• 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!

France allows unions to hold its economy and government hostage.

"Allows" unions? I mean, I see no problem with people refusing to work (as long as they are not emergency services) so long as they are not committing crimes or property destruction when they do so.

It’s the French. They don’t do peaceful demonstration.
 
One other thing about this. There are many many cases of unions representing workers despite those workers having zero legal right to strike. How or why could they do this, if what you're saying is true? Police, fire, hospital and other emergency and health services are almost never allowed to strike, by law, because it's unconscionable to think that we'd let our law enforcement, emergency responders, and so on to literally threaten people's lives and basic safety until their pay demands are met. So it's illegal for them to strike. Yet unions still eagerly come in to represent these workers. How is this possible, if the inability to strike means they have zero power?

There can be other forms of power - but you explain then, in the cases you mention, what is the unions' leverage to negotiate without the threat of a strike?

Saying please?
 
Well today they’re public sector unions shutting down a national economy of a country that already has just about the most exceedingly generous labor standards in the world.

So thanks for the history lesson, but these circumstances are a tad different.

Conservative lessons on the need for complacency. How predictable.
 
You're working very hard to completely misquote me. The answer to your inequality question is "see Piketty, et al." The reason I'm saying let's not talk about it is because it isn't the thread topic.

Actually, you're misquoting yourself; I accurately paraphrased you. You said the global taxation needed can't be done, there is no structure for it - something I mentioned, but you left out quoting yourself. Since you say the only option isn't possible, I'm pointing out that you're saying you have no solution to unlimited inequality.

It hasn't happened because our government stepped in at certain critical times and declared that unions could not do what they were trying to do, which was significantly interfere with the nation's economy to get their demands met.

But if unions have all these 'anti-trust exemptions', how does government 'step in' and declare what unions can't do?

You know, there's a real-life example of your scenario. Under JFK, steel workers wanted to strike, shutting down an industry critical to national security.

Did JFK 'step in and declare they couldn't'? Not so much. He DID get directly involved in the negotiations and push both sides to reach an agreement. Labor did - so much for your doomsday. Owners did - briefly, and after getting the labor concessions immediately reneged and raised prices.

That's when JFK made him famous quote about businessmen being sons of bitches.

Then he used the power of the federal government to pressure the companies to reverse the increases, finally forcing one, Bethlehem, to do after which the rest had to follow. Messy - and a success for the country. As labor issues usually are.
 
There can be other forms of power - but you explain then, in the cases you mention, what is the unions' leverage to negotiate without the threat of a strike?

Saying please?

In the event of deadlock they'd probably submit to arbitration, and barring any massively obvious inability of the employer to pay, the basis of the arbitrator's decision would likely be based on market comparability analyses. But even in these cases, the democratically-elected legislature would have to vote to ratify and fund that contract.

Democratically-elected governments have the ultimate say. There isn't some other organization that should ever be able to trump the lawmaking power of democratically elected governments, except the people as a whole themselves if they want to vote in different elected legislators.
 
Actually, you're misquoting yourself; I accurately paraphrased you. You said the global taxation needed can't be done

Right now it can't, because that global governing structure doesn't exist. It has to exist in order to be possible. So instead of proposing things on a national level that we know don't work, you should start by proposing a global government with cross-border tax and enforcement powers.

But if unions have all these 'anti-trust exemptions', how does government 'step in' and declare what unions can't do?

By saying "you can't do that." Government makes laws. Are you asking serious questions?

You know, there's a real-life example of your scenario. Under JFK, steel workers wanted to strike, shutting down an industry critical to national security.

Did JFK 'step in and declare they couldn't'? Not so much. He DID get directly involved in the negotiations and push both sides to reach an agreement. Labor did - so much for your doomsday. Owners did - briefly, and after getting the labor concessions immediately reneged and raised prices.

That's when JFK made him famous quote about businessmen being sons of bitches.

Then he used the power of the federal government to pressure the companies to reverse the increases, finally forcing one, Bethlehem, to do after which the rest had to follow. Messy - and a success for the country. As labor issues usually are.

JFK opened the floodgates to public sector unionism. Do you know what the public sector is? Do you know that the public sector is not corporations run by greedy rich people?
 
I don't understand that because I don't believe that's true.

Since 1962 [remember the JFK incident I mentioned above], no president has ever featured the problem of monopoly in a State of the Union address. As the chart above makes plain, the issue of monopolies had all but disappeared from the public forum by the time Ronald Reagan took office in 1981. It was in this climate that his Justice Department radically revised the interpretation of U.S. antitrust laws, weakening enforcement and allowing companies to consolidate to an extent that hadn’t been seen, or allowed, before. Twelve years later, when President Bill Clinton ushered through Congress the repeal of laws that had constrained the size and scope of banks and telecom companies for decades, there was scant protest.

Since Reagan took office, corporate concentration has increased dramatically.

The Rise and Fall of the Word 'Monopoly' in American Life - The Atlantic

This is public sector. When public services the economy heavily relies on are taken away, it essentially shuts down the economy.

