• 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!

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

GDViking said:
FDR did to believe in public unions, the claim he didn't is always backed up by cherry picking from a speech, when reading the whole speech you learn that his point that public unions were good and necessary, however he opposed public union strikes as they interrupted necessary functions of government.
Click to expand...

This is false, and there is no evidence that FDR supported public-sector unions whatsoever.

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”
 
Neomalthusian said:
The author that pointed out their pay was using irony. Their pay derives from dues that are supposed to only be spent on workplace representation, not on politics, so when they do nothing but politically attack rich people generally, it makes them a walking contradiction. That article was artfully done.

Sorry you missed that.
Click to expand...



That obviously is not their only part of their jobs
 
Neomalthusian said:
It was a letter, which I have read top to bottom many times. You llinked to a liberal blog that truncated it. FDR spent one paragraph identifying with the rational desires of any worker, but the entirety of the letter left nothing redeeming for public sector unions. He did not support them, or at least there is no evidence whatsoever that he did.
Click to expand...

Yes that one was a letter the speech was in Poland if I remember correctly. I do not have time to look it up. As far as being a liberal sight it was the first one I found with text.

I would have posted any source with the text.
 
GDViking said:
That obviously is not their only part of their jobs
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but the fact they spend so much time and energy verbalizing these highly political attacks and accusations has huge implications in how the Supreme Court is going to look at this case. Because that money is getting pulled from paychecks of people who might not agree with the rhetoric. If all of union leaders political rhetoric was clearly coming exclusively from voluntarily donated PAC dues, there would be no issue with the inflammatory things they say all the time.
 
GDViking said:
Yes that one was a letter the speech was in Poland if I remember correctly. I do not have time to look it up. As far as being a liberal sight it was the first one I found with text.

I would have posted any source with the text.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s worth trying to squeeze some vague semblance of a sense of support for public-sector unions from whatever we have from FDR. You’d be better off arguing “FDR was wrong.” A couple of his zingers against public sector unions can’t be reconciled with a pro-union stance.
 
Neomalthusian said:
WaPo published this article by Shaun Richman, a union organizing director. So you know the slant from the get-go.

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




The article goes on to remind us of the early days of unions and how much unrest there was. It references multiple unions competing for members, industry-wide strikes, "rival anarchist and Communist unions," predicts unions will abandon exclusive representation, become "more left wing or crankier," and so on and so forth. But here is the claim on which this entire argumentum ad baculum depends:

"Although Janus vs. AFSCME applies to public-sector unions, this same logic applies..."

That's the thing. No, the same logic does not apply.

The chaos of the early days of unions during world wars did not involve workers being militant against their own government. More than half of the states in this country have Right To Work laws, and we have seen basically nothing remotely like the catastrophizing this union organizer is threatening. This court case would simply cause what's already the law in a majority of states to be the law in all states.

The threatening from this guy about what workers are going to do to the United States Government and its political subdivisions if unions don't get their way on this issue is shameful and should not be tolerated by anyone. He claims "no-strike clauses" will become unenforceable. What do you mean "unenforceable?" They are most definitely enforceable. Do you know why? Because government makes the law, and can make laws that say there will be no strikes.

This argument that all the chaos of the early days of labor unions in American history will come flooding in to the governmental sector ignores the fundamental differences between the private sector of the early 20th century and the powers of government then and now. Government can pass laws that simply say "oh no you don't," and that is the end of it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the old days of labor Unions do not apply today. In the old days, there were few labor laws and sweat shops did get out of hand. Labor unions were a good thing at the time. Now we have labor laws that protect worker's rights and the biggest labor unions have become corrupt, in some cases influenced by the mafia, and too one sided, politically.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Sorry, but the old days of labor Unions do not apply today. In the old days, there were few labor laws and sweat shops did get out of hand. Labor unions were a good thing at the time. Now we have labor laws that protect worker's rights and the biggest labor unions have become corrupt, in some cases influenced by the mafia, and too one sided, politically.
Click to expand...

Why are you saying sorry? I agree that any flattering historical account of the early days of unions does not justify their actions or existence today.
 
jet57 said:
A scab ran over a Teamster on the picket line. Same thing happened in 1983: that was a great strike; about 500 guys from two or three locals shut down 7th street in San Francisco. We won that one.
Click to expand...

Well, the 1990 Strike basically killed Greyhound. They're just a shell of their former selves.
 
Bassman said:
Well, the 1990 Strike basically killed Greyhound. They're just a shell of their former selves.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's very true. Greyhound was the best. There was another company; silver buses white signs with red stripes, I can;t remember their name, but they were good as well. Greyhound could have stayed together and been an elite bus service by now, but bad management killed 'em.

I was very sorry to see them go down hill like that. They had a very big yard at 7th and Townsend in San Francisco; that's where we all me the scabs for the '83 strike. There as a huge storm over the Bay that weekend.
 
jet57 said:
Yep, that's very true. Greyhound was the best. There was another company; silver buses white signs with red stripes, I can;t remember their name, but they were good as well. Greyhound could have stayed together and been an elite bus service by now, but bad management killed 'em.

I was very sorry to see them go down hill like that. They had a very big yard at 7th and Townsend in San Francisco; that's where we all me the scabs for the '83 strike. There as a huge storm over the Bay that weekend.
Click to expand...

That would be Continental Trailways, which Greyhound acquired in 1986. After the 1990 strike, Greyhound went bankrupt and was forced to sell off its newer MCIs in order to stay solvent. During the early to mid 1990s, they needed to replace the aging MC9s and 102A3s so MCI came out with the MC12, which proved to be a worthy successor to the MC9, built exclusively for the dog. Later, Laidlaw was in acquisition mode and bought out Greyhound, along with a pile of school bus companies including National School Bus, Inc. Then in 2007, First Group acquired Laidlaw and all its assets. On the Trailways front, Only Continental and other companies directly affiliated, like Carolina Coach, were acquired by GLI. Independent Trailways companies, like Trailways of New York (Adirondack, Pine Hill, New York Trailways), Martz, Fullington, were never bought out and continue to this day.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Sorry, but the old days of labor Unions do not apply today. In the old days, there were few labor laws and sweat shops did get out of hand. Labor unions were a good thing at the time. Now we have labor laws that protect worker's rights and the biggest labor unions have become corrupt, in some cases influenced by the mafia, and too one sided, politically.
Click to expand...
And that's been my biggest gripe with unions. Because of the nature of my work, I have no choice in the matter, I have to be affiliated. But if unions would remain politically neutral, then there would be no problem.
 
Bassman said:
if unions would remain politically neutral, then there would be no problem.
Click to expand...

unions should be 100% illegal. Why should govt allow some workers to use violence to get higher wages and not other workers who must then pay the higher prices brought on by the govt union violence?
 
James972 said:
unions should be 100% illegal. Why should govt allow some workers to use violence to get higher wages and not other workers who must then pay the higher prices brought on by the govt union violence?
Click to expand...

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. But if private sector? That's a whole different ball of wax.
 
Bassman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Neomalthusian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jet57 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Neomalthusian said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes, unions are bad because they interfere with the efficiency of capitalism,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom