|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: I'm a fiscal conservative (though absolutely not a social conservative) and I'm completely against the bail out programs both Obama and Bush have done. Me, too -- but I'm fiscally "conservative" in the sense that I want the government to be careful with our money, not "conservative" in the sense that I think anyone with an MBA or an oil well in their backyard is somehow anointed by God to be elevated above all other men because of their inherent awesomeness. Now, that's just silly, Kirth. Jed Clampett was aweseome.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, in this case, all he wants to do is enforce laws against extortion. For a long time, my father served as the President of the Board of Directors of the Horseshoe Fish and Game Club. Can you imagine the federal government coming in and saying that Joe Scabalowski can come down to the range, shoot skeet, go ice-fishing, attend the Annual Game Suppers and drink on the honor-system at the bar WITHOUT having to abide by the rules of the club or pay membership dues?
What's the difference?
Now, I dislike open shops, but if the union and the company agree that a shop is going to be open, fine. I'd grumble and try to organize to change that in our next contract meeting. But for the government to rule by fiat that the two parties can't agree to a closed shop is crap. I mean, isn't Ron Paul against the National Labor Relations Board because he's opposed to federal intervention in business affairs?
And, Kirth, I understand your points, but I guess my jaded socialist heart can still be a little naive at time.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, in this case, all he wants to do is enforce laws against extortion. For a long time, my father served as the President of the Board of Directors of the Horseshoe Fish and Game Club. Can you imagine the federal government coming in and saying that Joe Scabalowski can come down to the range, shoot skeet, go ice-fishing, attend the Annual Game Suppers and drink on the honor-system at the bar WITHOUT having to abide by the rules of the club or pay membership dues?
What's the difference?
Now, I dislike open shops, but if the union and the company agree that a shop is going to be open, fine. I'd grumble and try to organize to change that in our next contract meeting. But for the government to rule by fiat that the two parties can't agree to a closed shop is crap. I mean, isn't Ron Paul against the National Labor Relations Board because he's opposed to federal intervention in business affairs?
And, Kirth, I understand your points, but I guess my jaded socialist heart can still be a little naive at time. Its a form of discrimination regarding who the business can hire.
What if the union has by-laws which say that its members must attend three of the four annual meetings and then put these meetings in buildings which are not wheelchair accessible or follow them up with a pig roast or in a bar?
The business' hiring practices aren't violating the equal employment opportunity act. The union isn't violating the EEOA. But the net -effect- is as if the business were discriminating against the EEOA.
Kirth, seriously. I would vote for you.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
What if the union has by-laws which say that its members must attend three of the four annual meetings and then put these meetings in buildings which are not wheelchair accessible or follow them up with a pig roast or in a bar?
I am unaware of any union that has such arrangements, but I admit that I don't know everything.
Every union that I have ever encountered is so desperate for members that it wouldn't even dare make attendance at general membership meetings mandatory, let alone making them attend a pig roast.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
What if the union has by-laws which say that its members must attend three of the four annual meetings and then put these meetings in buildings which are not wheelchair accessible or follow them up with a pig roast or in a bar?
I am unaware of any union that has such arrangements, but I admit that I don't know everything.
Every union that I have ever encountered is so desperate for members that it wouldn't even dare make attendance at general membership meetings mandatory, let alone making them attend a pig roast. But they could, you see.
And in order to stop these theoretical unseen potential abuses by unions, we have to let the businesses continue their known, well-documented abuses.
Danny DeVito just called me and asked if I would vote for James Hoffa for General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters!
I've been a big fan of his since Taxi days! DeVito, that is.
Just as an aside, can I go to the union pig roast?
thejeff wrote:
But they could, you see.
And in order to stop these theoretical unseen potential abuses by unions, we have to let the businesses continue their known, well-documented abuses.
Aren't you implying that the only way to stop abuses by businesses is to force people to belong to unions?
You should prove that's the case.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
What if the union has by-laws which say that its members must attend three of the four annual meetings and then put these meetings in buildings which are not wheelchair accessible or follow them up with a pig roast or in a bar?
I am unaware of any union that has such arrangements, but I admit that I don't know everything.
