New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Should government require an organization to provide services and not allow them to collect payment?

It is a good question. Should the government require an organization to provide services and deny them the right to collect payment for those services. Well, that is what right-to-work states do with their unions. The government requires that the union provide the same service for all employees covered by the union contract, even those who are not willing to join the union and pay dues. Of course being Americans we believe we should get something for nothing and will not join the union and pay dues. But of course we are the first to go running to the union if we have a problem. Just so you know, I wasn't a union member, I actually helped negotiate contracts on management side as well as administrate contracts from management side. Yet, I can understand why unions were formed and why in today's market they are probably needed more than ever.
 
this may be your worst post yet.

the government does NOT require that unions "provide the same services" to non union members in the same workplace. non - union employees do NOT enjoy

- the right to strike without being fired
- union representation if the employee is in a dispute with his/her employer
- union supplemental health or pension benefits
- the right to challenge union leaders for office

and so on and so forth.

in fact, non-union employees - such as teachers - don't even have the "right" to the same wage structure as their union counterparts. however, many school districts pay non-union workers the same anyway, since 90%+ of the workforce is unionized, and negotiating a separate compensation agreement with each non-union worker would be time consuming and provide no benefit to either side.
 

Lukey

Senator
This is a profound post!!! And explains a LOT about the progressive (anti-capitalist) agenda, and why socialism always goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.

Yes, the people believe "we should get something for nothing," which is why socialism always fails (as will the union if forced to "work for nothing" - like the productive in a socialist wealth redistributionist scheme). So the "authoritarian" socialist "benevolent dictator" must increasingly exert legal control over the population, as you would suggest we do here by forcing people to join the union, or, say, through forced labor in a socialist workers' "paradise" to ensure something is produced by someone.

Thanks!
 
this may be your worst post yet.

the government does NOT require that unions "provide the same services" to non union members in the same workplace. non - union employees do NOT enjoy

- the right to strike without being fired
- union representation if the employee is in a dispute with his/her employer
- union supplemental health or pension benefits
- the right to challenge union leaders for office

and so on and so forth.

in fact, non-union employees - such as teachers - don't even have the "right" to the same wage structure as their union counterparts. however, many school districts pay non-union workers the same anyway, since 90%+ of the workforce is unionized, and negotiating a separate compensation agreement with each non-union worker would be time consuming and provide no benefit to either side.
I am not talking about non-union people, I am talking about all that are "covered" by the union contract. Like if the teachers have a union then then union is required to provide services to all teachers whether they belong to the union or not. If you knew anything about unions you would know the difference and would know what I am talking about. Apparently you don't.
 
This is a profound post!!! And explains a LOT about the progressive (anti-capitalist) agenda, and why socialism always goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.

Yes, the people believe "we should get something for nothing," which is why socialism always fails (as will the union if forced to "work for nothing" - like the productive in a socialist wealth redistributionist scheme). So the "authoritarian" socialist "benevolent dictator" must increasingly exert legal control over the population, as you would suggest we do here by forcing people to join the union, or, say, through forced labor in a socialist workers' "paradise" to ensure something is produced by someone.

Thanks!
Have you seen what has happened to wages in this country since the death of unions. Unions helped create a balance between the power of ownership and the power of workers. It is not the word you use to scare the stupid in this country, socialism, it allows workers to have a say not only in their wages and benefits, but their working conditions. Most of the laws that safeguard employees come from unions. Of course you believe that employees should work for slave wages and if they don't like horrid working conditions they can just starve.
 

Lukey

Senator
Have you seen what has happened to wages in this country since the death of unions. Unions helped create a balance between the power of ownership and the power of workers. It is not the word you use to scare the stupid in this country, socialism, it allows workers to have a say not only in their wages and benefits, but their working conditions. Most of the laws that safeguard employees come from unions. Of course you believe that employees should work for slave wages and if they don't like horrid working conditions they can just starve.
Yes, it is, actually:

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Eugene-V-Debs

Labor and socialism have long gone hand in hand.

Unions destroyed industries in America, by making themselves over paid and under worked and too powerful to allow businesses to restructure into a more profitable enterprise in the face of foreign competition.

Incomes were rising nicely in the 90s, without the benefit of increased unionism. A strong business environment that forces employers to compete for workers drives up incomes, not union based wealth redistribution.
 

connieb

Senator
It is a good question. Should the government require an organization to provide services and deny them the right to collect payment for those services. Well, that is what right-to-work states do with their unions. The government requires that the union provide the same service for all employees covered by the union contract, even those who are not willing to join the union and pay dues. Of course being Americans we believe we should get something for nothing and will not join the union and pay dues. But of course we are the first to go running to the union if we have a problem. Just so you know, I wasn't a union member, I actually helped negotiate contracts on management side as well as administrate contracts from management side. Yet, I can understand why unions were formed and why in today's market they are probably needed more than ever.

The solution to this of course then is to not require the unions to do so. But, of course the unions wanted that language so they could force people to join.

The question really should be does the Gov't have the right to force a person to join a union or pay money to a union - simply because they would like to work someplace. And, the answer would be no.

The other question should be - shoudl the Gov't force business owners to negotiate and contributions to unions, if they don't want to . And the answer is no.

So, if the unions are now being hampered by rules they wanted - in the first place, well.. tough.

connie
 
The solution to this of course then is to not require the unions to do so. But, of course the unions wanted that language so they could force people to join.

The question really should be does the Gov't have the right to force a person to join a union or pay money to a union - simply because they would like to work someplace. And, the answer would be no.

The other question should be - shoudl the Gov't force business owners to negotiate and contributions to unions, if they don't want to . And the answer is no.

