So The House Has Passed Right To Work.

[rhinoman]

Unions are not the Cure all, they are but a tool. In the case, and yes they are their own beast, and need to be quelled, not quashed. But the Simple Fact is the Ability to Unionize is WHAT BUILT the Middle Class in America. The Middle Class is what REALLY Built America.

 

Every one of you Folks here the cry Absolute Foul where unions are concerned, better close your lips, open your ears, and set down with those that are 70 plus years old and older. Those of you that are 70 yrs old, or close, and have 1st hand experience of what your Parents and Grandparents Life was like Prior to Unions, Please let these people in on the way things were when your grandparents were working, or perhaps your parents that had to put in 10 hrs a day instead of being in school.

 

Unions wont save the world, but they are a Very Important tool between the working class and the class that Thinks they build everything the Money Pushers on Top. Unions are a Tool and if, as the builder of something, in this case the mechanism that BUILT the middle class, you don't have access to the best tools, the job will take longer, and be more tough to build, and MAY NOT EVEN BE Doable.

 

Any of you Anti Union Types ever think about the correlation between the vastly Shrinking Unions through the United States, and the Equally Fast, Vastly Shrinking Middle Class? Or is that asking you to use your brain for something more than a hat rack as my grandma used to say?

 

Lose Unions, lose the Middle Class. We are one step away from that now. and here in Michigan, Last Thursday, we just stepped through that mirror into the rabbit hole.

Great statments Timmahh. Boy they are sure hungry for the last 20% of the market. Corp. Greed is killin america!

[CaveatLector]

Any of you Anti Union Types ever think about the correlation between the vastly Shrinking Unions through the United States, and the Equally Fast, Vastly Shrinking Middle Class? Or is that asking you to use your brain for something more than a hat rack as my grandma used to say?

 

 

All hatracks, please bow to the great and powerful timAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

What a joke you are. You're a good one for constantly spewing explicit put-downs and condescending remarks to people who don't line up behind you. Yet you scream "foul" if others write something that doesn't sit right with you.

 

Newsflash: People who are 70+ didn't have the benefit of OSHA regs, overtime and other labor laws, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Again, bargained-for workplace safety is a joke. Overworking employees and working them in unsafe conditions is something that should be (and is) outlawed. Pretending like things today are the same as they were in the 1920-30s isn't going to get you anywhere. May as well allege that we need unions to ensure that 8-year-olds aren't allowed in sweatshops anymore.

 

Calling me, or those like me, "anti-union types" is a fallacy you use to stick a negative moniker on those that agree with right to work. I am not anti-union, I am pro-allowing people the choice to opt out of a union. There is a HUGE difference. I feel that workers should have the right to get-together to collectively bargain. That is the American way. Collectively bargaining gives you leverage which is the idea that if a company refuses to agree to concessions then the entire crew walks. I'm cool with that. If you're a Doctor and you have great skill then you bargain using YOUR leverage which is YOU walking and taking your skill with you if your employer won't agree to your compensation demands. Same goes for Justin Verlander. Unions have their place but shouldn't be forced on anyone. If I want to work for company X then let company X hire me based on my own negotiated salary and benefits, etc. Don't use the line that I automatically get union benefits just because there is a union. If I'm willing to be low man on totem pole then what business is it of yours? Heck, get your union to bargain for me being first-in-line to fire should cut-backs be necessary. That's fine. The fallacy being perpetuated here is that the nonunion workers will automatically get union benefits. Let's ditch that fallacy and see what else you have to stand on. Let's ditch bargained-for safety fallacies and see what you have left to stand on. Restorium wants these negative union stereotypes ditched as a few tales here and there. That's fine. Ditch those. But also ditch the yarn about the other things as well.

Edited December 10, 2012 by CaveatLector

[Restorium2]

Before you become an advocate for this type of union busting measure you should answer this question for yourself;

 

Why are there rules in place to make it so unionized shop's employees have to all be part of the union?

 

When you find the answer to that you will have total understanding of why this right to work legislation is bad.

[Northern Lab]

I like how they promote 'Social Security Expanded'

 

I know, right? It's like the GOP used to be populated by sane, rational people or something...

[+Malamute]

People who are 70 years old have been working under OSHA since they were 30. *shrug*

 

And the Fair Labor STandards Act which created the 40 hour work week and Overtime Pay and a slew of other worker protections was passed in 1937. Those 70 year olds worked under it their entire life since the day they were born.

 

:-)

[+Malamute]

F e d e r a l L a b o r L a w s

===================================

 

Present Federal law regulating labor-management relations is

largely a product of the New Deal era of the 1930s. While Congress

has acted to raise the Federal minimum wage and has considered labor

law reform affecting both private and public employees, no major new

labor laws have been passed over the past several decades.

 

 

================

Early Labor Laws

================

 

The Clayton Act

 

In response to pressure to clarify labor's position under untitrust

laws, Congress, in 1914, enacted the Clayton Act, which included

several major provisions protective of organized labor.

 

The Act stated that "the labor of a human being is not commodity or

article of commerce," and provided further that nothing contained in

the Federal antitrust laws:

 

shall be construed to forbid the existence and

operation of labor...organizations...nor shall

such organizations, or the members thereof, be

held or construed to be illegal combinations or

conspiracies in restraint of trade under the

anti-trust laws.

 

(*) Railway Labor Act

 

In 1926, the Railway Labor Act (RLA) was passed, requiring

employers to bargain collectively and prohibiting discrimination

against unions. It applied originally to interstate railroads and

their related undertakings. In 1936, it was amended to include

airlines engaged in interstate commerce.

 

(*) Davis-Bacon Act

 

In 1931, Congress passed the Davis-Bacon Act, requiring that contracts

for construction entered into by the Federal Government specify the

minimum wages to be paid to persons employed under those contracts.

 

(*) Norris-LaGuardia Act

 

The Norris-LaGuardia Act, passed in 1932, during the last year of

the Hoover Administration, was the first in a series of laws passed by

Congress in the 1930s which gave Federal sanction to the right of

labor unions to organize and strike, and to use other forms of

economic leverage in dealings with management.

 

The law specifically prohibited Federal courts from enforcing

so-called "yellow dog" contracts or agreements (under which workers

promised not to join a union or promised to discontinue membership in

one).

 

In addition, it barred Federal courts from issuing restraining orders

or injunctions against activities by labor unions and individuals,

including the following:

 

(*) joining or organizing a union, or assembling for union purposes;

 

(*) striking or refusing to work, or advising others to strike or

organize;

 

(*) Publicizing acts of a Labor dispute; and

 

(*) providing lawful legal aid to persons participating in a labor

dispute;

 

 

====================

New Deal Era Reforms

====================

 

(*) National Industry Recovery Act

 

In 1933, Congress passed the National Industry Recovery Act (NRA) at

the request of newly inaugurated President Franklin Roosevelt. The Act

sought to provide codes of "fair competition" and to fix wages and

hours in industries subscribing to such codes.

 

Title I of the Act, providing that all codes of fair competition

approved under the Act should guarantee the right of employees to

collective bargaining without interference or coercion of employees,

was held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1935.

 

(*) The Wagner Act

 

By far the most important labor legislation of the 1930s was the

National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, more popularly known as

the Wagner Act, after its sponsor, Sen. Robert F. Wagner (NY-D). This

law included reenactment of the previously invalidated labor sections

of the NRA as well as a number of additions.

 

The NLRA was applicable to all firms and employees in activities

affecting interstate commerce with the exception of agricultural

laborers, government employees, and those persons subject to the

Railway Labor Act. It guaranteed covered workers the right to organize

and join labor movements, to choose representatives and bargain

collectively, and to strike.

 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), originally consisting

of three members appointed by the President, was established by the

Act as an independent Federal agency. The NLRB was given power to

determine whether a union should be certified to represent particular

groups of employees, using such methods as it deemed suitable to reach

such a determination, including the holding of a representation

election among workers concerned.

 

Employers were forbidden by the Act from engaging in any of the

five categories of unfair labor practices. Violation of this

prohibition could result in the filing of a complaint with the NLRB by

a union or employees. After investigation, the NLRB could order the

cessation of such practices, reinstatement of a person fired for union

activities, the provision of back pay, restoration of seniority,

benefits, etc. An NLRB order issued in response to an unfair labor

practice complaint was made enforceable by the Federal courts.

 

Among those unfair labor practices forbidden by the Act were:

 

1 ) Dominating or otherwise interfering with formation of a labor

union, including the provision of any financial or other support.

 

2) Interfering with or restraining employees engaged in

the exercise of their rights to organize and bargain

collectively.

 

3) Imposing any special conditions of employment which tended either

to encourage or discourage union membership. The law stated,

however, that this provision should be construed to prohibit union

contracts requiring union membership as a condition of employment

in a company -- a provision which, in effect, permitted the closed

and union shops. (In the former, only pre-existing members of the

union could be hired, in the latter. new employees were required

to join the union.)

 

4) Discharging or discriminating against an employee because he had

given testimony or filed charges under

the Act.

 

5) Refusing to bargain collectively with unions representing a

company's employees.

