Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-04-25 13:48:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
It's often pointed that some unions abuse their power in America.  Yet, our unions are still relatively impotent compared to most in other developed countries mostly because of a rather fascist bill passed back during the Red Scare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act

The Taft-Hartley Act was the biggest friend to big business and McCarthyists on the labor front, and it expanded governmental powers vastly farther over unions mostly in preference to the interests of big business.

"The Taft-Hartley Act prohibited jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary or 'common situs' picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. It also required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government. Union shops were heavily restricted, and states were allowed to pass 'right-to-work laws' that outlawed union shops. Furthermore, the executive branch of the Federal government could obtain legal strikebreaking injunctions if an impending or current strike 'imperiled the national health or safety,' a test that has been interpreted broadly by the courts."

In an age where corporations literally have more rights than individuals, you would think it would be time to repeal this relic of a dark time in American history.

What say ye?
2010-04-25 13:50:40
Stubbee
Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts
+223|7029|Reality
Just don't go too far the other way and end up like us in Quebec.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
2010-04-25 13:52:07
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
I like the idea behind having a completely open and free labor market.

Employees should be able to form unions as they please, and employers should be able to hire and fire as they please.
2010-04-25 13:54:34
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

In an age where corporations literally have more rights than individuals
No they don't.

Turquoise wrote:

Employees should be able to form unions as they please, and employers should be able to hire and fire as they please.
2010-04-25 13:57:12
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

In an age where corporations literally have more rights than individuals
No they don't.
Yes...  they do.

First of all, they don't have the same campaign finance limits as individuals, but they are given the same legal protections.

Second, if they fraudulently leverage assets by selling things to their subsidiaries for inflated amounts, they don't get prosecuted -- usually.  It has to be absurdly blatant for any legal action to usually be taken.
2010-04-25 13:59:43
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

I like the idea behind having a completely open and free labor market.

Employees should be able to form unions as they please, and employers should be able to hire and fire as they please.
Yes, but it doesn't work out like that. In unionized states it's pretty much illegal to fire a union member unless it's for gross misconduct or neglect. Then there are things like card check that the unions want that would make all balloting out in the open and subject to coercion and intimidation. Yes, having a workforce free to choose the direction they want to take is ideal but it's not practical in the real world. In the real world, unions are just as, if not more likely, to use the government to write legislation protecting them and asserting their power as corporations are. The ideal world consists of apolitical corporations and workers dealing with their own matters. That world doesn't exist so 'right to work' laws, at will firing laws and others most certainly have their place.

Besides, much of what you quoted has been repealed anyway. Unions have been the biggest donors to Democratic campaigns for a long time now. The SEIU essentially bankrolled Obama. Closed shops are the rule in northern states. I'm sure there is more as well but I can't remember everything you quoted

Edit - Ahh yes, anti-communist affidavits... doubt that's still enforced...

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-04-25 14:01:19)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-04-25 14:02:04
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I like the idea behind having a completely open and free labor market.

Employees should be able to form unions as they please, and employers should be able to hire and fire as they please.
Yes, but it doesn't work out like that. In unionized states it's pretty much illegal to fire a union member unless it's for gross misconduct or neglect. Then there are things like card check that the unions want that would make all balloting out in the open and subject to coercion and intimidation. Yes, having a workforce free to choose the direction they want to take is ideal but it's not practical in the real world. In the real world, unions are just as, if not more likely, to use the government to write legislation protecting them and asserting their power as corporations are. The ideal world consists of apolitical corporations and workers dealing with their own matters. That world doesn't exist so 'right to work' laws, at will firing laws and others most certainly have their place.

Besides, much of what you quoted has been repealed anyway. Unions have been the biggest donors to Democratic campaigns for a long time now. The SEIU essentially bankrolled Obama. Closed shops are the rule in northern states. I'm sure there is more as well but I can't remember everything you quoted

Edit - Ahh yes, anti-communist affidavits... doubt that's still enforced...
Well, it sounds like the market can't clear everything after all, eh?...
2010-04-25 14:02:50
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6823|Long Island, New York
My union is kind of ridiculous. In my year of experience with it, you basically can not get fired unless you go on an absolute rampage or steal.

