Right To Work Act Petition-Rand Paul's Unintentional Joke On America.

I don't know Mr. Paul personally,so I cannot comment on his character. I only wish address his actions within the context of his work. He apparently has a Right To Work Act Petition making the rounds,mainly by Internet, which is supposed to be a strike against 'Big Labor' and other 'unfair' practices to help put Americans back to work.

This is nothing more than an unintentional joke,regardless of how good the intentions are, on everyone. Here's my opinion as to why:

1) Labor unions are an ever- diminishing presence on the American landscape and aren't really much of threat to anyone (outside of certain pockets of the world such as France) now due to globalization and automation.

2) Structural unemployment is here to stay and will likely continue to get worse. Technology will continue to improve,become cheaper and displace more people from the workforce as time passes on. The current crisis is only speeding up the process as companies scramble to stay competitive by replacing people with technology where possible to maintain their bottom lines. The only reason most people still have a job is because they haven't gotten around to automating it-yet.

3) Work is a 'right'? Only in our current distorted value system could work be considered a 'right'. Last I checked,the basic premise behind rights was that they were granted to you and it was up to you whether or not to exercise them without penalty. How is work a right if the result of my choosing not to exercise it results in hardship or death from not being able to have money?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that participation in the money-as-debt,cyclical consumption system is mandatory in order for a person to live some semblance of a 'normal' life (no matter how ultimately pointless or detrimental to society or the environment said job may actually be).

4) Cumulative.Systemic.Collapse.- The derivatives mess, among many other woes created or influenced by the false reality of money, is leading to havoc across the globe. There may well come a point where the system collapses to such a degree that work,in it’s current context within the system, becomes moot, even ludicrous. Money loses meaning and value because available goods and services have diminished to such a degree from the fallout of systemic failure that the whole thing can no longer operate.

In the relatively near future,people may begin to decide that there is no longer in any point in keeping up the charade. Tired,beaten down and their needs not being met by a system which continually gives less in return for their efforts while rewarding the few at the top, they may well begin looking for other ways to sustain themselves outside of the current system. Salvation for many may lay in disengagement from the monetary system altogether if things continue to get worse.

We can only hope things get better before they get worse...

I don't know.

They had to kill the labor unions before they could ship our jobs offshore. Clearly they were a threat to someone. They're still after the remaining ones to this day.

A labor strike might be a good step in getting some attention. As would a "don't pay your mortgage/credit card bills for 6 months" strike. They couldn't keep up with the paperwork (don't spend the money either though!) You have to hit these people where it hurts. In the pocket. Clearly we can't have a tax strike as they suck that away from us at point of purchase, sale, and for the most part, earning.

As a Kentuckian I can say I do not care for Pand Paul at all. He moved to my state from elsewhere, he panders to Christians to get votes, and basically is using my state for his own political reasons. Its one thing to put up with the native KYians doing this, but outsiders ridfing daddy's coattails?


Anything he conjures up is suspect to me.

reply to post by FlyingJadeDragon

Last I checked,the basic premise behind rights was that they were granted to you and it was up to you whether or not to exercise them without penalty. How is work a right if the result of my choosing not to exercise it results in hardship or death from not being able to have money?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that participation in the money-as-debt,cyclical consumption system is mandatory in order for a person to live some semblance of a 'normal' life (no matter how ultimately pointless or detrimental to society or the environment said job may actually be).

That sounds a lot like C. H. Douglas' theories of economics. He has some really interesting takes on economics and even developed his own alternate economic theory based upon Catholic social teachings. Its been judged by the Church to NOT be socialism and there are even some Social Credit parties out there in existence.

I recommend that you check out Social Credit. He has some excellent insights into economics but, I'm not sure his system could work in the real world.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by FlyingJadeDragon

 

Last I checked,the basic premise behind rights was that they were granted to you and it was up to you whether or not to exercise them without penalty. How is work a right if the result of my choosing not to exercise it results in hardship or death from not being able to have money?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that participation in the money-as-debt,cyclical consumption system is mandatory in order for a person to live some semblance of a 'normal' life (no matter how ultimately pointless or detrimental to society or the environment said job may actually be).

That sounds a lot like C. H. Douglas' theories of economics. He has some really interesting takes on economics and even developed his own alternate economic theory based upon Catholic social teachings. Its been judged by the Church to NOT be socialism and there are even some Social Credit parties out there in existence.

I recommend that you check out Social Credit. He has some excellent insights into economics but, I'm not sure his system could work in the real world.

Thanks for that. Sounds interesting. I'll certainly add it to the reading list.

reply to post by FlyingJadeDragon


Question OP, do you believe if there is a job opening where a union operates, you should have the right to not join the union? Do you believe that as a union member, you should be allowed to not make any political contributions with your dues, if you do not follow the union's beliefs on the political landscape? Do you believe that you should be forced into another contractual agreement (with a union) just to get a job?

After answering these questions, I then would have an idea on your position on the right to work state.

By the way, attempting to frame the "right to work" of the right to work statutes and such as an additional right, you are fomenting a lie. The right to work states and statutes allow a person to accept a job without having to join a union if one exists at an employment opportunity.

Bad form.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by FlyingJadeDragon

 

Question OP, do you believe if there is a job opening where a union operates, you should have the right to not join the union? Do you believe that as a union member, you should be allowed to not make any political contributions with your dues, if you do not follow the union's beliefs on the political landscape? Do you believe that you should be forced into another contractual agreement (with a union) just to get a job?

After answering these questions, I then would have an idea on your position on the right to work state.

By the way, attempting to frame the "right to work" of the right to work statutes and such as an additional right, you are fomenting a lie. The right to work states and statutes allow a person to accept a job without having to join a union if one exists at an employment opportunity.

Bad form.

I care nothing for unions nor the convoluted illogic behind any of these statutes concerning this thing called 'work'. My position is that the entire system has gone awry and needs serious re-thinking. It seems nothing currently being presented will solve the underlying problems stemming from the money-as-debt system. Work for the sake of work is not beneficial work in my book-union or no union.

Originally posted by FlyingJadeDragonHow is work a right if the result of my choosing not to exercise it results in hardship or death from not being able to have money?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that participation in the money-as-debt,cyclical consumption system is mandatory in order for a person to live some semblance of a 'normal' life (no matter how ultimately pointless or detrimental to society or the environment said job may actually be).

You do not have to "work" for someone else as long as you can provide for your own needs. If not you have to have something to offer other people in exchange for the things you cannot procure or make for yourself; it can be in the form of a service (i.e. labor or work), goods you can make/procure, or even knowledge you may possess that someone considers of value - say a teacher for example.

Money only simplifies this in our society by making me for example not have to find someone who wants 300 gallons of milk a week or a portion thereof for what it is I need. I simply trade that milk for currency which I can then use almost universally for whatever I wish to have.

Sure I lose some of the value of my goods or labor for this flexibility but the exchange is beneficial to everyone.

In my experience those people who argue that having to work to survive is some form of servitude or slavery have a problem with the recognized value of their work.

What would you rather have as system wherein we all just give away our labor or goods to each other in some kind of utopian collective?

Communism is a failed experiment as it removes any incentive to succeed or excel as everyone reaps equal rewards not what they earn.

reply to post by FlyingJadeDragon
It only stands clear that current thinking solves little of these issues.

I'm just an old drunk guy,nobody ever really gives a # what I have to offer as advice....

The term that confuse me more than any other is "current".."............

Meaningless Drivel.

Demand Action!.

reply to post by FlyingJadeDragon


Yeah, a lot of areas are beginning to use silver as a means of barter.
I believe it all comes down to the fact that the government has removed the individual property rights. When you purchase a thing, it is yours, but not in the US and other places. No, now you have to pay to keep that property-property taxes. Also, when you work you trade your labor (another property) for a debt vehicle. Now the state of course steals part of that debt vehicle even though no profit was ever made, it was a direct trade of one good for another good.

I see your point on the fiat currency or debt vehicle. It is just you used the right to work discussion to frame it as kind of a "right" to work, which it is not.

There is more than one problem, we can multi task. I have my name on several petitions regarding this and just recently sent letters to my reps in regards to the right to work debate. I also have signed petitions in regards to the federal reserve and have pushed vehemently on this component.

Multi tasking is a hell of a thing.

reply to post by FlyingJadeDragon


To address some of your points-

1) Labor unions are an ever- diminishing presence on the American landscape and aren't really much of threat to anyone (outside of certain pockets of the world such as France) now due to globalization and automation.

Yeah, tell that to people in a lot of states like California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey. If you actually believe that the unions are not detrimental in the US, you are asleep at the wheel.

2) Structural unemployment is here to stay and will likely continue to get worse. Technology will continue to improve,become cheaper and displace more people from the workforce as time passes on. The current crisis is only speeding up the process as companies scramble to stay competitive by replacing people with technology where possible to maintain their bottom lines. The only reason most people still have a job is because they haven't gotten around to automating it-yet.

Really? Alleging something is not the same as proving it. Tell me, if you have to have 100,000+ jobs per month to maintain the employment statistic, what would be the purpose of allowing 1.3 million legal immigrants per year and about the same of illegal? Do you not think this may have relevance to this "supposed" structural unemployment?

In only 20 years the US has allowed the same quantity of people into the US as the entire population of Canada. Just a fun fact.

3) Work is a 'right'? Only in our current distorted value system could work be considered a 'right'. Last I checked,the basic premise behind rights was that they were granted to you and it was up to you whether or not to exercise them without penalty. How is work a right if the result of my choosing not to exercise it results in hardship or death from not being able to have money?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that participation in the money-as-debt,cyclical consumption system is mandatory in order for a person to live some semblance of a 'normal' life (no matter how ultimately pointless or detrimental to society or the environment said job may actually be).

As I said EARLIER, the right to work statutes and states HAS NOTHING to do with "rights" it has to do with not having to join a union when getting a job. So this component is COMPLETELY WRONG and hyperbole.

So, do you back Rand and Ron's attempt at auditing the Fed as a worthy measure or are you just here to fling poo and see if it sticks:?

4) Cumulative.Systemic.Collapse.- The derivatives mess, among many other woes created or influenced by the false reality of money, is leading to havoc across the globe. There may well come a point where the system collapses to such a degree that work,in it’s current context within the system, becomes moot, even ludicrous. Money loses meaning and value because available goods and services have diminished to such a degree from the fallout of systemic failure that the whole thing can no longer operate.

The last point is pretty good.

I "DO" know,and have always known that work is not a "right".

I have no idea where the term came from on a "legal " basis.

I think there is something else being read into this .

Well Yeah,That's just a given...

Dammit!!,now ya'll got me thinkin bout # that everyone takes for granted.

Cuz some assholes wrote a law.

Faith is law,Logic is flawed.

BKWD.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by FlyingJadeDragon

 

To address some of your points-

1) Labor unions are an ever- diminishing presence on the American landscape and aren't really much of threat to anyone (outside of certain pockets of the world such as France) now due to globalization and automation.

Yeah, tell that to people in a lot of states like California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey. If you actually believe that the unions are not detrimental in the US, you are asleep at the wheel.

2) Structural unemployment is here to stay and will likely continue to get worse. Technology will continue to improve,become cheaper and displace more people from the workforce as time passes on. The current crisis is only speeding up the process as companies scramble to stay competitive by replacing people with technology where possible to maintain their bottom lines. The only reason most people still have a job is because they haven't gotten around to automating it-yet.

Really? Alleging something is not the same as proving it. Tell me, if you have to have 100,000+ jobs per month to maintain the employment statistic, what would be the purpose of allowing 1.3 million legal immigrants per year and about the same of illegal? Do you not think this may have relevance to this "supposed" structural unemployment?

In only 20 years the US has allowed the same quantity of people into the US as the entire population of Canada. Just a fun fact.

3) Work is a 'right'? Only in our current distorted value system could work be considered a 'right'. Last I checked,the basic premise behind rights was that they were granted to you and it was up to you whether or not to exercise them without penalty. How is work a right if the result of my choosing not to exercise it results in hardship or death from not being able to have money?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that participation in the money-as-debt,cyclical consumption system is mandatory in order for a person to live some semblance of a 'normal' life (no matter how ultimately pointless or detrimental to society or the environment said job may actually be).

As I said EARLIER, the right to work statutes and states HAS NOTHING to do with "rights" it has to do with not having to join a union when getting a job. So this component is COMPLETELY WRONG and hyperbole.

So, do you back Rand and Ron's attempt at auditing the Fed as a worthy measure or are you just here to fling poo and see if it sticks:?

4) Cumulative.Systemic.Collapse.- The derivatives mess, among many other woes created or influenced by the false reality of money, is leading to havoc across the globe. There may well come a point where the system collapses to such a degree that work,in it’s current context within the system, becomes moot, even ludicrous. Money loses meaning and value because available goods and services have diminished to such a degree from the fallout of systemic failure that the whole thing can no longer operate.

The last point is pretty good.

