- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Crippling Unions Democratic support...
Posted on 1/2/17 at 11:02 am
Posted on 1/2/17 at 11:02 am
Should newly Republican controlled states, and those that are not, but considering Right to WORK like Washington, Colorado and New Mexico, pursue passing that legislation?
LINK
LINK
4
Posted on 1/2/17 at 11:04 am to alatxtgr
Did you know "Right to work" is actually a restriction of freedom between two consenting parties?
Posted on 1/2/17 at 11:11 am to Asgard Device
That I do. But I do not feel that workers should be forced into a union to hold a job and have to support that union via forced dues payments, if the unions intended policy of supporting a candidate that said worker does not wish to support.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 11:12 am to alatxtgr
No.
If a private business wants to cut a deal with a union and say "we'll restrict hiring to your members", they should be free to make that deal. A potential employee who doesn't like that is free to seek employment elsewhere.
ETA: However, if the business makes that dumb deal, don't expect a bailout.
If a private business wants to cut a deal with a union and say "we'll restrict hiring to your members", they should be free to make that deal. A potential employee who doesn't like that is free to seek employment elsewhere.
ETA: However, if the business makes that dumb deal, don't expect a bailout.
This post was edited on 1/2/17 at 11:14 am
Posted on 1/2/17 at 11:46 am to Asgard Device
quote:
Did you know "Right to work" is actually a restriction of freedom between two consenting parties?
How so?
Posted on 1/2/17 at 11:50 am to Asgard Device
quote:
Did you know "Right to work" is actually a restriction of freedom between two consenting parties?
Correct.
"Right to work" is Orwellian. It restricts your rights to bargain collectively and it puts workers at the mercy of employers. That is why big companies like it.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 11:55 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
It restricts your rights to bargain collectively
It prohibits unionization?
Posted on 1/2/17 at 11:58 am to Asgard Device
quote:
Did you know "Right to work" is actually a restriction of freedom between two consenting parties?
this is true in the strictest sense
When a private company negotiates with a private group and they work out a deal, I'm pretty much for that being their business.
But, not when it comes to public sector unions. Unlike the private company, the government is not negotiating with it's own money,
Public sector unions need to be abolished.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 11:59 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
"Right to work" is Orwellian. It restricts your rights to bargain collectively and it puts workers at the mercy of employers.
Incorrect. It means you can't be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. It doesn't mean you can't join a union at all.
Since the union and employer are both private entities, that decision should be left to them. An employee who doesn't want to join a union can go find a non-union company.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 12:09 pm to DaGarun
quote:
It prohibits unionization?
No, as I said it restricts your rights.
"According to the Legal Defense Foundation, right to work laws prohibit union security agreements, or agreements between employers and labor unions, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. Right-to-work laws do not aim to provide general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers,[1] or requiring employees to pay a fee to unions that have negotiated the labor contract all the employees work under."
LINK
Posted on 1/2/17 at 12:13 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
An employee who doesn't want to join a union can go find a non-union company.
That is Orwellian too. Union wages are almost higher than non-union.
--Unions-- and collective bargaining is the tide that raises all boats.
"All but forgotten is the fact that our nation's extraordinary prosperity from the end of World War II to the 1970s was in significant part the result of union contracts that, in words the right wing hated Barack Obama for saying in 2008, "spread the wealth around." A broad middle class with spending power to keep the economy moving created a virtuous cycle of low joblessness and high wages.
Between 1966 and 1970, as Gerald Seib pointed out last week in the Wall Street Journal, the United States enjoyed an astonishing 48 straight months in which the unemployment rate was at or below 4 percent. No, the unions didn't do all this by themselves. But they were important co-authors of a social contract that made our country fairer, richer and more productive."
LINK
Posted on 1/2/17 at 12:17 pm to WhiskeyPapa
The United States is pretty much a Banana Republic now, and this is at least in part due to the way that Unions have been attacked by the government since Reagan became president.
The powers that be want ignorant, uneducated workers and 'right to work' is a tool they have been using to accomplish that.
The powers that be want ignorant, uneducated workers and 'right to work' is a tool they have been using to accomplish that.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 12:23 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
No, as I said it restricts your rights.
No, it expands your rights. It restricts the rights of the employer and the union boss.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 12:27 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
That is Orwellian too.
How us it Orwellian to say that in the absence of right to work laws, an employee will have the right to decide for himself or herself? Some companies will be closed shop and some won't. If you don't want to be in a union, you can work for a non-union company. If you want to be in a union, work for a union company. It's called freedom.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 12:29 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Unions have done wonders for the steel and auto industries over the last 40 years. 
Posted on 1/2/17 at 12:34 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
No, as I said it restricts your rights. No, it expands your rights.
It restricts the rights of the employer and the union boss.
It expands your right the same way your rights are expanded when you fall in the ocean.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 12:36 pm to Asgard Device
No, all it is, is giving the individual the right to not have to join a Union if you don't want to. If you are a Christian and don't believe in abortions at will, you don't have to belong to that liberal union to have a job. It also means you don't have to give $20 every paycheck to give contributions to Democrats only candidates. Like giving to Clinton instead of Trump. You can have a job,but not participate in liberal Democrat issues.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 12:38 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring
Whose rights are being restricted here? Semantics, I guess.
I generally support trade unions as a protection of overall quality, but I generally oppose service unions like SEIU and especially oppose public-sector unions. Who are they organizing to oppose? The taxpayer? frick them, they are purely there for political power and generally increase the tax burden of us all
Posted on 1/2/17 at 12:39 pm to WhiskeyPapa
NFL Free-Agent Lawyer to Unlock $16 Billion in NCAA Athletes
"Jeff Kessler, an attorney who helped bring free agency to the National Football League, is about to focus on the unpaid athletes who generate more than $16 billion in college sports television contracts.
New York-based Winston & Strawn LLP is starting what it describes as the first college-focused division at a major law firm to represent players, coaches, schools and conferences against what Kessler, 59, described as “the unbridled power and influence” of the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
“The NCAA should stand up and take notice that Jeff is involved,” said Bob Lanza, a former National Basketball Association players’ union general counsel who worked alongside Kessler and is now a partner in O’Neill & Lanza, a professional sports advisory firm. “I can’t think of anybody more qualified to start this type of department.”
Ed O’Bannon, a former basketball All-American at UCLA who is suing the NCAA over the use of his image in commercial ventures, reacted to the news by saying: “Wow! Jeff Kessler.”
College athletes, past and present, are taking increasingly vocal, visible and litigious steps against what they consider to be unfair rules set by the NCAA, which doesn’t permit athletes to be paid. The agency faces lawsuits by former players that could seismically alter the sports landscape and, according to Steve Berman, managing partner of the Seattle-based law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, dissolve the 107-year-old governing body of college athletics."
LINK
It is UNIONS that unlock the cash that the bosses have.
You are idiots to think anything else. You have been proogramed to think Unions are bad, when they are the only mechanism to ensure good wages for workers.
"Jeff Kessler, an attorney who helped bring free agency to the National Football League, is about to focus on the unpaid athletes who generate more than $16 billion in college sports television contracts.
New York-based Winston & Strawn LLP is starting what it describes as the first college-focused division at a major law firm to represent players, coaches, schools and conferences against what Kessler, 59, described as “the unbridled power and influence” of the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
“The NCAA should stand up and take notice that Jeff is involved,” said Bob Lanza, a former National Basketball Association players’ union general counsel who worked alongside Kessler and is now a partner in O’Neill & Lanza, a professional sports advisory firm. “I can’t think of anybody more qualified to start this type of department.”
Ed O’Bannon, a former basketball All-American at UCLA who is suing the NCAA over the use of his image in commercial ventures, reacted to the news by saying: “Wow! Jeff Kessler.”
College athletes, past and present, are taking increasingly vocal, visible and litigious steps against what they consider to be unfair rules set by the NCAA, which doesn’t permit athletes to be paid. The agency faces lawsuits by former players that could seismically alter the sports landscape and, according to Steve Berman, managing partner of the Seattle-based law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, dissolve the 107-year-old governing body of college athletics."
LINK
It is UNIONS that unlock the cash that the bosses have.
You are idiots to think anything else. You have been proogramed to think Unions are bad, when they are the only mechanism to ensure good wages for workers.
Page 1 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News