Every union that I have ever encountered is so desperate for members that it wouldn't even dare make attendance at general membership meetings mandatory, let alone making them attend a pig roast. Why would unions have difficulty getting members if membership was required in order to work?
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Why would unions have difficulty getting members if membership was required in order to work?
Because membership isn't required to work!
Most companies and most industries aren't organized and large parts of the country are "right to work" states.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Aren't you implying that the only way to stop abuses by businesses is to force people to belong to unions?
You should prove that's the case.
I don't have to prove it, because it's a straw man version of the argument.
No one is forced to belong to a union.
thejeff wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
Why would unions have difficulty getting members if membership was required in order to work?
Because membership isn't required to work!
Most companies and most industries aren't organized and large parts of the country are "right to work" states.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Aren't you implying that the only way to stop abuses by businesses is to force people to belong to unions?
You should prove that's the case.
I don't have to prove it, because it's a straw man version of the argument.
No one is forced to belong to a union.
Then we aren't talking about the same thing. This topic was originally about "right to work" and some posters were criticizing Paul for his support of right to work. I based all my previous comments around the problems with being against right to work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TheWhiteknife wrote: Kirth, seriously. I would vote for you.
I have to reply like Cliff Robertson in Malone: "If nominated, I will run... to Mexico!"
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
Why would unions have difficulty getting members if membership was required in order to work?
Because membership isn't required to work!
Most companies and most industries aren't organized and large parts of the country are "right to work" states.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Aren't you implying that the only way to stop abuses by businesses is to force people to belong to unions?
You should prove that's the case.
I don't have to prove it, because it's a straw man version of the argument.
No one is forced to belong to a union.
Then we aren't talking about the same thing. This topic was originally about "right to work" and some posters were criticizing Paul for his support of right to work. I based all my previous comments around the problems with being against right to work. I know. The straw man is that without "right to work" you will be forced to belong to a union. No one will force anyone who doesn't want to belong to a union to join one.
No one will force you to work at a closed union shop.
If non-union or open shops do so much better and enough people don't want to join unions then there should be plenty of places for you to work.
"Right to work" laws just kill unions because you can get all the benefits of a union with actually joining. It's a classic free-rider problem.
thejeff wrote:
I know. The straw man is that without "right to work" you will be forced to belong to a union. No one will force anyone who doesn't want to belong to a union to join one.
No one will force you to work at a closed union shop.
If non-union or open shops do so much better and enough people don't want to join unions then there should be plenty of places for you to work.
"Right to work" laws just kill unions because you can get all the benefits of a union with actually joining. It's a classic free-rider problem.
You're kinda dancing around the core issue. In a state without right to work, a business can discriminate against employing people based on whether they belong to the union.
But membership to the union can depend on things which have nothing to do with whether or not the person can do the job - membership to the union can discriminate on physical disability or religious discrimination or the like (not explicit discrimination, but backdoor discrimination like requiring meeting attendance in a building which is not accessible to the physically disabled).
Just as the argument that a person can go find a job somewhere else does not allow a company to violate the EEOA, that argument shouldn't permit this kind of backdoor discriminiation.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote:
You're kinda dancing around the core issue. In a state without right to work, a business can discriminate against employing people based on whether they belong to the union.
But membership to the union can depend on things which have nothing to do with whether or not the person can do the job - membership to the union can discriminate on physical disability or religious discrimination or the like (not explicit discrimination, but backdoor discrimination like requiring meeting attendance in a building which is not accessible to the physically disabled).
Just as the argument that a person can go find a job somewhere else does not allow a company to violate the EEOA, that argument shouldn't permit this kind of backdoor discriminiation.
That's the core issue? I'm not dancing around it, I'm laughing at it.
We're back to the "theoretical unseen potential abuses by unions".
Companies don't want to forced to discriminate by the cruel unions?
Find me a case when this actually happens or stop wasting my time.
There are states without "right to work" laws, so I expect this is happening all the time?
Edit: I should also add that Ron Paul, whose opposition started this particular discussion, thinks that anti-discrimination laws for private employers are unconstitutional, so I doubt this is his rationale for supporting "right to work".
