• 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!

How many here belong a union in the public or private sector? Why? or Why not?

How many here belong to a union?

  • Total voters
    67
  • Poll closed .
Kal'Stang said:
Hyperbole is hyperbole. And you've got it down pat.
Click to expand...

It's no more hyperbole than claiming that all union workers are "thugs" and do violence. :shrug:
 
ChrisL said:
They don't "force" anyone to join. It is completely voluntary.

Where has anyone been forced to join a union against their will?
Click to expand...

This is funny. You claim that the average non-union worker can't afford a lawyer..particularly if they get fired and yet you totally discount the same arguement (that of being too poor) being applied to moving to a different area where unions are not in control.

This is a constant thing with those that argue for keeping unions as they are today in the US. They use one arguement and then when that same arguement is used against them they discount that arguement.
 
ChrisL said:
Again, there are ALL different kinds of unions. It is unfair of you to lump them all into one category. They are NOT all the same.
Click to expand...

And yet you lump all employers into the same catagory? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
ChrisL said:
Illegal aliens get court-appointed lawyers I would think.
Click to expand...

Can't respond to all of this...gotta get to work. But for this....I work at an answering service. One of our clients takes cases for illegal aliens. She is not court appointed.
 
Kal'Stang said:
This is funny. You claim that the average non-union worker can't afford a lawyer..particularly if they get fired and yet you totally discount the same arguement (that of being too poor) being applied to moving to a different area where unions are not in control.

This is a constant thing with those that argue for keeping unions as they are today in the US. They use one arguement and then when that same arguement is used against them they discount that arguement.
Click to expand...

Unions are not "in control." No one HAS to join a union. Just like in a RTW state, no one is forced NOT to join a union. That argument is just kind of stupid, and I am not using it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Who in this thread has said that? Legalized extortion sure. But do violence? Hmm....
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's you who needs to read the thread. A poster most certainly said that unions use violence to further their agenda.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And yet you lump all employers into the same catagory? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong. I did not lump all employers in the same category anywhere in this thread.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Can't respond to all of this...gotta get to work. But for this....I work at an answering service. One of our clients takes cases for illegal aliens. She is not court appointed.
Click to expand...

How do you know?
 
In many states and in various areas of employment, union membership is not optional.

Many federal government contracts now even require usage of union employees.

Saying no one has to join a union is similar to saying no one has to pay taxes. To avoid taxes a person only has to have no income. In many areas, to claim a person does not have to join and given money to a union is the same claim.
 
My response to the poll question is not among the options. I have never belonged to a union. I would join if required to keep my job.
 
joko104 said:
In many states and in various areas of employment, union membership is not optional.

Many federal government contracts now even require usage of union employees.

Saying no one has to join a union is similar to saying no one has to pay taxes. To avoid taxes a person only has to have no income. In many areas, to claim a person does not have to join and given money to a union is the same claim.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, that is not allowed. Anyone has can opt out of being a union member. I think there was a court case about that. I'll have to look for that later.
 
Okay, this is regarding public sector unions.

Login

A public-sector union’s requirement that nonmembers opt out of paying a special fee for the purpose of financing the union’s political and ideological activities violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 21, 2012, (Knox v. SEIU, No. 10-1121).

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito noted that, “Public-sector unions have the right under the First Amendment to express their views on political and social issues without government interference. But employees who choose not to join a union have the same rights.”

Therefore, he continued, when a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, it “may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia Jr., Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined in the opinion, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred in the judgment but filed a separate concurring opinion. Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan dissented from the ruling.
 
I'm not a union member and never have been, but I'm not opposed to it. My particular circumstances have never afforded the opportunity or need.

I think the default tendency for most is to pursue their own best interests. History has shown humanity is and has been willing to do anything they can get away with in pursuit of their own interests, left unchecked. I support the idea of unions as it has brought about better working conditions and compensation when industry was taking advantage of people because they had all the power, taking the position that said "if you don't like it, get a job somewhere else" when they knew there were no jobs "somewhere else". On the other hand I think unions have abused their power as well, forcing companies into bankruptcy with "unreasonable" demands, ensuring job security for people who don't give 100% and forcing government run monopolies on the American people. I think there's a balance out there somewhere where everyone is invested and the results are a win win for all sides. I personally think allowing hard working employees to earn stock in the company they work for is better than unions but absent that unions might be a second best option if the employer is taking advantage of their position of power over employees who have little options but to accept what they're dealt or be unemployed.
 
Smeagol said:
I'm not a union member and never have been, but I'm not opposed to it. My particular circumstances have never afforded the opportunity or need.

I think the default tendency for most is to pursue their own best interests. History has shown humanity is and has been willing to do anything they can get away with in pursuit of their own interests, left unchecked. I support the idea of unions as it has brought about better working conditions and compensation when industry was taking advantage of people because they had all the power, taking the position that said "if you don't like it, get a job somewhere else" when they knew there were no jobs "somewhere else". On the other hand I think unions have abused their power as well, forcing companies into bankruptcy with "unreasonable" demands, ensuring job security for people who don't give 100% and forcing government run monopolies on the American people. I think there's a balance out there somewhere where everyone is invested and the results are a win win for all sides. I personally think allowing hard working employees to earn stock in the company they work for is better than unions but absent that unions might be a second best option if the employer is taking advantage of their position of power over employees who have little options but to accept what their dealt or be unemployed.
Click to expand...

Good post. I agree that a lot of unions have abused their power, but a lot do not, and a lot of them KNOW that without the employees' voluntary membership, there won't be a union, so yes unions do still fight for the rights of employees for the most part.

I also think that there are certain unions (probably mostly public sector) that are completely unnecessary, but industries such as the construction industry still have a need for unionizing.
 
ChrisL said:
If I'm not mistaken, that is not allowed. Anyone has can opt out of being a union member. I think there was a court case about that. I'll have to look for that later.
Click to expand...

If you find it, please post it. It is my understanding there is no such right in "closed shop" states.
 
joko104 said:
If you find it, please post it. It is my understanding there is no such right in "closed shop" states.
Click to expand...

I already did. Post #388. :)
 
Rocketman said:
I have had two union jobs in the past (early 80's) but after seeing what each stood for I secured positions where my performance as an individual could be graded and rewarded.
Click to expand...

I taught public school for a decade back in the mid 90s. union membership was mandatory if you wanted to teach in my state. all they ever did was collect dues and fund ultra-liberal political issues. the one and only time i ever saw a teacher get falsely accused of something....the union hung him out to dry. **** unions, their day has come and passed.
 
OscarB63 said:
I taught public school for a decade back in the mid 90s. union membership was mandatory if you wanted to teach in my state. all they ever did was collect dues and fund ultra-liberal political issues. the one and only time i ever saw a teacher get falsely accused of something....the union hung him out to dry. **** unions, their day has come and passed.
Click to expand...

See? Here's another one with the "unions" mantra. All unions are different, especially between public and private sector unions!
 
ChrisL said:
Yes I can. You can't call an organization violent because of what one or a few members do. I know a FEW union members, and I live in Massachusetts. If there was violence, I would KNOW about that.
Click to expand...

You would if you cared to look, it is obvious you don't want to know about it.
 
OscarB63 said:
I taught public school for a decade back in the mid 90s. union membership was mandatory if you wanted to teach in my state. all they ever did was collect dues and fund ultra-liberal political issues. the one and only time i ever saw a teacher get falsely accused of something....the union hung him out to dry. **** unions, their day has come and passed.
Click to expand...

My step mother like you was a teacher and retired doing it. She always hung with the unions, supported democrats, and now wishes she had taken the time to think for herself.
 
Why so, does she regret having a more comfortable retirement? Did she make too much money while working? Why does she regret being in a union exactly?
Rocketman said:
My step mother like you was a teacher and retired doing it. She always hung with the unions, supported democrats, and now wishes she had taken the time to think for herself.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
Why so, does she regret having a more comfortable retirement? Did she make too much money while working? Why does she regret being in a union exactly?
Click to expand...

Because she realizes that being a state employee in a state with fiscal challenges that she contributed to the problem. She now realizes that no public sector employee should be part of a union at taxpayer expense.
 
Really? she could send her retirement back to the state every month. Geeze...
Rocketman said:
Because she realizes that being a state employee in a state with fiscal challenges that she contributed to the problem. She now realizes that no public sector employee should be part of a union at taxpayer expense.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom