Another win for the little guy!

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-27-2018, 11:52 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Or in favor of someone forced to pay for something he/she does not want.  Being forced to pay for a union you don't want to be a part of seems as bad as not allowing people to organize.  

I will admit that I got a little poisoned against unions from working a part-time summer job at a Kroger when I was in school.

Under 18, part-time, and making minimum wage... and they forced me to pay union dues out of my already meager paychecks when underaged part-time workers don't really see any benefits of being in the union anyway.

$6.something an hour (then), minus taxes, minus union dues... doesn't leave a ton, and pretty much anything the union "got" for me, I was already guaranteed by child labor laws.



(Interestingly enough, though slightly off topic... since the tax cuts, apparently everyone at Kroger now makes at least $10/hr instead of minimum wage. At least the one near me.)

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 07:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: (Interestingly enough, though slightly off topic... since the tax cuts, apparently everyone at Kroger now makes at least $10/hr instead of minimum wage. At least the one near me.)

That's actually not off topic. Guess what probably happened with the tax cuts that caused Kroger to increase salaries in that way.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-28-2018, 06:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The unions want to help ALL workers, but in order to do that they need ALL workers to join and support the union.  The only way the union has any power is in numbers.  Every non-union worker gives more power to management and takes power away from labor.

While I get that the union would generally be ineffective if they only had a few workers, if they're goal is to help ALL workers then it shouldn't matter if a few that aren't a part of the union still receive benefits. After all, their goal is to help ALL workers.

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2018, 03:54 PM)PhilHos Wrote: While I get that the union would generally be ineffective if they only had a few workers, if they're goal is to help ALL workers then it shouldn't matter if a few that aren't a part of the union still receive benefits. After all, their goal is to help ALL workers.

Yes it should matter.  It is not easy to collectively bargain.  It is stressful hard work and sometimes even leads to extreme sacrifices like going on strike.

Why the hell would anyone want to work hard and sacrifice to help people who don't do anything but want the same benefits?

[*PhilHos*]

(06-29-2018, 04:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why the hell would anyone want to work hard and sacrifice to help people who don't do anything but want the same benefits?

Good question: let's ask all those who work hard to subsidize those on welfare. 

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2018, 04:41 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Good question: let's ask all those who work hard to subsidize those on welfare. 

Again you are comparing the working class to the disadvantaged.  Non-union workers are not disadvantaged compared to union members.  They are on the same level.

But which side are you taking?  It seems like you are switching back and forth just to argue.

[CKwi88]

Oh hey, I belong to that union.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 01:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you would rather be paid less with less benefits?

Do some research on working conditions before unions existed.

I would rather be paid commensurate for how well I do my job. But the teacher's union allows inferior teachers to be paid equally to superior ones, just because they have the same amount of years on the job. Plus, they restrict my freedom to move among teaching jobs.

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2018, 06:40 PM)Beaker Wrote: I would rather be paid commensurate for how well I do my job. 

There is a reason I suggested that you do some research on the way things worked before unions.

You would be paid less if there were no unions.

[Beaker]

(07-02-2018, 05:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is a reason I suggested that you do some research on the way things worked before unions.

You would be paid less if there were no unions.

I dont disagree that unions once served an important purpose. But I am looking at them through the lens of now, not 50-70 yrs ago, and with my own experiences with unions. Through this lens, I refuse to be a part of a union.