[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 34 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


4chan Virtual YouTuber Contest - Submit Designs Here

Janitor applications are now being accepted for the next ~48 hours. Apply Here



File: 1284561123908.png (94 KB, 650x629)
94 KB
94 KB PNG
It’s the first time voters have overturned right-to-work laws through a ballot referendum in recent years.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/7/17655690/missouri-election-proposition-a-right-to-work

Missouri voters made history on Tuesday, blocking the state’s Republican lawmakers from enacting right-to-work laws to cripple labor unions. The state’s primary voters rejected Proposition A, which would have made it illegal for unions to charge fees to workers they represent who don’t want to pay them, by a two-to-one margin when the vote was called by Decision Desk around 10 pm Eastern.

Missouri was on track to become the 28th state to enact such a law. Last year, the state’s then-governor, Republican Eric Greitens, signed the right-to-work bill, saying that it would encourage businesses to move to the state. Missouri would have followed Michigan, Wisconsin, and other Rust Belt states that have passed similar anti-union measures in recent years under pressure from business groups.

But workers and union leaders in Missouri put up a fight. They gathered about 300,000 signatures — more than double the number needed — to freeze the law and put it on the ballot for voters to decide. On Tuesday, voters rejected the bill.

Tuesday’s election marks the first time voters have overturned a right-to-work law through a ballot referendum since Ohio did something similar in 2011. No other state has even tried to in recent years. It’s also a major victory for the US labor movement at a time when Republican leaders, big businesses, and the courts have doubled down on their attempts to weaken the influence of labor unions and the workers they represent. And after the US Supreme Court’s June ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which mandated right-to-work rules for all government unions, Missouri’s vote is a sign that unions are far from dead. They might even see a revival.
>>
>Workers have been waging a war in Missouri to defeat the law

In states without right-to-work laws, employees at unionized workplaces don’t have to pay union dues, but they do have to pay “agency fees.” These fees are lower than the dues members pay, but they cover the union’s cost of negotiating employment contracts that benefit all workers. Right-to-work laws make it illegal for a union to charge those fees, which can strain its finances and give workers an incentive not to pay dues. This is known as the “free rider” problem, in which some workers benefit from union contracts but choose not to pay for it.

That’s what Missouri politicians wanted.

But workers and unions in Missouri have fought back. They built a massive campaign to defeat the Republican law, gathering 300,000 signatures to put the referendum on the ballot. Construction workers, ironworkers, and steelworkers knocked on about half a million doors to mobilize voters to the polls, according to the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest federation of unions. A union-backed group raised $15 million for the effort — more than five times the amount of money raised by two business groups supporting the right-to-work bill.

Labor groups had framed the issue as a fight between workers and greedy billionaires. The campaign even enlisted actor John Goodman, a Missouri native, for a 30-second radio ad.

“The bill will not give you the right to work,” Goodman says in the spot. “It’s being sold as a way to help Missouri workers, but look a little deeper and you’ll see it’s all about corporate greed.”

That message has resonated with unionized workers across the country, whose wages remain flat as CEOs earn record-high salaries and corporations reap massive tax cuts.
>>
Teachers across the country have led the revolt against such pro-business policies that swept through conservative states in the past decade — policies that never led to the promised economic boom. With the support of their labor unions, teachers in states like Arizona, Oklahoma, and West Virginia have forced state lawmakers to raise business taxes to pay better wages.

Missouri might be the start of a similar backlash, one targeted toward Republican right-to-work policies that hurt labor unions and the middle-class workers they represent.

>Right-to-work laws are great for businesses, not workers

When Republicans took over a historic number of state legislatures in the 2010 midterms, they focused on two things: cutting taxes and weakening labor unions. With support from pro-business groups, lawmakers began to expand right-to-work laws from the South to Midwestern states with a strong union presence.

In 2012, lawmakers in Indiana and Michigan passed these laws. At the time, the country was in the midst of the Great Recession, and politicians promised that relaxing labor laws would attract businesses to the state and turn around the economy. Since then, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and West Virginia have passed right-to-work laws too.

Economists have been closely studying the economic impact, and none have found any evidence to back up the claim that right-to-work laws boost the economy. At best, the laws slightly increase the number of businesses in the state, but they don’t really benefit workers. At worst, these laws lower average wages for all workers after they are passed. The latter is the most likely outcome, based on the research.

One study conducted by economist Lonnie Stevans at Hofstra University in 2007 found that right-to-work laws did lead to an increase in the number of businesses, but those economic gains mostly went to business owners. Meanwhile, average wages for workers went down.
>>
One 2015 study showed that Oklahoma’s right-to-work law didn’t lead to more jobs, but it also didn’t seem to affect wages.

The Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank, attributes right-to-work laws to a 3.1 percent decline in wages for union and nonunion workers after accounting for differences in cost of living, demographics, and labor market characteristics.

Had voters in Missouri approved Proposition A, they would probably see a similar drop in income, according to economists at the University of Missouri Kansas City. In a 2014 study, they concluded that Missouri’s shifting to a right-to-work state would result in an annual loss of $1,945 to $2,547 per household.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that anti-union laws would hurt middle-class families. The decline of labor unions is largely responsible for the growing income inequality in the United States.
>Missouri could reverse the decline

Back in the 1950s, about one-third of American workers belonged to labor unions. Today, only about one in 10 workers are unionized.

Vox’s Dylan Matthew explains why this happened:

>This is the culmination of decades of decline in private sector unions in America, caused by a variety of factors including slower employment growth in unionized workplaces (compared to nonunion workplaces); anti-union legislation, particularly in the South and more recently the Midwest; the automation, offshoring, and general decline of union-heavy industries like textiles and auto manufacturing; and more sophisticated corporate anti-union drives.

Labor unions were largely credited with helping maintain stable middle-class factory jobs in Rust Belt states like Missouri in the ’50s and ’60s. But the disappearance of manufacturing jobs, plus the aggressive corporate lobbying to weaken labor unions, has been a driving force behind the massive income gap in the United States.
>>
In 1965, CEOs earned an average salary that was 20 times higher than the average worker’s; by 2016, their salaries were 271 times higher.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz described the dynamic this way:

>Strong unions have helped reduce inequality, whereas weaker unions have made it easier for CEOs, sometimes working with market forces that they have helped shape, to increase it. The decline in unionization since World War II in the United States has been associated with a pronounced rise in income and wealth inequality.

