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.

 

Florida enters Union battle heating up across nation with strong anti-Union bill

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

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.




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


You are being obtuse. There is a reason why the technical terms are "forced unionism" and "right-to-work.".



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
From a related thread:

Notice how no pro-union person can or will answer the philosphical 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.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

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


Unfortunately, state school budgeting would not allow for competitive bidding. It simply would not be feasible. In an ideal world, the budget would be unlimited, and this system would work like a dream.

Unfortunately, we live in a country where the school systems are highly regulated by the state. Going to a system such as the one you suggest, would require privatization of the school systems. and that, my friend, is far from ideal.

I do agree, far to many poor teachers are protected by unions. However, without them, far too many VERY good teachers would be left without viable salaries.

The system absolutely needs to be reworked, I am with you there, but we have to be realistic, and not just say 'shouldnt it just be this way?' without considering the facts....those things that are getting in your way



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

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.


Yup, you are correct, my answer to an assinine question which you have admitted was a correct answer is a refusal to defend my position


You, again, missed the point. My point being, neither cow is free. You want to start talking about freedom, you may want to start thinking about how free you truly are in the working world, union or no.

We are all at the whim of the farmer.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

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.


Yes, if you CHOOSE to go into a profession, and you CHOOSE to work at a specific place which has been unionized....then its forced membership.


carry on.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

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.


1-In most cases, because the worker gets the benefit of the union either way, as it is in the contract, and therefore, should pay for the benefit they receive.

2-I will agree, there should be an option to opt out of unions, though many do give you the option to do so, if you wave your right to any benefit they provide.

I have to say though, you tipped your hand a bit in the last statement, and your stance has become much more clear to me.

Now care to touch on the points I have brought up?

1-Where would this country be today without unions?

2-Do you honestly believe the teachers of this country would be paid a viable wage if not for unions?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

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.".





Is it I who is being obtuse? I have repeatedly stated that I believe the system needs reform. However, I do not believe that systematically forcing unions to their knees is the correct way to go about it.

What YOU are missing here is that there is always a choice. You are falling for the power-word 'forced', and not seeing it from the full view.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join