Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Ron Paul announces presidential bid.


Off-Topic Discussions

951 to 1,000 of 1,385 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>

Darkwing Duck wrote:


On the contrary, I have. You've simply ignored it.

A union might happily throw some people (minorities) under the bus in order to get concessions for other people.

Nonsense. Monkeys might happily fly out my butt, too. Groundless suppositions do not an argument make. Come join us in the real world. It's not so scary.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

Three major reasons that Union membership has declined include

1.) Deregulation and the growth of business has led to more competition for labor.
cheers! This is a much better solution than unions, though we do need to continue to promote laws which are favorable to small business

Let's not ignore the bargain-basement cost of this labor in the 3rd world. Despotic governments with no regard for safety or the environment are an added benefit, I suppose. Certainly cheaper to ignore those things.

Quote:

2.) Illegal immigration

Boo! The people who have pulled a snow job on the American people convincing them that national sovereignty is racist should be escorted out back and shot. They've done incalculable damage to the welfare of poor communities around the world

Playing PF is a good time for fantasy. Playing Ron Paul isn't. Jobs are being exported, even to Mexico. Immigration has nothing to do with it.

Quote:

3.) Federal laws stepping in to protect the worker

mixed. As long as its restricted to regulating interstate and foreign trade, cheers! Elsewise, such laws are probably better off as state laws.

Now we're playing Cthulu. Federal laws (and unions) are what stand between workers' status here, and workers' status in the most capitalist country in the world: China.


Benicio Del Espada wrote:
Let's not ignore the bargain-basement cost of this labor in the 3rd world. Despotic governments with no regard for safety or the environment are an added benefit, I suppose. Certainly cheaper to ignore those things.

We really should want more for our labor force than labor that can be done in the third world. I know I do. I want labor in the first world to focus on stuff the first world is uniquely capable of doing due to things like a better education. Factories in the first world, for example, make heavy use of robotics which require advanced education to fix and maintain as well as better access to parts.

Help desks are coming back to the states because its cheaper.
Bloomberg Business Week wrote:
research from the University of Michigan Ross School of Business shows that as a group, those that outsourced customer service saw a drop in their score on the American Consumer Satisfaction Index, or ACSI, a measure created by the National Quality Research Center at the University of Michigan. The same research found that the average ACSI decline at companies outsourcing customer service is associated with a drop of roughly 1% to 5% in a company’s market capitalization
Quote:
Playing PF is a good time for fantasy. Playing Ron Paul isn't. Jobs are being exported, even to Mexico. Immigration has nothing to do with it.

Exporting jobs isn't a bad thing. A net export of jobs is.

Quote:

3.) Federal laws stepping in to protect the worker

mixed. As long as its restricted to regulating interstate and foreign trade, cheers! Elsewise, such laws are probably better off as state laws.
Now we're playing Cthulu. Federal laws (and unions) are what stand between workers' status here, and workers' status in the most capitalist country in the world: China.

Nothing could be more wrong. I point again to my campany's position regarding the treatment of lgbt people. My company has no union and, even if it did, according to Comrade Anklebiter, no union would touch the issue, but, despite no state law making them do so, they lead the way in their treatment of lgbt people. This proves without question that campanies are willing to improve worker rights because doing so improves the bottom line.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Benicio Del Espada wrote:
You've yet to float a hypothetical that shows why a union would deny a member anything. I've yet to see a union app that asked about religion, race, sexuality, etc., or a union that drove anyone out for being "different."
On the contrary, I have. You've simply ignored it.

No, you haven't. You are just making assumptions and running in circles.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
A union might happily throw some people (minorities) under the bus in order to get concessions for other people.

Yes. Might is the word. You might be a fireman. Ron Paul might be an Al Qaeda operative.

As I said, you are still running in circles (or spouting tautologies, thanks). By definition, such a reasoning doesn't make any point.

Yes, it would be bad IF unions were discriminating people (as it would be bad if Ron Paul was a crypto-jihadist). But it's meaningless. It doesn't demonstrate that unions ARE discriminatory, or that banning them altogether would be the proper thing to do if they were (which was your first statement, if I remember correctly).

