Thread: Proposed Employee Rights Act

Originally Posted by Reiver

You fellows do come across as very anti-rights! The problem you have is that neoclassical theory into unions, where we can refer to market power and therefore mere redistribution between workers such that the 'marginal worker' suffers through job loss, is incapable of explaining union effects. We have to, for example, refer to 'voice effects'. This informs us how productivity can increase. It also refers to how unions leads to increased reward to the preferences of the median worker, rather than the marginal worker. Thus, union bans essentially are a form of coercion that reduce overall economic welfare. Nasty ole authoritarianism!

This bill isn't talking about union bans, it just ensures that unions actually are wanted by the workers they claim to represent.

Originally Posted by hiimjered

This bill isn't talking about union bans...

I was replying to someone that was!

Worker's unions are certainly not the fairest way to promote decent wages and working conditions. And there is plenty of corruption among many unions. Often workers unions just push the jobs somewhere else where the unions do not have as much power.

But workers unions are much better than nothing, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Worker's unions are certainly not the fairest way to promote decent wages and working conditions.

Based on what? You'd have to show, for example, that there is a widening in the distribution of pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits

Originally Posted by Charles Julian

I find the rights fascination with destroying unions, which have objectively led to a massive increase in the average wage, working conditions, and lifestyle of the mass majority of Americans, continually odd. This might be the biggest step yet. The republicans, constantly railing, as they do, against government "interference" in private entities, now want exactly that, massive government interference in private entities. Furthermore it is hard to take any anti-worker argument seriously when currently laws are simply ignored by major corporations.

To attack several specifics in this proposed bill:

1) Secret Ballot Elections are already the law..

2) What an idiotic idea considering, as stated, unions are private organizations of workers. I doubt Mr. Hatch would be so wild about forcing corporate boards to even be certified by stockholders. This is an opaque attempt at redirecting union funds and efforts. Corporations simply have to focus on destroying unions. Unions, on the other hand, have to focus on elections and then the gradual improvement of working conditions. By forcing constant elections they can indirectly prevent unions from working for the betterment of their workers. Furthermore this obviously will lead to explicitly illegal politic-based hiring processes.

3) Another radical contradiction in Republican logic. Apparently you cannot force corporations not to spend unlimited money on politics and you cannot force someone to buy health care, but then you can force unions to not spend their money on political campaigns, which even the simplest of children can see have a direct bearing on workers rights and therefore wages and benefits.

4) Even your source states that the purpose of this section is not to make the process more logical but to make unionization more difficult.

5) Any section such as this which doesn't explicitly ban or punish corporations such as Walmart for firing and physically assaulting organizers is just hot air.

6) This is inherently counter-intuitive since the strike is a collective process the decision should be made in a collective manner. US unions already have less strikes then any others in the civilized world outside China where they're illegal..

7) Obviously violence is already illegal... Any additional attempts at classifying it additionally is an attempt to damage unions. Furthermore 150 allegations of violence in 5 years out of millions and millions of people means it essentially does not exist.

{{""3)......but then you can force unions to not spend their money on political campaigns""}}

But there are over 40% of us that are conservative and belong to unions and 96%f the money goes to Liberals. What's wrong with this picture. We have no say and in this state we can't stop them from taking money from us to spend on politics.


{{""6) This is inherently counter-intuitive since the strike is a collective process the decision should be made in a collective manner. US unions already have less strikes then any others in the civilized world outside China where they're illegal..
""}}

Funny, we always have a show of hands on a strike vote. What's wrong with a secret ballot strike vote??? Then the union couldn't lean on you if you voted in a way they don't like.


{{{"""7) Obviously violence is already illegal... Any additional attempts at classifying it additionally is an attempt to damage unions. Furthermore 150 allegations of violence in 5 years out of millions and millions of people means it essentially does not exist""}}

And encouraged by the unions when strike breakers are brought in. I would slap the Union with the Rico law when they encourage violence if I had anything to say about it. Hey Jul, don't say it doesn't happen, violence was encouraged by the Union at a plant I worked for when we went on strike and the plant brought in strike breakers. "Well, we wouldn't say to use violence but it's your job your fighting for". That's nothing more than saying to do what you have to to stop the strike breakers before they break you. The rhetoric went ferther but I'll leave it at that