|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes
I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners
If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement.
This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. "
|
On June 25 2015 05:30 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners Show nested quote +If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. "
Are you familiar with what workplaces were like before workers had such protections?
|
I suggest you look at the history of capitalism pre-strike rights to get a slight idea.
|
That's pretty much it. It attempts to provide a balance of power between employer and employee. Most of the time it works. Occasionally it doesn't, and an employer gets all the power (see walmart) or a union gets all the power (California public unions are a good example of this).
Destroying the main power of unions would massively decrease the power of the worker and put even more power into the hands of the already dominant investor class. This will speed up our economic disparities between rich and poor which has historically led to revolution. Really not advisable. Suggest smaller tweaks which address specific unions/corporations.
|
On June 25 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 05:30 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. " Are you familiar with what workplaces were like before workers had such protections?
Yes, my father's side of the family all worked in steel mills for generations before they all shut down
However, to me it makes a lot more sense to just explicitly pass legislation regulating safe work places and fair/minimal wages than to encourage these weird decentralized gangs to try to see how much they can get their employers to cave in
|
On June 25 2015 05:30 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners Show nested quote +If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. "
Fairly weak case:
http://www.industriall-union.org/5-reasons-why-we-need-the-right-to-strike
However, they do mention the main point: it is fairly simple for employers, especially in poor regions, to exploit their employees. These rights improve the employee's position in negotiation, making the balance of power more equal.
|
On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes
That's basically the answer to your original question: the national labor relations board rules based on the national labor relations act and subsequent legislation and regulations.
Closed shop at its core is funding gains made by collective bargaining by forcibly taking union dues from employees. It follows that hard-won worker rights and benefits earned by union pressure and negotiated contracts are enjoyed by employees at large, who then ought not to be able to opt out of paying dues.
So-called "right to work" laws stand in opposition to that, and they vary state to state. Laws regarding how non-union employees may organize into a union vary state-to-state. In the past there has been discussion on how unions may implement paycheck-withholding for the dues (you might imagine how the union billing workers causes many to become delinquent). Another topic is political contributions for party candidates that may disagree with worker's private political beliefs.
For more info on alternatives to "why can't they just fire," search out articles on Walmart's successes stopping union formation and the controversy on the meatcutters unionization efforts.
|
The general idea of unions is the following:
A worker alone can not bargain with his employer, unless he is somehow unique in some regard, or what he is bargaining for is such a small detail that just hiring someone else to do his job is less efficient.
Workers a a whole have the power to ruin things for both sides, if they feel that they are treated bad enough and organised well enough.
Thus, organized workers can threaten to destroy a business at a large cost to themselves, while employers can usualy destroy single employees without a large cost. Everything else follows out of negotiations between the two of them. The employer wants to treat his employees as shitty as possible while still retaining their labor force, while the employees want to gain as much as possible from the employer. The result is usually a compromise where the situation is not shitty enough for the employees to destroy the business, but sometimes they would like the situation to be better, and thus they threaten to do just that as a bargaining chip.
All of the laws regarding strikes are a result of the interest of both sides to keep the negotiations working, instead of having having an actual labor battle, which includes strikers on one side trying to destroy the business, and the business somehow trying to work around the strikers.
|
On June 25 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 05:30 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. " Are you familiar with what workplaces were like before workers had such protections?
Except conditions were rapidly improving even without labor laws. Much like OSHA protections, where the rate of workplace deaths declined before its creation, and much of the improvement is because of a change in calculating workplace deaths.
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/assuming-youre-intellectually-lazy-theres-a-very-strong-argument-for-command-and-control-regulation/
|
On June 25 2015 06:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:30 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. " Are you familiar with what workplaces were like before workers had such protections? Except conditions were rapidly improving even without labor laws. Much like OSHA protections, where the rate of workplace deaths declined before its creation, and much of the improvement is because of a change in calculating workplace deaths. https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/assuming-youre-intellectually-lazy-theres-a-very-strong-argument-for-command-and-control-regulation/
source for the actual statement?
how were the conditions improving before organized unions existed?
|
Well, I worked in a corrugated plant before. Heard all the horror stories of people losing life and limb before OSHA. Very easy and obvious to see why it would happen at that job. Probably why when anyone whines about regulations I just facepalm. Usually the ones against regulations are the ones sitting at a cubicle soaking AC lol.
|
On June 25 2015 06:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:30 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. " Are you familiar with what workplaces were like before workers had such protections? Except conditions were rapidly improving even without labor laws. Much like OSHA protections, where the rate of workplace deaths declined before its creation, and much of the improvement is because of a change in calculating workplace deaths. https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/assuming-youre-intellectually-lazy-theres-a-very-strong-argument-for-command-and-control-regulation/
Now for some caveats. This chart doesn’t prove OSHA is completely ineffective. Moreover, I”m sure there were state-based workplace regulations in effect in the pre-OSHA era, and I assume the federal government also had some health and safety regulations as well, perhaps through the Labor Department.
lol... Yeah, just a couple... You have got to be kidding with this guy right?
|
On June 25 2015 06:19 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 06:08 cLutZ wrote:On June 25 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:30 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. " Are you familiar with what workplaces were like before workers had such protections? Except conditions were rapidly improving even without labor laws. Much like OSHA protections, where the rate of workplace deaths declined before its creation, and much of the improvement is because of a change in calculating workplace deaths. https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/assuming-youre-intellectually-lazy-theres-a-very-strong-argument-for-command-and-control-regulation/ source for the actual statement? how were the conditions improving before organized unions existed?
Perhaps you could just show a trendline that disputes the analogy? Or are your feelings proof enough to justify your position?
Plus, the pre-1900 information is crap, and there are tons of confounding variables you can look at just a few here. Given the rapidly increasing wealth of the workers in factories, it would have been almost impossible for workplace conditions to not improve.
On June 25 2015 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 06:08 cLutZ wrote:On June 25 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:30 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. " Are you familiar with what workplaces were like before workers had such protections? Except conditions were rapidly improving even without labor laws. Much like OSHA protections, where the rate of workplace deaths declined before its creation, and much of the improvement is because of a change in calculating workplace deaths. https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/assuming-youre-intellectually-lazy-theres-a-very-strong-argument-for-command-and-control-regulation/ Show nested quote +Now for some caveats. This chart doesn’t prove OSHA is completely ineffective. Moreover, I”m sure there were state-based workplace regulations in effect in the pre-OSHA era, and I assume the federal government also had some health and safety regulations as well, perhaps through the Labor Department. lol... Yeah, just a couple... You have got to be kidding with this guy right?
Yes your feelings and anecdotes are so compelling.
|
On June 25 2015 06:33 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 06:19 Paljas wrote:On June 25 2015 06:08 cLutZ wrote:On June 25 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:30 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. " Are you familiar with what workplaces were like before workers had such protections? Except conditions were rapidly improving even without labor laws. Much like OSHA protections, where the rate of workplace deaths declined before its creation, and much of the improvement is because of a change in calculating workplace deaths. https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/assuming-youre-intellectually-lazy-theres-a-very-strong-argument-for-command-and-control-regulation/ source for the actual statement? how were the conditions improving before organized unions existed? Perhaps you could just show a trendline that disputes the analogy? Or are your feelings proof enough to justify your position? Plus, the pre-1900 information is crap, and there are tons of confounding variables you can look at just a few here. Given the rapidly increasing wealth of the workers in factories, it would have been almost impossible for workplace conditions to not improve. Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 06:08 cLutZ wrote:On June 25 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:30 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. " Are you familiar with what workplaces were like before workers had such protections? Except conditions were rapidly improving even without labor laws. Much like OSHA protections, where the rate of workplace deaths declined before its creation, and much of the improvement is because of a change in calculating workplace deaths. https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/assuming-youre-intellectually-lazy-theres-a-very-strong-argument-for-command-and-control-regulation/ Now for some caveats. This chart doesn’t prove OSHA is completely ineffective. Moreover, I”m sure there were state-based workplace regulations in effect in the pre-OSHA era, and I assume the federal government also had some health and safety regulations as well, perhaps through the Labor Department. lol... Yeah, just a couple... You have got to be kidding with this guy right? Yes your feelings and anecdotes are so compelling.
This reminds me of Judge Napolitano's claim that Lincoln unnecessarily started the Civil War. Slavery was well on it's way to solving itself through free market forces. It's astounding to me.
lol @ Bobby Jindal: " But now I'm tanned, I'm rested and I'm ready"
|
Slavery wasn't solving itself after the invention of the cotton gin and would have stayed for well into the 1900's until the advanced iterations of the combine. The south started the civil war by declaring their succession and firing on fort Sumter.
