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.
