Collective Bargaining Modernization Act of 2014 (Veto Overriden) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 03:52:25 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Collective Bargaining Modernization Act of 2014 (Veto Overriden) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Collective Bargaining Modernization Act of 2014 (Veto Overriden)  (Read 4070 times)
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


« on: November 24, 2014, 02:48:23 PM »

This bill is hostile to Atlasian liberty. Now I know why TNF wanted to repeal Taft-Hartley and by extension Griffith-Landrum. To permanently protect mandated union membership/closed shop to work in certian industries. This will drive much needed manufacturing jobs into the third world while further damaging our own manufacturering base which is sorely in need of revitalization.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2014, 03:02:30 AM »

Given that Atlasian labor laws give employers little choice but to accept the demands of labor unions or totally shut down operations due to a strike (which they have no way to deal with due to the ban on hiring replacement workers under any circumstances). Enabling union to monopolize representation in an entire industry would enable said unions to conduct industry-wide strikes which, due to the aforementioned ban on scabs, employers would have no way of dealing with. In other words, unions would essentially be able to shut down entire industries at will. This potential for disrupting production to such a radical degree would create massive economic uncertainty (nearly every business is put on unsound footing when the production of the goods it sells could cease at any moment, and investing in capital projects, starting/expanding a business, etc all become much riskier as well), and be terrible for consumers who would have to deal with entire categories of products disappearing from stores while unions elected by as little as 51% of workers in an industry imposed their arbitrary will on millions of people.

So why don't we give employers their power back and restore balance between labor and management.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2014, 08:32:49 PM »

Nay
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2014, 10:27:09 PM »

Nay
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2014, 05:32:55 PM »

This is excellent news. The working people of this country march forward to higher wages, better working conditions, and shorter hours. All power to the unions!

When I return I will fight to repeal this monstrosity. Both sides must compromise For the good of our nationTNF. This is an anti-growth bill. We can have reasonable and sustained growth and prosperity while giving good conditions for the workforce. The unions must accept limits like management is demanded to. You and the radicals in labor have dragged that balance too far in your favor. Expect your rubber band to strike back at you unless you give your ear to the busisness leaders.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2014, 09:20:17 PM »

This is excellent news. The working people of this country march forward to higher wages, better working conditions, and shorter hours. All power to the unions!

When I return I will fight to repeal this monstrosity. Both sides must compromise For the good of our nationTNF. This is an anti-growth bill. We can have reasonable and sustained growth and prosperity while giving good conditions for the workforce. The unions must accept limits like management is demanded to. You and the radicals in labor have dragged that balance too far in your favor. Expect your rubber band to strike back at you unless you give your ear to the busisness leaders.

Again, show me some evidence, outside of hackneyed and baseless strawmen for your position on this.

Does the term "Union Monopolizing" mean anything? That is what this bill allows labor unions to do. Yet management can't do that.... Sounds like a double standard to me.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2014, 09:15:16 AM »

Most sectors don't have multiple unions (note I said most). Your paranoid anti-Union crusade needs a hell of a lot more rigor to be taken seriously.



Im not anti-Union Polnut. I just personally think the unions in this game are given an unfair advantage. My family has history in unions. I actually think having good unions balance crappy management. But there are good management/executives and that's something elements in the labor movement fail to understand. My question to the pro-labor contingent is this. Are you guys afraid of a little competition?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 12 queries.