|
Folks, I found some purestrain.Top 10 Worst 'Accomplishments' of the American Labor Movement posted:Labor Day is a socialist holiday. Every year, on the first Monday in September, we are reminded of all of the great “achievements” of the Labor Movement, and how our lives would be much harder if not for all the “rights” they have secured for us. However, every one of those accomplishments comes at a heavy price, a price that we pay every single day. In celebration of Labor Day this year, let us consider what we have lost due to the gains of the Labor Movement, and just how many freedoms these entitlements have cost us. It's delicious. It is so delicious to me.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 15:20 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 13:06 |
|
Mornacale posted:Folks, I found some purestrain. That's basically an entire list of "Life is lovely for a lot of workers. It is clearly dastardly regulations that are stopping things like fair wages!" There are so many points where he's sooooooo cloooooose and yet...
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 15:23 |
|
If only we could return to the old days, where there were no unsafe working conditions and everyone had quality healthcare and a good education (while simultaneously being employed 60 hours a week at 12 years old)!
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 15:27 |
|
quote:6. The Eight Hour Work Day Hoo boy do these two get my blood boiling. Why aren't you working all the time like the glorious Ubermensch do?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 15:29 |
|
quote:3. Workers Compensation This is a thing written by someone who has never worked a poo poo job in his life. If employers are just forced to cough up money anytime someone is injured, then why is my sister-in-law being forced to have to attend a hearing with the local Workman's Comp board because her employer, the largest retail chain in the world, thinks they shouldn't have to pay out. And pray tell, how would she be able to afford to sue such a corporation?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 15:52 |
|
We should be working far more than 40 hours a week, for efficiency! Marginal productivity is a socialist myth. Also, you know what would help the unemployment problem and increase wages? Getting children and old people back into the workforce!
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 16:00 |
|
quote:However, we all know that the Sabbath is an ancient invention, designed to save slaves and servants from being overworked. What? The Sabbath wasn't designed for anything but God's pleasure, it's done "in remembrance of slavery in Egypt" but that's saying you know an awful lot about God's intent, bucko.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 16:16 |
|
WampaLord posted:Hoo boy do these two get my blood boiling. Steve Jobs spent every day of his life thinking about iPods. Why can't you be like him and do your job (Rendering plant technician) all the time too?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 16:18 |
|
Mornacale posted:Folks, I found some purestrain. This guy comes off to me like someone who genuinely believes that Nelson Muntz is trying to stop Milhouse Van Houten from punching himself or at least like someone who tells himself that while cheering on a bully who makes sport of the powerless
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:10 |
|
Mornacale posted:Folks, I found some purestrain. Fuckin' lmao didn't even read past this. You have to be astoundingly out of touch to think that this should be your lead example of why organized labor is bad.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:22 |
Organized labor should be a good thing to libertarian insofar as it relates to collective bargaining. I can see a libertarian opposing it when it comes to using labor unions to pass legislation, but totally voluntary agreements between unions and employers should be looked on as a great example of non governmental solutions to workplace safety and other issues.
|
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:38 |
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Organized labor should be a good thing to libertarian insofar as it relates to collective bargaining. I can see a libertarian opposing it when it comes to using labor unions to pass legislation, but totally voluntary agreements between unions and employers should be looked on as a great example of non governmental solutions to workplace safety and other issues. Why, it's almost like the libertarian belief in the utility of the free market is no more than a fig leaf/post-hoc justification for their true desires of segregation and unmitigated oligarchy! Also, the author of that piece is actually a woman, which makes the "paid maternal leave is bad because women should be forced into domestic labor for three years per child" bit especially ironic and sad.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:50 |
|
You ever want to rip someone's leg off and beat them to death with it for how loving stupid and entitled they are?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:55 |
|
OwlFancier posted:You ever want to rip someone's leg off and beat them to death with it for how loving stupid and entitled they are? We all read this thread, don't we?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:56 |
|
Yeah but I figure the comparative lack of one-legged corpses missing their skulls would suggest that perhaps other people have a different response?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:59 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah but I figure the comparative lack of one-legged corpses missing their skulls would suggest that perhaps other people have a different response? The grand irony is that the state (MEN WITH GUNS!!1!) is quite possibly the only thing that protects such horrible people from being literally eviscerated due to being, well, horrible people. That said, I don't believe for a moment that libertards possess the self-awareness or even modicum of intelligence to realise that the "free speech", such as it is, that allows them to say such things only exists because of the fear of government retaliation that will punish people who, say, tie people like that woman to their vehicles by their hair and take them for a scenic drag across Death Valley.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 18:04 |
|
gently caress of course it's a woman writing it
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 18:07 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah but I figure the comparative lack of one-legged corpses missing their skulls would suggest that perhaps other people have a different response? We all want to do it, but none of us has yet reached that level of frustrated rage.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 18:10 |
|
This rear end in a top hat makes me sick, suggesting that having more children is a good thing How are your loud snot-covered carbon footprints, lady? Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Sep 15, 2016 |
# ? Sep 15, 2016 18:30 |
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Organized labor should be a good thing to libertarian insofar as it relates to collective bargaining. I can see a libertarian opposing it when it comes to using labor unions to pass legislation, but totally voluntary agreements between unions and employers should be looked on as a great example of non governmental solutions to workplace safety and other issues. Ah yes, the employers famously loved loved making voluntary agreements with unions. If only that dastardly government hadn't stepped in to interfere with all that peaceful negotiation. Stinky_Pete posted:This rear end in a top hat makes me sick, suggesting that having more children is a good thing Hahahahahhgggghhh I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train The High Cost of Centrally Planning the Global Climate Global Warming Activists Want to Make Food More Expensive Global Warming: Environmentalism's Threat of Hell on Earth Is Global Warming Causing the California Drought? (Mises answer: no)
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 21:42 |
|
Stinky_Pete posted:This rear end in a top hat makes me sick, suggesting that having more children is a good thing What the gently caress
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 21:53 |
Goon Danton posted:Ah yes, the employers famously loved loved making voluntary agreements with unions. If only that dastardly government hadn't stepped in to interfere with all that peaceful negotiation. I didn't say employers. I said libertarians. If it's a freely agreed contact, rights based libertarians shouldn't have a problem with it. Employers, just like unions, would like to use state power to improve their bargaining position.
|
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:03 |
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I didn't say employers. I said libertarians. If it's a freely agreed contact, rights based libertarians shouldn't have a problem with it. Can you elaborate on what you consider to be a union abuse of state power and provide examples?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:21 |
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I didn't say employers. I said libertarians. If it's a freely agreed contact, rights based libertarians shouldn't have a problem with it. And yet, the most famous and successful self-proclaimed libertarians in the country, the Koch Brothers, do just that. That may not make them "true libertarians," but does that matter, seeing how few "true libertarians" exist? Also, please give an example of a union contract that's not "freely agreed". I looked for libertarian arguments against unions, and they were all saying "the unions shouldn't be able to force the employees to pay dues, etc." Why not? The employee is choosing to work for a union house, why shouldn't the union be able to force them to do things, just as the employer forces them to work for their wage? Why is it "force" when a union wants dues, but "consent" when an employer wants labor? If they're consenting to work for the employer, then they're also consenting to work with whatever union may be in place there. Right? Or no?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:22 |
|
Mornacale posted:Folks, I found some purestrain. At first I thought this was a joke, or maybe a well crafted troll someone threw up on a Libertarian message board. But no, looks like the author is a full-on, true believing Ayn Rand wanna be. eta: She has a published novel titled "The Few Who Count" heh Red Dad Redemption fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Sep 15, 2016 |
# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:26 |
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Organized labor should be a good thing to libertarian insofar as it relates to collective bargaining. I can see a libertarian opposing it when it comes to using labor unions to pass legislation, but totally voluntary agreements between unions and employers should be looked on as a great example of non governmental solutions to workplace safety and other issues. Yes, to be logically consistent organized labor should be a good thing to libertarians. But strangely most of the published libertarian thinkers are outright hostile towards unionization. Liberty for me but not for thee, in other words
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:28 |
paragon1 posted:Can you elaborate on what you consider to be a union abuse of state power and provide examples? Passage of laws enshrining various goals of the unions is an example of unions using state power to improve their bargaining position. Laws requiring people to join unions as well. Union busting, and laws preventing unions from forming, and laws preventing agreements for goals of the unions would be uses of state power to improve owners position. I mean it's rational to use state power to further your aim if it's available to you.
|
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:36 |
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Passage of laws enshrining various goals of the unions is an example of unions using state power to improve their bargaining position. Nitrousoxide posted:I mean it's rational to use state power to further your aim if it's available to you. So a "true libertarian", i.e. that most rational of beings, is not being a true libertarian if they don't rationally use the state to their advantage?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:40 |
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I didn't say employers. I said libertarians. If it's a freely agreed contact, rights based libertarians shouldn't have a problem with it. And I'm saying that's a fantasy. The government had to interfere, because the employers figured that paying some Pinkertons to murder your employees once is cheaper than paying your workers a decent wage forever. And by the way, employers didn't just use "state power" to "improve their bargaining position." They had police officers beat and kill workers trying to unionize, and when that wasn't enough, hired mercenaries to do the same thing. They're still doing that, just not in the USA, because the state stepped in to stop them here. When I worked QA in a factory I got the pleasure of listening to the factory manager openly (and non-jokingly) fantasize about hiring someone to run the workers over with a truck if they tried to strike. But you think that stuff is "just like unions would like to do." Of course you think that. But unions didn't hire mercenaries to go kill Henry Frick, Frick hired mercenaries to go kill striking workers. There's no equivalence, no matter how much you wish there were. Nitrousoxide posted:Passage of laws enshrining various goals of the unions is an example of unions using state power to improve their bargaining position. Laws requiring people to join unions as well. Be specific here, what "laws enshrining various goals of the unions" are bad to you? Workplace safety regulations, or overtime laws, or the minimum wage, or anti-scrip laws, or what?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:51 |
|
Golbez posted:So a "true libertarian", i.e. that most rational of beings, is not being a true libertarian if they don't rationally use the state to their advantage? ayn rand on social security
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:52 |
A rights based libertarian would obviously oppose business owners who attempt to kill, maim, bully, or prevent unions from organizing, at least if they are consistent. I don't know what your point here is. Likewise, a rights based libertarian would likely oppose laws on workplace safety, hours, maternity leave, etc. They would want those matters to be handled by the collective bargaining or individual bargaining of the workers with the employer. I mean I think this is pretty straightforward.
|
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 23:01 |
|
Thus, entirely-rights-based libertarians are absolute imbeciles who have no place in a proper discussion. I happened to find just today my old libertarian bible, "Liberty: A Primer" by Alan Burris. It's amazing how much I've changed since I first read this; it originally made me a hardcore anarcho-capitalist, and now I just see all of the desperate logical holes and leaps. But he's very much a rights-based libertarian - the good of the many will never, ever outweigh the good of the one, to him. Any taxation or law is slavery because it infringes on our natural rights. ... Not surprisingly, at least in my basic glance today, he doesn't even bother to explain property. Just that it's an extension of the self, and therefore you can use force to protect it. That it can be re-homesteaded when "clearly abandoned." (I guess a private DRO decides when it's abandoned?)
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 23:11 |
Nitrousoxide posted:A rights based libertarian would obviously oppose business owners who attempt to kill, maim, bully, or prevent unions from organizing, at least if they are consistent. And if employees, realistically, are less powerful than their employer even unionized, obviously it's the right of the employer to deny their employees reasonable terms of employment? Natural law, no way around it, I guess? The state is useful for reducing power imbalances, allowing for equal bargaining by two parties in more situations than is possible without a state. Anybody will admit that there are also times it exacerbates power imbalances but this doesn't mean we should give up on the concept of the state, or aim for a minimal state. Regulations on contracts between unequal parties that prevent the more powerful party from outright abusing the lesser party are not an impediment to the market but an improvement. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 23:17 |
|
Kevin Carson: Labor Struggle in a Free Market posted:Present-day labor law limits the bargaining power of labor at least as much as it reinforces it. That’s especially true of reactionary legislation like Taft-Hartley and state right-to-work laws. Both are clearly abhorrent to free market principles.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 23:20 |
Yeah I don't disagree with that at all. The general strike ban is a huge part of why labor law has nearly frozen for decades and decades and unionization has declined in the US. I'm not sure I even as much as implied that I'm a fan of the current laws around labor-capital relations - but there is a place for the state there. Without regulations as a relatively permanent way of securing victories, labor would be stuck refighting the most basic of fights like child labor. Just look at how state neglect has led to the erosion of basic pillars like the minimum wage and 40-hour work week. Unless you had unions effectively acting as a state (in which case, welcome syndicalist comrade) they aren't going to be any better at defending universal labor rights by themselves, without state support, either.