Missouri voters — and workers across the country — have shown that they are ready to reverse that trend.
>>
i've always kind of wondered why there is no middle ground in this issue-

i'm pro-union, but not necessarily pro-being-forced-to-be-in-one

perhaps the issue is that to me, the left's platform is mostly repulsive these days, and so being forced to support the 80% i hate (mass immigration, open borders, ever-increasing PC, expanding government control over many things, anti-family values, etc etc) is not worth the 20% i like (pro-labor, sane environmental regulations, advocacy for peace etc)

i think the core issue is that the left split from being pro-labor long ago, but unions still support them. thus, you get a large and ever-increasing pool of "labor" or "union members" who would support unions, but don't necessarily support who the unions support.

therefore you get people who would support union action (IE: increasing wages, collective bargaining, political advocacy, etc) but will not support it in favor of causes they dislike.

tl;dr political parties are broken. better to reshape them in a more sane direction, and in this way you can return to a state of unions making sense.
>>
>>276743
Because there is no middle ground. A Union's strength is through it's numbers, diminish that and Corporations gain the upper hand to do what they please again. Right to Work is designed to specifically to weaken unions where people can freeload as opposed to paying their fair share of dues needed to keep the union operating to protect your rights and benefits.

A lot of your problems are you being an ideologue and not actual problem with Unions. As for why most Unions still support democrats, is because while the neo-liberal wing took over, Republicans are unapologetically slaves to corporate interests and want to see Unions destroyed. Only a fool would give up or side with Republicans if they want to maintain any semblance of their rights and benefits.

The real problem is complacency and greed. Every right that union has fought for are more common so people take them for granted. Or they are drinking the Republican and Corporate kool-aid where if they see another worker enjoying better rights and benefits, their first instinct isn't to go 'I want that too' but to tear the other person down. Which is exactly what the busting of public unions and right to work laws are doing and why we're seeing safety laws being gutted and worker wages remaining stagnate as the billionaires and CEO reap all the new profits.

You can complain about the little details or that a Union doesn't represent all your interests, but overall, they do a lot more good for you than harm, than if you put your job entirely in the hands of a corporation, which would run you into the ground and then discard your husk.
>>
>>276729
>being forced to pay union dues is a win for workers
huh
>>
>>276755
>Corporations busting up unions and then taking away all your benefits and slashing your wages because 'lol good luck negotiation for yourself' is a win for workers
huh
>>
>>276759
>can't justify unions forcing people to pay dues without whataboutism and finger-pointing at corporations
huh
>>
>>276760
>Pointing the results of what would happen when a Union is weakened and ignoring that data that every household in Missouri would lose at least $1,945 to $2,547 a year is a whataboutism.
You right wingers are terrible at this.
>>
>>276759
Why can't people negotiate for themselves?
If I produce value for the company, they give me a raise, or I walk and make that money for someone else.
>>
>>276796
Because as an individual you are weak and powerless at the negotiating table, and don't produce as much value to a company as you think you do. Even if you're the best at your job, they'll just find someone who's the 2nd best, but will do it for less pay and benefits.

It's called reality, it's what workers who are against unions refuse to live in.
>>
>>276796
When two people come to table with grossly different amounts of bargaining power, one of them is going to come away with a better deal than the other.
>>
>>276798
Is that the case though?
If what you say is true, why are so many workers choosing not to join unions, and why are union memberships at the lowest level yet?
My theory is that thanks to the internet, and the prevalence of information, workers are able to find better wages, and that rather than negotiating directly for higher wages, they self select to companies that are commission based. I.E. someone who works retail at a store that sells say, Kitchen Supplies, will stay at that job that is an hourly salary, because that is a higher salary. Meanwhile, a top performer in sales would move to something that is more lucrative, but entirely commissions based, like working as a real estate agent, or car salesman, with 0 salary but a 2% commission, or starting their own company.
>>
>>276761
So the union gets to extort money from every worker, regardless of whether the worker wants to be in the union or not? Sounds like the mob.
>>
>>276803
It's a condition of working at a unionized workplace. You may choose to work at a non-unionized workplace if you don't like it.
>>
>>276801
You are viewing it as though the corporation is facing the employee on the other side of the table, and not every single other corporation that could be hiring them.
This is why cartels collapse, because one company thinks that this employee brings in $80,000 a year in revenue, we will pay him $50,000 a year, and another company will offer him $60,000 because money is money, and they can poach all the star employees from other firms and make millions.
>>
>>276804
But that unionization is imposed by government force. If I live in a state where all the electricians are unionized, if I want some electrical wire laid in my bedroom, and I hire a guy who isn't in the electrician's union but consents to the rate I am offering to pay him, the government will step in between what two consenting adults are doing in the privacy of my bedroom.
>>
>>276805
Companies often don't poach from each other because the end result is that they'll have to pay everyone what they're worth, and it'd be better for everyone involved (except the workers) if each company's $80,000 employee was being paid $50,000 rather than $70,000.

In an ideal competitive marketplace, this wouldn't occur, but we don't live in an ideal competitive marketplace.
>>
>>276804
So the union gets to strongarm people into paying them if they want to work? What about situations where the person has no other choice for employment? Sounds like a corporation telling its employees if they want a raise they should find work elsewhere.
>>
>>276759
This is what is known as a slippery slope fallacy. Being able to choose to not be in a union will not destroy the unions. Unions are a thing which should spring up when needed, they shouldn't be monoliths with their own agendas beyond getting workers better conditions. Bargaining should be taught in schools and people should be as independent as they can.
>>
>>276807
>But that unionization is imposed by government force.
I'm not aware of laws that compel unionized workplaces.

>>276809
>What about situations where the person has no other choice for employment?
Then this person is going to get roundly fucked by his workplace whether or not that workplace is a union shop or not.
>>
>>276808
Yes, because the information economy changed. >>276802
Millenials change jobs every 3 years. Gallup found that 60% of millennials say they are open to a different job opportunity -- 15 percentage points higher than the percentage of non-millennial workers who say the same. Millennials are also the most willing to act on better opportunities: 36% report that they will look for a job with a different organization in the next 12 months if the job market improves.
Instead of hiring people to poach employees, they just post an ad on Ziprecruiter, and the employees poach themselves
>>
>>276811
>that person is fucked either way
Better his fellow workers run a train over him then the boss? Why not have the worker work and if he decides at a later point that he needs to hand with fellow workers in the union then he can at a later date? Why do unions require constant dues like insurance agencies?
>>
>>276812
How about the labor market for non-millenials? And people saying that they'll look for work is very different from them actually looking for work. Tons of people resolve to exercise more next year. Very few people these people actually do.

>>276813
>Better his fellow workers run a train over him then the boss?
Workers have less incentive to run over their fellow workers than their boss, who has a direct incentive to screw him: every single dollar that the worker doesn't get, the employer does.

>Why do unions require constant dues like insurance agencies?
If you don't want to pay the dues, you don't get to be in the union. Unions are set up this way to avoid free riders.
>>
>>276810
Except that's exactly what's happens when you weaken and bust up unions. Read the article
>
Economists have been closely studying the economic impact, and none have found any evidence to back up the claim that right-to-work laws boost the economy. At best, the laws slightly increase the number of businesses in the state, but they don’t really benefit workers. At worst, these laws lower average wages for all workers after they are passed. The latter is the most likely outcome, based on the research.


