Scott Walker's crusade continues

[MrFun]

Good one. So bribing politicians is now a core function of trade unions.

So are you equally outraged when the wealthy CEOs of corporations routinely bribe politicians?

[MichaeltheGreat]

If the Union dies as a result of offering the worker a choice, in what esteem is the union held in by the people they seek to represent?

The union won't die per se. It will just be hobbled in political influence (which is the entire point if any of the right to work types had the integrity to admit it) at the same time as corporate interests are handed a free pass courtesy of SCOTUS' Citizens United decision. I'm sure since you're so concerned about the worker's "rights" and well-being that you'd agree a corporation shouldn't spend money (directly or via funding superPACs) on political causes when that money could have gone to worker's raises? Since workers are entitled to those union jobs whether they pay dues or not, why aren't they entitled to whatever profit the company makes? It's wealth confiscation to spend on dividends or politicking when that money could have been giving instead to the workers who are entitled to it.

[Kuciwalker]

Because the idea is not to give the working man more freedom - it is to turn the screws on him to create more profit. Broken unions = easier outsourcing of formerly union jobs.

[Kuciwalker]

The union won't die per se. It will just be hobbled in political influence (which is the entire point if any of the right to work types had the integrity to admit it)

at the same time as corporate interests are handed a free pass courtesy of SCOTUS' Citizens United decision.

I'm sure since you're so concerned about the worker's "rights" and well-being that you'd agree a corporation shouldn't spend money (directly or via funding superPACs) on political causes when that money could have gone to worker's raises?

No, that's a terrible use of the money. Pay it out to shareholders!

Since workers are entitled to those union jobs whether they pay dues or not, why aren't they entitled to whatever profit the company makes? It's wealth confiscation to spend on dividends or politicking when that money could have been giving instead to the workers who are entitled to it.

Because the workers don't own the capital, the investors do? The workers don't (or shouldn't) earn some magical property right in the firm's capital just by being hired.

[Kuciwalker]

The union won't die per se. It will just be hobbled in political influence (which is the entire point if any of the right to work types had the integrity to admit it)

Sorry, I have to correct this a bit. It isn't the entire point of right-to-work. Actually getting rid of the union is also a desired outcome, even if it's unlikely.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Because the workers don't own the capital, the investors do? The workers don't (or shouldn't) earn some magical property right in the firm's capital just by being hired.

This in a nutshell. Jobs are nothing more than a consentual contractual relationship wherein wages paid for services rendered. Unless the contract entitles the worker to equity stakes in the company no ownership is implied. To the extent that workers are satisfied with the arrangment, the employer wieghs the pros cons of their satisfaction in their compensation packages. The "or shouldn't" portion of your response applies only in as much as the employer sees benefit in aligning worker loyalty to overall company performance and as a result equity offerings have been a more popular compensational package component offering over the years.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No, that's a terrible use of the money. Pay it out to shareholders!

Would be nice to think it goes directly to shareholders, but in today's Obama pay to play regime, corporate cornyism is at all time highs wherein one pays not to be forgotten when the regulation get written. Corporations are finding as the scope of government grows, impacting the governement to apply regulations on competitors and carving out exemptions for themselves is a far better investment of money. Far better than the payback one receives from increasing worker salaries at least.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Why would giving the working man more freedom send jobs to Canada?

Until recently, more for the southern states not Canada.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Do you ***** and moan whenever you're compelled to pay a ticket for a concert you want to go to?

Pretty much hate ticket master and their rent seeking behavior, yes.

[Hauldren Collider]

Obligatory "I agree with everything Kuci has said"

[Hauldren Collider]

Because the workers don't own the capital, the investors do? The workers don't (or shouldn't) earn some magical property right in the firm's capital just by being hired.

To expand on this:

If you disagree with this, then you should also give some percent of the property rights to your house next time you hire a plumber to fix your toilet.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

But.. but...but.. the workers own those jobs.

[Hauldren Collider]

I shouldn't be allowed to fire my electrician without cause!

[Felch]

You're complaining that people are "forced by law" to honor a contract they agree to?

Should all conditions for employment be outlawed because finding a new job is inconvenient?

I think that the law should protect weak workers from strong and exploitative union bosses.

So you're opposed to at-will employment? Just because it's harder to find a new job, employees should be coddled?

Communist

I'm opposed to closed shops. I'm opposed to exploitation of workers, whether by corporations or union thugs. I'm also opposed to old men who rely on fallacies to advance their arguments. Do you think it's as easy for people to find new work as it is to boycott a company they disagree with? Oh wait, never mind. You're just going to respond with another pathetic personal attack, because you know that I'm right and you're wrong.

So you were outraged when companies fired employees when Obama won his second term?

I'm against bosses firing workers for the way they vote. When did I say otherwise?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... Are you a product of our public education system, or just badly trolling?

First straw men, now ad hominems. You're pathetic.

So are you equally outraged when the wealthy CEOs of corporations routinely bribe politicians?

There are companies that I don't buy from because of their political contributions. But as I was saying earlier, it's much easier to not buy from a company than it is to go looking for a new job. So it's a problem that can be resolved without legal protections. A union taking my money so it can do things I disagree would be much harder for me to deal with.

[giblets]

I think that the law should protect weak workers from strong and exploitative union bosses.

Yeah, the big bad union bosses are the real problem. Looks like you've been sufficiently brainwashed