This is what happens without labor unions:

[comptr6]

Unions have existed for hundreds of years and we still didnt have min wage or child protection laws. You cant claim unions are the reason these were enacted when unions existed for hundreds of years while there werent any of these protections.

Even if you wanted to make the incorrect claim the 1930's is when unionization was started in this country. Min wage laws were being enacted at the state level for 2 decades before. And child labor laws go back to the turn of the century. These are before the big increase in union membership in the 1930s.

Not seeing how we can thank the unions for these protections.

Yeah it's not like the unions were fighting for child labor laws since the 1830's which led to the first child labor laws being passed on the state level. It's not like oldest labor union in the country successfully sponsored a bill to outlaw child labor in New York in the 1870's.

This is obvious doublethink on the part of the brainwashed pro-union leftists. Unions are so powerful that if wanted to end child labor they would have done so and Genx87 would know about it. Since Genx87 can't provide any evidence of unions improving labor conditions obviously that proves his point.

 

[theeedude]

Sounds like Republican dream for America come true.

 

[BoberFett]

Hyperbole just makes you sound as stupid as the Republicans you hate.

 

[theeedude]

Hyperbole just makes you sound as stupid as the Republicans you hate.

Thank you for confirming that Republicans are stupid.

 

[JSt0rm]

And naturally in your eyes, the solution to being abused by the the police is more government, not less.

Whats your solution to this problem?

 

[BoberFett]

Thank you for confirming that Republicans are stupid.

When have I ever argued differently? I simply think that Democrats, including you and most of the nimrods around here, are equally stupid.

 

[BoberFett]

Whats your solution to this problem?

Chaining someone to a machine seems to violate some fairly basic laws. I didn't realize that unions and a multi-trillion dollar federal government were required to combat that sort of base level abuse. Local police should be able to take care of things, yes?

 

[theeedude]

When have I ever argued differently? I simply think that Democrats, including you and most of the nimrods around here, are equally stupid.

We are going to have to disagree on that, but we do agree that Republicans are stupid, so that's at least a start.

 

[theeedude]

Chaining someone to a machine seems to violate some fairly basic laws. I didn't realize that unions and a multi-trillion dollar federal government were required to combat that sort of base level abuse. Local police should be able to take care of things, yes?

Republicans are for deregulation at all levels of government. The whole federal vs state debate is just a diversion.

 

[BoberFett]

Republicans are for deregulation at all levels of government. The whole federal vs state debate is just a diversion.

More evidence of your stupidity. Thanks.

 

[JSt0rm]

Chaining someone to a machine seems to violate some fairly basic laws. I didn't realize that unions and a multi-trillion dollar federal government were required to combat that sort of base level abuse. Local police should be able to take care of things, yes?

Those are 2 separate issues.

You were responding to people being beaten by police for protesting wages. Being sprayed with colored water to mark them. You responded that more government intervention wasn't the answer. I was asking you what the answer was then. So?

 

[theeedude]

More evidence of your stupidity. Thanks.

Great comeback. Have a cookie.

 

[Throckmorton]

And naturally in your eyes, the solution to being abused by the the police is more government, not less.

The solution would be their government passing laws to protect Bangladeshi workers' right to organize.

 

[JSt0rm]

The solution would be their government passing laws to protect Bangladeshi workers' right to organize.

He has no idea what hes talking about.

Libertarian. lol.

 

[BoberFett]

Those are 2 separate issues.

You were responding to people being beaten by police for protesting wages. Being sprayed with colored water to mark them. You responded that more government intervention wasn't the answer. I was asking you what the answer was then. So?

Sounds like they first need to rid themselves of a corrupt government.

The solution would be their government passing laws to protect Bangladeshi workers' right to organize.

So you think the same government which is currently beating them physically is going to protect their rights to organize? Do you think before you speak or are you just typing random words?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Sorry, this is the same slippery-slope hysteria that the gun nuts babble when any kind of restriction on ownership (including criminal background checks) is legislated.

You're both wrong.

If the union-busting plans of Republicans succeed, wages will fall and CEO salaries increase, while job security and health insurance benefits will be reduced. But baristas will not be chained to the espresso machine.

People like you are completely delusional and have no concept of how the world works.
Amazingly, the owner of my company is a huge republican supporter. He has hundreds of millions of dollars, and owns over 60 companies. No one is unionized and we all make well above industry standards for our professions, get excellent healthcare coverage, 401K with 100% matching up to 6% of our yearly salary, plus pension after 10 years.
No unions needed. No unions required.
Unions for the most part only protect the unskilled, easily replaced laborer. People that have high skill sets, and valuable knowledge don't need unions to get a good wage/benefits.

