Really? Then why are we discussing the possibility of a minority of workers at Tesla somehow being able to force unionization?
Because that's not what we're discussing, at all. The workers have done nothing but request that there be no retaliation against them as they try to form a union. For the union to be ratified, it will still require a majority of the workers who are prospective members.
As I said, shops only go union when the employees vote to go union. In light of this, you might want to reconsider the rest of your rant.
As I have repeatedly stated here, what's needed is protections for all workers.
I'm with you. Whether the mechanism is like Germany, where basically all workers are unionized or just straight-up socialism, it would be better to protect all workers.
Unfortunately, I don't see how any worker protection scheme works without collective bargaining and thus, labor unions.
And once voted in and taken root, they are nigh impossible to get out.
Getting a union out is an election, just like getting a union in. The process is called "decertifying". The reason you are buying into the notion that they are "impossible to get out" is because the discussion has been controlled for the most part by ownership.
Isn't it funny how there are countless businesses that have perfectly fine relations with their employees without a union being involved?
An shop doesn't become unionized unless the employees vote on it, so maybe those "perfectly fine relations" aren't quite as perfectly fine as you are led to believe.
There are lots of valid reasons to have a dress code.
Just as there are lots of valid reasons to have a union. Once again, the union doesn't just march in and take over. A shop becomes unionized when the employees vote it in.
Why should management have all the power when it comes to how a workplace is run? Remember, labor precedes capital.
The UAW and most unions push for union shops, where every worker of certain categories must belong to the union and pay union dues, it is not a voluntary relation.
They have the choice to find a job at a non-union shop.
For-profit corporations and for-profit companies in general earn money by providing goods and services; unions get money through extortion.
Let me share with you the words of that famous socialist, Abraham Lincoln:
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
- Abraham Lincoln, Republican, and the 16th President of the United States
It isn't because they are looking out for their members. It's because union dues are typically a percentage of a members base pay.
Thus, while the Union loves to claim it's fighting for YOU, the truth is they are really securing a pay raise for themselves. As union worker pay goes up, so too does the union dues.
It's the same way a CEO works to raise the share price of his corporation. Not because he cares deeply about each and every shareholder, but because his success leads directly to an increase in his compensation. Same thing with the entire board of directors.
I'm telling you, corporations and unions are two sides of the same coin. If you want to talk about getting rid of both, then we have a discussion. If you want to talk about getting rid of only one, then you are being hypocritical. As I said, one is the aggregate of labor, the other is the aggregate of capital. It's a natural situation of balance of power.
Isn't the idea behind the union that everyone's equal?
My goodness, you don't know the first thing about labor unions, do you? They do not seek "equality", they seek the best wage for their members. They seek seniority rules, benefits guarantees and worker safety. And they've got an amazing record of success in these areas.
A union seeks to aggregate labor for leverage in the workplace the same way corporations aggregate capital in the marketplace. .
Anyone who believes that unions are the cause of the problems in the US auto industry over the past 50 years just doesn't know much about unions or the auto industry.
In the United States, Libertarians are not libertarian, so no. I don't know how it is where you live, but in this country, a "Libertarian" is basically a racist Republican who wants to smoke pot and bring suffering on poor people and the elderly while not paying taxes.
The charge against Backpage was led by new Democrat/SJW hero Kamala Harris. Both sides are united in their crusade to clamp down on rights here, under the fake accusations of sex trafficking.
The only public support for sex workers is coming from the Left.
You realize that much of this pressure isn't coming from right wing christians but from atheist SJW progressives who believe they are protecting women.
The movement to support sex workers is coming from the Left.
"For too long, courts around the country have ruled that Backpage can continue to facilitate illegal sex trafficking online with no repercussions," said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio.
Why don't you mind your own goddamn business? Thank goodness the "family values conservatives" are in charge, amirite? Sessions cracking down on marijuana, Trump encouraging police to brutalize suspects and Portman making sure it's illegal for two consenting adults to enter into a personal contract.
If Portman cares about human trafficking, maybe he should look into Trump's "model agency" or his relationship with Melania.
