Scott Walker's crusade continues

[Felch]

They benefit from the CBA therefore they owe the union a fee for the cost of providing the CBA.

Why not just exclude them from the CBA? They're not a part of the union that's making the contract, so they are free make their own deal with management.

[Felch]

The entire point of the legislation is to eviscerate unions.

By giving people a choice not to join unions.

[MrFun]

Nice try. If you take a union job in a union shop, you know what you're doing and the consent is the same. Your argument is no different than saying "I agreed to join the gym and pay the gym, not to pay the finance company that runs the gym's contracts. You're aware of all relevant data (it's a union shop and here's the dues...) and you consent to it. It's a condition of employment, just like a consent to a background check and a piss test. Take it all, or leave it all, you don't get to pick and choose.

[giblets]

Why not just exclude them from the CBA? They're not a part of the union that's making the contract, so they are free make their own deal with management.

Because the union workers would gradually get replaced by non-union workers who agree to work for less. Why do you hate unions?

[MichaeltheGreat]

And yet you feel comfortable telling people to quit and possibly have to move when you people are unwilling to do the same?

There is no right to lifetime employment, or to employment at a specific job or employer of your choosing. If you don't like the job, get another one.

[MrFun]

I want to use DD's "logic":

CEOs should be prohibited from lobbying and contributing campaign funds because most of their workers are likely opposed to the CEOs' politics.

[MrFun]

There is no right to lifetime employment, or to employment at a specific job or employer of your choosing. If you don't like the job, get another one.

free market, baby

[Felch]

Because the union workers would gradually get replaced by non-union workers who agree to work for less. Why do you hate unions?

If hiring union workers gives management a better deal (since unions hold their members to a standard of professionalism), then union workers won't be replaced. If the unions offer nothing worthwhile to management, and nothing worthwhile to workers, then why should they exist? Why do you hate freedom?

[Felch]

free market, baby

This shows just how insincere your concern for the working man is. All you care about is unions getting the money they need to finance the Democratic party. Workers are just a means to an end for you.

[MrFun]

By the way, given that DD is well known for his "my give a fvck must be broken," I'm surprised that for once, in this thread, he's professing any kind of concern or compassion for workers who may have to quit a job, and maybe even have to relocate for another job, in order to avoid paying three or four dollars a paycheck to a union.

[giblets]

If hiring union workers gives management a better deal (since unions hold their members to a standard of professionalism), then union workers won't be replaced. If the unions offer nothing worthwhile to management, and nothing worthwhile to workers, then why should they exist? Why do you hate freedom?

So you actually do hate unions and think the primary function of unions shouldn't be collective bargaining. You're okay with "unions" that aren't unions in anything but name.

[MrFun]

This shows just how insincere your concern for the working man is. All you care about is unions getting the money they need to finance the Democratic party. Workers are just a means to an end for you.

How do you feel about CEOs who lobby and contribute campaign funds in favor of politics that are detrimentally in opposition to their workers?

[DinoDoc]

Workers have no ownership rights over the capital of the company. They do over their paychecks.

[Felch]

So you actually do hate unions and think the primary function of unions shouldn't be collective bargaining. You're okay with "unions" that aren't unions in anything but name.

How the hell do you get that from what I said? Unions are a way of organizing labor, but they aren't just leeches, they offer management a better deal by ensuring that the quality of the labor is better than they could otherwise expect. That's the basis of collective bargaining.

How do you feel about CEOs who lobby and contribute campaign funds in favor of politics that are detrimentally in opposition to their workers?

CEOs are free to spend their money as they see fit, just as workers are. I'm not against people writing checks to political groups. Are you? How do you feel about workers who contribute money to Focus on the Family? Should they be prohibited from exercising their Constitutional rights?

[MrFun]

CEOs are free to spend their money as they see fit, just as workers are. I'm not against people writing checks to political groups. Are you? How do you feel about workers who contribute money to Focus on the Family? Should they be prohibited from exercising their Constitutional rights?

If workers want to contribute to a hate group, that is their right. Just as Ku Klux Klan members are free to hold rallies, and so on.