It's comforting knowing I can't be fired if I fuck up accidentely, but it'd be nice to get more of a 15 cent raise every couple of months.
2010-04-25 14:03:12
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I like the idea behind having a completely open and free labor market.

Employees should be able to form unions as they please, and employers should be able to hire and fire as they please.
Yes, but it doesn't work out like that. In unionized states it's pretty much illegal to fire a union member unless it's for gross misconduct or neglect. Then there are things like card check that the unions want that would make all balloting out in the open and subject to coercion and intimidation. Yes, having a workforce free to choose the direction they want to take is ideal but it's not practical in the real world. In the real world, unions are just as, if not more likely, to use the government to write legislation protecting them and asserting their power as corporations are. The ideal world consists of apolitical corporations and workers dealing with their own matters. That world doesn't exist so 'right to work' laws, at will firing laws and others most certainly have their place.

Besides, much of what you quoted has been repealed anyway. Unions have been the biggest donors to Democratic campaigns for a long time now. The SEIU essentially bankrolled Obama. Closed shops are the rule in northern states. I'm sure there is more as well but I can't remember everything you quoted

Edit - Ahh yes, anti-communist affidavits... doubt that's still enforced...
Well, it sounds like the market can't clear everything after all, eh?...
No, it can. The reason it fails in this case is because of political interventionism. Remove the politicians from the market and it works just fine.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-04-25 14:04:28
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Yes, but it doesn't work out like that. In unionized states it's pretty much illegal to fire a union member unless it's for gross misconduct or neglect. Then there are things like card check that the unions want that would make all balloting out in the open and subject to coercion and intimidation. Yes, having a workforce free to choose the direction they want to take is ideal but it's not practical in the real world. In the real world, unions are just as, if not more likely, to use the government to write legislation protecting them and asserting their power as corporations are. The ideal world consists of apolitical corporations and workers dealing with their own matters. That world doesn't exist so 'right to work' laws, at will firing laws and others most certainly have their place.

Besides, much of what you quoted has been repealed anyway. Unions have been the biggest donors to Democratic campaigns for a long time now. The SEIU essentially bankrolled Obama. Closed shops are the rule in northern states. I'm sure there is more as well but I can't remember everything you quoted

Edit - Ahh yes, anti-communist affidavits... doubt that's still enforced...
Well, it sounds like the market can't clear everything after all, eh?...
No, it can. The reason it fails in this case is because of political interventionism. Remove the politicians from the market and it works just fine.
But if we are to assume that politicians will continually get involved, then a balance in policy must be struck between both extremes.
2010-04-25 14:08:41
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, it sounds like the market can't clear everything after all, eh?...

JohnG@lt wrote:

No, it can. The reason it fails in this case is because of political interventionism. Remove the politicians from the market and it works just fine.
But if we are to assume that politicians will continually get involved, then a balance in policy must be struck between both extremes.
As I said, most of the Taft-Hartley Act has been repealed over time. It hasn't stopped the unions from disappearing from the private sector. Unions have no teeth because they have no leverage (and this has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with globalization). Unionize an industry and it will be shipped overseas to China or India. Americans know this now and the vast majority of people are anti-union now because of that realization. Public sector unions are getting a harsh slap in the face now too which is nice to see.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-04-25 14:10:40
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, it sounds like the market can't clear everything after all, eh?...

JohnG@lt wrote:

No, it can. The reason it fails in this case is because of political interventionism. Remove the politicians from the market and it works just fine.
But if we are to assume that politicians will continually get involved, then a balance in policy must be struck between both extremes.
As I said, most of the Taft-Hartley Act has been repealed over time. It hasn't stopped the unions from disappearing from the private sector. Unions have no teeth because they have no leverage (and this has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with globalization). Unionize an industry and it will be shipped overseas to China or India. Americans know this now and the vast majority of people are anti-union now because of that realization. Public sector unions are getting a harsh slap in the face now too which is nice to see.
While I agree with your logic, it still makes me wonder...  why is so much of the private sector still unionized in the North?
2010-04-25 14:15:27
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, it sounds like the market can't clear everything after all, eh?...
But if we are to assume that politicians will continually get involved, then a balance in policy must be struck between both extremes.
As I said, most of the Taft-Hartley Act has been repealed over time. It hasn't stopped the unions from disappearing from the private sector. Unions have no teeth because they have no leverage (and this has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with globalization). Unionize an industry and it will be shipped overseas to China or India. Americans know this now and the vast majority of people are anti-union now because of that realization. Public sector unions are getting a harsh slap in the face now too which is nice to see.
While I agree with your logic, it still makes me wonder...  why is so much of the private sector still unionized in the North?
Localized monopolies and the UAW. ConEd is unionized, TWC is unionized, Verizon is unionized, Waste Management is unionized etc. Every public utility company, which by definition has a local monopoly, is unionized. Then there are electricians, construction workers etc as well. They're all able to maintain their unions because they do not have jobs that can be exported. They don't produce anything, just assemble other peoples work.

And as much as people bitch about the Teachers Union jacking up costs, the Nurses union (whatever it's called) actually receives the most state subsidies here in New York. Gotta love Medicaid. Oh, also, good luck getting elected without a Working Families Party endorsement (trap name if I've ever seen one).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-04-25 14:24:27
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


As I said, most of the Taft-Hartley Act has been repealed over time. It hasn't stopped the unions from disappearing from the private sector. Unions have no teeth because they have no leverage (and this has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with globalization). Unionize an industry and it will be shipped overseas to China or India. Americans know this now and the vast majority of people are anti-union now because of that realization. Public sector unions are getting a harsh slap in the face now too which is nice to see.
While I agree with your logic, it still makes me wonder...  why is so much of the private sector still unionized in the North?
Localized monopolies and the UAW. ConEd is unionized, TWC is unionized, Verizon is unionized, Waste Management is unionized etc. Every public utility company, which by definition has a local monopoly, is unionized. Then there are electricians, construction workers etc as well. They're all able to maintain their unions because they do not have jobs that can be exported. They don't produce anything, just assemble other peoples work.

And as much as people bitch about the Teachers Union jacking up costs, the Nurses union (whatever it's called) actually receives the most state subsidies here in New York. Gotta love Medicaid. Oh, also, good luck getting elected without a Working Families Party endorsement (trap name if I've ever seen one).
Why not just end all government supported monopolies?  Antitrust laws should take precedence.
2010-04-25 14:28:19
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


While I agree with your logic, it still makes me wonder...  why is so much of the private sector still unionized in the North?
Localized monopolies and the UAW. ConEd is unionized, TWC is unionized, Verizon is unionized, Waste Management is unionized etc. Every public utility company, which by definition has a local monopoly, is unionized. Then there are electricians, construction workers etc as well. They're all able to maintain their unions because they do not have jobs that can be exported. They don't produce anything, just assemble other peoples work.

And as much as people bitch about the Teachers Union jacking up costs, the Nurses union (whatever it's called) actually receives the most state subsidies here in New York. Gotta love Medicaid. Oh, also, good luck getting elected without a Working Families Party endorsement (trap name if I've ever seen one).
Why not just end all government supported monopolies?  Antitrust laws should take precedence.
I'm obviously an advocate for just such a thing. There's no guarantee that a company would move in and compete directly with an established company like ConEd though. I also don't view forcing ConEd to share it's gas lines, electric lines etc highly either.

So, yeah, removing the monopoly privileges should be done, but by the same token, nothing should be done by the government to help or hinder any startup competitors either.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-04-25 14:31:39
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

In an age where corporations literally have more rights than individuals
No they don't.
Yes...  they do.

First of all, they don't have the same campaign finance limits as individuals, but they are given the same legal protections.

Second, if they fraudulently leverage assets by selling things to their subsidiaries for inflated amounts, they don't get prosecuted -- usually.  It has to be absurdly blatant for any legal action to usually be taken.
Campaign finance limits are in violation of individual rights. You bring the same case before the Supreme Court as was for corporations, you're going to get a similar ruling.

That has nothing to do with "rights" it has to do with violations of the law going unprosecuted.
2010-04-25 14:32:41
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

John_G@lt wrote:

They don't produce anything, just assemble other peoples work.
lol you say it like they don't earn what they make. Massive bullshit about not producing anything by the way.
2010-04-25 14:36:11
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

John_G@lt wrote:

They don't produce anything, just assemble other peoples work.
lol you say it like they don't earn what they make
Not my intention. An electrician or backhoe driver don't really produce anything tangible. They perform necessary work, yes, but there really isn't a finished product that you can hold in your hands. Because of this, their job is nigh on impossible to ship overseas. A guy that produces a tangible product like a car, a bike, a shovel etc can be replaced because the product is tangible and can be moved around. That's all I meant.

Edit - And it doesn't make the backhoe driver or electrician inferior in any way to the factory worker either. They're both necessary cogs in the wheel.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-04-25 14:37:39)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-04-25 14:37:31
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85
Well it's important to make a distinction between "produce" and "make". The former most certainly includes services.
2010-04-25 14:38:56
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Well it's important to make a distinction between "produce" and "make". The former most certainly includes services.
Perhaps I should've stated it as 'physically localized work'.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-04-25 14:49:14
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85
Accurate, if not catchy.
2010-04-25 14:50:22
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


No they don't.
Yes...  they do.

First of all, they don't have the same campaign finance limits as individuals, but they are given the same legal protections.

Second, if they fraudulently leverage assets by selling things to their subsidiaries for inflated amounts, they don't get prosecuted -- usually.  It has to be absurdly blatant for any legal action to usually be taken.
Campaign finance limits are in violation of individual rights. You bring the same case before the Supreme Court as was for corporations, you're going to get a similar ruling.

That has nothing to do with "rights" it has to do with violations of the law going unprosecuted.
I really doubt that the Founding Fathers intended to include lobbyism in the Freedom of Speech.  Granted, I realize the Court feels differently.
2010-04-25 14:52:39
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Localized monopolies and the UAW. ConEd is unionized, TWC is unionized, Verizon is unionized, Waste Management is unionized etc. Every public utility company, which by definition has a local monopoly, is unionized. Then there are electricians, construction workers etc as well. They're all able to maintain their unions because they do not have jobs that can be exported. They don't produce anything, just assemble other peoples work.

And as much as people bitch about the Teachers Union jacking up costs, the Nurses union (whatever it's called) actually receives the most state subsidies here in New York. Gotta love Medicaid. Oh, also, good luck getting elected without a Working Families Party endorsement (trap name if I've ever seen one).
Why not just end all government supported monopolies?  Antitrust laws should take precedence.
I'm obviously an advocate for just such a thing. There's no guarantee that a company would move in and compete directly with an established company like ConEd though. I also don't view forcing ConEd to share it's gas lines, electric lines etc highly either.

So, yeah, removing the monopoly privileges should be done, but by the same token, nothing should be done by the government to help or hinder any startup competitors either.
I disagree, the help given to maintain these current monopolies should be figured into fostering competition.  You can't just go from supporting a company for years, ending that support, and then expect the market to fix things by itself.

I think certain actions must be made to right past wrongs to properly open the market up in these cases.
2010-04-25 14:56:58
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Yes...  they do.

First of all, they don't have the same campaign finance limits as individuals, but they are given the same legal protections.

Second, if they fraudulently leverage assets by selling things to their subsidiaries for inflated amounts, they don't get prosecuted -- usually.  It has to be absurdly blatant for any legal action to usually be taken.
Campaign finance limits are in violation of individual rights. You bring the same case before the Supreme Court as was for corporations, you're going to get a similar ruling.

That has nothing to do with "rights" it has to do with violations of the law going unprosecuted.
I really doubt that the Founding Fathers intended to include lobbyism in the Freedom of Speech.  Granted, I realize the Court feels differently.
My ass they didn't. You think the founding fathers wanted to restrict someone's ability to spend their money as they please?
2010-04-25 15:00:31
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


Campaign finance limits are in violation of individual rights. You bring the same case before the Supreme Court as was for corporations, you're going to get a similar ruling.

That has nothing to do with "rights" it has to do with violations of the law going unprosecuted.
I really doubt that the Founding Fathers intended to include lobbyism in the Freedom of Speech.  Granted, I realize the Court feels differently.
My ass they didn't. You think the founding fathers wanted to restrict someone's ability to spend their money as they please?
If spending as they pleased subverted the will of the majority, yes.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard