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.

 

Unions Threaten Business

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by EssenceOfSilence
 


Actually yes, it is out of the question. Neutrality is automatically support of the worse option. Saying "I have no stance on the notion of my workers and customers getting economically raped and stripped of their rights" is fundamentally the same as saying "I support the notion of my workers and customers getting economically raped and stripped of their rights."

If a business owner is neutral, then taking a stance with the unions does them no harm (the government certainly can't engage in legal reprisal) and it gives them economic benefits of an increased goodwill from their customer base.

Further, a boycott is a fundamental right of the consumer, for any reason that they might wish to boycott.

Welcome to America. if you dislike it, there's always Somalia.
edit on 12/3/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I disagree totally. If he was really pro anything, than money thrown at him would not have changed that. I am pro freedom, no money tossed at me will ever change that. Sounds like he was pro saying what people want to hear to get votes, like most politicians.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by EssenceOfSilence
 


Actually yes, it is out of the question. Neutrality is automatically support of the worse option. Saying "I have no stance on the notion of my workers and customers getting economically raped and stripped of their rights" is fundamentally the same as saying "I support the notion of my workers and customers getting economically raped and stripped of their rights"

Further, a boycott is a fundamental right of the consumer, for any reason that they might wish to boycott.

Welcome to America. if you dislike it, there's always Somalia.


Boycotts are fine. I boycott all sorts of businesses. So if being neutral is supporting the worse option, then any neutral business is supporting the union extortionist by default.

Fix the extortion and get your collective bargaining back. But since the union leaders are only concerned with having power over the elected officials, you will have a tough time fixing it, since that is the real problem.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by EssenceOfSilence
Boycotts are fine. I boycott all sorts of businesses.


Then you are apparently a violent criminal. Not in my opinion, but in your own. You are a criminal, an extortionist, a mafiosi thug. Why? Because you boycotted something.


So if being neutral is supporting the worse option, then any neutral business is supporting the union extortionist by default.


Except it's not extortion. You see, extortion involves the application of force. if the union guys were saying "Support us or we bust up your car" THAT'S extortion. However, saying "Support us or we'll ask people to not do business with you" is not. Know why? Because the boycott falls apart if people shop there anyway. Individuals can make the choice to support or not. There is no force, either from the hands of the unions, or from the customers that decide to support them.

This is not a particularly hard thing to understand. Asking someone to support you by partaking in a form of nonviolent protest, with no penalty if they refuse, is kind of the opposite of force. I'm going to assume that you just didn't understand this, and got sold some snake oil on the subject. Hopefully the reality sinks in.


Fix the extortion and get your collective bargaining back.


Again, there is no extortion. That kind of makes your argument here "do nothing, and we'll give you what you want." Which, if you've ever paid any attention to anything that has ever happened in the entire course of human history at any period of time, is not how things actually work.


But since the union leaders are only concerned with having power over the elected officials, you will have a tough time fixing it, since that is the real problem.


Well, you've got two problems with your argument. First off, union officials are elected. They're not governmental, but they are elected by the people in their unions. Those people, by the way - along with thousands of non-union people, including numerous farmers from the outskirts of Wisconsin now - are standing in support of this fight.

It's the governmental officials in this case who are trying to take advantage of the people. That's the base of this problem. That's why the people are acting against those officials. You are watching democracy.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Yeah well. Everyone has their price. Reagan's might have been low, but hey, he was playing the right side for at least a few moments of his life.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


If I threw some money at you, you would really change your moral position on a subject? That really makes me sad. No one could pay me to change my morals, or scare me to do so either.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
In my opinion, this is completely unprofessional behavior on the parts of the Wisconsin "Professional" Police Association and the "Professional" Fire Fighters. I support their ability to publicly endorse a particular candidate or political position, but this letter is simply extortion, akin to the tactics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.


Your right to an opinion to not equate to your opinion mattering one single bit. Nor does it protect you from mockery on the basis that your opinion is founded both off of lies, and nonsensical prejudices (Really? How the hell did Al and Jesse end up here? SCARY BLACK PEOPLE BOOGA BOOGA!)


Do they have the right to boycott? Absolutely. But, they should just do it, if they feel it is justified. Sending letters like this is completely uncalled for and unprofessional. And, whether intended or not, does give an impression like that expressed in the OP.


There's not much point in calling a boycott, if you don't tell the people you're boycotting why you're boycotting, and what they can do to end the boycott, or prevent it altogether. I mean that's not rocket science, man, you've gotta fill them in, else they're just going to wonder where the hell everyone went.


The website of the WPPA contains a list of what they seem to believe are the key components of the "proposed" bill. I'm not sure how many of them were actually included in the final legislation, but one of them particularly caught my attention.
Very, very interesting... They are concerned about employees being afforded the right to not be a member of a union and, apparently, support forced membership and basically theft of employees' money, in the form of "dues". And, they are willing to cause economic pain to anyone else who doesn't support it, as well.


The reason those dues are collected is because the union does work for everyone, even those who do not join the union. That costs money. Working in a unionized business gives you union-derived benefits, as well as protection and support from the union to the same degree as if you were a member. The only difference is, you do not get a vote in the union and cannot serve as a representative of the union.

It's not theft, it's a user's fee.


One other thing that struck me about the "unions" announcing boycotts of businesses which supported Walker's campaign. One list I found consists of 125 specifically named businesses... How many of those employ "union" workers? By boycotting them, aren't they in fact endangering the very livelihoods of those fellow union members, as well as non-union employees? Doesn't make much sense to me. Sounds like, potentially, cutting off one's nose to spite his face.


Nope. 'cause what this actually does is offer more pressure for those businesses to stand in support. Yeah, crazy idea, a unionized shop might stand in solidarity with labor movements, right? Wacky.


Sorry guys and gals of the WPPA and PFFW, you've damaged your reputations on this one.


And it's evident that you'll make crap up and stretch to any length to fabricate a reason for your disdain of workers. Just be honest, say you like the feel of an ungreased corporate boot up your butt and call it a day. Or hey, maybe not your own, maybe you just get off at the sight of others in that situation. either way, honesty is the best policy.
edit on 12/3/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: tags



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Actually what is unprofessional is locking down the capitol (Wisconsin Legislators Move Desks Out of Capitol Locked Down By Governor) then using a tunnel to smuggle in lobbyists so they can direct fiscal policy.

Wisconsin Updates: Amazing -- 100,000 Rally in Madison; Tunnel Leads from Powerful Bank to State Capitol

Yep, real professional behavior there, you might even say pretty slick, indeed downright crafty, 'ol Walker knows how to cater to his corporate masters AND deny democracy at the same time.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Well, I'll be honest. Personally, I don't need money. I'm what would probably be counted as "poor" or, at best, "lower middle class." I'm a single guy though, I make do. To a large degree, I'm also a primitivist, and I have spent time on the street. Wouldn't be fun, but I could live it, and I could definitely say that in that regard, I'm not for sale.

But. I have a mother. She's in some pretty tough times, medically. She spent twenty years locked in an abusive relationship that left her flat broke and stranded in the middle of nowhere. She's over fifty and that, along with her medical problems, keeps her from being able to hold a well-paying job. If you put a document in front of me that would have me do a complete 180 flip on my views, with the truthful promise that she wouldn't have to worry about her bills or her rotten lungs or cracked spine for the rest of her life? I dunno, I might be tempted. I doubt mom would approve, but hey, I'd rather have a disapproving mother who's not slowly dying than the other way around, you know?

