Wow you are obtuse.
No, I want the government to step back and not let the union keep me out if the management wants to hire me.
Wow you are obtuse.
No, I want the government to step back and not let the union keep me out if the management wants to hire me.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
If you aren't happy with the terms of your job, why don't you find another job where you'll be more happy rather than staying at the sucky job and trying to use bullying, threats and sabotage to change things so that they are more to your liking? Every single union member can choose to go find another job.Originally Posted by Being
I take it you want government to step in and give you the privilage of working at any company you choose under your own terms? Why do you believe one company is your only choice? Also, the higher salary positions at said company are non-union.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
How is that different than how I described it? How can government of the people by the people for the people not be involved (step back) and make it law to disallow people the right to form alliances.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Can you provide some examples of bullying, threats and sabotage along with statistics that show how prevalent it is?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Well we can begin by examining what your idea of a strike is
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I never said prevent unions. I'm saying prevent people from being forced into one as a term of employment.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Nobody anywhere has supported banning unions, what everyone but you it seems is ok with is those who want to forming unions and those that don't not joining them. What is wrong with that? And try to give a real answer if you're capable.
To the three posts above; nobody is forced to work for a company that is blue collar union. Nobody. And the company was not forced to accept union for blue collar employees. They did it because it was financially in their best interest. If you want to work for such a company it is NOT the government forcing you into a union, it is the company. The company has the right to fire every union blue collar worker and replace them with non-union blue collar workers. Look for work with a different company. It really sounds like you all want the government to intervene in decisions made by companies with regards to who the company is allowed to employ...if your company employs union labor then you must also allow non-union members to occupy the same positions.
Aimless...hard facts please.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Nobody is forced to work for a company that is anti-union. Nobody. And the company was not forced to accept non-union for blue collar employees. They did it because it was financially in their best interest. If you want to work for such a company it is NOT the government forcing you into not joining a union, it is the company. The company has the right to fire every non-union blue collar worker and replace them with union blue collar workers. Look for work with a different company. It really sounds like you all want the government to intervene in decisions made by companies with regards to who the company is allowed to employ...if your company employs non-union labor then you must also allow union members to occupy the same positions.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm just trying to figure out the resistance here. If the union is such a fabulous entity to join, then surely it can withstand employes working there that are not union? After all, they will see the glory of the union within days, nay, hours of commencement of said employment and rush to sign the card!
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
You forgot one important detail: unions are all that is holy in this world. Anyone who opposes unions or even doesn't want to join them are either evil or suffering from a severe case of false consciousness.
Hope is the denial of reality
Well, there is the problem that all employees enjoy the results of union work, so why pay dues if you get the benefits without paying, too? Let others pay the dues. At least, I'm assuming that's the rationale.
The choice to work argument also works brilliantly against work safety rules (if it's not safe, you can choose to work somewhere else), and it's folly. Besides, if it was that simple to find another job, why is there unemployment? And don't tell me all unemployed choose to be.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It should be fairly easy to separate the union from non union employee benefits. Different tiers. Heck, there are different tiers in the union I used to be in...
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Depends on the type of benefit - general things like work conditions, or even factories/mines staying open, are not so easy to differentiate. Plus over here employers aren't allowed to ask if you're union member or not, and unions generally negotiate collective agreements for all employees, which obviously affect everybody. Still, forced membership is not allowed here either.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
If I don't consent to someone acting on my behalf, I fail to see why I owe them anything for doing so anyway. If some lawyer decided to go to court to represent you without your permission, do you think you should be required to pay him a fee? What if some billionaire decided to become a representative of the poor and then enacted tax on the poor for his representation? The logic here is ridiculous. This is no better than warlords or the mafia (and this is a particularly useful analogy considering how many unions have mafia ties) extorting money for what may or may not be useful benefits.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm not saying I support it, just that it's the rationale.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
And it's the same rationale the mafia uses to extort money. This really is no different. And before you say anything, the mafia does provide some services.
