• 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)

jaeger19 said:
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?
Click to expand...

And obviously you don't either. This is a classic example of you pretending to be a healthcare CEO, entrepreneur, physician, and a thousand other things... you can't keep your bull**** straight.

I have never, in my life, met a business owner who is pro-union.
 
bave said:
And obviously you don't either. This is a classic example of you pretending to be a healthcare CEO, entrepreneur, physician, and a thousand other things... you can't keep your bull**** straight.

I have never, in my life, met a business owner who is pro-union.
Click to expand...

You realize how I just stated that if the union only represented 20% of my workforce, I would tell them to pound sand... right?

And somehow.. that makes me "pro union"?

Before you go on trying to insult people.. you should work on your reading comprehension.
 
jaeger19 said:
You realize how I just stated that if the union only represented 20% of my workforce, I would tell them to pound sand... right?

And somehow.. that makes me "pro union"?
Click to expand...

What makes you pro-union is that pretty much everything you say about them seems to read as if it came from aflcio.org. Other than agreeing there should continue to be NLRB-supervised elections, you haven't shown a whiff of skepticism of any of their other most sought-after provisions of this dream bill.

Your whole point in saying you'd tell a union representing 20% of your workforce to pound sand is to defend exclusive representation as absolutely necessary (which is debatable), as a way of supporting unions' arguments against Right To Work. There are numerous ways unions could protect themselves from the cost of free riders. Forming a members-only union is one such way. There are other conceivable legal alternatives that have some precedent (see Janus v. AFSCME pg. 17).
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
What makes you pro-union is that pretty much everything you say about them seems to read as if it came from aflcio.org. Other than agreeing there should continue to be NLRB-supervised elections, you haven't shown a whiff of skepticism of any of their other most sought-after provisions of this dream bill.

Your whole point in saying you'd tell a union representing 20% of your workforce to pound sand is to defend exclusive representation as absolutely necessary (which is debatable), as a way of supporting unions' arguments against Right To Work. There are numerous ways unions could protect themselves from the cost of free riders. Forming a members-only union is one such way. There are other conceivable legal alternatives that have some precedent (see Janus v. AFSCME pg. 17).
Click to expand...
Pooh... I am pro self determination.. and if workers want to organize.. they should be allowed to organize..
And they should not have to deal with free riders.

Right to work is anything but a right to work.. its sole purpose is to weaken the right of people to organize.
 
jaeger19 said:
Pooh... I am pro self determination.. and if workers want to organize.. they should be allowed to organize..
Click to expand...
This bill isn’t about that. Don’t be misled by its title.
And they should not have to deal with free riders.
Click to expand...
They don’t, and never have had to.
Right to work is anything but a right to work.. its sole purpose is to weaken the right of people to organize.
Click to expand...
There is no conceivable way that RTW can possibly “weaken the right to organize.” RTW doesn’t have anything to do with organizing.
 
Helix said:
Right to work for less sucks. Having no representation or recourse sucks. Being able to get canned for any reason or for no reason at all sucks. The best way to fix that is to vote out the union busters. It won't solve all of the problems, but it will help with some of them.
Click to expand...
Actually no it doesn’t. It gives you the opportunity to be let go from a job where you’re really not welcome with no consequences.
 
jaeger19 said:
Pooh... I am pro self determination.. and if workers want to organize.. they should be allowed to organize..
And they should not have to deal with free riders.

