The Glade 4.0

To be honest I am just glad that someone else is finally on the board. They haven't been able to look at **** for two years because of political cockblocking on both sides of the aisle.

_________________

In my opinion, the board shouldn't exist, so having it non-functional was a far better cry than going either direction.

Some labor areas and the overall union membership may be down, but unionization in healthcare is up. Just as an FYI.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Recently, at least here in NJ, the power is eroding. There was a time where you couldn't say anything bad about unions without being excoriated publicly. They still hold an absurd amount of power here though.

They take in over 130 million a year in dues in NJ alone. They were all over the radio and print and billboards here campaigning against Christie. They still rally members to protest and they send representatives to every legislative session at level of government when an issue that effects them comes up, so the officials know they are being watched.

It's a joke.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

I remember there was a bit of a dust up over one of his appointments, but I haven't really been following it, Ladas. I'm kind of a "bad liberal" when it comes to union/labor issues. I generally view labor negotiations like any other commercial transaction - both sides try to get the best deal and neither side can claim any moral superiority for their position. Other than worker safety rules, I'm not a fan of legal/regulatory involvement, and I tend to see things like the NLRB as anachronisms that should probably go the way of the dodo. As a result, I don't pay a lot of attention to it. What's been going on?

Back Door Card Check from the WSJ. I read another article as well, but my simple keyword search didn't bring up an online version of it to link.

IF New Jersey gets ever tired of this guy, PLEASE send him out here to Washington State. PLEASE!

****, I'd vote for him for prez.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

That is the equivalent to saying that we should cock-block Supreme Court nominations to do away with the SC. This is the only body in the nation that has a legal mandate to review labor rules and regulations. If you want it gone that's understandable but do you replace it with the Supreme Court? All you would do is transfer it to another body.

_________________

It isn't anywhere close to equivalent, and to suggest so is disturbing.


No. My objections to the NLRB has nothing to do which job they perform, but that the jobs are performed at all, and the underlying reasons they jobs are needed, not to mention the general character of the board, because of its clearly political ramifications, is rarely about equity and upholding the law, to the point their rulings become de facto law, which is not the purview of the Executive Branch.

If the board was as you seem to be implying it exists, where it acted as mediator based upon the existing and defined laws related to employment, you might have a case.

You should maybe study the subject?

_________________

I'm not sure to which rebuttal of your statement you are replying, as there is nothing in your information that neither links the NRLB as analogous to the USSC, nor that would convince me my opinion of their existence is unjustified.

Is there something in particular I have not seen that either leads you to believe this board, created by executive order, is any way of the same level or function as the USSC, or doing a job that isn't redundant and quite frankly, an abomination?

You've bolded a specific section, which I can only assume means you are stressing that point, but that doesn't help any point you might be making.

Why should unions have special rules about how they can add to their membership? This is the same group that has borderline destroyed the constitutionally protected right of association.

When you don't have the money to send them anywhere else, they can. As for your comment, **** off. You have no buisness telling anyone here if they should be breeding or not.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Unions dictate Rhode Island politics an policy in a near absolute way.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Diamondeye, you are aware that when the word "you" is used without a specific antecedent, that it is the general "you" right?

_________________

More proper and clear to use "one" instead of "you". Though occasionally I slip as well.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Actually, it's absolutely improper to use "one" instead of "you". Check Elements of Style by Strunk and White.

_________________

Holy ****, there's that book again. It's almost like Elements of Style is a definitive work on writing or something.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

If a union isn't allowed to strike, what is the point of it? It has no power.

Public unions don't get their power from the citizens they work for, they get it from the Congresspersons they fund and put in office who write their contracts, and the laws that govern them. They don't ned to strike, they are 10 steps beyond striking.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

And yet public sector unions that don't strike and are too small to make serious donations still have plenty of power to negotiate succesfully.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I really don't think "public unions shouldn't be allowed to strike, because they have political corruption!" is a great argument.

Ok, so you don't think it's a great argument. A) That's not what I'm saying and B) even if I was, why? Because you insist on thinkign they're then powerless? The fact is that they aren't. We've been over this before.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That "unions have no power without the ability to strike" is one of the myths that organized labor purpetrated onto the public when they were fighting for the absolute legal right to shut down someones private business who refused to deal with them. It is proven untrue annually by thousands of "public servants" whose unions distort pay and manipulate policy in government when their chosen politicians bought by those same unions with paid dues.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

If a union asks for something, management says no, and they're not allowed to strike, what recourse do they have? Aside from buying politicians to legislate in their favor, obviously. Every organization that can do this for a benefit, will do this. Unions are not special. If this is so effective and easy, why doesn't the company buy some opposing legislators? Surely they have greater financial resources available. This is another one of the many conservative hypocrises. When a private corporation buy a politician, they blame the politician. But when a union buys a politician, they blame the union.

A union has no power that was not handed to them at some point by either the management or the legislature, whether or not that management is the government. A union banned from striking today might retain some power, but only because of already existing agreements/contracts made when the strike threat still existed. A union that is banned from striking from day 1 has no power whatsoever. I suppose you could make the argument that the newly-formed "union" could act as lobbyists or use union dues to hire lobbyists to get laws changed to their advantage, which wouldn't be corruption, but a collective formed for this purpose isn't really a labor union anymore.

The fact is, blaming unions is just plain stupid. When someone points out a labor union that has gathered so much power that its members are making six figure salaries for doing no work, you know what I think? That union did a damn good job, I need to get myself one of those. The union is only responsible to its members. No one else. "**** you, got mine" is how every public corporation on the planet operates, unions are no different. If you could make $100k for doing nothing you'd join a union too. Why is it that when a private corporation buys legislators to its advantage it's perfectly fine, but when an union does it it's evil and wrong?

If you want to blame someone, blame the executive who put next quarter's earnings report over the long term viability of the company. Or blame the electorate for electing officials that handed the public union everything. But don't blame the union. If I look at the union situation in RI I can only come to the conclusion that the union is doing a damn good job.