EDIT: please forgive me if I am an ignorant foreigner, but I suppose that american unions rely heavily on membership fees. Anything that cuts them off (such as "free ride" laws) would in fact if not in written law ban them.

It seems that issuing a law prohibiting such discrimination everywhere (unions, businnesses, adminstrations) would be the thing to do, if the USA don't already have one.

More generally, that kind of hostility against unions is really weird. Come on, what's wrong with employees' representation? I know that sending the Pinkertons to bust unions is a big american tradition, along with tarring and feathering cardsharks, but it seems to get a little bit counterproductive at times.

In Germany, unions have a seat at the boards of directors and participate in strategic planning (same thing in France, sort of, but very watered down). Last time I checked, BMW wasn't doing bad.

Making sure your employees are reasonably happy to work for you doesn't always equate to ruination. There are other options out there than the "hammer the unions, squeeze the workers" one.

Shadow Lodge

We really should want more for our labor force than labor that can be done in the third world. I know I do. I want labor in the first world to focus on stuff the first world is uniquely capable of doing due to things like a better education. Factories in the first world, for example, make heavy use of robotics which require advanced education to fix and maintain as well as better access to parts.

The problem being that if you only need 100 robots to replace 100 workers you're only going to need 5 tecs. The other 95 people can't train as tecs without a monumental increase in demand for the product.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

Nothing could be more wrong. I point again to my campany's position regarding the treatment of lgbt people. My company has no union and, even if it did, according to Comrade Anklebiter, no union would touch the issue, but, despite no state law making them do so, they lead the way in their treatment of lgbt people. This proves without question that campanies are willing to improve worker rights because doing so improves the bottom line.

If the Honeywell you work for is Honeywell International, it does actually have unions. I'm sure they don't cover IT workers, but the United Steelworkers do represent some of the floor workers. There are probably others.

Having unionized line workers probably helps the non-unionized workers in the rest of the company as well. I know it did when I was working for UTC.

I don't know if that has anything to do with their lgbt policies.

Also, one company's policy does not prove "proves without question that campanies are willing to improve worker rights because doing so improves the bottom line" any more than another company without such policies proves that companies are willing to abuse worker rights because doing so improves the bottom line.

Are you willing to only have such rights as improve the bottom line?


We're not going to reach a consensus here because I believe that water sprinklers should be installed before the house catches on fire and most of you think its unreasonable to install water sprinklers until after the house is already burning.

That is, you believe that while its entirely possible for unions to discriminate, people should still be required to pay dues until it is proven in court that the union is discriminating.

You'd rather wait until the house is burning before you take precautions against fire.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

We're not going to reach a consensus here because I believe that water sprinklers should be installed before the house catches on fire and most of you think its unreasonable to install water sprinklers until after the house is already burning.

That is, you believe that while its entirely possible for unions to discriminate, people should still be required to pay dues until it is proven in court that the union is discriminating.

You'd rather wait until the house is burning before you take precautions against fire.

No, most of us think, (or at least I think and several others have suggested) that there are ways to prevent unions from discriminating without crippling them entirely. Much like you can prevent businesses from discriminating without crippling them.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

We're not going to reach a consensus here because I believe that water sprinklers should be installed before the house catches on fire and most of you think its unreasonable to install water sprinklers until after the house is already burning.

That is, you believe that while its entirely possible for unions to discriminate, people should still be required to pay dues until it is proven in court that the union is discriminating.

You'd rather wait until the house is burning before you take precautions against fire.

Oh, stop with the sprinklers. Cracking down the unions because they MIGHT (or not, as absolutely everybody else) be discriminatory has nothing to do with installing sprinklers. It's more akin to shooting a random house because a terrorist MIGHT live inside.

What you need is a blanket legislation against discrimination, and to leave the unions alone.

If you had a bad personal experience with an union, well, sorry about that. There are jerks everywhere. But it's no more meaningful than wanting to impose strict regulation on dairymen because one badmouthed you one morning.


