Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Wisconsin Union Busting Law

reply to post by LexiconRiot


yeah i have no use for ad hominem attacks

later

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by LexiconRiot

 

yeah i have no use for ad hominem attacks

later

You also have no use for addressing issues and having a debate. You simply wish to reiterate talking points and fail to back any up with logical debate at the vary least. If you wish for me t o not call you out for you lack of being concise then please attempt to use complete sentences. When it is up to the reader to interpret what you are trying to say you are often left with a serious disconnect. Unless of course this disconnect was intended.

so since you are apparently a union member and supporter, let me ask this. Do you feel that is right to force someone to join a union and pay dues even if they do not want to be in one? what do unions really provide in this day and age? I will admit that in previous decades yes, a union was a necessary thing to force employers to make sure the working conditions were safe, a fair wage was paid and employees were not being exploited. However, in this era, we have minimum wage laws, FMLA, OSHA, NLRB etc. Why do we need unions?

Union supporters always seem to forget about how unions ruin the companies that provide thier jobs. Look at Chrysler, GM etc. The majority of their financial problems came from the unions. Public unions do the same thing to the government and ultimately the tax payer. I am sorry that i think pay and benefits should be based on quality of work from the worker, not a group of union thugs threatening strikes or law suits if they dont get what they want.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by centurion1211

 

well here is some that are working class www.ua.org... back with IBEW www.ibew.org...
and then the Teamsters union www.teamster.org...
Now what do they all have in common?? They are the working class, and with this bill/ law it is just a matter of time before they are made illegal!!! To bad they do not see the writing on the wall, then there are other labor unions that can be added to the list painter's gen laborers, nursing and the like are they not middle class, it all viols down to slave labor,, long hours less pay, no benefits and no one to speak for you, if you complain then there, are others that can work in your place. Get it?????

edit on 15-6-2011 by bekod because: editting

edit on 15-6-2011 by bekod because: editting

Since you keep adding to this post, I'll answer further. Actually, I'll ask you question.

Where has it been passed in a bill, or even proposed to "make unions illegal"?

Answer: Nowhere. And so to have people mindlessly parroting union fear mongering accomplishes nothing.

I obviously "get" reality. Do you?

Originally posted by SM2
so since you are apparently a union member and supporter, let me ask this. Do you feel that is right to force someone to join a union and pay dues even if they do not want to be in one? what do unions really provide in this day and age? I will admit that in previous decades yes, a union was a necessary thing to force employers to make sure the working conditions were safe, a fair wage was paid and employees were not being exploited. However, in this era, we have minimum wage laws, FMLA, OSHA, NLRB etc. Why do we need unions?

Union supporters always seem to forget about how unions ruin the companies that provide thier jobs. Look at Chrysler, GM etc. The majority of their financial problems came from the unions. Public unions do the same thing to the government and ultimately the tax payer. I am sorry that i think pay and benefits should be based on quality of work from the worker, not a group of union thugs threatening strikes or law suits if they dont get what they want.

I assume this is directed at me. Let me say this. I am not union member nor am I employed. I am medically retired from the US Army and physically disabled. I am a stay at home father while my wife works to support our family until I am able to attain employment. In this current economy that is easier said than done for someone not really suited for general labor as my body cannot sustain the rigors of it. With more than enough personal information that I really had no need to give you I hope this really illustrates my point.

I have seen no law demanding anyone be members of any group.

Min. wage is a laughable concept. Did you read my break down on what min. wage equates too? i would refer you to page two of this thread for that. Unions while not the greatest thing ever are still serving a role to play in the labor force. Again I have covered this in a previous topic. Please instead of making assumptions about me bring a new topic to the discussion. You are simply reiterating Tea party Talking points with out any back up. Show me proof that unions caused the failure of any company. This train of thought doesn't make sense unless you are advocating for our jobs to be sent to China and India. Unions are for the betterment of the workplace Corporations are for the bottom line. If we don't pay for benefits and fair wages then the profits are way up.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by centurion1211

 

well here is some that are working class www.ua.org... back with IBEW www.ibew.org...
and then the Teamsters union www.teamster.org...
Now what do they all have in common?? They are the working class, and with this bill/ law it is just a matter of time before they are made illegal!!! To bad they do not see the writing on the wall, then there are other labor unions that can be added to the list painter's gen laborers, nursing and the like are they not middle class, it all viols down to slave labor,, long hours less pay, no benefits and no one to speak for you, if you complain then there, are others that can work in your place. Get it?????

edit on 15-6-2011 by bekod because: editting

edit on 15-6-2011 by bekod because: editting

Since you keep adding to this post, I'll answer further. Actually, I'll ask you question.

Where has it been passed in a bill, or even proposed to "make unions illegal"?

Answer: Nowhere. And so to have people mindlessly parroting union fear mongering accomplishes nothing.

I obviously "get" reality. Do you?

