[Polymath20]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Good or bad? My libertarian leanings favor the idea of granting individuals more rights. I personally think that labor unions are pointless today.

The National Right to Work Committee® supports the enactment of a National Right to Work Act. The passage of a National Right to Work law would eliminate compulsory unionism in every state in the United States. Employees would be free to choose whether or not to join a labor union. The National Right to Work Act would not add a single word to federal law. It would simply repeal five provisions in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and one in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) that authorize the firing of workers for refusal to pay union dues or “fees” to union officials. Under the National Right to Work Act, workers would be free to choose union representation voluntarily. No worker would be forced to accept unwanted union “representation,” and no worker would be prevented from joining a labor union.

[Warrior]

Just based on what you quoted there, I'd support it. I think it should be left to each individual to decide if they want to join a union or not.

[themuzicman]

Right idea, not sure that the federal government should be the one to enact it. Call me a federalist.

ETA: Actually, I'm fine with that.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just based on what you quoted there, I'd support it. I think it should be left to each individual to decide if they want to join a union or not.

The only reason I could see any opposition having traction would be from labor union lobbyists.

It's weird, once you have an entity like a labor union, it becomes like a living animal. It wants to continue to exist of it's own accord, even if it is obsolete. It wants more resources, even if there is no more room for it in society.

[Purgatid]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The only reason I could see any opposition having traction would be from labor union lobbyists. It's weird, once you have an entity like a labor union, it becomes like a living animal. It wants to continue to exist of it's own accord, even if it is obsolete. It wants more resources, even if there is no more room for it in society.

Companies seem to respond in the same way.

[Shoshana]

I support this idea in theory, however, not convinced it's not a way to de-power unions 100% and make them obsolete. Joining a union, in my opinion, shouldn't be compulsory, but for certain industries, they're critical for protecting workers' rights.

[Booko]

Labor unions are why I grew up in poverty rather than blinding poverty.

Labor unions are why my brother is able to support himself in his forced early retirement living in a state with shit for available jobs.

Labor unions are why my mother is able to live a dignified lifestyle in her 80s. She has some small pensions that make the difference.

The lack of labor unions is why a business would even consider it a reasonable "contract" to offer my husband where if he pulled out of the contract early he would have to return tons of income, to the tune of him getting paid merely minimum wage, but the company that had signed him for a 6-month contract has now suddenly decided they really only meant 2 months, so we can just go fuck ourselves. Companies know they have workers over a barrel in this economy, and don't think they won't abuse the fact.

Oh, and if it ends up we have to declare bankruptcy by the end of this year, you taxpayers are going to be paying for some of their abuse. And we're uninsured now, so hope we don't end up at the ER.

So let's all just enjoy all that "freedom" that we're all paying for in taxes because we allow injustice to parade as "free market capitalism."

Labor unions have been guilty of overreach at times, and some unions are decidedly better than others.

But it's a fact of life that if one group holds all the power, they eventually use it at some point no matter what harm it does to people.

I'm no Marxist, but the man was right about one thing -- the only thing workers have to bargain with is their hands. If they cannot join together, they risk being squashed.

As far as labor-business relations go, it would be far better if we learned that it isn't to the advantage of either labor or business to make some sort of "war" out of the relationship. But until our society gets over the fetish of short-term thinking and childish politics, don't hold your breath on that one.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Labor unions are why I grew up in poverty rather than blinding poverty. Labor unions are why my brother is able to support himself in his forced early retirement living in a state with shit for available jobs. Labor unions are why my mother is able to live a dignified lifestyle in her 80s. She has some small pensions that make the difference. The lack of labor unions is why a business would even consider it a reasonable "contract" to offer my husband where if he pulled out of the contract early he would have to return tons of income, to the tune of him getting paid merely minimum wage, but the company that had signed him for a 6-month contract has now suddenly decided they really only meant 2 months, so we can just go fuck ourselves. Companies know they have workers over a barrel in this economy, and don't think they won't abuse the fact. Oh, and if it ends up we have to declare bankruptcy by the end of this year, you taxpayers are going to be paying for some of their abuse. And we're uninsured now, so hope we don't end up at the ER. So let's all just enjoy all that "freedom" that we're all paying for in taxes because we allow injustice to parade as "free market capitalism." Labor unions have been guilty of overreach at times, and some unions are decidedly better than others. But it's a fact of life that if one group holds all the power, they eventually use it at some point no matter what harm it does to people. I'm no Marxist, but the man was right about one thing -- the only thing workers have to bargain with is their hands. If they cannot join together, they risk being squashed. As far as labor-business relations go, it would be far better if we learned that it isn't to the advantage of either labor or business to make some sort of "war" out of the relationship. But until our society gets over the fetish of short-term thinking and childish politics, don't hold your breath on that one.

