Racist Poster

[giblets]

For the employee, yes. I'm having to abide by contract terms that I neither negotiated nor agreed upon. How is that 'mutually consentual', when in many jobs I have no choice but to forfeit a portion of my earnings to belong to a union that I have no desire to represent me?

No, when you agree to work for someone you make a consensual agreement to fulfill certain requirements. If you don't like the requirements an employer has, you don't have to take the job. If you choose to work at a union shop, then you chose to be required to join a union. The unions don't point a gun to someone's head and tell them they must join.

That's exactly like slavery.

Nope, if you're someone's slave then you are their property and they can make you do things for them without your consent and you have no say in the process. That's very different from choosing to apply for work at a union shop.

Many unions are completely closed shop and if you want to work at that particular occupation you must belong to a union. Workers should never be forced to give up their rights to negotiate with their employer irrespective of occupation.

No one is forced to work in a particular occupation.

How is government restoring the rights of an individual to negotiate with his employer an example of big government? Hell, unions are a huge part of big government.

There is nothing unusual about an employer demanding certain conditions be met for employment. For example, an employer can demand that you adhere to a dress code and show up on time and so on. The fact that the employer is able to demand certain things during a negotiation does not imply that potential employees do not have the right to negotiate.

Also, unions are not a part of the government. They are private entities, as are private sector employers, and you want to forbid a type of mutually consensual agreement between private entities. If you think unions are an evil plague on society, that's fine, but please have the honesty to recognize your position for what it is: government interference in the affairs of consensual adults.

[BeBMan]

You forgot

- The South won the Civil War

Truth is, Germany and Japan won the Civil War. Without any losses!

[Hauldren Collider]

gribbler, I actually slightly agree with Ben in the sense that if you are in a right-to-work state, you CAN be forced to join what is essentially a monopsomy. There might be a handful of choices to the contrary but choices HAVE been arbitrarily reduced by the government enforcing union shops.

Unions are not mutually consentual. Right-to-work states are proof of that. People don't join the union unless forced. No one wants to pay the dues to get work stoppages, bankrupt companies and first-in last-out.

[giblets]

First of all, if the union negotiates for higher wages for everyone at the workplace, then you have a free-rider problem. People accept the higher wages but don't join because they don't want to pay dues, and that weakens the union. Second, I don't see any reason to assume people in different parts of the country have the same attitudes toward unions. People who are more conservative seem to be inclined to dislike unions, so it's quite possible that without "right-to-work" laws unionization rates would still be substantially lower in more conservative parts of the country, such as the south.

Also, don't employers have a right to require certain things as a condition for employment if they want to do so? For example, is it wrong for an employer to impose a dress code on the workplace if it happens that most employers are doing so and it restricts the choices of people who don't want to adhere to a dress code? What is so special about being required to join a union as a condition for employment?

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, don't employers have a right to require certain things as a condition for employment if they want to do so? For example, is it wrong for an employer to impose a dress code on the workplace if it happens that most employers are doing so and it restricts the choices of people who don't want to adhere to a dress code? What is so special about being required to join a union as a condition for employment?

Good questions.

One, I don't have a problem with the employer making decisions. The employer is the one who hires, and the one that the prospective employee is trying to get hired by. The employer has to make decisions that make some business sense in their policies, or else they are going to go under.

These might not necessarily be obvious. I have no problem with the employer setting whatever requirements they desire so long as they are upfront with the employee prior to hiring them.

What is special about the union is that the union does not hire the employee, and yet they have the ability to change the job requirements. The union is under no pressure from customers in order to change their policies or to the market. The result is distortions in the price of labour and general inefficiencies.

What exactly is the role of the union in the hiring decision? Absolutely nil. They don't provide the capital for the job, they don't provide the workplace. They don't provide the tools necessary to do the job. They don't provide the labour. They don't recruit the candidate. They don't screen them.

All the union does is sweet diddly poo, and they collect from both the employee and the employer.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, when you agree to work for someone you make a consensual agreement to fulfill certain requirements.

From the employer. If I were an employee of the union, then it would be the union. Unsurprisingly unions never permit their own workforces to unionize.

If you don't like the requirements an employer has, you don't have to take the job.

Unions are not a requirement that the employer puts forth. They are an imposition on the employer. As an employee I ought to be able to bypass the union altogether and negotiate on an individual basis with the employer. That collective bargaining removes this right from me, is wrong. I should be given the option as to whether or not I wish to join the union, not coerced into a union membership with union fees and dues in order to obtain employment.

If you choose to work at a union shop, then you chose to be required to join a union. The unions don't point a gun to someone's head and tell them they must join.

That's exactly what they do. If they sincerely believed in 'mutually consensual' arrangements, they would not force anyone to join the union in order to work the job. They would simply give new hires the option of signing on.

Nope, if you're someone's slave then you are their property and they can make you do things for them without your consent and you have no say in the process. That's very different from choosing to apply for work at a union shop.

Isn't that the same as when I am forced to support a union? They take off my check rather then collecting from the employees. Why? Because they know that if the employees could decide whether to pay into the union, the employees would give them nothing. It's my pay. I earned the pay, I should get to decide who gets it.

No one is forced to work in a particular occupation.

No one is forced to own a slave either. I should not have to give up my natural right to bargain as an individual in order to obtain employment.

There is nothing unusual about an employer demanding certain conditions be met for employment.

The union is not my employer. Union requirements have sweet diddly poo to do with what the employer requires for the job.

Also, unions are not a part of the government. They are private entities

Not anymore. The majority of unions are public sector. So not only do they collect from their employer, they collect from the taxpayer. Perhaps this is because private sector unions have priced themselves out of their market?

I'm not talking about forbidding unions. I believe that any new hire to any job should have the option as to whether they wish to enter the union.

[Hauldren Collider]

Go away, Ben. You're a ****** and no one likes you. Sloww might but he's retarded so really y'all are birds of a feather. Just fuck the hell off.

[Ben Kenobi]

Albert, am I not the property of the union when I am forced to pay union dues?

[Ben Kenobi]

What did they cut you down a bathroom, HC?

[giblets]

Good questions.

One, I don't have a problem with the employer making decisions. The employer is the one who hires, and the one that the prospective employee is trying to get hired by. The employer has to make decisions that make some business sense in their policies, or else they are going to go under.

These might not necessarily be obvious. I have no problem with the employer setting whatever requirements they desire so long as they are upfront with the employee prior to hiring them.

What is special about the union is that the union does not hire the employee, and yet they have the ability to change the job requirements. The union is under no pressure from customers in order to change their policies or to the market. The result is distortions in the price of labour and general inefficiencies.

What exactly is the role of the union in the hiring decision? Absolutely nil. They don't provide the capital for the job, they don't provide the workplace. They don't provide the tools necessary to do the job. They don't provide the labour. They don't recruit the candidate. They don't screen them.

All the union does is sweet diddly poo, and they collect from both the employee and the employer.

They represent the interests of people who provide labor. I mean, duh. Unions are formed by workers who decide it is in their interest to bargain together. If one of the things workers ask for is for the employer to set a new requirement, why is it any of the state's business? If the employer has the right to set requirements for employment, and the people who form a union have the right to set requirements for employing themselves, then "right-to-work" laws are infringing on their rights.

[loinburger]

Albert, am I not the property of the union when I am forced to pay union dues?

No. Money does not equal liberty.

[loinburger]

Ben, explain how paying union dues is equivalent to:
1. Being beaten and possibly killed if you fail to work hard enough
2. Having your children confiscated and sold
3. Being beaten and possibly killed if you try to change jobs
4. Not receiving any compensation for your work except for a minimal amount of food and shelter
5. Not receiving any legal protection for assault or other crimes against your person

I understand that you are trying to earn your Racist Redneck card, but there are less retarded ways to go about doing this

[giblets]

From the employer. If I were an employee of the union, then it would be the union. Unsurprisingly unions never permit their own workforces to unionize.

