I had no idea Scott Walker was so popular

[Kuciwalker]

You are escaping the point you originally made:

Not at all.

[kentonio]

Which means we don't need the unions anymore, no?

Guess what happens when you get rid of the unions and start voting in a political party who is increasingly calling for the removal of all those worker protections?

[giblets]

Since alby's never held an office job in his life, maybe you should defer to his judgment.

Of course, this whole thing with Kuci is just a heads I win, tails you lose scenario since if he gave anecdotal evidence, you would accuse him of using anecdotal evidence, while if he gives non-anecdotal evidence, you accuse him of being out of touch and lacking anecdotal evidence.

I have made no such accusations

[giblets]

Why should State workers be forced to join a Union and have dues taken from their paycheck as a condition of employment? If the Union is so great let the employee join it of his own volition.

Presumably because if they chose not to pay dues, they would be freeloaders who benefit from the union's collective bargaining without paying for the union's operating costs.

[Kuciwalker]

Guess what happens when you get rid of the unions and start voting in a political party who is increasingly calling for the removal of all those worker protections?

Everyone starts losing their hands again?

Workplace safety is just a form of non-wage compensation - and it's cheap at the price, for the employer. The overwhelming determinant of labor compensation is labor productivity. Thus even if removing the political force of unions somehow resulted in lower labor compensation [for non-union workers], it would manifest as a moderate decrease in wages rather than a sudden reversion to a 19th century social darwinist dystopia.

[kentonio]

Everyone starts losing their hands again?

Workplace safety is just a form of non-wage compensation - and it's cheap at the price, for the employer. The overwhelming determinant of labor compensation is labor productivity. Thus even if removing the political force of unions somehow resulted in lower labor compensation [for non-union workers], it would manifest as a moderate decrease in wages rather than a sudden reversion to a 19th century social darwinist dystopia.

You're seriously arguing that if you removed the requirement for business to protect workers rights, that they would choose to continue those rights? Seriously?

As for 'moderate decrease in wages', what do you think happens when a local firm who are the majority employer for an area suddenly have the freedom to cut wages and increase working hours, and reduce employee protections and benefits? What recourse exactly do those employees have other than to suck it up?

This isn't theoretical, you can look back over the last couple of centuries and see exactly what happens when workers do not have their rights protected. The only reason it seems like a reasonable thing to do to destroy the unions is because you've never lived through a time when those protections weren't in place.

[Fake Boris]

Not at all.

Yes. You are holding a near conspiracy level theory about unions, that they have been founded with a specific intent in mind. The situation is much more complex and encompasses the social evolution of society.

[Fake Boris]

You know, capital nowadays is flexible enough that you can easily say: "if you don't like the union, move production somewhere else". Granted there are often restrictions on shutting down business on the basis of union activity, but "intent" in this case is near-impossible to prove.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Because unions make sure that workers who are injured get compensation?

Unions are redundant thats what ambulence chasers are for.

[Kuciwalker]

You're seriously arguing that if you removed the requirement for business to protect workers rights, that they would choose to continue those rights? Seriously?

Yes. The rights you've been talking about (stuff like disability benefits, not having the factory be a deathtrap) are much cheaper for the company to provide than the wages they'd need to pay to make up for their lack.

As for 'moderate decrease in wages', what do you think happens when a local firm who are the majority employer for an area suddenly have the freedom to cut wages and increase working hours, and reduce employee protections and benefits? What recourse exactly do those employees have other than to suck it up?

Get new jobs.

This isn't theoretical, you can look back over the last couple of centuries and see exactly what happens when workers do not have their rights protected.

I have no "rights" protected at my job at all, and somehow it is stable, pays well, has good benefits, etc.

[Kuciwalker]

You know, capital nowadays is flexible enough that you can easily say: "if you don't like the union, move production somewhere else". Granted there are often restrictions on shutting down business on the basis of union activity, but "intent" in this case is near-impossible to prove.

Hardly. Those restrictions have far more teeth than you imagine. And even so capital OBSERVABLY avoids areas with tight labor regulations and/or strong unions in favor of regions with lax regulations and weak or nonexistent unions. This is a great argument for getting rid of unions!

[C0ckney]

Everyone starts losing their hands again?

workers start losing their rights, such as the right to collective bargaining.

[Kuciwalker]

Brilliant! You've demonstrated that if we get rid of collective bargaining, workers won't be able to collectively bargain!

[C0ckney]

Hardly. Those restrictions have far more teeth than you imagine. And even so capital OBSERVABLY avoids areas with tight labor regulations and/or strong unions in favor of regions with lax regulations and weak or nonexistent unions. This is a great argument for getting rid of unions!

yes, capital prefers places where workers have few protections against exploitation. how surprising...

[kentonio]

Yes. The rights you've been talking about (stuff like disability benefits, not having the factory be a deathtrap) are much cheaper for the company to provide than the wages they'd need to pay to make up for their lack.

Why is it cheaper than firing anyone who complains and just hiring another person desperate for a job?

Get new jobs.

How do you get a new job when a) there are no other local jobs and you can't afford to move and b) other employers are doing the same?

I have no "rights" protected at my job at all, and somehow it is stable, pays well, has good benefits, etc.

I can't comment on your job without knowing anything about it, but it seems unlikely that it has no protections at all in this day and age.