• 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!

Do you support (NLRA) allowing "closed shop"?

DO you support the (NLRA) allowing a "closed shop"?

  • No I do not

    Votes: 20 66.7%
  • Yes I do

    Votes: 10 33.3%

  • Total voters
    30
This question is directed mainly at pro union members. Do you support the National Labor Relations Act which allows unions to "close shop" requiring by law employees to either join the union or pay union fees within 30 days or be fired?


Personally I feel it is legal extortion and should not be forced nor legal. True a person does not have to accept the job but why should a person be forced to pay to be allowed a job.

No - I don't support forced union membership or participation.
 
GM did not force the person to join the union, the person voluntarily decided to join the union as a condition of accepting the position to work at GM.


Right, the same way no one forces anyone to work in a mine without safety regulations.
 
Right, the same way no one forces anyone to work in a mine without safety regulations.

In the US, people are forced to work at mines with safety regulations. All mines in the US are to follow safety regulations, no choice in the matter. Not all mines are unionized, choice in the matter

Instead of say a union that I objected to I objected to working for a company that was owned in part by a foreign company/country (say Citgo). If I choose to work for that company I have to accept that it is owed in part by a foriegn governemnt/company. I am not being forced to work for that company as their are other gas retailers/refiners that I can work for. It would be my choice to work for that company despite my objection to the owner of it
 
Last edited:
In the US, people are forced to work at mines with safety regulations. All mines in the US are to follow safety regulations, no choice in the matter. Not all mines are unionized, choice in the matter

Because of the law, which can be changed.

Instead of say a union that I objected to I objected to working for a company that was owned in part by a foreign company/country (say Citgo). If I choose to work for that company I have to accept that it is owed in part by a foriegn governemnt/company. I am not being forced to work for that company as their are other gas retailers/refiners that I can work for. It would be my choice to work for that company despite my objection to the owner of it


Do foreign owned companies take a cut from your paychecks and lobby for work related policy that you might find contrary to your interest?
 
Since a union exists to represent the interests of its members, why would it work against those interests, and even if it did try, why would the members go along with it if they didn't agree?

For the same reason the Democrat leadership and Republican leadership act against the interests of the nation and against the Constitution.

Because they can get away with it and because it furthers their careers.

The problem with the altruistic assumption of what you posted is that altruism doesn't exist.

Greed exists.

That explains union boss behavior quite well.
 
Senority rules were generally put in place to help prevent companies from laying off the more experienced, skillled and generally higher paid employees. Many companies would layoff the expensive workers and replace them with cheaper inexperienced workers when needed.

Nah.

Companies, for the most part, don't want to let their best people go. That's where the knowledge is. Unions, however, forced seniority rules to protect the union leadership, since shop stewards and other thug type organizers are typically with the company longer and the company would have to cut deeper to get rid of the cancer if they don't have their freedom to fire at will.
 
Because of the law, which can be changed.
and so can your employement at any specific company
Do foreign owned companies take a cut from your paychecks and lobby for work related policy that you might find contrary to your interest?

Darn right it does

It sends profits derived from my work outside of the country instead of increasing my pay, it also (would if the Can division was large enough) lobby to reduce certain environmental regulations that negatively effect the profits of the company. Given the nature of the business I work in, environemntal regulations are rather strong by the way
 
and so can your employement at any specific company

Yeah, or in any industry. So your arguement is the same one that is used against work safety regulations.

Darn right it does

It sends profits derived from my work outside of the country instead of increasing my pay, it also (would if the Can division was large enough) lobby to reduce certain environmental regulations that negatively effect the profits of the company. Given the nature of the business I work in, environemntal regulations are rather strong by the way

And you think you are being reasonable when you equate the companies profit to your paychecks?

Isn't it good that there are laws that make those company comply with the regulations? Instead of just saying, if you don't like it, work somewhere else?
 
Yeah, or in any industry. So your arguement is the same one that is used against work safety regulations.
Not really safety regulations are universal to an industry unionization is not

And you think you are being reasonable when you equate the companies profit to your paychecks?
If the complaint is about having to pay union dues reducing my take home pay, or seeing a company take more of the revenues based on my labour as profit yes. Both can negatively effect my financial well being.

Of course a profitable business is one that stays in business, (a positive if I was working at that company) and unions typically ensure members have a higher compensation rate then non union members in the same industry ( another positive if I was in that union

Isn't it good that there are laws that make those company comply with the regulations? Instead of just saying, if you don't like it, work somewhere else?

