The Ohio workplace freedom act (right to work)

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
rigel1
rigel1's picture

The proposed amendment would provide that, in Ohio:

1. No law, rule, agreement, or arrangement shall require any person or employer to become or remain a member of a labor organization.

 

2. No law, rule, agreement, or arrangement shall require, directly or indirectly, as a condition of employment, any person or employer, to pay or transfer any dues, fees, assessments, other charges of any kind, or anything else of value, to a labor organization, or third party in lieu of the labor organization.

 

3. Any person, directly or indirectly affected or threatened with any harm by a violation of this section, may bring a civil or equitable action to enforce this section, and upon prevailing, shall be entitled to injunctive relief, reasonable attorney fees, costs, and other damages.

 

What a great law! It give the employee an opportunity to exercise his free will. He cannot be forced to join a union, but he still can if he chooses. It's a pro-choice law. Also, his money cannot be taken from him by force and used to support organizations and people whom he disagrees with. Few things in life are fair. But this is pretty darn close.

 

Comments

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
I'm too tired of beating this

I'm too tired of beating this dead horse rigel.  There are pros and cons galore.  You've participated in many of the discussions.  Yet you want to turn the horse into a zombie and keep bringing it back.  Don't get me started............

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: I'm too

Bush_Wacker wrote:

I'm too tired of beating this dead horse rigel.  There are pros and cons galore.  You've participated in many of the discussions.  Yet you want to turn the horse into a zombie and keep bringing it back.  Don't get me started............

There are no cons to letting a man decide the direction he wants to take his life. Freedom is a good thing.

miksilvr
Divide and conquer ... that

Divide and conquer ... that is the purpose of these right-to-work-for-less laws that maybe were written by ALEC

Art
Art's picture
It's like if we bring the

It's like if we bring the subject up enough times, it will win just by default. I no longer care what these people think. 

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
rigel1 says: "2. No law,

rigel1 says: "2. No law, rule, agreement, or arrangement shall require, directly or indirectly, as a condition of employment, any person or employer, to pay or transfer any dues, fees, assessments, other charges of any kind, or anything else of value, to a labor organization, or third party in lieu of the labor organization."

I am not unsympathetic to your plea for the indiviudal. But I think there are things the state should do, where the bennefit is greater than the cost. And clearly that is a huge free rider problem  in many union type occupations.

Having the bennefits of some protection for workers outweighs the loss in efficiency and incentives, provided the protections are minor, dispersed and reasonable. The degree and type of protections can be varied - from education, occupational health and safety. unemployment insurance and the rest of it. I"m not supporting all those programs in their present incarnation, but simply arguing that a developed society needs some mix of them.

Right now, if it wasn't for unions, we would having a third term of the Bush administration.  That is, despite the corrupation that may exist in unions, at least they are protecting us from corporate corruption which to my mind is far, far worse.

rigel1
rigel1's picture
miksilvr wrote:Divide and

miksilvr wrote:
Divide and conquer ... that is the purpose of these right-to-work-for-less laws that maybe were written by ALEC

So you are against an employee choosing for himself? He should be forced to join a union and be shaken down by filthy rich union bosses? No power to the people? It's all done by force? What are you afraid of?

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
rigel1 wrote: miksilvr

rigel1 wrote:

miksilvr wrote:
Divide and conquer ... that is the purpose of these right-to-work-for-less laws that maybe were written by ALEC

So you are against an employee choosing for himself? He should be forced to join a union and be shaken down by filthy rich union bosses? No power to the people? It's all done by force? What are you afraid of?

The other side of that coin is that the employer is doing the same thing to the employee as a union.  The employer says "these are the rules of belonging to this company", if you don't like it you are free to leave.  The union says "these are the rules of belonging to this union", if you don't like it you are free to leave.  The union is going to look out for the employees best interest and the employer is going to look out for the employers best interest.  You are never forced to join a union unless you want that particular job.  You are never forced to work for a company unless you want that particular job.  If it's better to not belong to a union then what are the employers afraid of?

miksilvr
Well put, Bush_Wacker. A

Well put, Bush_Wacker.

A neighbor of mine used to work for an airline in the mid-atlantic area. The airline was a union shop. It was bought by a non-union airline. My friend moved to a southern city, to work for the new parent company at a big city airport. A year or two ago there was an effort to vote in the union, but the vote came up short . I mentioned to my friend that his new state was probably a RTW(fl) state, and that management had sometimes not-so-subtle ways of discouraging union organizing by employees. He nodded his head, and his eyes opened a little wider, which indicated to me he had probably heard of such activities.

Sprinklerfitter
Sprinklerfitter's picture
Rigel...........Who is forced

Rigel...........Who is forced to join a Union?

No one in my Union(Sprinkler Fitters Road Local 669 which covers most of the United States) was forced to join. After they looked at everything we had to offer they wanted in not the way you would like to think it is. You wingnuts are mis-informed as usual along with being dumb and I mean dumb.

Seems like the regressive scab minded DOLT politicians in your state didn't learn anything from their last go around with the voters. When the voters finally have had enough of being shit on all the time they need to start taking it out on those personally that are trying to take their livelyhood away from them. I hope I live long enough to see that day happen. For a party that preaches less government your worthless fucking party sure doesn't mind using the government every chance they get to screw any and everyone they can that has different views other than their own......Why is that rigel?

 

polycarp2
rigel1 wrote: miksilvr

rigel1 wrote:

miksilvr wrote:
Divide and conquer ... that is the purpose of these right-to-work-for-less laws that maybe were written by ALEC

So you are against an employee choosing for himself? He should be forced to join a union and be shaken down by filthy rich union bosses? No power to the people? It's all done by force? What are you afraid of?

poly replies: Generally when one accepts employment as an act of free will...they also accept the conditions of that employment. Sometimes those conditions of employment  include union membership. No one is forced to accept the job.

You're beating a dead horse, rigel.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

 

DRC
DRC's picture
The best case against this

The best case against this nonsense about individual freedom was the analogy with the home owners association where dues provided benefits that kept property values from being trashed by junky front yards and potholed streets.  There is a shared interest that is served by requiring everyone to contribute instead of making it voluntary, because the freeloaders benefit.  Most conservatives who live in these communities do not object to the dues and would object to the abandoned cars and old appliances rather than considering them works of art.

The collective benefits are shared by individuals, and unions are how employees match the institutional power of the business, particularly the large ones that go way beyond any personal relationships between "bosses" and "workers."  Even in small businesses, the idea that employers treat employees like human beings and fellow citizens is hardly a stretch against "freedom."  Dignity plays a major part in the equation of "liberty and justice for all."  Even if slaves have more dignity than masters, it stands in ironic contrast to the immorality of the "institution."

rigel, you keep wanting to be taken as an honest and non-partisan person whose opinions deserve respect.  You have to live up to that self-proclaimed standard or you will get your ass handed to you, and it will be totally appropriate.  This is crap and you ought to know it.

Art
Art's picture
Quote:So you are against an

Quote:
So you are against an employee choosing for himself? He should be forced to join a union and be shaken down by filthy rich union bosses? No power to the people? It's all done by force? What are you afraid of?
I think that the individual choice arguement is a great one, but only if it could be implemented in a way that would honor the virtues of a truly competitive labor market.

Don't want to require employees of a company to join the union? Fine, but then fix it so that they would not enjoy the benefits that the Union provides for its members. Let them decide. Let employees have an honestly competitive environment where they can choose whether Union dues are a reasonable price to pay for the consequences of membership. Do not go crying to Government to require that the Union should secure any benefits at all for free-loader scabs who think they can negotiate a better deal with the employer as individuals. They're called right-to-work laws, but they should be called right-to-sponge-and-steal-from-workers-who-are-smart-enough-to-organize-and-bargain laws. Keep the Government out of it. Stop trying to get Government to stack the deck against workers who are smart enough to organize. That is fascism of the worst kind.

DRC
DRC's picture
These exemptions already

These exemptions already exist almost everywhere.  I think they are another concession that does not need to be extended to protect any 'freedom' that stands the universal test.  Home owners associations do not tolerate those who bring down the property values.  They do not insist that the right not to pay the dues is a principle of freedom.  They recognize it as antisocial and selfish.  I would not allow moles in the union to be paid covertly to make avoiding dues look like the smart way to have a few extra bucks in your pocket.

I think you have a good grasp on the dynamics, but "solidarity" can be part of democratic participation rather than some "labor boss thuggery" when the members own the union.  Where we need to keep unions democratic and worker owned, the corrections come from other than subverting the union shop.  Scabs are scabs. 

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
  Employees can't decide to

 

Employees can't decide to work less than the minimum wage, work in unsafe working conditions, work overtime without pay. I am willing to extend this to unions, to some degree - at least as an argument.

Maybe require more than a Marjory, maybe 2/3rds. 

But whatever it is, individual freedom is often a problem - yes, I said it and will say it again - because then workers compete away the gains in trade vis a vi the employer. It is classic case of a prisoner's dilemma. An individual may want to work so he will offer to work without a union, but if everyone did that, then the individual won't get offered the job anyway. It is individually rational, but socially irrational.

Unions represent one of the last bulwarks of the corporate state and - as Bush showed - the corporate fascist state.  When the unions are finally gone and all the politicians are simply corporate pimps, then everyone will have to look out. Even Rigel1.

Sprinklerfitter
Sprinklerfitter's picture
You're right and if the

You're right and if the Unions are gone what group of workers will be the next in the crosshairs of the GOPimp Masters? My guess it would be which corporation cries the loudest about having to pay their workers more than they think they should have to.

Who will the non-union scabs turn to then for help?

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: rigel1

Bush_Wacker wrote:

rigel1 wrote:

miksilvr wrote:
Divide and conquer ... that is the purpose of these right-to-work-for-less laws that maybe were written by ALEC

So you are against an employee choosing for himself? He should be forced to join a union and be shaken down by filthy rich union bosses? No power to the people? It's all done by force? What are you afraid of?

The other side of that coin is that the employer is doing the same thing to the employee as a union.  The employer says "these are the rules of belonging to this company", if you don't like it you are free to leave.  The union says "these are the rules of belonging to this union", if you don't like it you are free to leave.  The union is going to look out for the employees best interest and the employer is going to look out for the employers best interest.  You are never forced to join a union unless you want that particular job.  You are never forced to work for a company unless you want that particular job.  If it's better to not belong to a union then what are the employers afraid of?

Their is no perfect answer so maybe we should stop looking for one. The best answer is the pro choice one. Let the individual decide for himself what he wants to do. Agreed?

Art
Art's picture
Quote:Let the individual

Quote:
Let the individual decide for himself what he wants to do. Agreed?
am fully on board with this. Employees should have the fee ability to organize if they want to without Government interference.

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Art wrote: Quote:Let the

Art wrote:

Quote:
Let the individual decide for himself what he wants to do. Agreed?
am fully on board with this. Employees should have the fee ability to organize if they want to without Government interference.

Glad to see that you agree with the proposed law.

 We need more open minded types like you. Union membership should always be up to the individual. He should not have to deal with threats and intimidation from any source. His money should not be confiscated and used to support causes that he has not agreed to.

Good call Art.

Art
Art's picture
Quote:His money should not be

Quote:
His money should not be confiscated and used to support causes that he has not agreed to.

He should also not be required by Government to share the bounty he gets from Unionizing with scabs who choose to go it alone. Number three of your law makes it a non-starter. A free labor market will inevitably involve wildcat strikes and scab involvement. That means that head-banging is unavoidable. We don't need Government stacking the deck against the workers. 

