I suppose it's good, unions force some businesses to hire only union workers
I suppose it's good, unions force some businesses to hire only union workers
No, unions get employers to sign contracts saying they'll only hire union workers and employers abide by the contracts they sign.
Its people who support Right To Be Fired who want to come in and say "no unions, you can't have these contracts signed, they're illegal now".
Pretty stupid of them. Hard enough to sell lard-laced snack cakes these days without people boycotting your products.
I want to thank them because now it really makes eating some Hostess junk a turn off.
I like sandwiches
Unfortunately that includes the freedom to mooch off the hard earned pay fought for him by the unions of the company who for without giving nothing back.
Now imagine the uproar if they had a way to have what the union fought for only apply to union members, that would be interesting watching people complain how they dropped from the union and lost some of their vacation time, took a decent pay cut, and had some of their extra safety equipment taken from them by the company as they were fought for by the union which they were no longer a member of..... Would be fucked up and insightful at the same time.
So you want to subscribe only to the bill of rights, or do you believe in the entire constitution? Because the government collecting taxes to fund publicly funded programs is in the constitution you know. Or do you go against the constitution in not wanting to pay your taxes?
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Why do you believe it is acceptable for the government to take from one private citizen and give to another? The whole idea this country was founded on was one of INDIVIDUAL liberty and freedom. The government violates that founding principle so many times in a single day that people thing it is the norm and they way things should be. I disagree.
Are we allowed to means test for government entitlements (no I do not mean social security as that is not an entitlement).
Are we allowed to drug test people taking the entitlements?
Are we allowed to designate what they can and cannot spend money on if they take money from entitlements?
Oh that's just not true and hasn't been for 65 years. You can't grant unions the power to determine who an employer is allowed to hire or who they must fire.
Taft-Hartley was a compromise between Republicans and Democrats back when compromising was a thing that Congress did. Get over it.
---------- Post added 2013-04-26 at 03:47 PM ----------
It's hardly the same thing when the employer is strong-armed by lawmakers into signing a union contract. In many cases the contract is under coercion to begin with and should be null and void.
You can grant unions whatever power they get from contracts their employers sign.Oh that's just not true and hasn't been for 65 years. You can't grant unions the power to determine who an employer is allowed to hire or who they must fire.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
It's something people normally eat when their kids, and then if they keep their sweet tooth as they grow up they'll still like it. I haven't eaten a twinkie in like 17 years, I remember enjoying them as a child, but I don't really eat sweets anymore so I doubt I would enjoy eating it if I ate one today.
What are you willing to sacrifice?
No its really not. They have the power to tax. They have the power to spend.
See:I think just from reading these forums that we can assume Republicans like the constitution... except they prefer to ignore the 14th, 15th, 16th and 24th amendments a lot.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...bassem-youssef
The only amendment they take seriously is the 2nd.
Except that is not what welfare is anymore than insurance is "taking money from one person to give it to another".
People of your ilk have this constant "Me, Me, Me" attitude going on, and seem to be incapable of grasping the difference between individual gain and social gain. Public assistance programs are one of the core strengths of modern first world nations; chances are you have indirectly benefitted from such programs.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
I've always looked at it this way; having actually been a member of the work force for some time, having served in both union shops and non union shops:
Business execs, and Union execs are both a bunch of self-interested greedy assholes who don't give a shit except for getting as much money into their own pocket for as little investment of time as possible.
So the difference is the fact that the business exec gives you a little bit of his money in order to achieve that goal, and the union exec takes a little bit of yours to achieve that goal.
And I don't know about you, but I'd much rather vote for the guy giving me money than the guy taking my money.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.
-Kujako-