"Right to Work (for less)" States

[Cancel7]

Not really, just bored of hearing that same stupid shit of lefties thinking people can just go find another job if they don't like the terms that they imposed on them. I heard this with overtime pay too, when lefties didn't care that I was willing to work more hours for the same pay (as my employer would not pay as high as time and a half), they just said if you want more money, work a second job. It's difficult to do this and why should I be inconvenienced when my employer and I are fine with the agreement?

Are you serious? In fact, that is the usualy righty line to everything from sexual harrassment to low wages.

Don't like it? You can work somewhere else.

Get real Dano, you are so full of shit sometimes, it's astounding. And I say that not to insult you, but because you just really are. Full of shit. I mean, do you know it and giggle when you post this stuff? Or are you really that deluded?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Dano - There is a simple solution to the problem that arises if a person is employed at a business with a unionized work force but doesn't want to be a part of the union. He can get a different job.

There is also a simple solution for the companies. They can outsource.

Funny how quick people like you say, well just get another job if you don't like a union... but are all bitchy when it comes to telling union workers they have to re-train for new jobs because theirs just went to someone else the company preferred working with.

 

[TheDanold]

Yes, but Dano we can compare the United States to other more unionized countries that experienced similar changes in modernization and what we find is that in the US, unlike most others, wages are not tracking productivity whereas in other, more union-heavy industrialized countries, wages are tracking productivity.

But they didn't experience similar changes in modernization, unions fought and often won more concessions on keeping Ludditical idiotic ideas in place.
Show me the stats and we'll see how much productivity went up in comparison.

And the issue isn't whether people "did better." The issue is whether the economy is growing such that everyone is doing better as opposed to the uber-rich doing a whole hell of a lot better while others are marginally out-pacing inflation.

No that is not the issue and it's critical you understand this: Money is not a zero sum game. My employer doing much better has no impact on me doing better or worse.
Or as the great Economist Mises simply put it:
"The standard of living of the common man is higher in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs."

You like to imagine as most intellectual lefties do that because European wages are higher they are doing better, yet you fail to recognize what any common man can quickly see: that their lifestyle is worse. Go to France and see the tiny car (if that) that a family there owns, virtually no one has more than 2 kids. Why? Because they pay a fortune for shit because they are more unionized with heavier amounts of government regulation and taxation.
Wages are best thought of relevant to purchasing power (as a means of determining how "well" individuals are doing), NOT productivity.
And that is if you able to get a job, heavily protected Germany and France sees unemployment rates at twice ours, in the double digits.

Lastly unions use force, you've already shown that, when given a point of me saying that a desire from myself and my employer should be honored wherein I wish to work, you're answer is no it shouldn't and I should just be forced to find another job.

 

[TheDanold]

Are you serious? In fact, that is the usualy righty line to everything from sexual harrassment to low wages.

Don't like it? You can work somewhere else.

Get real Dano, you are so full of shit sometimes, it's astounding. And I say that not to insult you, but because you just really are. Full of shit. I mean, do you know it and giggle when you post this stuff? Or are you really that deluded?

You're mixing parties up here and pretending they all should have equal say.
If my employer and I have an agreement that I work for X amount of dollars, with X conditions, then if either of us are unhappy with that we can try to rework it or one of us can terminate the agreement and find either another job or another employee.

What you are talking about is throwing in a 3rd party (like a union or the student Dungheap) who somehow thinks they have some say in the above agreement. That they should have the power to tell someone to find another job, when they are not part of the 2 willing parties in the agreement.

Do you think some outside force should have the power to decide what agreement you freely reach with your doctor?
If not, then why would you assume otherwise with you and an employer?

 

[Cancel7]

You're mixing parties up here and pretending they all should have equal say.
If my employer and I have an agreement that I work for X amount of dollars, with X conditions, then if either of us are unhappy with that we can try to rework it or one of us can terminate the agreement and find either another job or another employee.

What you are talking about is throwing in a 3rd party (like a union or the student Dungheap) who somehow thinks they have some say in the above agreement. That they should have the power to tell someone to find another job, when they are not part of the 2 willing parties in the agreement.

Do you think some outside force should have the power to decide what agreement you freely reach with your doctor?
If not, then why would you assume otherwise with you and an employer?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[doniston]

In right to work states, employees in union shops are allowed to forgo making union dues payments.

Federal law already requires that no one has to join a union. But, in union states, one who accepts employment, wages and benefits that were negotiated by unions, they have to at least pay dues to the union -- to compensate them for their time and effort in achieving those wage and benefit contracts.

Why should someone get a free ride in a "right to work" state? Why should they take advantage of a wage and benefit contract (which is generally better, than an individual could have negotiated on their own) that a union spent time and money negotiating, without paying dues like everyone else did? In addition, the Union is legally required to defend an employee who is illegally fired, even if that employee chose not to pay union dues.

Or, as AFl-CIO states:

I have been opposed to unions mever since I was a kid, and was subject to their totalitarian laws. The union is fine for assuring work conditions, but wages should be determined by abitiy. not by longivity, etc.

 

[Whomever]

You're mixing parties up here and pretending they all should have equal say.
If my employer and I have an agreement that I work for X amount of dollars, with X conditions, then if either of us are unhappy with that we can try to rework it or one of us can terminate the agreement and find either another job or another employee.

What you are talking about is throwing in a 3rd party (like a union or the student Dungheap) who somehow thinks they have some say in the above agreement. That they should have the power to tell someone to find another job, when they are not part of the 2 willing parties in the agreement.

Do you think some outside force should have the power to decide what agreement you freely reach with your doctor?
If not, then why would you assume otherwise with you and an employer?

Correct that agreement you reached with that gay prostitute is solid. How dare the government coming in and voiding it!

The constitution of these Unitded States does not prohibit Gay prostitution.

 

[Bonestorm]

But they didn't experience similar changes in modernization, unions fought and often won more concessions on keeping Ludditical idiotic ideas in place.
Show me the stats and we'll see how much productivity went up in comparison.


No that is not the issue and it's critical you understand this: Money is not a zero sum game. My employer doing much better has no impact on me doing better or worse.
Or as the great Economist Mises simply put it:
"The standard of living of the common man is higher in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs."

You like to imagine as most intellectual lefties do that because European wages are higher they are doing better, yet you fail to recognize what any common man can quickly see: that their lifestyle is worse. Go to France and see the tiny car (if that) that a family there owns, virtually no one has more than 2 kids. Why? Because they pay a fortune for shit because they are more unionized with heavier amounts of government regulation and taxation.
Wages are best thought of relevant to purchasing power (as a means of determining how "well" individuals are doing), NOT productivity.
And that is if you able to get a job, heavily protected Germany and France sees unemployment rates at twice ours, in the double digits.

Lastly unions use force, you've already shown that, when given a point of me saying that a desire from myself and my employer should be honored wherein I wish to work, you're answer is no it shouldn't and I should just be forced to find another job.

You miss my point entirely and I really have no desire to keep arguing this with you. The bottom line is that you have asserted, as fact, that people have been "doing better" since the decline of unions. Now, I'm not sure how you measure "doing better" but for me doing better would mean that as I increase my productivity output, my wages increase correspondingly. Getting bogged down in the minutiae of the numbers is unnecessary. The fact is that based on my measure of "doing better," getting increases in pay with increases in productivity, people are not better off than at the high point on unionization.

All that Europe and France bashing is claptrap. As I'm sure you are aware since you are a devout reader of the Economist, there are several highly unionized European countries that rank higher than the United States according to your magazine of choice. Among them are the highly unionized Norway and Sweden. As I said, claptrap, all of it.

 

[Cypress]

You are so pompous in this one. I didn't realize you didn't know what 'at-will' laws were...



Seriously, if you had all the knowledge of the universe you would have been able to point that out earlier, instead you attempt to ride another's knowledge of something else to attempt to make another look bad.

Anyway. If we had right to work laws I would have been far less worried about the Union coming in to my place of work, and those who wanted one in our area might have gotten their wish. Instead. The slew of Democrats that I work with voted it down because the union around here represents nothing good at all.

Wow, chill on the anger dude!

I was thanking dung for clearing it up.

 

[cawacko]

I actually didn't know.

That makes two of us.

 

[Damocles]

Wow, chill on the anger dude!

I was thanking dung for clearing it up.

Anger? There was no anger.

 

[Cypress]

I have to ask Damo: Is there something about me, that drives you nuts, and makes you unable to admit I was right?

This is the second day in a row that you argued for numerous posts, that I was wrong. When it turned out I was right afterall.

I told you at least twice that right to work states allowed people to work in union shops, without having to pay union dues. You kept telling me I was wrong. You chose not to believe me. Then Dungheap bascially said I was right, and when I thanked him for clarifying, you called me pompous. When, if any response was warranted, the correct one would have been to admit I was right.

Same thing yesterday: After 30 posts, it was finally proven I was right about incarceration rates - after I had to endure your comments about me being disingenous.

Maybe if I was a mild-mannered college student poster, or a poster with boobs, you could sometimes admit I was right?

 

[uscitizen]

Are you serious? In fact, that is the usualy righty line to everything from sexual harrassment to low wages.

Don't like it? You can work somewhere else.

Get real Dano, you are so full of shit sometimes, it's astounding. And I say that not to insult you, but because you just really are. Full of shit. I mean, do you know it and giggle when you post this stuff? Or are you really that deluded?

Umm now what was the con line about a living wage job ?

 

[TheDanold]

You miss my point entirely and I really have no desire to keep arguing this with you. The bottom line is that you have asserted, as fact, that people have been "doing better" since the decline of unions. Now, I'm not sure how you measure "doing better" but for me doing better would mean that as I increase my productivity output, my wages increase correspondingly. Getting bogged down in the minutiae of the numbers is unnecessary. The fact is that based on my measure of "doing better," getting increases in pay with increases in productivity, people are not better off than at the high point on unionization.

This is just such ignorant nonsense. Last month my company bought licenses for a tool that makes it much easier for me to code JSPs, our productivity as a result is much higher. By your warped logic, I should somehow see my pay increase.
I mean fucking ROFL!
Which goes right back to my old point, in the 80's, the huge productivity gains came from machine automation, why on earth would that coincide with huge wage gains?
It wouldn't, wages went up just not as quickly as productivity, you seem to be relying on this total absurd fallacy that productivity gains MUST equal people working harder. Bullshit and you know it.

All that Europe and France bashing is claptrap.

Pfff, I may as well accuse you of America bashing. They are doing worse than us, deal with it, it's not an insult, it's a fact.

As I'm sure you are aware since you are a devout reader of the Economist, there are several highly unionized European countries that rank higher than the United States according to your magazine of choice. Among them are the highly unionized Norway and Sweden. As I said, claptrap, all of it.

Heh-heh and ranked for what? For wages or for purchasing power? You don't realize how stupid you are sounding here. What difference does it make how high your salary is when things cost so much more?
I've been to Europe, I've seen how people live there compared to here - we are doing better, even in poorer neighborhoods.
Why do you think Eastern European immigrants still flock all the way over to the US more than they do to Europe? They know what you in your ivory tower elitist student eyes have no ability to see plain and simple.

Lastly Finland's economy is hugely reliant on Nokia, Sweden on Ikea and natural resources and Norway on oil. Plus it's not like they can just pack up business and head to anywhere if taxes and regulations are too high, they're aren't any other countries that speak Finnish, Norwegian or Swedish.
The socialist models there don't succeed because they work but because it is difficult for business to pick up and move elsewhere. Not at all the situation America is in.

 

[Litmus]

This is just such ignorant nonsense. Last month my company bought licenses for a tool that makes it much easier for me to code JSPs, our productivity as a result is much higher. By your warped logic, I should somehow see my pay increase.
I mean fucking ROFL!
Which goes right back to my old point, in the 80's, the huge productivity gains came from machine automation, why on earth would that coincide with huge wage gains?
It wouldn't, wages went up just not as quickly as productivity, you seem to be relying on this total absurd fallacy that productivity gains MUST equal people working harder. Bullshit and you know it.


Pfff, I may as well accuse you of America bashing. They are doing worse than us, deal with it, it's not an insult, it's a fact.


Heh-heh and ranked for what? For wages or for purchasing power? You don't realize how stupid you are sounding here. What difference does it make how high your salary is when things cost so much more?
I've been to Europe, I've seen how people live there compared to here - we are doing better, even in poorer neighborhoods.
Why do you think Eastern European immigrants still flock all the way over to the US more than they do to Europe? They know what you in your ivory tower elitist student eyes have no ability to see plain and simple.

Lastly Finland's economy is hugely reliant on Nokia, Sweden on Ikea and natural resources and Norway on oil. Plus it's not like they can just pack up business and head to anywhere if taxes and regulations are too high, they're aren't any other countries that speak Finnish, Norwegian or Swedish.
The socialist models there don't succeed because they work but because it is difficult for business to pick up and move elsewhere. Not at all the situation America is in.

you checked out RUby for Rails? it's the new new thing.

 

[TheDanold]

I have to ask Damo: Is there something about me, that drives you nuts, and makes you unable to admit I was right?

This is the second day in a row that you argued for numerous posts, that I was wrong. When it turned out I was right afterall.

I told you at least twice that right to work states allowed people to work in union shops, without having to pay union dues. You kept telling me I was wrong. You chose not to believe me. Then Dungheap bascially said I was right, and when I thanked him for clarifying, you called me pompous. When, if any response was warranted, the correct one would have been to admit I was right.

Same thing yesterday: After 30 posts, it was finally proven I was right about incarceration rates - after I had to endure your comments about me being disingenous.

Maybe if I was a mild-mannered college student poster, or a poster with boobs, you could sometimes admit I was right?

I remember your picture, flabby middle aged guy and my money is on you having boobs.
Also grown men don't usually use Che as their idol, I haven't seen him on a shirt since college.

