As long as your side refuses to acknowledge the leverage that needing to not die confers to employers, your arguments will remain vapid.
Your "willing to do it for less" applies all the way down to starving to death. People will do deathly dangerous jobs to avoid freezing to death.
The most potent lever ever is firmly in the hands of one side of the equation in your perfect world.
The unions are better with a factory company, because you cannot get skilled labor with replacement workers. But, if you are a factory worker, your the cheapest tool in the factory.
Melodrama is never a valid defense of unions.
Then aren’t the tens and tens and tens of working age adults not in the labor force dead yet? Again, melodrama is not a good argument.
The economy is not two sides of an equation. This “is vs. them” dogma is more regurgitated union rhetoric.
Which is why wages always rise when the economy improves and the workers get their fair share of any increase in productivity?
Well, it seems that labor has not avoided trumps anti-regulation axe.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...IwAnoECAIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1_1YQUtUUwuoz58qa0Mkwz
That's just the first site I found with a list.
I'm sure you're going to quibble about Obama and EOs, etc.
But they were all safety and fair practices rules and regs. Accountability and what have you.
Except the one allowing more foreign workers for all those companies that were supposed to hire more of us for good paying jobs.
You have to pick and choose your battles.
Melodrama is never a valid defense of unions.
Then aren’t the tens and tens and tens of working age adults not in the labor force dead yet? Again, melodrama is not a good argument.
The economy is not two sides of an equation. This “is vs. them” dogma is more regurgitated union rhetoric.
I've described the default negative state. If you wish to make a positive claim that someone does owe you a job, or that it is someone else's responsibility for your not being suited for a better job, it's up to you to support that position.
If you're asking for an example of a Union being unethical towards their employer, look at at any organized strike intended to sabotage production.
Actually you are wrong about us vs them. Stock holders have increasingly pushed to allow only them, not management" to grant wage increases to workers as they say any profits should go to them and not to pay increases. Thus the "us" is the stock holders and the "them" are the workers. Since 80% of ll stocks are held by the wealthy, guess who is getting this money. Without unions to help balance the power struggle between the owners of the corporations and workers, workers are and will get the short end of the stick.
Any organized strike is intended for the employees to withhold their services (and not receive pay) until the company can come to an agreement on the issue. In general employers know when a strike can happen and it becomes the responsibility of the employer to find replacement employees just in case a strike occurs. I believe there is nothing unethical in striking by employees (aka the union) since the scales are balanced.
The unions have had no support by our government since long before 2011. If you think the democrats are for the unions you have had your head in the sand for 50 years. The unions have been getting shafted by our government even when the democrats controlled everything. As long as you believe the lie that the democrats are for the unions you can kiss the unions good bye.
No one owes you a job. No one forces you to take a job. If you accept a job contract, that is your choice. If you are not qualified for a better job, that is your fault, not anyone else's. Unions attempting to coerce someone good enough to offer people work are entirely unethical.
Why would you want to strike in the first place?
Anarchists are whacko
Your debating skills are impressive.
Progressive Democrats are pro union
The company already has "agreement on the issue," when the worker agrees to the employment contract. Striking is in breach of said contract. Breaching a contract is unethical. Workers using the government to force an employer to hire from the union is also unethical.
Their right to strike is the bargaining power of a union. Without the right to strike a union's value is practically worthless. Big corporations will dictate terms and without the power to strike or threaten to strike a union has no way to fight back.
Libertarians and Republicans always argue that the employee does have a way to fight back he or she can quit.
Problem with that logic is that an employee, if he or she quits and no one else quits with him it will be of no consequence. Besides not everyone wants to quit and not everyone can quit due to personal circumstances. The bargaining power of unions is the best way to keep corporations from exploiting workers
Well there are not enough of you. The democrats that have gotten into office have sold out the unions for decades now.
If there is a "no strike" clause in the contract and the employees walk off the job, then they can be replaced permanently. I'd say the workers are taking a big risk if they do that.
Most workers in companies who are union are hired by the company directly; although in the building trades, its common to go to the union hiring halls to hire workers, but in that case it's already been agreed to in a labor contract or through some other type of legal arrangement.
This post did nothing to address my points about them being unethical.
This post did nothing to address my points about them being unethical.
Evidence?
Bill Clinton and NAFTA. I wasted my vote on that snake in the grass. I figured no way NAFTA gets passed after the democrats stopped Bush and a democrat president was elected. Not only was it top priority of Bill Clintons list but afterwards he is walking arm and arm with Bush laughing at us.
View attachment 67238014
The illusion of choice.
Bill Clinton and NAFTA. I wasted my vote on that snake in the grass. I figured no way NAFTA gets passed after the democrats stopped Bush and a democrat president was elected. Not only was it top priority of Bill Clintons list but afterwards he is walking arm and arm with Bush laughing at us.
View attachment 67238014
The illusion of choice.
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?