Indiana Dems walk out -Again

[werepossum]

That seems like a pretty arbitrary rule on your part. If their constituents don't want something, why should a politician just accept it when they have a parliamentary option to stop it?



It's basically a tit-for-tat at this point. I am in favor of massively curtailing the ability of people to use parliamentary procedures across the board, filibuster included. I would absolutely agree with curtailing the ability of people to deny the legislature function through abuse of the quorum, much as I would absolutely agree with the total elimination of the filibuster.

Where does one draw the line? If not doing your job at all qualifies as a "parliamentary option", how about calling in a bomb threat? How about actually blowing up the building - would that be a "parliamentary option" as long as the lawmaker feels he is serving his constituents' best interests? If not, why not?

Most people see a strong difference between using every available option to avoid an unpleasant result while doing your job, and simply not showing up to do your job.

And once elected, a politician's constituents are everyone he nominally represents, not just those who give him money or vote for him.

 

[piasabird]

How do people keep getting a paycheck? Just fire them, and appoint some people who appreciate a job.

 

[Ausm]

Where does one draw the line? If not doing your job at all qualifies as a "parliamentary option", how about calling in a bomb threat? How about actually blowing up the building - would that be a "parliamentary option" as long as the lawmaker feels he is serving his constituents' best interests? If not, why not?

Most people see a strong difference between using every available option to avoid an unpleasant result while doing your job, and simply not showing up to do your job.

And once elected, a politician's constituents are everyone he nominally represents, not just those who give him money or vote for him.

Maybe in the States but it's a pipe dream on the Federal level.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Okay, then I change what I said to this:

Exactly, each employee comes to a private agreement with his or her employer. And if the employer, as part of that agreement, insists on a stipulation that they pay union dues, why shouldn't they be able to?

I find it weird that an employer can't have union membership as a stipulation, as I don't see why they shouldn't be able to enter a contract with a union to only hire their members. I guess an end around would be to only offer jobs to those that are already union members?

And it makes what CAD said earlier completely wrong:

Again, it's not the employer. It's how the union is set up - you know - by the UNION.

If Indiana is a semi-right to work state where they don't force people to join the union but still allow unions to collect dues from non-members then it changes things slightly but not much. It still forces an employee to pay a 3rd party to work. It is however a function of the UNION - not the employer.

 

[fskimospy]

Where does one draw the line? If not doing your job at all qualifies as a "parliamentary option", how about calling in a bomb threat? How about actually blowing up the building - would that be a "parliamentary option" as long as the lawmaker feels he is serving his constituents' best interests? If not, why not?

Most people see a strong difference between using every available option to avoid an unpleasant result while doing your job, and simply not showing up to do your job.

And once elected, a politician's constituents are everyone he nominally represents, not just those who give him money or vote for him.

That's a pretty clear slippery slope fallacy you got there. Denying a quorum is really not even remotely the same thing as murdering everyone.

You realize that their job is not actually to show up and vote, right? It is to represent the interests of their constituents. Frequently those two things go hand in hand, but clearly not always. I think that we should alter the incentive structures here to keep minorities from disrupting state's business through a parliamentary tactic. There's no way that people purposefully running off to another state should be a viable way of stopping legislation, that's just silly. Still, since the current rules allow that as an option I certainly don't blame them for using it.

I would just change the rules of a quorum, maybe adding in a provision that if one isn't achieved within x number of days, you don't need one anymore or something. Likewise, I would entirely eliminate the filibuster in the US Senate.

 

[actuarial]

The employer isn't the one making the stipulation.

It depends on how the union sets itself up and what duties/function said "workers" perform.

So how does a union go about doing it? The best I can find with respect to union law comes from here:

Right-to-work laws prohibit union contracts at private sector workplaces from requiring employees to pay any dues or other fees to the union.

It comes down to what 'union contracts' is meaning here. If that is a contract entered into with the employer, then the employer IS making the stipulation by signing the contract. They are not the only ones doing the tango here, but if the employer doesn't like the terms of the contract they should not agree to it.

I do not feel that a union should just be able to point to someone and say "you, pay us our dues", but I do believe an employer should be able to make paying union dues (and even union membership) a contract stipulation.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So how does a union go about doing it? The best I can find with respect to union law comes from here:

It comes down to what 'union contracts' is meaning here. If that is a contract entered into with the employer, then the employer IS making the stipulation by signing the contract. They are not the only ones doing the tango here, but if the employer doesn't like the terms of the contract they should not agree to it.

I do not feel that a union should just be able to point to someone and say "you, pay us our dues", but I do believe an employer should be able to make paying union dues (and even union membership) a contract stipulation.

You don't seem to have a very good understanding of how unionizing works. An employer doesn't choose to be union - the workers do. If the union forms, it has a choice on how to form. The employer has little to say about this. AFTER the union is in place the employer must formalize relations(ie contract, etc) but that doesn't mean the employer is now making the stipulations. Sheesh.

 

[Darwin333]

The only reason why Republicans hate unions is because they are a major contributors to the Democrats...eliminate union dues then the Republicans can steamroll elections. It comes out of the same playbook for voter I.d laws basically.

Still doesn't explain why an employer should be forced to pay union dues if they do not want to be in the union.

 

[Darwin333]

If they dont want to pay the dues why dont they work at a NON-unionized private workplace? Maybe the workplace should un-unionize. But if its a unionized workplace then you should pay your dues or dont work there.

Doesn't that same argument work with getting rid of unions? If you don't like the employers terms than don't work there.

 

[dank69]

Still doesn't explain why an employer should be forced to pay union dues if they do not want to be in the union.

That was explained all the way back in post 9.

 

[actuarial]

You don't seem to have a very good understanding of how unionizing works. An employer doesn't choose to be union - the workers do. If the union forms, it has a choice on how to form. The employer has little to say about this. AFTER the union is in place the employer must formalize relations(ie contract, etc) but that doesn't mean the employer is now making the stipulations. Sheesh.

I know an employer doesn't choose to do it. But the employer still signs the agreement. Thus anything in that agreement is on both the employer and the union.

Why do you only look at one side of the contract?

 

[actuarial]

Doesn't that same argument work with getting rid of unions? If you don't like the employers terms than don't work there.

Not really. People should be allowed to associate freely and make decisions together.

Personally I think that if a contract cannot be agreed upon an employer should be free to hire anyone it chooses in place of the union workers (and fire them all). The union can either then stand together or piece off.

I imagine in many cases if they DO stand together the employer would not be able to function properly with a 100% new workforce, but if they could then the union shouldn't have had any leverage to begin with.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I know an employer doesn't choose to do it. But the employer still signs the agreement. Thus anything in that agreement is on both the employer and the union.

Why do you only look at one side of the contract?

Uh because the gov't says the company has to do it if the workers create a union? The UNION creates the rules(by how they set themselves up) and the employer has no say in the matter. Thus trying to say it is an employer stipulation is no accurate in any meaningful way since the 3rd party union has created/mandated those stipulations.

Basically once a union is set up - they abide by those rules. Negotiations of conditions, pay, etc are on going but open/closed shop and other setup stuff is already completed. there is no employer involvement in that initial setup stuff.

 

[Darwin333]

If you don't like it then pick up your tools and look for another place to work. The laborers in the work place would vote yea or nay to Unionize and if your're in the minority then you are SOL.

Again, if you don't like working for a non-union shop then don't apply to work for one. If the owner of the business voted nay to unionize than why doesn't the same thing you just stated apply? It is the employers places of business not the employees.

 

[actuarial]

Uh because the gov't says the company has to do it if the workers create a union? The UNION creates the rules(by how they set themselves up) and the employer has no say in the matter. Thus trying to say it is an employer stipulation is no accurate in any meaningful way since the 3rd party union has created/mandated those stipulations.

Basically once a union is set up - they abide by those rules. Negotiations of conditions, pay, etc are on going but open/closed shop and other setup stuff is already completed. there is no employer involvement in that initial setup stuff.

Well in that case I would take the unilateral right away from the union, but not bar it from occurring entirely which is what this law is aiming to do. Nothing should stop an employer from deciding to only hire from the union, or requiring all employees from paying union dues as part of the contract with the union.

If I was a union worker I would be mighty pissed about legislation barring me from working at a closed shop. That is taking choice away from me.

All this law is doing is adding crap on top of crap. It doesn't make things right, it just makes them different wrong.

 

[EagleKeeper]

That's a pretty clear slippery slope fallacy you got there. Denying a quorum is really not even remotely the same thing as murdering everyone.

You realize that their job is not actually to show up and vote, right? It is to represent the interests of their constituents. Frequently those two things go hand in hand, but clearly not always. I think that we should alter the incentive structures here to keep minorities from disrupting state's business through a parliamentary tactic. There's no way that people purposefully running off to another state should be a viable way of stopping legislation, that's just silly. Still, since the current rules allow that as an option I certainly don't blame them for using it.

I would just change the rules of a quorum, maybe adding in a provision that if one isn't achieved within x number of days, you don't need one anymore or something. Likewise, I would entirely eliminate the filibuster in the US Senate.

Are the unions their constituents or the people?

Indiana Legislative setup a rule that fines people for not showing up. It was used the previous time. It is unknown if it will be used this time.

 

[fskimospy]

Are the unions their constituents or the people?

They have a rule that fines people for not showing up. It was used the previous time. It is unknown if it will be used this time.

How could someone really answer that for everyone?