Ok, then I will ask you a question; What gain do the Koch Brothers get from stopping at public sector unions?

You call it fear-mongering I call it reading between the lines.
You marginalize any viewpoint other than your own. Instead of seeing the validity of an argument that is counter to your own you reply with demagoguery remarks. He (bekod) offered real worries that are really on the minds of the people with a little foresight.

Originally posted by LexiconRiot

Ok, then I will ask you a question; What gain do the Koch Brothers get from stopping at public sector unions?

You call it fear-mongering I call it reading between the lines.
You marginalize any viewpoint other than your own. Instead of seeing the validity of an argument that is counter to your own you reply with demagoguery remarks. He (bekod) offered real worries that are really on the minds of the people with a little foresight.

Unless you have more evidence - in the form of links to reputable news sources - rather than just your "ability" to "read between the lines", then you are really providing nothing to the discussion.

And quite clearly bekod is only offering the "worries" that someone from the union told him to offer. Bekod does not provide any evidence that their "worries" were based on fact - and neither have you.

Oh, and try to make your responses more about the topics and less about the members ...

Remember that this is originally about Public Unions and what they do or don't bring to the populace they serve.

Up here in NE Ohio They don't bring a whole lot. Corruption runs rampent and my sister in Wisconsin tells me that it's much the same up there as well.

One Cleveland suburb, that is larger than Cleveland in square miles and actual homes uses a private contractor for Waste pickup, two per truck.

Cleveland though, using public union labor, you will typically see 3-4 people on their Waste trucks.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
Remember that this is originally about Public Unions and what they do or don't bring to the populace they serve.

Up here in NE Ohio They don't bring a whole lot. Corruption runs rampent and my sister in Wisconsin tells me that it's much the same up there as well.

One Cleveland suburb, that is larger than Cleveland in square miles and actual homes uses a private contractor for Waste pickup, two per truck.

Cleveland though, using public union labor, you will typically see 3-4 people on their Waste trucks.

What you are describing is generally called "union work rules", and is a big contributor to the high labor costs that have sent so many American jobs overseas.

I was a union member when I worked in a factory to help pay for school and one of my jobs was to spend 8 hours looking like I was busy sweeping the floor of a large room - because the union work rules said that was an "important" job. There were also others sweeping other rooms. Truth is 1 person could have done them all several times in a shift saving a ton of costs. Then there was "comedy" of trying to get something fixed when you call the pipefitter, who shows up just at break time, then after break decides he needs an electrician, who shows up at just at lunchtime, who after lunch decides they need the metal guy, who (you guessed it) shows up just in time for the afternoon break ...

reply to post by centurion1211


I've heard plenty of horror stories from buds who work at the automotive plants here. All of them to a tee, wish that their leadership could just be replaced but they are too well entrenched. Many have told me that they would have quit but of course have families and have to provide for them. High unemployment here, you don't quit unless you have the money to live.

Here in Ohio SB5 has tensions running high. The Pols are using it as an excuse to layoff Safety Forces, then blame the Governor, but yet they keep all these pork projects and excessively large staffs running. Go figure.

Originally posted by LexiconRiot



I have seen no law demanding anyone be members of any group.

.

First off, thank you for your service to the country, i mean that sincerely. Now to the no law demanding anyone to be a member of any group.

"Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially. In 28 states under the NLRA (those that have not passed Right to Work laws), all states under the RLA, on “exclusive federal enclaves,” and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation."

"Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation.

Monopoly bargaining, or “exclusive representation,” which is embedded in most of the country’s labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives."

source: www.nrtw.org...

Originally posted by LexiconRiot

I have seen no law demanding anyone be members of any group.

Amazing that you'd be posting on this thread, but have no knowledge of what the term "union shop" means, where companies by law can hire union members and non-union members, but the non-union members are forced to join the union within a certain time or lose their jobs.

Here, let me provide the information for you:

source


Even more restrictive are "closed shop" laws, where only union members can be hired by a company.

source

A shop in which persons are required to join a particular union as a precondition to employment and to remain union members for the duration of their employment.

The federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 151 et seq.) protects the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively and prohibits management from engaging in unfair labor practices that would interfere with these rights. Popularly known as the Wagner Act, the NLRA was signed into law by President franklin d. roosevelt on July 5, 1935.

Among the workers' rights legalized by the NLRA was the right to enter into a "closed shop" agreement. It differs from a union shop, in which all workers, once employed, must become union members within a specified period of time as a condition of their continued employment. Closed shop agreements ensured that only union members who were bound by internal union rules, including those enforcing worker solidarity during strikes, were hired.

So, clearly there are companies where people are forced to become union members - if they want to work.

reply to post by SM2


I would say if that is the true sentiment of the laws then they are flawed. I would say your source seems far from unbiased. I would be far more inclined to value the input after reading the laws myself but I will have to just agree to disagree here as I have no desire for that much research into a topic that truly doesn't interest me.

Originally posted by LexiconRiot
reply to post by SM2

 

I would say if that is the true sentiment of the laws then they are flawed. I would say your source seems far from unbiased. I would be far more inclined to value the input after reading the laws myself but I will have to just agree to disagree here as I have no desire for that much research into a topic that truly doesn't interest me.

And the sources I provided?

They are quoting the law ...

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by LexiconRiot

I have seen no law demanding anyone be members of any group.

Amazing that you'd be posting on this thread, but have no knowledge of what the term "union shop" means, where companies by law can hire union members and non-union members, but the non-union members are forced to join the union within a certain time or lose their jobs.

Here, let me provide the education for you:

source


Even more restrictive are "closed shop" laws, where only union members can be hired by a company.

source

A shop in which persons are required to join a particular union as a precondition to employment and to remain union members for the duration of their employment.

The federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 151 et seq.) protects the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively and prohibits management from engaging in unfair labor practices that would interfere with these rights. Popularly known as the Wagner Act, the NLRA was signed into law by President franklin d. roosevelt on July 5, 1935.

Among the workers' rights legalized by the NLRA was the right to enter into a "closed shop" agreement. It differs from a union shop, in which all workers, once employed, must become union members within a specified period of time as a condition of their continued employment. Closed shop agreements ensured that only union members who were bound by internal union rules, including those enforcing worker solidarity during strikes, were hired.

I see no law stating you must join a union. I see business agreeing to these rules with unions which are legally acceptable rules. Not a mention of a state saying that you must work for this company or join this union to be provided employment. Stop twisting facts to suit your point of view. If you don't want to be represented by a union then stop trying to get employed by a company that deals with them.

Originally posted by LexiconRiot

I see no law stating you must join a union. I see business agreeing to these rules with unions which are legally acceptable rules. Not a mention of a state saying that you must work for this company or join this union to be provided employment. Stop twisting facts to suit your point of view. If you don't want to be represented by a union then stop trying to get employed by a company that deals with them.

The law enables unions to create these restrictive rules.

But please explain to all of us how it makes any difference to the rank and file workers whether it was the enabling law or the union rule that forces them to join or be a member of a union or lose their jobs.

Originally posted by centurion1211

The law enables unions to create these restrictive rules.

But please explain to all of us how it makes any difference to the rank and file workers whether it was the enabling law or the union rule that forces them to join or be a member of a union or lose their jobs.

So you admit then that there is in fact no law stating you must join a union and pay union dues.
Simply making it legal for a company and a union to agree to these terms.

The interesting thing about an agreement is that one side can not simply agree for the other. You are attacking unions saying falsities without complaint of the companies that agree to this type of bargaining. No one is being taken advantage of here. If you don't want to be part of a union then don't apply to a company that agreed to these rules. How is this hard?

It makes no difference, the end result is A) pay union dues against your will and financially support an organization you do not want or agree with, and have them force you to allow them to be your representative in your place of business B) have no job.

If you were to put this into a different light, seeing as though the unions are overwhelmingly democrat/liberal. They use the money they force you to give to them for something you don't want and then turn around and give that to a political candidate that you do not want, and they can contribute as much as they want and do not have to disclose it. They are forcing you to support the democratic party by holding your ability to support your family hostage. Then they get favors from the candidate they purchased the office for. Look at the South Carolina, NLRB/Obama deal. Carolina is out of thousands of jobs now because they are a right to work state and the union will lose money if Boeing puts a plant there. So, since Obama was bought and paid for by the unions, he does as they tell him, and he directs his administration to block the move.
Or, how about the endless campaigning for Obama care by SEIU and AFL-CIO telling everyone they had to support this, its so great everyone needs this. Then as soon as it is passed, they all receive waivers so they get the upper hand once again. But, yeah unions are such a great thing and are always looking out for the little blue collar guy.

reply to post by LexiconRiot


All we have to do is look at how the Union is bringing a lawsuit to stop Boeing from opening another plant in South Carolina, a right to work state. They added 2000 more jobs in Seattle and do not plan on shutting it down. But they have a problem with expanding operations in a right to work state? Oh how silly of me, what was I thinking?

They are complaining because they won’t ….get….their….dues. Can't have that now, can we?

Unions have destroyed the rust belt and automotive industry. They need to reform, or get kicked to the curb. The writing is on the wall.

Originally posted by SM2
It makes no difference, the end result is A) pay union dues against your will and financially support an organization you do not want or agree with, and have them force you to allow them to be your representative in your place of business B) Get a job with a different company who doesn't agree to dealing with Union strong arm tactics. They probably wont pay as well and they probably will only hire you for part-time and keep you impoverished. But hey only unions are evil here so who cares what a horrible situation that corporations create all by themselves.

There I fixed it your statement for thuthiness.