'Course, I don't think that Reagan had that kind of thing going on. Just saying, everyone's got a price somewhere.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Good point, I can see where you are coming from, and I concede to that. But yeah, most politicians are silver spoon born, that really doesn't apply to them. Thanks for making me think though, I can see that not all "selling out" is as disgusting as I would have thought. That is why I come here, people are always challenging my beliefs and making me think. Star to you.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


The extortion I speak of is the extortion of the tax payer through collective bargaining. Fix it and you can collective bargain till the cows come home.

Boycotts are not extortion, Boycott yourself silly. I don't care. Boycotting doesn't make you a criminal and I never said that. Get your facts straight.



This is not a particularly hard thing to understand. Asking someone to support you by partaking in a form of nonviolent protest, with no penalty if they refuse, is kind of the opposite of force. I'm going to assume that you just didn't understand this, and got sold some snake oil on the subject. Hopefully the reality sinks in.


But their is a penalty if the business refuses. They threaten them with a boycott. Get your facts straight, again.

I agree the democratic process will take care of this issue, but it will most likely have to wait until election day. The voters can elect some new folks to pass a bill with collective bargaining rights included if that is what they truly want. That is how our republic works.

I for one do hope the public unions get the right to collective bargain back, but with some reform that takes the extortion out of the process and the TAX PAYER will not feel like they are being raped by both parties, the unions and the elected officials. I have proposed a solution to this many times on other threads.

My proposals remove the power to extort from the unions, but does let them support the workers and collective bargain. The tax payer has to be represented since they pay the bill in the end, the old process did not allow this due to corruption.

Until the public union system is reformed, I can not support it in it's old form since it is a bad deal for the tax payer.

I have yet to read from anyone supporting the union side a solution the fixes the issue (restores collective bargaining and takes the corruption out of the process). I would be glad to review any and give my opinion.


edit on 12-3-2011 by EssenceOfSilence because: spelling



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Everyone hating on the unions has fallen for the lie!

Unions are about giving individuals the same collective bargaining power companies have always had - and often abused.

If a worker feels something is unfair and approaches a company about it on their own - they can easily be ignored because the company does not mind losing 1 worker when they have plenty more.

On the other hand if the worker feel's it is fair and enough people in the union agree - they can collectively express their concerns and worst case take action to force the employer to meet their requirements.

Think about this for a second:
You go for a job but you are not the best person for the job - so you miss out.
If your employer is not the best employer now the workers can make them also miss out.
It is creating a system where employers can be taken hostage, yes. But is this a bad thing? not really - it exists in every other part of our society.
If a small company does not have a product that has high demand everyone goes to the store next door. They have to give in to the customers demands to stock that product or they go under - not fair but that is capitalism.

Good employers will get employee's who will create and serve business.
Bad employers will get employee's who will lose and stop serving them business.

When it comes to public service companies they simply try to get the public on their side by saying - look now you do not get your service, get mad at the workers "for holding us hostage". Instead of getting mad at the workers for using their right to request better condition you should be getting mad at the business for not meeting their demands - or simply taking your business somewhere else.

It is supply and demand - our whole system works this way. But for some reason when it doesnt involve a company taking advantage of the individual it is not fair.

I know what you are thinking - where do they stop asking for more though? When the money they lose in time off in strike is not worth the gains possible. Yes this creates and ever increasing system - but all costs of every other supply and demand system are ever increasing too. We have just had the GFC people don't want to be out of work, but they will if they think there is ample reason.

The average CEO in 2000 reached an unbelievable 531 times that of the average hourly worker. The most recent report I saw they still were earning 174 times more than the average worker in 2010. They outsource job's to countries where they can pay rates considered illegal in the USA and they replace people with robots saving them lot's of money.

But they will argue the CEO's pay has nothing to do with what the average worker earns. Pay, like everything else is determined by supply and demand. Well, now the workers pay is going that way too - welcome to our world.

Companies have had it too good for too long - they have the same rights if not more rights than humans. I don't care when they come complaining the system isnt fair - it never has been!!