The problems you illustrate need to be taken care of at a Federal level so that everyone has the same protections.

[thod]

Lol. Another right wing union bashing proposal under a quaint name. Their reasoning goes as follows. "If the union negotiates better conditions, I benefit exactly the same if I am a member of not. Thus I will not join and save myself some cash". The end result is nobody joins, the unions collapse and the robber barons can once more rule. The word 'solidarity' is rarely mentioned in the US press, they don't want the plebs looking it up. They don't want them standing together. They figure they will destroy them through parasitism.

I was hoping that it would be an act allowing the workers to oust the proprietor and run the company as a collective. Perhaps an act to make employment illegal. If you want a worker, then you must take them on as a partner or remain a sole trader. Funny you never see such propositions, ain't it. You get to vote on what we want or what we want, but you never get to vote on what you want.

[Fishism]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The problems you illustrate need to be taken care of at a Federal level so that everyone has the same protections.

Amen brother....

If I had a time machine and zipped back to 1910, I'd be pro-union. But that ship has sailed.
There are now labour laws and standards (eg. minimum wage, statutory holidays, overtime rules, safety guidelines, worker's comp.) in place that corporations have to follow. I also find it odd that those making those laws and standards are in a public government union, whose minimums, benefits and pensions are much better than the ones they're legislating for the non-union private sector. Ugly double standard, especially since the private sector kicks in 80% of GDP.

The lowering of trade barriers and the foolish notion that corporations wouldn't seek cheap labour have put unions in a tough spot. I believe this combination is what pushed the west into consumption economies, rendering the working class obsolete and putting us in this situation of unemployment we're in now.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by Fishism To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Amen brother.... If I had a time machine and zipped back to 1910, I'd be pro-union. But that ship has sailed. There are now labour laws and standards (eg. minimum wage, statutory holidays, overtime rules, safety guidelines, worker's comp.) in place that corporations have to follow. I also find it odd that those making those laws and standards are in a public government union, whose minimums, benefits and pensions are much better than the ones they're legislating for the non-union private sector. Ugly double standard, especially since the private sector kicks in 80% of GDP. The lowering of trade barriers and the foolish notion that corporations wouldn't seek cheap labour have put unions in a tough spot. I believe this combination is what pushed the west into consumption economies, rendering the working class obsolete and putting us in this situation of unemployment we're in now.

That's a good point. Labor unions aren't doing themselves any favors by making outsourcing all the more cost-competitive.

Labor unions were crafted before things like the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
existed and sadly seem to want to continue operating like the good ole glory days.

[Ray9]

I was in the Steelworkers Union for 20 years. It was the most corrupt organization I have ever been associated with. When the company went belly up, $400,000 of the local just disappeared with no explanation. Several of the union officers were seen purchasing new cars and homes in short order. I did however, just activate my union pension which is $300 a month for life. No a lot but I'll take it.

[Noelle]

On it's face, it seems like sound reasoning, no one should be forced to be a part of something they don't want to be a part of.

Unfortunately, I don't really trust corporations to not use this as a way of edging unions out. It would seem way too easy to enact at-will employment to get rid of all the union members and pack in people that they don't have to promise quality employment too. I will grant you, some unions may get too greedy, but in this day and age I can't see them as obsolete yet.

