Is that the only thing the AG is supposed to be concerned with?Is there a strong African-American base in the Union?
For the purposes of debate, your personal anecdotes are irrelevant.
Would you be willing to explain your claim that the term "scab" has a violent undertone?
I will concede that it is not complimentary, and is indeed derogatory, but I'd be interested to see you try to explain the violence component. Based on experience, I will not be holding my breath
No, it doesn't... in fact it falls far outside conventional wisdom. You should read that link too.His point still stands. While the union may've been the impetus for the benefits by convincing/forcing the employer into providing them....ultimately it is still the employer providing those benefits.
No, it doesn't... in fact it falls far outside conventional wisdom. You should read that link too.
She doesn't pay any sales tax? Come on, Maggie... some posts in this thread are part of a fast-and-furious mission to deceive, don't get caught up in the whirlwind . . . . .
I can hardly keep up with the misinformation in this thread:Ask your union buddies the origin of the word. It's from the 30s, the developing unions, and they are called scabs because you pick them off.
Word Origin and History for scab
n.
[...] Meaning "strikebreaker" first recorded 1806, from earlier sense of "person who refuses to join a trade union" (1777), probably from meaning "despicable person" (1580s), possibly borrowed in this sense from Middle Dutch.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
scab. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. Scab | Define Scab at Dictionary.com (accessed: October 10, 2014).
That said, I would address the OP as supposition. As there have been no known evils perpetrated upon anyone on the scab list, this is much ado about nothing.
I was forced to scab by management to cover for a grocer's strike
I blatantly busted the local carpenter unions when I was a construction boomer.
I once had a welding job that ushered me into the union. That only lasted for six months.
I sometimes fantasize about unionizing the WalMart employees.
I don't have a dog in the hunt.
That said, I would address the OP as supposition. As there have been no known evils perpetrated upon anyone on the scab list, this is much ado about nothing.
That's usually how weak modern unions fall apart. It's the last dying vestige of the doomed. When high-rise builders dropped wages for carpenters in DFW, the union didn't even show up much less picket.
I don't care much for open ended OPs that feign danger! danger! Especially when I know that nothing is going to happen to those people. The unions can't even get rid of illegal workers from the south, much less non-union workers in their own town.
You can trap twice as many flies with honey.
No, it doesn't... in fact it falls far outside conventional wisdom. You should read that link too.
Interesting. So what was the union's motivation for posting those names on their website?
I don't think he's questioning what is or isn't the unions motivation. I think he's questioning whether or not anyone will actually DO anything with said names.
Some dumbass may make a blog urging people that they need to "take back their freedom" from the government. That doesn't inherently mean there WILL be people actually taking up arms to "take back their freedom".
Intent does not inherently = action.
I can hardly keep up with the misinformation in this thread:
Wikipedia said:Irwin, Jones, McGovern (2008) believe that the term 'scab' is part of a larger metaphor involving strikes. They argue that the picket line is symbolic of a wound and those who break its borders to return to work are the scabs who bond that wound. Others have argued that the word is not a part of a larger metaphor but, rather, originates from the old-fashioned English insult, "scab."
Just what would be a justifiable reason to publish the names and area of employment of those who aren't in the unions?
I understand all that. Given his experience in unions I was curious what his take on "why the post the names" is.
I can hardly keep up with the misinformation in this thread:
Why wouldn't you publish it? If I'm a union member, I'd like to know which of my co-workers was out to screw me.
Interesting. So what was the union's motivation for posting those names on their website?
You should stop assuming that because people disagree with your opinions their uninformed. I read your link.
Nothing in the link suggests the Union pays the workers wage instead of the employer
Nothing in the link suggest the Union pays for an provides additional training instead of the employer
Nothing in the link suggests that the Union pays for the health care plans instead of the employer
Nothing in the link suggests the Union pays for safety improvements made to the work place instead of the employer
Nothing in the link suggests the Union pays for various types of paid leave instead of the employer
Please quote me specifically WHERE in your link you're claiming that it shows that the UNION, rather than the employer, PROVIDES the various services and benefits such as pay, health care, training, safety equipment, etc. If you can actually show me that and indicate that I've apparently misread I'll be happy to admit my error.
As I said, it's accurate to say that the Union at times may negotiate for the various things to happen, but it's accurate to say that ultimately it is the employer that is providing the benefit in question.
Ah. My apologies. I thought it was more a rhetorical question (with an assumption already present as to the "why") as opposed to honest. My bad.
It says in the OP link that it is so that their union co-workers can explain to them how wonderful solidarity is, and try to encourage them to sign up.
Of course, everyone goes immediately off the rails and assumes persecution of the listed.
Why? How does this knowledge help you in any way?
Do you want it simply to know? Or do you want it to treat them in a different manner because they're "screwing you" as you put it?
Pressure tactics: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers | Fox News
The last line is bolded for emphasis. These are the tactics that unions use and it's plain wrong. I dare anyone to defend what the union is doing here with a straight face.
Well, there's no personal infomration, just their neams and department numbers; SCAB LIST So it looks like Fox News is lying again.
Frankly, I think those people should be shamed.
Card check - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaCard check (also called majority sign-up) is a method for American employees to organize into a labor union in which a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign authorization forms, or "cards," stating they wish to be represented by the union. Since the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) became law in 1935, majority sign-up has been an alternative to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) election process. Majority sign-up and election are both overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. The difference is that with card sign-up, employees sign authorization cards stating they want a union, the cards are submitted to the NLRB and if more than 50% of the employees submitted cards, the NLRB requires the employer to recognize the union. The NLRA election process is an additional step with the NLRB conducting a secret ballot election after authorization cards are submitted. In both cases the employer never sees the authorization cards or any information that would disclose how individual employees voted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?