 

[Throckmorton]

Sounds like they first need to rid themselves of a corrupt government.




So you think the same government which is currently beating them physically is going to protect their rights to organize? Do you think before you speak or are you just typing random words?

Yeah... that's what usually happens. In America and Europe we had the same abuses of workers and union busting by police, and then unions got governments to pass laws protecting the right to organize.

Just half a century ago we had local police beating people for protesting for civil rights, and then Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.

 

[JSt0rm]

Yeah... that's what usually happens. In America and Europe we had the same abuses of workers and union busting by police, and then unions got governments to pass laws protecting the right to organize.

Just half a century ago we had local police beating people for protesting for civil rights, and then Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.

and in this country people would be beaten for protesting workers rights. Its the same thing.

 

[JSt0rm]

Sounds like they first need to rid themselves of a corrupt government.

So it would be easier for them to revolt against their government then to have new laws passed protecting workers? Somehow the new laws giving them more rights would be the problem because the government would become bloated, revolution is your answer?

 

[BoberFett]

Yeah... that's what usually happens. In America and Europe we had the same abuses of workers and union busting by police, and then unions got governments to pass laws protecting the right to organize.

Just half a century ago we had local police beating people for protesting for civil rights, and then Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.

So then in theory, all wrongs can be righted simply by appealing to a higher level authority? The local police are reigned in by the state, and the states are reigned in by the feds.

What happens when the highest level government is the one that's corrupt?

 

[BoberFett]

So it would be easier for them to revolt against their government then to have new laws passed protecting workers? Somehow the new laws giving them more rights would be the problem because the government would become bloated, revolution is your answer?

Laws protecting them enforced by who? The police that were beating them yesterday?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You would have to abolish the caste system in Bangladesh before anything could move forward on workers rights.

 

[JSt0rm]

Laws protecting them enforced by who? The police that were beating them yesterday?

They were beating them because they broke the law.

 

[Double Trouble]

People like you are completely delusional and have no concept of how the world works.
Amazingly, the owner of my company is a huge republican supporter. He has hundreds of millions of dollars, and owns over 60 companies. No one is unionized and we all make well above industry standards for our professions, get excellent healthcare coverage, 401K with 100% matching up to 6% of our yearly salary, plus pension after 10 years.
No unions needed. No unions required.

That's unpossible, it's a lie!! Surely if you are not part of a union you are oppressed and chained to a machine, working 20 hour days just to earn the right to eat ramen noodles.

Unions for the most part only protect the unskilled, easily replaced laborer. People that have high skill sets, and valuable knowledge don't need unions to get a good wage/benefits.

Yep, unions simply distort the cost of labor, making unskilled labor more expensive than it should be. That can only work in the long run if there is no competition (foreign or domestic). The only employer that doesn't face competition or cost constraints is the government.

 

[werepossum]

Your talking out of your ass. Labor laws happened because of unions fighting for them. Fuck we are doomed if people dont know this history. No wonder policy is fucked.

SOME labor laws happened at least partially because unions fought for them, others came about with little union involvement. One doesn't need a union organizer to want more money, or paid time off. Employer-paid health insurance for instance came about largely because of World War II government wage regulation; barred by law from raising wages and still needing to attract the best employees in a very tight labor market, employers added fringe benefits like paid health insurance, paid vacation, paid sick time. Similarly, it doesn't take a union organizer to convince people to vote for politicians who promise to make others give them things they could not earn through their own merit (although it might take one to make them fund that politician's campaign.) Also, many laws championed by unions are not through any altruism. Child labor laws for instance were championed because children were considered unfair competition for adults who needed to support families. Even today, unions often support raises in minimum wage because their own contracts are written to raise their wages with raises in the minimum wage. I generally like unions; I don't confuse them with Mother Teresa.

However if you re-read my post (I recommend a sheet of Plexiglas to keep off the spittle) you may see that my point was not that unions were bad or that they are not helpful in bettering work conditions, just that they are not a panacea. Bangladeshi workers make little money because Bangladesh is fucking POOR. The only way to fix this is to improve productivity, preferably by increasing economic liberty and introducing new methods. This is an ILLEGAL brick yard engaging in modern day slavery. To blame this on the lack of unions is stupid. To point to this as the aim of Republicans and libertarians is beyond stupid. Stupidity pisses me off.