Wal-Mart's profits threatened by Canadian Union

[Ramo]

Ever hear of, as you call them, scabs? Ever hear of unemployment? Because I guarantee you, when there is unemployment, workers who go on strike CAN be replaced.

Not at all. In fact, many very successful strikes in US history have been during times of massive unemployment. The wild cat strikes (something else that the state has prohibited) of the mid-late 30's were remarkably successful, for instance. Strikes work, and they work very, very well.

What's your point?

My point is that employers are in no sense forced into accepting union shop contracts (again, they're even legally prohibited in half of the states in the country). They face some coercion, but workers face much more.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I consider the quasi-unlimited right they get to public property and means of production a privilege, and also the continual diminution of their taxes (which are then passed to individuals) as privileges.

Everyone has an equal right to "public property" and "means of production". The fact that pretty much anything with means of production is, by definition, a business, doesn't make it a "privelege".

So I have an equal right to the forest as Abitibi Paper has got? You should tell me that next time I want to trek there. Corporations pollute and affect the quality of life of persons unrelated to their activities and have absolutely no legal obligation regarding their use of the public domain.


Face it, the assumption that unlimited property should be recognized and accepted is huge. We live in a super-pro corporation society.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Social Security is not sustainable

Where did you get that?

[Berzerker]

The reason this country has a halfway decent standard of living for most people is because of unions. Unions gave us a minimum wage, social security, health care, and a lot of other nice stuff that countries which don't have legal unions don't have.

Industrialisation, specialisation and a post WWII world is what allowed all that. Unions cause inflation and corruption

[Ramo]

Corporations cause everything that's bad.

[David Floyd]

Strikes work, and they work very, very well.

And I don't oppose the right of workers to strike. What I oppose are laws protected their jobs while they refuse to work. I'm sure you're right, in that strikes have caused employers to give in, but that isn't the point. I have no problem with that - my problem lies with the government intervening in favor of EITHER side, whether it's the workers or the employers.

[Ramo]

You remember that I'm an anarchist, don't you?

[David Floyd]

So you agree that the State shouldn't intervene on other side? If so, then what are we arguing about?

[Ramo]

Yes, and the argument was whether employers are forced into accepting union shop contracts; which they are not, even indirectly.

[David Floyd]

IF laws forbid employers for firing employees because they strike, or try to form unions, or anything of the sort, then yes, they are indirectly forced.

[Ramo]

My point was that the coercion on workers is greater than the coercion on firms, so the idea that employers are being forced on this matter is nonsense.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Don't new hirees need to join the union?

It depends on if it is a closed shop or not. In the old days all the unions pushed for closed shops especially in industrial plants because it made their striking power near absolute. The union could literally shut the entire place down anytime they wanted.

Labor reforms have made it much more difficult to create closed shops so now there are more open shops where some labor is union and others are nonunion. As the manufacturing base has eroded the unions have tried to move into retail and restaurant work but they've met very little success. It's pretty easy to unionize skilled labor like metal workers, pipe fiters, or what not but almost impossible to maintain a union of hotel maids, restaurant workers, or dish washers. Generally the harder it is to get into a field the easy it is to unionize because the union can effectively monopolize the skilled labor force.

[David Floyd]

My point was that the coercion on workers is greater than the coercion on firms, so the idea that employers are being forced on this matter is nonsense.

And my points are that a)there is a difference between coercion in the form of laws and coercion in the form of employer-employee relations, and b)I'm not in favor of any government coercion when it comes to voluntary agreements between two parties.

[Ramo]

Closed shops are illegal. Union shops, which are similar (workers have to join the union within a certain amount of time, no less than a month) are illegal in many states ("right to work" states).

[Ramo]

And my points are that a)there is a difference between coercion in the form of laws and coercion in the form of employer-employee relations,

And I'm referring to legal coercion. Again, laws greatly constrain the rights of workers as I pointed out earlier. I'd say that state interference generally hurts the workers and helps the management.