Right to work...for LESS

Rune said:
Thankyou. I am having this same discussion on another board and no one gets this simple concept.
whatever, dude. So much for that fat bud I was saving for you (just kidding)

WTF are you talking about now? Unions are not everywhere and have quickly diminishing power. Your post is what is lacking logic. Nevermind the weed, you don't need any.
Click to expand...


It's ridiculous, isn't it?

One poster claims unions represent 11.6% of the workforce...and then clueless Grind claims they are "everywhere".

Burning the "stupid" candle at both ends.
 
leaningright said:
I was watching Morning Joe this morning as Joe was making his arguments for what was going on in MI. I wanted to interject the real reason why so many states are going RTW ... And why republicans were supportive of it. Not one of those smart guys on his show would say it. Of course it is all politics. Let's say that I am a shop worker in a union shop. I must pay my dues in order to have my job. Those dues are used collectively to support candidates who are sympathetic to unions...ie. democrats. These same candidates happen to also support a lot of things that I oppose and support a lot of things that I oppose. Just in the last election, how much union money was spent to campaign for president Obama? IMO, that is what it all boils down to.

As to being a RTW state...and here I am talking about myself specifically...I am not a member of my professional union NEA/OEA for the reason I listed above. I am a member of an alternate professional organization in our state. I am glad we are a RTW state.
Click to expand...
You're argument is what I call "Losing the forest because of the trees.". The Unions mission is to look after it's memberships economic best interest and conditions of employment. Their support of politicians and political parties is based on that principle alone. Now if you oppose that support based on issues other than the economic issues you union supports, that's your perogative. Though it probably isn't in your best financial interest to do so. The other politicians may share your views on other important issues but they damned sure don't on issues such as wages, benefits and your conditions of employment.

I personally left the Republican party because as a professional in the sciences, it became clear to me that business types feel that professional who are just as educated, more productive and whom many business could not survive with out their skills, think that owners and managers of a business that we should work for them based solely in the conditions and wages they proscribe autocratically. That's baloney. Secondly, as a man of science their irrational opposition to sound science policy and education negatively impacts my ability not only to make a living but to productively prosper and thirdly their economic policies artificually redistribute money from those who produce to those who don't, only they do so upwardly. I call it reverse socialism. They call it "supply side economics". Regardless, it's not in my best interest.

Now having said this, its clear to anyone who has the wit to rub two sticks together that the sole purpose of RTK laws is to allow freeriders to undermine the collective bargaining process.

The problem I see with underminig Unions is that it permits more of the reverse socialism. A greater degree of the revenue generated for workers productivity will be artificially directed upwards and not to those who produce that wealth. When working peoples ability to profit from their productive labors is undermined it affects those of us in the skilled trades and profession in that more and more of the revenue generated from our productive labors is artificially distributed upwards to people who did not produce that wealth. In other words, wealth is not distributed proportionately with those who produce that wealth. Ultimately you end up with a plutocracy, an aristocracy of money if you will, in which a handfull of financiers own everything and those who produce wealth earn very little. That's not a good situation and it what leads to civil unrest, rebellion and revolution.
 
Rune said:
Hey idiot, you are already free to not join any union you like, we don't need any laws for that.

Right to work laws are nothing more than wage depressing actions.
Click to expand...

if people love unions as much as you think they do, then unions shouldn't have any problems retaining their membership.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Not surprisingly, another disingenuous Rightie either can't or won't acknowledge the true motives behind the recent attempts to dismantle unions.

What he doesn't understand is that rational people will one day come to realize that the Conservative claim that they only want to destroy unions in order to give workers more "freedom" is just another bullshit lie on a par with the initial claim by ignorant Righties that the 9/11 terrorists blew up the WTC because they hated us for our "freedoms".
Click to expand...

You've not demonstrated how anyone has made any attempt whatsoever to "dismantle unions" in America. You continue to make this false assertion, after the State of Michigan passed a law, voted on by the elected representatives of the people, to allow workers the right to decide if they want to belong to a union or not. It is clear that you oppose the will of the people, and support Fascism and Totalitarianism. You oppose personal freedom and liberty, and support statist government control. You've proven that you will tell any lie you need to tell, in order to maintain power and control, and you are totally not interested in an honest debate.
 
Grease said:
so why fight for worker rights at all? No one is forcing the worker to take a sub par job either.

:derp: <-- rune

Your logic is retarded. If unions are everywhere and have more power, then choice becomes limited to non-existent. People shouldn't have to pay for something they don't support. I know this just flabbergasts liberals, but it's the ethical thing to do.
Click to expand...
That's not only a strawman argument it's a retarded one. Fine, if you dont' support someting then don't. But that doesn't give you the right to benefit from others efforts and money they spend. You want to completely ignore the free rider issue. It's not ok to be a moocher. That is what free riders are. If you don't want to work in a union shop. Fine. Don't. If want to work in a union shop but not be part of the union. Fine, don't belong. If you think you have a right to benefit from collective bargaining that other people have paid for, you're not only wrong, you're a free riding moocher.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're argument is what I call "Losing the forest because of the trees.". The Unions mission is to look after it's memberships economic best interest and conditions of employment. Their support of politicians and political parties is based on that principle alone. Now if you oppose that support based on issues other than the economic issues you union supports, that's your perogative. Though it probably isn't in your best financial interest to do so. The other politicians may share your views on other important issues but they damned sure don't on issues such as wages, benefits and your conditions of employment.

I personally left the Republican party because as a professional in the sciences, it became clear to me that business types feel that professional who are just as educated, more productive and whom many business could not survive with out their skills, think that owners and managers of a business that we should work for them based solely in the conditions and wages they proscribe autocratically. That's baloney. Secondly, as a man of science their irrational opposition to sound science policy and education negatively impacts my ability not only to make a living but to productively prosper and thirdly their economic policies artificually redistribute money from those who produce to those who don't, only they do so upwardly. I call it reverse socialism. They call it "supply side economics". Regardless, it's not in my best interest.

Now having said this, its clear to anyone who has the wit to rub two sticks together that the sole purpose of RTK laws is to allow freeriders to undermine the collective bargaining process.

The problem I see with underminig Unions is that it permits more of the reverse socialism. A greater degree of the revenue generated for workers productivity will be artificially directed upwards and not to those who produce that wealth. When working peoples ability to profit from their productive labors is undermined it affects those of us in the skilled trades and profession in that more and more of the revenue generated from our productive labors is artificially distributed upwards to people who did not produce that wealth. In other words, wealth is not distributed proportionately with those who produce that wealth. Ultimately you end up with a plutocracy, an aristocracy of money if you will, in which a handfull of financiers own everything and those who produce wealth earn very little. That's not a good situation and it what leads to civil unrest, rebellion and revolution.
Click to expand...


Well said!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not only a strawman argument it's a retarded one. Fine, if you dont' support someting then don't. But that doesn't give you the right to benefit from others efforts and money they spend. You want to completely ignore the free rider issue. It's not ok to be a moocher. That is what free riders are. If you don't want to work in a union shop. Fine. Don't. If want to work in a union shop but not be part of the union. Fine, don't belong. If you think you have a right to benefit from collective bargaining that other people have paid for, you're not only wrong, you're a free riding moocher.
Click to expand...

that's not their fault that the union wants to spread the money around. maybe that's something the union should work towards fixing. If the union is to incompetent to do so, too bad. If the union has backed itself into a corner because of it's past greedy tentacles trying to strangle everyone, toooooo bad.
 
Liberty said:
Liberty would be freedom from the republican-democrat party.

Tyranny would be life under the republican-democrat party.

????
Click to expand...

Instead of "republican-democrat party" (which no longer exists), let's say "government" instead, and I will agree.

It's important to note, the Democrat party is ostensibly, The Party of Government. It is what they represent. Republicans can also fall into the same category, but Conservatives simply do not. Conservatives are NOT a political party, they believe in personal freedom and liberty, as opposed to Government control over our lives, and that is what they represent.
 
can everyone stop saying "har har, you don't have to be in a union, you just have to pay them money" as if it were some viable alternative? it fucking isnt. you might as well be in the union anyway.

Anyway this whole thing is moot. The takers lost. You get that? YOU FUCKING LOST! LOL!!!!!!!
 
Grease said:
that's not their fault that the union wants to spread the money around. maybe that's something the union should work towards fixing. If the union is to incompetent to do so, too bad. If the union has backed itself into a corner because of it's past greedy tentacles trying to strangle everyone, toooooo bad.
Click to expand...
That's true. Unions are no different then any other political lobbying organization. There are consequences to be paid for over reach. However, the opposite is true too.
 
Crashk said:
Unions don't hire workers the company does. If that person is lazy the union can only protect him for so long.

You must have been that lazy worker that the union refuses to back after you got into trouble 2 or 3 times.

The rest of your post is pure bullshit. As is your 'story'.


If we're going to have a global economy then we must have a global labor union or coalition of global unions to protect worker's rights.
Otherwise we'll all become low-wage slaves like those being produced in Right to Slave states.
Click to expand...

I was let go from a union at age 22 because I WORKED TOO FAST and the lazy union slugs liked to milk the jobs. Best thing that ever happened to me. I was self employed soon after and on my way to a REAL opportunity, not the bullshit union shop thjat closed down a couple years later. This is in Portland oregon, the liberal heaven for you commies. You are an ignorant dumbfuck who has ZERO real world experience. Go watch MSNBC some more, dumbass.
 
Grease said:
can everyone stop saying "har har, you don't have to be in a union, you just have to pay them money" as if it were some viable alternative? it fucking isnt. you might as well be in the union anyway.

Anyway this whole thing is moot. The takers lost. You get that? YOU FUCKING LOST! LOL!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
That or you might as well go work somewhere else. The point being here Grind. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't benefit from collective bargaining with out contributing to the cost. If you think those who pay for that cost are going to tolerate those in their midst who don't you're wrong. In fact they would be idiots to tolerate such moochers.
 
Dungheap said:
What's the solid argument. Damo abandoned his original point (workers got what unions fight for through legislation) and instead pretends that there is no such thing as Beck rights and doesn't address the obvious free rider issues that "right-to-work" bring about. Not much there to rebut.
Click to expand...

Actually I made no point about "right to work" only about the fact that new people coming into the work market don't look at unions like you do, nor do they think that giving union thugs a ton of cash to be helpful. That is a PR issue. They see their rights protected, and don't feel that paying a union to do it "more" is a good investment. It is what people perceive that I speak about, it is the "why" the laws like this are now passing in places that previously they never would have.
 
"I was let go from a union at age 22 because I WORKED TOO FAST"

Yeah I tell people crazy shit when I let them go too. I like to let them down easily. It's always a lie.
 
fuck unions and the idiots that join them. Too fucking stupid to make it on your own? Join others and bully together!!
 
tinfoil said:
I was let go from a union at age 22 because I WORKED TOO FAST and the lazy union slugs liked to milk the jobs. Best thing that ever happened to me. I was self employed soon after and on my way to a REAL opportunity, not the bullshit union shop thjat closed down a couple years later. This is in Portland oregon, the liberal heaven for you commies. You are an ignorant dumbfuck who has ZERO real world experience. Go watch MSNBC some more, dumbass.
Click to expand...
I went to college and grad school and learned a profession so I wouldn't have to be part of a collective bargaining unit either. So what's your point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top