 

The NLRA included no provisions defining or prohibiting as unfair

any labor practices by unions. The Act served to spur growth of U.S.

unionism -- from 3,584,000 union members in 1935 to 10,201,000 by

1941, the eve of World War II. The 1941 figure represented more than

2? percent of the nonagricultural workforce in the U.S.

 

(*) Anti-Strikebreaker Law

 

The Byrnes Act of 1936, named for Sen. James Byrnes (SC-D) and

amended in 1938, made it a felony to transport any person in

interstate commerce who was employed for the purpose of using force of

threats against non-violent picketing in a labor dispute or against

organizing or bargaining efforts.

 

(*) Walsh-Healy Act

 

Passed in 1936, the Walsh-Healy Act stated that workers must be

paid not less than the "prevailing minimum wage" normally paid in a

locality; restricted regular work ing hours to eight hours a day and

40 hours a week, with time-and-a-half pay for additional hours;

prohibited the employment of convicts and children under 18; and

established sanitation and safety standards.

 

(*) Fair Labor Standards Act

 

Known as the wage-hour law, this 1938 Act established minimum wages

and maximum hours for all workers engaged in covered "interstate

commerce."

 

 

======================

Post World War II Laws

======================

 

 

(*) Taft-Hartley Act

 

It was not until two years after the close of World War II that

the first major modification of the National Labor Relations Act was

enacted. In 1947, the Labor-Management Relations Act -- also known as

the Taft-Hartley Act, after its two sponsors, Sen. Robert A. Taft

(OH-R) and Rep. Fred A. Hartley, Jr. (NJ-R) -- was passed by

Congress, Vetoed by President Truman (on the basis that it was

anti-Labor), and then reapproved over his veto. This comprehensive

measure:

 

(*) established procedures for delaying or averting so-called

"national emergency" strikes;

 

(*) excluded supervisory employees from coverage of the

Wagner Act;

 

(*) prohibited the "closed shop" altogether;

 

(*) banned closed-shop union hiring halls that discriminated against

non-union members.

 

Taft-Hartley retained the Wagner Act's basic guarantees of workers'

rights to join unions, bargain collectively, and strike [Gee, thanks!

--HB], and retained the same list of unfair labor practices forbidden

to employers. The Act also added a list of unfair labor practices

forbidden to unions. These included:

 

(*) restraint or coercion of workers exercising their rights to

bargain through representatives of their choosing;

 

(*) coercion of an employer in his choice of persons to represent him

in discussions with unions;

 

(*) refusal of unions to bargain collectively;

 

(*) barring a worker from employment because he had been denied union

membership for any reason except non-payment of dues;

 

(*) striking to force an employer or self-employed person to join a

union;

 

(*) secondary boycotts;

 

(*) various types of strikes or boycotts involving

interunion conflict or jurisdictional agreements;

 

(*) Levying of excessive union initiation fees;

 

(*) certain forms of "featherbedding" (payment for work

not actually performed).

 

The Taft-Hartley Act included a number of other provisions. These included:

 

(*) authorization of suits against unions for violations of their

economic contracts;

 

(*) authorization of damage suits for economic losses

caused by secondary boycotts and certain strikes;

 

(*) relaxation of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to permit injunctions

against specified categories of unfair labor practice;

 

(*) establishment of a 60-day no-strike and no-lockout notice period

for any party seeking to cancel an existing collective bargaining

agreement;

 

(*) a requirement that unions desiring status under the law and

recourse to NLRB protection file specified financial reports and

documents with the U.S. Department of Labor;

 

(*) the abolition of the U.S. Conciliation Service and establishment

of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service;

 

(*) a prohibition against corporate or union contributions or

expenditures with respect to elections to any Federal office;

 

(*) a reorganization of the NLRB and a limitation on its power;

 

(*) a prohibition on strikes against the government;

 

(*) the banning of various types of employer payments to union

officials.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

(*) Landrum-Grifln Act

 

The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, also

known as the Landrum-Griffin Act, made major additions to the

Taft-Hartley Act, including:

 

(*) definition of additional unfair labor practices;

 

(*) a ban on organizational or recognition picketing;

 

(*) provisions allowing State labor relations agencies and courts to

assume jurisdiction over labor disputes the NLRB declined to

consider at the same time prohibiting the NLRB from broadening the

categories of cases it would not handle.

[CaveatLector]

People who are 70 years old have been working under OSHA since they were 30. *shrug*

 

And the Fair Labor STandards Act which created the 40 hour work week and Overtime Pay and a slew of other worker protections was passed in 1937. Those 70 year olds worked under it their entire life since the day they were born.

