For conservatives.

[Arkady]

Imagine you own a company that provides retailers with the shelves they use for in-store displays. After a long, hard negotiation, you have struck up a mutually beneficial deal with Wal Mart. They agree to make you their exclusive provider of such shelves, for a certain period, and in exchange you agree to provide them agreed pricing, and to ensure that all their orders get filled in a certain period of time. You're able to provide that pricing and those guarantees because the exclusive contract lets you line up sourcing at prices that wouldn't be available without an assurance of that kind of volume. But, some of your own Chinese suppliers, who make the actual shelves, don't like the fact Wal Mart won't buy from them unless they sell through your business . So, they bring a lawsuit, and, because they have a lot of political pull, the court strikes down that provision of your contract. You're still required to sell to Wal Mart at the same price, with the same obligations for timely order fulfillment, but you're no longer able to count on the volume, because any time Wal Mart can find cheaper supply directly from your suppliers, it's allowed to do so, notwithstanding what they agreed. Is it a good idea for the court to interfere with the freedom of contract of two sophisticated business entities, that way? Is it a good idea for it to unilaterally change the terms of a hard-bargained business deal? Is it wise for them to rule exclusive supply contracts unconstitutional?

Most conservatives would object to "Big Brother" stepping in and screwing around with a supply contract that way. Yet, it seems conservatives would be just fine with it in another context, where what was being supplied weren't goods, but rather labor. Unions have made exclusive-supply deals for labor with a number of companies, and so should Big Brother unilaterally come through and alter the negotiated terms of those deals, to allow the companies to ignore the exclusivity terms they agreed to, while continuing to bind the unions to any obligations they agreed to in exchange for that exclusivity? That kind of interference in contract would be anathema to conservatives in most contexts, but when it's seen as a way to take power away from labor, for the benefit of capital, they toss that principle out the window. Libertarian-minded conservatives should be particularly offended by such a concept, but since they're not honestly principle-driven, but rather driven by a desire for partisan political outcomes favoring the wealthy, they won't be.

 

[Jen]

The Supreme Court has ruled.
We really don't need to continue to rehash it.

 

[Gramps]

The Supreme Court has ruled.
We really don't need to continue to rehash it.

C'mon, now Jen. Does that also apply to Roe vs. Wade? Don't get mad. Think about what you said.

gramps

 

[Jen]

C'mon, now Jen. Does that also apply to Roe vs. Wade? Don't get mad. Think about what you said.

gramps

Yes. It does apply to RoeV Wade.

We have hashed and rehashed the Hobby Lobby thing ahead of the SCOTUS decision. No need to continue it now.

 

[UPNYA2]

C'mon, now Jen. Does that also apply to Roe vs. Wade? Don't get mad. Think about what you said.

gramps

An excellent point.

One which could be applied EITHER way though.........

If one accepts that Roe vs. Wade is settled, is the law of the land and should not be argued or challenged, why would the same not apply in this case?

Yet it would appear as if many a champion of a womans right to abort an unborn child if she so desires because the SC said it was ok are not exactly accepting of that same court saying it is ok for people who do not believe in abortion to not be forced to pay for it whenever a woman desires they do so...........

Odd.

 

[Arkady]

Yah.
I would have removed this too, Arkady.
I'm out of my depth for stating that the SCOTUS has ruled and there's no need to rehash it? WTH? LOLOLOLOL
Your response was worth a smile or two so here it is:

Jen says:
The Supreme Court has ruled.
We really don't need to continue to rehash it.

Arkady responds:

Yes, you're out of your depth for suggesting, on a political chat board, that there's no need to rehash a Supreme Court decision that just came out this very day. The whole purpose of this forum is to rehash that kind of thing. We regularly rehash utter trivia for months on end, like botched communications over the Benghazi attack, which made absolutely no difference to anyone's lives. Obviously we can and should engage in far more consequential and timely issues like Supreme Court decisions that will affect millions of people. Just as obviously, you're perfectly aware that you'd be out of your depth if you tried to discuss it, so it's easier just to indulge in censorship.

You at least make me chuckle. What else are fools good for?

 

[Jen]

An excellent point.

One which could be applied EITHER way though.........

If one accepts that Roe vs. Wade is settled, is the law of the land and should not be argued or challenged, why would the same not apply in this case?

Yet it would appear as if many a champion of a womans right to abort an unborn child if she so desires because the SC said it was ok are not exactly accepting of that same court saying it is ok for people who do not believe in abortion to not be forced to pay for it whenever a woman desires they do so...........

Odd.

That idea that IF it is someone's right to get an abortion, then it is also that person's right to have someone else pay for it........is a hard idea to let go of. Their thinking is that IF you have the right to something and can't afford it, then it must be provided for you. IMO that's a wrong way of thinking.

IF I have the right to something, then I can spend (my own) time, money, effort on that thing, but I do NOT have the right to force someone else to provide it for me. That would infringe on their rights.

 

[Jen]

Yes, you're out of your depth for suggesting, on a political chat board, that there's no need to rehash a Supreme Court decision that just came out this very day. The whole purpose of this forum is to rehash that kind of thing. We regularly rehash utter trivia for months on end, like botched communications over the Benghazi attack, which made absolutely no difference to anyone's lives. Obviously we can and should engage in far more consequential and timely issues like Supreme Court decisions that will affect millions of people. Just as obviously, you're perfectly aware that you'd be out of your depth if you tried to discuss it, so it's easier just to indulge in censorship.

You at least make me chuckle. What else are fools good for?

The way I see it, since I didn't want to rehash it and you did, and you had written an entire screed about it ( of which you were very proud) you decided I was stupid.

Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically stupid. And you don't even see that that attitude makes you look like a total jerk. A buffoon.

The last smile is mine.

 

[resident_evil]

Imagine you own a company that provides retailers with the shelves they use for in-store displays. After a long, hard negotiation, you have struck up a mutually beneficial deal with Wal Mart. They agree to make you their exclusive provider of such shelves, for a certain period, and in exchange you agree to provide them agreed pricing, and to ensure that all their orders get filled in a certain period of time. You're able to provide that pricing and those guarantees because the exclusive contract lets you line up sourcing at prices that wouldn't be available without an assurance of that kind of volume. But, some of your own Chinese suppliers, who make the actual shelves, don't like the fact Wal Mart won't buy from them unless they sell through your business . So, they bring a lawsuit, and, because they have a lot of political pull, the court strikes down that provision of your contract. You're still required to sell to Wal Mart at the same price, with the same obligations for timely order fulfillment, but you're no longer able to count on the volume, because any time Wal Mart can find cheaper supply directly from your suppliers, it's allowed to do so, notwithstanding what they agreed. Is it a good idea for the court to interfere with the freedom of contract of two sophisticated business entities, that way? Is it a good idea for it to unilaterally change the terms of a hard-bargained business deal? Is it wise for them to rule exclusive supply contracts unconstitutional?

Most conservatives would object to "Big Brother" stepping in and screwing around with a supply contract that way. Yet, that's essentially what the court just did... it's just that what was being supplied weren't goods, but rather labor. Unions have made exclusive-supply deals for labor with a number of companies, and now Big Brother has unilaterally come through and altered the negotiated terms of those deals, to allow the companies to ignore the exclusivity terms they agreed to, while continuing to bind the unions to any obligations they agreed to in exchange for that exclusivity. That kind of interference in contract would be anathema to conservatives in most contexts, but when it's seen as a way to take power away from labor, for the benefit of capital, they toss that principle out the window. Libertarian-minded conservatives should be particularly offended by the ruling, but since they're not honestly principle-driven, but rather driven by a desire for partisan political outcomes favoring the wealthy, they won't be.

B.s. People (employees) were freed to represent themselves. The way you colored that description of unions it sounded like a slave holder trading in the labors of individuals with no freedom of choice or conscience. A mafia protection racket. That was the creepiest thing you've ever said Arky.

 

[Jen]

B.s. People (employees) were freed to represent themselves. The way you colored that description of unions it sounded like a slave holder. A mafia protection racket. That was the creepiest thing you've ever said Arky.

Not the creepiest (I have a post Arky made to me that beats this one) but close to it.

 

[Arkady]

An excellent point.

One which could be applied EITHER way though.........

If one accepts that Roe vs. Wade is settled, is the law of the land and should not be argued or challenged, why would the same not apply in this case?

Yet it would appear as if many a champion of a womans right to abort an unborn child if she so desires because the SC said it was ok are not exactly accepting of that same court saying it is ok for people who do not believe in abortion to not be forced to pay for it whenever a woman desires they do so...........

Odd.

I'm fine with continuing to debate Roe v. Wade. But, let's recall, it's a case that was decided 7-2, and has survived for 41 years, through all kinds of different court lineups, so it's unlikely it's going anywhere. The cases that just came out today, on the other hand, were closely decided by five arch conservatives, and probably wouldn't survive a single timely death by one of them. That seems like a more productive area for argument.

Anyway, on a side point, I've dug into the union case and realized it's a lot narrower than I thought. It doesn't amount to a generalized striking down of union exclusivity principles, but rather just applies to public unions. I'll need to read it in its entirety, when I have more time.

 

[Arkady]

The way I see it, since I didn't want to rehash it and you did, and you had written an entire screed about it ( of which you were very proud) you decided I was stupid.

Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically stupid. And you don't even see that that attitude makes you look like a total jerk. A buffoon.

The last smile is mine.

No. To be clear, it wasn't that one post that made me think you were stupid. It was a long history of reading your blathering idiocy that did so. That one post just made me realize that YOU think you're stupid.

 

[Jen]

No. To be clear, it wasn't that one post that made me think you were stupid. It was a long history of reading your blathering idiocy that did so. That one post just made me realize that YOU think you're stupid.

Fair enough.
Your history of truly creepy posts (that one to me about "c**t" as an example) allows me to know for certain (and others have said the same) that you are a creep whose hubris keeps him from seeing how creepy it actually is. Anthony Weiner comes to mind. Are you related to him?

 

[Arkady]

B.s. People (employees) were freed to represent themselves. The way you colored that description of unions it sounded like a slave holder trading in the labors of individuals with no freedom of choice or conscience. A mafia protection racket. That was the creepiest thing you've ever said Arky.

The situations are parallel. In the Wal Mart supply situation, anyone who wanted to work to supply Wal Mart with display shelves had to do it through your company, until the court stepped in and changed that. In the other case, it's also about having to work through an intermediary to provide labor to a business, only the intermediary is a non-profit union in which a person has a vote, rather than a for-profit corporation in which one has no rights. So, why would someone support respecting exclusive supply rights in one case but not the other, except from strictly partisan political motivations?

I'm in business and we do exclusive supply deals frequently -- including when it comes to some forms of labor. For example, we might do a deal with a temp staffing firm, where the firm agrees to lower their normal fee, in exchange for us agreeing only to use that one firm for all our temp staffing needs. We get the benefit of lower fees than we'd get on the market, and the temp firm gets the benefit of greater volume. Is that a "mafia protection racket"? Are we talking about "slave holders"? No. We're talking about a business deal. Why would it be any different if the exclusive deal were with a labor union, working on behalf of its members, rather than a temp staffing company, working on behalf of its shareholders?

And the same analysis should play out even in the public context. A government, likewise, can make an exclusive deal with a particular vendor to provide particular goods or services (e.g., the IRS agreeing to special pricing with a particular paper vendor, in exchange for using that paper vendor exclusively for a set period). That is essentially a requirement that anyone who wants to provide those particular goods and services to that particular agency in that period must go by way of that chosen vendor. Why would that be OK, but then it wouldn't be OK to, likewise, require that anyone providing some other kinds of services to that particular agency in that period must go by way of a union?

 

[PhilFish]

I'm fine with continuing to debate Roe v. Wade. But, let's recall, it's a case that was decided 7-2, and has survived for 41 years, through all kinds of different court lineups, so it's unlikely it's going anywhere. The cases that just came out today, on the other hand, were closely decided by five arch conservatives, and probably wouldn't survive a single timely death by one of them. That seems like a more productive area for argument.

Anyway, on a side point, I've dug into the union case and realized it's a lot narrower than I thought. It doesn't amount to a generalized striking down of union exclusivity principles, but rather just applies to public unions. I'll need to read it in its entirety, when I have more time.

i though it applied to home care workers unions and their being allowed to opt out of union dues (in particular calls for dues for expressly political purposes..)

 

[Arkady]

Fair enough.
Your history of truly creepy posts (that one to me about "c**t" as an example) allows me to know for certain (and others have said the same) that you are a creep whose hubris keeps him from seeing how creepy it actually is. Anthony Weiner comes to mind. Are you related to him?

Which post? I have no recollection of calling you or any other poster here that, and I just searched my history and it didn't turn up any examples of me using that word. It turns up two posts where unwelcome language has been deleted, but in each case the context makes it clear that wasn't the word, and in neither case was it directed at you.

 

[RickWA]

Imagine you own a company that provides retailers with the shelves they use for in-store displays. After a long, hard negotiation, you have struck up a mutually beneficial deal with Wal Mart. They agree to make you their exclusive provider of such shelves, for a certain period, and in exchange you agree to provide them agreed pricing, and to ensure that all their orders get filled in a certain period of time. You're able to provide that pricing and those guarantees because the exclusive contract lets you line up sourcing at prices that wouldn't be available without an assurance of that kind of volume. But, some of your own Chinese suppliers, who make the actual shelves, don't like the fact Wal Mart won't buy from them unless they sell through your business . So, they bring a lawsuit, and, because they have a lot of political pull, the court strikes down that provision of your contract. You're still required to sell to Wal Mart at the same price, with the same obligations for timely order fulfillment, but you're no longer able to count on the volume, because any time Wal Mart can find cheaper supply directly from your suppliers, it's allowed to do so, notwithstanding what they agreed. Is it a good idea for the court to interfere with the freedom of contract of two sophisticated business entities, that way? Is it a good idea for it to unilaterally change the terms of a hard-bargained business deal? Is it wise for them to rule exclusive supply contracts unconstitutional?

Most conservatives would object to "Big Brother" stepping in and screwing around with a supply contract that way. Yet, it seems conservatives would be just fine with it in another context, where what was being supplied weren't goods, but rather labor. Unions have made exclusive-supply deals for labor with a number of companies, and so should Big Brother unilaterally come through and alter the negotiated terms of those deals, to allow the companies to ignore the exclusivity terms they agreed to, while continuing to bind the unions to any obligations they agreed to in exchange for that exclusivity? That kind of interference in contract would be anathema to conservatives in most contexts, but when it's seen as a way to take power away from labor, for the benefit of capital, they toss that principle out the window. Libertarian-minded conservatives should be particularly offended by such a concept, but since they're not honestly principle-driven, but rather driven by a desire for partisan political outcomes favoring the wealthy, they won't be.

The operative principle for me is that of liberty. Those scenarios which tend to handcuff the individual in favor of the aggregate - particularly where government agency is employed (either in execution or guarantee).

 

[resident_evil]

The situations are parallel. In the Wal Mart supply situation, anyone who wanted to work to supply Wal Mart with display shelves had to do it through your company, until the court stepped in and changed that. In the other case, it's also about having to work through an intermediary to provide labor to a business, only the intermediary is a non-profit union in which a person has a vote, rather than a for-profit corporation in which one has no rights. So, why would someone support respecting exclusive supply rights in one case but not the other, except from strictly partisan political motivations?

I'm in business and we do exclusive supply deals frequently -- including when it comes to some forms of labor. For example, we might do a deal with a temp staffing firm, where the firm agrees to lower their normal fee, in exchange for us agreeing only to use that one firm for all our temp staffing needs. We get the benefit of lower fees than we'd get on the market, and the temp firm gets the benefit of greater volume. Is that a "mafia protection racket"? Are we talking about "slave holders"? No. We're talking about a business deal. Why would it be any different if the exclusive deal were with a labor union, working on behalf of its members, rather than a temp staffing company, working on behalf of its shareholders?

And the same analysis should play out even in the public context. A government, likewise, can make an exclusive deal with a particular vendor to provide particular goods or services (e.g., the IRS agreeing to special pricing with a particular paper vendor, in exchange for using that paper vendor exclusively for a set period). That is essentially a requirement that anyone who wants to provide those particular goods and services to that particular agency in that period must go by way of that chosen vendor. Why would that be OK, but then it wouldn't be OK to, likewise, require that anyone providing some other kinds of services to that particular agency in that period must go by way of a union?

You entirely leave out the concept of value add. And you ceaselessly compare apples to oranges. I'd imagine in our scenario the contract the supplier has with Walmart ends. Grown ups wait for contracts to end or buy them out. The union never ends. It transcends generations of workers and is not only long lived like a vampire but arguably a blood sucker parasite to boot.

 

[PhilFish]

The situations are parallel. In the Wal Mart supply situation, anyone who wanted to work to supply Wal Mart with display shelves had to do it through your company, until the court stepped in and changed that. In the other case, it's also about having to work through an intermediary to provide labor to a business, only the intermediary is a non-profit union in which a person has a vote, rather than a for-profit corporation in which one has no rights. So, why would someone support respecting exclusive supply rights in one case but not the other, except from strictly partisan political motivations?

I'm in business and we do exclusive supply deals frequently -- including when it comes to some forms of labor. For example, we might do a deal with a temp staffing firm, where the firm agrees to lower their normal fee, in exchange for us agreeing only to use that one firm for all our temp staffing needs. We get the benefit of lower fees than we'd get on the market, and the temp firm gets the benefit of greater volume. Is that a "mafia protection racket"? Are we talking about "slave holders"? No. We're talking about a business deal. Why would it be any different if the exclusive deal were with a labor union, working on behalf of its members, rather than a temp staffing company, working on behalf of its shareholders?

And the same analysis should play out even in the public context. A government, likewise, can make an exclusive deal with a particular vendor to provide particular goods or services (e.g., the IRS agreeing to special pricing with a particular paper vendor, in exchange for using that paper vendor exclusively for a set period). That is essentially a requirement that anyone who wants to provide those particular goods and services to that particular agency in that period must go by way of that chosen vendor. Why would that be OK, but then it wouldn't be OK to, likewise, require that anyone providing some other kinds of services to that particular agency in that period must go by way of a union?

entirely appropriate. now, fast forward to the point where that agreement (walmart example or union) no longer makes economic sense. shouldnt entities.. companies. vendors, unions, and people... be able to change, or for that matter reject any ongong relationship if favor of one that is better for their particular circumstance?

i understand the free rider clause.. but.if a person chooses to forego the union,,it is their prerogative to do so.

 

[Arkady]

i though it applied to home care workers unions and their being allowed to opt out of union dues (in particular calls for dues for expressly political purposes..)

Yeah, I need to read it to understand what's covered and what isn't. When I initially posted, I was doing it based on a very short synopsis, and I thought it was a wider "right to work" ruling. Instead, it seems to be a pretty narrow ruling, so I'll need to read more about it.