Nor would it be hard to ban. "Union membership shall have no requirements beyond employment in a position covered by the bargaining agreement."
thejeff wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
You're kinda dancing around the core issue. In a state without right to work, a business can discriminate against employing people based on whether they belong to the union.
But membership to the union can depend on things which have nothing to do with whether or not the person can do the job - membership to the union can discriminate on physical disability or religious discrimination or the like (not explicit discrimination, but backdoor discrimination like requiring meeting attendance in a building which is not accessible to the physically disabled).
Just as the argument that a person can go find a job somewhere else does not allow a company to violate the EEOA, that argument shouldn't permit this kind of backdoor discriminiation.
That's the core issue? I'm not dancing around it, I'm laughing at it.
We're back to the "theoretical unseen potential abuses by unions".
Companies don't want to forced to discriminate by the cruel unions?
Find me a case when this actually happens or stop wasting my time.
There are states without "right to work" laws, so I expect this is happening all the time?
Edit: I should also add that Ron Paul, whose opposition started this particular discussion, thinks that anti-discrimination laws for private employers are unconstitutional, so I doubt this is his rationale for supporting "right to work".
Nor would it be hard to ban. "Union membership shall have no requirements beyond employment in a position covered by the bargaining agreement."
So, we have a core philosophical disagreement. I believe that when we know that something bad can happen in the system that we create, we're obligated to take steps to prevent it from happening. In other words, we don't wait for the building to catch on fire before we install water sprinklers and fire escapes.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
You're kinda dancing around the core issue. In a state without right to work, a business can discriminate against employing people based on whether they belong to the union.
But membership to the union can depend on things which have nothing to do with whether or not the person can do the job - membership to the union can discriminate on physical disability or religious discrimination or the like (not explicit discrimination, but backdoor discrimination like requiring meeting attendance in a building which is not accessible to the physically disabled).
Just as the argument that a person can go find a job somewhere else does not allow a company to violate the EEOA, that argument shouldn't permit this kind of backdoor discriminiation.
That's the core issue? I'm not dancing around it, I'm laughing at it.
We're back to the "theoretical unseen potential abuses by unions".
Companies don't want to forced to discriminate by the cruel unions?
Find me a case when this actually happens or stop wasting my time.
There are states without "right to work" laws, so I expect this is happening all the time?
Edit: I should also add that Ron Paul, whose opposition started this particular discussion, thinks that anti-discrimination laws for private employers are unconstitutional, so I doubt this is his rationale for supporting "right to work".
Nor would it be hard to ban. "Union membership shall have no requirements beyond employment in a position covered by the bargaining agreement." So, we have a core philosophical disagreement. I believe that when we know that something bad can happen in the system that we create, we're obligated to take steps to prevent it from happening. In other words, we don't wait for the building to catch on fire before we install water sprinklers and fire escapes. This is more like banning building since they could burn down. Or requiring all buildings to be constructed entirely of non-flammable material rather than installing water sprinklers and fire escapes.
There is no way to prevent unions from discriminating without crippling them? Like the simple regulation I suggested above?
thejeff wrote: There is no way to prevent unions from discriminating without crippling them? Like the simple regulation I suggested above?
Your solution to stop the free rider problem is to require people to pay support for a system in which they can't express their grievances (ie. a Union whose meetings are in a place where these people can't participate)?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote: There is no way to prevent unions from discriminating without crippling them? Like the simple regulation I suggested above?
Your solution to stop the free rider problem is to require people to pay support for a system in which they can't express their grievances (ie. a Union whose meetings are in a place where these people can't participate)? And why, exactly, would the unions make meetings in such inaccessible buildings? Just to be naughty? What would be the point of screwing part of their members/fellow workers?
From a outsider point of view, with no previous knowledge of US unions, your argument sounds totally bogus. Pure intent.
Maybe they will be drunk while driving to said meetings, so ban them for that too!
To bring things back to Ron Paul for a sec, the man just won an apparently prestigious conservative poll. Cain got second place, interestingly enough.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ron Paul fans, correct me if I'm wrong (and I could well be):
It should be permissible, although reprehensible, for corporations to discriminate against blacks, Jews and women, so we need to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it shouldn't be permissible for corporations to "discriminate" against non-union members, so we need to pass a national Right to Work law?