Granted He did see it coming and marches marines into the Maryland congress to make sure that it stayed in the union... but hay victor writes history.
|
As the nation continues to reel from last week’s mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina that left nine churchgoers dead, data shows that since 9/11 there have been more deadly attacks in the U.S. carried out by “right-wing” assailants than so-called “jihadists.” What’s more, right-wing attacks have killed almost twice as many Americans.
According to a count of “lethal terrorist incidents” by “homegrown extremists” tallied by the New America Foundation (NAF), a New York-based nonprofit, the Charleston incident brought the number of right-wing attacks since 9/11 to 19, resulting in the deaths of 48 Americans. By contrast, “jihadists” — a term often used to describe militant Muslims — carried out seven attacks, resulting in 26 deaths.
The Charleston shooting, allegedly at the hands of Dylann Roof, 21, a purported white supremacist, was the latest in a series of deadly right-wing attacks in the U.S, according to NAF data.
Other incidents listed include attacks on a Sikh temple, Jewish center, multiple Christian churches and the U.S. Holocaust Museum.
According to manifestos or other messages left behind by the right-wing killers, the attacks were less about government policies and more about people who didn't share the same race, beliefs or lifestyles.
By contrast, incidents listed by NAF as “deadly jihadist attacks” include cases in which the assailant disagreed with U.S. government policies and actions, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, many of the assailants involved in the attacks have ties to the Middle East or Islam.
Included in the list is the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, in which brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed four people out of anger toward U.S. foreign policy and its perceived affects on Muslim communities.
Another attack cited was the 2002 shooting by Egyptian national Hesham Mohamed Hadayet of two Israelis at an El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. Like the Tsarnaev brothers, Hadayet was not affiliated with any group, but had espoused anti-Israeli views and was opposed to U.S. policies in the Middle East.
Source
|
On June 25 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 05:30 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. " Are you familiar with what workplaces were like before workers had such protections?
From the economic history that I've read, workplaces were a step up in terms of pay and safety from life on the farm and whatever small craftsman operations existed. You can see that dynamic play out in the developing world. Working at a textile factory in Bangladesh is pretty crummy from a 1st world standpoint, but is a marked improvement for the people working there.
As far as unions and regulations go, they can be useful when accidents are caused by a lack of knowledge and insisting on or forcing change can be beneficial for everyone. On the flip-side they can cause wasteful bureaucracies to crop up and stifle innovation so use with caution.
Edit: oh, I should also add that sometimes unions / laws are useful because it helps get workers on board with safety procedures. Sometimes it's the workers who want to take shortcuts, and using social pressure from the union or laws as a smokescreen can be helpful when trying to get those guys in line.
|
On June 25 2015 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:30 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. " Are you familiar with what workplaces were like before workers had such protections? From the economic history that I've read, workplaces were a step up in terms of pay and safety from life on the farm and whatever small craftsman operations existed. You can see that dynamic play out in the developing world. Working at a textile factory in Bangladesh is pretty crummy from a 1st world standpoint, but is a marked improvement for the people working there. As far as unions and regulations go, they can be useful when accidents are caused by a lack of knowledge and insisting on or forcing change can be beneficial for everyone. On the flip-side they can cause wasteful bureaucracies to crop up and stifle innovation so use with caution. Edit: oh, I should also add that sometimes unions / laws are useful because it helps get workers on board with safety procedures. Sometimes it's the workers who want to take shortcuts, and using social pressure from the union or laws as a smokescreen can be helpful when trying to get those guys in line.
And zero mention of the blatant exploitation of the worker by the employer that was systemic throughout every developing country's economy in the early modern era when there were little to no laws protecting workers or their right to collectively bargain.
Keep pushin' that narrative.
|
On June 25 2015 07:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +As the nation continues to reel from last week’s mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina that left nine churchgoers dead, data shows that since 9/11 there have been more deadly attacks in the U.S. carried out by “right-wing” assailants than so-called “jihadists.” What’s more, right-wing attacks have killed almost twice as many Americans.
According to a count of “lethal terrorist incidents” by “homegrown extremists” tallied by the New America Foundation (NAF), a New York-based nonprofit, the Charleston incident brought the number of right-wing attacks since 9/11 to 19, resulting in the deaths of 48 Americans. By contrast, “jihadists” — a term often used to describe militant Muslims — carried out seven attacks, resulting in 26 deaths.
The Charleston shooting, allegedly at the hands of Dylann Roof, 21, a purported white supremacist, was the latest in a series of deadly right-wing attacks in the U.S, according to NAF data.
Other incidents listed include attacks on a Sikh temple, Jewish center, multiple Christian churches and the U.S. Holocaust Museum.
According to manifestos or other messages left behind by the right-wing killers, the attacks were less about government policies and more about people who didn't share the same race, beliefs or lifestyles.
By contrast, incidents listed by NAF as “deadly jihadist attacks” include cases in which the assailant disagreed with U.S. government policies and actions, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, many of the assailants involved in the attacks have ties to the Middle East or Islam.
Included in the list is the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, in which brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed four people out of anger toward U.S. foreign policy and its perceived affects on Muslim communities.
Another attack cited was the 2002 shooting by Egyptian national Hesham Mohamed Hadayet of two Israelis at an El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. Like the Tsarnaev brothers, Hadayet was not affiliated with any group, but had espoused anti-Israeli views and was opposed to U.S. policies in the Middle East. Source
Pretty sleazy job on that report. A neutral publication might've gone non-Jihadi, but nowadays media love to lump in white-supremacists and various murderous nuts in the right wing--along with the Tea Party and various conservative groups. Homegrown extremists hits closer to the mark.
According to manifestos or other messages left behind by the right-wing killers, the attacks were less about government policies and more about people who didn't share the same race, beliefs or lifestyles. Of course, let's call them right-wing!
Other incidents listed include attacks on a Sikh temple, Jewish center, multiple Christian churches and the U.S. Holocaust Museum.
They couldn't find anything in common in this list?
But, hand it to a liberal think tank to put more of an edge in an article on non-Muslim extremists.
|
On June 25 2015 09:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 07:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As the nation continues to reel from last week’s mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina that left nine churchgoers dead, data shows that since 9/11 there have been more deadly attacks in the U.S. carried out by “right-wing” assailants than so-called “jihadists.” What’s more, right-wing attacks have killed almost twice as many Americans.
According to a count of “lethal terrorist incidents” by “homegrown extremists” tallied by the New America Foundation (NAF), a New York-based nonprofit, the Charleston incident brought the number of right-wing attacks since 9/11 to 19, resulting in the deaths of 48 Americans. By contrast, “jihadists” — a term often used to describe militant Muslims — carried out seven attacks, resulting in 26 deaths.
The Charleston shooting, allegedly at the hands of Dylann Roof, 21, a purported white supremacist, was the latest in a series of deadly right-wing attacks in the U.S, according to NAF data.
Other incidents listed include attacks on a Sikh temple, Jewish center, multiple Christian churches and the U.S. Holocaust Museum.
According to manifestos or other messages left behind by the right-wing killers, the attacks were less about government policies and more about people who didn't share the same race, beliefs or lifestyles.
By contrast, incidents listed by NAF as “deadly jihadist attacks” include cases in which the assailant disagreed with U.S. government policies and actions, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, many of the assailants involved in the attacks have ties to the Middle East or Islam.
Included in the list is the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, in which brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed four people out of anger toward U.S. foreign policy and its perceived affects on Muslim communities.
Another attack cited was the 2002 shooting by Egyptian national Hesham Mohamed Hadayet of two Israelis at an El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. Like the Tsarnaev brothers, Hadayet was not affiliated with any group, but had espoused anti-Israeli views and was opposed to U.S. policies in the Middle East. Source Pretty sleazy job on that report. A neutral publication might've gone non-Jihadi, but nowadays media love to lump in white-supremacists and various murderous nuts in the right wing--along with the Tea Party and various conservative groups. Homegrown extremists hits closer to the mark. Show nested quote +According to manifestos or other messages left behind by the right-wing killers, the attacks were less about government policies and more about people who didn't share the same race, beliefs or lifestyles. Of course, let's call them right-wing! Show nested quote +
Other incidents listed include attacks on a Sikh temple, Jewish center, multiple Christian churches and the U.S. Holocaust Museum.
They couldn't find anything in common in this list? But, hand it to a liberal think tank to put more of an edge in an article on non-Muslim extremists.
Just saying, "They're not all right-wing" doesn't make it true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
