|
A socialist would not suggest that capitalism is in any way a state of nature.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
Eschat0n posted:You do not understand unions and you show it. Even in areas where mandatory union fees are present, the union does not get its collective bargaining power from the fact that everyone at the workplace is in a union; only most of them. Even in locations with mandatory fees, you do not have to actually be a registered union worker; you just have to pay the fee. So mandatory fees do not guarantee union membership, they only make it highly irrational to not join. As logical as unions are, the people that run them are doing work and need to get paid to do it well. If you cut off the funding and make them into charities, they don't bring in enough fees to survive. These are the facts on the ground, do you have examples of unions in right-to-work states/countries to the contrary?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:A socialist would not suggest that capitalism is in any way a state of nature. Fair enough; I'll hew away from that characterization. Infinite Karma posted:I managed a multi-state union construction company and worked directly with union and non-union workers. I know what I'm talking about. In California, the unions exist and have power. In Nevada, unions exist and have power. In Arizona, the unions don't, because it's a right-to-work state that outlaws mandatory union fees. Technically, they exist, but they have no bargaining power and are just there to facilitate contractual obligations for multi-state entities. This is because unions have contractual limits on employers' hiring, firing, and compensation practices, which includes preventing companies from hiring non-union employees that compete with union ones. Further, I did read through some of this document in the historical segments and found that it expresses the same understanding I have of the origin of unions prior to what it calls Union Security Agreements, which I have called mandatory union fees. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42575.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:Fair enough; I'll hew away from that characterization. Patrick Wright is the vice president for legal affairs at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, which filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Janus v. American Federation. so what is Mackinac Center for Public Policy?  you are literally citing a right-wing libertarian think tank, which does have an ideological deposition against unions, in their legal briefing against union fees in a SCOTUS case. Citing it is roughly the same as citing the defense in a murder trial as to the guilt of the defendant and presenting it as reliable. this btw, goes into what I have said before, which is that you don't actually seem to read links Typo fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Apr 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
let's see where Mackinac's funding come from: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mackinac_Center_for_Public_Policy#Funding  Hey look Charles Koch, Betsy Devos, and Exxonn Mobile. None of which would -ever- lie about the impact free riding would have on viability of labor unions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
I agree with OP, unions should be state funded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Also, public sector unions (which aren't bargaining against for-profit employers that get to keep surplus dollars) are very different from private sector unions. MixMastaTJ posted:I agree with OP, unions should be state funded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Typo posted:This is from top of the first link you provided: ouch, that sucks. But I think I agree with the gist of their argument in their brief, regardless of their background. MixMastaTJ posted:I agree with OP, unions should be state funded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:ouch, that sucks. But I think I agree with the gist of their argument in their brief, regardless of their background. But all you are really saying now is that they confirm your pre-existing biases and opinions, regardless of its correctness
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Typo posted:But all you are really saying now is that they confirm your pre-existing biases and opinions, regardless of its correctness Remember when you called us paranoid on page 4 for predicting this was gonna end with right wing nonsense? Well, here we all are!  Eschat0n posted:You are wrong and an rear end. Turn on your monitor 
WampaLord fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Apr 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Typo posted:But all you are really saying now is that they confirm your pre-existing biases and opinions, regardless of its correctness With the requested addition of the sources they use. I don't think the sources they're citing look bad to me: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_over.htm https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-16/unions-are-losing-their-decades-long-right-to-work-fight https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/michigans-largest-teachers-union-has-lost-25-percent-of-its-members https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/unions-charge-higher-dues-and-pay-their-officers-larger-salaries-non-right https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/ "In trying to determine whether the CPS or SASS provided better numbers, we developed another means of examining union membership by looking at state payroll figures. Data were accumulated from all of the states on the number of state employees (excluding universities, for administrative convenience), those in mandatory collective bargaining units, and those that have union fees deducted from their paychecks. Employees who had dues withdrawn constituted a membership rate floor (as opposed to a membership rate, because there is a possibility that some members paid by means other than a paycheck withdrawal)." https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4116996/NEA-8Essentials.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Remember when you called us paranoid on page 4 for predicting this was gonna end with right wing nonsense? You are wrong and an rear end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
you are literally saying the heritage foundation "looks good" as an unbiased source
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:With the requested addition of the sources they use. I don't think the sources they're citing look bad to me: Now that you admitted to not reading the source article, would you care to admit you didn't read any of those links either? What do you think you're gaining by posting things you don't even take the time to read and comprehend?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