These are Democratic politicians running for office in Indiana. It's quite likely that they did so with union support, and I'm going to bet that most of them ran on a platform that included robust support for unions. They were elected on that platform so it seems reasonable to say that fighting for union rights is done so in the service of their constituent's wishes, as expressed through their election.

 

[werepossum]

Okay, then I change what I said to this:

Exactly, each employee comes to a private agreement with his or her employer. And if the employer, as part of that agreement, insists on a stipulation that they pay union dues, why shouldn't they be able to?

I find it weird that an employer can't have union membership as a stipulation, as I don't see why they shouldn't be able to enter a contract with a union to only hire their members. I guess an end around would be to only offer jobs to those that are already union members?

And it makes what CAD said earlier completely wrong:

Since a union is specifically to aid the employee against the employer, can you imagine a single reason an employer would WANT a stipulation that all workers have to pay union dues, absent coercion?

 

[actuarial]

Since a union is specifically to aid the employee against the employer, can you imagine a single reason an employer would WANT a stipulation that all workers have to pay union dues, absent coercion?

There's lots of reasons why an employer would grant an employee some specific benefit. Where you say coercion I say negotiation.

If I would agree to work for minimum wage and no benefits I'm sure my employer would gladly agree. Can you think of a single reason why my employer would want to pay me a dollar above minimum wage?

 

[EagleKeeper]

There's lots of reasons why an employer would grant an employee some specific benefit. Where you say coercion I say negotiation.

If I would agree to work for minimum wage and no benefits I'm sure my employer would gladly agree. Can you think of a single reason why my employer would want to pay me a dollar above minimum wage?

Labor demand
Skills
Competition

Realization that one pays for quality
Selling an defective product is very costly

Training employees is costly no matter what the labor grade.
A little extra by the employer shows that the value the skills.


Once the union is involved; all discretion for/by the employer goes out the window.

 

[spidey07]

1000 dollar a day fines are coming. Lock them up. Don't give them an inch as they already pulled this stunt previously. Make it 5000 a day, make it hurt.

http://www.kirotv.com/ap/ap/indiana/ind-house-enters-2nd-day-on-hold-in-labor-battle/nGF6q/

Indiana House Democrats could soon get hit with $1,000-a-day fines over a labor bill that has stalled work in the 2012 session.

House Democratic Leader Patrick Bauer said Thursday that Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma promised to begin fining Democrats on Friday under a new law designed to keep them from blocking business after a five-week walkout last year.

 

[theeedude]

Good, someone has to stand up to Republican destruction of the middle class.

 

[Ausm]

Still doesn't explain why an employer should be forced to pay union dues if they do not want to be in the union.

Employees pay their Union dues but Companies don't pay dues well at least in my State.

 

[werepossum]

That's a pretty clear slippery slope fallacy you got there. Denying a quorum is really not even remotely the same thing as murdering everyone.

You realize that their job is not actually to show up and vote, right? It is to represent the interests of their constituents. Frequently those two things go hand in hand, but clearly not always. I think that we should alter the incentive structures here to keep minorities from disrupting state's business through a parliamentary tactic. There's no way that people purposefully running off to another state should be a viable way of stopping legislation, that's just silly. Still, since the current rules allow that as an option I certainly don't blame them for using it.

I would just change the rules of a quorum, maybe adding in a provision that if one isn't achieved within x number of days, you don't need one anymore or something. Likewise, I would entirely eliminate the filibuster in the US Senate.

To be clear I was posing the question of ruining the building to prevent the state from conducting business with which one disagrees, not murder. And personally I like the filibuster's ability to prevent legislation from proceeding, although I disagree with the new, easier virtual filibuster.

There's lots of reasons why an employer would grant an employee some specific benefit. Where you say coercion I say negotiation.

If I would agree to work for minimum wage and no benefits I'm sure my employer would gladly agree. Can you think of a single reason why my employer would want to pay me a dollar above minimum wage?

Being forced to pay union dues against your will is NOT a benefit. As to the other, I have no problem with you working for minimum wage if you are willing to do so, but while the main reason your employer pays you above that is your unwillingness to work for that wage, another valid reason would be to gain and maintain your loyalty. If the market value of your job is significantly above minimum wage and you don't know that, then you could take that job, but another employer could well offer you significantly below true market value and still hire you away, thus depriving the employer of a valuable employee for an amount lower than what he would be willing to pay.

As Eaglekeeper says, training is expensive, and training a worker for anything other than menial work and paying him a salary significantly below true market value is a false economy, encouraging a competitor to get the advantage of your training essentially free.

 

[davmat787]

It's called Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religions do it all the time, and in my opinion with good reason. Why should you have to hire someone for a position in your church who doesn't share your faith?

Replace religion and faith with political party and ideology. Should an employer be forced to hire someone who has a different political stance and ideology than theirs?