No,I'm not here to fling poo, I'm only stating things from own perspective at a given moment,erroneous as it may be given your lengthy responses. My opinion/perspective,like yours,will change over time as I make my way through this mine field of life.

As far as the Fed goes,I don't give a hoot what they do about it. I'm of the opinion nothing relevant will happen anytime soon and things will continue their merry way down the drain as the global economic crisis continues to unfold.

Honestly,if you think about it,my entire post is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things considering all the bad stuff that's going on. Sorry to have wasted everyone's time.

Originally posted by FlyingJadeDragon
1) Labor unions are an ever- diminishing presence on the American landscape and aren't really much of threat to anyone (outside of certain pockets of the world such as France) now due to globalization and automation.

The only people that Labor Unions have ever been a threat to are the corporatists who wish to exploit their workers. This is why Rand Paul and so many other corporate fascists are working so hard to kill the ones that are left. This is why your squishy and fragile brain is constantly bombarded with anti-union propaganda. You really think the people telling you how evil and terrible unions are, are looking out for you? 'Cause these are the same people who have been trying to tell you that there are terrorist cells of scary scary Arabmuslimiranianjihadistfanatic911dirtybombairlinersTERRORISTS!!! living under your bed for the last decade in an effort to keep your underwear brown and keep you pliant and acquiescing.

2) Structural unemployment is here to stay and will likely continue to get worse. Technology will continue to improve,become cheaper and displace more people from the workforce as time passes on. The current crisis is only speeding up the process as companies scramble to stay competitive by replacing people with technology where possible to maintain their bottom lines. The only reason most people still have a job is because they haven't gotten around to automating it-yet.

Technology does have an impact. Gratuitous deregulation has led to total globalization, which has had an even greater impact. Your job went down the drain because you voted for stooges who mailed the job off to the Banana Republics.

3) Work is a 'right'? Only in our current distorted value system could work be considered a 'right'. Last I checked,the basic premise behind rights was that they were granted to you and it was up to you whether or not to exercise them without penalty. How is work a right if the result of my choosing not to exercise it results in hardship or death from not being able to have money?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that participation in the money-as-debt,cyclical consumption system is mandatory in order for a person to live some semblance of a 'normal' life (no matter how ultimately pointless or detrimental to society or the environment said job may actually be).

"Right to work" is a misnomer. The "right to work" does not actually apply to you as the employee. It applies to the employer, and would be better-termed as "right to cheap and uninvested labor." A state with a right-to-work actually strips you, the employee, of any ability to bargain with your employer. It strips you of any ability to appeal a termination. It strips you of any ability to complain or appeal if your wages or hours are cut, or your workload increased. If you sign on with the understanding you have a benefits package or - glory be! - retirement options - your employer can, under right to work laws, choose to not deliver, and there's nothing you can do about it, because you have no bargaining power, and have made the "choice" to live in a state where you actually have no right to employment at all.

reply to post by FlyingJadeDragon


Don't get mad, get information. I was not attempting to enflame, just inform. Sorry if I got down on you, but you attacked two of the things I am working on.

Later.

reply to post by FlyingJadeDragon



I think that you are correct. What is sure is that as a free marketeer Mr Pauls just supports free and open markets for labour. Anyone bashing the unions nowadays should be viewed with deep suspicion as the unions will be completely dead in 20 years.

Interstingly structural unemployment is a necessity to maintain low labour costs. Sadly due to globalisation jobs would flood into the US if on a "like for like" comparison the USA labour rate was the cheapest. Sadly that is unlikely.

We are in deep trouble.

I live in a "right to work" state (Georgia) and from my experience it's not a good thing. The laws get kind of sketchy as any company based outside of Georgia has to follow the state labor laws of the state they are based in, but generally "right to work" or "at -will employment" translates to:

1) The company does not have to provide the employee with benefits or breaks. Local companies here have the "right" to work labor for an 8 hour shift with no scheduled breaks or lunches. Many local companies offer no form of benefits, including health insurance and vacation / sick days.

2) You can be fired without cause and no means of redress. Of course you are federally protected, IE unemployment eligibility, But it is very difficult to sue to get your job back. Literally a boss can walk into work and say "We've decided that tall people aren't in line with our corporate image. Everyone over five foot ten is fired.

While this concept is often cited as a great way to get rid of unions and to streamline the "free market". I've managed for two companies based in Georgia and I can tell you, first hand, that these companies use the benefits of this being a "right to work" state to abuse employees.