one of your sources explicitly contradicts your earlier claim as well as your whole argument LOL:Eschat0n posted:
quote:Michigans Largest Teachers Union Has Lost 25 Percent of Its Members quote:To bring this down from a theoretical level to a personal level, my wife is currently a member of a teacher's union that recently lost the ability to leverage mandatory fees. I am watching to see how it turns out, but she is certainly maintaining her payment to the union, because it's the rational choice to make since that union is required to keep teachers in survivable pay (I won't say "good" or "fair" pay because I think those terms don't describe what we pay public school teachers, lol). There's nothing preventing her or her coworkers from becoming free riders, but the union is also free to make the case that it's a good idea to pay them to help; so far it looks like that marketing is working. you were saying earlier how nobody is gonna stop paying their union dues and free ride due to "marketing" LOL
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
Eschat0n loves posting almost as much as he hates reading
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Typo posted:you were saying earlier how nobody is gonna stop paying their union dues I didn't say that. The evidence that people do become free riders to some extent is all over. My contention is that it won't mean the death of the union. Did you read my other source?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:
Why? So you won't have to? LOL
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:I didn't say that. The evidence that people do become free riders to some extent is all over. My contention is that it won't mean the death of the union. Do you think that might have an impact on its effectiveness or be a stepping stone towards its disbanding, perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Typo posted:Why? So you won't have to? LOL Sure, let's go with that. OwlFancier posted:Do you think that might have an impact on its effectiveness or be a stepping stone towards its disbanding, perhaps? Yes, could be. The other source that I didn't read states the evidence on this is murky. Again, if it turns out to be the case, I'm not tied ideologically to the idea of removing mandatory fees. It's better to have that than no unions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:Yes, could be. The other source that I didn't read states the evidence on this is murky. Again, if it turns out to be the case, I'm not tied ideologically to the idea of removing mandatory fees. It's better to have that than no unions. I'm going to suggest that perhaps there is a reason why the right wing go so hard on anything to weaken the control of unions and that as a rule, you should not be in favour of anything that does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm going to suggest that perhaps there is a reason why the right wing go so hard on anything to weaken the control of unions and that as a rule, you should not be in favour of anything that does. I get why you say that in this present political climate and if I were anybody who actually had a job to do regarding this policy I'd probably adopt the same stance just to cut through the bullshit, but from a purely academic standpoint that's just plain stupid chauvinism. The other source is not nearly so biased, fortunately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:I get why you say that in this present political climate and if I were anybody who actually had a job to do regarding this policy I'd probably adopt the same stance just to cut through the bullshit, but from a purely academic standpoint that's just plain stupid chauvinism. I would venture that we all, all the time, live in political climates and that the minute we start living in universities then the desire to remove political ideas from their real world context will have merit. This is the desert island obsession again. If you have to remove your political theories from reality in order for them to not sound poo poo, you might need to rethink them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would venture that we all, all the time, live in political climates and that the minute we start living in universities then the desire to remove political ideas from their real world context will have merit. Good god, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that since I have all the time in the world and no actual obligations, I am free to consider even potentially high-noise sources of information.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:Sure, let's go with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
Typo posted:tell you what, if you can write a longish post on why you think labor unions increase entropy in thermodynamic economics I'll tell you what your sources say ... I think they DECREASE entropy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:... I think they DECREASE entropy. sure that works too
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Typo posted:sure that works too *Sigh* I know I'm gonna regret playing devil's advocate here, but... A core concept of thermoeconomics is that firms' capital effectively exists at a low energy state and consumer wealth is a high energy state. A firm only releases funds to consumers when it is profitible, i.e. the return will transfer greater funds than are lost. Wealth, like matter, will naturally flow exclusively from high energy state to low energy state without additional energy introduced to the system. Ergo at a maximum, all wealth will be pooled into a single corporation (or else trapped in other smaller corporations with no path to the lower state). Labor unions give additional power to the working class, who operate as the vast majority of consumers. This will at least retard the flow of wealth from consumer to firms as firms will be unable to exploit workers to the same, highly profitible extremes. At best, workers will gain reparations rolling wealth back into consumer pockets, reducing entropy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
My wife works a job that in my opinion doesn't get paid enough (lol) and now her union has been kneecapped and I think this is all just fine and dandy. *farts*
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 09:31
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:Good god, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that since I have all the time in the world and no actual obligations, I am free to consider even potentially high-noise sources of information. You also appear to lack sufficient effort and introspection to reliably tell signal from noise, especially when you can't be bothered to read your sources fully.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
Wealth is your mom picking u up right after school in a suburban.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 23:57
|
|
