You have no right to work.....

anatta said:
you would have to actually post something with decent enough language & clear enough references for me to respond.
I can't follow that rant, nor the vague references.
Click to expand...


What right do you and your government have to interfere in contractual agreements between an employer and its labor force?

As was pointed out, a right to work would imply that someone must provide you with a job. You have the right to seek employment and to accept offers made by a willing employer. Those people in a labor union have the same right and some have exercised that right by entering into exclusive contracts. You have no right to interfere with that.

The GOP and its dominant National Socialist wing don't care about rights or economic freedom. They just want everything set up to the benefit of their specific interests groups.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
What right do you and your government have to interfere in contractual agreements between an employer and its labor force?
Click to expand...

good point....we need to throw out all labor laws......worker's comp, OSHEA, the ACA requirements on providing health care, those silly rules about funding pension benefits.....all are nothing more than government interference......and then there are all those rules about strikes and voting to let unions in, what the fuck was the government thinking by interfering with contractual rights......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
good point....we need to throw out all labor laws......worker's comp, OSHEA, the ACA requirements on providing health care, those silly rules about funding pension benefits.....all are nothing more than government interference......and then there are all those rules about strikes and voting to let unions in, what the fuck was the government thinking by interfering with contractual rights......
Click to expand...

So two or ten cases of the government interfering with market operations makes a free market?

IDK (you are too vague and idk what you have against the Irish, e.g., O'Shea), those kind of look like positions that someone that is concerned with economic freedom and individual rights might back. Or you could support getting rid of different handouts and government programs intended to enrich business concerns at the expense of others (i.e., crony capitalism/corporate welfare). But instead you National Socialists are just pushing for more government interference.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Basically "right to work" means you can't be required to join a union at an employers whose workers have, under collective bargaining rights, negotiated an employment contract.

The problem with that is that free riders undermine the collective bargaining process by not paying their share of the cost for representation and negotiations yet expect the same pay, benefits and contractual employment rights as opposed to being an at will employee.
Click to expand...

So, workers should have no right to not join a union? How does that work?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
So, workers should have no right to not join a union? How does that work?
Click to expand...

In the absence of so called "right to work" laws no on is forced to join a union. We know how that works since there are many states without such laws. California does not have such a law and while I was living/working there I was never even asked to join a union, much less forced.

AARP has contracted with several retailers and business interests to provide special discounts to their "union" or organization of members. Would you outlaw that too or do National Socialists, like yourself, just want to interfere in some contracts when it seems to benefit/harm specific special interests groups?

There is no principle in your stance. You are just a tribalist demanding privileges/handouts at the expense of others.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
So two or ten cases of the government interfering with market operations makes a free market?

IDK (you are too vague and idk what you have against the Irish, e.g., O'Shea), those kind of look like positions that someone that is concerned with economic freedom and individual rights might back. Or you could support getting rid of different handouts and government programs intended to enrich business concerns at the expense of others (i.e., crony capitalism/corporate welfare). But instead you National Socialists are just pushing for more government interference.
Click to expand...
lol......so it was the National Socialists who passed OSHEA?.....
 
NOVA said:
Hillary says, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO WORK.....

She thinks you MUST join a union if you want a job.....

In other words.....she is fucking crazy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/clinton-why-arent-i-50-points-ahead-of-trump/2016/09/21/d9142b3e-8072-11e6-9578-558cc125c7ba_video.html
Click to expand...
This is probably not even close to what she really said! Lol. Vanilla always getting it wrong.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
What right do you and your government have to interfere in contractual agreements between an employer and its labor force?

As was pointed out, a right to work would imply that someone must provide you with a job. You have the right to seek employment and to accept offers made by a willing employer. Those people in a labor union have the same right and some have exercised that right by entering into exclusive contracts. You have no right to interfere with that.

The GOP and its dominant National Socialist wing don't care about rights or economic freedom. They just want everything set up to the benefit of their specific interests groups.
Click to expand...
you would have to give an ex .. I do not know exactly what you refer to.
My previous posts were to Clinton's promises to get rid of right to work states ( the OP)..

My job ( a white collar independent contractor ) exists in part because my state does not require unemployment benefits-
being contributed by my contractor.
It's an odd situation, but just like health care is not given to me, or SSA contributions -it allows me to get paid
at least 3x what normal call center employees get - I make about $30/hr depending on commissions

I do not want the fed's to interfere in state contractual labor laws -I do not want to work for $10/hr. like many call center employees do.
I make a lot more money because I am in the top 10% of my company's contractees,and they pay on the worth of my sales.

Stay out of it. My company will not hire in many "blue" states because of the cost to acquire actual employess -
instead of ICs
 
LORD OF CUCKS said:
Fascist. What right do you to use government force to exclude unions from what kind of contracts they can negotiate? Apparently corporations have freedom of contract, not workers and their representatives.
Click to expand...

The ability to regulate interstate commerce would suffice.
 
callinectes said:
All I know is, I'm a "non-dues-paying" member of a teacher's union(I had no say in it), and the salary increases they have negotiated have been far out paced by the union dues that I would be paying if I was a dues paying member. Not to mention their political contributions, which almost inevitably end up in the hands of democrats.
Click to expand...

either identify the union and location you belong to that does EXACTLY this or stop lying.
 
callinectes said:
All I know is, I'm a "non-dues-paying" member of a teacher's union(I had no say in it), and the salary increases they have negotiated have been far out paced by the union dues that I would be paying if I was a dues paying member. Not to mention their political contributions, which almost inevitably end up in the hands of democrats.
Click to expand...
Some unions are stronger that others. In most cases, upper level mgmt is stealing from labor.
 
tinfoil said:
Can someone explain what is meant by the phrase "right to work". I'd like to be clear about what Hillary means when she says it.
Click to expand...

Right to work is a suckers bet, it creates no right, and certainly creates no work. What it is; is a Right not to pay union dues, if you work in a Union shop. But the Union still must represent you,and you reap the benefits of a union contract. It is designed to deny the union the right to collect their just dues. A non right to work state, if there is a Union in place, you must pay the dues.
 
tinfoil said:
Disclaimer: I was once fired from a union for getting too much work done. The other union guys liked to stretch the projects out and I was getting it done too fast for the lazy bastards. That company went out of business. Wonder why? I've been self employed since shortly after that experience.
Click to expand...
That sounds absurd clarify that claim. The union can only fire people who work directly for the union. Only the employer can fire an employee in a Union shop (with just cause). I never heard of any employer, fire a guy for doing to much work. Union shops generally if not always outproduce non - union shops.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
So, workers should have no right to not join a union? How does that work?
Click to expand...
The issue, is that they join a union shop, get all the benefits, without paying the dues. Now, if they want to accept lower pay and no bennies, I think they should have that right.

Their argument is that they don't agree with their dues going to fund politicians that they don't support. A valid argument, but they should 'have the right' to be subjected to predatory employment terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top