Darkwing Duck's reasoning is about the weirdest and most convoluted I've heard, like, ever. You can see that he's going through the motions of rational thought but making connections where there are none.

How about this: I'm driving down the road and (for once) every other car is behaving just fine. I should beep my horn and flip them off and swerve off the road because at any time ANY of them COULD crash into me.

There are already laws in place preventing such discrimination so not paying union dues is sort of silly. Furthermore, whether your personal gripes are fought for by the union or not, your wage and benefits were negotiated by that union.


Ignoring my last post, minus one, I would like to add some info about how unions work since Citizen Duck is triumphantly quoting my post re: unions and hypothetical strikes in defense of gay marriage benefits.

Most (I'd say all, but, again, I don't want to make claims I can't substantiate) collective bargaining agreements have a clause establishing a grievance procedure and machinery. In my own workplace it goes: file a grievance -- steward and/or business agent work it out with management -- local level grievance hearing -- regional grievance hearing -- national grievance hearing -- arbitration by the NLRB. To go from step one to step six can possibly take years and when you get down to dealing with a federal arbitrator (or even mediator) you're talking about paying out the nose.

Most (see parenthetical comment above) cbas also have a "No Strike/No Lockout" clause which means that for the life of the contract, both parties agree to use the grievance procedure to settle disputes and, with the exception of delineated grievances (in UPS's case, safety is one), the union is not allowed to strike over grievances. Now, my personal favorite kind of animal is a wildcat, but, sadly, they are illegal, and generally get the ringleaders thrown in jail and the union sued.

It is conceivable that such an issue would come up during contract negotiation and could THEN lead to a strike, but I've never heard of such a thing.

This is a far-cry from saying that unions would never touch the issue. I have been pleasantly surprised about how pro-gay rights most unions I have come into contact are. (I don't think I'm making any sweeping generalizations if I say that Teamster members, for example, are not the most socially-enlightened people I have ever come across.)

Someone above pointed out that just because a union wouldn't strike for gay marriage benefits doesn't mean that they don't represent their homosexual members, say, for example, in their weekly paychecks or their insurance packages.

Actually, come to think of it, the unions usually RUN the insurance packages, so this hypothetical example is most likely a complete non-issue.


thejeff wrote:

No, most of us think, (or at least I think and several others have suggested) that there are ways to prevent unions from discriminating without crippling them entirely. Much like you can prevent businesses from discriminating without crippling them.

I never said that there isn't a way to prevent unions from discriminating. The right to work is that way.

I'm all for the right to voluntarily associate for whatever act of social justice rocks your boat.

But to force people to associate is just another form of tyranny.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
But to force people to associate is just another form of tyranny.

Now your stances make sense. You are the one wanting everything for free. You want to benefit from unions without paying your dues, you want to benefit from society without paying taxes.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
thejeff wrote:

No, most of us think, (or at least I think and several others have suggested) that there are ways to prevent unions from discriminating without crippling them entirely. Much like you can prevent businesses from discriminating without crippling them.

I never said that there isn't a way to prevent unions from discriminating. The right to work is that way.

I'm all for the right to voluntarily associate for whatever act of social justice rocks your boat.

But to force people to associate is just another form of tyranny.

You ignored the "without crippling" part. You also ignore the free rider problem, where people get the benefits of union membership without contributing. There are other, less damaging, ways to deal with any potential problems.

But, you're probably right. This discussion is at a dead end. Since this is supposed to be a Ron Paul thread and, although he supports right-to-work, his reasons are completely different from yours we're pretty far off topic.


meatrace wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
But to force people to associate is just another form of tyranny.
Now your stances make sense. You are the one wanting everything for free. You want to benefit from unions without paying your dues, you want to benefit from society without paying taxes.

You want to put words in other people's mouths so that you have a chance to win an arguement for once.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
But to force people to associate is just another form of tyranny.
Now your stances make sense. You are the one wanting everything for free. You want to benefit from unions without paying your dues, you want to benefit from society without paying taxes.
You want to put words in other people's mouths so that you have a chance to win an arguement for once.