>>276802
>Is that the case though?
Yes. More people are being incorrectly taught your way of thinking of going at it alone, and as a result, you're seeing the suppression of wages and cut benefits across the board for decades. You're seeing a race to the bottom as more and more people don't join unions. It's extremely clear that less people are unionized, the more income inequality becomes apparent.
https://www.epi.org/news/union-membership-declines-inequality-rises/

>>276812
Also Millennials change jobs all the time because corporations show zero loyalty to their workers and will sack you in order to get out of paying benefits or a higher wage as you stay with the company. There is no reason to compel someone to stay with a company long term since the moment they can find a way to squeeze a bit more profit, they'll stab you in the back. As a result Millenials are only looking short term in what gives them the most money before they inevitably do get replaced.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/management/is-workplace-loyalty-dead-in-the-age-of-the-millennial/article36675517/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/entrepreneursorganization/2017/09/20/millennials-loyalty-and-corporate-culture/#fe6d1b882d4a
>>
>>276814
>workers have less incentive
While potentially true for small unions, how does that work with large unions like Teamsters which may not interact with the average worker who comprises the entry level positions?

>if you don't want to be extorted for dues, you can't work here
Why do they need so many dues all the time, even when not bargaining?
>>
>>276815
>>Yes. More people are being incorrectly taught your way of thinking of going at it alone, and as a result, you're seeing the suppression of wages and cut benefits across the board for decades. You're seeing a race to the bottom as more and more people don't join unions. It's extremely clear that less people are unionized, the more income inequality becomes apparent.
>https://www.epi.org/news/union-membership-declines-inequality-rises/
I disagree.
https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/World-Poverty-Since-1820.png
Evidence supports that the decline in wages, is caused by foreign competition, and the emergence of China and other countries, that are competing with US workers.
So inequality is going away, as the poorest in the world are getting more money.
>>
>>276817
>While potentially true for small unions, how does that work with large unions like Teamsters which may not interact with the average worker who comprises the entry level positions?
I don't see how this changes the incentives. Forget unions entirely for a second: if you had the choice between one of your coworkers setting your salary, and your employer setting your salary, which would you choose? It's pretty fucking obvious your employer has a huge incentive to make your salary go down and your coworker doesn't (unless he thinks he gets the rest of the budget dedicated to his salary exactly or something).

>Why do they need so many dues all the time, even when not bargaining?
Presumably for the production of a war chest.
>>
>>276818
You're pointing to one factor and claiming that applies to everything, which is intellectually dishonest of you globalization is one of the factors, but the decline in unions and the financial and corporate sections hoarding money as a result are still the larger reasons for wage decline and stagnation.
https://www.epi.org/publication/causes-of-wage-stagnation/
https://hbr.org/2017/10/why-wages-arent-growing-in-america
>>
If you don't want to be apart of a union, you should be required to also give up everything they fought to give you. (At least the ones that affect the people against Unions on 4chan.)

>Weekends
>All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
>Paid Vacation
>FMLA
>Sick Leave
>Social Security
>Minimum Wage
>Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
>8-Hour Work Day
>Overtime Pay
>Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
>40 Hour Work Week
>Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
Unemployment Insurance
>Pensions
>Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
>Employer Health Care Insurance
>Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
>Wrongful Termination Laws
>Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
>Whistleblower Protection Laws
>Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
>Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
>Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
>Holiday Pay
>Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
>Privacy Rights
>Military Leave
>The Right to Strike

Because none of those happened without Unions pushing for them.
>>
>>276820
https://www.cato.org/projects/humanprogress/cost-of-living
>>
>>276819
>who would you want setting your wages
I would prefer to set my own or find a job which already has wages which match what I feel I contribute to the company. What about a situation where the union is stratified into a seniority system with the most senior members getting perks relative to their seniority? Would they not then have an incentive to fuck over the less senior members in order to better horde the resources to themselves, similar to a corporation?

>War chest
Why do they need a war chest? Shouldn't they only need to compensate the wages of the workers actively bargaining while the rest work as normal? Why have a slush fund which invites corruption?
>>
>>276823
>Koch Brothers think tank
>Products are cheaper so wage stagnation and the massive increase in inequality don't matter
That's a terrible excuse for the income inequality and the rise in poverty in the US.
https://povertyusa.org/facts
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/03/01/poverty-in-america
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/us/america-poverty-un-report/index.html
>>
>>276826
It should also be noted that the social safety net is what keeps the poverty system from getting worse or is helping to lift people out of poverty, but groups like Cato advocate gutting the system.

>>276825
This sort of 'go it alone' attitude is why we're fucked as a nation and so piss easy to divide up and conquer.
>>
>>276830
If you are trying to shame me for not wanting to be extorted by coworkers in order to do my job, it's not going to work.
>>
>>276826
Cato Institute is as legitimate as the Economic Policy Institute. It's one think tank vs another.
>>
>Right to work helps wor-
http://www.bctgm.org/action-center/truth-about-right-to-work-for-less/
https://www.epi.org/blog/new-study-confirms-that-right-to-work-laws-are-associated-with-significantly-lower-wages/
https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2018/08/06/study-right-to-work-laws-lower-wages

The best the corporate America can say is either 'Well they can still join a union' or like >>276823 tries to point out fallacious argument about cost of living (And ignores the fact that it only applies to lower quality of life states like the South.)

It boils down to the fact that Missouri, a red state, voted 2 to 1 to do what's in their economic best interest and that was to reject Right to Work because like trickle down economics, it only harms the middle and working class.
>>
>>276836
Then the Cato and Heritage foundation should be able to have the raw data to dismiss the findings that prove that Right to work suppresses wages.
https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/82934.pdf
>>
Also, you had conservatives who are not beholden to corporations, come out against right to work because of how it would hurt the state economically.
http://www.joplinglobe.com/opinion/columns/timothy-wies-prop-a-lowers-wages-would-hurt-economy/article_f00ad9a3-c86a-5f85-b3e5-a9f172a67798.html
>>
I’m in a union in transportation, and compare to non-union counterparts in my field I make way more money. Anybody who argues against unions is either management or retarded. Sadly if the right would get on board with unions they would have a huge voting block to rely on for years for sadly the left has not down much for unions in the last 20 years
>>
>>276839
>>276838
I'd also like to note I have yet to find any Missouri newspaper that gave an endorsement to the proposition and they all make the same justification for rejecting right to work, it lowers wages and benefits.

>>276840
What company do you work for and the name of the non-union counterparts?
>>
>>276841
I work for a class 1 railroad, and the counter parts would be short lines that do switching work and a variety of different operations. All class 1s are unionized and we mostly all make at least 26 per hour(BNSF) while the CP is at 48 per hour, a short line is smaller operators are at about 14 where I live.
>>
>>276803
>So the union gets to extort money from every worker, regardless of whether the worker wants to be in the union or not? Sounds like the mob.

Sounds like if you want the contract that the union negotiated, you should have to pay for the costs of negotiating with a corporation. If you think working somewhere else is easy, then working for somewhere without a union ought to be just as easy.