Hope is the denial of reality
Loki, were you forced to join a teacher union when you were a grad student teaching 101 classes? No. Did you benefit from provisions 'negotiated' by teacher unions, like work hours and payment compensation and fringe benefit subsidies? Yes. Could you expect that union representation if/when you had legal disputes with your institution as a teacher/employee...while you were also a student, but not a full union member? Probably not. Dues can only stretch so far.
But you did have the option to choose your post-graduate teaching position. Not all colleges require their post-grad teacher/students pay teacher union fees/dues. Why didn't you choose one of those institutions?
Hey Loki, since she keeps bringing it up, would you care to explain exactly what negotiations "the teachers union" have made on behalf of the grad students at your school?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
They increased the minimum stipends (which were something like $11k a year), which mostly affected the humanities grad students who were getting the crappy stipends. Unsurprisingly, the most active people in the union were the humanities students.
And GGT, do you realize just how stupid you sound? You expect people to make a decision that has huge implications over their entire career on the basis of $400 a year? Hell, I could have gotten $5,000 extra a year from a Texas college (which doesn't have a grad student union, but does have oil), but didn't go there for career reasons...
Last edited by Loki; 04-07-2014 at 11:56 PM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Poke fun all you want....but union forces created the 40 hour week, the weekend, and the vacation.
Political Science is a soft science that falls under "humanities".They increased the minimum stipends (which were something like $11k a year), which mostly affected the humanities grad students who were getting the crappy stipends. Unsurprisingly, the most active people in the union were the humanities students.
Student Unions can't be compared with Teacher (or professional) Union
Pray tell, what are these career decisions you speak of? Why didn't you forego student or teacher union non-member fees/dues?And GGT, do you realize just how stupid you sound? You expect people to make a decision that has huge implications over their entire career on the basis of $500 a year? Hell, I could have gotten $5,000 extra a year from a Texas college (which doesn't have a grad student union, but does have oil), but didn't go there for career reasons...
Every point you made had absolutely no relation to your previous point or to my own.And the first one is just trolling. The hierarchy of stipends are: hard sciences > social sciences > humanities.
Hope is the denial of reality
Answer my question, please. Why didn't you choose to do your post-graduate work at a
state institution that didn't require union *membership*?
Last edited by GGT; 04-08-2014 at 12:05 AM. Reason: *
Because I'm not an idiot. You choose a program based on the prestige of the program foremost, then the quality and fit of the professors (for your interests). If you have multiple similar offers, you can be a little more picky based on the location of the program and size of the stipend. Why would anyone in their right mind make such an important decision on the basis of $400 a year?
Hope is the denial of reality
GGT: When the pros outweigh the cons, the cons don't cease to exist.
You're not an idiot. That's not part of the puzzle. But you ARE part of public policy, from immigration to education. You can't dismiss the value unions made in this respect, while also enjoying the results.
Except I've pointed out that I haven't enjoyed the results while paying for their cost.
Answer this simple question with a yes or a no. Is it moral to require people to pay money to a non-governmental group that claims to represent them without first obtaining their consent?
Hope is the denial of reality
You don't think you're benefiting from public policies enacted by union input?Except I've pointed out that I haven't enjoyed the results while paying for their cost.Sorry, I thought your education was based on public funding, from emigration/immigration, to K-12 education, to Pell Grants. It's strange to see you dismiss unions, when you've obviously benefitted from their efforts.
A) Stipends aren't public funding; all decent colleges provide them.
B) You're really going to attribute the existence of a K-12 education and immigration to unions? Seriously? Even by your standards, this is nuts. If anything, most unions are against immigration.
Nice of you to dodge the question by the way.
Hope is the denial of reality
Stipends are subsidized benefits. They're not cost-free. Even non-profit religious colleges and universities depend on tax-payer subsidies. Who are you trying to kid?A) Stipends aren't public funding; all decent colleges provide them.
B) You're really going to attribute the existence of a K-12 education and immigration to unions? Seriously? Even by your standards, this is nuts. If anything, most unions are against immigration.
Nice of you to dodge the question by the way.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote