She just got an endorsement from some major labor union.

That's a major turn off for me.

(10-23-2015, 06:05 PM)username Wrote: She just got an endorsement from some major labor union.

That's a major turn off for me.

Yeah because 40 hour workweeks, living wages, child labor laws and decent safety regulations are lame.

I'm glad she was put to task and grilled, she will think twice before trying to do something shady again. That is Presidential and true. I want a President that owns their shit and is willing to answer for their actions and not try to deflect their decisions onto someone else. That is what we have now. This may very well help her not in just the publics eye but in her own eyes. And that is what really means the most. I would vote for her if I ever saw a hint of honesty.

(10-23-2015, 07:50 PM)Donovan Wrote:

(10-23-2015, 06:05 PM)username Wrote: She just got an endorsement from some major labor union.

That's a major turn off for me.

Yeah because 40 hour workweeks, living wages, child labor laws and decent safety regulations are lame.

Unions are not needed anymore, oh wait, yeah they are they are needed to influence elections.

(10-23-2015, 07:50 PM)Donovan Wrote:

(10-23-2015, 06:05 PM)username Wrote: She just got an endorsement from some major labor union.

That's a major turn off for me.

Yeah because 40 hour workweeks, living wages, child labor laws and decent safety regulations are lame.

Unlike when unions were first formed, there are PLENTY of labor laws on the books that protect all employees. I was an HR Director for a long time. Unions are antiquated and unnecessary.

I support more vacation and leave time for American workers, raising the minimum wage so American workers in non-skilled jobs can rise out of poverty and achieve a higher standard of living by working rather than relying on welfare, fair labor practices and safety regulations to protect employees from abusive employers, etc.. But, labor unions aren't the best way to make those things happen without hampering the efficiency and competitiveness of the employer, in my opinion.

I agree with user that labor laws (along with the threat of employee law suits, increased public exposure for whistle blowers, employers' increased understanding of how worker satisfaction correlates to better company/organization performance, and the like) are more effective means for achieving the goals, without creating an "us" vs. "them" unionized environment.

I've personally never seen Clinton advocate for joining organized labor unions. Still, Clinton gets labor union support based on her long-standing advocacy for policies such as raising the minimum wage, worker health care benefits, employee paid leave, etc...

She got the endorsement of The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union on Friday. But, she'd already gotten the endorsements of The American Federation of Teachers and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Bernie Sanders has secured the endorsement of National Nurses United, the nation's largest organization of nurses, some chapters of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and other labor unions.

I don't think any less of either candidate for securing Union endorsements; it makes sense to me that some large national Unions would endorse the top two Democratic candidates considering the candidates' 2016 economic and workers' platforms.

Because, when left to their own devices, Corporations will always do what is best for the morale and well-being of their employees. History bears that out, right?



Right?


Efficient or no, evil or no, organized labor is and will always be a necessary entity. Because people are selfish and greedy, and none moreso than the ones at the top of the heap. And laws are easily broken without the threat of actual retaliation. Those of you trashing unions clearly have no concept of what life was like without them.

I've worked in union and non-union environments, Donovan. And, I suspect that I know as much about what working life was like in the United States before either of us were born as you do.

I know that Unions can be corrupt just like Corporations can -- history and observation tells me so.

Anyway, I'm not trashing Labor Unions. I just don't believe that Unions are the best means by which to achieve the optimal balance between employers' and employees' best interests and promote a healthy competitive economy.

I've worked a Union job before. Never again. Talk about corruption at its finest. There's no need for the Unions anymore, IMO.

My son just started working for the same place I worked. I made sure to tell him to keep his mouth shut when it comes to politics and the Union. I've seen how hard working people were treated if they dare let it slip they were a republican or said anything against the Union. Indiana is a right to work State now so he doesn't have to join if he doesn't want to. I highly recommended that he joins so he can live a peaceful life without harrasment in and outside of work, including being followed, vandalism to homes and vehicles, "anonymous" threats to him and other family members including children...

Fuck the Unions, I don't want to be controlled by anyone.