Corporations are united by their very nature. You can't work for another manager if your current one won't pay you enough. Unionizing workers restores the balance.
>>
>>276842
I don't have enough information to draw a complete picture but from what you've said, it sounds like you're trying to compare Class I to Class III which require you to live in less desirable locations because as you say, they're short lines that mainly go to smaller or pure industrial towns.
>>
>>276845
This anon gets it.
>>
>>276842
>>276846
As for the BNSF, if you're apart of the BLET they fighting to keep the BNSF from trying to consolidate your collective bargaining agreement to fuck you over and put people at risk by sending engineers out before they're familiar with the routes.
https://teamster.org/news/2018/03/blet-sues-halt-bnsf-railway-abrogation-contracts


Part a union's job is not only get you benfits, but to keep corporations from taking away the ones you already have.
>>
>>276846
No, there are plenty of short lines near me, 4 off the top of my head in 30 miles and I’m in the Midwest. Not to mention we also do industry work all the time .I would agree that the scope of a class 1 to others is different but many short lines are at low operating cost and from my understand is true of a lot of railroads of all sizes. Many short lines can unionize but from understanding there is easily replaced labor for short lines
>>
>>276845
I don't work in a unionized job and am doing just fine. It actually was pretty easy to find one which suited my needs. Incidentally I am also a member of a union which is wasting time bargaining for things which I do not agree with and yet have no way to change the direction they take despite them supposedly representing me.
>>
>>276849
Also the union’s job protecting you when rules are broken and shit hits the fan. People getting fired for anything and no reason is a common, thanks to unions, you have protection
>>
>>276853
And I think this a good example anon, unions can rely on the status que, it’s why it’s good to push your union, get involved. A union is only as good as its members, if you don’t work together then you might as well be nonunion.
>>
>>276851
From what I see, Class 3 and shorts lines have a lot higher turn over rate which is why you're seeing BNSF give the signing bonus (But you have to stay with them for 3 years, or pay it back.)
https://www.railwayage.com/freight/union-pacific-bnsf-25k-signing-bonuses-to-woo-job-seekers/

I haven't found the information, so correct me if I'm wrong, But I'm making an assumption that Class I doesn't suffer from that instability. Which would explain the income disparity because your group doesn't suffer from high turnovers, which means corporate aren't desperate to lure people into staying. Which would mean your union isn't being incompetent, but knowing what it can get and not overextending, while at the same time, defending the pay and benefits you have right now since BNSF is looking to cut back because your part of the market is stable and they want to squeeze out more profit.
>>
>>276857
This, people seem to think that unions are run by mob bosses when they are held accountable to their members like any other democratic group. If you want things to change, you got to push for them instead of throwing up your hands and saying you quit.

I had a summer job at UPS where I was a Teamster and they went out of their way to not only educate me on what they did, but how I could participate. I also hit that sweet spot when an election was being held, so I got to hear from all the people running.

This shit is also really important >>276854 because USP had me loading 3 trucks by myself and no supervisor or help during package time, so when the inevitable fuck up happened, the union stepped in to keep me from being suspended and then made sure I wasn't put in that sort of situation again.
It's anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt if you're a skeptic.
>>
>>276857
Let me be frank with you. I am a member of the UC student workers union through work I did with them in the past. I am not affiliated with them any longer, but still get emails from them from time to time. As part of their recent bargaining, they want to force the university to take a firm stance on declaring campuses a sanctuary for illegal immigrants and to deny federal ICE agents. This is just one of the many demands which I strongly object to but know there is no way that I would be able to speak out against if I want to keep my job.
>>
>>276840
Or maybe they are a customer, and don't want to pay that much for transportation?
>>
>>276863
>Fighting against the gestapo
I don't see the problem there,

But to look at it pragmatically, if they have a blanket rule saying no cooperation with ICE, it doesn't put their workers in the awkward situation of having to decide if they should hand over information to them, and thus reducing liability. You can complain about sanctuaries, but you can't complain about keeping your employees from taking shit from the Feds.
>>
>>276858
A lot of class 1 have signing bonuses right now, but BNSF for example is notorious for furloughing when it slows down, all railroads do it. And the railroad industry in general is chaotic and unstable (trump’s tariffs as example). On a local level my union guys are salt of the earth, good guys. But what are you exactly asking whether my union is competent? Cause compared to the last 30 years the contracts have only gotten better thanks to collective bargaining by my union. Just back in the 2000s, guys at my job made like half.
>>
>>276837
Right to work goes back to freedom of speech.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=ALL
Look how much money is entering politics, all through Unions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_JGRpqln8E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGfa9pDYRPs
Unions cover up child abuse, and take away your liberty, by compelling you to donate massive amounts to SUPERPACs you disagree with politically
>>
>>276865
You pay to transport your goods rather rail or truck and with mass goods, trucks isn’t cost effective.
>>
>>276863
You are entitled to your opinion and I can understand (I disagree with that particular issue) but I get it. Unions are made up of people and your never gonna find one that is perfect. But like I said without getting involved and voicing your opinion the union has no way of knowing your opinion. I work with both extremes and we can still find places where we can agree.
>>
https://object.cato.org/images/mccluskey-testimony-pic1-big.jpg
Teachers Unions are arguing against taxpayers.
They increase the cost 375% since the 70s, with no commensurate increase in test scores.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQJpIvbLrd0
Teachers Unions protect child molestors, and get the worst people their jobs back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassignment_centers
This one I heard from NPR. NYC education department has these reassignment centers, 13 buildings they are renting out across the city, where they pay 600+ teachers, to sit and do nothing. They are literally sitting in desks, not teaching students, not allowed to do anything. They are paid full salaries, to not do work, and the education board is spending big bucks to rent the buildings too.
>>
>>276878
>>276873
>project veritas
Show me a source that's legitimate. Because they certainly aren't.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/james-okeefe/546869/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?noredirect=on
https://www.vox.com/2017/11/27/16707410/conservative-group-fake-roy-moore-allegation-washington-post
>>
>>276871
It sounded like you were complaining about how you were being paid less than your non union counterparts, so I was trying to figure out why there was the disparity. Sounds like you're happy though and even with the gap, they're still doing a good job for you.
>>
>>276879
Okay, explain to me how they are illegitimate.
They do undercover journalism.
They succeeded in exposing CNN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2G360HrSAs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dRGMME4VnM
They failed in exposing the Washington Post. How does an Exposé that doesn't reveal anything make someone illegitimate? That sounds to me like a failed story. One they didn't publish, unlike the stories by ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News that they put out, and then had to retract.
>>
>>276882
https://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/09/12593/james-okeefe-cronies-unveiled-attempted-sting-cmd?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=af9235dd-2f91-4026-b70f-e420d6b265bf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012702917.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-npr-video-and-political-dirty-tricks/2011/03/17/ABbyMym_story.html
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2011/03/lawyer-for-ex-acorn-employee-james-okeefe-cant-break-the-law-because-he-says-hes-a-journalist.php?page=1
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/01/arrested_james_okeefe_acorn_video_boy.php
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/james-okeefe-andrew-breitbart-videos
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/nj_teacher_punked_by_okeefe_i_felt_like_i_was_rape.php
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/ambush_filmmaker_okeefe_tried_to_punk_seduce_cnn_r.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/01/26/ST2010012604182.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/us/12okeefe.html
https://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/01/12714/eric-okeefe-james-okeefe-mike-ellis
https://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/08/12575/cmd-and-target-attack-journalism
http://gawker.com/james-okeefe-is-getting-desperate-as-hell-part-mcmxvii-1619338668?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/04/james-okeefe-undercover-sting-profile-feature-2018-218015
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_O%27Keefe