You honestly don't think this was an attempt to embarrass the Trump administration?
It's funny that you think the Trump administration is capable of embarrassment. After all, embarrassment requires a certain level of self-awareness, and there has been zero of that on evidence.
Yet, I've yet to hear a reliably (not anonymous) sourced bit of evidence and/or description of any criminal activity whatsoever. The last time I checked, talking to Russians is not a crime.
Talking to Russians is most definitely a crime when you neglect to list it on your Security Clearance check. In several cases, there were meetings with Russian government officials and representatives that were left off both the original Security Clearance and the revisedSecurity Clearance that they filed when different meetings with Russians were exposed. You've got to admit, there seems to be a lot of memory problems in the Trump Administration when it comes to meetings with Russians. It's like the Russians have one of those Men In Black pens that wipe people's memories or something. Also, lying under oath is a crime, and Sessions did that in his confirmation hearing.
As far as other crimes, I'm sure there's nothing at all to be found, which is why a Special Fucking Prosecutor was named by the Justice Department. I'm sure their investigation will turn up absolutely nothing.
Unmasking private citizens who have not been accused of a crime should be a crime.
Unmasking a public or political official who is trying to sell out the country should earn you a $3 fine and a gift certificate to Chili's.
By the way, did the members of the Trump administration and his campaign team speak to anyone who wasn't Russian? And why do they seem to have such awful memories when it comes to these meetings when they're filling out (or amending) their security clearance forms? I mean, the Russians I know tend to be pretty memorable people.
But then he was crucified upside down for not renouncing him. What's your point?
My point is that history is full of examples of devout believers who denied their faith to evade the laws or the Inquisition or the gas chambers or the lash. Faith is fungible.
Yes, because a fictional character in Christian mythology is an indicator of how real Muslim exteremists act in real life.
It's all fiction, Brent,
Anyway, history is full of examples of fervent believers who denied their faith. Maybe you've never heard of the Marranos (I'm pretty sure you haven't) who were Jews who lived as Christians to avoid the Spanish Inquisition, or the many Jews who pretended to be Christian to avoid the Nazis. These were most assuredly not fictional characters.
I've put together a little reading assignment for you, with references, because it appears your history education is a bit lacking.
A person that truly believes in their religion isn't going to go and deny it, because adhering to their religion is more important than adhering to the laws and/or rules of this world.
Perhaps you've never heard of a guy named Saint Peter, who denied knowing Jesus Christ three times because he was afraid of the laws and/or rules of this world.
Slashdot Mirror
Because that's not what we're discussing, at all. The workers have done nothing but request that there be no retaliation against them as they try to form a union. For the union to be ratified, it will still require a majority of the workers who are prospective members.
As I said, shops only go union when the employees vote to go union. In light of this, you might want to reconsider the rest of your rant.
I'm with you. Whether the mechanism is like Germany, where basically all workers are unionized or just straight-up socialism, it would be better to protect all workers.
Unfortunately, I don't see how any worker protection scheme works without collective bargaining and thus, labor unions.
Getting a union out is an election, just like getting a union in. The process is called "decertifying". The reason you are buying into the notion that they are "impossible to get out" is because the discussion has been controlled for the most part by ownership.
An shop doesn't become unionized unless the employees vote on it, so maybe those "perfectly fine relations" aren't quite as perfectly fine as you are led to believe.
Just as there are lots of valid reasons to have a union. Once again, the union doesn't just march in and take over. A shop becomes unionized when the employees vote it in.
Why should management have all the power when it comes to how a workplace is run? Remember, labor precedes capital.
Tesla sold about 76,000 vehicles in 2016. Ford sold 17.55 million vehicles in 2016.
Please, let's all remember that shops only go union when the employees vote to go union. If the employees want it, that's when it happens.
You understand that unions don't just "take over" shops, right? They're voted in by the workers.
You make it sound like the union marches in and nobody gets a say.
Why should a dress code be a condition of employment? Why should drug testing be a condition of mandatory employment?
They have the choice to find a job at a non-union shop.