And, @ Citizen Duck, since I don't know whether or not you're a Ron Paul supporter I shall pose a different question:
If it is wrong to "force" people to join unions, why is it right to force the unions to waste time, money and effort representing non-members?
TheWhiteknife wrote: Just as an aside, can I go to the union pig roast? Sorry, Comrade Knife, I missed this.
Of course you can!
Smarnil le couard wrote:
And why, exactly, would the unions make meetings in such inaccessible buildings? Just to be naughty? What would be the point of screwing part of their members/fellow workers?
From a outsider point of view, with no previous knowledge of US unions, your argument sounds totally bogus. Pure intent.
Maybe they will be drunk while driving to said meetings, so ban them for that too!
For the same reason that companies have discriminated based on race, sex, sexual orientation, spiritual beliefs, etc.
Let's not kid ourselves. Unions, like businesses, are ran by people. People can be quite ugly.
Darkwing Duck wrote: For the same reason that companies have discriminated based on race, sex, sexual orientation, spiritual beliefs, etc.
Let's not kid ourselves. Unions, like businesses, are ran by people. People can be quite ugly.
Citizen Duck, I respectfully request that you address my post three above. I apologize in advance if I am being impatient.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: For the same reason that companies have discriminated based on race, sex, sexual orientation, spiritual beliefs, etc.
Let's not kid ourselves. Unions, like businesses, are ran by people. People can be quite ugly.
It seems we are talking past each other, or I don't get your meaning.
Well, as you know, businesses and unions have different goals, and different takes about their employees/members.
The most evident difference is that businesses' main goal is to make money, and so hire just as many people they need to do the job. They are choosy, by nature.
On the other hand, unions try to have as many members as they can, because their strenght is in numbers.
On this basis, it seems to me that for an union, excluding people on whatever personal criteria you can think of would be unbelieviably stupid.
So, my question is: do you really believe that unions are stupid? Is that your justification for banning them?
Smarnil le couard wrote: On the other hand, unions try to have as many members as they can, because their strenght is in numbers.
Unions try to please as many of their members as possible. That's not the same as pleasing all of their members.
There's an old canard about democracy - that it's two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
Let me give you a hypothetical. Should the union go on strike in order to assure that homosexual couples in a committed relationship have the same benefits as married couples?
Now, assume that question is being asked in a West Virginia mining town where families are poor and can barely afford to put food on their table, let alone survive a strike.
Is the Union likely to want to represent the homosexual couple? No. So, why should the homosexual couple be forced to pay dues?
On the other hand, the business may find that the best accountant it has on staff is a gay man, that this man has saved the company a lot of money, and that the company doesn't want to lose this gay man. So, the company may discover that its beneficial to its bottom line to extend this gay man's benefits.
Or, let's say that the Union is trying to get some package negotiated. They want to get three things (we'll call them "A", "B", and "C") accepted by the business. But they are having trouble, so they go into negotiations. They agree to give up on "C" in order to focus on "A" and "B". They do it because "C" is something only a minority of their members want. But, "C" is something which significantly impacts people with physical disabilities or people with religious tenants or the like. If the Union keeps doing this, then why should the people who keep getting thrown under the bus be forced to pay dues?
But, if these people get tired of being thrown under the bus and decide to walk out of the Union, they now might be able to exert pressure on the Union to start representing them better.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: If it is wrong to "force" people to join unions, why is it right to force the unions to waste time, money and effort representing non-members? When a worker has a grievance and the Union steps in to represent him, one of the first things the Union will ask is "are you a member?" If the answer is "no", then the Union is under no obligation to represent him.
So, I don't understand your question.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Smarnil le couard wrote: On the other hand, unions try to have as many members as they can, because their strenght is in numbers.
Unions try to please as many of their members as possible. That's not the same as pleasing all of their members.
There's an old canard about democracy - that it's two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
Let me give you a hypothetical. Should the union go on strike in order to assure that homosexual couples in a committed relationship have the same benefits as married couples?
Now, assume that question is being asked in a West Virginia mining town where families are poor and can barely afford to put food on their table, let alone survive a strike. Why not? And why are the miners poor? Coal mines are for profit, after all.
Quote: Is the Union likely to want to represent the homosexual couple? No. So, why should the homosexual couple be forced to pay dues? That's quite an arbitrary line you've drawn there. Do unions hate "the gays" now?
Quote: On the other hand, the business may find that the best accountant it has on staff is a gay man, that this man has saved the company a lot of money, and that the company doesn't want to lose this gay man. So, the company may discover that its beneficial to its bottom line to extend this gay man's benefits. But what if he's not gay, but (shudder) Catholic! Would you do business with a Satanist?
Quote: Or, let's say that the Union is trying to get some package negotiated. They want to get three things (we'll call them "A", "B", and "C") accepted by the business. But they are having trouble, so they go into negotiations. They agree to give up on "C" in order to focus on "A" and "B". They do it because "C" is something only a minority of their members want. But, "C" is something which significantly impacts people with physical disabilities or people with religious tenants or the like. If the Union keeps doing this, then why should the people who keep getting thrown under the bus be forced to pay dues? Nice hypothetical. You're really stretching here. Any real-world examples, or are you just trying really hard to bring up things that don't come up?
Tenets.
Quote: But, if these people get tired of being thrown under the bus and decide to walk out of the Union, they now might be able to exert pressure on the Union to start representing them better. They could always quit their job, too, and go find a better one. It's easy. There's a great mining company with no union that pays much better (because no union means more money to pay their beloved workers, and that's just what they do with it) just down the road...
Darkwing Duck wrote: Smarnil le couard wrote: On the other hand, unions try to have as many members as they can, because their strenght is in numbers.
Unions try to please as many of their members as possible. That's not the same as pleasing all of their members.
There's an old canard about democracy - that it's two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
Let me give you a hypothetical. Should the union go on strike in order to assure that homosexual couples in a committed relationship have the same benefits as married couples?
Now, assume that question is being asked in a West Virginia mining town where families are poor and can barely afford to put food on their table, let alone survive a strike.
Is the Union likely to want to represent the homosexual couple? No. So, why should the homosexual couple be forced to pay dues?
On the other hand, the business may find that the best accountant it has on staff is a gay man, that this man has saved the company a lot of money, and that the company doesn't want to lose this gay man. So, the company may discover that its beneficial to its bottom line to extend this gay man's benefits.
Or, let's say that the Union is trying to get some package negotiated. They want to get three things (we'll call them "A", "B", and "C") accepted by the business. But they are having trouble, so they go into negotiations. They agree to give up on "C" in order to focus on "A" and "B". They do it because "C" is something only a minority of their members want. But, "C" is something which significantly impacts people with physical disabilities or people with religious tenants or the like. If the Union keeps doing this, then why should the people who keep getting thrown under the bus be forced to pay dues?
But, if these people get tired of being thrown under the bus and decide to walk out of the Union, they now might be able to exert pressure on the Union to start representing them better. Your reasoning is flawed, because you are assuming a lot. By stringing hypothesis like you do (if, and if, and if...), you can demonstrate absolutely anything.
Like an old saying goes, "if my aunt had balls, we would call her uncle".
Darkwing Duck wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: If it is wrong to "force" people to join unions, why is it right to force the unions to waste time, money and effort representing non-members? When a worker has a grievance and the Union steps in to represent him, one of the first things the Union will ask is "are you a member?" If the answer is "no", then the Union is under no obligation to represent him.
You are misinformed.
There is something called the "Duty of Fair Representation" that has been established as a precedent in open shops. Under this, I don't know, clause, if a union treats a non-member any differently than a member, they are liable for thousands of dollars worth of fines.
Before I looked it up on wikipedia, I didn't know that the DFR's origins were in attempting to make the unions be less racist. Nevertheless, today, if I were a non-member in an open shop and wanted to file a grievance about, say, supervisors working, or unfair discipline and the steward told me "Go screw, scab" I could file NLRB charges and make loot.
Smarnil le couard wrote: If my aunt had balls, we'd call her uncle. Hee hee!
Write that in French!
