Workers get the shaft in Wisconsin

[OldDominion]

Please do tell how workers get the shaft by getting the right to choose whether or not they want to be in a union per a work contract? This is one thing Dems have gone too far to the left on and it is absolutely nuts to say that this is a major issue. It's a choice issue. People should not be mandated to joining a union or association and should never be bullied into paying dues or fees against their conscience. This is coming from a grandson of a NJ Teamster.

[OldDominion]

Please do tell how workers get the shaft by getting the right to choose whether or not they want to be in a union per a work contract? This is one thing Dems have gone too far to the left on and it is absolutely nuts to say that this is a major issue. It's a choice issue. People should not be mandated to joining a union or association and should never be bullied into paying dues or fees against their conscience. This is coming from a grandson of a NJ Teamster.

Right to work literally has nothing to do with letting workers choose to be a union or not. That choice is already protected by federal law.

So this definition is inaccurate then? "A "right-to-work" law is a statute in the United States that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring." As for Taft-Hartley, I know about that law.

This goes to contractual stipulation. Whether workers are tied by union enforced clauses in a contract with an employer or government to have their members work solely via association with that union - hence dues, etc. That should be optional.

As unions as a peaceable assembly per Am. 1, yes, they are but amount to assemblies of speech. Unions tying the hands of companies via almost damn near extortion is another thing and should not be protected. This is where the far left gets confused.

[OldDominion]

Kickstarter should not be illegal - you are using something as an example that has little relevance but adds to my point. If one wants to donate, why not donate directly and bypass middlemen that take part of your money? Would it not be better to donate 100% of the funds to the charity as opposed to say 80 or 90% minus overhead? So this example of tantamount to the union one in that people should be allowed to work and do work without being taken for that extra percentage regardless of whether they are union or not. Additionally, collective bargaining, if done correctly and not via coercive tactics would still work and the action done would still be for the good.

As for the MS example, no they, and any company that values successful growth, should only employ on merit not if the employee can make enough friends to force his or her prospects. So in that example's regard, why should governments force the employment of promote said employment over someone that is more ably qualified and/or experienced? They should not.

[OldDominion]

Okay, so why does anyone donate to Kickstarter?

They see it as an easier alternative but it still is a middleman. Why donate to KS for say WWP when I can go to http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/ and donate directly?

How would one do collective bargaining without 'coercive tactics'?

Utilizing fair arguments and business acumen.

Who said anything about governments enforcing or promoting anything? What Microsoft does should be up to Microsoft. They should be allowed to run their hiring policies how they want with regard to collective bargaining. That's my position.

On this we agree but some might say the govt should do more to regulate or enforce how the private sector manages hires, specifically in regard to skill, race, experience, etc.

[OldDominion]

Why do they see it as an easier alternative?

It's a centralized donation site.

Why do you need a union to do that? I can think of fair arguments and develop business acumen myself.

Members feel it makes their voices stronger (c.b.) but the tactics by union leaders is my point.

What does collective bargaining have to do with my race? I don't care about the race of my coworkers. I can collectively bargain together equally with blacks, whites, or hispanics.

For this one, there have been instances that due to race, gender, or socio-economic background, potential hires are not hired - the liberal outrage on this one has been vast. Sure you can cb with different people but that was not my point.

[OldDominion]

This has been an interesting discussion but it's time to say you don't know what you're talking about, and my clumsy attempts to lead you in the right direction aren't being met by very much success... it shouldn't be too hard for you to figure out where I was going with my questions, if you do a little reading... But that's all for now.

Maybe I saw the arguments differently. Idk.... Anyway, have a good one.