 

:-)

Yes, OSHA standards have come a long way since it was created too though. And guess who created OSHA?!?!? None other than that EVIL Republican Richard Nixon!

 

As for FLSA, it was a result of unionization. That is my point and thank you for helping me make it here. We have FLSA so we don't need unions for that anymore.

 

As for 70-year-olds, I was writing colloquially in response to tim's post. If we want to write literally then those 70-year-olds also had the benefit of unions. This isn't about a particular age group it is about comparing the past to today. Nice try cherry-picking the argument though!

[+Malamute]

Hmmm,... i guess we don't need any group who supports anything that has passed?

 

So we do not need any public advocacy for medical cannabis in Michigan anymore because we passed the MMMAct?

 

I am not arguing with ya, just pointing out the silly.

 

The tide has come and gonemany times on worker protections. Weakened here, improved there and without a Workers advocacy making sure protections are upheld, maintained and improved, we would like lose a nice chunk of current protections.

[Restorium2]

Here's another fact for you to consider;

 

If any union shop in Michigan decides among the employees that they don't want a union they can kick the union to the curb ALREADY. That's right, they already can do what most people think they can't do, be non union if they want to. All they have to do is get 30% of the workers, only 30%, to say they don't want one and BOOM the union is gone bye bye. It's already like that. So why all the bogus BS about the right to not have a union? Ah, to make it so workers can't get organized even if they want to, that's why.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Restorium2

[+Malamute]

That is exactly correct Resto.

 

The whole reason RtW is completely unneeded.

[CaveatLector]

Hmmm,... i guess we don't need any group who supports anything that has passed?

 

So we do not need any public advocacy for medical cannabis in Michigan anymore because we passed the MMMAct?

 

I am not arguing with ya, just pointing out the silly.

 

The tide has come and gonemany times on worker protections. Weakened here, improved there and without a Workers advocacy making sure protections are upheld, maintained and improved, we would like lose a nice chunk of current protections.

You know what? I didn't even think about that. You have officially changed my mind.

 

I think I am going to help form a group to give women the right to vote in my community. Well, at least to continue to secure it!!!

 

Haha, joking aside, I am all for groups protecting worker rights. But there is a difference between a politically active group such as a PAC (that can help protect workers and ensure legislative oversight of those protections) and a group that protects one set of workers in one workplace. Again, you are employing the slippery slope argument by suggesting that a union is needed to ensure workplace safety. So why not pass a law REQUIRING unionization in ALL workplaces so everyone can be safe and happy and have a chocolate milk break every hour, on the hour? Sound good?

 

Let's not confuse a politcal action committee with a union, ay?

[CaveatLector]

That is exactly correct Resto.

 

The whole reason RtW is completely unneeded.

So the 29% can be forced to pay union dues . . . tyranny of the plurality.

[+Malamute]

Well, here we go...

 

Unions are 501©5 corporations- Public Advocacy.

 

People like CPU are 501© 4 corporations- public advocacy

 

And PAC's are usually a non profit political outreach formed by other 501©'s.

 

Such as CPU is a C(4) and we support CANNAPAC who is a PAC.

 

So... not really....

[+Malamute]

So the 29% can be forced to pay union dues . . . tyranny of the plurality.

 

I would consider it a democracy where the minority only needs 30% to rule the majority.

[Restorium2]

I would consider it a democracy where the minority only needs 30% to rule the majority.

I was just going to say that it's sounds like democracy to me. LOL

[+Malamute]

See,.. now we are getting to the nuts and bolts.

 

:-)

[Restorium2]

So the 29% can be forced to pay union dues . . . tyranny of the plurality.

Is this also tyranny to you;

http://www.ueunion.org/org_steps.html

[CaveatLector]

Well, here we go...

 

Unions are 501©5 corporations- Public Advocacy.

 

People like CPU are 501© 4 corporations- public advocacy

 

And PAC's are usually a non profit political outreach formed by other 501©'s.

 

Such as CPU is a C(4) and we support CANNAPAC who is a PAC.

 

So... not really....

What do you mean "not really?" Yes really. It makes no sense to suggest that people should be forced to join a union to continue to secure their rights to a 40-hour work week, etc. These are just the type of fallacious arguments that are held onto to continue to fluff up unions.

 

As for the 29%, I agree. The 30% shouldn't be allowed to decide the 70%'s future. The 70% should be allowed to unionize if they want. But if the law allows for a 30% override then the problem is with that law and it should be changed, not used as an excuse as to why unions are so fair.

 

I have a really good idea. Let's force all workplaces to utilize unions. We can get some committee, how about a nice legally mandated committee. That committee can decide what the industry can handle as far as wages and benefits. Then we just mandate across-the-board wages for every single workplace in Amerika. We could even do away with the minimum wage then. Heck, the Republicans would LOVE that. We could have a government panel that decides what is a fair profit for running, say, a cabbage farm. The owner could get the fair profit and the remainder of the proceeds from net sales could be divided equally among the workers!!! Why hasn't anyone thought about this before???

 

WHAT?

They HAVE, you say?

Some guy named Lenin?

Oh, I thought he was some dude that believed in world harmony. You know, "imagine no religion?" Why is it his way of living isn't just mandated around the world since it is such a magic bullet?

 

It would be cool if our lives were plotted out for us. We could all be given a nice Subaru, I mean Chevy, when we turn 16. The gov't could pay for it and gas stations could give the product away free of charge! We could all be given vouchers to go to Disney World once per year. We could get a one-time voucher to the Grand Canyon per lifetime. We could be allowed to have 1 child per couple. Groceries could be free. Go to the store and just take what you need. Your Uncle can subsidize it! We would even have some discretionary income because the income tax rate would only be 85% and not that 90% that was paid by those living in the UK in the 50s and 60s. That Lenin guy was onto something.

[Northern Lab]

Lol.

 

I love the impossibly radical scenarios out forth by some folks.

 

When I talk to my conservative friends about wage stagnation, they often rebut by saying - "Well, let's just make minimum wage $25/hr and everyone will be great, right?"

 

They're either unwilling or incapable of thinking critically about the situation and why it is the way it is, they just use some crazy extreme hypothetical and pretend that you're advocating for this hypothetical they've invented. It's a great avoidance tactic.

[+Malamute]

Just flopping through, but, there are tons of workplace issues that are constantly being addressed by Labor. Such as, equal pay for equal work. Gender descrimination just for a quick example. Improved workplace safety. All sorts of things.

 

And Unions are not making communism. Unions are fueling and creating the wheels of capitalism. So that is also silly. :-)

[CaveatLector]

They're either unwilling or incapable of thinking critically about the situation and why it is the way it is, they just use some crazy extreme hypothetical and pretend that you're advocating for this hypothetical they've invented. It's a great avoidance tactic.

 

Would that be the same hypothetical as the one employed here where people are arguing that we need unions to continue to enforce jobsite safety and 40 hour work weeks? Or is that a completely different hypo?

 

Would that be the same hypo as the one where it is seen as a democratic process to allow 71% to force me to join their club if I want to work somewhere, even if that means I don't agree with their ideals?

 

Would that be the same hypo that presupposes that we cannot possibly have a law that allows a workplace to negotiate individually with workers who choose to opt out of a union?

 

Or would that hypo only work in one direction?

[+Malamute]

I would say allowing 30% to override the vast majority of 70% is about the most fair democracy i can think of. :-)

 

Talk about empowering the minority.

 

I find it to be almost punishing Unions myself, but hey,... i would rather see over fair on that front.

[+Malamute]

Would that be the same hypothetical as the one employed here where people are arguing that we need unions to continue to enforce jobsite safety and 40 hour work weeks? Or is that a completely different hypo?

 

Would that be the same hypo as the one where it is seen as a democratic process to allow 71% to force me to join their club if I want to work somewhere, even if that means I don't agree with their ideals?

 

Would that be the same hypo that presupposes that we cannot possibly have a law that allows a workplace to negotiate individually with workers who choose to opt out of a union?

 

Or would that hypo only work in one direction?

 

Actually Caveat, The Bush administration went after the 40 hour work week and overtime pay just like 8-9 years ago. We had to fight to protect it.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Malamute

[CaveatLector]

Just flopping through, but, there are tons of workplace issues that are constantly being addressed by Labor. Such as, equal pay for equal work. Gender descrimination just for a quick example. Improved workplace safety. All sorts of things.

 

And Unions are not making communism. Unions are fueling and creating the wheels of capitalism. So that is also silly. :-)

Again with the bargained-for safety. So only union workplaces have the right of a safe work environment . . .

[CaveatLector]

I would say allowing 30% to override the vast majority of 70% is about the most fair democracy i can think of. :-)

 

Talk about empowering the minority.

 

I find it to be almost punishing Unions myself, but hey,... i would rather see over fair on that front.

I AGREE! That isn't right. If people want to unionize then let them!!!!!!!! That is precisely my point! But hanging onto that law and using it as something to hang your hat on when arguing how fair everything is, well, it's ridiculous. Edited December 10, 2012 by CaveatLector