Smarnil le couard wrote: Your reasoning is flawed, because you are assuming a lot. By stringing hypothesis like you do (if, and if, and if...), you can demonstrate absolutely anything. You believe its wrong to assume an organization can be homophobic or anti-<insert religion here>?
Or do you believe that organizations can be homophobic/anti-religion UNLESS those organizations are unions?
Is there some magic pixie dust which makes unions immune from discrimination?
I kind of drifted out of what you guys were arguing about, but no union would ever call a strike, in West Virginia or San Francisco, to get gay marriages recognized by the company if appropriate local laws didn't mandate it.
Unfortunately, that's not how things work.
A gay couple who expected their union to strike over such an issue are not living in the real world.
----
Anyway, I think this issue has been beaten to death for now. I will refrain from posting on this again unless somebody says something really funny.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Smarnil le couard wrote: Your reasoning is flawed, because you are assuming a lot. By stringing hypothesis like you do (if, and if, and if...), you can demonstrate absolutely anything. You believe its wrong to assume an organization can be homophobic or anti-<insert religion here>?
Or do you believe that organizations can be homophobic/anti-religion UNLESS those organizations are unions?
Is there some magic pixie dust which makes unions immune from discrimination?
Do you have some proof that unions discriminate? Against who? How? All I'm seeing is a page full of hypothetical meandering.
Now, if we want to talk about discriminatory hiring, I'm sure you can make a case.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote:
There's an old canard about democracy - that it's two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
Sorry, but I have to bump in for this.
Only a strict democracy actually works in this fashion. The US does not have a strict democracy, nor did it ever. It was framed, at least, as a democratic republic. Meaning sure, there are votes that do things and elect people, but the republic part meant that there were protections that the government couldn't put to vote, as things they simply couldn't touch.
I mean, notice how Bush Jr.'s proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage went nowhere. It wasn't supposed to, as it's something the gov't should not touch. It's technically a family law issue anyway, which was delegated to state powers.
There are some quotes by famous philosophers that deride democracy, including this quote I imagine, but it doesn't confront me because I know they're talking about a strict democracy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Smarnil le couard wrote: If my aunt had balls, we'd call her uncle. Hee hee!
Write that in French! Wish granted!
"Si ma tante en avait, on l'appellerait mon oncle."
Darkwing Duck wrote: Smarnil le couard wrote: Your reasoning is flawed, because you are assuming a lot. By stringing hypothesis like you do (if, and if, and if...), you can demonstrate absolutely anything. You believe its wrong to assume an organization can be homophobic or anti-<insert religion here>?
Or do you believe that organizations can be homophobic/anti-religion UNLESS those organizations are unions?
Is there some magic pixie dust which makes unions immune from discrimination? I am just pointing out that your reasoning is circular : IF unions are bad persons, THEN they are bad persons.
You demonstrate nothing by assuming intent, and not showing facts.
Smarnil le couard wrote:
I am just pointing out that your reasoning is circular : IF unions are bad persons, THEN they are bad persons.
That is not circular -- that is a tautology.
Cut him some slack, English isn't his first language.
Benicio Del Espada wrote: Do you have some proof that unions discriminate? Against who? How? All I'm seeing is a page full of hypothetical meandering.
Now, if we want to talk about discriminatory hiring, I'm sure you can make a case.
Should we wait until a house is on fire before we install water sprinklers? That's the kind of logic that says that we need to wait until discrimination occurs before we take measures to prevent it.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: I kind of drifted out of what you guys were arguing about, but no union would ever call a strike, in West Virginia or San Francisco, to get gay marriages recognized by the company if appropriate local laws didn't mandate it.
Unfortunately, that's not how things work.
A gay couple who expected their union to strike over such an issue are not living in the real world.
----
Anyway, I think this issue has been beaten to death for now. I will refrain from posting on this again unless somebody says something really funny.
My company treats gay couples exactly the same as straight couple (insurance coverage, retirement benefits, everything) despite the state not requiring it and there being no union in the company.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
no union would ever call a strike, in West Virginia or San Francisco, to get gay marriages recognized by the company if appropriate local laws didn't mandate it.
Unfortunately, that's not how things work.