For f~#*'s sake, really? Are you denying what you JUST SAID? You JUST ARGUED that people who are part of a bargaining unit shouldn't be forced to pay dues to the union who negotiates on their behalf. Or did I grossly mischaracterize your argument?


meatrace wrote:


For f#+*'s sake, really? Are you denying what you JUST SAID? You JUST ARGUED that people who are part of a bargaining unit shouldn't be forced to pay dues to the union who negotiates on their behalf. Or did I grossly mischaracterize your argument?

Non-Union members AREN'T part of the bargaining unit, so, yes, you grossly mischaracterized my arguement.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
meatrace wrote:


For f#+*'s sake, really? Are you denying what you JUST SAID? You JUST ARGUED that people who are part of a bargaining unit shouldn't be forced to pay dues to the union who negotiates on their behalf. Or did I grossly mischaracterize your argument?
Non-Union members AREN'T part of the bargaining unit, so, yes, you grossly mischaracterized my arguement.

Yes they are. That's my point. Say Joe Blow works at a factory. The factory workers form a bargaining unit and are represented by a local union. That union bargains for their wages/benefits/sundry other things. If he gets the wages as stipulated by the bargaining agreement he is benefiting from the union. The bargaining unit is the group of employees, not the union itself.

For example, in my state of Wisconsin laws were passed that members of a bargaining unit do not have to join the union and/or pay dues to the union which represents them. EVEN THOUGH the union continues to represent their interests and bargain on their behalf.

The bargaining unit might be "Honeywell custodians" and their union might be whatever. If you get a job as a custodian at Honeywell, you will be paid the wage that your union and the employer agreed upon. Why shouldn't you have to pay union dues?

Non-Union employees don't pay union dues. Union employees do. If you have a job whose wage was negotiated by a union but you refuse to join the union, you're a classic free-rider.

What am I not getting in your argument?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
meatrace wrote:


For f#+*'s sake, really? Are you denying what you JUST SAID? You JUST ARGUED that people who are part of a bargaining unit shouldn't be forced to pay dues to the union who negotiates on their behalf. Or did I grossly mischaracterize your argument?
Non-Union members AREN'T part of the bargaining unit, so, yes, you grossly mischaracterized my arguement.

Yes they are. Under right-to-work laws, if your workplace is organized, you are covered by the contract even if you don't pay dues to the union.

The company doesn't get to agree to a union contract and then hire outside the union on whatever terms it chooses. Everyone in the bargaining unit works under the same contract.
Bargaining unit in this context means the particular work group that organized like janitors or factory floor worker or whatever, not people in the union.

You seem to be very opposed to unions and pro right-to-work, while having little idea how either actually works. You don't even know that workers in your own company, Honeywell, are organized.
Perhaps you should try to make sure your opinions are a little more informed before stating them as facts.


* I'm not oppossed to unions. I'm oppossed to forcing association on people.

* None of you have provided any counter to the fact that the union may choose to toss minority members under the bus as part of negotiations.

* It is not true that unions represent non-union members. If a non-union member has a grievance, the union isn't going to reepresent him

I'm beginning to wonder if the disagreement here stems from the fact that you don't know how negotiations work.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

* I'm not oppossed to unions. I'm oppossed to forcing association on people.

* None of you have provided any counter to the fact that the union may choose to toss minority members under the bus as part of negotiations.

* It is not true that unions represent non-union members. If a non-union member has a grievance, the union isn't going to reepresent him

I'm beginning to wonder if the disagreement here stems from the fact that you don't know how negotiations work.

1-And you haven't shown any evidence of them having. They are contractually obligated to bargain on behalf of the bargaining unit. If they did "throw minorities under the bus" it would be illegal.

2-As has been stated, you are wrong on this point.

From someone who didn't realize his own company had union representation, and continue with your false belief that unions don't represent non-union members, without any evidence to back your claim up, I think this disagreement stems from your disconnect with reality.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

* I'm not oppossed to unions. I'm oppossed to forcing association on people.