So, if the unions are now being hampered by rules they wanted - in the first place, well.. tough.

connie
No Actually the unions did not want the language, it was forced on them by the Feds and NLRB.
 

connieb

Senator
No Actually the unions did not want the language, it was forced on them by the Feds and NLRB.
Oh Bull. They wanted it - becuase they wanted to enforce the dues. They knew - without still forcing people to pay - less people would pay. Which is exactly what happened. And, if they are so unhappy about those rules, well with thier powerful lobby - why don't they work to get them changed? Hmmmm.... because they want them, that is why. They know once they remove that final string.. then its game over for them.

connie
 
Yes, it is, actually:

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Eugene-V-Debs

Labor and socialism have long gone hand in hand.

Unions destroyed industries in America, by making themselves over paid and under worked and too powerful to allow businesses to restructure into a more profitable enterprise in the face of foreign competition.

Incomes were rising nicely in the 90s, without the benefit of increased unionism. A strong business environment that forces employers to compete for workers drives up incomes, not union based wealth redistribution.
Yes, unions and socialism have been tied together in this country, but unions are not socialism. They were a natural part of the capitalistic system. A balance between employers and employees. And they did not drive businesses out of business. At one time this country bought 25% of all the goods sold in the world and the world economy thrived. Then to make a few extra bucks companies moved their manufacturing oversea and killed the goose that laid their golden eggs. Americans with the drop in average wages caused by the actions of the businesses, not the employees, can no longer buy 25% of the goods and our economy and the world economy is paying the price. And until other countries are able to make up the difference, our economy and the world economy will continue to suffer lower, slower growth and continued recessions.
 
Oh Bull. They wanted it - becuase they wanted to enforce the dues. They knew - without still forcing people to pay - less people would pay. Which is exactly what happened. And, if they are so unhappy about those rules, well with thier powerful lobby - why don't they work to get them changed? Hmmmm.... because they want them, that is why. They know once they remove that final string.. then its game over for them.

connie
Have you ever studied economic history and the history of unions? Guessed not.
 
Yes actually, thoroughly as part of my undergraduate and graduate degrees in business.

connie
Same here and I took courses in Economic history that is not required as part of most undergrad programs. And if you had worked in the field you should know that the NLRB requires all unions to provide all services to those covered by the union contract whether they belong to the union or not. That is why Fair Share became legal, so that the union would be paid for those service provided. those who decided not to join the union could opt out of that part of fair share costs that were determined to be political.
 

connieb

Senator
Same here and I took courses in Economic history that is not required as part of most undergrad programs. And if you had worked in the field you should know that the NLRB requires all unions to provide all services to those covered by the union contract whether they belong to the union or not. That is why Fair Share became legal, so that the union would be paid for those service provided. those who decided not to join the union could opt out of that part of fair share costs that were determined to be political.
First of all - no they do not require they provide ALL services. They are covered by the collective bargaining agreement but you are not necessarily entitled to a union rep in a firing process for instance.

The solution - as I have previously said - then is to only allow union members to benefit. But, as I said the unions don't want that. Because they do want to force people to contribute EVEN if they don't want to. Otherwise even more people will leave the union.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
It is a good question. Should the government require an organization to provide services and deny them the right to collect payment for those services. Well, that is what right-to-work states do with their unions. The government requires that the union provide the same service for all employees covered by the union contract, even those who are not willing to join the union and pay dues. Of course being Americans we believe we should get something for nothing and will not join the union and pay dues. But of course we are the first to go running to the union if we have a problem. Just so you know, I wasn't a union member, I actually helped negotiate contracts on management side as well as administrate contracts from management side. Yet, I can understand why unions were formed and why in today's market they are probably needed more than ever.
All part of the right wing's jihad against unions.

Which is often accompanied by carping about the growth in the income/wealth gaps.
 

worldlymrb

Revenge
This is a profound post!!! And explains a LOT about the progressive (anti-capitalist) agenda, and why socialism always goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.

Yes, the people believe "we should get something for nothing," which is why socialism always fails (as will the union if forced to "work for nothing" - like the productive in a socialist wealth redistributionist scheme). So the "authoritarian" socialist "benevolent dictator" must increasingly exert legal control over the population, as you would suggest we do here by forcing people to join the union, or, say, through forced labor in a socialist workers' "paradise" to ensure something is produced by someone.

Thanks!
Which is why socialism=slavery.
 

worldlymrb

Revenge
All part of the right wing's jihad against unions.

Which is often accompanied by carping about the growth in the income/wealth gaps.
Yes. Most of us on the right are deeply offended that the gap between rich/poor has widened at the fastest pace than at any other time in US history under false hope/change. Including the Roaring 20s.
 

Lukey

Senator
Yes. Most of us on the right are deeply offended that the gap between rich/poor has widened at the fastest pace than at any other time in US history under false hope/change. Including the Roaring 20s.
I don't get it! Where do these leftist fools think all the big government spending is going to go, if not ultimately to the oligarchs?

Screen Shot 2016-05-26 at 10.40.24 AM.png

Screen Shot 2016-05-26 at 10.41.33 AM.png
This isn't rocket science...
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
Republican antipathy towards unions = cheap labor Republicans.
being against the minimum wage or raising it = cheap labor Republicans.

Trump says wages are too high as it is = cheap labor Republicans.
 

worldlymrb

Revenge
I don't get it! Where do these leftist fools think all the big government spending is going to go, if not ultimately to the oligarchs.
Talk about hitting the nail on the head!

Enter now if you will, the FOR-PROFIT, privately owned central bank (Federal Reserve). Who is immune from any congress oversight, immune from presidential executive orders, immune from audits and General Accepted Accounting Principles, who is financing half of all federal govt spending with sub-prime/predatory loans, as well as subsidizing the artificially high stock market which the 1% own nearly HALF of.
 
Top