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Art wrote: Quote:His money

Art wrote:

Quote:
His money should not be confiscated and used to support causes that he has not agreed to.

He should also not be required by Government to share the bounty he gets from Unionizing with scabs who choose to go it alone. Number three of your law makes it a non-starter. A free labor market will inevitably involve wildcat strikes and scab involvement. That means that head-banging is unavoidable. We don't need Government stacking the deck against the workers. 

You were with me now you are against me? Number three is the best part of the law. It protects citizens from violence. A basic human right. Sorry, I'm the non-violent type. People in a civilized country should not be beaten or threatened simply because they need to earn a living.

What workers? I'm a worker and I don't believe that the deck is stacked against me. Neither do my co-workers. Who are these "workers" that you refer?

DRC
DRC's picture
I think you and your happy

I think you and your happy worker crew ought to audition for the remake of "Gone With the Wind."  Yowsah Massa, we just luv to wook and whatever we can get from youse will be fine.  Then a little dance.

rigel, you are tools, not workers, if you think the right to work for less is freedom.

I think people ought not be beaten or threatened just because they think the laborer is worthy of his/her hire or that workers are citizens who deserve to participate in power instead of being thralls.

If all you want to do is to continue to spout this Rightwing anti-labor crap, you will not find polite responses for wasting our time on this site.  You make no arguments other than your assertions of opinion, opinions that serve the capital class perfectly.  Solidarity Forever.  Remember Poland?  You might move to China where you have the right to work for whatever they will pay you.

rigel1
rigel1's picture
DRC wrote: rigel, you are

DRC wrote:

rigel, you are tools, not workers, if you think the right to work for less is freedom.

If all you want to do is to continue to spout this Rightwing anti-labor crap, you will not find polite responses for wasting our time on this site. 

So it's all done by force. Force people to join a union if they want to be employed.  How the hell is being in favor of individual rights anti labor? If you want to be in a union then go for it. But stop going to war with those of us who chose not to. It's really none of your business if someone choses not to join. It's their call. Those of us who do not belong to a union support your right to belong. Why is it so difficult for you to support our right not to be unionized?

It was "Art" who called us "workers" first. I simply responded. You may be better served directing your "tool" comment to him. But yes, I am a tool. And a Damn good one at that. I'm assuming that is why they hired me and want to keep me. I like them, they like me. I make a decent wage. And no union goons demand any shakedown money. Everybodies happy. Gotta love America.

Art
Art's picture
Quote: Number three is the

Quote:
 Number three is the best part of the law. It protects citizens from violence. A basic human right
Freedom from violence is not a basic human right. Freedom from violence is a Government imposed right. Violence is an inevitable hallmark of a free market. If you call for individual freedom in the labor market, then you call for the freedom to exercise whatever tools individuals have to achieve their interests. Y0u also call for the freedom from Government-imposed restraint from exercising those tools. The labor movement progressed through the exercise of the will. The will to organize. The will to discourage scab labor. The will to persevere in the face of Government thugery. That's what you are calling for if you want "individual" freedom to choose.
Quote:
Why is it so difficult for you to support our right not to be unionized?
I absolutely support your right to not unionionize. I do not support your right to enjoy the same benefits that union workers enjoy or the right to enjoy the protection of Government muscle.
Quote:
Sorry, I'm the non-violent type.
In the jungle of absolute freedom, the meek inherit the right to be excluded.
Quote:
I'm assuming that is why they hired me and want to keep me.
That would be a very comforting assumption. My experience is that management is absolutely and enthusiastically willing to retain inferior employees if they can get them for dirt cheap. They believe that they can make up for the loss of quality through the exercize of iron-fisted authority. 

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Art wrote: In the jungle of

Art wrote:

In the jungle of absolute freedom, the meek inherit the right to be excluded. [quote] 

 

In the Jungle of absolute freedom the meek use union goons to do their dirty work for them. I on the other hand bring the skills to pay the bills. I don't need or want goons. Nor do I fear them. I'm a former Marine. I don't look for a fight, but I sure as hell won't back down either. I'm excluded only when I choose to be. Nice try Art.

