No. I'm for people making a choice. In the case of Wisconsin and other non-right to work states many workers do not have the choice to negotiate directly with their employer and have to pay a 3rd party(through extortion) for the supposed "protection" the union claim they provide.
How's individual negotiation working out for Wal Mart employees?
Unless the 1st amendment is repealed, how does one shut down the collective bargaining rights of a group that is legally allowed to form? It would seem any such legislation, to me, would be considered unconstitutional.
You could use reading the history of the labor movement and what the laws do and why they're needed. At least you have an honest question.
I can usually suggest a book, but on this, it's been covered as a side issue, I don't know a good single resource for you, but google should be useful.
In a way, I blame liberals and even unions especially for not doing a better job educating the public and allowing the right-wing propaganda to lie to people like you.
When Bush appoints *industry representatives* to oversee regulatory enforcement of those industries, people like you don't give a crap - it's all just 'government waste' to you.
And when unions are guttted, when the US is drug down and down while the most rich shift all the money 'saved' to their own ownership of every wealth-producing asset in the nation crippling opportunity and 'entrepeneurship' and setting records on the gap between the rich and everyone else, you clap like a seal. Yay, yay, yay the bad workers lose!
You can ask Haley Barbour about the constitutional right to collectively bargain, he specifically stated on Sunday on MtP that such a thing didn't exist. He got kind of cut off and they moved on, but I wish they had stayed on that point a bit. It seems pretty clear that assembly + speech = collective bargaining, and I'd like to hear someone like Barbour try to argue to the contrary.
Yes, if your idea of "fine" is creating "hundreds of jobs" far below living wage. Wal Mart is the leader of the pack in the race to the bottom.
"living wage"? ah yes...
If a job doesn't pay living wage, it's a drain on society because it forces a person to make up the difference with debt or government services. You know Wal Mart tells its employees to apply for Medicare and Food Stamps right? Paid for by us, the taxpayers.Living wage is a term used to describe the minimum hourly wage necessary for an individual to meet basic needs, including shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition, for an extended period of time or a lifetime. In developed countries such as the United Kingdom or Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
If a job doesn't pay living wage, it's a drain on society because it forces a person to make up the difference with debt or government services. You know Wal Mart tells its employees to apply for Medicare and Food Stamps right? Paid for by us, the taxpayers.
I know the liberal wet dream definition of "living wage" - I just think it's nothing but a bullshit feelgood attempt at wage control. It's what "progressives" use to suggest that free market wages aren't enough for people. Sorry, but it's nonsense. If a person doesn't think they make enough - maybe they should find a different job. If enough people won't work for a $/wage - employers must up their wages to attract the employees needed. No need for any feel good progressive BS - it just works.
Unions are not a bad thing, only an idiot would think so.
THERE ARE NO FUCKING JOBS. Why do you idiot conservatives keep saying that stupid shit? That's the whole point of global labor arbitrage: To increase the supply of labor exponentially and thus decrease wages/choices. It's not just millions of Americans competing for jobs, it's hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of global citizens competing for them.
lol, except your little argument fails when the economy is good and there are jobs. A couple years ago there were plenty of jobs yet you "progressives" (liberals who don't want to be called liberals) were still yapping about "living wage".
The point is - people have a choice in where they work. If you don't like it - find something better. No one is entitled to a job or a paycheck they can live comfortably with. There is no reason an unskilled job should allow the same comfort as a skilled position - it's just the way it is.
But the discussion has wandered from the topic now... try a different thread if you want to keep going.
But unions might as well not exist without those so-called 'government protections' you keep harping about because they have ZERO leverage. Saying you're 'for' unions (via ONLY 1st amendment rights) in practicality means you DON'T want unions.
What do you mean they have zero leverage? The entire premise of a union is a group of people who bargain for mutual benefit. With the right to organize and the right to free speech that can be realized. The regulation and legislation you're saying are needed were only needed because the Federal Government did NOT do it's job, which is to enforce and protect our rights.
It really is a very simple thing. I'm not saying what happened back then was right, only an idiot would say that, but what came out of it was not right either. Instead of writing more and more law, we need to enforce and respect the ones we currently have. Without that, what's the point of more law?
Honestly why are you even arguing with me? The only point you're making is mine.
Phokus, since when have I said I'm for businesses getting preferential treatment? Please don't lump me in with some pre-determined definition of a group you have. I belong to no like-minded group. The things you're scared of are only worrisome if people continue to be idiots and if we've learned anything no amount of legislation is going to cure that. If a company up and fires everyone for striking, why would anyone else want to work there? To risk a similar fate? Please, again only idiots. They can move their shit to another place, we can in turn boycott it. If big business leaves, small businesses will rise to fill the niche.
If you haven't noticed by now, I'm all about flipping the bird to as many people as possible, I don't give a fuck how much they make, who they are, or what they do. The only reason you believe these people hold power over you and others is because you let them.
They can move their shit to another place, we can in turn boycott it.
How does big business hold all the cards when they can't function without employees? That is completely asinine. If everyone stopped working, they would have nothing. We choose to be employed here, we aren't slaves. The average American is not a spineless fuckwad, shit just isn't "bad" enough for most due to all the crap the Feds have been doing to prevent the inevitable collapse.
At last summers Aspen Ideas Festival, Michael Splinter, CEO of the Silicon Valley green-tech firm Applied Materials, said that if he were starting from scratch, only 20 percent of his workforce would be domestic. This year, almost 90 percent of our sales will be outside the U.S., he explained. The pull to be close to the customersmost of them in Asiais enormous. Speaking at the same conference, Thomas Wilson, CEO of Allstate, also lamented this global reality: I can get [workers] anywhere in the world. It is a problem for America, but it is not necessarily a problem for American business American businesses will adapt.
When Bush appoints *industry representatives* to oversee regulatory enforcement of those industries, people like you don't give a crap - it's all just 'government waste' to you.
Yeah and like I said small business would rise to fill the niches that emptied when big business left. It wouldn't be that big of an issue imo. You raise them to the level of gods with your view point, I keep them very firmly attached to the ground at eye level because they are just man.