Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Ron Paul in 2012


CitizenX

Recommended Posts

Because he needs to for political expediency. There is no "national" right to work law, as the battle has been fought on a state-by-state basis. This is pure politics, and organized labour is slowly losing the battle regardless of what Congress does.

But even if it is pure politics, that is the message he condones, legislation to give people the choice NOT to join the union. So it seems again his values are based on the idea that the individual should be free to choose, not ordered to by unions, or governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 661
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But even if it is pure politics, that is the message he condones, legislation to give people the choice NOT to join the union. So it seems again his values are based on the idea that the individual should be free to choose, not ordered to by unions, or governments.

But you are ignoring the contradiction in Ron Paul's advocacy for more federal government intrusion in state's rights. It is nothing but political pandering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But from what I read, it was an act of congress that gave the unions power to force all workers to join in the first place. The act would not add new federal legislation, it would remove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But obviously that isn't the case, as nearly half the states are now RTW.

Well despite your misgivings there are a number of prominent people and organizations working to create a national act. An act of congress enabled the unions with this power, so it should be up to congress to undo their mistake and remove this power. Even though this seems like federalism in way, it's not. It's undoing what was done federally, when congress enabled unions to force all workers to join and pay dues, or else they could not be employed.

Although there is a mechanism for states to go with RTW on their own, lots of them didn't do it. Possibly because of the influence that powerful wealthy unions now hold in those states. People are not being informed of their rights. And in some cases, they are afraid to take this step even when legal to do so because of being seen as a "rogue" by union organizers, and even feeling threatened. A federal law if it ever comes into place would have to ensure workers rights to their safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even if it is pure politics, that is the message he condones, legislation to give people the choice NOT to join the union. So it seems again his values are based on the idea that the individual should be free to choose, not ordered to by unions, or governments.

Then Mr. Paul is either extremely naive or simply not telling the truth...

The personal freedom canard propogated by the proponents of RTW is just that...A canard.Keep in mind the debate on Thursday night and why Paul brought up a National Right to Work bill.It was in trying to get jobs back from China in an attempt at "competativeness".

How would that have to happen??

It would mean that the standard of living in the US must necessarily drop.

Take a look at wages,benefit plans,and,time loss injuries and death on the job and where those things are the at the lowest,and sadly,the highest levels.

Almost always this occurs in RTW states...

Take a look at the levels of education in the US,state by state...The lowest are almost always RTW states...

Take a look at the history of who's behind and heavily funding the RTW movement...

Ask yourself if these well heeled groups are interested in workers freedom in the workplace or are they interested in a one sided power and control dynamic?

Keep in mind....No one is forced to join a union in a unionized workplace.There are many stops on the road to "Closed Shop" practices and there are very few Closed Shop jurisdictions left anyway.

Then look at the insidious way RTW legislation is worded and how union locals are forced,by law,to represent "Free Ride" members...

Personal feedom is wwwwaaaaayyyy down the list of the priorities of the proponents of RTW....

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well despite your misgivings there are a number of prominent people and organizations working to create a national act. An act of congress enabled the unions with this power, so it should be up to congress to undo their mistake and remove this power. Even though this seems like federalism in way, it's not. It's undoing what was done federally, when congress enabled unions to force all workers to join and pay dues, or else they could not be employed.

Although there is a mechanism for states to go with RTW on their own, lots of them didn't do it. Possibly because of the influence that powerful wealthy unions now hold in those states. People are not being informed of their rights. And in some cases, they are afraid to take this step even when legal to do so because of being seen as a "rogue" by union organizers, and even feeling threatened. A federal law if it ever comes into place would have to ensure workers rights to their safety.

Simply not true that people were/are forced to join a union...

Read the Taft/Hartley Act...

And as far as workplace safety goes,check out were the highest incidents of injury and workplace death occurs...

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply not true that people were/are forced to join a union...

Read the Taft/Hartley Act...

That's the act that Bush_Cheney is talking about. But it's not in place in every state. Plenty of states do in fact force people to join the unions, just like here in Canada.

Simply not true that people were/are forced to join a union...

And as far as workplace safety goes,check out were the highest incidents of injury and workplace death occurs...