I suppose Federal laws could be enforced to ensure all employment is quality, but I'd rather see that first THEN unions be phased out.

[Autumnleaf]

Its important for corporations to be able to hire cheap workers when the unions choose to strike for higher pay and benefits. That way business can continue and the corporations can profit from undermined unions.

[EdR]

I believe that unions are essential balancing component in labor management relations.

The unions were born of necessity, the workers were exploited/repressed, used and abused. Ownership/management had no restraints, workers had no options other than to accept abusive working conditions and wages. Until they organized and spoke as one voice.

Movies that show some of the abuses that led to unions are Norma Rae, Hoffa, Matewan and the Grapes of Wrath.

Organized labor has been and still can be a force for good. The powerful anti-union forces have been ascendent for the past 50 years or so and legislation such as this is another example of the repression of organized labor. The anti-union forces havevirtually umlimited funds at their disposal and spend it wisely on continuing anti-labor propaganda. The effectiveness of the effort is obvious, most Americans are now currently anti-union.

How quickly we forget.

Look at the benefits working Americans have reaped since the anti-organized labor forces have gained the upper hand: wages and benefits have regressed relative to inflation.

Look around and tell me how many non-management workers, who have entered the labor force in the past decade, can aspire to home ownership and can aspire to send their children to college?

Oh, I am management. quite high in management.

[aku chi]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Their reasoning goes as follows. "If the union negotiates better conditions, I benefit exactly the same if I am a member of not. Thus I will not join and save myself some cash". The end result is nobody joins, the unions collapse and the robber barons can once more rule.

The existence of a public good problem does not necessitate coercive measures. There are many ingenious solutions to public good problems in the private sector (like funding television programs through commercials). In fact, I only had to think for a few minutes to devise a solution to the problem you mentioned. My solution is to couple all improvements to the communal work environment with wage reductions equal to the cost of the improvements. Additionally, union officials can negotiate for better wages for members only. In this way, all of the benefit from collective bargaining is borne by union members. Union officials, who are much more familiar with such problems and have a great incentive to solve them, could undoubtedly devise better solutions.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The only reason I could see any opposition having traction would be from labor union lobbyists. It's weird, once you have an entity like a labor union, it becomes like a living animal. It wants to continue to exist of it's own accord, even if it is obsolete. It wants more resources, even if there is no more room for it in society.

I don't see anything 'weird' about it, given a component part is an individual; as the case is with Purgatid's observation about companies.

[Traverser]

I'm always wary of supporting congressional proposals because of their page-density; how do I know there isn't a provision that does more harm than the good? Some of them are hundreds of pages long. Fortunately, there are a few easy-to-read versions out there, so I'll have to read into this later on the hopes that I'll understand it. Putting that aside, I always prefer that governments respect the individual's right to associate with whomever he or she wishes without being compelled in the process. Mind you, that includes the association between individuals and governments too.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's weird, once you have an entity like a labor union, it becomes like a living animal. It wants to continue to exist of it's own accord, even if it is obsolete. It wants more resources, even if there is no more room for it in society.

And the biggest, and most powerful, union of all is...government. Both tend to demand compulsory attendance and payments by its members, but the latter can do far worse. After all, I can at least avoid non-voluntary unions by not working in particular industries. Of course, this is a different subject, but I hope you agree that there is an important parallel.

Which brings up my last point: I'm not sure if this bill is constitutional, given the tenth amendment. Furthermore, for all intents and purposes, states are, in themselves, compulsory unions with varying authorities over arbitration and the use of force. Thus, I don't foresee this bill, or anything even remotely close to it, being passed due to its moral implications. If it is agreed at the federal level that an indivudal has a right to work without being compelled to join an organization, along with its financial obligations, then questions over the relationship between individuals and governments would necessarily have to be brought up. It's a can of worms that, for obvious reasons, will be avoided at all costs by the powers that be.