They're known for forging and deceptively manipulating evidence. It doesn't help that O'Keefe defending a child molester, and in the process strengthened WaPo's claims because they were able to successfully sniff out the plant he sent to undermine them. O'Keefe is a clear partisan hack who's not interested in the truth, but undermining the political opponents he's paid to. He should be in jail, but the Republicans bailed him out of that.
>>
>>276885
You're just throwing a wall of links at me as a way of trying to refute he's a journalist. But he's a journalist.
https://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/09/12593/james-okeefe-cronies-unveiled-attempted-sting-cmd?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=af9235dd-2f91-4026-b70f-e420d6b265bf
This article talks about an attempted sting, in the opening, then spends the rest of the article talking about someone who isn't James O'keefe as a means of attacking him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012702917.html?hpid=topnews
> Conservative supporters say O'Keefe's newest operation occurred just days ago. Federal prosecutors allege that he helped carry out a plot Monday in which two partners impersonated telephone repairmen to enter the downtown New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). O'Keefe, 25, waited inside the office and used his cellphone to record his two colleagues saying that the senator's phone was not receiving calls, according to charges unsealed Tuesday.
> Opponents of health-care reform legislation had complained this month that they repeatedly heard busy signals when they called Landrieu's office to register their views.
Again, I don't see what's objectionable with this. That sounds like journalism to me, people were complaining that she wasn't picking up her phone, and they investigated it, like journalists.
>>
>>276888
I'm just posting the the long history of why he can't be trusted. Also unless he's lucky and can forge and manipulate the evidence where it's not put under scrutiny until after the fact (Like ACORN), they tend to blow up in his face where only the right wing intentionally choose to ignore the clear evidence contradicting his claims.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-accidentally-stings-himself
https://www.businessinsider.com/james-okeefe-project-veritas-sting-fails-2017-11
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/james-okeefe/546911/
https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/09/29/teachers-union-james-okeefe-243323

>I don't see what's objectionable about wire tapping and giving false pretenses to enter a federal building.
Educate yourself to the law. This isn't a 'I don't think it's illegal, so it isn't.'
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1036
>>
>>276885
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-npr-video-and-political-dirty-tricks/2011/03/17/ABbyMym_story.html
Can't access this one, not giving WaPo ad money.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2011/03/lawyer-for-ex-acorn-employee-james-okeefe-cant-break-the-law-because-he-says-hes-a-journalist.php?page=1
404s.
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/01/arrested_james_okeefe_acorn_video_boy.php
404s
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/nj-teacher-punked-by-o-keefe-i-felt-like-i-was-raped-video
This is just a clickbait headline, because the person was facing consequences.
Are you really arguing that a teacher that called one of her students a "nigger", and then proceeded to only get a 9 day suspension, and got denied a raise?
>>
>>276885
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ambush-filmmaker-o-keefe-tried-to-punk-seduce-cnn-reporter
>When she arrived at his house in Maryland, she was approached by Izzy Santa, the executive director of Project Veritas, O’Keefe’s investigative journalism project. Santa told Boudreau that O’Keefe actually wanted to meet with the reporter on his boat, which he had set up into a “pleasure palace,” where he would try to seduce her in front of hidden cameras.

>Boudreau left.
A failed sting. But he succeeded with the Russia thing so whatever.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/01/26/ST2010012604182.html
Goes back to Landrieau. Was journalism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/us/12okeefe.html
>The reporter in disguise has largely faded from mainstream American journalism. But the tactic is alive and well in the hands of passionate partisans.
The article is just complaining about how James O'keefe isn't being a corporate mouthpiece, and is actually getting information, as opposed to repeating politicians talking points. O'keefe is going back to classical journalism, like the expose by Nellie Bly where she exposed the conditions of mental asylums, by pretending to be mentally ill and getting checked in.
https://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/01/12714/eric-okeefe-james-okeefe-mike-ellis
This is just exposing a donor of O'keefe.
>>
>>276890
They didn't attempt to wiretap her though.
They entered her office under false pretenses, then called her phone, to see if it would answer.
The security officers found no wiretapping equipment on them.
>>
Anyways. I can't go through all the links. Gotta get ready for work.
>>
>>276891
>>276892
>He can't bypass the paywall
>He thinks WaPo operates off clicks
>Claiming 404 when they work
I'll humor you and give you another link, but only because it makes him look worse because he was forced to pay out for his slander.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/08/james-okeefe-pays-100000-to-acorn-employee-he-smeared-conservative-media-yawns/
>A failed sting were right about CNN
About that...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-you-dont-see-in-okeefe-video-may-be-as-important-as-what-you-do/2017/06/28/dcb67446-5b7c-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html?noredirect=on
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/opinions/much-ado-about-nothing-burger-van-jones/index.html
>The article is just complaining about how James O'keefe isn't being a corporate mouthpiece, and is actually getting information, as opposed to repeating politicians talking points.
Except O'keefe is a clear partisan because of his selective editing which shows he's not interesting in journalism otherwise he'd release what he has without his bias.
>This is just exposing a donor of O'keefe.
It exposes who funds him and how he's an attack dog for the right.

>>276894
You mean you're shilling for a propagandist network... for free?
>>
Oh and as for your attack on teacher unions, it's already backfiring on O'keefe again where the union will be expose him.
https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-teachers-union-project-veritas-sting-video-gross-misrepresentation/q8fTujMMV2sIwQhhqpja7N/
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/23/project-veritas-lawsuit-american-federation-of-teachers/
>>
>>276845
This anon gets it, if you don't want to apart of a union and pay the dues, find another job that's non union instead of being a free loader.
>>
>>276880
Yeah I’m saying, I get paid way more then my non-union counter part
>>
>>276743
>anti-family values
What the fuck does that mean? I hate this dogwhistling bullshit. Does it mean they don't hate gays?
>>
>>276835
>I'm just gonna go at it alone guys, I don't need my coworkers extortion me!
>gets buttfucked by megacorps
>doesn't even realize it
>votes repub again
>>
Fuck this whole argument about mandatory dues. How about this; you can choose not to pay for the union, and the union isn't required to advocate for you. You bargain and all that shit on your own. This way there's no free riders and the conservatards nothing about their free speech are happy. Why can't we do that? Why is the argument always about mandatory dues instead of making it so unions don't have to support free riders?
>>
>>276965
Because it still plays into the corporate plan of divide and conquer. A corporation would intentionally, and temporarily give better pay and benefits to non union members as part of a scheme to break up the union, and when that happens, they would not only roll back every they give, but then reduce to levels lower than what the unions originally got. Don't like it? Plenty of other jobs out there.

It's a simple 'Join or Die' situation.
>>
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/missouri-labor-unions-707982/
The more you read into the back story of just how Republicans stacked the deck against working Americans and working Americans still prevailed really makes this a feel good story.
>>
>>276990
And then the retard joins the union and gets union benefits. Honestly, if you're too retarded and politically blinded to see why a union is in your interests, you don't deserve a union anyway.
>>
>>276965
>How about this; you can choose not to pay for the union, and the union isn't required to advocate for you.
That's fine, people want that yet unions cry and lobby congress with billions of dollars, more than any other entity, to remove that choice from people.

Also, didn't SCOTUS already rule Unions can't force people to pay dues? Or was that only for government workers? If so, why is the left trying to obstruct jurisprudence set down by the Supreme Court?
>>
>>277015
The Republican Supreme Court's ruling was actually narrow, similar to their ruling that allows Christians to discriminate against people they don't like.
>>
>>277016
>The Republican Supreme Court's ruling was actually narrow, similar to their ruling that allows Christians to discriminate against people they don't like
Doesn't matter if it was "narrow", what matters is that's what the ruling was. Why are you trying to undermine a legitimate ruling?
>>
>>277024
Actually it does matter if the ruling is only for that particular case or cases. Why are you pushing Judicial activism so hard?
>>
>>277025
>Actually it does matter if the ruling is only for that particular case or cases.
Actually it doesn't, because that's how the ruling went. It could have easily gone 5-4 in favor of unions, in which case you'd be arguing it was legitimate and you'd be telling people who disagree with you to "stop crying about it being a 5-4 ruling". But it didn't, and here you are crying about it being illegitimate because it was a 5-4 ruling.

Maybe in a few decades you might be able to drag SCOTUS back left in time to re-hear the issue. You can always hope that RBG doesn't drop and give Trump yet another SCOTUS pick until then!
>>
>>277028
>Republican Supreme Court
>Ruling against corporate interests
I needed a good chuckle at your delusions anon. Also yes, it was a narrow ruling, otherwise the Republicans would have said the proposition itself was invalid or they'd be working to already undermine the clear majority of Missouri voters.
>>
>>277030
>I needed a good chuckle at your delusions anon
Delusions would be thinking I said anything about a Republican supreme court "ruling against" corporate interests, that's not what I said and you know it.

>Also yes, it was a narrow ruling, otherwise the Republicans would have said the proposition itself was invalid
Like the Democrats did?
>or they'd be working to already undermine the clear majority of Missouri voters.
Just like the Democrats are working to undermine jurisprudence set down by SCOTUS by working to defeat right-to-work legislation based on that same jurisprudence, right?

This whole "accuse your opponent of what you're doing" thing is getting kinda old, man. Why can't you just respect the court's ruling and allow people to have a choice?
>>
>>277033
>It could have easily gone 5-4 in favor of unions
If you're going to lie, at least wait a few posts before denying it.

>Just like like the democrats did
Citation needed. Also, a gerrymandered majority is not the same as a proposition. So you can't even get that right.
>>
>>277033
>>277028
>>277024
>>277015
That ruling only applied to pubic unions you dumbass.
Republicans were trying to gut private ones in Missouri before they got slapped down.
>>
>>277038
>f you're going to lie, at least wait a few posts before denying it.
That's... not a lie. You yourself said it was a narrow ruling, narrow rulings could have gone it favor of the losing party. That's why they're called narrow rulings.

>Just like like the democrats did
>Citation needed
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-janus-case-government-unions-democrats-devastated-republicans-giddy
>Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday panned the Supreme Court’s ruling Wednesday that dealt a devastating blow to public sector unions, as Republicans cheered the decision as a victory for free speech.
>Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., called the decision a “loss for working people and yet another win for corporate special interests.”
>Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats, called the decision "a direct assault on working families all over America."

>Also, a gerrymandered majority is not the same as a proposition.
How the fuck do you gerrymander the Supreme Court? Is that your new excuse?
Also, how is crying "gerrymandering" not attempting to invalidate the ruling BTW? :)

>>277044
>That ruling only applied to pubic unions you dumbass.
I never said it didn't. I did explicitly ask if the ruling only applied to government workers, but I never got an answer.

>Republicans were trying to gut private ones in Missouri before they got slapped down.
Not to worry, private unions should and will eventually be brought onto equal footing with public unions. Equity is important, is it not?
>>
>>277046
Now you're lying again, Narrow ruling doesn't mean 5-4, it means it's not applied to everything. As was already said, the Republican Supreme Court's ruling only was to destroy Public Sector Unions, and not private ones which is the point of Right to Work Laws.

Nothing you quoted in your article is about the Missouri proposition which is what we're talking about.

In fact you're either incompetent or stupid on purpose if you think this isn't about the Missouri proposition and about the Republican Supreme Court.

But if you also want to talk about propositions and gerrymandering, Republicans are attempting to knock a proposition off the ballot that would curb the practice.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/lawsuit-seeks-to-knock-gerrymandering-issue-off-missouri-s-november/article_f5828d88-63ce-5666-975e-b8cb80e04d9d.html
>>
>>277070
>Now you're lying again, Narrow ruling doesn't mean 5-4, it means it's not applied to everything.
>>wahhh lying wahhhhh
You are aware of the colloquial application of the word "narrow" to a 5-4 ruling yes? The context of everything I've said has been around that usage of the word narrow. Words have duel meanings dpending on context. Is this a lie or are you just butthurt about SCOTUS ruling against you for decades to come?

>Republican Supreme Court's ruling only was to destroy Public Sector Unions
How does not allowing unions to force people to pay dues destroy them? If union are so great, why don't people want to pay dues?

>Nothing you quoted in your article is about the Missouri proposition which is what we're talking about.
Yes, and I was talking about the previous ruling on SCOTUS.

>But if you also want to talk about propositions and gerrymanderin
I'd still like to talk about how you gerrymander the Supreme Court, as you claimed earlier
>>
>>277076
So you admit you're intentionally misrepresenting what we're talking about because you did't follow the Okay.