 

[TRGLDTE]

In right to work states, employees in union shops are allowed to forgo making union dues payments.

Federal law already requires that no one has to join a union. But, in union states, one who accepts employment, wages and benefits that were negotiated by unions, they have to at least pay dues to the union -- to compensate them for their time and effort in achieving those wage and benefit contracts.

Why should someone get a free ride in a "right to work" state? Why should they take advantage of a wage and benefit contract (which is generally better, than an individual could have negotiated on their own) that a union spent time and money negotiating, without paying dues like everyone else did? In addition, the Union is legally required to defend an employee who is illegally fired, even if that employee chose not to pay union dues.

Or, as AFl-CIO states:

There is a lot more to it than this. Stop believing the commie rhetoric, you fell for it like a sucker.

 

[TheDanold]

you checked out RUby for Rails? it's the new new thing.

Are you a programmer? I have seen it getting bigger, but never used it.
I have used plain Ruby for scripting, I didn't like it too much, but that was a while ago.

 

[Damocles]

I have to ask Damo: Is there something about me, that drives you nuts, and makes you unable to admit I was right?

No, you were right.

This is the second day in a row that you argued for numerous posts, that I was wrong. When it turned out I was right afterall.

True, however before I didn't argue, I simply asked. I thought the laws I was speaking of were called "right to work" here, it was how I remembered it, I was wrong. However you had no idea what type of laws they were, or you could have clarified it.

I told you at least twice that right to work states allowed people to work in union shops, without having to pay union dues. You kept telling me I was wrong. You chose not to believe me. Then Dungheap bascially said I was right, and when I thanked him for clarifying, you called me pompous. When, if any response was warranted, the correct one would have been to admit I was right.

Third time, you were right. Yet you still didn't know the type of law I was speaking of as did Dungheap, or you would not have hesitated to clarify.

Same thing yesterday: After 30 posts, it was finally proven I was right about incarceration rates - after I had to endure your comments about me being disingenous.

One more time. Link that one up. I asked where the numbers came from, I said, "Here are the numbers I am seeing" and linked you to the numbers, I continued to read that link as well diligently looking for the numbers as I believed that they had to be there. First BAC said it was from "other sources" than the DOJ site, he was wrong. I then pointed out the numbers I could find from the DOJ site and asked why they were different, he said I shouldn't trust the DOJ numbers. I then asked where they got the numbers again because they said they got it from the DOJ but they weren't the same as I was seeing. Then BAC posted a story that had about the same numbers but that one was including the Probation and Parolees, not the same thing....

I was getting frustrated as it began to appear as if they made up the numbers. Would you not get frustrated if somebody kept telling you to look it up, you were, and the numbers were not adding up?

I said it "appeared that they just made them up to mislead us". I never said that YOU were disingenuous. If I did use the word I said you were BEING disingenuous and would have pointed out why I thought that your post was such. It is always about the post, not about the person.

Then when I found the numbers on the DOJ site, the same one I linked to, I not only fessed up, immediately, but I did it before your post of the same information. I even made sure to inform that the numbers on BACs original post were actually low, and BEFORE you posted the same numbers that I had just found. This was admitting that I was wrong, where I was wrong, and providing the right numbers all at once.

Right now you are being deliberately disingenuous, pretending that I did not admit to a mistake when I had, up front, as soon as I found the numbers. Even though, up until that point all I had stated was "Where are they getting the numbers from because these ones aren't matching up?!"

Maybe if I was a mild-mannered college student poster, or a poster with boobs, you could sometimes admit I was right?

Um.... I did yesterday, I did today.

Maybe if I was a liberal with boobs you could admit to not knowing what the laws I actually was talking about were, you know "At Will laws", and thus you were incapable of naming them instead of riding the knowledge of somebody else and pretending you knew what they were all along. It was reminding me of the actual wording that made me go, "Oh yeah, duh!" whereupon I immediately said, basically, "whoops, you guys are right" then went on to give my actual opinion on such laws.

I understood the laws that you were talking about were "Right To Work" laws, but believed they might be different for different areas because for some reason I was crossing "At Will" with "Right to Work"... *sigh*

But then if I was a liberal with boobs you wouldn't suggest that questions on something is the same as saying that YOU were disingenuous. (Which I never say, I say that you are 'being' disingenuous, it is only ever about one post, never about the poster themselves.)

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's a way to further phase out unions. There are plenty of idiots who will forego paying the dues, collect the higher, union-negotiated wages, and think they're "getting away with" something. And then, ten years down the road when they are working for minimum wage and there is no union, they will be just as surprised as shit.

Because there are really people that stupid out there. And they are easy prey for big business and their political allies. It's sad really.

There's really not that many unions anymore, Darla. Most companies that had to deal with unions have long since collapsed.