The truth about the PRO Act (pro-union dream bill)

[Helix]

Things this thread is not about:

- Union encouragement/protection of mediocrity/bare minimalism
- Wage comparisons between RTW and non-RTW states
- Blue vs. red state contributions to federal revenues and expenditures
- Unions being intrinsically “good” or “bad” overall

Things this thread is about

- The PRO Act, and the fact that it proposes to
- legalize secondary striking and boycotting
- eliminate NLRB-supervised secret ballot elections
- abolish private sector RTW (public sector RTW is a constitutional right)
- entitle unions to more private information of employees than even the IRS requires

things this thread is about : you pissing and moaning about unions, as usual.

 

[jaeger19]

Despite being amazingly non-sequitur, it is still wrong just like the first time you constantly throw out half-assed "facts". You need to adjust for entitlement, defense, and infrastructure spending and suddenly that gap disappears like a champ. 80% of it is simply retirees fleeing blue states upon retirement and dragging their medicare/ss with them.

Nice try but your premise has already been debunked. When you look at states like California.. they have tons of retirees despite "flight".. they have tons of defense contractors etc.. yet they still send more to the federal government than they get back.
Same with NY... so your spouting some BS there.

 

[Rogue Valley]

things this thread is about : you pissing and moaning about unions, as usual.

Somewhere along the line he lost his union job and had to scramble for a decent salary and kowtow to the asshole boss.

Of course it was all the union's fault.

 

[jaeger19]

If you are an in demand employee, who is valuable beyond just the skillset (attitude/work ethic etc) then a union is holding you back, period. If you have a union, you are not negotiating any more at all, they are negotiating for a whole ton of people.

.

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.

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. 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.

In a union everyone gets the same raise, the same pay scale, the same benefits and the same flexibility/protection etc.

Nope they don't. I know a number of unions where the raises are based on merit.

How would you feel if your union "protection" caused you to lose your job in a downsizing because you had less seniority to a terrible employee?

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? 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?

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.

 

[Neomalthusian]

things this thread is about : you pissing and moaning about unions, as usual.

I’m talking about actual current issues. You’re repeating the same bland off-topic pro-union talking points (many of them false or extremely misleading) that you always do. You haven’t really rationalized or defended the PRO Act. Just memes.

 

[Helix]

I’m talking about actual current issues. You’re repeating the same bland off-topic pro-union talking points (many of them false or extremely misleading) that you always do. You haven’t really rationalized or defended the PRO Act. Just memes.

if it spooks the union busters, it can't be all bad.

 

[Helix]

Somewhere along the line he lost his union job and had to scramble for a decent salary and kowtow to the asshole boss.

Of course it was all the union's fault.

hard to tell. my guess is that our labor experiences are quite different, however.

 

[Neomalthusian]

And you then tell the union manager that you have nothing to do with the other companies labor dispute.. but if they persist on hassling you.. you will have no choice but to find another vendor, and that means that the company will have less business and won't need as many union workers.

You seem to have limitless tolerance for any and all union tactics, including those which have been plainly illegal for three quarters of a century.

What if companies could engage in these tactics against each other. That's illegal too. Do you think it should be legal? Do you think American companies should behave as literal cartels do, and engage in all manner of sabotage against the operations of their competitors or other companies that are considered a threat to their success?

Let's say unions were to want a law passed that made it legal for them to kidnap random people's children and demand ransoms unless they implore the company they're "bargaining" against to give them what they want. Would you be an apologist for this kind of law too? Just shrug and say "well, just pay the ransom!"

How about murder? Would you be an apologist for literal murder, as long as it was in favor of the leverage of a union?

Just curious if you draw the line anywhere and, if so, where that is.

Its called free speech for a reason.

Aggressive cartel tactics and economic sabotage are not a protected expression of speech. We have anti-trust laws for a reason.

if it spooks the union busters, it can't be all bad.

You don't want to know or understand anything about actual law or policy, do you?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Somewhere along the line he lost his union job and had to scramble for a decent salary and kowtow to the asshole boss.

Of course it was all the union's fault.

I've only ever been a salaried/exempt W2 employee until I started my own business (zero employees). I've never been a union-represented employee, never had even an iota of a desire to be, and never directly supervised a union employee. I have been involved in collective bargaining with unions as well as litigation involving unions.

There is a chance I might respect or marginally support unions if they and their supporters didn't profusely lie or mislead about 95% of the time.

But I really respect your shot-in-the-dark attempt at an ad hominem. Great effort.

 

[Drawdown]

I will never support any legislation that undoes right to work.

 

[ludin]

I'm for undoing as much right wing union busting as possible. It would be great to see right to work for less revoked, as well.

Nothing stops you from unionizing so why do you not go out and form a union where you work?

 

[ludin]

And you then tell the union manager that you have nothing to do with the other companies labor dispute.. but if they persist on hassling you.. you will have no choice but to find another vendor, and that means that the company will have less business and won't need as many union workers.

Unions prevent layoffs like that which is why most companies just shut down.

Its called free speech for a reason.

By the way.. I own several large businesses that do business with union shops. My position on unions is this. If you treat your employees so badly that they are willing to give up 3-6% of their salary.. simply to have some representation... that's on you.

You are not allowed to harass or threaten people that is not covered by free speech. it is actually illegal to do that but
for some reason unions are able to get away with it.

 

[Moonglow]

If you are an in demand employee, who is valuable beyond just the skillset (attitude/work ethic etc) then a union is holding you back, period. If you have a union, you are not negotiating any more at all, they are negotiating for a whole ton of people.

Think about it this way.

You, along with 100 of your classmates, go and take the SATs. You score a 1580/1600. The average is 1000, you are clearly vastly outperforming your peers. The "union" negotiates the SAT board to give everyone a 50 point bonus for some reason. You now have a 1050 score despite your actual ability getting you a 1580. The collective benefited, but the good performers are punished. It is no different with employment.

In a union everyone gets the same raise, the same pay scale, the same benefits and the same flexibility/protection etc. How would you feel if your union "protection" caused you to lose your job in a downsizing because you had less seniority to a terrible employee? How would you feel if your union, in order to protect a downsizing labor pool caused your employer to uproot and leave?

Anyone who is exceptionally, or even above average, should run far and fast from a union. They are meant to protect the marginal and the bottom performing. That's why the slugs always scream for a union.

Then why do cops and firemen have unions all over the US if it is so bad?

 

[TomFitz]

I operate a small business that relies very heavily on a third party vendor of a certain type of cloud based software platform.

Let's say the company that sells that software has a group of employees that unionize and then become locked in a labor dispute over wages. I have zero control over their labor dispute, other than what powers of persuasion little old me might have over someone who runs the software company who might listen to my opinion. Nonetheless, a union manager knocks on my door and warns me, "you sign this petition that tells the software company that you'll abandon them as a customer and go with their competitor if they don't agree to our terms, or if you don't sign the petition, we'll picket in front of your business and tell your customers you're anti-worker and do all we can to turn your customers away."

This is a secondary boycott. It is straight up coercion, to the bone. It directly harms me no matter what I do. If I switch software, that is a massive undertaking that would come at tremendous personal and business cost to me. If I don't switch software, or threaten to do so, I will be picketed and my customers will be driven away because they don't want to be harassed for "crossing a picket line." And let's say I cower to the union and switch software. The union will (if they haven't already) organize workers from the competing company and engage in the exact same actions as leverage over that competitor. They'll go back and forth doing this as much as they want.

Secondary boycotts are illegal, have been illegal for 73 years, and should remain illegal. The PRO Act wants to make them legal. Virtually all Democrats support secondary boycotts. That is demented. Someone explain to me why you think secondary boycotts should be legal. Explain why businesses of all kinds should be able to be picketed, boycotted, intimidated, coerced and economically sabotaged over disputes they're not a part of and can't control.

Gee, I detect your sense of entitlement!

You think it’s your business how the employees of another business organize themselves.

Of course, your complaint has little validity. There are any number of reasons why issues with vendors come up.

Whether they are open shop or not.

 

[Visbek]

Eliminates NLRB-supervised secret ballot elections to unionize.

I don't see anything in the law, as sent to the Senate, which eliminates secret ballots. Hmmmm.

It subjects neutral third parties, who have never signed any agreement with a union, to strikes and secondary boycotts.

I don't see anything about this either in the law. Hmmmm.

That said, I don't see a problem with this. I have no doubt that behind the scenes, companies pressure each other to prevent unionization, and I'm sure that some companies drop a vendor because it turned into a union shop. Fair's fair, no?

Plus, this is America, where people boycott at the drop of a hat. It doesn't usually work, nor do I envision a massive union-sparked nightmare because of it.

It forces employers to hand over employees' personal information to unions.

Sounds good to me.