Right to work is anything but a right to work.. its sole purpose is to weaken the right of people to organize.
Click to expand...
It gives you the right to work without being extorted by left wing political advocacy groups. In this day and age unions exist for the sole reason of expropriating the resources of largely conservative blue collar workers to fund left wing political groups.
 
jaeger19 said:
Bull. Sometimes that's true.. sometimes that's not. Sometimes all an employer does is abuse that attitude and work ethic. The idea that all employers are wonderful, benevolent employers that will reward hard work and value attitude is complete BS. Some do..many do not.
Click to expand...

no one argues that, this is a classic straw man attack.
IF employers DID that... then unions would never gain a foothold in the first place. Unions came about because employers treated their employees like crap.
Click to expand...
I don’t care how crappy I’m treated, I don’t want to give my money to godless marxists for any benefit
Its the reason that an employee is willing to pay a union to represent them... because they got a better deal with the union... and frankly.. all studies show that employees DO better with a union.
Click to expand...
no, that is not true. They are only measuring materialism. No pollster has ever called and asked if I am happier because I’m not giving money to a left wing advocacy group to promote godless Marxist revolution.


Nope they don't. I know a number of unions where the raises are based on merit.
Click to expand...
no you don’t.
How would you feel if because of lack of union protection.. you lost your job to a terrible employee because he was a drinking buddy of the manager?
Click to expand...
I would get another job, only a whiny complainer would think twice about losing such a job. I’ve been fired before, being fired is not as bad as whiners make it out to be.
How would you feel if because of lack of union protection, you lost your job.. because you DID your job as a teacher and refused to pass the star quarterback on the football team when they earned an F..and the coach complained to the principle and board about your attitude?
Click to expand...
why are all your hypothetical people such whiny pansies?
For every.. "what if"..when it comes to a union being a "detriment to the employee"...there are thousands of real life instances when a person was protected by a union from an unfair labor practice.
Click to expand...
All the protection in the world isn’t worth promoting Marxism.
 
jaeger19 said:
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".

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.

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).
Click to expand...
Lol you’re complaining about the right, and complaining that unions are needed to negotiate higher wages, but you’re supporting the left who have been opening the floodgates to the third world since 1965. A million largely unskilled and uneducated third worlders come in every year and that’s just legally. Even in skilled professions we are allowing their citizens to come use our universities then work for our companies. Undercutting American wages, where are your precious unions on that?oh yeah the left including the unions are about revolution and not worker protection.
 
Wow

I don't think you understand why they come to America.

Once again no condemnation for the Americans hiring them. It is all about the criminal invaders.

Republicans don't want to stop the flow of cheap labor. Why do righties always try to blame the democrats.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It gives you the right to work without being extorted by left wing political advocacy groups. In this day and age unions exist for the sole reason of expropriating the resources of largely conservative blue collar workers to fund left wing political groups.
Click to expand...

PAC dues (money withheld and sent to unions' political action committees) have long been voluntary and relatively easy to opt out of without consequences.*

*Except that in the public sector, the Supreme Court has agreed that even non-PAC dues are spent politically, because unions are inherently political. If non-PAC dues are still political, then any money withheld enforced by union security contract language is forced political speech. Why is this okay in the private sector but not the public sector? Some sort of "compelling interest" rationalization, which I really don't understand.

If states whose private sectors are Right To Work end up overruled by this legislation, I expect it will provoke a concerted and very well funded barrage of challenges to private sector RTW rules nationally through the courts, using arguments from Janus as precedent.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It gives you the right to work without being extorted by left wing political advocacy groups. In this day and age unions exist for the sole reason of expropriating the resources of largely conservative blue collar workers to fund left wing political groups.
Click to expand...

Average yearly earnings for a union carpenter in the Kansas City metro: $105,000

Average yearly earnings for a non-union carpenter in the Kansas City metro: $62,000
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Average yearly earnings for a union carpenter in the Kansas City metro: $105,000

Average yearly earnings for a non-union carpenter in the Kansas City metro: $62,000
Click to expand...
Meh I don’t care, I’d word for 40,000 less to not give the godless marxists a dime. But even with that this statistic is likely not true.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Average yearly earnings for a union carpenter in the Kansas City metro: $105,000

Average yearly earnings for a non-union carpenter in the Kansas City metro: $62,000
Click to expand...