Let me share with you the words of that famous socialist, Abraham Lincoln:
It's the same way a CEO works to raise the share price of his corporation. Not because he cares deeply about each and every shareholder, but because his success leads directly to an increase in his compensation. Same thing with the entire board of directors.
I'm telling you, corporations and unions are two sides of the same coin. If you want to talk about getting rid of both, then we have a discussion. If you want to talk about getting rid of only one, then you are being hypocritical. As I said, one is the aggregate of labor, the other is the aggregate of capital. It's a natural situation of balance of power.
My goodness, you don't know the first thing about labor unions, do you? They do not seek "equality", they seek the best wage for their members. They seek seniority rules, benefits guarantees and worker safety. And they've got an amazing record of success in these areas.
A union seeks to aggregate labor for leverage in the workplace the same way corporations aggregate capital in the marketplace. .
Anyone who believes that unions are the cause of the problems in the US auto industry over the past 50 years just doesn't know much about unions or the auto industry.
Just pointing out the obvious.
In the United States, Libertarians are not libertarian, so no. I don't know how it is where you live, but in this country, a "Libertarian" is basically a racist Republican who wants to smoke pot and bring suffering on poor people and the elderly while not paying taxes.
The greatest advocates in support of sex workers are women, friend.
https://www.bustle.com/article...
I don't know where you're getting such bad information, but women and specifically feminists are leading the way in sex worker advocacy.
I agree. I merely pointed out that the only support for sex workers is currently coming from the Left.
The only public support for sex workers is coming from the Left.
Now you're embarrassing yourself.
The movement to support sex workers is coming from the Left.
It made more sense in the original Russian.
Why don't you mind your own goddamn business? Thank goodness the "family values conservatives" are in charge, amirite? Sessions cracking down on marijuana, Trump encouraging police to brutalize suspects and Portman making sure it's illegal for two consenting adults to enter into a personal contract.
If Portman cares about human trafficking, maybe he should look into Trump's "model agency" or his relationship with Melania.
http://www.inquisitr.com/43971...
It's funny that you think the Trump administration is capable of embarrassment. After all, embarrassment requires a certain level of self-awareness, and there has been zero of that on evidence.
Talking to Russians is most definitely a crime when you neglect to list it on your Security Clearance check. In several cases, there were meetings with Russian government officials and representatives that were left off both the original Security Clearance and the revisedSecurity Clearance that they filed when different meetings with Russians were exposed. You've got to admit, there seems to be a lot of memory problems in the Trump Administration when it comes to meetings with Russians. It's like the Russians have one of those Men In Black pens that wipe people's memories or something. Also, lying under oath is a crime, and Sessions did that in his confirmation hearing.
As far as other crimes, I'm sure there's nothing at all to be found, which is why a Special Fucking Prosecutor was named by the Justice Department. I'm sure their investigation will turn up absolutely nothing.
Unmasking private citizens who have not been accused of a crime should be a crime.
Unmasking a public or political official who is trying to sell out the country should earn you a $3 fine and a gift certificate to Chili's.
By the way, did the members of the Trump administration and his campaign team speak to anyone who wasn't Russian? And why do they seem to have such awful memories when it comes to these meetings when they're filling out (or amending) their security clearance forms? I mean, the Russians I know tend to be pretty memorable people.
My point is that history is full of examples of devout believers who denied their faith to evade the laws or the Inquisition or the gas chambers or the lash. Faith is fungible.
It's all fiction, Brent,
Anyway, history is full of examples of fervent believers who denied their faith. Maybe you've never heard of the Marranos (I'm pretty sure you haven't) who were Jews who lived as Christians to avoid the Spanish Inquisition, or the many Jews who pretended to be Christian to avoid the Nazis. These were most assuredly not fictional characters.
I've put together a little reading assignment for you, with references, because it appears your history education is a bit lacking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yeah, but now he's Heaven's bouncer, and can deny access to the VIP section to whomever he wants and gets to date the strippers.
Perhaps you've never heard of a guy named Saint Peter, who denied knowing Jesus Christ three times because he was afraid of the laws and/or rules of this world.
See, John 18:13-27