It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I understand that, but you ar still missing the point. You are not forced to join a union. If some occupations are more union heavy than others, it may feel that way, but it is not the case, and, to steal a line "you know it". Dont want to join the union? Find a scab job. Find another occupation. Move to another state. It all comes down to choice.
Originally posted by The Old American
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
as they are the ONLY reason that my salary stays livable. I repeat: THE ONLY REASON.
So, let's say your state had no teacher's union. By your argument, your salary would absolutely be unlivable. Even though it is highly likely that schools would begin to do what those evil things called "businesses" do: they would begin to compete with each other trying to hire good teachers by offering them just about anything they wanted. One could probably make more money that way. Unless they were a rotten teacher, I guess. But rotten teachers are protected by unions if they have tenure, aren't they? Ah well, keep on keeping on. Never let facts get in the way of progress(ivism).
/TOA
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by captaintyinknots
You are right. I did not.
But in the answer you gave, it shows me that you refuse to answer, because . . . again . . . your position is indefensible.
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I understand that, but you ar still missing the point. You are not forced to join a union. If some occupations are more union heavy than others, it may feel that way, but it is not the case, and, to steal a line "you know it". Dont want to join the union? Find a scab job. Find another occupation. Move to another state. It all comes down to choice.
No, it is you that is doing the twisting - almost to "pretzel status"
The only way you are not forced to join a union in a non-right to work state is if you don't try to get a job in a company that has been unionized. And you are also out of a job (or forced to join the union) if a union comes into a place where you already have a job.
If you have to be a union member to get or keep a job, it is forced union membership pure and simple.
Admit it.
Originally posted by centurion1211
From a related thread:
Notice how no pro-union person can or will answer the philosophical questions I have raised on this issue:
1 - why have to force union membership when it supposedly is so beneficial to the workers?
and
2 - if pro choice is an important part of union (left) philosophy, why not pro choice on union membership?
If these questions cannot be answered by the pro-union people here, it seems to me that not only is their argument lost, in fact they have no argument.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by captaintyinknots
You are being obtuse. There is a reason why the technical terms are "forced unionism" and "right-to-work.".