EPTdo you think it should be ok for union members at a job to refuse to cooperate with non-union members?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9981
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
do you think it should be ok for union members at a job to refuse to cooperate with non-union members? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
On February 28 2018 04:17 IgnE wrote: @brian do you think it should be ok for union members at a job to refuse to cooperate with non-union members? no, that would be cause for firing imo. On February 28 2018 04:18 farvacola wrote: Many kinds of employment predicate a job grant on payment of certain fees associated with related requirements, at least tangentially. For example, every job that requires membership in a professional organization tacitly requires payment of organization dues in much the same way union jobs require employees to pay the union. do y’all have recurring bar dues? it may be my utter ignorance on the subject but even then it seems like an inept analogy. in theory those memberships are more voluntary. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On February 28 2018 04:21 brian wrote: no, that would be cause for firing imo. do y’all have recurring BAR dues? it may be my utter ignorance on the subject but even then it seems like an inept analogy. in theory those memberships are more voluntary. you cant practice law without paying bar dues . . but to my point, managers can implicitly enforce political alliance (within their own ranks and within the workforce) through the firing power. workers have traditionally combatted this with guild-like certifications and dues, collective bargaining agreements, etc. which is a kind of hiring power, or negative firing power, enforcing some kind of political alliance. new workers must agree to certain conditions (paying dues, prior agreements) so as to avoid a race to the bottom and complete hegemony by those with the firing power | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3258 Posts
On February 28 2018 03:29 xDaunt wrote: Getting rid of Abood would be great for a bunch of reasons. First and foremost, it's not the government's place to subsidize unions and compel membership in them. If workers want to bargain collectively, let them do it. Nobody is stopping them. The reality is that the public sector unions know that people will not join them unless compelled because the public sector unions have been too damned good at their job. Factoring in pensions and other benefits, public sector employees are too well compensated, which leads me to my next point. Public sector unions need to be kicked in the nuts. The ridiculous compensation arrangements that they have negotiated for their members using taxpayer money is going to cause real problems if not addressed. Current unfunded public pension liability exceeds $6 trillion. These are big fiscal issues that need to fixed, which won't happen if public sector unions keep getting propped up artificially. Do you have a constitutional argument here? Or just a policy one? Because the policy question seems irrelevant from the court's perspective (or at least it's supposed to be, no?) | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On February 28 2018 05:22 ticklishmusic wrote: charges dropped against gates, he must have given up some goods. So that means Manafort is 100% fucked. Unless... | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On February 28 2018 05:30 On_Slaught wrote: Manafort is looking at serious prison time and there appears to be solid evidence against him (bank statements and now a witness). Like Kushner, I wonder if he expects a pardon and will hold out for that reason. At what point does he base say fuck off with the stupid pardons? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On February 28 2018 05:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote: If only this hatred of public sector unions are to the ones which actually have the cushiest and most powerful unions: the police; who can kill with virtual impunity, the prison staff unions which have unbeleivably high pensions and pay. Alas, that appears to not be the case. Those unions are special cases. Whenever police unions come up... "But we pay them a lot because they risk their lives every day" "But those police are heroes! They should be allowed to shoot to kill the moment their life may be even slightly in danger!" Which is it? Heroes or exceedingly well armed and always given the freedom of killing as soon as they are scared? To be a hero, you need to be willing to risk your life to protect the public. If you kill the moment you are scared, you're not a hero. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 28 2018 05:34 IyMoon wrote: At what point does he base say fuck off with the stupid pardons? Never. Nixon’s base never left him while he was in office, even after the tapes. If you are hoping for the moment when the other side admits they were fooled, it will never come. And it doesn’t have to. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21961 Posts
On February 28 2018 05:34 IyMoon wrote: At what point does he base say fuck off with the stupid pardons? Never. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On February 28 2018 05:30 On_Slaught wrote: Manafort is looking at serious prison time and there appears to be solid evidence against him (bank statements and now a witness). Like Kushner, I wonder if he expects a pardon and will hold out for that reason. I think it is almost certain that Manafort has the ability to bring down Kushner. Likely has very incriminating information on Trump himself. I think Manafort sees the situation as: the only way he would ever go down is if Trump was already going down, just because of the fact that Trump would get taken down by Manafort flipping. So in a way, Manafort is incentivized to just keep assuming the executive branch will do its thing. If Trump is legitimately in danger, he will do absolutely everything, no matter the cost, to just stay out of prison. You could argue Manafort has the same protections. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6215 Posts
Manafort is already fucked beyond belief, so it's probably someone pretty damn high up the food chain if charges for that which are pretty much guaranteed convictions are being dropped. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On February 28 2018 05:51 Lmui wrote: Well, the charges against Gates were pretty serious. ~70 million dollars of money laundering, tax fraud and bank fraud. Manafort is already fucked beyond belief, so it's probably someone pretty damn high up the food chain if charges for that which are pretty much guaranteed convictions are being dropped. They wouldn't drop charges against Gates unless they thought they had a benefit. There is someone they don't have enough dirt on yet. I think Mueller and his team are ASSUMING Trump will use every piece of bullshit they have to defend Manafort. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 28 2018 05:51 Lmui wrote: Well, the charges against Gates were pretty serious. ~70 million dollars of money laundering, tax fraud and bank fraud. Manafort is already fucked beyond belief, so it's probably someone pretty damn high up the food chain if charges for that which are pretty much guaranteed convictions are being dropped. Forgive my lack of knowledge, but how does this work for charges that involve illicitly getting a boatload of money? I assume there's some sort of penalty or repayment plan involved in dropping the charges? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
| ||
