Opinion of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley)

[politicus]

HA.

One of the worst laws passed by Congress in the 20th century.

[morgieb]

HA (normal, pro-union)

[checkers]

HA (normal, pro-union)

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

HA (normal, pro-union)

[RogueBeaver]

FA

[SWE]

Obvious HA

[Rockefeller GOP]

FA

[Beet]

HA. Regardless of what you think of unions, banning closed shops/right to work laws are a violation of freedom of association.

[TNF]

Probably the single worst piece of legislation passed in the post-World War II period.

[Beet]

The problem is this issue is too easy to demagogue. The ads practically write themselves.. a man walks up to the factory gate to begin work, a big, menacing-looking blue collar guy with a scowl steps in front of him, holding up a union dues form. Caption: you could be forced to do x y z, etc. Most Americans these days have never been in a union and it's too easy to cast them as oppressing workers rather than the employers advocacy associations. Collective bargaining is also a very abstract concept and most people wont intuitively understand the free rider problem, or why the employers organization must be matched with organization on the part of employees to have equal bargaining power. Although I think most people intuitively understand the don't have as much bargaining power as a 1,000 employee company when it comes to their job, most academic explanation makes it seem like the union is the one bring oppressed by it, not the worker.

[MurrayBannerman]

HA. Regardless of what you think of unions, banning closed shops/right to work laws are a violation of freedom of association.

Uh, what? So you're saying that making a requirement to work somewhere be that someone must associate with a union promotes freedom of association? There is no freedom there. It leverages ones need to earn an income against union interests.

[Beet]

HA. Regardless of what you think of unions, banning closed shops/right to work laws are a violation of freedom of association.

Uh, what? So you're saying that making a requirement to work somewhere be that someone must associate with a union promotes freedom of association? There is no freedom there. It leverages ones need to earn an income against union interests.

Merely setting a requirement to work is not against freedom- otherwise employers would not be able to require anything (like having a college degree, having x years of experience, no criminal history, signing non compete agreements, etc.). Of course, employers are free not to have those requirements.

[TNF]

HA. Regardless of what you think of unions, banning closed shops/right to work laws are a violation of freedom of association.

Uh, what? So you're saying that making a requirement to work somewhere be that someone must associate with a union promotes freedom of association? There is no freedom there. It leverages ones need to earn an income against union interests.

I always find it funny that libertarians have a massive blindspot on this issue. You believe in the freedom of contract, yes? Why is it that employers, having entered into a contract with a labor union that says that they will only hire and maintain employment for union laborers, should not be allowed to require employees to do so? Do you support the right of a contract or not?

Beyond that, there's also the simple fact that, if you don't want to work somewhere where you have to pay union dues, there are plenty of non-union jobs for you to choose from. 94% of the private sector workforce is non-union. If you really, really want to be a slave with no rights at work, that can be fired arbitrarily and made to work long hours for next to nothing badly enough, there are plenty of places where you can do so.

I've worked union and non-union jobs, and literally no one with a brain prefers the latter over the former. The union dues that you pay are miniscule compared to the job security, benefits, and higher wages that come with being a union member. There's a reason why a majority of Americans want a union at work, after all. The only reason they don't have one, in most cases, is because signing a union card in most places gets you fired and your employer gets away with it, even though firing someone for talking about or joining a union is against the law.

Of course this issue is also muddled by the fact that the majority of our libertarian teenagers have never held and probably will never hold a real job, preferring instead to spend their waking hours arguing about how cat-calling is free speech and that Lincoln was a Marxist dictator who confiscated property, interchangeable of course with their paranoid rants about the central bankers (read: Jews) who control the economy and make "real capitalism" (which doesn't work anyway, but libertarians have no conception of history) impossible. Try working in a non-union shop and then get back to me on how great it is not to pay union dues while you're making $7.25 an hour working two jobs in a vain attempt to pay rent thanks to the gentrifying parasites moving into your neighborhood.

[Maistre]

HA. Regardless of what you think of unions, banning closed shops/right to work laws are a violation of freedom of association.

Uh, what? So you're saying that making a requirement to work somewhere be that someone must associate with a union promotes freedom of association? There is no freedom there. It leverages ones need to earn an income against union interests.

I always find it funny that libertarians have a massive blindspot on this issue. You believe in the freedom of contract, yes? Why is it that employers, having entered into a contract with a labor union that says that they will only hire and maintain employment for union laborers, should not be allowed to require employees to do so? Do you support the right of a contract or not?

Beyond that, there's also the simple fact that, if you don't want to work somewhere where you have to pay union dues, there are plenty of non-union jobs for you to choose from. 94% of the private sector workforce is non-union. If you really, really want to be a slave with no rights at work, that can be fired arbitrarily and made to work long hours for next to nothing badly enough, there are plenty of places where you can do so.

I've worked union and non-union jobs, and literally no one with a brain prefers the latter over the former. The union dues that you pay are miniscule compared to the job security, benefits, and higher wages that come with being a union member. There's a reason why a majority of Americans want a union at work, after all. The only reason they don't have one, in most cases, is because signing a union card in most places gets you fired and your employer gets away with it, even though firing someone for talking about or joining a union is against the law.

Of course this issue is also muddled by the fact that the majority of our libertarian teenagers have never held and probably will never hold a real job, preferring instead to spend their waking hours arguing about how cat-calling is free speech and that Lincoln was a Marxist dictator who confiscated property, interchangeable of course with their paranoid rants about the central bankers (read: Jews) who control the economy and make "real capitalism" (which doesn't work anyway, but libertarians have no conception of history) impossible. Try working in a non-union shop and then get back to me on how great it is not to pay union dues while you're making $7.25 an hour working two jobs in a vain attempt to pay rent thanks to the gentrifying parasites moving into your neighborhood.

So I take you would have been lean no on this bill?

[TNF]

I'd have filibustered it, if that weren't clear enough.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I am in favor of it.

[MurrayBannerman]

Apparently, I'm a libertarian teenager.

I never knew...

[Goldwater]

FA

[IceSpear]

FA, because the more you beat up on unions, the greater the chances for a proletariat revolution becomes. Don't you just see it brewing out there?!

#DeadPeople4President2016

[Redalgo]

I like much of it but the jurisdictional restrictions are awful, as were the vulnerabilities left for supervisors and the unconstitutional pieces that required union leaders to submit formal declarations of loyalty to the state and opposition to communism. I'm not sure what to think of the NLRB, meanwhile. It seems to be a corporatist entity. Without knowing how useful it is or what alternatives exist it would be silly to comment either in support or opposition to its existence.

Overall, it would be alright as policy if not for being combined with capitalism and a liberal workfare regime. So I voted HA with some hesitation.

[TDAS04]

HA.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

FA, because the more you beat up on unions, the greater the chances for a proletariat revolution becomes. Don't you just see it brewing out there?!

#DeadPeople4President2016

You know TNF has thoroughly trashed Taft-Hartley in this thread, right?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

While I'm not the biggest supporter of unions, I think it went too far.  HA.

[MurrayBannerman]

HA. Regardless of what you think of unions, banning closed shops/right to work laws are a violation of freedom of association.

Uh, what? So you're saying that making a requirement to work somewhere be that someone must associate with a union promotes freedom of association? There is no freedom there. It leverages ones need to earn an income against union interests.

I always find it funny that libertarians have a massive blindspot on this issue. You believe in the freedom of contract, yes? Why is it that employers, having entered into a contract with a labor union that says that they will only hire and maintain employment for union laborers, should not be allowed to require employees to do so? Do you support the right of a contract or not?

Beyond that, there's also the simple fact that, if you don't want to work somewhere where you have to pay union dues, there are plenty of non-union jobs for you to choose from. 94% of the private sector workforce is non-union. If you really, really want to be a slave with no rights at work, that can be fired arbitrarily and made to work long hours for next to nothing badly enough, there are plenty of places where you can do so.

I've worked union and non-union jobs, and literally no one with a brain prefers the latter over the former. The union dues that you pay are miniscule compared to the job security, benefits, and higher wages that come with being a union member. There's a reason why a majority of Americans want a union at work, after all. The only reason they don't have one, in most cases, is because signing a union card in most places gets you fired and your employer gets away with it, even though firing someone for talking about or joining a union is against the law.

Of course this issue is also muddled by the fact that the majority of our libertarian teenagers have never held and probably will never hold a real job, preferring instead to spend their waking hours arguing about how cat-calling is free speech and that Lincoln was a Marxist dictator who confiscated property, interchangeable of course with their paranoid rants about the central bankers (read: Jews) who control the economy and make "real capitalism" (which doesn't work anyway, but libertarians have no conception of history) impossible. Try working in a non-union shop and then get back to me on how great it is not to pay union dues while you're making $7.25 an hour working two jobs in a vain attempt to pay rent thanks to the gentrifying parasites moving into your neighborhood.

I don't think you fully understand contract law. I don't really either (not a law student), but I have a fairly decent understanding with a good chunk of my major coursework around business law.

I don't see where that would come into play in freedom of association. The consideration being provided by the business is the creation of a union shop. You're basically saying that if a business creates this, they should abide by it. Fine. That's fine. I would agree.

I don't see what this has to do with anything in this argument though, especially in right to work states were this doesn't come into play and wouldn't be used as consideration in a contract.

[IceSpear]

FA, because the more you beat up on unions, the greater the chances for a proletariat revolution becomes. Don't you just see it brewing out there?!

#DeadPeople4President2016

You know TNF has thoroughly trashed Taft-Hartley in this thread, right?

Yes, I've noticed an odd cognitive dissonance. One minute they're talking about how all right-wing legislation is horrible and should be stopped, the next they're talking about how they want right-wing policy implemented rather than settle for "meager capitalistic reforms" such as the New Deal and Great Society that merely stifle the growing revolution.