union as a civil right

[WinterBorn]

If you don't want a union at your shop then you have the right to vote the unon out or your free to go work some place else.

Why is it when someone doesn't like a union they are free to go work someplace else.

But the same standard cannot be applied when a worker is being underpaid or forced to work in an unsafe environment?

 

[Damocles]

Youre insane Damo. It's common knowledge that Stalin co-opted the unions, took the trade union leaders out and had them shot then had them replaced with government appointed apparatchiks and then had those within those unions who agitated or opposed those apparatchiks arrested, imprisoned, exiled to Siberia and in many cases shot. Just because you slap a name on an ogranization and call it a trade union doesn't make it a trade union.

You're just factually wrong Damo.

So, first we heard that he "outlawed" them, now you are saying it is "common knowledge" that he used them.

Neither are true. Unions became more powerful and Stalin used "persuasion" to get them into the fold. Yes, he used them. As current political entities in the US use them. And it was Trotsky that put guns in the hand of the unions that got people shot, mostly in Moscow where it centralized. There was a struggle over who the unions would support, not a takeover of the unions. Trotsky tried to militarize them, the others persuaded them instead. People got shot because they were taking up arms, not because Stalin just "hated" them. It's total garbage.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

But they didn't. You keep trying to say that, but repeating that doesn't make it true. Many of the union leaders became part of the apparatus, and when it all came down to it they simply forced everybody to join unions by the end. The only people not covered directly by unions were the people on the Kholzny (collective farms) and that was because they had their own collective bargaining unit that wasn't a trade union.

The unions were not outlawed in the Soviet Union. Totalitarian regimes often use the already available apparatus to seize more control, but the "outlaw" crap is just imaginary.

Give it up Damo. Those leaders who joined did not do so from free choice or free association but from the threat of having their brains blown out at the point of a gun.

 

[WinterBorn]

Fine but let's be fair about that. If you're going to go that far then all pay raises or increases in benefits for all Government executives, judicial appointees, executive appointees and elected officials will have to be approved by public referendum too.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander and unless you're willing to agree to that then your proposal has no merit.

I think that is an excellent idea.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Man... It's impossible to discuss this without people knowing what actually happened. Trotsky tried to militarize the unions, Lenin and Stalin argued that persuasion was better with the "masses"...

The unions remained, they were never outlawed in the Soviet Union.

No, they were co-opted by the State at the point of a gun instead. Hitler did the same fucking thing.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I think that is an excellent idea.

If it could be made to work I'd support it too. Here's the problem. The public would probably never vote for a pay raise for anyone, ever. So forty years later you'd have public employees, executives, jurist, legislators, etc, making 2011 level wages/salaries in 2051. That probably wouldn't work from a practical stand point.

That's what's really wrong with what is currently being done. Particularly here in Ohio where it's such an obvious and unfair double standard. We now have one standard for Executives who have gotten large pay raises from the Governor when they have not performed while simultaneously taking away 15% in pay and benefits compensation from teachers, cops, firemen, EMT's, etc, while simultaneously eliminating their rights. It's a double standerd, it's unfair and the voters in my State won't tolerate it.

If you think Democrats over reached with HC reform and paid a stiff price for it in the 2010 elections......you aint seen shit compared to what's going to happen in States like Ohio and Wisconsin in 2012! Mark my word, Republicans currently in office will rue the day they kicked this hornets nest.

 

[Damocles]

No, they were co-opted by the State at the point of a gun instead. Hitler did the same fucking thing.

Flat out, first assertion wrong you then move the goal posts. In neither place were unions ever "outlawed" as was originally asserted. Nor is it true that Stalin line up union people to kill them solely for being union.

You just imagine whatever history you want and ignore what actually happened, then when somebody with actual knowledge comes in and points out that you were wrong you simply move the posts.

 

[Bonestorm]

Flat out, first assertion wrong you then move the goal posts. In neither place were unions ever "outlawed" as was originally asserted. Nor is it true that Stalin line up union people to kill them solely for being union.

You just imagine whatever history you want and ignore what actually happened, then when somebody with actual knowledge comes in and points out that you were wrong you simply move the posts.

You're a real piece of work, Damo.

Independent trade unions were outlawed. I clarified to deal with your dumbassery, but you, of course, have ignored it.

 

[Damocles]

You're a real piece of work, Damo.

Independent trade unions were outlawed. I clarified to deal with your dumbassery, but you, of course, have ignored it.

The problem is what you say isn't true.

Stalin never outlawed any trade unions, not even one of them.

Lenin/Stalin used persuasion to get them to support them while fighting the militarized Trostkyites with force. The unions later became behemoths because everybody was forced to join one, not because they were ever outlawed by Stalin. It's flat imaginary history to pretend that unions were outlawed in the USSR. It didn't happen.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Man dude, your ignorance is showing. Fucking A right they will, Why do you think companies are so vociferous about secret ballots?

Because it means unions can pressure workers to joining when they otherwise might not if their votes remain SECRET.

Hell why not just open up elections for politicians in the same manner? I wonder WHY those are secret? Must benefit corporations.

and your batshit stupid if you don't think it only protects the interest in management.

Moron.... the secret ballot protects the WORKER from the corporation, the union and their peers.

And your just rationalizing you anti-union sentiments while being completely clueless about the facts and peoples rights.

LMAO... you are simply spouting off your iluvmesomeunion.com line of crap.

people have the RIGHT to a SECRET ballot. This PROTECTS THEM FROM coercion.

 

[Damocles]

The secret ballot flat protects each person voting from the company, the union, the anti-union groups. Allowing people to make a decision and cast the ballot with careful consideration based on what they believe and not what they were forced into by another.