* None of you have provided any counter to the fact that the union may choose to toss minority members under the bus as part of negotiations.

* It is not true that unions represent non-union members. If a non-union member has a grievance, the union isn't going to reepresent him

I'm beginning to wonder if the disagreement here stems from the fact that you don't know how negotiations work.

1. Please specify the aspect regarding minority members being tossed under the bus. I believe the EEO would say something regarding that.

2. Where I work, membership in the union cost a fee only charged to paying members, i.e. dues. When filing a grievance, the union represents all employees but does not charge members for the representation while it does charge the non-members. IOW, they represent both. In fact, I am not a member but have called a couple of times asking advice and clarification on issues before addressing something with a supervisor. (I'm glad I did because I was mistaken on both counts...) Not representing non-members is something avoided because many grievances are regarding safety and the unions do not wish for people to risk injury because they did not receive representation. Even if one dismisses all the noble reasoning behind this, it would still be bad for the image of the union.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
1. Please specify the aspect regarding minority members being tossed under the bus. I believe the EEO would say something regarding that.

Lets say that union in a company in West Virginia wants to negotiate for expanded benefits with management. Their package includes

1. No salary workers required to work more than 50 hours a week
2. Increased education reimbursement for new requirements
3. Health care coverage for lgbt partners

Management comes back and says that they can afford only two of these things. The union agrees. They figure out that benefits one and two will benefit the largest number of their members, so those are the two benefits they push for.

Now, assume that this is an established pattern of behaviour for the union such that lgbt rights are simply not protected.

What recourse should the lgbt people have?

One option, the one I believe in, is to promote freedom of association. The lgbt people can simply leave the union (or maybe just threaten to leave the union). Hell, they might even go create their own union. But as long as they are forced to pay dues to the official union, that's not an option for those who could afford the dues of only one of the two unions.

Its amazing just how many social problems can be solved through expanding and protecting freedom. Its almost as amazing as the number of people who are trying to remove that freedom.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
1. Please specify the aspect regarding minority members being tossed under the bus. I believe the EEO would say something regarding that.

Lets say that union in a company in West Virginia wants to negotiate for expanded benefits with management. Their package includes

1. No salary workers required to work more than 50 hours a week
2. Increased education reimbursement for new requirements
3. Health care coverage for lgbt partners

Management comes back and says that they can afford only two of these things. The union agrees. They figure out that benefits one and two will benefit the largest number of their members, so those are the two benefits they push for.

Now, assume that this is an established pattern of behaviour for the union such that lgbt rights are simply not protected.

What recourse should the lgbt people have?

One option, the one I believe in, is to promote freedom of association. The lgbt people can simply leave the union. Hell, they might even go create their own union. But as long as they are forced to pay dues to the official union, that's not an option for those who could afford the dues of only one of the two unions.

About 3.

This makes an assumption about a "right" which will be assumed to be correct for the sake of argument...

Coverage is (AFAIK) based upon marriage. Boyfriends can't give insurance to their girlfriends either. Marriage is defined by the state. If the state recognizes lgbt partnerships as marriages, then coverage will be granted to the lgbt couples if they marry. Until then, their partnership is not the same. The "beef" is with the state and not the union for not givng them their rights. At least a few states that don't have lgbt marriage require that marriages and domestic partnerships be treated the same.

As an aside to this, I worked for one union that only recognized parenthood that was on the birth certtificate. This pretty much eliminated adopted children whether they were part of a lgbt arrangement or a family that married with kids already present from another relationship.

Every need/desire can't be addressed for every group and that isn't throwing minority groups under the bus.

The group already has the option to freely associate with a different company that will give them what they want and make a union there.

Even though in general I am for "right to work" ideals, I don't think the arguments here against are very strong.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
1. Please specify the aspect regarding minority members being tossed under the bus. I believe the EEO would say something regarding that.

Lets say that union in a company in West Virginia wants to negotiate for expanded benefits with management. Their package includes

1. No salary workers required to work more than 50 hours a week
2. Increased education reimbursement for new requirements
3. Health care coverage for lgbt partners

Management comes back and says that they can afford only two of these things. The union agrees. They figure out that benefits one and two will benefit the largest number of their members, so those are the two benefits they push for.

Now, assume that this is an established pattern of behaviour for the union such that lgbt rights are simply not protected.

What recourse should the lgbt people have?

One option, the one I believe in, is to promote freedom of association. The lgbt people can simply leave the union. Hell, they might even go create their own union. But as long as they are forced to pay dues to the official union, that's not an option for those who could afford the dues of only one of the two unions.

About 3.

This makes an assumption about a "right" which will be assumed to be correct for the sake of argument...

Coverage is (AFAIK) based upon marriage. Boyfriends can't give insurance to their girlfriends either. Marriage is defined by the state. If the state recognizes lgbt partnerships as marriages, then coverage will be granted to the lgbt couples if they marry. Until then, their partnership is not the same. The "beef" is with the state and not the union for not givng them their rights. At least a few states that don't have lgbt marriage require that marriages and domestic partnerships be treated the same.

As an aside to this, I worked for one union that only recognized parenthood that was on the birth certtificate. This pretty much eliminated adopted children...

As I pointed out earlier, you're wrong The company I work for grants health care coverage to lgbt partners despite it not being required by the state. And, as I also pointed out earlier, they do it without a union.

Explain to me, if unions are required to protect employee rights, why is it that a company has done something without a union that you say a union can't do. That doesn't look to me like unions are required to protect employee rights.

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


Every need/desire can't be addressed for every group and that isn't throwing minority groups under the bus.

The group already has the option to freely associate with a different company that will give them what they want and make a union there.

So, you're for unions which don't support people because those people can always find another job? Tell me why this same argument shouldn't apply to all workers.


About this:

Quote:


Explain to me, if unions are required to protect employee rights, why is it that a company has done something without a union that you say a union can't do. That doesn't look to me like unions are required to protect employee rights.

Unions aren't required to protect employees rights. Laws and constitutions protect them Unions are obligated by the law and constitution to not break their rights. I have seen no evidence of this happening in the case made regarding desire three.

A union deciding to do something extra does not mean that someone's right is being violated if another union doesn't do something extra. For a right to be violated it would need to be recognized as a right in which case, as stated above, the state would see to equal treatment.


About this:

Quote:


So, you're for unions which don't support people because those people can always find another job? Tell me why this same argument shouldn't apply to all workers.

I'm saying it applies to all workers. If one doesn't like what the union offers, go work somewhere else or work to change the union from within. The union not working to give you (in general) what you want (different from other workers) does not mean your rights are being violated.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

About this:

Quote:


Explain to me, if unions are required to protect employee rights, why is it that a company has done something without a union that you say a union can't do. That doesn't look to me like unions are required to protect employee rights.

Unions aren't required to protect employees rights. Laws and constitutions protect them Unions are obligated by the law and constitution to not break their rights. I have seen no evidence of this happening in the case made regarding desire three.

A union deciding to do something extra does not mean that someone's right is being violated if another union doesn't do something extra. For a right to be violated it would need to be recognized as a right in which case, as stated above, the state would see to equal treatment.

Explain to me, if unions are required to protect employee interests, why is it that a company has done something without a union that you say a union can't do. That doesn't look to me like unions are required to protect employee interests.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

About this:

Quote:


Explain to me, if unions are required to protect employee rights, why is it that a company has done something without a union that you say a union can't do. That doesn't look to me like unions are required to protect employee rights.

Unions aren't required to protect employees rights. Laws and constitutions protect them Unions are obligated by the law and constitution to not break their rights. I have seen no evidence of this happening in the case made regarding desire three.

A union deciding to do something extra does not mean that someone's right is being violated if another union doesn't do something extra. For a right to be violated it would need to be recognized as a right in which case, as stated above, the state would see to equal treatment.

Explain to me, if unions are required to protect employee interests, why is it that a company has done something without a union that you say a union can't do. That doesn't look to me like unions are required to protect employee interests.

The wording of the statement leaves me hanging. Does it mean that it is addressing a necessity to have unions in order to address employee interests or is it stating that law requires an existing union to protect employees interests?


Darkwing Duck wrote:


Explain to me, if unions are required to protect employee interests, why is it that a company has done something without a union that you say a union can't do. That doesn't look to me like unions are required to protect employee interests.

Your reasoning is really suspect here. I'm glad you work for a great company. Not all companies are like that. You've made this enormous leap of logic wherein because your company does great things for its employees not stipulated by law or bargained for by a union, therefore unions everywhere are unneeded. This is also a single example of a single issue in a single office (plant?) of a single company. Your anecdotal evidence isn't making your argument stronger.

Did you ever think it's the other way around? Your employees haven't unionized because your company already treats them well?

Unions are not a requirement for an employer to treat its employees well, they are a bulwark against companies who wish to continually diminish the safety and well-being of their employees for whatever reason (usually money).


I think the point is that unions aren't required to look out for employee interests and may not be the best way to look out for employee interests.

One case is all that's needed to prove that.

Shadow Lodge

Penicilin may not be the best antibiotic for treating an infection.

Therefore ban penicillin.


LilithsThrall wrote:

I think the point is that unions aren't required to look out for employee interests and may not be the best way to look out for employee interests.

One case is all that's needed to prove that.

One case is needed to prove that unions aren't necessarily the best way for employees to improve their situation. However his example, Honeywell, does indeed have union representation although he may not be part of a bargaining unit.

The opposing proposal to unions is "employers should be awesome" which I'm sure we can all get behind. Magnanimity is not how I would characterize the majority of large employers, especially in a job market flooded with workers. In the absence of employers going above and beyond what is legally required, and when just quitting your job is often simply not an option (bills to pay, etc.) collective bargaining is a necessary tool for workers to accomplish their goals. Notice I didn't say unions, and I understand people's problems with the big labor unions, but the right for employees to collectively bargain for safety, higher pay, benefits et al is very important to maintain.


Meatrace, you seem to be having some trouble grasping that no one in this thread is against unions. What has been argued for is right to work.

And the relevant question is whether these lgbt benefits are due to the union.


LilithsThrall wrote:

Meatrace, you seem to be having some trouble grasping that no one in this thread is against unions. What has been argued for is right to work.

And the relevant question is whether these lgbt benefits are due to the union.

Right to work states weaken the bargaining power of unions because of the free rider problem. That's what I'm arguing about. Personal insults aren't helpful.

And that's a question I don't think we are able to answer in this thread, however relevant it is.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


2. Where I work, membership in the union cost a fee only charged to paying members, i.e. dues. When filing a grievance, the union represents all employees but does not charge members for the representation while it does charge the non-members. IOW, they represent both.

I am curious: How does this work?

So non-members can file grievances, but have to pay a monetary fee? And what about in disciplinary situations? And do you know how much?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LilithsThrall wrote:
Meatrace, you seem to be having some trouble grasping that no one in this thread is against unions. What has been argued for is right to work.

Let's get one thing clear -- I am not against mice. What I am arguing for are poison bait, mousetraps, and a minimum quota of cats and ferrets in each household.


meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

Meatrace, you seem to be having some trouble grasping that no one in this thread is against unions. What has been argued for is right to work.

And the relevant question is whether these lgbt benefits are due to the union.

Right to work states weaken the bargaining power of unions because of the free rider problem. That's what I'm arguing about. Personal insults aren't helpful.

And that's a question I don't think we are able to answer in this thread, however relevant it is.

Whether right to work weakens unions has got nada to do with being against unions. In the same way, supporting the use of mouse traps isn't the same as wiping out all mice everywhere.

Elsewise, who watches the watchmen?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


2. Where I work, membership in the union cost a fee only charged to paying members, i.e. dues. When filing a grievance, the union represents all employees but does not charge members for the representation while it does charge the non-members. IOW, they represent both.

I am curious: How does this work?

So non-members can file grievances, but have to pay a monetary fee? And what about in disciplinary situations? And do you know how much?

The monetary fee is to receive representation from the union when filing a grievance, not for filing a grievance. A grievance may be filed without the union participating...I think. So, I believe I worded the statement poorly when saying the union represents all members. I should have stated they would if approached and arranged.

I am not sure regarding disciplinary situations or safety concerns. I would wager that for safety concerns the union agreed with would result in representation free of charge.

Cost? I have no idea.

Note: There also happens to be more than one union at NNSY. But, to be honest, I have only ever looked into things in a most general fashion and what I have stated is how I understand what I have heard. So, a lot of it may be wrong. But, I will try to see what I can look up the next couple of days if you are interested.


LilithsThrall wrote:


Elsewise, who watches the watchmen?

Dr. Manhattan, duh.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


Note: There also happens to be more than one union at NNSY. But, to be honest, I have only ever looked into things in a most general fashion and what I have stated is how I understand what I have heard. So, a lot of it may be wrong. But, I will try to see what I can look up the next couple of days if you are interested.

Don't go out of your way, but if you happen to remember I'd be interested in hearing what you find out.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:

My problem with the "libertarians" here in Texas is that they tend to mouth the words "Small government, individual liberty," but act towards "corporate overlords, authoritarian theocracy."

Find me one (1) "libertarian" who believes that public nudity, marijuana, and atheism should be legal, and I'll change my views immediately. Until then, "personal freedom" seems to mean strictly the ones they want to grant, that don't conflict with some sort of Biblical mandate.

I am a Libertarian and also an atheist; I don't care if you smoke marijuana, and as long as you can pull it off well, I don't care if you walk around naked (just keep it away from my food and at least sit on a towel if you're in my car).

But I'm pretty sure you're looking for an actual politician...

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

My problem with the "libertarians" here in Texas is that they tend to mouth the words "Small government, individual liberty," but act towards "corporate overlords, authoritarian theocracy."

Find me one (1) "libertarian" who believes that public nudity, marijuana, and atheism should be legal, and I'll change my views immediately. Until then, "personal freedom" seems to mean strictly the ones they want to grant, that don't conflict with some sort of Biblical mandate.

Um, you've gamed with one for almost three years now?


houstonderek wrote:
Um, you've gamed with one for almost three years now?

As soon as you're nominated on the ticket, you can act on those principles, and I'll start voting Libertarian! But sadly the "libertarians" who are nominated -- hence, then ones who actully represent the Libertatian Party -- tend not to.

The only politically-meaningful thing that I have to judge the Libertarian Party of Texas by is the people they elect, not the intelligent and well-intentioned individuals who claim to speak for the party but unfortunately don't.


Seems like the best place for this.

I LOL'd at Newt's deity.


Further all in good fun poke at Dr. Paul.

In all seriousness though, Im glad that RP is gaining ground in the primary. I really hope he gets the nod.


So I was talking to my dad today. It's really interesting because we never talked about religion or politics ever growing up, but somewhere around 2004 and the Bush/Kerry election we arrived upon being like 90% in sync, which is a relief. Anywho, I realized what I hope about Ron Paul is that he'll get the nomination, even if he can't get elected against Obama.

I like Obama. I have my problems with him, boy howdy, but I think he really WANTS to do the right thing. He needs Ron Paul to run against him so that he is forced to co-opt some of Paul's reasonable positions (GTFO Iraq/Afghanistan, end war on drugs, prioritize the deficit/national debt, etc.) into his own. No one is lighting a fire under his ass to get things done NOW that he promised last time around, and he has some backwards policies I think are held purely for political reasons. I'd also love to see them debate, honestly.

For me, that would be a win/win election.


Ron Paul, The Invisible Candidate, Scores Big In Another Iowa Poll


Cain, Paul, Romney, Gingrich in Dead Heat in Iowa


Ron Paul Second in New Hampshire as Well, Says Bloomberg Poll

951 to 1,000 of 1,385 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Ron Paul announces presidential bid. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.