Michael Hardner Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 I'm slightly surprised that you begin with the words "bogus argument" and then analogize using the Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movement. I didn't see the analogy either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Really? Please tell us about these amazing benefits and pensions. Usually the argument goes that if Unions were not around we would be still working 12 hour days, 6 days a week for a pittance. I have been hearing from union advocates about the amazing wages and benefits that unions have brought us ad nauseum. You can't argue it both ways. Either there are amazing wages and benefits because of Unions or there are not. Which is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 You can't argue it both ways. Either there are amazing wages and benefits because of Unions or there are not. Which is it? His post was a response to a statement that said there were much higher wages & benefits for union positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 And I'm still waiting to hear from the anti-union people about how workers in RTW states have things so much better than their counterparts in Scandinavia or Germany. You mean the union is responsible for great wages and benefits? I think that sounds like arguing it both ways, doesn't it Michael?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 You mean the union is responsible for great wages and benefits? I think that sounds like arguing it both ways, doesn't it Michael?? How so ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 You mean the union is responsible for great wages and benefits? I think that sounds like arguing it both ways, doesn't it Michael?? I understand you're referring to a double standard. We just don't see exactly what you mean. Assuming my own thickness, can you indulge us and spell it out for us a little? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) How so ? He wants someone to point to the amazing wages and benefits that unions and unionized States have as though it is a completely unheard of and unfounded concept. It's been long argued that Unions bring amazing wages and benefits so why even ask such a redundant question? Then he wants to point to how RTW states have so much lower wages and benefits which is the other side of the longstanding argument that Unions bring amazing wages and benefits. Edited March 6, 2011 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 He wants someone to point to the amazing wages and benefits that unions and unionized States have as though it is a completely unheard of and unfounded concept. It's been long argued that Unions bring amazing wages and benefits so why even ask such a redundant question? Then he wants to point to how RTW states have so much lower wages and benefits which is the other side of the longstanding argument that Unions bring amazing wages and benefits. Read this... http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/stateissues/work Before you dismiss it as partisan organized labour rhetoric,understand that the cites come from the US Dept. of Labour,not the AFL/CIO... And this is from 2001... I wonder what that gap is now 10 years and a serious recession later??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 I didn't see the analogy either. There are those who work in places with unions that are forced to be under union thuggery. Those who are called scabs. Almost identical to african americans in the jim crow era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 There are those who work in places with unions that are forced to be under union thuggery. Those who are called scabs. Almost identical to african americans in the jim crow era. That's a promiscuously unfair and irrational analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 That's a bogus argument. Mandatory union membership is akin to the jim crow era in the southern usa.The only bogus argument, and one that is frankly an insult to anyone's intelligence, is that mandated union membership is akin to racist laws. Thank you though for demonstrating that are at such a loss for an argument that would make sense that you have to sink that low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 The only bogus argument, and one that is frankly an insult to anyone's intelligence, is that mandated union membership is akin to racist laws. Thank you though for demonstrating that are at such a loss for an argument that would make sense that you have to sink that low. Nevermind the fact that "Closed Shop" is essentially illegal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 He wants someone to point to the amazing wages and benefits that unions and unionized States have as though it is a completely unheard of and unfounded concept. It's been long argued that Unions bring amazing wages and benefits so why even ask such a redundant question? Then he wants to point to how RTW states have so much lower wages and benefits which is the other side of the longstanding argument that Unions bring amazing wages and benefits. I think the distinction that he likely used is between "fair wages" and "slave wages" etc., if I remember the rhetoric correctly. Not "amazing wages" vs "fair wages". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 There are those who work in places with unions that are forced to be under union thuggery. Those who are called scabs. Almost identical to african americans in the jim crow era. Because... requiring people to join a union is akin to racism ? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Because... requiring people to join a union is akin to racism ? No. Because requiring people to follow proposterous rules such as whites only restsurants or in the case of unions such as being forced to march the picket line instead of work, both cases under the threat of "attitude adjustment" by vigalantes which has turned violent. At the same time both cases saying "oh but you can leave". Should all african americans have left the southern states because a group of people imposed ridiculous rules on them? Same goes for "scabs". Rights are a two way street its too bad unions don't see that. As for canadien - you bring up ssm struggle, I can bring up jim crow. Pot meet kettle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) Because requiring people to follow proposterous rules such as whites only restsurants or in the case of unions such as being forced to march the picket line instead of work, both cases under the threat of "attitude adjustment" by vigalantes which has turned violent. At the same time both cases saying "oh but you can leave". Should all african americans have left the southern states because a group of people imposed ridiculous rules on them? Same goes for "scabs". Rights are a two way street its too bad unions don't see that. Keep digging yourself into a even deeper and deeper whole. There is no comparison between segregation and union membership, and the claim that there is one is amongst the worse piles of m*nure I have seen here. what's next, will you compare mandatory union membership to the Nuremburg Laws? As for canadien - you bring up ssm struggle, I can bring up jim crow. The obvious difference escaped you, and after reading your last two postings I do not wonder why. I was most definitely not comparing SSM with union rgihts. Rather, I was pointing how ridiculous the argument that mandatory union membership deprives someone from his/her right to work is by mentioning an equally ridiculous argument. Pot meet kettle. You are the pot alright, and one with more holes than I have ever seen. Edited March 6, 2011 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) Because requiring people to follow proposterous rules such as whites only restsurants or in the case of unions such as being forced to march the picket line instead of work, both cases under the threat of "attitude adjustment" by vigalantes which has turned violent. At the same time both cases saying "oh but you can leave". Should all african americans have left the southern states because a group of people imposed ridiculous rules on them? Same goes for "scabs". Rights are a two way street its too bad unions don't see that. As for canadien - you bring up ssm struggle, I can bring up jim crow. Pot meet kettle. 1.That's why we have things like proposal meettings,strike votes,ratification votes etc... It's called democracy...No one wants to go out on strike,however,sometimes one's hand is forced... Blacks in the South never got that democratic option.... What is your opinion of company lockouts like the one US Steel is perpetrating on its workforce in Hamilton,Ontario right now? The rest of your Jim Crow analogy is simply ridiculous.... Edited March 6, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Because requiring people to follow proposterous rules such as whites only restsurants or in the case of unions such as being forced to march the picket line instead of work, both cases under the threat of "attitude adjustment" by vigalantes which has turned violent. Ok, so the analogy is that following preposterous rules (which you may define) makes these the same ? At the same time both cases saying "oh but you can leave". Should all african americans have left the southern states because a group of people imposed ridiculous rules on them? Same goes for "scabs". Rights are a two way street its too bad unions don't see that. The Union has the right, in some jurisdictions, to have a closed shop because that power provides a counter balance to the natural advantage of the employer. You should also have a right to charge whatever you want for your services right ? Well, actually you don't. If you collude to keep prices low and keep competition out then anti-competitive practices legislation kicks in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 1.That's why we have things like proposal meettings,strike votes,ratification votes etc... It's called democracy...No one wants to go out on strike,however,sometimes one's hand is forced... Blacks in the South never got that democratic option.... What is your opinion of company lockouts like the one US Steel is perpetrating on its workforce in Hamilton,Ontario right now? The rest of your Jim Crow analogy is simply ridiculous.... Well... Jim Crow laws too were voted by democratically elected bodies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) You should also have a right to charge whatever you want for your services right ? Well, actually you don't. If you collude to keep prices low and keep competition out then anti-competitive practices legislation kicks in. Michael I can't speak for American union locals (actually,I can a little because I've had dealings with them through conferences,and such) But we simply do not have "Closed Shop" rules anymore in either Canada or the US. The Taft-Hartley act of 1947 outlwed the practice... It also allowed for this RTW scourge!!! In most cases we either have (excluding the RTW states)"Union Shop" provisions or "Agency Shop" provisions.. Mostly Agency Shops... The only time I can see some sort of "Closed Shop" scenario is if someone apprentices through a traditional trade union (ie.The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,the IBEW,The United Association (plumbers & pipefitters),etc.) This is usually done with the explicit understanding that ones employment is through the union hall in whatever region one lives in...But of course,if someone is apprenticing in a trade in this fashion,that goes without saying.... Edited March 6, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) Well... Jim Crow laws too were voted by democratically elected bodies. Of course,only a portion of the actual populous was allowed to vote...BY LAW!!! Not the case in any union vote... If you are member in good standing,you get a ballot! Edited March 6, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Of course,only a portion of the actual populous was allowed to vote...BY LAW!!! Not the case in any union vote... If you are member in good standing,you get a ballot! Somehow, I just knew that there was something no quite working with that argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 But we simply do not have "Closed Shop" rules anymore in either Canada or the US. Really ? What does that mean ? If I can convince GM to hire me at a lower wage I can work there ? In most cases we either have (excluding the RTW states)"Union Shop" provisions or "Agency Shop" provisions.. Mostly Agency Shops... "A closed shop is a form of union security agreement under which the employer agrees to only hire union members" IS the difference that several different unions need to be represented with one employer, or maybe that employers can hire non-union for some positions ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Really ? What does that mean ? If I can convince GM to hire me at a lower wage I can work there ? "A closed shop is a form of union security agreement under which the employer agrees to only hire union members" IS the difference that several different unions need to be represented with one employer, or maybe that employers can hire non-union for some positions ? My understanding (and it may be wrong) is that in Canada a union shop means that you pay union membership dues even if you decide not to sign in the union, and that the working conditions an wages negotiated by the union also apply to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 That's really beside the point. You and I both know that if we had a streamlined, simplified system most of these criminal cases would be dealt with in a few minutes of a judge's time. Instead they take months, even years, to wind their way through the system. That's not because of the client's lawyer but because of the immense complexity of the system. Actually an important part of strategy is to try to delay a matter so that the complaining witnesses lose interest. Let's say the crime is shoplifting at a store. Low-level employees who either saw the theft or a video of the theft often change jobs. That happens, and the case falls apart. Even police officers' memories are susceptible of fading as well.And as far as "streamlined, simplified system(s)" ever pick a jury? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.