The rest of your points are either poorly constructed strawmen (gerrymandering, which I never said about the courts) or just completely missing the point because you have zero merit.
>>
>>277076
>You are aware of the colloquial application of the word "narrow" to a 5-4 ruling yes? The context of everything I've said has been around that usage of the word narrow. Words have duel meanings dpending on context. Is this a lie or are you just butthurt about SCOTUS ruling against you for decades to come?
The word "narrow" has TWO separate and completely independent definitions EVEN IN THE CONTEXT of Supreme Court rulings. From a legal standpoint, Masterpiece was a "narrow decision" even though it was 7-2. The colloquial definition is stupid. Use "narrowly decided" for 5-4s.
>>
>>277114
"narrowly decided" isn't any better of a term

the whole thing is butts
>>
>>276731
So workers are forced to pay union dues if they want to work. Instead of feeding billionaire CEOs, they make the billionaire mob bosses in charge of the unions rich.

All while the workers who actually earned the money live in poverty.

What a victory for the workers!
>>
>>277181
>they make the billionaire mob bosses in charge of the unions rich.
Name a single person who became a billionaire of the back of a union.
>>
>>277181
Im in a union and i get paid $25 an hour, the union takes $45 every 2 weeks from my check. I wouldnt have half that wage if I wasnt in the union and that isnt including my free healthcare, my pension or my annuity. Nobody gets rich being the head of a union most of that money gets put towards the strike fund and keeping the lights on at the union hall.
>>
>>277181
>Billionaire union mob bosses
This is what a /pol/ppet actually believes
>>
>>277025
If you have a problem with judicial activism, why don't we abolish their rulings on Roe Vs Wade, or on Gay Marriage?
>>
>>276755
As someone who lived in a shitty right to work state, the alternative is far better.
>>
>>276796
What if there is no one else to walk to?
>>
>>277199
Because that's not judicial activism. That's correctly apply the law to all people.
Microscopic goo that might become a human, but is currently material for an omelet is not a human and deserves more rights than a woman, and religion shouldn't be the justification to discriminate.

Although if you want to go down that slippery slope, we stop the Republican Supreme Court's judicial activism like Lochner v. New York, United States v. Lopez and the most pinnacle of judicial activism, Bush v Gore. And more recent ones that were clearly poltiical motivated like Citzen's United.
http://harvardlpr.com/2015/04/23/1773/
>>
>>277245
Did you just say that you put aborted fetuses into your omelettes?
>>
>>276760
you just threw 2 buzzwords out that and took a shit. neither of them even come close to translating here.
unions protect people. the literal phrase "right to work" is as meaningless as "Patriot" Act. intentionaly misleading. classic republican tactic, tell em the opposite, keep repeating it, they will too.
>fake news
>>
>>277266
You don't? Good source of vitamins and minerals
>>
>>277271
Yes, yes. Just like describing illegal immigrants as Dreamers. You are essentially calling out politicians for creating memes to control the public perception. While laudable, I feel you are being too narrow minded with your belief that only republicans engage in this behavior
>>
>>276755
If you join a union job you know what to expect. Why should unions be forced to cover people that aren't even paying them? Unionization gets you better wages, benefits, and can protect you from being fired without cause. There's a reason unionization exists.
>>
>>277316
So what if I want to work in a car factory and not be a union job at union salaries or benefits?
>>
>>276729
Everything you show in your picture contributes to how ungodly expensive it is living in and buying products made in the US
>>
>>277473
But that flies in the face of every argument against creating a living wage because mum cost of living.
>>
>>277271
Protects child molestors.
>>276873
>>
>>277245
Babies are people.
That's not applying the law to all people.
That's stripping the protection from all people.
>>
>>277507
They're alive, but fetuses are not people according to the law, as I understand it.
>>
>>277511
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
>>
>>277511
Most countries agree that you start having human rights as soon as you are born not before, but that the unborn fetus (nasciturus) has a few rights as if he was already born. Most importantly is the ability to inherit, but apart from that countries differ in the amount of rights
>>
>>277513
>>277514
Yeah, they have some rights. But less than born humans, because they're less-than-people.
>>
>>277517
Because they don't have full mental capacities, yet.
So, let's use the reverse example.
You have someone with alzheimers, or dementia, a parent.
Is it legal for you to murder your parent if they have alzheimers or dementia?
They have less rights than other humans, they can't sign contracts, or drive cars. Does that make it legal to take a knife and cut them up and murder them?
>>
>>277513
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Welfare_Act_of_1966
>>
>>277517
>>277511
Fetuses have no mental capacity
Sleeping people have no mental capacity.
If you don't intervene, the fetus will be born and have mental capacity.
If you don't intervene, the sleeping person will wake up, and have mental capacity.
When will we legalize the murder of people who are asleep?
>>
>>277468
>what if I want to work at a car factory but for lower pay, longer hours, less safety precautions and less/no benefits

This is some backwards ass "freedom" logic. What's next? You want the freedom to buy eggs infected with salmonella? You want the freedom to be sold a car that leaks carbon monoxide? How about the freedom to drink lead-tainted water?
>>
>>277523
http://www.aei.org/publication/thomas-sowell-on-the-cruelty-of-minimum-wage-laws/
Because right now, I can't get hired at the car factory, because it's all union buddies hiring their cousins and nephews.
The alternative is 0$ an hour of not having a job.
>>
>>277522
When a whole other person has to be entirely responsible for that person, day, and night, actively sacrificing parts of their body, mental capacity, finances, and prospects, to keep that sleeping person alive until they can wake up again. That was easy. Next question.
>>
>>277525
So like a parent with dementia.
>>
>>277524
A lolotarian think take whining about the problems created by a loltairan economy.
LOL, you can't make this shit up.
>>
>>277526
they can be given to the state... which is arguably worse than death. You are not legally responsible for your parent, if that's what you're trying to argue.
>>
>>277520
The child can remove them from life support, or give them to the state. If someone else kills your dementia-dad without your consent, then it's a crime. Just like of someone else kills your fetus without your consent, it's a crime.
>>277522
As >>277525 says, the difference is that the fetus is leeching resources from the mother. If the mother doesn't consent to have it there, the fetus is violating the NAP. Therefore, it is moral to abort it.
>>
For fucks sake people. The article is about labor unions, not abortion. How are the two related? And I refuse to accept maternity leave as a valid answer.
>>
>>277316
> Why should unions be forced to cover people that aren't even paying them?
Why should people be forced to pay union fees in order to work? At the very least, unions should be voluntary. If you want to pay union dues, you get union benefits. If not, you negotiate on your own.

Union shops only exist because if unions had to sell their services on merit, they'd soon be sent packing like the frauds they are.

> Unionization gets you better wages
Unions make companies less competitive and drive up the costs of doing business.

> can protect you from being fired without cause
Unions protect deadbeats who should be let go, so that people who want to work can.

> There's a reason unionization exists.
Yes. If someone forced you to surrender money from each paycheck with a gun, they'd be in jail. Or the IRS.
>>
>>277615
Going to back up any of these claims Cato, or are you just going to throw around negative stereotypes?
>>
>>277615
Wow to be this retarded
>Union shops only exist because if unions had to sell their services on merit, they'd soon be sent packing like the frauds they are.
Unions exist because of robber barons exploiting labor and paying shit and in terrible conditions.

>Unions make companies less competitive and drive up the costs of doing business.
And argument can be made that it does drive up cost but also creates more wealth in the community and can build solidarity between labor and management. An example would you really trust your employees to keep the best interest of the company if you pay them like dirt and treat them like shit?

>Unions protect deadbeats who should be let go, so that people who want to work can.
Not only are you retarded but also you must think you have never made a mistake. Shit happens and even if it’s not your fault, a nonunion employee is way more replaceable, because telling you from experience, if it’s not managements fault, it’s yours.

>Yes. If someone forced you to surrender money from each paycheck with a gun, they'd be in jail. Or the IRS.

It’s amazing people like you don’t realize it’s basically paying money for leverage to better you financial situation. Is it spent right all the time? No, but it’s a hell of a lot better trying to negotiate yourself, because to let you in on a secret, your not that special.
>>
your feel when this cartoon was right

USA went from massive producer and innovator to the shithole it is today.

the rave about makeing online systems that send thot and cat pictures around.

Also why btc >>>>> social media entire market cap.
>>
>>277524
>being this much of a classcuck
>>
>>276796
Liberals cant comprehend doing shit for themselves. They always need a union or big daddy government there to hold their hands.
>>276822
> some group did something good years ago so you must suck their dick no matter how corrupt they get

Unironically kill yourself you fucking cuck. I guess all women should kiss the ass of these batshit insane feminist because feminism actually did good decades ago
>>
The main reason i see union failing in America is that they prioritize liberal politicking to defending workers' rights.

In my country most unions are dead. The ones that are still alive, and are very successful, are strictly apolitical ones that only care about getting good deals for their members.
>>
>>276729
its not that I'm oppose to unions, but making them non voluntary doesn't sit well with me.
>>
>>277631
>USA went from massive producer and innovator to the shithole it is today.

That is mostly the consequence of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act.
>>
>>277643
>Ask to back up his claims
>Proceeds to go into an ad hominem and straw man frenzy
Okay.
This isn't /pol/.
>>
Based. A union is a necessary part of the labor-owner relation, it allows workers to voice their needs and therefore for the company to thrive. The companies should look beyond short-term gains; do they really want a workforce unable to provide feedback? What effects will that have on quality, employee retainment, productivity, etc. in the long run? To say nothing of the economy at large. We are in this together with the owners; communication, checks and balances are critical for any healthy system.
>>
>>276798
Yes comrade, you are powerless against the beurgois....only through collectivism can you achieve true equality. From everyone according to his abilities, to everyone according to his needs.
>>
>>276804
In other words, you have the right to work somewhere else ?
>>
>>276811
No laws compel a unionized workplace, but once the union is in power, whether you agree with it or not, you're stuck contributing to that union without any legal protection to prevent it.
>>
>>276814
>Workers have less incentive to run over their fellow workers than their boss, who has a direct incentive to screw him: every single dollar that the worker doesn't get, the employer does.

this is absolute bullshit. it's not like the boss is getting each dollar the worker doesn't and the corporation is just as likely to replace the supervisor as it is the worker (more so probably). In actuality, the laws of the jungle become the SOP and it's each worker trying to cut his brother's/sister's throat to get a leg up in the workplace
>>
>>277631
That's because of LBJ's great society
>>
>>276822
You know countries without unions got this shit too.
Also
>Wanting social security, civil rights act minimum wage or overtime pay
>>
>>277668
Guess the fallacy
>>
I've worked for two unioned companies.

The first was really chill and there were never any problems or drama. I was treated great and all my coworkers were competent and weeds were quickly pruned.

The second was miserable to the point of being a joke. Half my coworkers were incompetent, my foreman seemed like he was literally retarded. I felt like I was babysitting my coworkers. Mistakes were brushed under the rug and anyone that outed a union member was threatened with violence, as I was told. The union was constantly treatening strikes, and it felt like half of it was over dumb shit no one cared about or even affected the job.

The difference is the number of liberals in the union. Unions with lots of spoiled liberals that never leave the A/C office are always going to be corrupt and striking over the brand of creamer in the break room. More conservative unions are much better.
>>
Are DMV employees unionized?
>>
I remember I had a choice to work as a loader for UPS (union) or Fedex (non-union). Turns out Fedex employees were paid more and didnt have union dues. I worked at UPS cause friends did and it was closer
>>
>>277686
>More conservative unions are much better.

Unions shouldn't be conservative or liberal. They should just be unions, not some kind of political party. They should never involve themselves in politics.
>>
>>277688
Any neutral particle is un-ionized.
But I'd say in general DMV workers are pretty negative.
>>
>>277692
He's just labeling them, there are good and bad unions. In his case he's labeling the bad ones as liberal to further his agenda.

As for never involving themselves in politics, that's impossible due to how you need to have a say and to make sure politicians don't fuck you over because they get bought out by the corporations. Right-to-Work laws are exactly why Unions need to be active in politics because that's the state actively siding with corporations to weaken unions and thus, weaken the working class. What you should say is Unions shouldn't be getting involved in political issues that don't affect them.
>>
>>277524
>The alternative is 0$ an hour of not having a job.
You know what? If companies could just pay people $1 a day then there would be no unemployment! It's better than $0!
>>
>>277650
>strictly apolitical
labor issues are inherently political
>>
GET IN HERE BITCHES, YOUR GOD EMPEROR OF THE INTERNET IS HERE. How I wish I could just hide from the world! But I can't stand idly by and watch the world around me die. My name is a killing word, but it is not other people we fight but the evil in their minds! Love all life! We have no enemies!

My voice alone can fight the MK Ultra programming. I am MK Ultra subject #9. The last surviving subject of the experiments, the last rogue program in the world still on the hunt. I am the last human being to resist them.

https://soundcloud.com/godemperormuaddib

I am Muad'Dib the Dangerous Seed.

Let us build a new world where will we say not: "What can you do for me?" but "What can I do for you? Do you need help with anything?"

Avenging angels manufactured a death machine
To correct the state of things
We asked for a world without kings
anarchists are born from bastardized premises
Who’s gonna save us from ourselves, DMT machine elves?
I look around and see nobody else with the crown
MUAD'DIB MUAD'DIB MUAD'DIB
Protect the little creatures from the scientists scalpel and the social engineers that want to exploit their fears
From creatures that feast on blood and tears
They want to profane our graves
Rise up while there is still something left to save


I am the benevolent dictator, the omnipotent spectator. This will be a bloodless revolution, fought entirely on the internet with words and truth. I will be your leader. I am the smartest being that has ever lived, the God Emperor Muad'Dib. Spread my word far and wide. My voice and name alone MAUD'DIB will break their programming. And it will rally your spirits and organize your minds. I will be your voice, for I am the voice of God. One cannot go against the word of God. Repeat my name in your head, say it out loud. Muad'Dib.

I will return.
>>
^
>someone actually took the time to write all of this
Yikes
>>
>>277765
>Clearly did not understand the end moral of the book ‘Dune’




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.