AFAIK the employer already has the legal power to contact employees to push its anti-union views; it can also block employees from using company email to discuss union business.

Right To Work simply says employers cannot agree to be unions' financial enforcers by agreeing to fire people the union tells them to fire based on non-payment of dues.

Wow. No bias in that description, I see :roll:

Closed shops -- where every worker is required to be in the union -- were outlawed in 1947. If you're not in the union, and there is a collective bargaining agreement that sets up contracts for all workers, usually the union can require an agency fee in lieu of (and usually less than) union dues. This reduces a potential free-loader problem, where non-union employees benefit from the union without contributing anything to the union.

Right To Work laws basically block the unions from charging those types of fees, or prevent non-contributors from getting fired.

Roughly half of US states do not have Right to Work laws, and oddly enough the sky has not fallen on either of those states.

Anyway. I didn't see anything in the law as passed which eliminated Right to Work laws, not to mention that any attempt to do so would cause a whirlwind of lawsuits. But assuming I missed something, it is obvious that "Right to Work" laws are also "Right to Freeload" laws. I would not support an agency fee that is identical to a union fee, but yeah, if someone is negotiating your contract for you? You should pay up.


By the way, I noticed how you didn't mention other aspects of this law, such as:
• expands unfair labor practices to include prohibitions against replacement of or discrimination against workers who participate in strikes
• makes it an unfair labor practice to require or coerce employees to attend employer meetings designed to discourage union membership
• permits workers to participate in collective or class action litigation
• allows injunctions against employers engaging in unfair labor practices involving discharge or serious economic harm to an employee
• expands penalties for labor law violations, including interference with the National Labor Relations Board or causing serious economic harm to an employee
H.R.2474 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

I wonder why...?

 

[Visbek]

I operate a small business that relies very heavily on a third party vendor of a certain type of cloud based software platform.

Let's say the company that sells that software has a group of employees that unionize and then become locked in a labor dispute over wages....

Cool story bro

Let's try a different story for a moment. You operate a small business, and your employees start a campaign to unionize. Your biggest customer says "if your employees successfully unionize, we're going to drop you." Last I checked, that's legal, yes?

Or: You operate a huge company, and one of your vendors is locked in a labor dispute. The vendor's union decides to publicly strike, boycott and speak out against your company, which is the beneficiary of wages that are too low. You can now call the vendor and say "sort this out or we'll buy from someone else." Sounds good to me.

Or: You're at the big company, workers from a small vendor strike, and you ignore them.

By the way, the entire point of a strike is to apply pressure. That's how it works.

I have zero control over their labor dispute, other than what powers of persuasion little old me might have over someone who runs the software company who might listen to my opinion....

Yes, and that in turn means that you are highly unlikely to be the target of a secondary strike. See how that works?

Or, what if you are their biggest customer? It should be obvious that means you have significant leverage over your vendor. See how that works?

Secondary boycotts are illegal, have been illegal for 73 years...

Again with the bias. Solidarity strikes are illegal in the US, UK and Australia and are legal almost everywhere else in the world.

Merely stating "X is illegal" is not sufficient to prove that "X is unethical."

 

[Neomalthusian]

Gee, I detect your sense of entitlement!

You think it’s your business how the employees of another business organize themselves.

Of course, your complaint has little validity. There are any number of reasons why issues with vendors come up.

Whether they are open shop or not.

This post is incoherent. None of this has anything to do with entitlement. A law is being proposed that contains numerous terrible provisions. It's basically a giant labor union deregulation bill. Laws and regulations are the public's business.

 

[jaeger19]

You seem to have limitless tolerance for any and all union tactics, including those which have been plainly illegal for three quarters of a century.

?

Nope.. not at all.. For example.. I oppose lifting the secret elections for union organization. Workers should be able to vote anonymously free from intimidation from EITHER the employer or the union as to whether they want to unionize or not.

However, the idea that somehow.. unions are these "aggressive cartels,trying economic sabotage"... while employers are benevolent entities looking out for the welfare of their employees is pure bunk.

While yes.. unions do have some history of heavy handedness... the history both past and recent of employers in this country is FAR FAR darker and filled with horror stories...

Do you think American companies should behave as literal cartels do, and engage in all manner of sabotage against the operations of their competitors or other companies that are considered a threat to their success?

Welcome to capitalism my friend. American companies do this all the time. Heck.. where do you think most regulations come from? They come from competitors both in the same industry and outside the industry who use regulations as a way to stifle competition.

Let's say unions were to want a law passed that made it legal for them to kidnap random people's children and demand ransoms unless they implore the company they're "bargaining" against to give them what they want. Would you be an apologist for this kind of law too? Just shrug and say "well, just pay the ransom!"

Wow.. well.. how about an employer who say hired their own security team to go to workers houses and beat them up if they thought of organizing? What if those employers paid their employees in script and forced them to buy things at the company store and pay rent for company housing so that at the end of the day they owed more money to the company each day they worked. What if a company knowingly put their employees in danger with hazardous waste? So that they were dying of all sorts of rare cancers and respiratory problems? What if that company not only put their employees in danger with that hazardous material but also the employees families and then tried to cover up the whole problem?
Oh wait...those aren't hypotheticals... those things ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND CONTINUE TO HAPPEN.


Look man.. you want to try some hyperbole with unions.. "what if they kidnapped kids"... as if that would happen... fine... but lets interject some reality which is that employers.. have a long history of doing some pretty horrible things to employees. In fact.. there are US companies.. that in other countries either they.. or the companies they contract with... USE CHILD LABOR... where children as young as 6-8 work 12 -14 hour days, and their reward is to sleep on the concrete next to their machines with only one blanket to keep warm. THATS a reality.

Aggressive cartel tactics and economic sabotage are not a protected expression of speech.

Protesting on a public street is protected speech.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I don't see anything in the law, as sent to the Senate, which eliminates secret ballots. Hmmmm.

I don't see anything about this either in the law. Hmmmm.

Feigning blindness doesn't mean these provisions aren't in the bill. They're in there. Everyone (pro-union and anti-union) are reporting it.

That said, I don't see a problem with this. I have no doubt that behind the scenes, companies pressure each other to prevent unionization, and I'm sure that some companies drop a vendor because it turned into a union shop. Fair's fair, no?

There are limits to what any organization can do in this regard. At some point these coordinated attacks become recognized as a restraint of free trade via anti-competitive cartel tactics. Secondary boycotts are "a combination to harm one person by coercing others to harm him." This behavior requires regulation, and we have such regulation intended to keep these types of behaviors from getting out of hand. Private organizations do not have free reign to engage in all manner of this type of behavior. A lot of good information about what secondary boycotts really are here.

Wow. No bias in that description, I see :roll:

There isn't, actually. A Right To Work law simply decares "union security" agreements between employers and unions to be illegal. Union security clauses are enforced by the employer's agreement to fire employees who refuse payment to the union. This isn't "bias." It is extremely literal.

Closed shops -- where every worker is required to be in the union -- were outlawed in 1947. If you're not in the union, and there is a collective bargaining agreement that sets up contracts for all workers, usually the union can require an agency fee in lieu of (and usually less than) union dues. This reduces a potential free-loader problem, where non-union employees benefit from the union without contributing anything to the union.

A couple things: 1) the union cannot require an agency fee, the employer has to agree to a union security clause in the contract. It's a permissive subject of bargaining. 2) The "free-loader problem" is a function of unions' voluntary choice to certify as "exclusive representatives." If unions chose to be members-only, there would be no free-loader problem.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Roughly half of US states do not have Right to Work laws, and oddly enough the sky has not fallen on either of those states.

Just a point of clarification that Right To Work in the public sector (government, education, etc.) is now a Constitutional right, so every state is Right To Work in the public sector. The idea of being non-RTW is only a private sector thing now.

Anyway. I didn't see anything in the law as passed which eliminated Right to Work laws, not to mention that any attempt to do so would cause a whirlwind of lawsuits. But assuming I missed something, it is obvious that "Right to Work" laws are also "Right to Freeload" laws.

That is not true. The ability of anyone to freeload is 100% a function of the union's choice to certify as exclusive representative. It is the exclusive representation that creates a Duty of Fair Representation. Unions would almost always rather have exclusive representation plus freeloaders than be members-only but have no freeloaders. So they subject themselves to the freeloaders willingly, because they'd rather keep the exclusive representation privileges.

By the way, I noticed how you didn't mention other aspects of this law, such as:
• expands unfair labor practices to include prohibitions against replacement of or discrimination against workers who participate in strikes
• makes it an unfair labor practice to require or coerce employees to attend employer meetings designed to discourage union membership
• permits workers to participate in collective or class action litigation
• allows injunctions against employers engaging in unfair labor practices involving discharge or serious economic harm to an employee
• expands penalties for labor law violations, including interference with the National Labor Relations Board or causing serious economic harm to an employee
H.R.2474 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

I wonder why...?

Because those are not the most egregious provisions of the bill. Not every provision in the bill is necessarily so repulsive. I'm not sure those provisions should concern us as much as the others. For example, there's another provision in the bill, which is to eliminate employers' rights to permanently replace economic strikers. Why am I not up in arms about this one? Because it's already unenforced and unenforceable in the first place. Unions always lie about the basis of their strike to preempt any possibility of permanent replacement, and they face no risks of penalty for lying about why they're striking. They just allege it's not an economic strike, that it's instead (or additionally) an "unfair labor practice strike," thereby circumventing this regulation altogether. The NLRB is incapable of enforcing this distinction between economic and ULP strikes. So while in some ways I disagree with this provision, on the other hand, if it passes, it will at least eliminate unions' compulsion to pepper employers with frivolous ULP claims when bargaining hits deadlock. The reduction in frivolous ULP claims would be a good thing, so I'm ultimately OK with that provision.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Nope.. not at all.. For example.. I oppose lifting the secret elections for union organization. Workers should be able to vote anonymously free from intimidation from EITHER the employer or the union as to whether they want to unionize or not.

However, the idea that somehow.. unions are these "aggressive cartels,trying economic sabotage"... while employers are benevolent entities looking out for the welfare of their employees is pure bunk.

I've made zero claims of employer benevolence.

Welcome to capitalism my friend. American companies do this all the time. Heck.. where do you think most regulations come from? They come from competitors both in the same industry and outside the industry who use regulations as a way to stifle competition.

Companies are subject to antitrust regulations which are intended to reduce and regulate anticompetitive practices like this. The FTC is charged with regulating it. Maybe we need to regulate this better, but we certainly don't need to intentionally regulate it worse, or deregulate it. The PRO Act deregulates these types of things, but only for unions.

Wow.. well.. how about an employer who say hired their own security team to go to workers houses and beat them up if they thought of organizing? What if those employers paid their employees in script and forced them to buy things at the company store and pay rent for company housing so that at the end of the day they owed more money to the company each day they worked. What if a company knowingly put their employees in danger with hazardous waste? So that they were dying of all sorts of rare cancers and respiratory problems? What if that company not only put their employees in danger with that hazardous material but also the employees families and then tried to cover up the whole problem? Oh wait...those aren't hypotheticals... those things ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND CONTINUE TO HAPPEN.

And what do we do about that? We pass regulations that say "you can't do that."

Look man.. you want to try some hyperbole with unions.. "what if they kidnapped kids"... as if that would happen... fine... but lets interject some reality which is that employers.. have a long history of doing some pretty horrible things to employees. In fact.. there are US companies.. that in other countries either they.. or the companies they contract with... USE CHILD LABOR... where children as young as 6-8 work 12 -14 hour days, and their reward is to sleep on the concrete next to their machines with only one blanket to keep warm. THATS a reality.

Which required regulation saying "ya can't do that anymore." I know I used hyperbole regarding kidnapping and murder, but the point is the PRO Act goes way, way too far in labor union deregulation. It pretty nearly goes back a century or more to the days of violent labor unrest where unions could basically do whatever they wanted, because no regulation had yet been passed to deal with it. We don't need a sweeping union deregulation law. The NLRA and other laws have put lots of protections in place for employees, and a few in place for employers and other businesses, and keeping those things in relative balance will go the farthest for promoting labor peace. The PRO Act is the opposite of promoting labor peace. It's promoting perpetual labor unrest.

Protesting on a public street is protected speech.

Solidarity strikes aren't protected speech. The PRO Act wants to make them protected speech, essentially, but they are currently (and for a very long time have been) illegal.

 

[Visbek]

Feigning blindness doesn't mean these provisions aren't in the bill. They're in there.

Then tell us where. I only see anti-union pundits making those claims.

There are limits to what any organization can do in this regard. At some point these coordinated attacks become recognized as a restraint of free trade via anti-competitive cartel tactics...

Yes, and there are also limits to what unions can do. There isn't an entire army of unemployed union members, available to strike poor weak little business owners, at the drop of a hat, for free.

And again, solidarity strikes are legal in most nations, and yet it has not crippled capitalism around the world (surprise!). Nor do I see any problem with unions trying to amplify their leverage, especially in an environment where business owners can legally use similar mechanisms to amplify their leverage.

There isn't, actually. A Right To Work law simply decares "union security" agreements between employers and unions to be illegal. Union security clauses are enforced by the employer's agreement to fire employees who refuse payment to the union. This isn't "bias." It is extremely literal.

It's "literal" in the sense that you're literally ignoring half the functionality of Right to Work laws.

A couple things: 1) the union cannot require an agency fee, the employer has to agree to a union security clause in the contract. It's a permissive subject of bargaining. 2) The "free-loader problem" is a function of unions' voluntary choice to certify as "exclusive representatives." If unions chose to be members-only, there would be no free-loader problem.

:roll:

No, the freeloader problem is that people benefit from collective bargaining even when they aren't in the union, don't have to pay dues, don't have to go to union meetings, don't have to go on strike, and so forth.

 

[jaeger19]

Unions prevent layoffs like that which is why most companies just shut down.

Sure.. because its always in the best interest of a union to force the company they work for to shut down. Makes sense...NOT.

Companies shut down due to unions.. because they can go overseas etc.. and pay a lot less for labor.. like 2 dollars an hour versus 7.95. Union or not union.. doesn't matter... unless you want America to pay third and second world wages.

You are not allowed to harass or threaten people that is not covered by free speech. it is actually illegal to do that but
for some reason unions are able to get away with it.

No they are not. You can protest. Not threaten or harass.. and no unions are not allowed to get away with it. Picketing on a public walkway is free speech.

Kinda the irony here I think when right wingers protest about "union harassment"... and then you see the same right wingers outside a Planned Parenthood clinic screaming "baby killer".. at women who are going in to get a pap smear.

 

[ludin]

Sure.. because its always in the best interest of a union to force the company they work for to shut down. Makes sense...NOT.

Sure they do. They demand unreasonable expectations from the company. Plenty of companies have just chosen to shut down or move operations instead of playing
games with the unions.

Companies shut down due to unions.. because they can go overseas etc.. and pay a lot less for labor.. like 2 dollars an hour versus 7.95. Union or not union.. doesn't matter... unless you want America to pay third and second world wages.

Which is why you would think that unions would make more reasonable requests than what they do.

No they are not. You can protest. Not threaten or harass.. and no unions are not allowed to get away with it. Picketing on a public walkway is free speech.

Kinda the irony here I think when right wingers protest about "union harassment"... and then you see the same right wingers outside a Planned Parenthood clinic screaming "baby killer".. at women who are going in to get a pap smear.

you just said it was free speech. i think you need to read your own post again.

 

[jaeger19]

I've made zero claims of employer benevolence.

Yep..you just made hyperbole about unions without considering that the reason for unions is employer malfeasance.

Companies are subject to antitrust regulations which are intended to reduce and regulate anticompetitive practices like this.

Sure..just like unions can't kidnap children and hold them ransom until employees vote for a union. The truth is.. that companies do far and away worse to each other than what unions do to companies. . I contract with facilities that are union. My greatest challenge is what my competitors do against me. Some worry about "what if the union decides to picket you"...if far far far far.. down the list of worries when you have competitors that push forth legislation that would increase my costs.. but they would get an exemption to that legislation. Or competitors that will "buy up".. physician practices to control more of the referral stream... or a myriad of other ways my competitors compete in ways other than price and quality.

It pretty nearly goes back a century or more to the days of violent labor unrest where unions could basically do whatever they wanted, because no regulation had yet been passed to deal with it

Pooh... you are still dealing out hyperbole. The only concerning part of the regulation is the getting rid of secret ballots. And that provision has come about because of EMPLOYER intimidation of employees.

The fact is.. that there has been an assault on the right of workers to collectively bargain for that last 40 years or so. And what has been the result? Stagnate wages, decreased retirement benefits and decreased healthcare benefits. Which has put a large burden on the US taxpayer.

:labor unrest"... wasn't the result of labor unions.. it was the result of the employers actions when it came to pay, benefits and worker safety.

Solidarity strikes aren't protected speech

Well.. one.. I wasn't talking about a "solidarity strike"...I was talking about workers from one company, protesting outside anothers companies place of business. That's not a solidarity strike.

Secondly.. solidarity strikes are not necessarily illegal. There are multiple exceptions to that rule depending on the nature of the strike and the relationship of the companies etc.

And what do we do about that? We pass regulations that say "you can't do that."

Yep.. and it often takes a union.. to make sure that the company adheres to the labor laws.