Indiana Dems walk out -Again

[Ausm]

Benefits everyone else enjoys because private companies have to compete with Unions for workers.


1. Minimum Wage: Without federally mandated minimum wage, we’d still be working for pennies.

2. Child Labor Laws: Without these laws, children would be hired as cheap labor.

3. Paid Vacations: Did you go on a cruise this year? Perhaps to the Grand Canyon or another country? Thank a union.

4. Employer Health Care, Dental, and Vision Insurance: If you have a medical, dental, or vision care plan through your employer, your a lucky person. All because of organized labor.

5. Pensions: If you were able to retire at 65 and get pension checks in the mail, congratulations, you’re living proof that unions work.

6. Safety Conditions: Do you work at a potentially hazardous job but have safety regulations in place to protect you? If so, unions are responsible for your continued safety.

7. Collective Bargaining: Just having the right to negotiate with your employer is a benefit guaranteed by a union.

8. Weekends: If you have weekends off to spend with your families, a labor union is responsible for giving you that time off.

9. Sick Leave: Did you get to use a work provided sick day to get well? Unions fought for that too.

10. Overtime: Are you able to work overtime and get paid even more for it? Thank a union.

11. 8 Hour Work Day: Without unions, we’d all be working non-stop 24/7. Because of unions you’re able to go home and spend some time at home with family and friends before you catch 6-8 hours of sleep.

12. 40 Hour Work Week: Just like number 11, without unions, we’d never have a day off and work would encompass our entire life.

13. Unemployment Benefits: Are you unemployed but receive unemployment benefits to care for your family until you find another job? One word. Unions.

14. Wrongful Termination Laws: Because of unions, you can’t be fired for stupid reasons, like the color of your skin or because you make too much money.

15. Pay Raises: Unions are responsible for your ability to ask for and receive pay raises.

16. Holiday Pay: Do you at least get some holidays off? If so, thank a union.

17. Pregnancy and Parental Leave: In some countries, women give birth on the job and have to go back to work the next day. Corporations would make women do the same thing here if not for the determination of a union.

18. The Right To Strike: We have the right to organize and protest against the government. A union fought for your right to organize and strike against your employer.

19. Equal Pay For Women: Women finally get equal pay for equal work. Thank a union.

20. Laws Ending Sweatshops: Because of unions, sweatshops, which employ cheap labor with harsh conditions, are illegal.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/05/20-reasons-to-thank-labor-unions/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_States

 

[fskimospy]

No it's not. Being right to work doesn't add regulation. Sheesh you union fluffers are stupid...

So what would you call this new regulation of permissible terms in a contract, if not regulation?

Did I ever mention how much I love you, CAD?

 

[soundforbjt]

The problem is not so much of the relationship between the union and the employer, but that the employee is forced to join the union.

They're not forced. They are not required\forced to work there.

 

[actuarial]

WRONG. The point here is about CHOICE. It doesn't prevent people from joining a union if they want to - it just allows them the CHOICE to or not. The (R) stance is for freedom and choice for the employee - the (D) stance is to maintain the union/elite power over workers.

This prevents people from working somewhere that requires union membership if that is what they want. The REDUCES worker choice, not improves it.

Like I said earlier, prior to this legislation a worker could choose to work at a place that:
a) requires union membership
b) has a union but does not require membership
c) does not have a union

After this legislation is passed a worker will be able to choose to work at a place that:
a) has a union but does not require membership
b) does not have a union

Explain to me again how this is increasing worker choice again?

 

[werepossum]

Interesting that the employees of a workplace and the employer have come to a private agreement between themselves on how the workplace will be run, but the Republicans want to use the power of government to alter this private transaction.

Negative. Each employee comes to a private agreement with his or her employer. Democrats used the power of government to force that employee to subsidize a third party, the union, supposedly for his own good. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with the large bag of union campaign contributions and campaign workers, everything Democrats force you to do is for your own good.) Now Republicans want to undo that law and restore the freedom of the individual.

If I worked in a unionized work place I would be a member because I wouldn't want to be one of the few who lacked that protection when it came time for cuts. That does not mean however that I want government to force me to make that decision for my own good, in the same way that although I have no desire to marry a man, I don't want government to make that decision for me.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So what would you call this new regulation of permissible terms in a contract, if not regulation?

Did I ever mention how much I love you, CAD?

Change in regulation does not mean it's more. all this does is make it so people who don't want to be in the union. No more "regulation" than currently exists regarding union stuff.

 

[fskimospy]

Negative. Each employee comes to a private agreement with his or her employer. Democrats used the power of government to force that employee to subsidize a third party, the union, supposedly for his own good. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with the large bag of union campaign contributions and campaign workers, everything Democrats force you to do is for your own good.) Now Republicans want to undo that law and restore the freedom of the individual.

If I worked in a unionized work place I would be a member because I wouldn't want to be one of the few who lacked that protection when it came time for cuts. That does not mean however that I want government to force me to make that decision for my own good, in the same way that although I have no desire to marry a man, I don't want government to make that decision for me.

Negative. Government is not forcing you to subsidize any third party. Certain unions have come to agreements with their employers that mandate union membership, but there are many that have not. If you do not wish to work in such a place you are in no way obligated to.

 

[fskimospy]

Change in regulation does not mean it's more. all this does is make it so people who don't want to be in the union. No more "regulation" than currently exists regarding union stuff.

No, what means it's more is that they added an additional requirement. There's no arguing this, it's basic English.

 

[actuarial]

The problem is not so much of the relationship between the union and the employer, but that the employee is forced to join the union.

And anyone who wants to sell processors to Dell has to do it through Intel (not in real life, in my hypothetical).

I keep seeing the same thing that is not correct. An employee is not forced to join the union. They are forced to join the union if they want to work for an employer that requires it as a condition of employment.

There is a HUGE difference between the two. If McDonald's only pays minimum wage, are they forcing workers to accept minimum wage as compensation?

 

[Ausm]

Negative. Each employee comes to a private agreement with his or her employer. Democrats used the power of government to force that employee to subsidize a third party, the union, supposedly for his own good. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with the large bag of union campaign contributions and campaign workers, everything Democrats force you to do is for your own good.) Now Republicans want to undo that law and restore the freedom of the individual.

If I worked in a unionized work place I would be a member because I wouldn't want to be one of the few who lacked that protection when it came time for cuts. That does not mean however that I want government to force me to make that decision for my own good, in the same way that although I have no desire to marry a man, I don't want government to make that decision for me.

Tell that to my UPS driver who has 25 years in with 14 weeks of paid vacation and to many other bennies that you wouldn't believe anyway.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

This prevents people from working somewhere that requires union membership if that is what they want. The REDUCES worker choice, not improves it.

Like I said earlier, prior to this legislation a worker could choose to work at a place that:
a) requires union membership
b) has a union but does not require membership
c) does not have a union

After this legislation is passed a worker will be able to choose to work at a place that:
a) has a union but does not require membership
b) does not have a union

Explain to me again how this is increasing worker choice again?

I don't think you understand what is going on here.

Currently the choice is
A) company with a union
B) company without a union

New choice is:
A) company with a union - join the union/pay dues
B) company with a union - not join the union/not pay dues
C) company without a union

 

[Jaskalas]

They're not forced. They are not required\forced to work there.

And when you dot the landscape with them, 'not forced to work THERE' becomes 'not forced to work'. Who needs a job? You must be right, people don't need those.

Heaven forbid if people had the FREEDOM and LIBERTY to choose for themselves whether to be part of a scum sucking organization that decades ago served their purpose.

Unions and their thugs (you dear Democrat reader) are scared to death of freedom of choice. Ever ask yourself why?

 

[Atreus21]

They're not forced. They are not required\forced to work there.

No, but forced union membership, and paying dues to them or any other group, ought not be a condition to working anywhere.

 

[xBiffx]

So, no problem with same sex marriage or abortion with you? :thumbsup:

You got it. I'm a libertarian. I don't care who you marry or what a woman does to her body. I rather her not abuse that right but its not for me to say. I have stated this many times before.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

No, what means it's more is that they added an additional requirement. There's no arguing this, it's basic English.

if you fluffers say so :roll; It's not reality but if you want to keep claiming it is - so be it.

There is zero additional requirement - it changes the structure - not adds to it.

 

[Ausm]

No, but forced union membership, and paying dues to them or any other group, ought not be a condition to working anywhere.

Then don't work at a Union shop problem solved....

 

[fskimospy]

No, but forced union membership, and paying dues to them or any other group, ought not be a condition to working anywhere.

As I asked before, do you believe it is right for religious groups to require membership in that religion or adherence to their religious principles as a condition of employment?

 

[Atreus21]

Then don't work at a Union shop problem solved....

And if the shop I'm working at unionizes? Will I be forced to join the union at a workplace where I'm already employed?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So as usual the union fluffers take the subject off track...

Anyone of you want to defend the fleebaggers? Skipping out on duties you were elected to perform?

 

[Atreus21]

As I asked before, do you believe it is right for religious groups to require membership in that religion or adherence to their religious principles as a condition of employment?

No certainly not. I'd expect the employee to respect certain rules about conduct. But expect them to convert? No way.

 

[xBiffx]

As I asked before, do you believe it is right for religious groups to require membership in that religion or adherence to their religious principles as a condition of employment?

Please give an example where this is the case. I am trying to think of one but cannot come up with it.

 

[fskimospy]

No certainly not.

You realize this happens constantly, right? Would you support legislation to ban all religious groups from requiring religious belief or conduct of their employees?

 

[EagleKeeper]

The employees are negotiating conditions of employment with their employer. You are advocating for increased government regulation and forcible governmental voiding of private contractual agreements.

If you think that's the right thing to do that's fine, but you should recognize exactly what it is that you are pushing here and how it relates to your ideology.

The agreement is between consenting parties.

The union is forcing its will upon the others.

The government needs to not allow this to happen.

 

[fskimospy]

Please give an example where this is the case. I am trying to think of one but cannot come up with it.

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?

 

[fskimospy]

The agreement is between consenting parties.

The union is forcing its will upon the others.

The government needs to not allow this to happen.

The government is forcing its will on two consenting parties.