Jump to content

Renegade

Member
  • Posts

    3,034
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Renegade

  1. Yet, it is the law in some states. What happened to your justification, "It's the law so it must be just"? Great. Then you should have no objection to the removal of laws which protect unions. Those laws prevent employers from dealing with labour outside the union. No, there is no need for me to eradicate it. It would itself die without legislative protection. You simply don't understand the meaning of the word coercion. It is coercion when some of your choices are taken away. It is irrelevant if you still have other choices. Yet you have not been able to refute my argument. You seem to think that calling me "free marketeering" is some kind of insult. I don't have any issue with the term. Any one who supports voluntary contracts, and consequently freedom, would be comfortable with free markets. Only those who collude to fix prices or restrict supply or demand would be against free market priniples. Of course you like the "personal freedom my union bargained wage allows me" but it derived at the cost of some other's freedom. I'm sure the plantation owner enjoyed the personal freedom supported by the wealth derived from the labour of slaves too.
  2. OK, but the RTW is also the law in 22 states, yet you have issue with it. How is it that you can on one had say "It's the law so it must be right, but then take issue with RTW laws. Your stand lacks credibiity. I never shied from addmitting it. Union law as it is currently written is a coercive set of rules which use force to protect an instutuion which in the absense of force to protect it would "bust". How so? How do you even know what my self-interest is? I would say it is in my self-interest to be free, so yes when I propose freedom it is in my self-interest. Moreover I don't just think it is in my interest to be free, I think it is my right and that of everyone else, both workers and employers. Your position is in your self-interest too (I'm assuming you are a unionized worker), but it is at the cost of someone else's freedom.
  3. Right. So if I understand your defense: "It's on the books in evey province, so that must make it just". Did I get that right? Unfortunately laws are driven by self-interest by those who have power, not necessarily by what is just.
  4. No, I completely agree that any employer who signs a CBA completely voluntarily is obligated to live by it. What I don't support is that employers do not have a choice but to deal with a union. If more then a threshold of workers decide to be represented by a union, does an employer have a choice? Possibly his only legal choice is to go out of business, as Walmart did. An employer should have the option of either contracting with other workers who do not wish to be union represented, or deal with the union for those who wish to be represented by the union and independantly with those who don't.
  5. I see. So according to you the government which passes the legislation also controls the courts. So in that case you should feel that the woman has the odds stacked against her, even when she has a valid issue. You didn't answer my question. Who then should she appeal to if not the courts? I suddenly remember why I usually ignore your posts.
  6. Ha ha. Great piece of nonsense. The courts frequently rule against government in cases brought up infront of them. Who exactly do you expect someone who has a percieved transgression to appeal to, if not the courts?
  7. It is retroactive for 2 reasons: 1. Her employment contract was signed well before 2002. I expect her employment contract also included the retirment and severance. Legislation passed in June 2002 should not change the terms of the contract signed prior, especially since the parties to the contract are well into contract execution. 2. Pension beneifts accrue during the duration of employment. If the legislation is not retroactive, it would only affect beneifts going forward. (ie only July). How would one month change the pension benefits payout unless it was retroactive?
  8. How exactly is she asking "to have the government take care of her"? In fact she is asking for non-interference from the government in the contract she signed with Hydro One.
  9. Exactly what I'm saying, and she seems to be suing for. The arrangment she signed was with Hydro One. The legislature has no business retroactively changing contracts. If they want to limit future compensation contrats for public-owned utility, that is their perogative.
  10. I believe you have the right to form a union. I don't believe you have the right to not being discrimmminated because of your decision to form a union. Ultimately the discrimmination is based upon someelses's right to choose and you should not be able to force him to restrict his choices. What you are basicly admitting to and I agree is that if unions wern't artificially protected by coercion they would cease to exist. They would cease to exist because most workers and most employers would not choose them. I have no idea what you are saying here. First, unions don't have rights, only people do, so it is not logical to give union "rights". Second, who determines what is a "fair deal"? Certainly a union isn't interested in a "fair deal" they are interested in the best deal they can get. Neither is an employer interested in a "fair deal" they are interested in the best deal from their POV. What "all or none situation" are you talking about. Please take the time to articulate your position. Your sentence makes no sense. Again a union doesn't have a "right" like people do, it is simply an entity. People have the right to join a collective, (which they call a union). I've already stated that. What I don't believe is that they have the right to force people to deal with the union involuntarily. A union which wants to survive should make a value proposition attractive enough to an employer so that the employer choose to deal with a union.
  11. Your grammer leaves a lot to be desired. I'n really not sure what kind of "discriminatory place" you are taking about. You should be absolutely free to join a union, just as the employer should be free to choose who he deals with. A union should only represent workers when the workers want union representation, and an employer wants to negotiate through collective barganing. Any agreement, is only freely entered into, when all parties do so voluntarily. Legislation which forces employees to join unions, or forces employers to deal with union is coercion, just as legislation which prohibited unions would be coercion. What exactly constitues "abuse" when contracts are freely entered into?
  12. Let's say you are right and she was fired for cause, she gets to keep accrued pension benefits, as would you or anyone else who was fired. If the organization believes that she stole or misappropriated funds, they they can sue her for those or persue criminal charges. Really the object of your wrath should be the people who created the lucrative salary and severance package for her in the first place.
  13. If "the Bosses" don't want to enter a contract with a union, why should they be forced to. Let's say in your scenario, the 50%-70% of workers want to create a union, however "the Bosses", don't want to negotiate through collective bargning. They should be free to hire employees who want to sign individual contracts. They of course have to balance that option with the knowledge that they will need to go through the expense of hiring and retraining that 50-70% of employees. If you don't want to join a union you shouldn't have to convince others or be coerced. Isn't that what freedom is?
  14. It has been my experience that virtually evey group advocates for legislation which is in their beneift, and then tries to couch their rationale in a righteous argument. The real test is not if the legislation gets passed, the test is if the rationale passes muster. This is true of unions as much as it is for NAM. As I've said, I'm not defending the right-to-work legislation that NAM is advocating, and I don't agree that unions should be forced to represent non-members any more than I believe other workers should be forced to be represented by the union. I certainly agree, that non-union employees are on their own, as they have chosen to be. If you agree that union membership should be optional and up to the employee (within that same employer), that woudl be contrary to the position of most unions. This also seems to be contrary to your previously stated position, that an employee's only other choice is to find other employment.
  15. As I understand the facts of the case: 1. She negotiated a pension with her employer. 2. The government passed legislation which changed the amount she got in pension even though she had an agreement with an employer. It seems to me that she has reason to sue. Tell me, is your only objection the amounts to do you have issue with the principle? IOW, if she were getting $2400 a month but had an employment agreement which had been agreed to at $3400 a month, would she have just cause to sue assuming all other conditons are the same?
  16. So let's see. You don't answer my question but want to turn around and ask me.. OK. I'll play along. Because the finanical health of "his" union, is "his" problem, not that of other members who don't want to join. Just because a union will be finanically devestated because unwilling members will decline to join, doesn't entitle a union to coerce unwilling employees to join. At least not if you want to respect freedoms and rights. It isn't. He shouldn't and isn't represented by the union. He should represent himself. See my answer above. The union shouldn't represent any one but its members. It should have no obligation to represent non-paying employees. Those non-union employees can negotiate their own contract with the employer. Just did. your turn.
  17. Wrong? Nothing in your response contradicted what I said. Membership in the organization is voluntary. Of course the NAM would support Right to Work legislation. NAM would want the right to freely negotiate a supply of labour from multiple providers rather than a single provider. How is this any different than a union being supportive of political legislation it favours? What you call "choice" is excactly the coercion I am talking about. Workers have other choices too. The could not decide not to work, they could move to a differnt country, they could change profession. That they have other choices doesn't alter tha fact that are denied a freedom to negotiate with ANY employer they choose including one in which workers are represented by a union. Your argument is akin to stealing my car, but reasuring me that I still have the choice to bike or take the bus.
  18. Except the National Association of Manufacturers doesn't force anyone to join their ranks as a prerequisite to manufacturing. If you followed your logic and NAM acted like a union, a manufacturer who did not want to join NAM, they should leave the country in order to manufacture.
  19. I take it that you must of read it the? That's good, but I haven't. Thanks for the pointer. I'll be sure to look it up. Nice to know that some one agrees with me, even if people with no logical argument do no.
  20. Really insightful argument! A union deserves to exist as much as a virus deserves to exist. There is nothing inherently wrong in questioning the benefit of a union. Those who resort to responses such as "you are wrong because your arguments are anti-union", are those who don't have an intenlligent defence for the existance of a union.
  21. No not all workers benefit. You assume that when a union sets a price for labour, all workers, (ie sellers of labour) benefit. How does that benefit the worker who can't sell his labour at that price? Is it better for that worker that price of labour is $30/hour but he is unemployed or is it better for that worker that the price of labour is $15/hour and he is employed? Further, even where unions may help a subset of workers it is determental to the end consumers of the product or service since it drives up the cost of that product.
  22. How about if a union wants to represent the workers, they go find a business that wants a union? Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? The unions should exist to represent only those workers who want to be represented by the union. Any other forced union membership is coercion. Of course that is a choice, but that is not the only choice. They should also have the choice to enter into whatever contract they choose without coercion. How about this: The union has a choice, they can go find a place down the street where ALL the workers want to be represented by a union.
  23. 1. If a company signs an agreement in which it willings gives up to hire non-union workers that is fine, however in most cases workers are FORCED to join a union, even if they do not want to, and even if a company is willing to sign individual contracts with them, if enough other workers want to unionize. Those workers lose their free choice to contract with the party they please.
  24. If you hold that an indiviudal has the freedom of association and thus the right to collective barganing, do you also agree: 1. That a individual has the right to NOT engage in collective barganing if they choose? (ie they have the right to work and establish a personal contract with an employer independant of collective representation or a union). 2. That employers have a right to not engage in collective barganing if they choose and hire individuals who are will to create individual employment contracts.
  25. I did not mean one year of savings in the absense of income or other income support mechanisms. What I meant is the incremental cost of supporting an additional child for a year (for example, childcare, baby food, baby supplies, etc). I have also repeatedly suggested I am open to adjust the number to what is a reasonable level: I have indicated what I believe to a reasonable level, I have also indicated an openness to discuss the right level, but you have refused to discus what that level is, so why fixate on my proposed level? I'm really not sure why your objection are related to the impractality of the level since you have already indicated that you have a conceptual problem that ANY LEVEL should be imposed.
×
×
  • Create New...