• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

B.C. Labour Board certifies union at Amazon facility in Delta, B.C., Unifor says

I see, so you don't really believe the crap you said about businesses closing without union workers.
If they strike, not much is shipping, is it?

And unionization isn't really something the business owner gets a choice in.
 
My apologies, I mistakenly assumed you were.
Canadian protections for worker's rights to organize and collective bargain are strong, as they are in most European countries.

Somehow corporations here are still quite profitable.
 
Canadian protections for worker's rights to organize and collective bargain are strong, as they are in most European countries.

Somehow corporations here are still quite profitable.
It's almost as if libertarian "thinking" is all bullshit.
 
If they strike, not much is shipping, is it?

Like workers can't be replaced? Need I remind you of the physical violence union thugs inflict on "scabs"? They attack them because they know they can be replaced.

And unionization isn't really something the business owner gets a choice in.

Another "gift" from the progressive movement.
 
Canadian protections for worker's rights to organize and collective bargain are strong, as they are in most European countries.

Somehow corporations here are still quite profitable.

Who gives a shit about the profits of corporations? The main victims of labor cartels are the workers they lock out. You think you re getting a free lunch, but you're not - every above market wage a union member pockets comes from shutting someone else out of the job or forcing them into lower-paying work. The money doesn't magically appear from "corporate greed" , it comes from higher prices for consumers and fewer opportunities for other workers.
 
Who gives a shit about the profits of corporations? The main victims of labor cartels are the workers they lock out. You think you re getting a free lunch, but you're not - every above market wage a union member pockets comes from shutting someone else out of the job or forcing them into lower-paying work. The money doesn't magically appear from "corporate greed" , it comes from higher prices for consumers and fewer opportunities for other workers.
You of course have never been around a union.
 
You of course have never been around a union.

Not many of us in the Professional Managerial Class have. I went to my first union meeting ever last weekend. It was really eye-opening, in a positive way.

I completely supportive of union expansion.
 
Not many of us in the Professional Managerial Class have. I went to my first union meeting ever last weekend. It was really eye-opening, in a positive way.

I completely supportive of union expansion.
For us it's a way of life.

And it is now intrinsically part of the system. If a cop is accused of wrongdoing, the union presents his defense at the inquest. If he is found culpable of a serious offense, he is removed from the union and fed to the wolves, as he should be.

But until then, the union plays an important role that simplifies the process.
 
Who gives a shit about the profits of corporations? The main victims of labor cartels are the workers they lock out. You think you re getting a free lunch, but you're not - every above market wage a union member pockets comes from shutting someone else out of the job or forcing them into lower-paying work. The money doesn't magically appear from "corporate greed" , it comes from higher prices for consumers and fewer opportunities for other workers.

The abolition of slavery and serfdom led to some liberated people who lacked the marketable skills to be free workers being able to find paid employment. I guess we should be careful for what we wish for when we engage in blind anti-slave lord and landowning Aristocracy bigotry. No doubt many of the defenders of serfdom and slavery said that they were humanitarians who were not pro-exploitative slave master or aristocrat, but rather they were arguing in favor of the slaves and serfs and concerned about their future employment prospects.
 
The abolition of slavery and serfdom led to some people who lacked the skills to be free workers being able to find paid employment.

One of the reasons unions were formed in the late 1800s was to prevent newly freed black slaves from competing with white workers. Here's black historian WEB du bois:

I carry on the title page, for instance, of this magazine the Union label, and yet I know, and everyone of my Negro readers knows, that the very fact that this label is there is an advertisement that no Negro’s hand is engaged in the printing of this magazine, since the International Typographical Union systematically and deliberately excludes every Negro that it dares from membership, no matter what his qualifications.
 
One of the reasons unions were formed in the late 1800s was to prevent newly freed black slaves from competing with white workers. Here's black historian WEB du bois:

Are you seriously going to conclude from this narrowly-cherry picked passage from a largely pro-Union article that W.E.B. Du Bois, a black socialist intellectual, was against the idea of labor unions?
 
Last edited:
Are you going to claim that W.E.B. Du Bois, a black socialist intellectual, was against labor unions?

No, I'm claiming that some unions were formed in order to prevent black workers from competing with white workers. I'm using what he wrote as evidence for that claim:

since the International Typographical Union systematically and deliberately excludes every Negro that it dares from membership, no matter what his qualifications.
 
No, I'm claiming that some unions were formed in order to prevent black workers from competing with white workers. I'm using what he wrote as evidence for that claim:

Nowhere in that particular passage Du Bois say that "[X] Union was formed specifically to prevent black people from competing with whites." Just that members of the union excluded black workers. But let me grant that for the sake of argument. My answer is so what? That is a problem of racist indoctrination leading to white supremacy and white separatism, not of collective bargaining.

Much as you or I would argue that if a murderous but hitherto law-abiding racist legally purchases a gun and commits a mass-shooting of a synagogue, the problem is the murderous racism he was inculcated with. Not that he was able to legally purchase a firearm. Just as with a firearm purchased by someone who later goes on to commit murder, collective bargaining is a tool that people with nefarious intentions can potentially abuse. Which is why I support legislation preventing racist exclusions from employment and union membership.
 
Nowhere in that particular passage Du Bois say that "[X] Union was formed specifically to prevent black people from competing with whites." Just that members of the union excluded black workers. But let me grant that for the sake of argument. My answer is so what? That is a problem of racist indoctrination leading to white supremacy and white separatism, not of collective bargaining.

Was being excluded good for black workers or did it harm them?
 
Was being excluded good for black workers or did it harm them?

Having been able to join the labor unions and not excluded on the grounds of their race would have been good for black workers, certainly.
 
Back
Top Bottom