Elections Big D Bernie, shows he is for workers once again. Plan to double union membership

Well it does suck to have only government workers with growing unions.. Because they don't produce much wealth for the country, and they are bargaining for more and more tax money from everybody else.
 
nostradumbass said:
Because corruption+corruption=awesome? Most of the people who don't like unions don't feel like they need to pay a manager to get the biggest slackers and fuckups the same deal as the most valuable employees.
Click to expand...
It’s not equal though. The worst union employee is often making more than the best non union employee. Businesses don’t pay based on merit they pay the least amount they can get away with to retain the desired employees. Everyone hates to see the lazy guy getting protected by the union but I can swallow that knowing that I am getting a fair wage and have job security. Also CEOs are making 361 times the average worker .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianah...imes-that-of-the-average-worker/#63919535776d Are they earning every penny?
 
This is a plus if you're a no to low skilled worker. I have no problem with this so long as the cost to consumer doesnt rise.
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
This is a plus if you're a no to low skilled worker. I have no problem with this so long as the cost to consumer doesnt rise.
Click to expand...
Lol . Good one boss.
I’m sure the workers will want to get paid with money.
 
Hungry Joe said:
Lol . Good one boss.
I’m sure the workers will want to get paid with money.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is there? They will want to get paid with money, i dont want want the cost of whatever increase to be passed on to the consumer.
 
Imo Bernie is trying to solve 21st century problem using 20th century solutions. When jobs can be replaced by automation, it doesn't matter if you're in a union or not.
 
Plutoburn said:
Imo Bernie is trying to solve 21st century problem using 20th century solutions. When jobs can be replaced by automation, it doesn't matter if you're in a union or not.
Click to expand...

It does because you could have no automation on a contract. Or strike if a company tried to convert things over. Only time those wouldn't work is if the company could replace every facet of making a product at once. And not have to do it gradually over time.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Why do you think we should have a law that says employers can't set terms of employment?

What are you a Communist?
Click to expand...

It’s not the employers it the union saying they must be paid a fee and approve anyone that works there. Everyone must join the “official party” to be allowed to work. That sounds more like communists.

They can and do take your money and give it to politicians you don’t support
 
AndroidRage said:
It does because you could have no automation on a contract. Or strike if a company tried to convert things over. Only time those wouldn't work is if the company could replace every facet of making a product at once. And not have to do it gradually over time.
Click to expand...

This will actually accelerate factory closure/relocation because you are forcing businesses to operate inefficiently comparing to competition abroad. Unions ultimately don't want factories to close but that's what they will get if they resist automation. Robots are just so much better at repetitive manual labor that it's a losing battle no matter how you try to fight it.
 
oldshadow said:
It’s not the employers it the union saying they must be paid a fee and approve anyone that works there. Everyone must join the “official party” to be allowed to work. That sounds more like communists.

They can and do take your money and give it to politicians you don’t support
Click to expand...
It’s a contract.
“ yes we at local #1 will manufacture your Bernie Bro Buttons. But we want to make all of them. You can not hire other entities for the purpose of making buttons.”
Both parties agree and sign. Right to work prohibits this kind of contract for the sole purpose of weakening unions .
Imagine you signed a contract with your cell phone provider. Another cell phone provider wants your business. Would you support a law that made your previous contract illegal because they have a “right” to sell you that service? Should all parties be prohibited from making contracts or only unions?
Right to work is anti -capitalism in favor of big business. Disgusting.
 
Hungry Joe said:
It’s a contract.
“ yes we at local #1 will manufacture your Bernie Bro Buttons. But we want to make all of them. You can not hire other entities for the purpose of making buttons.”
Both parties agree and sign. Right to work prohibits this kind of contract for the sole purpose of weakening unions .
Imagine you signed a contract with your cell phone provider. Another cell phone provider wants your business. Would you support a law that made your previous contract illegal because they have a “right” to sell you that service? Should all parties be prohibited from making contracts or only unions?
Right to work is anti -capitalism in favor of big business. Disgusting.
Click to expand...

It’s extortion, if you don’t pay us money you cannot work.

I’m all for the freedom to organize but not for making it mandatory just to have a job.

If the employer wants to hire only union workers that’s fine but the employer should have that choice.
 
Plutoburn said:
This will actually accelerate factory closure/relocation because you are forcing businesses to operate inefficiently comparing to competition abroad. Unions ultimately don't want factories to close but that's what they will get if they resist automation. Robots are just so much better at repetitive manual labor that it's a losing battle no matter how you try to fight it.
Click to expand...
Keep crying poor boss.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianah...imes-that-of-the-average-worker/#4fe1efad776d
While CEOs are making 361 times the average worker you think the best way to keep our economy healthy is to keep wages down?
Sorry I’m not buying it.
 
oldshadow said:
It’s extortion, if you don’t pay us money you cannot work.

I’m all for the freedom to organize but not for making it mandatory just to have a job.

If the employer wants to hire only union workers that’s fine but the employer should have that choice.
Click to expand...
Dude listen , you can work anywhere you want. It’s not about the individual worker. It’s about saying a union can not make a contract. This means organized labor is weakened.
Do you think no entities in the US should be able to make exclusive contracts?
Suppose a guy wants to mow my lawn every time it needs it for a year and we make a contract that he will do it for $20. Now one month in another guy says he can do it for $15. Does he have a right to cut my lawn? Is the other guy out of luck unless he just agrees to do it for $14?
 
Hungry Joe said:
Dude listen , you can work anywhere you want. It’s not about the individual worker. It’s about saying a union can not make a contract. This means organized labor is weakened.
Do you think no entities in the US should be able to make exclusive contracts?
Suppose a guy wants to mow my lawn every time it needs it for a year and we make a contract that he will do it for $20. Now one month in another guy says he can do it for $15. Does he have a right to cut my lawn? Is the other guy out of luck unless he just agrees to do it for $14?
Click to expand...

In this case you are the employer so you make the hiring requirements.

Let’s say a guy want to cut your grass and you wanted to hire him but then a person came along and said no you can not hire him because he is not a grass cutters union member.

So the grass cutter has to join the union or he can’t find work. That’s what I’m against.
 
oldshadow said:
In this case you are the employer so you make the hiring requirements.

Let’s say a guy want to cut your grass and you wanted to hire him but then a person came along and said no you can not hire him because he is not a grass cutters union member.

So the grass cutter has to join the union or he can’t find work. That’s what I’m against.
Click to expand...
Well I wouldn’t have to listen to that guy who came along because I didn’t willfully sign a contract with him.
 
AndroidRage said:
They would have better health plans under M4A and any savings on healthcare benefits for the company will be put towards higher wages for the workers...... so yeah, they would be much better off.
Click to expand...

Wake me up when this socialist dream defies the rules of economics, comrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,936
Messages
55,456,010
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top