employees to collectively bargain.

    Say you don't like the practices of planned parenthood? Should you be allowed to protest outside their headquarters (as long as peaceful etc)? Sure.

    If you don't like the practices of dunkin donuts.. do you have the right to stand on the public way and protest them? Sure.

    So whats the big deal here..if a union member from another company.. doesn't like my business and decides to protest me? Nothing.

    That's incredibly naive.
    That's laughable. Its you being credibly nave. You seem to think that that union holds the power over the poor little employers. Sorry.. but the employer has and does have all sorts of tactics.. legal and illegal.. available to force concessions out of the union. If the union goes on strike.. in all likelihood, its the result of the unreasonableness of management. The person most hurt by a strike is the union and the employee. There is very little incentive for a full on strike as its economically damaging more to the employee than the employer. I don't many ceo's and board of directors have to worry about how to make their house payment during a strike... not so the working stiff.

    pecifically identify what "right to collectively bargain" has been assaulted and the law or regulation that assaulted it.
    Well.. start with the multiple "right to work laws"... that have been legislated in the past 40 years. With the specific intent of weakening collective bargaining. And I don't know how many states,I have seen that would outright make collective bargaining almost impossible. Some of the legislation in these bills require unions to hold an election every year to determine if they will stay union. Simply to create more havoc for the union.

    The supreme court just upheld laws that unions in state and government workplaces..must represent and protect individuals.. but may not recoup the costs of that representation.. in other words.. free loaders.

  6. #56
    Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:45 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,435

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rickc View Post
    I am pro union and believe in workers rights

    Then why would you vote.republican or be a trump supporter?
    Because democrats are bat sh*t crazy right now, that's why and all they are doing in the house is naming post offices and not passing meaningful legislation.

  7. #57
    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
    Pooh.. you are making up hyperbole to try to make it appear that poor employers are the victims of unions. While completely ignoring the tactics that employers have and continue to use. The history of these "practices".. or pretty much non existent. Can you show me a history of unions doing abuses ANYWHERE CLOSE.. to the abuses that I can find employers doing in the past and STILL doing? I think not.
    You're just trying to divert the topic, shine the spotlight somewhere else. I don't even know what "abuses" you're specifically talking about. I mentioned several types of anticompetitive practices that the FTC regulates. Are we not doing enough? Do we need to expand the FTC's regulatory powers over these types of practices? Maybe. But that's not even your point. You're trying to distract and minimize from how bad a number of provisions of this law are.

    Like I said.. I don't agree with getting rid of the secret ballot because I can see the POTENTIAL for abuse. And that's about it.

    Why yes it does. Because it points out that the reality is that these "anti competitive practices".. ONE.. are not really anticompetitive practices in the grand scheme of things. Two.. the regulation you are advocating is merely to be used as a means to curtail the right of employees to collectively bargain.
    Unions always allege this, even about things that have nothing to do with "the right to collectively bargain." This would be like a business whining that because it's not allowed to price-fix with competitors that the government is curtailing their right to do business. No it isn't. It's telling you that you have no right to price-fix. It's not depriving you of a right to do business. Similarly here, none of these regulations are depriving workers of any right to collectively bargain. They're telling them they don't have a right to engage in certain behaviors. Like everyone else in society who is also not allowed to engage in certain behaviors.

    Say you don't like the practices of planned parenthood? Should you be allowed to protest outside their headquarters (as long as peaceful etc)? Sure.

    If you don't like the practices of dunkin donuts.. do you have the right to stand on the public way and protest them? Sure.

    So whats the big deal here..if a union member from another company.. doesn't like my business and decides to protest me? Nothing.
    For one thing, you're arguing against decades of regulation and case law that draws a line in the sand about when it's okay and when it's not.

    For another thing, you're acting like these actions are so benign, but if that were the case, how would they be effective at all? Why would unions care that they can't engage in secondary boycotts, if it were so not a big deal, like you say? The reality is that it is a big deal, because the protests do have harmful effects on the businesses that are subject to them. People feel intimidated by the thought of walking in to a business when they would have to fight through and ostensibly cross a picket line to get in. That intimidation is intended.

    You seem to think that that union holds the power over the poor little employers.
    That's not what I'm saying. I (just me) have pretty much zero power over, say, Wells Fargo Bank. Does that mean I should be able to vandalize their branch locations? I mean they're so much more powerful than me, that why would you protect them from little old me wanting to vandalize their branches? What if it's not vandalism but every day I go in and grab all their deposit booklets, pens, informational pamphlets and dum dum suckers and walk out with them because I don't like their business practices or how they pay their tellers. Should I be able to do that? Or what if I can convince a dozen of my friends to link arms and prevent customer entry (unless a customer is determined to physically overpower us). Should that be allowed? After all, they're WAAAYYY more powerful than I am! This is not about relative power. It's about behaviors that should be illegal across the board, for unions and companies, workers and employers, regardless of whatever supposed power balance or imbalance between them.

    And by the way, those hypothetical behaviors toward Wells Fargo used as a comical example... in reality those behaviors would not be tolerated. They're not "protected speech." I can't do whatever the hell I want.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 02-13-20 at 09:34 PM.

  8. #58
    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 bradt99 View Post
    Because democrats are bat sh*t crazy right now, that's why and all they are doing in the house is naming post offices and not passing meaningful legislation.
    The PRO Act, passed by House Democrats, is bat sh*t crazy. Those bat sh*t crazy Democrats are going to tell you that the law is only all about workers' rights. Are you going to be gullible and believe them?

  9. #59
    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
    Well.. start with the multiple "right to work laws"... that have been legislated in the past 40 years. With the specific intent of weakening collective bargaining.
    You're perpetuating lies that unions tell. Right To Work has zero to do with the right to collectively bargain. If workers want to bargain collectively by asking a union to represent them, they can do that, and Right To Work rules do nothing to prevent that.

    Some of the legislation in these bills require unions to hold an election every year to determine if they will stay union. Simply to create more havoc for the union.
    An extreme majority of union-represented workers have never in their lives had an opportunity to reaffirm (or not) their desire to be represented by that union. Almost 19/20ths of union employees simply inherited that representation from a group of workers from a bygone era that voted that way. An every-year recertification election might be overkill, but what we have now is that workers virtually never ever ever have any opportunity at all whatsoever to reaffirm their desire to be represented by their current union. So maybe it shouldn't be every year, but maybe every 2, 3, or 5.

    The supreme court just upheld laws that unions in state and government workplaces..must represent and protect individuals..
    Nope. Directly from the Janus v. AFSCME decision:

    "Nor can such fees be justified on the ground that it would otherwise be unfair to require a union to bear the duty of fair representation. That duty is a necessary concomitant of the authority that a union seeks when it chooses to serve as the exclusive representative of all the employees in a unit."

    "No union is ever compelled to seek that [exclusive representative] designation."

    but may not recoup the costs of that representation.. in other words.. free loaders.
    It is 100% within the power of a union to not seek designation as exclusive representative, and thus its duty of fair representation would be limited to the employees who voluntarily join and pay the union.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 02-13-20 at 10:12 PM.

  10. #60
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    20,598

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bave View Post

    Despite being amazingly non-sequitur, it is still wrong just like the first time you constantly throw out half-assed "facts". You need to adjust for entitlement, defense, and infrastructure spending and suddenly that gap disappears like a champ. 80% of it is simply retirees fleeing blue states upon retirement and dragging their medicare/ss with them.
    What a stupid argument.... "After you adjust for everything the federal government does... that wealth transfer evaporates...."
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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