A family member gets sick, causing you to take time off? Expect to be fired. Of course it won't be because of your federally protected FMLA rights. It will be because the day you came back from FMLA, you were five minutes late, or your shirt wasn't ironed, or any other reason.

Car trouble? Well if you are in the "cool kids club" at work, you're safe. If not? Might as well not even bother calling in to say that you've got car trouble. You're either fired or you will be just as soon as your replacement can be hired and trained.

There is a local farmers market / Grocery store chain here, called Harry's. Want to work there for a wage that is roughly average for the market here? Well, if so, here are a few things to bear in mind...

1) If you smoke, you must attend MANDATORY smoking cessation clinics, at your own cost, before you can be scheduled to work. You must provide Harry's with proof of completion of this having occurred.
2) If you are ever seen smoking, ANYWHERE, including in your own home. You are terminated. No warnings and no exceptions.
3) Harry's reserves the right to fire you for any violation of "corporate image". IE if you get a little buck wild at the local bar, on a Friday night, to decompress and destress, and a coworker reports you: Fired.

Funfact: The owner of Harry's smokes a pipe. Even at work.

This is just an example of how these laws are less about your right to work, and more about your right to be a slave.

~Heff

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by FlyingJadeDragon

 

Yeah, a lot of areas are beginning to use silver as a means of barter.
I believe it all comes down to the fact that the government has removed the individual property rights. When you purchase a thing, it is yours, but not in the US and other places. No, now you have to pay to keep that property-property taxes. Also, when you work you trade your labor (another property) for a debt vehicle. Now the state of course steals part of that debt vehicle even though no profit was ever made, it was a direct trade of one good for another good.

I agree with you on this line - I think people should be free to live off their land if they can do it. Paying over and over to own your own place is actually pretty ridiculous IMO. There needs to be some sacred ground here

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by FlyingJadeDragon

 

Don't get mad, get information. I was not attempting to enflame, just inform. Sorry if I got down on you, but you attacked two of the things I am working on.

Later.

I'm not inflamed,quite the contrary. Don't worry about it and thanks for all of your replies and effort you put into them. Have a great day,Mate!

Originally posted by Hefficide

I live in a "right to work" state (Georgia) and from my experience it's not a good thing. The laws get kind of sketchy as any company based outside of Georgia has to follow the state labor laws of the state they are based in, but generally "right to work" or "at -will employment" translates to:

1) The company does not have to provide the employee with benefits or breaks. Local companies here have the "right" to work labor for an 8 hour shift with no scheduled breaks or lunches. Many local companies offer no form of benefits, including health insurance and vacation / sick days.

2) You can be fired without cause and no means of redress. Of course you are federally protected, IE unemployment eligibility, But it is very difficult to sue to get your job back. Literally a boss can walk into work and say "We've decided that tall people aren't in line with our corporate image. Everyone over five foot ten is fired.

While this concept is often cited as a great way to get rid of unions and to streamline the "free market". I've managed for two companies based in Georgia and I can tell you, first hand, that these companies use the benefits of this being a "right to work" state to abuse employees.

A family member gets sick, causing you to take time off? Expect to be fired. Of course it won't be because of your federally protected FMLA rights. It will be because the day you came back from FMLA, you were five minutes late, or your shirt wasn't ironed, or any other reason.

Car trouble? Well if you are in the "cool kids club" at work, you're safe. If not? Might as well not even bother calling in to say that you've got car trouble. You're either fired or you will be just as soon as your replacement can be hired and trained.

There is a local farmers market / Grocery store chain here, called Harry's. Want to work there for a wage that is roughly average for the market here? Well, if so, here are a few things to bear in mind...

1) If you smoke, you must attend MANDATORY smoking cessation clinics, at your own cost, before you can be scheduled to work. You must provide Harry's with proof of completion of this having occurred.
2) If you are ever seen smoking, ANYWHERE, including in your own home. You are terminated. No warnings and no exceptions.
3) Harry's reserves the right to fire you for any violation of "corporate image". IE if you get a little buck wild at the local bar, on a Friday night, to decompress and destress, and a coworker reports you: Fired.

Funfact: The owner of Harry's smokes a pipe. Even at work.

This is just an example of how these laws are less about your right to work, and more about your right to be a slave.

~Heff

Your entire post just summed up what I was trying to say in a very confusing fashion. Thanks for your feedback on your own personal experience and knowledge on the topic. It's helpful to all of us and greatly appreciated,I'm sure.