Argument Against Unions

Lol, I have to ping @johnarb for being called a Libertarian, that will make him laugh too.

Let me correct you and clarify.
I'll never be accused of calling a Libertarian ideological consistent.

I'm the opposite of a libertarian because I strongly believe in government. You should know because more than once you've criticized my pro government stances.
See, that's the thing. Libertarians claim to be so on all things when the majority are mostly just calling it when it comes to markets and taxes. They'll go full fasci when it comes to speech, people they dislike (trans), wokeness, DEI, or whatever the fuck flavor of the week is on fox.

I believe in government because its representatives, president, senators and congressmen are all elected by The People. That's a great power taken far too lightly by way too many in the US. If we don't like our elected officials we can vote them out.
I may not like some elected officials, but if they are still in office it's because enough electors do, and I have to respect that. All I can do is become an activist to sway people to vote for someone else or walk away.
It ain't perfect but it's what we got. You fail to understand these 'reps of the people' are 100% representing special interests and corporate interests on the GOP side and about 70% on the dem side. You know how terrorism is a force multiplier in warfare? Well, money's a vote multiplier in elections.

In the above case, I find that bill being presented by the outgoing Republican Rep preposterous but, more fascinating, is that he was reelected 5 times before retiring. Clearly, enough people in Kentucky appreciate Mr. Pratt and his actions. Therefore, we must believe his constituents are in agreement with the bill put forward and that's very important.
Dude also owns a lawn business if I recall, a bill that benefits him directly. You throw enough "commies" are coming to get ya rhetoric, you'll convince any republican of how good your snake oil bill is.

About that bill... It's precise and detailed, which means our government is fully empowered to drill down on defining what workers rights are. There is no need for unions to further extract benefits if those are clearly spelled out by our elected officials in law.
Sure, because government is known for its expedience and determination, not its gridlock and political footballing (ie immigration reform, passing the budget)

Let's consider the wild possibility that the bill passes, meaning approved by all state representatives, thus a majority of the state's voters, and the Governor approves it and becomes law. In America no elected official has much authority and that law would quickly be challenged in courts by local groups, then possibly appealed and appealed again to the state supreme court.
If that law stood to challenges, the federal government would challenge the state supreme court decision, appeal and appeal again to the US Supreme Court. That's a lot of challenges and delays implementing this law by people whose job is to ensure crazy bills don't pass and make everyone look like imbeciles.
Yet, if no one was to challenge this law in the first place, the last option for those affected by it is to pack up and move to another state. Destitute Central Americans are ligning up at our border because they have no voting rights, no police protection from criminal gangs, no legal system to defend them and no economic opportunities. That's not what we're talking about here.
yes, Mr. Joe Schmo dying of cancer from deregulation can fight that SCOTUS battle w/his imaginary bottomless pocket and beat his employer because SCOTUS is totally not partisan nor bought and paid for.

While we discuss labor laws, the right wing efforts to change the course of what seemed established law of the land are working. A number of states have made abortions illegal and those elected officials who were instrumental passing those laws are being reelected. Unless an upswell of discontent leads to alternative politicians who can reverse these laws, I strongly encourage women and families appalled to live in those states to pack up and go to states they feel better represented by. America is a transient nation, we move for opportunities, belief systems, whatever. America's federal system allows for variations at the states level and continues to date to be a healthy source of contention.
I'm sure that immigrant teenager being abused will do just that, and make that tri-state trip with that bountiful deregulated minimum wage Libertarians got her

My point is, not everyone has to live according to my general belief system, even if I find it best. For reasons I don't always understand, others want to live according to very different rules, some I even find offensive. But it's not my place to force my belief system on them anymore than theirs on mine, provided they have freedom of choice.
thank god people are free to collectively bargain then. For now at least
 
I'll never be accused of calling a Libertarian ideological consistent.


See, that's the thing. Libertarians claim to be so on all things when the majority are mostly just calling it when it comes to markets and taxes. They'll go full fasci when it comes to speech, people they dislike (trans), wokeness, DEI, or whatever the fuck flavor of the week is on fox.