Discrepancies like this make me curious. What accounts for it? E.g., how do each of these types of carpenters secure work, and how much do they work? Do union carpenters work more hours on average, whereas non-union carpenters may include independent freelance types who work (and therefore earn) considerably less each year? Do union carpenters tend to have any sort of skill or certification advantages that are contractually necessary on larger projects that thus command higher rates? What prevents people and companies in Kansas City from only hiring non-union carpenters (given the significant labor savings)? Citations can sometimes help shed light and context on these types of curiosities.
 
Neomalthusian said:
You've never acknowledged what Right To Work actually is. You say a lot of false and misleading things about it, but have never actually acknowledged what it literally is. You've insinuated that it's a law that pushes wages lower, which is false. You've insinuated it's a law that makes employment at-will. That is false. If you want to focus on Right To Work, you should start by acknowledging the facts about what it actually is.



Maybe having representation you don't want forced on you sucks too. Don't unions usually pride themselves in being "democratic," referencing the choice employees make to join together in a union? What is wrong with having a fair democratic election in that regard? The PRO Act seeks to eliminate these elections.



That has nothing to do with any of this.



That also has nothing to do with anything I said in post #1 or #2. Try reading the topic and original post and responding to the actual points made, instead of repeating the same chant over and over?
Click to expand...
Right to work is just getting representation without paying to maintain it, aka freeloading. Actually bosses are much more likely to do arm twisting than unions, Amazon is very totalitarian about silencing union discussions.
 
bomberfox said:
Right to work is just getting representation without paying to maintain it, aka freeloading.
Click to expand...

There are, or at least very easily could be, ways to avoid freeriders without imposing agency fees. For one thing, any unions that could be members-only instead of certifying as exclusive representatives would by definition avoid any obligation to ever do anything for a non-member. Nonmembers could also be required to pay for services they end up actually wanting or could be denied representation altogether. As pointed out in Janus:

There is precedent for such arrangements. Some States have laws providing that, if an employee with a religious objection to paying an agency fee “requests the [union] to use the grievance procedure or arbitration procedure on the employee’s behalf, the [union] is authorized to charge the employee for the reasonable cost of using such procedure.” E.g., Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §3546.3 (West 2010); cf. Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 5, §315/6(g) (2016). This more tailored alternative, if applied to other objectors, would prevent free ridership while imposing a lesser burden on First Amendment rights.​
 
The only people who denigrate the ability of labor to negotiate with capital through unionized are either connected to capital or brainwashed by right wing propaganda.

I believe a difference in annual income of $43000 would be worth a few union dues.

The only chance labor has negotiating with capital is to organize.
 
Neomalthusian said:
There are, or at least very easily could be, ways to avoid freeriders without imposing agency fees. For one thing, any unions that could be members-only instead of certifying as exclusive representatives would by definition avoid any obligation to ever do anything for a non-member. Nonmembers could also be required to pay for services they end up actually wanting or could be denied representation altogether. As pointed out in Janus:

There is precedent for such arrangements. Some States have laws providing that, if an employee with a religious objection to paying an agency fee “requests the [union] to use the grievance procedure or arbitration procedure on the employee’s behalf, the [union] is authorized to charge the employee for the reasonable cost of using such procedure.” E.g., Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §3546.3 (West 2010); cf. Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 5, §315/6(g) (2016). This more tailored alternative, if applied to other objectors, would prevent free ridership while imposing a lesser burden on First Amendment rights.​
Click to expand...
Thats not how the contracts work. Its often not a cafeteria deal.
 
bomberfox said:
Thats not how the contracts work. Its often not a cafeteria deal.
Click to expand...

It's not be how unions want them to work, but just because a union wants something doesn't necessarily mean it should be legal. The point is there are ways to avoid the burdens of freeridership if unions really wanted to do so.
 
Neomalthusian said:
House approves pro-union labor bill

(what follows is from me, not the link)

This bill is called The Protecting the Right to Organize Act. It has provisions relating to franchising as well as independent contracting that are in some cases legitimately sketchy business practices and are maybe downright abusive and evasive of labor laws.