This is just a small list of the hundreds of areas covered by the Department of Labor (then there's the EEOC, not to mention state labor boards and laws):

Wages & Hours
Workplace Safety & Health
Workers' Compensation
Employee Benefits
Unions & Their Members
Employee Protection
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Employee Polygraph Protection Act
Garnishment of Wages
The Family and Medical Leave Act
Veterans' Preference
Government Contracts, Grants, or Financial Aid
Migrant & Seasonal Agricultural Workers
Mine Safety & Health
Construction
Transportation
Plant Closings & Layoffs
Posters
Related Agencies

Again, unions are unnecessary, antiquated and as pointed out by HotD and FQ, often horribly corrupt.

Democrats getting the union backing is no more surprising than Republicans (and some Democrats in gun loving states) getting NRA endorsements. Both/all special interest endorsements and the money behind them disgust me--that's why I think we're fucked until we implement real campaign finance reform.

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."

Do you not believe that societies evolve, Donovan?

Way more workers in this country don't belong to unions than do, about 90/10. There are reasons why union membership has been declining over time and why 'right to work' laws have been passed to protect workers from mandatory union participation, and to give workers the choice to opt out of union membership without losing their jobs.

Child labor and Chinese slave labor wouldn't fly and haven't flown in this country for three quarters of a century or longer because of laws against child labor and slave labor, in both unionized and non-unionized industries. Unions aren't keeping children and immigrants from being exploited by employers today, labor laws and an evolved societal mindset are doing so, in my view.

But, I agree with you that organized labor unions helped change that societal mindset and have done a lot of good historically; unions definitely deserve credit for having pushed for more fair labor practices and policies for all workers in this country (and other countries).

Over time, organized labor unions have also hurt workers, hampered productivity, and negatively impacted the domestic economies in some ways, in my opinion.

I read the links you posted. I think there are many factors aside from unionization (or lack thereof) which contribute to income inequality and gaps between increases in productivity and increases in wages, though your last link focuses only on unionization.

Anyway, I don't see unions, corporations, governments, people ...as inherently bad, nor as all-good or all-bad. Whether one sees their influences on people and workers as more good than bad at any given time isn't necessarily a matter of whether one knows their history or cares more or less about people/workers than you do. It can also be simply a matter of interpreting the same history and drawing different conclusions, and/or having different priorities and experiences.

(10-24-2015, 03:28 PM)Donovan Wrote: 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.

You can say that again!

Compulsory unionism is an entirely different entity than organized labor. Aside from wanting to know your quoted source, I'd also want to see the cited data it refers to rather than taking your word for it if you don't mind. As I said, any system is subject to corruption if left without oversight, unions are no different. But even today millions of American workers suffer underpaid jobs and trickery with their benefits by employers who "hire part time" to avoid paying fair wages. All non-union. And the entire city of Detroit has basically ceased to exist because the jobs were farmed out overseas to cheaper, slave-level workers. They like to blame the union greed for what happened in Detroit, but it was a combination of deregulation and corporate greed that really did most of the damage.

As for comparisons of standards of living: I have lived and worked in a great many states, both "right to work" and unionized. And the chief difference I saw was the right to work states were more accurately "right to shut the fuck up and do your job or get fired arbitrarily" states. Of course people who are terrified of losing their jobs for no particular reason are going to pretend they are happier. They don't dare complain.

One cannot count the number of states with right-to-work laws as some kind of mandate for the removal of unions, since those in power making the laws are invariably against organized labor. They ARE the ruling class. That's a little like saying all people who get erroneously shot by police are in favor of getting shot by police because there are plenty of laws protecting police who erroneously shoot people. That's fucking backward logic.

People in power have been actively working to destabilize, demonize and outright break organized labor unions since the idea of unions were first conceived, and the beginning of the end was when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. And when I say people in power, I also include those running the unions themselves. Didn't help matters much when the mob moved in and took over the teamsters etc.

Labor unions have a place in business even now. Especially now. And anyone who thinks otherwise is in for a very rude surprise when they are finally broken. Because one thing is for damn sure. Neither the government, nor the CEO of your favorite corporation, has any of your best interests at heart. Count on that.