It ain't perfect but it's what we got. You fail to understand these 'reps of the people' are 100% representing special interests and corporate interests on the GOP side and about 70% on the dem side. You know how terrorism is a force multiplier in warfare? Well, money's a vote multiplier in elections.


Dude also owns a lawn business if I recall, a bill that benefits him directly. You throw enough "commies" are coming to get ya rhetoric, you'll convince any republican of how good your snake oil bill is.


Sure, because government is known for its expedience and determination, not its gridlock and political footballing (ie immigration reform, passing the budget)


yes, Mr. Joe Schmo dying of cancer from deregulation can fight that SCOTUS battle w/his imaginary bottomless pocket and beat his employer because SCOTUS is totally not partisan nor bought and paid for.


I'm sure that immigrant teenager being abused will do just that, and make that tri-state trip with that bountiful deregulated minimum wage Libertarians got her


thank god people are free to collectively bargain then. For now at least
Idealism is the first step to dictatorship.
 
Harm is a big word and I'd rather call it impact. Let me give you an example...
Ford and GM are heavily unionized. Labor costs and shared decision making are such that it's hindered their ability to innovate and be profitable. As a consequence, they've just about given up making cars to concentrate on their still profitable pickup trucks and SUV sold primarily in the US and Canada. Those lines have remained for years with minor annual refresh and, as a consequence, GM and F aren't growing, operating on single digit profit margins.
Nobody really cared (satisfied with mediocrity) until Tesla came along and changed the world of automobile. Despite 10 years or so of Tesla growth neither GM nor F have been able to produce competitive vehicles to Tesla's.
Why? Management has to take a chunk of responsibility for it, but it's also key to understand that they are a product of the straightjacket unions have placed them in... Decision by consensus, process changes through negotiations, hire/fire by union approval.
No harm to me personally, no impact either since I've never purchased an American vehicle.

No. You’re just making up most of this stuff and imagining that the union is the problem. Again, unions haven’t caused any harm to you. Ford and GM are very profitable. Why you would put a company over people for no good reason is beyond me. Think harder about this stuff.
 
He champions Libertarianism despite being critical of it. Take the following for instance:



He's deluded himself into thinking that such transparently pro-corporate law is "a good thing actually" because in theory, if adopted, employees would "vote with their feet" and the omniscient free market would have that labor force go elsewhere. You see, all of that w/o a single need for a union, just beautiful market dynamics.

The failure in that delusion of course is that if adopted, it's not a single employer that would take advantage of it so it's not like you can just go next door to the next employer. You literally have to pack and leave the state- a simple task done by millions in Vicbee's world. Problem w/that mentality is, it's much harder for the low income earners, it's much harder for older employees and people w/families or people w/roots in the area who've accumulated wealth through properties. Never mind the destruction of local economies

The failure in that delusion is that employers may squeeze as much as they can w/o causing an exodus. Making it intolerable enough for you to stick around, intolerable enough to be replaced by people who will put up with it (minors, immigrants) & intolerable enough to convince you that getting unions involved, who'd improve things would in fact make your situation worse.

The failure in that delusion is that geographically, the next state over may follow suit or if elected, the whole nation would, so at that point this "voting w/your feet" becomes an international exodus. Vicbee's issue is a lack of imagination and doesn't see that's in fact what's happened through Latin America & elsewhere.

Yes, of course. A brainiac theoretician who has no idea about how people actually live.
 
https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/08/san-francisco-prop-f-seiu-union-challenge-perb/

Union threatens strike over Prop. F, San Francisco’s new drug screening law
Service Employees International Union Local 1021 is taking its concerns about Proposition F to the state labor relations board.

Labor organizers from SEIU Local 2021 are raising the possibility of a strike over Prop. F, a ballot measure that ties cash benefits to drug screenings for some welfare recipients. The union's president, Theresa Rutherford, said the measure could harm workers. | Source:Courtesy
Share
By Annie Gaus
Published Mar. 08, 2024

One of San Francisco's largest unions has asked a California labor board to void Proposition F, a ballot measure that mandates drug screening for some cash welfare recipients, after it was approved by voters this week.
The Service Employees International Union Local 1021, which represents city employees at the Human Services Agency, filed an unfair practice charge on March 7 with the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The union asked the board to void Prop. F on the grounds that the measure could adversely affect workers and that the city was required to give prior notice before placing it on the ballot.

“We will also file a Request to Expedite, which asks PERB to put this case to the front of its queue due to the urgency of the matter,” said Theresa Rutherford, president of SEIU Local 1021.
Prop. F affects single adults with no children who receive County Adult Assistance Programs, a cash program known as CAAP. If an individual is suspected of being addicted to illegal drugs, they will be required to undergo drug screening and agree to some form of treatment as a condition of continuing to receive benefits.

The measure passed handily with San Francisco voters, receiving about 60% of votes according to the latest tally. Prop. F’s sponsor, Mayor London Breed, has argued that more accountability is needed for people who use city funds to abuse illegal drugs. Opponents argue the measure is punitive and will harm some of the city’s most vulnerable residents.

In a filing, the union argued that Prop. F could put workers who interact with welfare recipients at risk. Short-staffing among city workers makes Prop. F “all but impossible to execute fairly and consistently without substantial new investment in staffing, training, and worker safety,” Rutherford said.
“We reserve the right to initiate legal proceedings and engage in collective worker actions to protest the city’s persistent unfair labor practices, up to and including an unfair labor practice strike,” Rutherford said.

In a Feb. 26 letter, Jonathan Rolnick, chief labor attorney at the City Attorney's Office, responded to the union's claim that the city was required to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain over the ballot measure. Rolnick wrote that the SEIU's reasoning was incorrect and outside the scope of what would be considered a bargaining matter.
"Your assertions that if Prop. F passes, there will be an increase in threats to these employees’ safety and their workloads will increase is entirely speculative and thus does not trigger an obligation to meet and confer," Rolnick wrote.

He added that any new trainings or changes to work protocols "do not reflect a significant and adverse effect on working conditions."
Trent Rhorer, executive director of the Human Services Agency, said in an email Wednesday that Prop. F will be implemented starting on Jan. 1, 2025. He said the substance use screenings will be conducted by a clinician and include a set of questions combined with the clinician’s observations of the client.

“HSA has been planning since it went on the ballot and will continue to do so,” Rhorer said.

I know democracy. Union is subverting the process. Is that enough hurt for you or not personal enough? :vomit:
 
https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/08/san-francisco-prop-f-seiu-union-challenge-perb/

Union threatens strike over Prop. F, San Francisco’s new drug screening law....
I know democracy. Union is subverting the process. Is that enough hurt for you or not personal enough? :vomit:

The process clearly had been approved with no drug provision but I guess addicts don't need food anymore according to this NIMBY prop looking for ways to reduce what, number of homeless by taking their lunch? Let me guess, no exclusions for weed since it's scheduled federally despite defacto state by state enforcement?

Sometimes voters vote stupid. Remember when Cali democratically banned gay marriage too? Pete Wilson and his immigrant law?

big win for healthcare doing the screening and running the clinics I guess.

We should pull tax credits & corporate welfare from Yuppies and CEO addy/cokeheads too.
 
Last edited:
The process clearly had been approved with no drug provision but I guess addicts don't need food anymore according to this NIMBY prop looking for ways to reduce what, number of homeless by taking their lunch? Let me guess, no exclusions for weed since it's scheduled federally despite defacto state by state enforcement?

Sometimes voters vote stupid. Remember when Cali democratically banned gay marriage too? Pete Wilson and his immigrant law?

big win for healthcare doing the screening and running the clinics I guess.

We should pull tax credits & corporate welfare from Yuppies and CEO addy/cokeheads too.
If they live on the streets, defecate everywhere, shoot and deal drugs in plain sight, expect free food and healthcare from various associations at taxpayers expense, break into cars and threaten bystanders?... Sure, let's get the yuppies and CEOs too!
 
If they live on the streets, defecate everywhere, shoot and deal drugs in plain sight, expect free food and healthcare from various associations at taxpayers expense, break into cars and threaten bystanders?... Sure, let's get the yuppies and CEOs too!
but none of those reasons were used to pass this provision were they? It merely states if "addicted", you don't get welfare. So why are we handing out tax credits and corporate welfare to addicts?
 
Back
Top