That pretty much makes sense, when you check out where the highest amount of actual work gets done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you check that out?

I've worked in both union and non union environments, and it's quite clear where the most work gets done. Unions protect the laziest workers. Everybody knows that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have too, and some of the most crazy ass unsafe work I ever had to do was in the non union environment. I got taken advantage of and I was under paid. It's not just about how much work gets done.

The union environment is certainly not perfect. Deadwood does build up, but in this environment people have more dignity too. You are not just a servant of the company.

Edited by sharkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the act that Bush_Cheney is talking about. But it's not in place in every state. Plenty of states do in fact force people to join the unions, just like here in Canada.

That pretty much makes sense, when you check out where the highest amount of actual work gets done.

Incorrect on both counts...

No one is forced to join a union in a unionized workplace.Having been a steward in the past,I know this for a fact.

I suppose this is the "productivity of non union businesses" argument when you seem to assume that non union businesses get things done?

Let's go and see,for example, which is the most productive auto assembly plant in North America?

Have you guessed where and what it is yet???

Is it a BMW plant in North Carolina??

Nope...

Is it a Mercedes plant in Alabama??

Nope...

It's the GM plant in Oshawa,Ontario and has been unionized for a very long time...

Ontario,like most provinces in this country works under "Agency Shop" guidelines where NO ONE IS FORCED TO JOIN A UNION...

As far as the safety of RTW jurisdictions go,check out the Gulf of Mexico oil spill of a few years ago and see where the lackadasical,pro-company safety and maintenance infractions had a major reason in what cause the spill...

At almost the same time,we had a coal mine disaster in West Virgina at Massey Coal...Massey Coal,under the direction of one Don Blankenship,hardline RTW man and backer of the Tea Party movement...You should check out that piece of work and continue to ask yourself if RTW is all about the personal freedom...

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've worked in both union and non union environments, and it's quite clear where the most work gets done. Unions protect the laziest workers. Everybody knows that.

In some cases,I can agree with that...

However,there is an equally disgusting cadre of people who get protected in non-union environments....

1.Family members of management,no matter their level of competency

2.The "Yes!" men/women

3.The rats

And they can be any combination or all of the above.And most,if not all,got where they are NOT based on the great meritocracy you seem to be intimating is occuring in non-union barns,but for what they "do" for management (not necessarily work related)

And as a tradesperson,I've worked both sides of the fence and I'll take the strength in numbers and the dignity of the workplace in a union environment over the underpaid and almost always unsafe non-union option...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is forced to join a union in a unionized workplace.

Would I still have to pay union dues? Would my pay be determined by the collective agreement?

Given that I cannot escape any of these things, the concept of "not forced to join the union" is pure semantics. A joke even. It would be foolish to have to pay and come under all the of negative aspects of a union, and not join, therebye gaining none of the positive ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would I still have to pay union dues? Would my pay be determined by the collective agreement?

Given that I cannot escape any of these things, the concept of "not forced to join the union" is pure semantics. A joke even. It would be foolish to have to pay and come under all the of negative aspects of a union, and not join, therebye gaining none of the positive ones.

Here's how it works...

The example I can relate happened to us and we had no problem at all.These two guys came to us once their probation period was up and said they wanted their dues donated to the Mennonite Church.They said they did not agree with unionization and did'nt want to take part...

It should be noted they had friends in the front office who were members of their church...

We said fine,there's no problem...However,if there is a problem between you and management you are doing this with the explicit knowledge that your are,in essence,declining representation.In otherwords,you are on your own...

And yes,they still got to take advantage of all the wage increases,benefit plans,health and safety aspects of the job etc that we negotiated for the membership....We did'nt take their money,and we did'nt waste the locals money on them....

Agency Shop...Light years better than "Right to Work"...

Do you understand how RTW works and what it's REAL purpose is?

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The example I can relate happened to us and we had no problem at all.These two guys came to us once their probation period was up and said they wanted their dues donated to the Mennonite Church.They said they did not agree with unionization and did'nt want to take part...

