News of the day

The ideal role for the government in business-labor relations is to stay the hell out of it and let the parties work things out themselves. I may prefer one outcome or another, but I don't have the right to enforce it by law, and that's what right-to-work legislation does.

Rattle your chains if you love your rich corporate masters.

Funny with the Michigan law firefighters and police are exempted. As in anything follow the money trail backwards to see what is happening. The names at the top are the proof of stealth legislation. As for the value of unions.......Apart from the eight-hour work day, and the forty-hour work week, weekends, sick days, vacation days, paid leave, maternity leave, workplace safety regulations and health standards, social security, the minimum wage, pensions, worker insurance plans and benefits, child labor laws, the retirement age, unemployment insurance, disability pay, overtime pay, laws regarding discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and 5 or 10 others that I can't remember right now... what have the unions ever done for us?

And do not pay. Then everything is good.

So if, say, I'm a skilled auto worker and want to work for a company but I don't want to join or pay fees to the union, I will have to remain unemployed or employed elsewhere outside of the industry while someone maybe less capable but more willing to unionize gets the position? Doesn't sound all that fair or "equal" to me but, again, I may be ignoring how this works in other states.

Here in FL there is no obbligation to join unions or anything. People usually get fired when they underperform (at least in the two places I've worked at and others via personal stories). And people, not a collective, decide what's best for each one of them.

Damn I said something good about FL!

I base my support or opposition to positions on whether I think they are right or wrong in principle, not on speculation about the future.

timothy leary wrote: To me a job is a job and an employer is an employer. As for government duties and representation.....don't make me laugh.

So you are arguing that the government doesn't have a duty to represent all of its citizens. Shall we still allow women and minorities to vote, then? Or is that not part of the function of government?

I would like an answer to my earlier question. Would it be okay with you for the government to require membership in the NRA as a condition of employment?

The government is no different than any other employer which the employee needs to be protected from.

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: timothy leary wrote: How can you be forced to join a union? There is a choice still isn't there? No. Not if you want a job. It's funny, when I say employers have coercive power over employees, the response from you and others is: "Well, you don't have to take the job", etc.  You don't even need a job if you can't find one or can't find one that pays you enough to survive.  You can sell stuff on the internet or become a street juggler.  However, when it comes to unions, suddenly, you don't have a choice, you have to have that job.   Again, Logan, you can't have it both ways.  If you would actually read my posts, you would see that I disagree with right to work laws in the private sector because they prevent people from engaging in contracts as they see fit. However, I do not think a person should be forced to join a dues-collecting organization to work for the government, which we all support with our tax dollars. It is discriminatory and it is wrong. Imagine if the government required that you join the NRA in order to be employed with them. Would that be fair?

You can easily see the flaw in that argument from the libertarian perspective.  You don't have to work for the government.