|
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 23:28 |
|
In his posts, Nitrousoxide uses a lot of hypotheticals (would/wouldn't/should/etc.) to describe how the free market supposedly would act if all these laws were removed and people could be freed from the repressive shackles of MEN WITH GUNS . On the other hand, everyone else is using concrete words that describe past experiences (have ~ed, did, were, etc.) that actually happened. The language used by both sides shows quite clearly which one has more grounding in the real world. Nitrousoxide, putting aside the fact that you're a bad poster who is refusing to engage on any meaningful level with the innumerable criticisms being levelled at your chosen economic religion, can you see why people can't take lolbertarianism seriously? It's espousing basically "when
|
# ? Sep 15, 2016 23:28 |
|
Golbez posted:And yet, the most famous and successful self-proclaimed libertarians in the country, the Koch Brothers, do just that. That may not make them "true libertarians," but does that matter, seeing how few "true libertarians" exist? Unions only benefit people who work for a living so of course rich white people hate them. The "but but but forced to pay dues!!!!" argument is pure strain bullshit simply because the benefit you get from paying those dues far, far, far outweighs the cost. What they're really mad about is that unions can force employers to actually pay fair wages.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2016 00:34 |
|
Oligarchs have done a fine job of destroying unions these last few decades as well. To most people, they are obstacles that keep desperate people from working, the people of course being desperate from years and years of oligarchs destroying their quality of life. The thing is, a company making life miserable for its workers aids consumers because it means lower prices, but empowered workers might mean (GASP!) inconvenience or slightly higher prices. Just for the sake of argument, take perhaps the worst example of the misery of capitalism: Walmart. They are infamous for their efforts to suppress organised labour and will fire employees who even mention it, but just for the sake of argument imagine that in some region there was a massive Walmart strike and virtually all of the employees below full-time management went on strike. I have absolutely no doubt that they would be vilified, with the usual arguments about how the workers should be "glad to have a job Golbez posted:Also, please give an example of a union contract that's not "freely agreed". I looked for libertarian arguments against unions, and they were all saying "the unions shouldn't be able to force the employees to pay dues, etc." Why not? The employee is choosing to work for a union house, why shouldn't the union be able to force them to do things, just as the employer forces them to work for their wage? Why is it "force" when a union wants dues, but "consent" when an employer wants labor? If they're consenting to work for the employer, then they're also consenting to work with whatever union may be in place there. Right? Or no? This is one of my favourite posts ever and I thank you for it.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2016 01:46 |
|
Nitrousoxide posted:A rights based libertarian would obviously oppose business owners who attempt to kill, maim, bully, or prevent unions from organizing, But also oppose any attempt to stop them from doing it. Well gosh, I have no problem with the workers striking, but they were trespassing while they were doing it, they deserved to get shot! quote:at least if they are consistent. I have some terrible news! quote:I don't know what your point here is. In a world without worker's protections by the state, the absolute best case scenario of "voluntary agreements" between a union and the employer is that the workers unionize, and then the employer fires them all and brings in scabs to do the work. That's why strikes happened. And the "property rights" crowd will rush to the defense of the employer's right to hire anyone he wants, and his right to "defend" his factory by killing the workers if they block shipments with their picket lines. Physically preventing the factory from operating without the union workers is the whole point of a union strike, and it's an affront everything "rights based libertarians" hold dear. quote:Likewise, a rights based libertarian would likely oppose laws on workplace safety, hours, maternity leave, etc. They would want those matters to be handled by the collective bargaining or individual bargaining of the workers with the employer. So we re-fight the entire hundred-plus-year-old battle for workers' rights literally every time we start a new job? That is insane. And it will end up like it was before the workers' rights movement started, because that's just the way things worked before the workers' rights movement started. And it led directly to the lovely conditions you claim to oppose. By the way, I've noticed you've shifted from putting forward your own thoughts to presenting a hypothetical "rights based libertarian" for your arguments. Do you believe the opinions you're posting now, or are you Just Asking Questions?
|
# ? Sep 16, 2016 02:02 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 13:06 |
Golbez posted:And yet, the most famous and successful self-proclaimed libertarians in the country, the Koch Brothers, do just that. That may not make them "true libertarians," but does that matter, seeing how few "true libertarians" exist? You're contacting with the employer for employment. Provided the union has convinced the employer to demand employees join the union as a condition to their contact there is no problem for a libertarian over any other dickered for term in a contract. It's no different from a arbitration clause in any EULA you've agreed to. However, if the requirement to join the union comes from a legal requirement then a libertarian will likely have an issue with it. I imagine that government jobs come a lot closer to the latter, since the requirement to join a union can be written into law, but private compulsory unions should be no problem since the worker is free to refuse to sign the employment contract and go elsewhere.
|
|
# ? Sep 16, 2016 02:07 |