- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 21,004
- Reaction score
- 10,102
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
The truth about the PRO Act (pro-union dream bill)
- Thread starter Neomalthusian
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2019
- Messages
- 803
- Reaction score
- 227
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That difference can be misleading, for example someone making $50,000 in Alabama is still doing better than someone making $55,000 in New York or New Jersey.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2019
- Messages
- 803
- Reaction score
- 227
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The other thing to recognize is that when the cost of doing business here in the US becomes too great employers can simply take those jobs overseas. Globalization did MUCH more to diminish unions than anything else. So many people on the left simply fail or refuse to acknowledge that.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2019
- Messages
- 803
- Reaction score
- 227
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
With public employees their jobs can't be shipped overseas.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2015
- Messages
- 7,143
- Reaction score
- 2,274
- Location
- foothills of destiny
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Show me a fireman for NYC that is shipped overseas..
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
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.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2019
- Messages
- 803
- Reaction score
- 227
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I have absolutely no idea what your point is here? You do understand that jobs held by public employees cannot be shipped overseas, right? In other words a town cannot have their police, firemen, and teachers being in a different country. Someone working in the manufacturing plant for Ford, GM, etc., their jobs can be done elsewhere outside the US.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
They have unions because the Dem's realized the power of unionizing the public sector, despite decades of being against it.
Public sector unions are parasites of the highest order
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2018
- Messages
- 10,943
- Reaction score
- 4,380
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
1. Apparently this was removed in the final bill the House passed. Good riddance. I don't work at a union job, but if we did consider unionizing, I would feel very put upon if someone asked me to sign a card instead of a secret vote, if there was even a hint that not signing could be held against me at some future point. Can the company ask me to sign a card saying I won't support unionization? I wouldn't sign that either. Just make your case and then let me vote in private.
2. Yeah, no way will I support that. I choose to join a company and give them my personal info. I did NOT agree for them to hand it over to anyone else. Maybe if the union asked, I'd give it to them. But the choice is mine. Opt-in, not forced-in.
3. Again, no. California is actually a right-to-work state and if you decide not to join the union they still deduct some amount from your paycheck to cover the cost of negotiating compensation. This seems like a reasonable compromise. I don't want to be forced to support with my dues whatever political positions they take.
4. After reading through this thread, this seems like it has advantages and disadvantages. There are free-speech issues here, but also opens the door to possible extortion by unions or employers against neutral 3rd parties. This might be one that the government needs to stay out of.
5. Neomalthusian missed one of the worst provisions of this bill - it forces independent contractors to become employees using the disastrous ABC test that was enacted in California. This has already cost hundreds of people their livelihoods and that number could grow to tens of thousands and decimate entire industries like journalists, truck drivers, contract engineers (a big driver of innovation in Silicon Valley), etc.
So one the whole, I can't support this, but I might support a scaled down version with some provisions of #4. I just want an equal playing field.
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Can you cite that it was removed? Specifically, the most recent version I read about clarified that the card-check can be used when a vote to unionize fails. The bills proponents try to qualify that by saying that it can only be used when the employer interfered with the election. But what will actually happen is that unions will always allege interference in cases of failed votes, and will likely even work hard to try to provoke an employer action that can later be used as an interference allegation, so as to always be able to default to card-check when votes fail or are going to be close.
California is not a right-to-work state. The entire public sector of the nation is Right To Work (Janus v. AFSCME). For the private sector, the feds and courts defer to state law to be Right To Work or not.
Strikes are intended to intimidate as well as inflict economic harm by disrupting commerce. I agree that any law that restricts what people can do and say in public has free speech implications and needs to be very carefully considered, but on the other hand there are already all sorts of restrictions on what people can do when those actions are interfering with other people's work.
I did intentionally skip over this because 1) I feel mixed about it, 2) I've anecdotally heard of examples of independent contracting that are exploitative and blatant regulation-dodging, and 3) overall I have not put the time in to knowing this issue inside and out. Do you have more explanation/resources on this issue and what makes it disastrous?
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2018
- Messages
- 10,943
- Reaction score
- 4,380
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I saw it here: Diminished expectations: Democratic labor bill waters down 'card check'
I don't know the full details, but IMO card check should always be illegal. I don't want anyone to ever try to pressure me to sign a card in lieu of a secret ballot.
I stand corrected.
I get what you're saying but I tend to be a free speech absolutist. The fact that there are other free speech restrictions is not compelling. It makes me wonder why those restrictions exist too. This is a matter over which there are competing rights and people of good will can differ.
People are losing their livelihoods. That's pretty disastrous for them. I used to work as an independent contracting software engineer and would not have liked being told I now had to become an employee to continue working.
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
That link confirms what I read too. The difference between the "watered down" and the previous iterations was that previously the bill(s) just said unions could use card-check period. The "watered down" version requires some sort of allegation of employer "interference" in the election.
To be honest, this "watered down" version of card check is probably better for unions, and I wouldn't even be surprised if they suggested it. Why? Because if the law just gave blanket license to unionize by card check, unions would be criticized for their avoidance/refusal to conduct fair NLRB-supervised elections. With this watered down version, it is much easier to keep up pretense that the only reason they're resorting to card check is because the employer broke the law by interfering in the election (or so they allege). It helps keep the perception of malfeasance squarely on the employer, whereas if it were the union avoiding NLRB elections altogether, they (unions) would look like the manipulators.
The bar for alleging employer interference in union organizing is extremely low. You say you're a free speech absolutist -- employers are already basically muzzled in terms of what they can say or do while an organizing drive is going on. They can't even tell their employees not to spend their time discussing union organizing while they're on the clock. Even worse, once this allegation of employer interference is made, the employer has to somehow demonstrate that whatever allegation it is was unlikely to have affected the outcome of the election. How the hell is any employer supposed to be able to do that? And what happened to burden of proof?
Even further, the union is allowed to gather card-check signatures for a period of a full year leading up to the secret ballot election. What's wrong with this? Well for one thing, it results in employees being faced with a choice before they actually vote. For another thing, organizers will probably disingenuously reassure employees they're pushing to card-check not to worry about signing it because they'll still have an opportunity to cast their official vote by secret ballot. But then, if enough card-check signers flip and vote no in the election, the union will still have their card-check authorizations. All the union must do is convince the Board some sort of interference likely occurred, then those employees who already signed the card check effectively have their actual vote reversed. Does anything in the law entitle them to reconsider or revoke their card-check signature that they might have given under uncomfortable pressure by union organizers months before the election took place? Doesn't look like it.
If these "secondary actions" are protected, then as an employer you might have no recourse for your employees walking off the job in support of someone else's labor dispute. Unions can recruit people who aren't even employees to pretend like they're employees striking against a company that isn't even directly involved in a labor dispute. What if companies started hiring people to publicly protest outside their competitors' places of business? Free speech absolutism can lead to paralysis of commerce and government. Look at France over the last few months.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Hypothetically, if there were a business model that required a whole slew of people who, for all intents and purposes, were just like regular W2 employees, but were simply designated as "independent contractors," then I'm not entirely convinced regulations shouldn't crack down on that a bit, in which case yes, any such people whose business models relied upon exploiting an independent contractor loophole would have that particular livelihood taken away.
If someone's entire workload is dedicated to one organization in an ongoing manner, and that hiring organization directs the worker the same way they would direct an employee, and that work is in the hiring organization's regular course of business, and the "contractor" is not even customarily engaged in independently providing that business to an entire marketplace of vendors or potential vendors, then in virtually all respects this "independent contractor" is an employee being given the title "contractor," and is not even evidently "independent."
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2018
- Messages
- 10,943
- Reaction score
- 4,380
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You are preaching to the choir. I don't support card check in any form, even watered down.
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.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2018
- Messages
- 10,943
- Reaction score
- 4,380
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The old test used to be "time place and manner". If the company controlled the times that the worker had to report to duty, the place he had to work and how the job was to be performed, then that worker was an employee and not an independent contractor. when I was doing independent software contracting, I would accept jobs from whomever I wanted, and work more or less when or where I wanted. My preference would be to work at home, but sometimes I would need to work at the company, whatever made sense. In any case, you had to establish all three to be called a worker.
AB5 in California flipped that logic. The new ABC test is that the company has to establish all three of the following for the worker to be an independent contractor:
(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and
(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Of course, this was targeted and Uber and Lyft to force those companies to pay benefits to their drivers. But the fallout has been felt far wider. Many people who were happy in their present arrangement and taking care of their own self-employment taxes, healthcare and retirement now have to go get a job and be captive to a single employer, or face the loss of their livelihood. It's going to hurt California and if enacted nationally would hurt the entire country.
Nap
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2016
- Messages
- 8,362
- Reaction score
- 3,187
- Location
- Jackson, MS
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Luckily this will not even see the Senate floor.
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I know.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,090
- Reaction score
- 14,534
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
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.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2019
- Messages
- 10,190
- Reaction score
- 2,141
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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?
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
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.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,090
- Reaction score
- 14,534
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
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?
Bingo.. see above.. and why? Because it dramatically reduces their power to collectively bargain. So stop arguing.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,090
- Reaction score
- 14,534
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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. 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.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,090
- Reaction score
- 14,534
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
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.
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.