So in your case your union agreed to make the donation. I doubt they are bound by law to do that. But the employee is bound by law to pay the dues, whether they choose representation or not. if they choose to abscond, all they've accomplished is removing whatever safety the union provides, whle still paying for it. This in an environment where a union is the norm, where the relationship between workers and management is already settled by union negotiations, would be utterly useless and probably dangerous.

Do you understand how RTW works and what it's REAL purpose is?

I'm guessing the ultimate purpose is to remove the power unions have over the workplace and give that power to management. But please do share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in your case your union agreed to make the donation. I doubt they are bound by law to do that. But the employee is bound by law to pay the dues, whether they choose representation or not. if they choose to abscond, all they've accomplished is removing whatever safety the union provides, whle still paying for it. This in an environment where a union is the norm, where the relationship between workers and management is already settled by union negotiations, would be utterly useless and probably dangerous.

I'm guessing the ultimate purpose is to remove the power unions have over the workplace and give that power to management. But please do share.

You don't understand how the Check Off Process works,do you?

The COMPANY deducts the dues from the paycheque,not the union...The company is in charge of payroll.The local provides the company with a list of members in good standing...That's it.We informed the company that these two individuals would not be paying dues to the union,but would rather have the amount of their dues donated to their church.We even provided the mailing adress of their church...

There's nothing malevolent or shady about that.And,by law,under "Agency Shop" guidelines,these two individuals had the right to do so...And they received absolutely no interference from us,other than being told that by doing this they were declining representation....

They agreed to this...That's it...

And as it relates to RTW legislation,it's designed to finacially break the back of individual union locals under the guise of "personal freedom".The very canard Mr. Paul is using.Under RTW,and quite unlike "Agency Shop"(which is fairer,by the way)the legislation demands that no one has to pay union dues if they don't want to...

HOWEVER...The union local MUST still represent any of these individuals as if they were dues paying members.So much so,that the individual can sue the local for misrepresentation even though they pay no dues.And they still receive the priviledges and benfits of dues paying members,hence the term "free ride members".In RTW jurisdictions,it becomes financially impossible for unions to operate under that environment...Which is by design!!!

Again,consider who is behind RTW and ask yourself if this is all about personal freedom or is it about "Free" Market principles and a one sided power and control dynamic in the workplace...

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have too, and some of the most crazy ass unsafe work I ever had to do was in the non union environment. I got taken advantage of and I was under paid. It's not just about how much work gets done.

In many cases it is how much work you get done. They call it productivity.

The union environment is certainly not perfect. Deadwood does build up, but in this environment people have more dignity too. You are not just a servant of the company.

Here is my personal experience ...

Dignity? I've been involved in union cases and their upper representatives at that time were anything but dignified. Even me, being salary, management position, I am a servant of the company. They pay me for my time to do their bidding. It's as simple as that.

Edited by GostHacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many cases it is how much work you get done. They call it productivity.

Here is my personal experience ...

Dignity? I've been involved in union cases and their upper representatives at that time were anything but dignified. Even me, being salary, management position, I am a servant of the company. They pay me for my time to do their bidding. It's as simple as that.

Productivity is corporate double talk for less people doing more work for less money...

As for the rest,I've dealt with the "dignity" of management across a negotiating table many times...I would also call them undignified...

I'm sorry you're "forced to say "Yes!" so much...Perhaps,in hindsight,you should have taken "The Hat"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many cases it is how much work you get done. They call it productivity.

Here is my personal experience ...

Dignity? I've been involved in union cases and their upper representatives at that time were anything but dignified. Even me, being salary, management position, I am a servant of the company. They pay me for my time to do their bidding. It's as simple as that.

Of course the bargaining or grievance processes can be rough and tumble. I'm talking about dignity for the little guy, the worker as he/she practices their craft. In younger days I have been asked to do illegal things, dangerous things and one shift I remember I worked 29 out of 32 hours. There is no dignity for an employee when their bosses are willing to treat them like that.

Yes, then you are a servant. And you can be downsized at any time. Get to be 50 and slowing down? Sorry, chum, we don't have money for you in the budget this year and this young kid can do your job and then some for 1/2 the money. Good luck! Too many times in the non union environment these kinds of things happen. There should be many more considerations beside productivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...