You should be a little more careful with your lame assumptions.

DRC
DRC's picture
When you talk about "lame

When you talk about "lame assumptions," try the idea that someone has the "right" to reduce you to a tool for money.  When we insist that economic relationships respect human dignity and work beyond the aridity of "economic man," we challenge the slave market and its "free market" presumptions that human beings must give up their humanity to have a "job."  Why?

I am sure that being among "the few, the proud," is who you are.  Having grown up in a military world, I try to respect the people who have embraced this identity, but I also refuse to glorify the warrior or forget what basic training does to you all.  As preparation for citizenship, it sucks.  Military culture and values have a special place where war demands obedience and chains of command.  I know what a real Ninja warrior hero looks like.  I understand why "their troops" will obey and die for them.  The best of these officers appreciate the sacred trust and would be the last to go to war as civilian politicians; but their honor is often misused by the latter and there is no way to justify that or make it honorable.

Militarizing America and our glorification of war in ceremonies "respecting the troops" is toxic.  Even the Memorial Day grief once the wailing of mothers in antiwar angst has become another part of the war culture.  I hope you can get over being a Marine and bring the best of that back to civilian life while leaving the worst where it belongs.  You are not stronger or braver than those who protest war and suffer for dissenting.  You ought to hate the "chickenhawks" who have sent you and your comrades to serve their rackets.  There are wonderful organizations composed of warriors against war.

If you want to project a positive lesson from the military, try unit solidarity and the idea that we survive by bringing the weakest link up rather than asserting our individual superiority.  We cannot continue to leave the bodies of the losers behind and think we are winners.  Solidarity forever, join the union.  Fight the bosses because they have a fundamental disrespect for the 'workers.'  If they love you and respect you, they will not hate and break your union.  Freedom is for all, or none; and participation in power is the measure of freedom.  Being a tool is just being a cog in their machine and a disposable unit like 'cannon fodder.'

Art
Art's picture
Quote:In the Jungle of

Quote:
In the Jungle of absolute freedom the meek use union goons to do their dirty work for them. . . .
. . . while the business owners use tax-paid police goons to do their dirty work for them.

You haven't even attempted to explain why you, as an individual, should have the right to enjoy benefits made possible by organized workers (and with the protection of the police thugs) without having to pay the freight. That brands you as no better than a parasite.

DRC
DRC's picture
None dare call them scabs. 

None dare call them scabs. 

Sprinklerfitter
Sprinklerfitter's picture
Rigel.......when are you

Rigel.......when are you going to learn that around this place you're not dealing with the normal run of the mill stupid ass republican stooges that have infested this country, you're dealing with guys that have eaten your lunch and the other trolls lunches around here so many times I've lost count. I've told you before you're nothing but a troll and you prove it 9 out of 10 times when you post. You've got to be pretty frickin stupid to walk in the lions den time after time and expect different results.

Doesn't someone like you have any wingnuts sites to hang out on where everyone thinks the same way you do? I wasn't going to post then I thought why not. I might as well pile on and humble your ass too.....You are such a tool and don't even realize it. 

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
rigel1 wrote:...So it's all

rigel1 wrote:
...So it's all done by force. Force people to join a union if they want to be employed.

Yes,  we are forcing individuals to join a union if they want to work at a place where a majority has voted for a union. We are forcing people to not be able to sell themselves into slavery. We are forcing people to not sell their labor less than the minimum wage.

We are forcing people to do this because otherwise they will be forced by nature to sell themselves into slavery, work at a non-union shop, or work for less than the minimum wage.

You complain about one man's force against another, but say nothing about the force of nature against man to begin with.

Why is one worse than another? It makes no sense to me.

 

Art
Art's picture
Quote:Force people to join a

Quote:
Force people to join a union if they want to be employed
Practiaclly speaking, yes, but not in principal. It's forcing people to pay for what they get like the majority do, or else go someplace else to work.

Spongiform parisites need to find their own place in the world. I don't see the problem. There will always be plenty of employers willing to hire them. Wallmart's, any of the Koch Industries businesses, any Indian or Mexican Corporations. These are some giant companies, and they will be thrilled to hire these stalwart individuals. There are millions of opportunities for these people.

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Sprinklerfitter wrote: . I

Sprinklerfitter wrote:

. I might as well pile on and humble your ass too.....You are such a tool and don't even realize it. 

I get it Sprinlkle. You pile on me because you are frustrated that you cannot make me believe as you do. You go after me personally because you have no coherent arguement to my posts. Since I have never treated anyone in this forum poorly, I have not brought this on. Your anger is yours. You own it. I am just amazed how easy it is to get people jacked up around here. I'm sorry ya'll are so angry and frustrated.

Lighten up Francis!!!!!

jones702
it is amazing how many people

it is amazing how many people here are screaming for the right to have health care, food, education, freedom of speech.  but the right to have a job... nope..

DRC
DRC's picture
It is amazing how much "job

It is amazing how much "job creator" rhetoric has been flung around without any evidence of jobs created by giving rich people tax breaks.  We are ready to put a lot of people to work doing things that are needed in American infrastructure, and we believe that the people fired by GOPimp austerity governors deserved to be paid to do their work too.  You guys do not understand economics or how to use debt as an investment.  You have wasted our money on wars and then you scream if we want to use it where it pays us back.  Go stick your head down a pothole.

rigel1
rigel1's picture
jones702 wrote: it is amazing

jones702 wrote:

it is amazing how many people here are screaming for the right to have health care, food, education, freedom of speech.  but the right to have a job... nope..

They don't know what a "right" is. A right is not something that one man provides to another. For example: Health care. If a caveman were to get injured and the caveman next door did not come over and help him, he did not violate his rights. If the same caveman decided not to share his kill with his neighbor who did nothing to help on the hunt, again no rights were violated.

If you depend on me to give you somerthing, then it is not a "right."

DRC
DRC's picture
Really.  Do you know anything

Really.  Do you know anything about life on the frontier and the code of the West.  Not helping someone in distress could get you killed.  Even military units understand that they don't leave anyone behind.  It is about basic survival and is part of the culture of human societies even if it does not fit into your individualized utopian fantasies.  Really!

rigel1
rigel1's picture
DRC wrote: Really.  Do you

DRC wrote:

Really.  Do you know anything about life on the frontier and the code of the West.  Not helping someone in distress could get you killed.  Even military units understand that they don't leave anyone behind.  It is about basic survival and is part of the culture of human societies even if it does not fit into your individualized utopian fantasies.  Really!

I agree DRC that helping your neighbor is a humane and good thing to do. We should all do it when we can. But if we do not, we have not violated his rights.

Art
Art's picture
A "right" is exactly

A "right" is exactly something that is conferred on us by whoever is in charge. Other than that, there is no such thing as a "right" (unless you are talking about some kind of divine right).  We say that health care is a right. I don't agree with that. It is a right if the Government says it is a right. We can get that if we keep working at it. We are a sophisticated society. We aren't living in a jungle.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
  rigel1 wrote: They don't

 

rigel1 wrote:
They don't know what a "right" is. A right is not something that one man provides to another.

No, that's false. You are confusing what Locke et. al.  said and what the word 'right' means.

Locke and the Founders said that rights are given by our creator - the rights to life and property. The state does not grant these rights, it protects men from other men. But the definition of rights in general is simply - in Websters' words:

"a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please."

That is why many constitutions in the modern era talk about rights to education, health care and employment. In fact, since in the US we have laws providing these things, people do in fact have rights to them, conditional on the amount of services provided.

 

 

 

 

JeffW
JeffW's picture
In 2005, the company I worked

In 2005, the company I worked for had 40 employees. We were in the engine and transmission rebuild industry, and the tech's made a decent hourly wage. It was a small, family owned company, and the owner overlooked minor infractions such as coming in late, or wasting time talking on company time. We had a picnic every year since 1976, and a Christmas party in which the owner would buy presents for all teh children of teh employees.

In 2005 though, some of the technicians decided that $29 an hour wasn't enough. They organized, and we had a vote to install a union. The vote was 32-8 in favor. I was one of the dissenting voices. Within the first week, the owner laid off 8 workers. After a year of negotioations, the union was installed. The picnics went away; The Christmas parties were no more. The owner felt back-stabbed by his own employees, and I agreed with him.

Since 2005, until the business closed in 2009, workers were laid off, until we a had a skeleton crew of 4 people. The owner then closed the business in November of 2009.

For a $3 an hour raise, the technicians gambled on making out like bandits. The only positive outcome was a pension offer, in which i gained 11 years vested.

If Illinois was a right to work state, I would have stayed out of the union at our shop. I had no choice, and was forced into a program in which I did not want to belong. Some of the techs had been with the company since 1976, and were also forced into a union that they wanted no part of.

I am all  for unions, don't hear me wrong. But I was turned off by the fact that I was forced into one. It was not a multi-billion dollar corporation we worked for. It was a man who built up his business from a small garage to a multi-million dollar enterprise. And he shared the wealth, by loaning money to workers who were desperate, and having parties for us and buying lunches on Friday.

Right to Work does not exactly mean "Right to Work for Less". We made decent money, and were taken care of as a whole. But a few guys dreams of making even more money destroyed the company. If a person can not survive on $29 per hour, plus 10 hours of overtime per week, every week since the company opened, then there is a problem.

 

peace

 

Laborisgood
Laborisgood's picture
rigel1 wrote: What a great

rigel1 wrote:

What a great law! It give the employee an opportunity to exercise his free will.

 

Or another way to put it, employers who are hostile towards unions have the opportunity to exercise their free will.

"one man's ceiling is another man's floor"  -  Paul Simon

Repeal Taft-Hartley and let everyone exercise their free will as they see fit!

jones702
rigel1 wrote: jones702

rigel1 wrote:

jones702 wrote:

it is amazing how many people here are screaming for the right to have health care, food, education, freedom of speech.  but the right to have a job... nope..

They don't know what a "right" is. A right is not something that one man provides to another. For example: Health care. If a caveman were to get injured and the caveman next door did not come over and help him, he did not violate his rights. If the same caveman decided not to share his kill with his neighbor who did nothing to help on the hunt, again no rights were violated.

If you depend on me to give you somerthing, then it is not a "right."

you are correct rights come from a higher power than man, or from the fact that you are alive in general.  however this brings me back to the origin of debt question I asked.  the democrats say that universal health care is a right,  but since rights do not come from man where is the origin of debt for me to pay for your health care. 

why do union members want to stop all work if it is not done by a union memeber and than complain when a state says that is against the law for unions to intimidate workers or force them to join a union to have a job. 

jones702
DRC wrote: Really.  Do you

DRC wrote:

Really.  Do you know anything about life on the frontier and the code of the West.  Not helping someone in distress could get you killed.  Even military units understand that they don't leave anyone behind.  It is about basic survival and is part of the culture of human societies even if it does not fit into your individualized utopian fantasies.  Really!

in the military you do not leave some one behind because they are out there fighting with you they are working with you they are not a dead weight tied around your waste by an over reaching government for you to support. 

in the old west the community would get to gether and help each other plant crops and harvest and other jobs that needed to be done.  however if there was a farmer that waited to the others to do his work for him he got caught off for being a lazy pos.  much like I think we should do with welfare receipents after a set number of years. because they have not figured out how to support themselves in a few years they are not going to figure it out making them a drag on the system. 

jones702
rigel1 wrote: DRC

rigel1 wrote:

DRC wrote:

Really.  Do you know anything about life on the frontier and the code of the West.  Not helping someone in distress could get you killed.  Even military units understand that they don't leave anyone behind.  It is about basic survival and is part of the culture of human societies even if it does not fit into your individualized utopian fantasies.  Really!

I agree DRC that helping your neighbor is a humane and good thing to do. We should all do it when we can. But if we do not, we have not violated his rights.

if you dont want to help your neighbor the government will come and confiscate your productivity so they can give it to the neighbor you did not want to help. 

 

DRC
DRC's picture
Sure, if you really are an

Sure, if you really are an enemy of the people, really are a sucking cancer, at some point the body will reject you or you will kill the body.  The point of the code of the West is that those who did not help the person in distress were hung.  They were not just scolded for being less than generous.  Lives depended upon it, and you can find similar behaviors and cultures wherever people have to hang together or hang separately.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
JeffW wrote:...They

JeffW wrote:
...They organized, and we had a vote to install a union...Since 2005, until the business closed in 2009, workers were laid off, until we a had a skeleton crew of 4 people. The owner then closed the business in November of 2009.

So your saying that employees got together formed a union and demanded such high bennefits that the comnpany closed.

Why would a union do that? Wouldn't that be irrational?

 

Laborisgood
Laborisgood's picture
Dr. Econ wrote: JeffW

Dr. Econ wrote:

JeffW wrote:
...They organized, and we had a vote to install a union...Since 2005, until the business closed in 2009, workers were laid off, until we a had a skeleton crew of 4 people. The owner then closed the business in November of 2009.

So your saying that employees got together formed a union and demanded such high bennefits that the comnpany closed.

Why would a union do that? Wouldn't that be irrational?

I'm guessing there might be a few more important details to explain the downfall of this business.  I'm open minded.  Perhaps the union factored into it, but there's more to the story or it's a bit contrived.  I've seen many businesses close down recently.  Some union and many not.  Businesses changing from non-union to union in the past few decades is rather rare.

Art
Art's picture
Quote:The owner then closed

Quote:
The owner then closed the business in November of 2009.
This kind of thing just never happens. This study from the Economic Policy Institute 2011 tells us that Right To Work states experience the same lower wages and unemployment problems that we already predict.If you really want the freedom to earn $1500 less and get fewer benefits, a RTW state is probably the best place for you to work. Of course, you won't have any better luck finding a job there than in a non-RTW state.

jones702
DRC wrote: Sure, if you

DRC wrote:

Sure, if you really are an enemy of the people, really are a sucking cancer, at some point the body will reject you or you will kill the body.  The point of the code of the West is that those who did not help the person in distress were hung.  They were not just scolded for being less than generous.  Lives depended upon it, and you can find similar behaviors and cultures wherever people have to hang together or hang separately.

are you suggesting that we hang the lazy?  because that is what they did in the old west because those people would not help themselves.  how would we determin the lazy?  would they be union members that show up to work so drunk they can't drive the man lift?  or the union members that get caught drinking on the job.  or maybe we can start with the welfare reciepent that refuses to get a job in order to raise the 13 kids they can not afford but had any way?

 

Art
Art's picture
Quote:would they be union

Quote:
would they be union members that show up to work so drunk they can't drive the man lift?  or the union members that get caught drinking on the job.  or maybe we can start with the welfare reciepent that refuses to get a job in order to raise the 13 kids they can not afford but had any way?
Assuming that we are even to take these stories seriously, are you saying that the same is not true of non-union workers? Or, for that matter, management people?

jones702
Art wrote: Quote:would they

Art wrote:

Quote:
would they be union members that show up to work so drunk they can't drive the man lift?  or the union members that get caught drinking on the job.  or maybe we can start with the welfare reciepent that refuses to get a job in order to raise the 13 kids they can not afford but had any way?
Assuming that we are even to take these stories seriously, are you saying that the same is not true of non-union workers? Or, for that matter, management people?

sure i was asking where we would start not elliminating them from the pool of those DRC wants to hang for not helping the people that do not deserve it and have not earned it.