Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 03:44 PM |
| I think they were and still are unnecessary burdens to employers and restrict business owners' freedom to hire, fire, pay, and work as much or as little as they want. Note that I'm not against unions completely; I do realize they have their function, but I think they're too corrupt, violent, bureaucratic and centralized. Unions in many states make workers pay dues to a union representing that business even if the specified worker is not a member of that union. Quite frankly, I think that's wrong. Not to mention how many unions will get a good teacher (for example) fired, but keep 10 so-so or even bad teachers employed. Union violence and corrupt union bosses are not uncommon; in fact they're pretty much the majority of union bosses. It's a disgrace. We need to restrict the power of the unions. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 04:10 PM |
Socialism does not work in capitalist societies. I am a socialist. It needs to be instilled first. Unions are burdens on everybody. It is quite annoying when I see "Shame on Rasing Kane's Chicken or whatever" Shame on Lexus of Omaha *Facepalm* |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 05:26 PM |
| not having collective bargaining isn't a choice |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
JamesGalt
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 13607 |
|
| |
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 05:45 PM |
| Unions should be legal to form but you should also be able to fire the union workers for doing such. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 05:46 PM |
"you should also be able to fire the union workers for doing such."
why? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 05:48 PM |
"UNION of Columbia"
He meant Financial Unions not Political Unions (Government). |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:13 PM |
"you should also be able to fire the union workers for doing such."
why? ___ Because unions are harmful to businesses. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:14 PM |
| Also because it is a job they voluntarily took and voluntarily agreed to get paid for the work they do. They agreed to certain terms voluntarily and an employer should be able to fire them for breaching such terms. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:14 PM |
"Because unions are harmful to businesses."
not having unions have effectively removed collective bargaining in the US |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:15 PM |
| Adding on to that, it is an employers business and he should be allowed to hire whoever he wants and fire whoever he wants. He owns it, he has no duty to his employees but to keep with the terms he and they agreed to when the employees got hired. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:16 PM |
"Adding on to that, it is an employers business and he should be allowed to hire whoever he wants and fire whoever he wants. "
so how does that exceed my right to associate and right to assemble |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:17 PM |
not having unions have effectively removed collective bargaining in the US ___ The government has a certain duty to it's citizens that it has to keep them safe, that includes workplace safety. Employers must make sure this safety exist. If the government did this, as it currently does, there is no need for a union but to get higher wages even though it is a job they voluntarily agreed to take for a certain pay. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:18 PM |
so how does that exceed my right to associate and right to assemble ___ I never said ban unions, I said a company should be allowed to fire people for forming them. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:20 PM |
| firing people for creating groups is still a breach of my rights |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:22 PM |
| A business is not a government. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:24 PM |
Since we are both Americans, I will go by the First Amendment for such a law.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Notice it is congress that cannot make a law abridging the right of assembly. A company is not a government. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:25 PM |
| if you allow businesses to do such, its no doubt that they will fire people for forming or joining unions, which then i can sue the state for negligence of discriminatory practice |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:29 PM |
if you allow businesses to do such, its no doubt that they will fire people for forming or joining unions, which then i can sue the state for negligence of discriminatory practice ___ It is not discriminatory, it is protecting a business. When you agree to work at a business, you sign a contact that you will work under certain conditions for a certain pay and do a certain amount of work. Nobody forced you to agree to such terms, you did it completely voluntarily. If the contract says that you cannot form a union, and you agree to sign that contract, then you cannot form a union. If you attempt to form a union, then you are in violation of the contract. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:30 PM |
| To be more clear, joining a union when you sign a contract not to is a breach of contract which is against the law. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:35 PM |
i'm not objecting to having to follow a contact
i don't agree that such contracts should exist that you can sign away the ability to join a union.
i don't get where you got "unions harm businesses" from. when practiced properly, collective bargaining with a trade union and a business benefits both people by having the business have their employees less likely to flee to other jobs and by protecting individual employees from corporations |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:41 PM |
i don't agree that such contracts should exist that you can sign away the ability to join a union. ___ Nobody is forcing you to sign it. If it is completely voluntary, then there is no reason to prohibit it.
i don't get where you got "unions harm businesses" from. when practiced properly, collective bargaining with a trade union and a business benefits both people by having the business have their employees less likely to flee to other jobs and by protecting individual employees from corporations ___ The US has over 7% unemployment rate. The ones who work for companies where unions are more "necessary" are the ones where workers are easily replaced. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:44 PM |
"Nobody is forcing you to sign it. If it is completely voluntary, then there is no reason to prohibit it."
true, but a whole lot of corporations will include this as a condition in these contracts, which makes it easier for corporations to tyrannize their employees
there wont be anywhere to run from it if everyone will enact this. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
JamesGalt
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 13607 |
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:47 PM |
| If workers do feel that they are not gaining enough pay for their labor, they have the right to organize demand more in their salary and strike if necessary. Furthermore, the management also has the right to resist a union. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Jan 2014 06:49 PM |
"If workers do feel that they are not gaining enough pay for their labor, they have the right to organize demand more in their salary and strike if necessary"
this is a great way to get fired |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|