Unions are unionized by definition.

Unions are not a requirement that the employer puts forth. They are an imposition on the employer. As an employee I ought to be able to bypass the union altogether and negotiate on an individual basis with the employer. That collective bargaining removes this right from me, is wrong. I should be given the option as to whether or not I wish to join the union, not coerced into a union membership with union fees and dues in order to obtain employment.

Luckily, no one is forced to work at a workplace where union membership is required. Being required to do something as a condition for employment at a particular place does not mean you've been forced to do it, because you chose to seek employment at that particular place.

That's exactly what they do. If they sincerely believed in 'mutually consensual' arrangements, they would not force anyone to join the union in order to work the job. They would simply give new hires the option of signing on.

They made a consensual agreement after bargaining with their employer, and their employer offers you employment on certain conditions and you can take the employment or reject it. No one is forced into anything. You want to point a gun to the head of employers and tell them they must hire people don't want to join unions, and can't use their ability to not hire non-union members as a bargaining chip in negotiations with unions.

Isn't that the same as when I am forced to support a union? They take off my check rather then collecting from the employees. Why? Because they know that if the employees could decide whether to pay into the union, the employees would give them nothing. It's my pay. I earned the pay, I should get to decide who gets it.

No, you have the option of not being part of any union because you don't have to work for an employer who agreed to only hire union members.

No one is forced to own a slave either. I should not have to give up my natural right to bargain as an individual in order to obtain employment.

What if someone had to give up their right to have sex with the consenting adult of their choice in order to obtain employment at a Catholic school? Should it be illegal for Catholic schools to not hire people who are openly homosexual? I'm guessing you would have a conniption fit if that ever happened.

The union is not my employer. Union requirements have sweet diddly poo to do with what the employer requires for the job.

I have no idea why you are so obsessed with poo and how you think it tastes.

[Ben Kenobi]

They represent the interests of people who provide labor.

Shouldn't they have to ask first whether or not they represent me? They don't represent me. The only people they represent is themselves, which is why the money goes where it does, from the employees and the employers to the union.

Unions are formed by workers who decide it is in their interest to bargain together.

Maybe 100 years ago. Not now. Unions are formed by bureaucrats that want to make money off both employees and employers. If they sincerely represented the employee, then membership would be voluntary.

If one of the things workers ask for is for the employer to set a new requirement, why is it any of the state's business?

It's not the business of the state, nor is it the business of the union. Union is not the employer, if it were I wouldn't be unionized. That's how it works. Unions never permit their own staff to be unionized. I like being able to negotiate bonuses and perks for myself.

If the employer has the right to set requirements for employment, and the people who form a union have the right to set requirements for employing themselves, then "right-to-work" laws are infringing on their rights.

They have the right to set the requirements for themselves. But here's the caveat. Employees who are not members of the union are under no requirement to join the union. I have the right to negotiate for myself, and unless I choose to voluntarily join the union, I do not lose that right just because some members wish to negotiate as a collective.

Does this mean that I deserve the same benefits as the unionized staff? No, of course not. But it does mean I can negotiate my own benefits and the union has no right to interfere.

[giblets]

Ben, explain how paying union dues is equivalent to:
1. Being beaten and possibly killed if you fail to work hard enough
2. Having your children confiscated and sold
3. Being beaten and possibly killed if you try to change jobs
4. Not receiving any compensation for your work except for a minimal amount of food and shelter
5. Not receiving any legal protection for assault or other crimes against your person

I understand that you are trying to earn your Racist Redneck card, but there are less retarded ways to go about doing this

Obviously if you try to quit your job at a union shop, men with dogs will hunt you down and beat you.