After all, this is the same government that passed the derrided healthcare bill, along with a host of other measures that have thrusted untold amounts of debt on its citizens, this particular administration not withstanding.

(And in case someone pounces on me for being anti-union, I'm for unions as long as they are voluntary.)

[EdR]

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	(And in case someone pounces on me for being anti-union, I'm for unions as long as they are voluntary.)

That line bothers me, I agreed with the bulk of your post.

What if you worked at a coal mine where in the past, the owner exploited the workers, paid the miners in scrip that was only good at the company store and evicted widows from their homes when their spouse was killed in the mine. A prior generation of workers fought, suffered and some maybe even died to undo the injustice. Yet you feel comfortable reaping the fruits of their efforts and stuggles and not conforming to the communal entity?

Can you say the same thing about the military? Such as "I'm grateful for and support the military, as long as neither I or my children have to suffer going off and defending our country"?

My opinion is that if a person chooses to work at a union shop, then they have bought into the whole kit and kaboodle. If they do not want to work in a union, then get a job elsewhere. If you choose to eat at a restaurant with a dress code, then you have to wear a jacket and tie. Standing on your right as an individual not to conform does not apply when you choose make a choice.

Life is not always a buffet where you can pick and choose what you want, sometimes you have to eat whatever they are making tonight, like we all do at home.

[INTelliJent]

I like how the "labor vs capital" crowd always overlook how capital is acquired in a corporatist system to begin with.

What apparatus forces you into the proverbial "coal mine & company store"?

Hint: It's the same apparatus you appeal to for help.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I like how the "labor vs capital" crowd always overlook how capital is acquired in a corporatist system to begin with.

In the case of many 19th century mines, first use.

	What apparatus forces you into the proverbial "coal mine & company store"?

Hunger.

Oh, I mean free exchange between consenting parties. I forgot who I was talking to for a second.

[EdR]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I like how the "labor vs capital" crowd always overlook how capital is acquired in a corporatist system to begin with. What apparatus forces you into the proverbial "coal mine & company store"? Hint: It's the same apparatus you appeal to for help.

I have no idea what you are hinting at.

The company store was the only store in town and the only store anywhere around that accepted company scrip for payment. But you probably don't believe me. Here is some information from the West Viginia State archives:

Most of these new West Virginians soon became part of an economic system controlled by the coal industry. Miners worked in company mines with company tools and equipment, which they were required to lease. The rent for company housing and cost of items from the company store were deducted from their pay. The stores themselves charged over-inflated prices, since there was no alternative for purchasing goods. To ensure that miners spent their wages at the store, coal companies developed their own monetary system. Miners were paid by scrip, in the form of tokens, currency, or credit, which could be used only at the company store. Therefore, even when wages were increased, coal companies simply increased prices at the company store to balance what they lost in pay.

Compiled by the West Virginia State Archives


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


For some reason, the greedy and ungrateful miner's eventually rejected this little slice of heaven and organized into unions for the sole purpose of oppressing owners, bankers and stockholders.

[INTelliJent]

Why did the people have little choice but to get a job as a coal miner?

All the coal mine operators did was employ the same tactics as any other modern western government, knowing the state apparatus offered barriers to competition, market entry, and relocation.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why did the people have little choice but to get a job as a coal miner?

Finite resources.

	All the coal mine operators did was employ the same tactics as any other modern western government, knowing the state apparatus offered barriers to competition, market entry, and relocation.

For the mines during this era there were functionally no state imposed barriers for competition, market entry or relocation. The operator's actions were predominantly market driven.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	For the mines during this era there were functionally no state imposed barriers for competition, market entry or relocation. The operator's actions were predominantly market driven.

No the "mine owners". The workers. But title systems are a state function, and it is not impossible that "First use" was not the means of appropriation under this reality. First to claim title through the state =/= first use.

I don't see why you would have a problem with the way the mine companies operated though. Sounds like a economic central planner's wet dream. Nothing wrong with a little inflation/fiat currency, and an industrious population working towards the "common good" amirite?