Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agreed. The same people whining about the demise of the middle class, stagnant wages, loss of benefits, lack of job security, etc are the very same people who support right-to-work laws by voting for the likes of Walker.
No, they're watching unionized jobs shipped to China and India where employed people don't complain so much.
That club you disparage is called a Union and IT got the good wages, decent health insurance, 8 hour day, and actual pension you expect when you work for some body else. If you do not want to take part just stay away. Those conditions did not come for free so if you want to work there pay your damn share. If you don't, go work in a open sweatshop along with the illegals.
Unions have been around long enough that people do not realize just how hard it was to go from deadly DANGEROUS sweatshop to decent wages and conditions. The Republican business elites WANT TO RETURN THE SWEATSHOP with replaceable starving workers for the owner's profit. Let them keep wanting.
Maybe wages wouldn't be so stagnant if there were a few more unions around.
Workers are getting totally screwed these days, but people still seem to look at unions negatively. There is a reason they came to be in the first place. Do some unions overreach? Yes. But look at what corporations are getting away with now.
That club you disparage is called a Union and IT got the good wages, decent health insurance, 8 hour day, and actual pension you expect when you work for some body else. If you do not want to take part just stay away. Those conditions did not come for free so if you want to work there pay your damn share. If you don't, go work in a open sweatshop along with the illegals.
Unions have been around long enough that people do not realize just how hard it was to go from deadly DANGEROUS sweatshop to decent wages and conditions. The Republican business elites WANT TO RETURN THE SWEATSHOP with replaceable starving workers for the owner's profit. Let them keep wanting.
Did the union pay for the "decent health insurance, 8 hour day, and actual pension"? The problem is that benefits are even worse in Pakistan than for non-union U.S. workers.
Why do you treat voluntary arrangements like that so adversarially, why do you want to try to soak them, and
Why can't you address the issue, which is you go to work at a company and expect to earn the same wages and benefits that others bargained for and believe that you should be able to piggy back on their efforts for free? You expect to be represented by these same people in any dispute but believe you shouldn't expect to pay for such representation?
Those are conservative values?
And you believe that Republicans/conservatives have the interest of working class people at heart when unions are responsible for the rise of the middle class, making decent salaries, with benefits such as retirement. No Republicans and conservatives seem to hold to the principle that government should subsidize low paying employers with food stamps, and social security. That's some deluded thinking in my book.
You want to the union negotiated pay, benefits and representation but you don't like the idea of having to pay for it.
So who are the free loading parasites in this scenario?
Now if you are willing to take less pay, fewer or no benefits, and no one to stand up for you for any disciplinary actions by your employer, I would fully support your right to not pay union dues. Oh, but I can just imagine your beatching if that were the situation.
It's really funny. The Unions feast on poor gullible morons who think they have to have a bunch of goons represent them to do well. It's an infallible indicator of low IQ.
Agreed. The same people whining about the demise of the middle class, stagnant wages, loss of benefits, lack of job security, etc are the very same people who support right-to-work laws by voting for the likes of Walker.
Having worked for both non-union and union employers, I know where I stand.
Unless you're completely oblivious to the history of unionization, you wouldn't equate unions and middle class.
The Taft-Hartley amendments to the NRLA specifically excludes supervisors from collective bargaining agreements, 29 USC Section 157 begins
Quote:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing...
Employee is defined in 29 USC Section 152 (3)
Quote:
(3) The term “employee” shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless this subchapter explicitly states otherwise, and shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice, and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employment, but shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer, or in the domestic service of any family or person at his home, or any individual employed by his parent or spouse, or any individual having the status of an independent contractor, or any individual employed as a supervisor, or any individual employed by an employer subject to the Railway Labor Act [45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.], as amended from time to time, or by any other person who is not an employer as herein defined.
Also note that 29 USC 152 has 14 definitions, none of which are covered by 29 USC 157. In 2001 NRLB vs. Kentucky River Community Care, excluded six nurses from collective bargaining due to them supervising the functions of nurses aides, the case was upheld in the SCOTUS.
If supervisors cannot (under the NLRA) receive benefit of collective bargaining of unions, then how can lack of unions be the issue for the squeeze on the middle class? How can anyone argue that unions are vital to the strength and growth of the middle class?
Seems to me that at the time the NLRA was being developed and amended, unions didn't give two seconds of thought about the middle class.
So coming in in 2016 around 60 years later saying Unions can save the day, well they can't, because Unions excluded themselves from saving the day 60 years ago, and that still stands today (as of 2001).
Now, say, well that's not in WI....blah blah blah....
Oh and here...here are some union teachers we are paying for...
Amazing the left support this stuff....but I guess it must be a right or something....???
Congrats to you for showing three bad examples of union workers out of the current 15 million!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The same people whining about the demise of the middle class, stagnant wages, loss of benefits, lack of job security, etc are the very same people who support right-to-work laws by voting for the likes of Walker.