I ask again, if unions aren't going to represent them, why should gay people be forced to pay union dues?
Darkwing Duck wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: I kind of drifted out of what you guys were arguing about, but no union would ever call a strike, in West Virginia or San Francisco, to get gay marriages recognized by the company if appropriate local laws didn't mandate it.
Unfortunately, that's not how things work.
A gay couple who expected their union to strike over such an issue are not living in the real world.
----
Anyway, I think this issue has been beaten to death for now. I will refrain from posting on this again unless somebody says something really funny.
My company treats gay couples exactly the same as straight couple (insurance coverage, retirement benefits, everything) despite the state not requiring it and there being no union in the company.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
no union would ever call a strike, in West Virginia or San Francisco, to get gay marriages recognized by the company if appropriate local laws didn't mandate it.
Unfortunately, that's not how things work.
I ask again, if unions aren't going to represent them, why should gay people be forced to pay union dues? That's nice. My company does not.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Benicio Del Espada wrote: Do you have some proof that unions discriminate? Against who? How? All I'm seeing is a page full of hypothetical meandering.
Now, if we want to talk about discriminatory hiring, I'm sure you can make a case.
Should we wait until a house is on fire before we install water sprinklers? That's the kind of logic that says that we need to wait until discrimination occurs before we take measures to prevent it. I think we need to see some union discrimination before we presume there is any, let alone think that unions desperate for membership are going to refuse someone for being gay, of all things. Ludicrous. You're just floating more and more preposterous hypotheticals, and it's getting a little old.
Freehold DM wrote:
That's nice. My company does not.
My company, Honeywell, is rather the darling of many lgbt activist groups on account of its treatment of lgbt people.
Benicio Del Espada wrote: I think we need to see some union discrimination before we presume there is any, let alone think that unions desperate for membership are going to refuse someone for being gay, of all things. Ludicrous. You're just floating more and more preposterous hypotheticals, and it's getting a little old. To point out the blatantly obvious again, a Union in a state without right to work is unlikely to be desperate for membership.
Also, another equally obvious point, it is ludicrous, when we know for a fact that some businesses have discriminated, to assume that some magic pixie dust has been sprinkled on unions to make them immune.
Darkwing Duck wrote: To point out the blatantly obvious again, a Union in a state without right to work is unlikely to be desperate for membership. Unions are shrinking. They're all desperate for membership.
Quote: Also, another equally obvious point, it is ludicrous, when we know for a fact that some businesses have discriminated, to assume that some magic pixie dust has been sprinkled on unions to make them immune. 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."
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.
Quote: let's say that the Union is trying to get some package negotiated. They want to get three things (we'll call them "A", "B", and "C") accepted by the business. But they are having trouble, so they go into negotiations. They agree to give up on "C" in order to focus on "A" and "B". They do it because "C" is something only a minority of their members want. But, "C" is something which significantly impacts people with physical disabilities or people with religious tenants or the like. If the Union keeps doing this, then why should the people who keep getting thrown under the bus be forced to pay dues? Comrade Anklebiter agreed
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: no union would ever call a strike, in West Virginia or San Francisco, to get gay marriages recognized by the company if appropriate local laws didn't mandate it.
Unfortunately, that's not how things work.
A union might happily throw some people (minorities) under the bus in order to get concessions for other people.
Swivl wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
There's an old canard about democracy - that it's two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
Sorry, but I have to bump in for this.
Only a strict democracy actually works in this fashion. The US does not have a strict democracy, nor did it ever. It was framed, at least, as a democratic republic. Meaning sure, there are votes that do things and elect people, but the republic part meant that there were protections that the government couldn't put to vote, as things they simply couldn't touch.
I mean, notice how Bush Jr.'s proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage went nowhere. It wasn't supposed to, as it's something the gov't should not touch. It's technically a family law issue anyway, which was delegated to state powers.
There are some quotes by famous philosophers that deride democracy, including this quote I imagine, but it doesn't confront me because I know they're talking about a strict democracy. Swivl, I know the US isn't a Democracy. Its a Republic. What I don't know is why you posted your non sequitor in reply to my post.
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
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
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.
|
