Surviving in a "right-to-work" state?

[dead0man]

How do people even survive in a right-to-scab state?

I'm not talking about execs and business owners. I'm talking about average workers.

They resort to crime and end up in jail or dead.

Deadman posting.

Just so we're clear, you're doing a "deadman walking" kind of thing right?  As if you are predicting a future banning?  Not insinuating I'd post something so freaking stupid.


(not that I don't post stupid sh**t, just not that flavor of stupid)

[pbrower2a]

People have survived worse -- like slavery.

Unions are the only institutions that can stand up to corporate bureaucracies without destroying those bureaucracies. Better strong and independent unions than Marxism-Leninism, the latter a consequence of a capitalist order devoid of ethical principles for economic elites.   

[opebo]

How do people even survive in a right-to-scab state?

I'm not talking about execs and business owners. I'm talking about average workers.

Actually they have no problem surviving for a while - as in, at a bare subsistence level.  They can buy a little wonder bread and peanut butter, and live in large groups in shabby tenements, sometimes with the assistance of a bit of food stamps, sometimes without.

However, there are two problems - 1) they cannot raise families (if they do so attempt anyway, the resulting social problems are enormous), and 2) they will eventually succumb to some mishap or other, usually health related.  By 'succumb' I don't necessarily mean death, though obviously in the long run their poverty will kill them, but, rather that they will become unemployed, homeless, and/or in deep insoluble debt due to health or other misfortune.

[Mechaman]

How do people even survive in a right-to-scab state?

I'm not talking about execs and business owners. I'm talking about average workers.

They resort to crime and end up in jail or dead.

Deadman posting.

Just so we're clear, you're doing a "deadman walking" kind of thing right?  As if you are predicting a future banning?  Not insinuating I'd post something so freaking stupid.


(not that I don't post stupid sh**t, just not that flavor of stupid)

I was making fun of seatown, who said people who live in right to work states are either in jail or dead.

Sorry for the confusion.

[memphis]

Survival as a member in the under class is a tenuous game in any of the 50 states.

[Mechaman]

Survival as a member in the under class is a tenuous game in any of the 50 states.

Oh I don't doubt that.  Not in the slightest.

However, it doesn't take away from the intellectual fallacies of this thread, does it?

[opebo]

However, it doesn't take away from the intellectual fallacies of this thread, does it?

You've not revealed or demonstrated any 'intellectual fallacies' in this thread.

[DC Al Fine]

However, it doesn't take away from the intellectual fallacies of this thread, does it?

You've not revealed or demonstrated any 'intellectual fallacies' in this thread.

The OP implied that right to work causes problems that wouldn't have occurred had right to work not been adopted.

[Mechaman]

However, it doesn't take away from the intellectual fallacies of this thread, does it?

You've not revealed or demonstrated any 'intellectual fallacies' in this thread.

Good sir, it is more than blatantly obvious by the posts of a few people in this thread that even being asked to illuminate on such flaws (which are quite readily apparent) suggests an overwhelming lack of self awareness, hackery, or just plain trolling.
Seeing that it is you who hath asked the question, I lean towards the troll.

[Redalgo]

The individual deserves protection from the power of unions as interest groups like they do from firms. Just as I support anti-trust and anti-cartel policies so as to guide firms into competition with each other and thereby limit their capacity to harm or unduly exploit consumers, and just as I support workplace democracy as a check against the power of managers and administrators, I oppose a union's domination of the labour force at any particular place of business. The worker should be free to decide whether to negotiate with management individually or via the union's collective alternative without being discriminated against or faced with coercion in either event.

As noted earlier in the thread, nobody is forcing unions to negotiate terms on behalf of non-union workers. Tripartism does not appeal to me, nor does having the state pick sides in labour-business disputes so long as nobody's social rights are being violated. I truly like unions but don't consider them invariably committed to or even capable of advancing the best interests of every worker.