Philosophy Now Forum

here in texas everyone is rather puzzled by the debate about right-to-work taking place in michigan

so the union supporters in michigan think its ok to force people to join an organization and to give it money whether they want to or not

what the fuck?

union supporters and democrats...

utopia

-Imp

There is only one proper answer, my friends, and that is to abolish all labor legislation, and let employers negotiate with whomever they wish, or nobody at all. Long live Evensonomics!

To be careful, I won't buy a Chrysler car. http://autos.aol.com/article/chrysler-r ... d%3D244089

Why reward them by buying a car that may have been worked on by an intoxicated union worker?

In the six years that I've had my non-union Korean made Kia, I've had one problem - a blown dashboard fuse.

I don't know about Evensonomics but America is definitely trying Obamanomics.

There is only one proper answer, my friends, and that is to abolish all labor legislation, and let employers negotiate with whomever they wish, or nobody at all. Long live Evensonomics!

Bob,

Do you think that would help the employee. I think most employers are looking after "their business", and as cheaply as possible. What about the working class man? He has to live and with dignity. Does this not matter?

What about people who work two jobs and in total dont make even the award wage? This cannot be right. Who will stand up for him in his time of "trouble?" The Boss? No, because The Boss is his "trouble". Unions are needed.

reasonvemotion wrote:

There is only one proper answer, my friends, and that is to abolish all labor legislation, and let employers negotiate with whomever they wish, or nobody at all. Long live Evensonomics!

Bob,

Do you think that would help the employee. I think most employers are looking after "their business", and as cheaply as possible. What about the working class man? He has to live and with dignity. Does this not matter?

What about people who work two jobs and in total dont make even the award wage? This cannot be right. Who will stand up for him in his time of "trouble?" The Boss? No, because The Boss is his "trouble". Unions are needed.

There's nothing wrong with unions, what's wrong is the government telling an employer that it must negotiate with unions. Let's say you wanted to hire a plumber, and the government said you had to negotiate with some plumbers union. You'd probably tell the government to go straight to hell. There's absolutely no difference between you and an employer. When you hire a plumber, you want to get the best work done for the lowest possible price. You don't care about the plumber's "dignity," nor is it your responsibility.

Unions oppose Right to Work on the grounds that non-union workers benefit from gains made by the union, but pay no dues; a good point. The catch is a portion of the money collected could go to fund political causes that may not sit well with certain individuals.

John K wrote:Unions oppose Right to Work on the grounds that non-union workers benefit from gains made by the union, but pay no dues; a good point.

Can you back that up?

It's a fact that most of the work of unions in the last 150 years have been of benefit to the wider workforce, by encouraging employers to value their workers more highly in the matter of safety, working conditions and a living wage. I can't see how the 'right to work', is exceptional.

chaz wyman wrote:It's a fact that most of the work of unions benefits the wider workforce by encouraging employers to value their workers more highly in the matter of safety, working conditions and a living wage.

Unions don't "encourage" employers to do anything of the kind unless you consider featherbedding and strikes to be "encouragement."

chaz wyman wrote:

John K wrote:Unions oppose Right to Work on the grounds that non-union workers benefit from gains made by the union, but pay no dues; a good point.

Can you back that up?

It's a fact that most of the work of unions in the last 150 years have been of benefit to the wider workforce, by encouraging employers to value their workers more highly in the matter of safety, working conditions and a living wage. I can't see how the 'right to work', is exceptional.

I called my brother in order to clarify what 'right to work' meant after the events in Michigan began to heat up. He represents his local, and keeps up on such issues. This is the primary reason most of his co-workers are against RTW. Anecdotal? Yes, but I don't think he's too far off.

cant the union bargain just on behalf of its members - other people would have to bargain on their own

Kayla wrote:cant the union bargain just on behalf of its members - other people would have to bargain on their own

i think he's talking more about a knock-on effect. I think it would be odd that only union people got the right to vote whilst others did not.

chaz wyman wrote:

Kayla wrote:cant the union bargain just on behalf of its members - other people would have to bargain on their own

i think he's talking more about a knock-on effect. I think it would be odd that only union people got the right to vote whilst others did not.

Kayla: I wouldn't be against individual bargaining. It's what many professional athletes do.
chaz: I would be quite surprised to find a union (at least here in the states) that doesn't require membership in order to vote on their issues. The union would argue that if you reap the benefits of representation (lawyers don't work cheap), you must help defray the cost. My question is: why not have more than one union represent the same shop? In other words, if you don't like union A, union B might do better.