You will never convince me this is a bad thing...

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Uncle Albert, Aug 16, 2013.

  1. Uncle Albert

    Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    60,501
    Location:
    'twixt my nethers
    Ratings:
    +27,500
    ...but you are welcome to try.

    Forced to pay union dues. Forced to pay the fucking union. :mad: :jayzus:



    Here, I'll even get you started. "Herpa Derpa Faux News I read no further. :dendroica: "
  2. RickDeckard

    RickDeckard Socialist

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    37,745
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +32,243
    As a condition of employment, asshole. You seem to be fine with those in just about any other circumstance. Here though, what you're agreeing with is a diktat to employers from the state as to what terms they hire employees on. :rolleyes:

    The tumultuous contradictions of Albertarianism continue.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Uncle Albert

    Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    60,501
    Location:
    'twixt my nethers
    Ratings:
    +27,500
    Public employees? No. That's not a corporation. We can't just refuse to do business with it. No government entity should be in the business of arm-twisting for a union.

    Private corporations, sure. You could make handstand breastfeeding a condition of employment, and nobody is forced to give your company money.
  4. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,298
    Ratings:
    +31,281
    So in three posts, we've already convinced you that half of it is a bad thing?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Uncle Albert

    Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    60,501
    Location:
    'twixt my nethers
    Ratings:
    +27,500
    Only if I'm allowed to throw out just that part of it. Binding public and private together cannot be an excuse to kill the idea entirely. Probably not much of an issue in the private sector, though. The fact that it is a union shop is often a big selling point for (arguably misguided) tradesmen and such.
  6. gul

    gul Revolting Beer Drinker Administrator Formerly Important

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    52,375
    Location:
    Boston
    Ratings:
    +42,367
    So there are two parties, one that requires employees, one that has a stable of available workers. We'll call party A the company, and Party B the union. With me so far Albert? Party B negotiates a contract with party A to provide staffing at specified rates of compensation. Both A and B are agreeable to this contract and the papers are signed. Anybody who wants to work for party A must do so by going through party B. And they must, as a condition of accepting this opportunity, agree to the rules set forth in the contract between party A and B.

    Albert, please explain what is wrong with this idea.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Uncle Albert

    Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    60,501
    Location:
    'twixt my nethers
    Ratings:
    +27,500
    Tax money. Closed market.
  8. gul

    gul Revolting Beer Drinker Administrator Formerly Important

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    52,375
    Location:
    Boston
    Ratings:
    +42,367
    Wait, what? Where did I mention these things?
  9. Uncle Albert

    Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    60,501
    Location:
    'twixt my nethers
    Ratings:
    +27,500
    You didn't. You were engaging in the shifty bullshitter tactic of stacking up only those details you want to contend with, and I declined to oblige.

    :)
  10. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    101,075
    Ratings:
    +81,580

    Close that fuckin' thread then.

    :diacanu:
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. frontline

    frontline Hedonistic Glutton Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    13,032
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    Ratings:
    +8,290
    When it locks out party C, the independent prospective employee, from a government position, then there is a problem.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  12. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    50,154
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +53,511
    The government should not be able to make participation (paid or otherwise) in any organization a condition of employment. Any provision of contract that excludes an independent person from a public sector job without participation in a union should, in my view, be held invalid. One person should have as much right as any other to seek employment in the public sector without having to join a union. If they want to, great. If they don't, it shouldn't be required.

    If labor laws were different, I'd be more okay with requiring union membership for a private sector job. After all, a union could contract with an employer to supply that employer's labor. However, since labor laws give unions power--and that power is backed by the coercive power of government--I do not favor requiring someone to join a union as a condition of employment in the private sector either.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. John Castle

    John Castle Banned Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    21,748
    Ratings:
    +8,142
    Use real words. "diktat" is a fuckin' pinko word, and therefore not a real word.
  14. John Castle

    John Castle Banned Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    21,748
    Ratings:
    +8,142
    I'm going to take this quote out of the order in which it was written, because I can shoot this down very, very quickly.

    The older term for a party that "has a stable of available workers" is slave owner.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. The Exception

    The Exception The One Who Will Be Administrator Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    21,942
    Ratings:
    +6,317
    Are you talking about public sector unions? Because if you're talking about private sector, you'd also have to be against staffing agencies too.
  16. gul

    gul Revolting Beer Drinker Administrator Formerly Important

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    52,375
    Location:
    Boston
    Ratings:
    +42,367
    But the law also applies to private companies. How can you defend that?
  17. Uncle Albert

    Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    60,501
    Location:
    'twixt my nethers
    Ratings:
    +27,500
    I'll happily sever private employment with companies who do not contract with the government. They didn't consult me when they drafted this bad boy. It's the mere question of government employees being a captive member base for fucking unions I find galling.
  18. tafkats

    tafkats scream not working because space make deaf Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    24,904
    Location:
    Sunnydale
    Ratings:
    +50,916
    Meanwhile, it seems you're all for laws that protect employees from exploitation -- as am I, in general -- unless the exploitation is being done by a union, in which case it becomes an inalienable right.
    • Agree Agree x 2