Originally posted by 12.21.12
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
Yes in America there is a right to freedom of speech, religion and freedom to assemble.
You can join a labor union and the labor union has a right to assemble.
However, collective bargaining is not part of that first amendment which states
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No where does it say anything about the right to collectively bargain.
Well, there's a good reason for that; It doesn't need
to. It also doesn't say anything about your right to wear shoes. You wanna tell me
that you have no right to wear shoes?
All rights are assumed. The constitution outlines the rights of the government, and then enumerates the citizen rights the government is never allowed
to infringe upon. It is not
a list of what rights the citizenry does and does not have.
Further, collective bargaining is a form of contract negotiation between two entities. What US labor laws do is prevent the employer from exacting
punishment upon workers for attempting to negotiate their contracts with that employer. That is, the law protects workers from abuse. Which is what
laws are there to do, ideally.
The United States has four branches of Government, legislative, judiciary, executive and the press. Unions are not a branch of Government and
hey do have a right to peacefully assemble and address grievances.
The press is not a branch of the government. You got the first three right, but including a fourth just marks you as being painfully ignorant about
And yes, Unions have every right to peacefully assemble and address grievances. I'm glad you're catching on.
Second it undermines the constitution and US law for example the antitrust law which was to protect workers from which labor unions are exempt
from, however it is only recognized in 1948 by the UN as a direct result of WWII in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, who's policies
directly undermind the constitution of the United States.
Well no, the constitution explicitly states that any treaty the US signs becomes US law. This provision of the US constitution has not always been
honored equally (ask my ancestors) but it's in there, in Article Vi:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Second, ever actually read
the UDoHR? Here's a link for you: Universal Declaration of
You'll find nothing in there that contradicts the US constitution, directly or otherwise. I see plenty that contradicts the GOP platform, which is
where you might be getting confused, since they pretend to be the spokespeople for the constitution.
In America Labor Unions only represent a small number of the American people and do not reflect the american people as a whole.
While fewer and fewer people belong to labor unions - primarily due to overt attempts to violate the constitution by busting said unions, both on the
corporate and state level - union members do reflect the American people as a whole. It's not like unions only draw from an exclusive section of the
population, unions are in all industries and draw from all walks of life, all political ideologies, and all economic brackets. Both genders, all
ethnicities, almost all religion, the full spectrum of political opinion, the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich can be found in unions.
This is why when you poll Americans about the subject, you find they
things such as collective bargaining and labor
As a result of collective bargaining and ridiculous laws that are supposed to "protect workers" they do quite the opposite on a daily
I can't help but notice you fail to back this assertion up with anything. So I'll just chalk it up to "intentional disinformation."
In america you already have a right to a fair work place. That does not mean you are entitled to the same wages as everyone else,
How do you think those rights were won? What system do you think is in place to protect those rights? And for the record, yes, you have the right to
equal pay for equal work.
it does not mean that you can not be fired if your employer is not satisfied. Thats pretty damn fair if you ask me.
Actually to does mean that. An employer must have demonstrable and just cause to fire you in most states. The employee is allowed to appeal the
termination, to assure that the employer did not simply go, "I hate Joe's face, he has a big nose, I'm going to fire him."
Employers have a right to fire people and only in a Union would the law say that Bob or Sally may not be let go even though they don't come to
work and do unsatisfactory work.
Except that's not the case. There is not a union anywhere that will back you up if you do not show up, or if you do not do your job. They will back
up your right to ask for an investigation rather than just accept your employer's word as the truth of god, but if it shows that your boss's reasons
for firing you are legit, then your butt is out the door.
The reason for this is that when you don't do your job, or don't show up, that means more work for your co-workers. Who aren't getting paid any
extra for pulling your slack. Which means that YOU are taking advantage of your co-workers. And the union is just as happy to protect them from your
exploitation as the boss'.
I remember back in the 90's the labor union grocery store workers would all protest and not got to work for weeks at a time.
It's called a strike.
The problem with this is that the labor unions would then hire temporary workers all while paying the union workers protesting outside with
american tax paying money,
I don't know what's more pathetic; that you believe this stupid crap, or that you expect ME to believe it! Holy cow. First off, the union did
not hire temporary workers. For starters, the union has no say over hiring. Second, hiring such people runs directly counter to the entire point of a
These temporary workers are known as "scabs." Not the most polite term, I suppose, but then, "leech" was already taken by lawyers. The owner of
the business where workers are on strike tries to hire these scabs to keep his business operational. Used to be they would actually truck people in
(sometimes at gunpoint, nback in the 20's) to do this, with the intent of breaking the strike.
Third, workers on strikes aren't getting paid anything. That's a core reason why strikes are universally the last option taken in labor disputes.
I'm not sure where you get the notion that they're paid, much less that they're paid from a government treasury. There's ignorance, and then
there's just plain making stuff up. You're engaging in the latter.
now it is happening in our schools and I for one am sick of it. I think these union protestors are absolutely pathetic and should be ashamed
for being so un-american.
Of course it's happening in our schools, because the politicians that people like you (who think unions hire scabs and that the press is a branch of
the US government
) elect are telling these teachers that they need to take pay cuts, take on more work, and get punished for the failures of
students of parents. These are, not coincidentally, the same politicians who seek to privatize the public school systems, re-institute scholastic
segregation, and remove textbook review from the public domain.
You do understand that this is the goal of people like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush, right? The goal isn't to balance the budget, it's to sell public
assets off to the companies they're personally invested in at thrift store prices.
Finally United States is a constitutional republic which means that it has a constitution and that in America the states limit the Federal
Government from becoming to powerful.
Yup - even though personssuch as yourself frequently demand that the federal goverment get more involved in stripping rights and liberties from
people. However, the important thing here is that while the form of our government is a constitutional republic (that is, an assembly of states with a
common body of law) our system
of government is representative democracy.
Yeah, we're a democracy, friend. Where you may be getting confused is that we are not a direct
democracy. That is, the populace doesn't
directly vote on most things (who would have time, anyway?) rather we trust elected representatives to vote in our interest. When they fail to do so,
we can removethem from the system by a number of mechanisms, all democratic.
a more in-depth explanation.
Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of
production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate
I don't think you'll find a union that seed an end to wage labor anywhere, friend. Nor any that wish to abolish private property. Or make everything
free. Or that seek a stateless society. Or even any that ask for common ownership of the means of production.
I understand that your little political flash cards tell you UNIONS = COMMUNISM, but, well, they apparently also tell you that the constitution not
only restricts citizens' rights but that it also enumerates four branches of government. I'd suggest tossing those things.
Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and
allocation of resources. A socialist society is organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed
decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of
which varies in different types of socialism. This ranges from the establishment of cooperative management structures to the abolition of all
hierarchical structures in favor of free association.
^Same damn thing
Only if by "same damn thing," you mean "stuff I copied from Wikipedia but can't understand but that Glen Beck tells me is BAAAAAAAAAD!"
Read carefully. They're quite different. Communists seek a complete social reconstruction into a classless society where all have an equal measure in
wealth and removes the need to labor for goods. Basically Communists are believers in a Utopian ideology. By contrast, socialists seek a society where
laws are in place to protect all people equally and where all people involved in a process have some say in that process. It's a practical
In fact, Communism has more in common with libertarianism than with socialism, exactly BECAUSE both communism and libertarianism are utopian ideals
that hinge on a complete overthrow of the current mode of society.
I'm sorry that you've been so grievously misled (really, you think Unions hire scabs... that's a comedy goldmine!) Hopefully you'll read and learn