All just your perspective Donovan, and so noted as such.

You asserted absolutely that people love to kill each other in the GUNS thread based, in part, on historical torture by the Chinese government. I disagree with you; the vast majority of people worldwide have never and will never kill another human being, especially not intentionally for pleasure.

Now you assert absolutely that individuals will collectively become exploited by their employers or the government unless organized labor unions bargain employment conditions on their behalf. You make your case based on some exploitation that occurred prior to the mid 20^th century in the U.S. I disagree with your absolute assertion on this topic too.

I think modern labor, criminal, and civil laws deter and punish the types of past employer exploitation you cited, whether unions exist or not. And, I think it's bullshit to suggest that employees need to relinquish their freedom of choice and bargaining power to an establishment "for their (individual employees') own good and protection". My experience and education leads me to believe otherwise.

It should be strictly voluntary for employees to join labor unions. Instead, it grew to be compulsory or coercive. And, even when employees opt out of membership and dues in 'right to work' states, federal law prohibits them from bargaining for themselves in many cases. Then, those individual employees who opt out get labeled "free-riders" for supposedly benefiting from the collective bargaining without paying dues, despite the fact that unionization favors seniority and one-size-fits-all compensation over compensation based on individual performance. More bullshit, in my opinion.

In my view, unions should have to work hard on behalf of employees to attract/retain membership. Employees should not be required or coerced to join and pay dues (a large portion of which goes to political campaigning and lobbying). If enough employees believe that labor unions can do better bargaining for them collectively than they can do for themselves, unions will survive. If not, unions will become extinct. As it should be in a democratic free market society/economy.

Anyway, I'm not insisting that unions have no place in America today, though I think they presently do more harm than good. I'm saying that compulsory or coercive unionism is common and has no place in America; never did. That type of system is bad for individuals, companies, and the economy. That's one of the reasons that people/workers in half of the United States have already backed 'right to work' laws. In so doing, at least employees in those states aren't required to pay for the unionization and collective bargaining that they don't want.

(10-24-2015, 07:40 PM)Donovan Wrote: As I said, any system is subject to corruption if left without oversight.

I feel the same way about Democrats. It's good that Republicans keep them in check. I just wish everyone would become independents, both would go squirrely during an election cycle. Imagine if the political system was as one sided as some want? They, both Dems/Pubs keep an eye on each other. That is good no matter how much hand wringing and vitriol is blasted out the media megaphones.

Dems and the Death Penalty

Clinton addressed the issue of the death penalty for the first time in this campaign cycle.

At a rally in New Hampshire today, she told the crowd that she opposes abolishing it, but that its use should be very limited and rare.

This sets her apart from her two remaining competitors for the Democratic nomination.

Sanders has long been an opponent of the death penalty, as has O'Malley (who abolished it during his governorship of Maryland).

In short answer to HotD because I'm lying here in the dark: regarding both my arguments, both on the matter of violence in our race and the relative usefulness of unions. Because I cited one or two example, out of thousands, to make my points more succinctly, do not assume those thousands of other historical examples don't exist. Our entire history right up until present day is one of bloody conquest. We have not suddenly evolved to not favor war and destruction just because the majority of the populace are not conquerors, but rather the conquered. Twas ever thus, wolves and sheep each to their respective roles.

As for whether business has evolved to treat employees fairly without an organized labor party? Considering we just witnessed a brutal ongoing battle involving our own government on whether or not our citizens actually deserve reasonable health care, I believe I'll have to differ with you. We are not altruistic in a democratic free market society; we are greedy. And will remain so unless the necessary counterbalances remain in place. Again, because I picked one example of thousands, don't assume the others aren't there.

(10-28-2015, 08:21 PM)Donovan Wrote: We are not altruistic in a democratic free market society; we are greedy. And will remain so unless the necessary counterbalances remain in place.

This also means employees are nothing but stupid, street-corner hookers who need Unions as their pimp.

And we know how pimps improve the quality of life for their stable . . . for the good of the girls and never for themself.