I am very very glad that we were able to vote. Even if the vote had gone against me, when I stood in the booth and voted I was not coerced in any way. I watched the proceedings, nobody was.

 

[Bonestorm]

The problem is what you say isn't true.

Stalin never outlawed any trade unions, not even one of them.

Lenin/Stalin used persuasion to get them to support them while fighting the militarized Trostkyites with force. The unions later became behemoths because everybody was forced to join one, not because they were ever outlawed by Stalin. It's flat imaginary history to pretend that unions were outlawed in the USSR. It didn't happen.

Independent trade unions were banned. Only government controlled trade unions existed and were used as instrumentalities of the totalitarian regime, not as an organization of workers for their benefit. If you want to pretend otherwise, that's fine. And if you want to pretend that government controlled trade unions are the same things as what we understand to be unions, that's fine, too. It's your integrity, you are free to do with it what you wish.

Though it might behoove you to read up on the Polish Solidarity movement and the Soviet response thereto.

 

[Bonestorm]

The secret ballot flat protects each person voting from the company, the union, the anti-union groups.

No, it doesn't. It can do that, but in many instances it does not. It exposes people to an onslaught of propaganda from the company that the union is prevent by law from ever being able to match.

Allowing people to make a decision and cast the ballot with careful consideration based on what they believe and not what they were forced into by another.

No, it doesn't. Again, it can, but that doesn't mean that it does.

I am very very glad that we were able to vote. Even if the vote had gone against me, when I stood in the booth and voted I was not coerced in any way. I watched the proceedings, nobody was.

Even assuming you can speak for everyone at your company, your experience is not universally true.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Thank you. You are admitting to the legitimacy of union representation for collective bargaining rights. Now having said that, only an idiot of the first order would deny that public sector workers have the same conflicts of interest with management in the Government sector as they do in the private sector. By admiting to the legitimacy of union representation in the private sector you're admitting to it's legitimacy in the public sector.

Thanks... you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a fucking loon.

 

[Damocles]

No, it doesn't. It can do that, but in many instances it does not. It exposes people to an onslaught of propaganda from the company that the union is prevent by law from ever being able to match.

Entirely untrue, there was no propaganda that the union "couldn't match", in fact the company was limited to what they could present while the union was protected even when they put out direct untruths as "supposition". The only people that could get close to bringing those things to light were employees that were anti-union that simply didn't have the organizational ability to debunk all the claims.

No, it doesn't. Again, it can, but that doesn't mean that it does.

It does. And even if it only "can", the one thing that I know is that card check absolutely doesn't and cannot.

Even assuming you can speak for everyone at your company, your experience is not universally true.

I can speak for the process. Not one person was coerced in the booth. Zero. There were people present from the company, from the union, and from anti-union groups verifying that fact during the entire day.

 

[Damocles]

Independent trade unions were banned. Only government controlled trade unions existed and were used as instrumentalities of the totalitarian regime, not as an organization of workers for their benefit. If you want to pretend otherwise, that's fine. And if you want to pretend that government controlled trade unions are the same things as what we understand to be unions, that's fine, too. It's your integrity, you are free to do with it what you wish.

Though it might behoove you to read up on the Polish Solidarity movement and the Soviet response thereto.

Again you are repeating something that isn't true. No unions were banned. Private unions were simply migrated into government unions when the government took over ownership of the businesses.

The unions were never "outlawed" or "banned" as you keep saying. It didn't happen.

Let's see how this conversation progressed.

First Nigel says that unions were "outlawed" by all totalitarian and dictatorial regimes. Damo says they weren't, gives the history of the union disputes in the Soviet Union, talks about Trotsky and actual events, shows that unions not only weren't "outlawed" but were mandatory. Points out that Hitler also didn't outlaw unions. Then Nigel says they were government tools.

So, now we've come to, Nigel insisting that Totalitarian and Dictatorial regimes use Unions as a form of control.

I agree. Totalitarian and Dictatorial regimes use unions as a tool to control people. They do not "outlaw" them.

 

[Bonestorm]

Entirely untrue, there was no propaganda that the union "couldn't match", in fact the company was limited to what they could present while the union was protected even when they put out direct untruths as "supposition". The only people that could get close to bringing those things to light were employees that were anti-union that simply didn't have the organizational ability to debunk all the claims.

Damo: Your experience, to the extent it is to be believed, is not universal. Don't pretend it is. It's like a person voting at one polling place in one county in the United States claiming that elections in Egypt are on the up and up because his experience was a pleasant one.

It does.

No, it doesn't.

I can speak for the process. Not one person was coerced in the booth. Zero. There were people present from the company, from the union, and from anti-union groups verifying that fact during the entire day.

You can speak for the process at your particular workplace. That's it.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again you are repeating something that isn't true. No unions were banned. Private unions were simply migrated into government unions when the government took over ownership.

"Migrated into government unions." That's classic. That's like saying that Germany didn't invade France, instead France was simply incorporated into the German state.

The unions were never "outlawed" or "banned" as you keep saying. It didn't happen.

Like I said, its your integrity. You can do what you want with it.

 

[Damocles]

"Migrated into government unions." That's classic. That's like saying that Germany didn't invade France, instead France was simply incorporated into the German state.



Like I said, its your integrity. You can do what you want with it.

No. It isn't. The unions were not outlawed, you are just making crap up that you want to be true. It. Didn't. Happen.

Again, We've gone from Nigel saying that they were "outlawed" by every Dictatorial and totalitarian regime, only to find out they weren't and in fact were made mandatory. Then Nigel insisting that Unions are a government tool used to control people by totalitarian and dictatorial regimes.

The two are not equal. The unions were not outlawed.

 

[Damocles]

BTW - I agree with what you say now Nigel, Unions are used by totalitarian regimes as a means of control.