So, your objection to strikes is limited to essential government services, not private or non-essential government services? As I said, I'm open to discussion of ways to protect the public interests on continuity of those services.

That also answers your question - more than you answered mine.
 
Conservative lessons on the need for complacency. How predictable.

What's predictable (because we see it in literally every thread about unions) is liberals pointing to century-old labor improvements as excuse-making for (or distraction from) the union buffoonery going on today.
 
By saying "you can't do that." Government makes laws.

Show me some examples of when unions tried to shut down essential services, and the government 'stepped in' and changed the laws to prevent it. Even the most famous case, Reagan and air traffic controllers, did not involve changing the laws IIRC.

JFK opened the floodgates to public sector unionism. Do you know what the public sector is? Do you know that the public sector is not corporations run by greedy rich people?

Since we're asking pointless insulting questions, do you know what the private sector is? Your question doesn't even make any sense, showing you have some bizarre interpretation of my post. But for what it's worth, government has the role of 'owner' or 'employer' with an interest of paying lower wages. They aren't Santa Claus for government workers giving them any wages they want.
 
What's predictable (because we see it in literally every thread about unions) is liberals pointing to century-old labor improvements as excuse-making for (or distraction from) the union buffoonery going on today.

It's relevant. It's like if right-wingers argue that auto safety regulations aren't needed because of low injury numbers, and liberals point to how the safety regulations from ~1968 are estimated to have saved several million American lives. The issues of power that resulted in those improvements a century ago haven't much changed, and we'd see new problems if we took more labor power away.
 
What's predictable (because we see it in literally every thread about unions) is liberals pointing to century-old labor improvements as excuse-making for (or distraction from) the union buffoonery going on today.

Are you in a union?

As far as "buffoonery", you didnt even metion in the OP what they were striking for. Just that it may be disruptive and you don't like unions. Which means you don't know and don't care what the strike is about/for. You just assume "buffoonery."

Hate unions first, fix the facts around that. So obvious.

Unions have daily victories that don't make the news against ****ty management that think they can decree policy on the fly, never write down or tell anyone, and then try to hold people to these mythological rules.

I get it... Cons love authoritarian structures. They like it in their churches, in their work places and in their desire for a unitarian executive. Unions are about democracy where you get a vote and you get a say. And democracies break down the authoritian structures cons love so much.
 
Last edited:
In the event of deadlock they'd probably submit to arbitration

Why would the government agree to arbitration, when they can just say "no"?

Democratically-elected governments have the ultimate say. There isn't some other organization that should ever be able to trump the lawmaking power of democratically elected governments, except the people as a whole themselves if they want to vote in different elected legislators.

Democratically-elected governments represent taxpayers and a desire for lower wages FAR more than they represent the workers. We won't even get into the fact of how the rich have taken over the government.
 
The cancer that got us a 40 hour work week and a day off in September.

No kidding. Some people seem to think that it can't go backwards if unions are gutted.
 
Since 1962 [remember the JFK incident I mentioned above], no president has ever featured the problem of monopoly in a State of the Union address. As the chart above makes plain, the issue of monopolies had all but disappeared from the public forum by the time Ronald Reagan took office in 1981. It was in this climate that his Justice Department radically revised the interpretation of U.S. antitrust laws, weakening enforcement and allowing companies to consolidate to an extent that hadn’t been seen, or allowed, before. Twelve years later, when President Bill Clinton ushered through Congress the repeal of laws that had constrained the size and scope of banks and telecom companies for decades, there was scant protest.

Since Reagan took office, corporate concentration has increased dramatically.

The Rise and Fall of the Word 'Monopoly' in American Life - The Atlantic

Your point was anti-trust regulations are not enforced in over 30 years. I provided a list from DOJ showing tons of actual anti-trust cases. You're showing me that the word isn't turning up in published books or State of the Union addresses. Are we talking about whether anti-trust laws are actually being used and enforced via our courts, or are we talking about how much we're using the word "monopoly" colloquially?

So, your objection to strikes is limited to essential government services, not private or non-essential government services? As I said, I'm open to discussion of ways to protect the public interests on continuity of those services.

That also answers your question - more than you answered mine.

Public services should be considered essential. The public sector shouldn't be funding jobs that are non-essential. Numerous that have arbitrarily been considered "non-essential" should be considered essential insofar as strikes are concerned. Garbage collection is often considered non-essential for this purpose, despite the risks and hazards of trash piling up in public. Utilities like water, sewer and electricity have been considered "non-essential" insofar as those employees going on strike is concerned. I shouldn't have to defend why those services are essential. This basically leads to a conclusion that public sector employees should not be able to strike. There's just no place for it.

"Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
 
Why would the government agree to arbitration, when they can just say "no"?



Democratically-elected governments represent taxpayers and a desire for lower wages FAR more than they represent the workers. We won't even get into the fact of how the rich have taken over the government.

Conservative mentality in the work ace is so corrosive. The first thing out of their mouths is, "you should just be happy you have a job". And my mentality is, "they should be happy they have me working here because I'm a damn solid worker."

If you break down their logic to its honest roots, it is merely, "shut up and may the best ass-kisser win." It's a grotesque environment.
 
Are you in a union?

As far as "buffoonery", you didnt even metion in the OP what they were striking for. Just that it may be disruptive and you don't like unions. Which means you don't know and don't care what the strike is about/for. You just assume "buffoonery."

The ridiculousness I'm pointing out is legal/procedural, not the context of the disagreement. It is clearly buffoonery regardless of the core aspect of the disagreement. If they were striking over which day of the week payday should fall on or if they were striking because they want a 200% pay increase, or over Macron's pension reforms, it makes zero difference to my observations. The fact that the French government and French citizens invite unions to partake in this nationally self-sabotaging farce is the target of my criticisms.

Hate unions first, fix the facts around that. So obvious.

You're yet another person who has failed to notice I was not "hating unions" or even criticizing unions. I was criticizing the government and the people for allowing this. They actively and intentionally allow this. They allow their country to be ground to a halt over labor demands. It's their complete choice to let unions do this.

Unions have daily victories that don't make the news against ****ty management that think they can decree policy on the fly, never write down or tell anyone, and then try to hold people to these mythological rules.

I get it... Cons love authoritarian structures. They like it in their churches, in their work places and in their desire for a unitarian executive. Unions are about democracy where you get a vote and you get a say. And democracies break down the authoritian structures cons love so much.

This is public sector, so if you're saying democratically-elected government leaders are "****ty management," then the way that changes is the people democratically elect new leaders that operate things differently.
 
Conservative mentality in the work ace is so corrosive. The first thing out of their mouths is, "you should just be happy you have a job". And my mentality is, "they should be happy they have me working here because I'm a damn solid worker."

If you break down their logic to its honest roots, it is merely, "shut up and may the best ass-kisser win." It's a grotesque environment.

The way I've said it is that they unwittingly are fighting for slave labor.

It is a grotesque movement, warriors for plutocracy.
 
This is public sector, so if you're saying democratically-elected government leaders are "****ty management," then the way that changes is the people democratically elect new leaders that operate things differently.

Ultimately, there is a tension even between the workers and the voters, where the voters would like to pay as little as possible, and to have a functioning system with some fairness for workers, more is needed than simply 'give all power to voters and zero to workers'. That results in either slave labor or the lack of an adequate workforce.
 
The ridiculousness I'm pointing out is legal/procedural, not the context of the disagreement. It is clearly buffoonery regardless of the core aspect of the disagreement. If they were striking over which day of the week payday should fall on or if they were striking because they want a 200% pay increase, or over Macron's pension reforms, it makes zero difference to my observations. The fact that the French government and French citizens invite unions to partake in this nationally self-sabotaging farce is the target of my criticisms.



You're yet another person who has failed to notice I was not "hating unions" or even criticizing unions. I was criticizing the government and the people for allowing this. They actively and intentionally allow this. They allow their country to be ground to a halt over labor demands. It's their complete choice to let unions do this.



This is public sector, so if you're saying democratically-elected government leaders are "****ty management," then the way that changes is the people democratically elect new leaders that operate things differently.

Right. That's a lot of words just to say you don't care about content at all. You only care about ****ting on unions no matter what.
 
The way I've said it is that they unwittingly are fighting for slave labor.

It is a grotesque movement, warriors for plutocracy.

Im in a union and ran up against a boss who thought they could make **** up as they go along and i went to my union to get help informing management that they have rules too. And not only that, but this manager had broken the law twice in their arrogance. And I wasnt all alone waiting for the pink slip because boss be angry.
 
Your point was anti-trust regulations are not enforced in over 30 years.

I didn't say ZERO, I said it's largely no longer enforced. The enforcement has been slashed, as the info I linked discusses.

Public services should be considered essential. The public sector shouldn't be funding jobs that are non-essential.

How many lives are lost when Librarians strike? Oh, you don't want any libraries, you say, got it. Most government workers outside the military, who rarely strike, are in roles where lives are not at stake, where some emergency interest in continuity of services isn't there.

Garbage collection is often considered non-essential for this purpose, despite the risks and hazards of trash piling up in public.

Want to include garbage service as essential, because of public health? OK.

"Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Credit for playing the FDR card, but times change. We could quote him on interring Japanese citizens, too. We're not getting anywhere with you repeating your points and my saying there is room for looking for ways to address FDR's point about continuity of essential services, the main difference being your apparent complete lack of interest in the workers' power needed for fair wages.
 
Right. That's a lot of words just to say you don't care about content at all. You only care about ****ting on unions no matter what.

If I say hospital employees should not be able to cut off access to hospitals over their labor demands, does that mean I am ****ting on unions?

Would you support police unions being able to refuse to enforce the law until their labor desires are met? If not, then do you admit you are ****ting on them?
 
Back
Top Bottom