Edit to add: Yes, "Unions Threaten Business" - but it's about bloody time! If a company can't balance their books between providing their service and keeping the workers happy - another company will find a way. And this is supply and demand which is the backbone of capitalism.
edit on 13-3-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Vio1ion
 


Yes...and one of the rules they'd like to follow is derived from the US Constitution...the right of association...that rule is called collective bargaining....It is being illegally taken away by Repugnican Teabaggers who violate the open meeetings law....



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


Well as a small business owner, I would have to disagree. I am glad that I don't have to deal with the bullcrap like unions, that would make it more difficult than it is worth. All I have to worry about, is hiring someone that knows how to do the job, what color, religion, or whatever, means nothing to me. I could be a massocist, and hire someone that don't know crap, then train them for the next five years, but I don't want that. What is the real difference between union and nonunion. Union people are willing to pay money to gangsters.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I resent that as a proud member of AFTRA/SAG. I pay my union dues willingly as some of that money goes to my health insurance, retirement and compensation if hurt on the job, The production companies won't pay any of that. What do you suggest I do?
I also am a union steward and I resent being called a gangster.


edit on 13-3-2011 by whaaa because: code iiv



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by byteshertz
 


Well as a small business owner, I would have to disagree. I am glad that I don't have to deal with the bullcrap like unions, that would make it more difficult than it is worth. All I have to worry about, is hiring someone that knows how to do the job, what color, religion, or whatever, means nothing to me. I could be a massocist, and hire someone that don't know crap, then train them for the next five years, but I don't want that. What is the real difference between union and nonunion. Union people are willing to pay money to gangsters.


Let me try a different approach for you as a small business owner. If you were a store owner of a particular franchise and the franchise was not providing you with the cut you like - would you consider it criminal or immoral for you and the other store owners to get together and refuse to open unless your demands were met if negotiations failed with the franchise owner?
I think most would consider it a basic right - after all you own the store, you do the work, you agreed to join the frachise but you also reserve the right to stop providing your services if they are not paying you a cut you consider fair.
If you chose to attempt this by yourself you would likely be ignored and cut out of the francise all together- but by taking a collective approach with other store owner your demands are met. If the franchise owner doesnt want meet your demands they can simply get rid of you all and find others who will work for the cut they think is fair. Because of this there is no hostage situation - the owner still has options, they just do not like their options - but this will inevitably lead to a balance being found that all parties will agree is fair enough to agree to.
edit on 13-3-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Honestly, I have no idea what those letters stand for. As a small business, I have to pay for both liability insurance, and workmans comp for all our employees. Is that similar?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


I cannot speak for people selling things really. I provide a service, I install, sand, stain, finish, refinish hardwood floors. If people don't agree on the price for said service, then screw em. Keep in mind, we do charge people according to their lifestyle, a bluecollar in a 3 bedroom home gets charged less than a whitecollar in a mansion. We give people like us a break, because people like us are honestly less picky. I have had idiot rich people try to take us to court over a frikken eyelash in the finish.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 

Hanky. With such a well established historical record so long accepted by the patriots of the united States, it is a wonder to me that many patriots of today, to my mind, willfully ignore the sacrifices of our patriotic parents and grand parents. They were alive and many died during that war so that the future would know the nature of tyranny.

How is it that the course of action as played out by the Nazi goes so well hidden from the minds of so many today.

Oh I know. They just ignore it and reply
I know you are but what am I?

Stalemate.
Want to play again?

No thank you Lucy.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by whaaa
 


Honestly, I have no idea what those letters stand for. As a small business, I have to pay for both liability insurance, and workmans comp for all our employees. Is that similar?


AFTRA.............American federation of Television and Radio Artists

SAG..............Screen Actors Guild

The way production companies come and go, I wouldn't have any health insurance, retirement or even get paid at all, without my union representation and you call us gangsters. What exactly do you have against working people wanting to have a say in their working conditions, salary, safety on the job and retirement?

Read this....you might learn something....

www.aftra.com...
edit on 13-3-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join