But the problem is they come bundled with four provisions that help unions (as an institution), not individual workers as a whole, by subjecting people who might not want to be associated with them to all manners of harassment, intimidation and coercion.



Who here can explain how they can ideologically support provisions #1 through #4 above?
Click to expand...
The American worker has been screwed for the last 40 years. I support those items because it would begin shifting power back to the workers. If it goes badly for the employers we can legislate changes then.
www.pewresearch.org

For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades

Adjusted for inflation, today's average hourly wage has about as much purchasing power as it did in 1978. Most wage increases have gone to the highest earners.
www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org
 
mrjurrs said:
The American worker has been screwed for the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

Extremely subjective generalization ("this country sucks!"), but in any case, it is not evident that very many of the actual provisions in this actual bill do much of anything about that.
I support those items because it would begin shifting power back to the workers.
Click to expand...

See, but it doesn't actually do that. You'd have to explain how taking away the ability to vote by secret ballot "empowers workers." You'd have to explain how giving unions whatever access they want to employees' personal information from their personnel file "empowers workers." You'd have to explain how overriding state laws that allow private sector workers to opt out of paying money to a union "empowers workers." Most of the provisions in this bill only aim to empower the labor unions as an institution, not workers generally.

You have to actually look at the actual bill and what it does. Declaring workers "empowered" by whatever the AFL-CIO wants is just vapid cheerleading. It's like declaring that all Americans prosper whenever Republicans pass a tax cut bill.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Extremely subjective generalization ("this country sucks!"), but in any case, it is not evident that very many of the actual provisions in this actual bill do much of anything about that.


See, but it doesn't actually do that. You'd have to explain how taking away the ability to vote by secret ballot "empowers workers." You'd have to explain how giving unions whatever access they want to employees' personal information from their personnel file "empowers workers." You'd have to explain how overriding state laws that allow private sector workers to opt out of paying money to a union "empowers workers." Most of the provisions in this bill only aim to empower the labor unions as an institution, not workers generally.

You have to actually look at the actual bill and what it does. Declaring workers "empowered" by whatever the AFL-CIO wants is just vapid cheerleading. It's like declaring that all Americans prosper whenever Republicans pass a tax cut bill.
Click to expand...
Subjective? Didn't read the link I guess. Here's why I'm willing to support it. Developed by D's. What is the R plan to help American workers? They didn't have one for the last four years. The only people that make that claim about tax bills are R's. Elections have consequences, now it's our turn.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Extremely subjective generalization ("this country sucks!"), but in any case, it is not evident that very many of the actual provisions in this actual bill do much of anything about that.


See, but it doesn't actually do that. You'd have to explain how taking away the ability to vote by secret ballot "empowers workers." You'd have to explain how giving unions whatever access they want to employees' personal information from their personnel file "empowers workers." You'd have to explain how overriding state laws that allow private sector workers to opt out of paying money to a union "empowers workers." Most of the provisions in this bill only aim to empower the labor unions as an institution, not workers generally.

You have to actually look at the actual bill and what it does. Declaring workers "empowered" by whatever the AFL-CIO wants is just vapid cheerleading. It's like declaring that all Americans prosper whenever Republicans pass a tax cut bill.
Click to expand...

Opinions vary

Obviously you are on the side of capital. No doubt they have made out like bandits since Reagan. The middle/working class has taken it in the shorts.

10-21-10inc-f3.jpg

350px-CEO_pay_v._average_slub (1).png

91494-9265.png
 
mrjurrs said:
Subjective? Didn't read the link I guess. Here's why I'm willing to support it. Developed by D's. What is the R plan to help American workers? They didn't have one for the last four years. The only people that make that claim about tax bills are R's. Elections have consequences, now it's our turn.
Click to expand...

You're basically saying here that you have no comment about the specifics of the bill or what it changes, rather you're just going to blanket support whatever the party supports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom