Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 94 of 94

Thread: If the Supreme Court rules against unions, conservatives won’t like what happens next

  1. #91
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,852

    Re: If the Supreme Court rules against unions, conservatives won’t like what happens next

    Quote Originally Posted by Bassman View Post
    If you're talking about PUBLIC SECTOR unions I agree. Question here though, what about police and firefighters? I might make an exception in their case being they are the ones directly putting their lives on the line every day.
    The nature of public safety in no way justifies unionism, in fact quite the opposite. Public safety is essential, and the only power a union ultimately has, when you boil it all down, is to act in a coordinated way to deprive the employer of those services. The idea of public safety officers who have sworn an oath to protect the public to be able to coordinate to try to deprive the public of their work until their latest monetary demands are met is unthinkable.

    How about our military? Should soldiers be able to just get together and defy orders until their latest monetary demands are met? That is unthinkable and intolerable.

    Public safety professionals need to be adequately paid to attract excellent people into those professions and retain them. Some voters in some areas think they can underpay those positions while retaining top talent, and this is nonsensical. Attracting and retaining the types of people any and every community needs requires compensating them adequately for it. This means some mechanism needs to review and establish compensation that meets a certain minimum standard.

    Public safety professionals need their oath and commitment to their community to be paramount. We should not have these professionals' primary allegiance being to their cartel. The allegiance of our public safety professionals is fundamnetally at odds with their allegiance to the safety and welfare of the public. Same goes for our military men and women. Their allegiance to their country is incompatible with the thought of their allegiance to a labor cartel whose goal is to threaten interruption of their services and duties in effort to extract more monetary concessions out of the taxpayers.

    Public safety professionals are among the dead last least appropriate types of people that should be able to form a labor union.

  2. #92
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:32 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    27,742

    Re: If the Supreme Court rules against unions, conservatives won’t like what happens next

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    The nature of public safety in no way justifies unionism, in fact quite the opposite. Public safety is essential, and the only power a union ultimately has, when you boil it all down, is to act in a coordinated way to deprive the employer of those services. The idea of public safety officers who have sworn an oath to protect the public to be able to coordinate to try to deprive the public of their work until their latest monetary demands are met is unthinkable.

    How about our military? Should soldiers be able to just get together and defy orders until their latest monetary demands are met? That is unthinkable and intolerable.

    Public safety professionals need to be adequately paid to attract excellent people into those professions and retain them. Some voters in some areas think they can underpay those positions while retaining top talent, and this is nonsensical. Attracting and retaining the types of people any and every community needs requires compensating them adequately for it. This means some mechanism needs to review and establish compensation that meets a certain minimum standard.

    Public safety professionals need their oath and commitment to their community to be paramount. We should not have these professionals' primary allegiance being to their cartel. The allegiance of our public safety professionals is fundamnetally at odds with their allegiance to the safety and welfare of the public. Same goes for our military men and women. Their allegiance to their country is incompatible with the thought of their allegiance to a labor cartel whose goal is to threaten interruption of their services and duties in effort to extract more monetary concessions out of the taxpayers.

    Public safety professionals are among the dead last least appropriate types of people that should be able to form a labor union.
    So an NLRB decision against an employer for ordering unsafe working conditions - means nothing then. Protection from political retribution for OSHA violation reports - means nothing then.

    Sure; whatever you say.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Kids who want to end our rights as a stupid reaction to a traumatic event shouldn't be cut any slack. Can you imagine the outcry if some kids who say were victimized by predatory priests came out and demanded laws banning homosexual sex?

  3. #93
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,852

    Re: If the Supreme Court rules against unions, conservatives won’t like what happens next

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    So an NLRB decision against an employer for ordering unsafe working conditions - means nothing then. Protection from political retribution for OSHA violation reports - means nothing then.
    OSHA does not exist via collective bargaining agreements, it exists because Congress passed a law. Government has the power to regulate things like working conditions in this country.

    To insinuate I am anti-regulation because I am anti-union is intellectually dishonest. I am pro-government, pro-regulation, anti-union.

  4. #94
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,401

    Re: If the Supreme Court rules against unions, conservatives won’t like what happens next

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    OSHA does not exist via collective bargaining agreements, it exists because Congress passed a law. Government has the power to regulate things like working conditions in this country.

    To insinuate I am anti-regulation because I am anti-union is intellectually dishonest. I am pro-government, pro-regulation, anti-union.
    yes, unions are bad because they interfere with the efficiency of capitalism,

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •