Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 94

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

  1. #51
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,634

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Disenfranchised: Deprived of power, marginalized.

    Look it up.
    Deprived of the right to vote. Approximately 6% of unionized workers have ever had the privilege of voting for or against that representation. If you want to be an apologist for unions, which you clearly do, you should avoid the word "disenfranchised" at all costs, because unions blatantly seek disenfranchisement of the people they represent. They have worked very hard and very successfully at preventing union workers from having the right to periodically vote to recertify or decertify that representation.

    And as far as unions go; once again dude, you're either that ignorant or lying.
    I have informed you very objectively about Janus v. AFSCME. You're the one stuffing your head into the sand.

    The argument against unions in Janus claims the mandatory agency fees are spent politically. Unions are agreeing with that argument!

    Naomi Walker, AFSCME, directly states that the effect of a ruling in favor of Janus would be as follows: "The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble." How can think tanks and advocacy organizations "crumble" based on dues that are supposedly not used for politics? Easy. It's because the dues are used politically, actually. All union dues are political. She also says, "Janus will make it harder for public sector unions to lead, or even join, fights on social and economic issues." That is also political. She is admitting that unions need dues that are allegedly not spent politically in order to advance political causes.

    How is it you still can't understand this? Important people in the American labor lobby are loudly arguing that basic financial core dues which are allegedly only used for representation... are needed by unions in order for them to wage political battles and support political causes.

    Here's what I've been saying, which you still can't comprehend: "Sweeping condemnations of “a rigged system,” “rich CEOs,” “anti-union oligarchs,” “corporate special interests,” and “anti-worker extremists” undermine the hair-splitting distinctions union lawyers try to make between political and apolitical spending when defending mandatory fees in court; it’s clear that union leaders believe their activism is inextricably linked to their ability to coerce fees from non-members." - Public-Employee Unions: Only a Lousy Right-Winger Would Call Us Political

  2. #52
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:27 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    27,611

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Deprived of the right to vote. Approximately 6% of unionized workers have ever had the privilege of voting for or against that representation. If you want to be an apologist for unions, which you clearly do, you should avoid the word "disenfranchised" at all costs, because unions blatantly seek disenfranchisement of the people they represent. They have worked very hard and very successfully at preventing union workers from having the right to periodically vote to recertify or decertify that representation.



    I have informed you very objectively about Janus v. AFSCME. You're the one stuffing your head into the sand.

    The argument against unions in Janus claims the mandatory agency fees are spent politically. Unions are agreeing with that argument!

    Naomi Walker, AFSCME, directly states that the effect of a ruling in favor of Janus would be as follows: "The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble." How can think tanks and advocacy organizations "crumble" based on dues that are supposedly not used for politics? Easy. It's because the dues are used politically, actually. All union dues are political. She also says, "Janus will make it harder for public sector unions to lead, or even join, fights on social and economic issues." That is also political. She is admitting that unions need dues that are allegedly not spent politically in order to advance political causes.

    How is it you still can't understand this? Important people in the American labor lobby are loudly arguing that basic financial core dues which are allegedly only used for representation... are needed by unions in order for them to wage political battles and support political causes.

    Here's what I've been saying, which you still can't comprehend: "Sweeping condemnations of “a rigged system,” “rich CEOs,” “anti-union oligarchs,” “corporate special interests,” and “anti-worker extremists” undermine the hair-splitting distinctions union lawyers try to make between political and apolitical spending when defending mandatory fees in court; it’s clear that union leaders believe their activism is inextricably linked to their ability to coerce fees from non-members." - Public-Employee Unions: Only a Lousy Right-Winger Would Call Us Political
    Approximately 6% of unionized workers have ever had the privilege of voting for or against that representation.
    Explain that and then prove it.
    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. #53
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,634

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Explain that and then prove it.
    I should have specified that this pertains to the private sector, where unions represent 8 million workers, of whom 478,000 voted for union representation at some point in their careers and remain employed by the company at which they voted.

    Why aren't there regular re-elections? That's quite essential to any democracy.

  4. #54
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:36 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,938

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    People in THIS country still live in sqular and get paid pennies,
    even a 2 person household at minimum wage earns $60k a year in America which makes them rich by world standards! Ask starving people in Africa how they'd like to live on $60K/yr in the USA

  5. #55
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:27 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    27,611

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    I should have specified that this pertains to the private sector, where unions represent 8 million workers, of whom 478,000 voted for union representation at some point in their careers and remain employed by the company at which they voted.

    Why aren't there regular re-elections? That's quite essential to any democracy.
    They don't have regular elections because there is no need for one. If employees decide that they want to decertify, then that's what they do. And btw, there are 14 million union members today. At labor's peak in this country, there was only 30%. And if people don;t ant to belong to unions, then - work elsewhere.
    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?

  6. #56
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:36 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,938

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    They don't have regular elections because there is no need for one. If employees decide that they want to decertify, then that's what they do. And btw, there are 14 million union members today. At labor's peak in this country, there was only 30%. And if people don;t ant to belong to unions, then - work elsewhere.
    its important to make unions illegal again because they interfere with efficiency of capitalism and thus lower our standard of living. Most recently their high wages and low quality shipped 10 million American jobs offshore! Its beyond stupid to have legal unions in this country.

  7. #57
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,634

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    They don't have regular elections because there is no need for one.
    LOL, classic.

    If employees decide that they want to decertify, then that's what they do.
    Wow, you make it sound so simple. Is it?

    Better get legal help from the National Right To Work Foundation and Legal Defense Fund.

  8. #58
    Sage
    faithful_servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Last Seen
    06-15-18 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,526

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    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.
    Just the normal MO for unions. If you don't get what you want, make threats.
    Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

  9. #59
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:27 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    27,611

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    LOL, classic.



    Wow, you make it sound so simple. Is it?

    Better get legal help from the National Right To Work Foundation and Legal Defense Fund.
    Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    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?

  10. #60
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,634

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about.
    Yes I do, and frankly your arguments couldn’t be more ridiculous. You call people “disenfranchised” and then when I inform you how unions fight against the notion of routine reelections you claim there “is no need” for such a thing. That is hilariously ironic. As I said, the only ones trying to disenfranchise anyone are unions.

    Most people inherit their unions from some previous group of workers and unions do not want any workers to have rights to reelections even when most of the bargaining has turned over or a minority of the bargaining unit is a full member. The only conceivable sense it makes to say the word disenfranchised in the context of unions is this, the way unions disenfranchise those they represent.

    They lie absolutely continuously, and they should be completely illegal in the public sector.

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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