Thread: Do Employers have as much right to Equal Protection Under Law as Workers they Employ?

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

Unions flooding Campaign Coffers of Labor Friendly Politicians that when elected will pass laws that are inherently damaging to their employers.

Corporations deserve to be able to fight back against Union Money by being able to flood the campaign coffers of opposing Politicians.

???? Corporations don't already do that? Corporations flood campaign coffers continuosly. Don't you forget the lobbies?

If all legislation is pro-corporations, how can you even insinuate that corporations are not having freedom of speech... If mainly they are the ones that finance the campaigns of the politicians.

Originally Posted by kilgram

???? Corporations don't already do that? Corporations flood campaign coffers continuosly. Don't you forget the lobbies?

Labor unions do also Kilgram. In fact, in some States and districts the Unions literally control the State legislature in exactly the same way as corporations, sometimes worse. I'd suggest you study up on the California problem where democracy is being crushed out by Union power.

If all legislation is pro-corporations, how can you even insinuate that corporations are not having freedom of speech... If mainly they are the ones that finance the campaigns of the politicians.

They aren't "mainly" the ones. Union and Corporate spending are almost the same.

Unions and Corporations are doing the exact same thing. Corrupting politicians with campaign money.

You would love California. The labor unions rule the State, literally and even crush out democracy.

Recently California citizens tried to get a referendum on the ballot limiting collective bargaining by public sector labor unions and the unions tried to get the referendum thrown out without a vote litearlly saying that a referendum by taxpayers against unions is a violation of fair labor practices.

IOW, the taxpayers are not allowed, at least according to unions, to question or in anyway interfere with union power, even if they attempt to do so democratically. Apparently union power is not up for vote, even by the people who pay the salaries of the union workers. The Taxpayer.

So which is more important kilgram, democratic rule of the people or an oligarchy of labor union bosses?

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

Essentially the Democrat Position comes across to me as that Labor has Free Speech Rights, but their Employers Do Not.

I don't get where you get this.

Originally Posted by Dave1mo

Sure, why not start off a thread with a baseless, logically fallacious claim like this? Par for the course.

Uh, there are plenty of laws that violate your employers right to free speech.

I know in my state an employer is extremely limited about what they can say about a former employee.

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

The practical effect of the proposed Amendment to Repeal Citizens United Decision is that Employers will not have the same equal protection under the law as Employees.

How am I wrong?

You've got it backwards is how you've got it wrong. The Citizens United decision effectively gave people who own (or control) corporations extra free speech which would have rendered everyone else's free speech effectively moot.

Say I own a corporation (just imagine). My corporation doesn't get its own free speech, but I still have my own, same as everyone else.

Repealing Citizens United doesn't take away any person's freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

Lets frame the debate over the Citizens United Decision in its proper context:

Essentially the Democrat Position comes across to me as that Labor has Free Speech Rights, but their Employers Do Not.

So lets take a poll.

Are Employers(Corporations) entitled to the same equal protection under the Law as Labor(Unions)?

IMO, Employers are entitled to the exact same Equal Protection Under the Law as their Employees.

Both should be banned from political contributions. Only PEOPLE should be involved in politics (living, breathing, human people).

If Unions and Corporations are going to be considered "people" then they should have all of the restrictions and responsibilities of people.

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

Labor unions do also Kilgram. In fact, in some States and districts the Unions literally control the State legislature in exactly the same way as corporations, sometimes worse. I'd suggest you study up on the California problem where democracy is being crushed out by Union power.



They aren't "mainly" the ones. Union and Corporate spending are almost the same.

Unions and Corporations are doing the exact same thing. Corrupting politicians with campaign money.

You would love California. The labor unions rule the State, literally and even crush out democracy.

Recently California citizens tried to get a referendum on the ballot limiting collective bargaining by public sector labor unions and the unions tried to get the referendum thrown out without a vote litearlly saying that a referendum by taxpayers against unions is a violation of fair labor practices.

IOW, the taxpayers are not allowed, at least according to unions, to question or in anyway interfere with union power, even if they attempt to do so democratically. Apparently union power is not up for vote, even by the people who pay the salaries of the union workers. The Taxpayer.

So which is more important kilgram, democratic rule of the people or an oligarchy of labor union bosses?

MMM, in part the unions have reason to say that, in other part they don't have reason to want to throw down a referendum even if that is unfair.

And for what I know about USA, even California the corporations are the ones that are winning the war. And most of the legislization favours them. And also I would change the legislation to not permit to the politicians receive private funds, and end with the lobbies.

Also I would not permit that unions receive public funds if they do it. And a question, in USA do you have employers organizations?

Employers aren't individual people technically....only corporations are individual people...legally. I think you have to be a large conglomerate to be a "person".

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

The amendment that Democrats put forth denies any for-profit organization(Corporations) from having any kind of free speech.

It exempts non-profit organizations(Unions) from any limits on free speech.

It sounds like the distinction here is whether the organization is operating for profit or not, not whether they employ people or not. It doesn't sound like the two entities are equally situated, and I can see a reason to be more cautious of the motives and therefore actions of a huge collective entity that exists for profit than one that doesn't.

Any reason why a corporation can't setup a non-profit organization to act as it's agent though?

The problem is..leftists and rightists define these things differently.

Leftists usually think that by "equal protection", employees deserve more privilege than employers.

Rightists usually think that by "equal protection", employers deserve more government privileges than employees.