HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT

[username]

Every system is subject to the human weaknesses of those who rise to the top, it's the nature of unchecked power. It's the reason Communism and pure socialism fail as systems, they fail to account for personal ambition and greed. The fact that some unions become corrupted is no reason to eliminate the entire concept of an organized labor force. It's not about who knows more about unions or the history of labor in the United States, it's about fact. And the fact is, most of the laws listed by username designed to protect the workers ONLY exist because of the implied and actual threat of work stoppage by organized labor, not all that long before we were born.

Child labor law history not finalized until 1938. And ONLY when President Roosevelt was approached during his reelection campaign by a little girl whose working wages had been cut from 11 bucks a week to 4.

History bears out, even as we sit here, that ANY time labor laws are loosened and the rules are left to the business owners, the workers suffer and benefits are slashed. The reason our current economy is in the tank is not because of some naughty Republican or fibbing Democrat, it's because our rules for businesses have been deregulated to the point of nonexistence, and we have allowed our corporate sector to farm out our entire manufacturing industry to overseas sources where fair labor practices DON'T EXIST.

Everyone who thinks that somehow labor unions are the cause of our economic problems is an idiot who deserves to lose their livelihood to an underpaid and overworked Chinese slave kid. As long as I get my Walmart Tee-shirt for less than ten bucks, why should I care? Not MY business going in the shitter because some talking head has convinced the lot of you that Unions are evil.

The truth of the matter is this: without organized labor, none of the freedoms we take for granted now would exist. No overtime. No vacation. No limited work week. No minimum age. No minimum WAGE. Hell, without organized labor the goddamn DEPARTMENT OF LABOR username is so proud of would not exist. And as soon as the Unions are completely busted (and make no mistake, that is the ultimate goal of big business) those benefits will erode faster than beachfront in a hurricane.

But hey, feel free to not click any of the links and actually read any of the citations that back up what I've said. I'm sure user's job history as an HR rep matches up with any actual historical data I have provided. I'll just be over here reading the words on the side of the barn, the ones that used to say all animals are created equal, but which for some reason now reads, "...but some are more equal than others."

Your first two paragraphs refer largely to the history of labor laws. I have said repeatedly that unionizing served a purpose and unions in general were a necessity at one time. I still don't believe that they're necessary now.

Regarding shipping off jobs overseas for child/cheap labor, that ought to be practically criminal. Absent just making it illegal, taxing the shit out of the companies that do it to the point where they're disincentivized to do it might be one solution. However, there are those that would argue that we've OVER regulated our businesses here with our minimum wage and employment laws and that's what's driving these companies to send jobs overseas. I'm not necessarily in agreement with paying McDonald's employees $15/hr. I think we have/are moving more towards socialism while I still believe in capitalism. While jobs are going overseas, we also have illegal immigrants working here for less than minimum wage of their own accord. Clearly, they wouldn't be here if they could do better at home. Unless and until we can get physically capable welfare suckers to take some of those jobs at a minimum wage and with the existing laws that protect them (which hasn't happened in Georgia, for example...not for lack of trying), I'm pretty much all for those immigrants working the farms and contributing to the economy (many studies have shown that while illegal immigrants cost us, their contributions to the economy are at least somewhat higher than the costs we incur for their being here). I've said it before, I don't see white people standing out on the street corners in the morning looking for a manual labor job for the day. I DO see white people all the time with signs asking for money though.

You ended again by citing the historical value of unions which I concur with. I disagree with your notion that the end of unions would somehow translate into the fall of all employment, minimum wage and labor laws in general.

Do you have a problem with the 25 states that have adopted Right to Work laws?

Is Right to Work "anti-union"?

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is neither "anti-union" nor "pro-union." The focus is on individual freedom. The Foundation affirms the right of all Americans to be free of compulsory unionism abuses.

How does compulsory unionism affect government policy?

Compulsory unionism is primarily responsible for the Tax-and-Spend policies of the U.S. Congress. Under their federally-granted coercive powers, union officials collect some $4.5 billion annually in compulsory dues and funnel much of it into unreported campaign operations to elect and control congressional majorities dedicated to higher taxes and increased government spending.

"[U]nions have greatly increased their financial commitment to political activity in recent election cycles " as a way to achieve in the political process the gains that have eluded them at the bargaining table," economist James T. Bennett wrote in the Winter 1991 issue of the Journal of Labor Research. His authoritative study revealed that, despite membership losses, the total income ($11.5 billion annually) of private sector unions is at an all-time high. Union income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, has more than doubled in the past 30 years.

What is "exclusive representation"?

"Exclusive representation" is the special coercive privilege, given by federal law, that empowers union officials to represent all employees in a company's bargaining unit. This "compulsory union representation" deprives employees, even in Right to Work states, of their right to bargain for themselves. Union officials demand this power, then use it as their excuse to force employees to pay dues for representation they do not want.

What rights do employees in non-Right to Work states have?

Certain rights of employees not covered by a state Right to Work law have been established by U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Employees can choose whether or not to join a union and union members may resign their union membership. Nonmembers can only be required to pay for their proportionate part of the union's proven bargaining costs. They may not be compelled to pay any fees until the costs have been stated and explained and can challenge the costs as provided by the union. Employees whose sincere religious beliefs prevent them from joining or paying any money to the union also have special rights.

What effect does a Right to Work law have on a state's standard of living?

The National Right to Work Committee has called attention to the fact that Right to Work states enjoy a higher standard of living than do non-Right to Work states. Families in Right to Work states, on average, have greater after-tax income and purchasing power than do those families living in non-Right to Work states, independent studies reveal. What's more, Right to Work states have greater economic vitality, official Department of Labor statistics show, with faster growth in manufacturing and non-agricultural jobs, lower unemployment rates and fewer work stoppages.