If I were to apply this to unionization, it would require all companies within an industry to be unionized to be comparable would it not?

Realistically using safety regulations as an analogy for unionization does not work as one is mandated throughout the various industries, and not optional depending on the workplace. Choosing something that would be specific to some companies within an industry rather then the industry as a whole. Meaning ownership, various policies within the company vs other companies
 
It is amusing when unions folks want to know what is meant by "pro-union". But, when they say, "Well, if you won't joint he union, go somewhere else," I want to puke. The town I grew up in had two factories, both closed shop. So, all the pro-union folks can get a giggle out of that.
 
Yes I do

Given that any employee that is part of a union shop will benifit from the work of the union regarding labour contracts (wages and benifits) they should be expected to pay dues in order to pay for the representation the union provides


This is only necessarily true in a closed ship environment. In right to work states where "closed shops" are not allowed union and non union workers can work side by side with their own wages and benefits.

I have worked in a mixed shop before. I was not a union member and I did not receive any of the union benefits. The fella that worked the same exact job right next to me who was a union member made $3 more per hour, had 2x as many breaks, received a better health care package and had more sick time off.
 
This is only necessarily true in a closed ship environment. In right to work states where "closed shops" are not allowed union and non union workers can work side by side with their own wages and benefits.

I have worked in a mixed shop before. I was not a union member and I did not receive any of the union benefits. The fella that worked the same exact job right next to me who was a union member made $3 more per hour, had 2x as many breaks, received a better health care package and had more sick time off.
He seemed to profit from being in the Union, compared to not being in the union
 
He seemed to profit from being in the Union, compared to not being in the union

Im sure he did while the opprotunity was there. I believe he said he paid about $50 a month in dues. Unfortunatly the plant closed and moved to Mexico in the early 90's to combat rising labor costs.
 
I support closed shops if that is what the employer and employees agree to from their internal negotiations.
 
Im sure he did while the opprotunity was there. I believe he said he paid about $50 a month in dues. Unfortunatly the plant closed and moved to Mexico in the early 90's to combat rising labor costs.

$50 in union due to make an extra $430 a month is a good deal. Not to mention the "money" from having better health benifits.
 
As long as it's in the private sector, I have no problems with a closed shop. If people don't want to pay their union dues, they don't have to work at that particular company. Their compensation is paid by the free market.

In the public sector? Absolutely no.

in the private sector if the business owner wants a closed shop that should be his right

same as if he decides to fire anyone who joins a union
 
in the private sector if the business owner wants a closed shop that should be his right

same as if he decides to fire anyone who joins a union

Yup, a workforce would be stupid in attempting to unionize if they can't consolidate it quickly.
 
Well I don't think anyone should be forced to do anything however businesses have the right to be union only.
 
Yup, a workforce would be stupid in attempting to unionize if they can't consolidate it quickly.

the government shouldn't play favorites in this area. if the union can impose itself meaning the employer cannot obtain the needed amount of the commodity known as labor-then the union prevails. if the employer can-then the union should lose

I oppose public sector unions because both sides are not bargaining from true interests. those bargaining with Pub Sec Unions often have a vested interest in the Union gaining an advantage. It would be like the president of Ford negotiating on behalf of GM with the Autoworkers.
 
the government shouldn't play favorites in this area. if the union can impose itself meaning the employer cannot obtain the needed amount of the commodity known as labor-then the union prevails. if the employer can-then the union should lose

I oppose public sector unions because both sides are not bargaining from true interests. those bargaining with Pub Sec Unions often have a vested interest in the Union gaining an advantage. It would be like the president of Ford negotiating on behalf of GM with the Autoworkers.

What real life evidence of this absurd claim do you have to present?

In other threads some other people alleged the same thing. When pressed, they came up with nothing, zip, zero. they could not find one such case. Can you? It should be easy for a trained Ivy league attorney who knows how to use evidence to build a case.

You do know how to do that..... don't you? Please show us you do by presenting examples from real life where public sector unions engaged in negotiations comparable to the president of Ford negotiating on the behalf of the UAW. This should be rich.

PREDICTION: You will show nothing. You will attack me. You will make some smartass remarks. You will use yourself as the source and font of all wisdom. And you will present no evidence of any kind.
 
Back
Top Bottom