Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Posts: 2545 Local time: 8:04 PM
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:00 am Post subject:
josephpalazzo wrote:
Have you followed the sequence of events?
No
Quote:
This thread was initially about UK Police to learn Quran and sharia.
Did it really turn into a 20 page debate?
Quote:
It became a debate about Libertarianism, which I complained. Was I wrong?
"Complain" is wrong, but pointed out is good. If it needed complaint to get the thread de-derailed, then you were right since it got my ass in the action. Who the fuck labeled it "libertarian-socialism". I am still chuckling over that.
Quote:
Then, someone, I presume Ivan, splitted the thread, which became this one Libertarian Socialism, which was okay.
Ivan is cool.
Quote:
Then cheap comes in with this low underhanded post. Was I supposed to ignore it?
Cheap is a prick. He his welcomed to join dialogue, but he never does in a civil manner. I agree with Knob more than I do with him. I would never put Knob into the position a mod, even though it would be damn funny. At AF you are allowed to challenge the mods, but do not asked to be banned. That is just ridiculous.
You had the right to publicly or privately ask Ivan or Philo to split the thread. It's that simple.
Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 2373 Local time: 8:04 PM Location: California
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:12 am Post subject:
[quote="Ivan_Ivanov"]
gnosis wrote:
Historically, labor unions have most often been at the receiving end of violence from management.
For most of the time of their existence they've had the backing of government guns, so historically your argument fails.
I'd also like to discuss a specific example of said violence against labor unions, because truth be told something stinks about this claim.
Quote:
How does the fact that management were calling in government guns and Pinkertons to commit violence against union members absolve them of responsibility?
[quote="gnosis"]I think you have it a bit backwards as to who is more coercive. Luckily in the United States workers have the right to join a union, or you would see a helluva lot worse working conditions.
[quote="Ivan_Ivanov"]Oh horseshit.
The conditions and wages were constantly improving before unions were involved in anything.
OK you're gonna have to be the one who gives examples of where conditions and wages improved WITHOUT the involvement of labor unions.
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
It has to do with the monetary system. Inflation robs the poor and the middle class while benefiting the rich.
Please explain how inflation hurts those with less money more than the rich? That's completely illogical. If you have no money and that money becomes worth less, you haven't lost much. If you have millions and it suddenly becomes worth a lot less, thats a huge loss.
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
But if you don't agree, can you explain how is it that unions managed to improve workers' conditions a century ago, even tough they were violently opposed, but seem to be unable to do shit today, even tough they have unprecedented legal privileges?
I think you're going to have to qualify "unable to do shit" with an example.
Think about who's feeding you this information before you take it at face value. Ever wonder why there's an anti-union slant in media that's completely controlled by a small number of powerful corporations due to deregulation by the FCC?
I'd like to qualify all of this with the statement that I don't consider myself a socialist, any more than I consider myself a capitalist. I am more libertarian than anything else. The reason I have more of a leaning towards libertarian socialism than conservativism is because of the abuse of power.
With everything going on in the world right now, who can deny that those in power in the U.S. have been abusing it?
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Posts: 3942 Local time: 3:04 AM Location: Poland
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject:
gnosis wrote:
How does the fact that management were calling in government guns and Pinkertons to commit violence against union members absolve them of responsibility?
The second link gives no specific example.
The first is a bit better but not much. Most of the cited example said the violence took place during strikes. Strikes usually take place on the employer's property, so unless the employer agrees to it, they're acts of violence themselves.
That's why I asked for a specific example, with a more or less detailed description - to establish which side was the first to use coercive force.
gnosis wrote:
OK you're gonna have to be the one who gives examples of where conditions and wages improved WITHOUT the involvement of labor unions.
Real wages increased around 50% during the years 1860-1890 when the rate of labor unionization was 3% by 1900.
Here's a whole book about wages in that time period (from which the table was taken).
Quote:
Please explain how inflation hurts those with less money more than the rich? That's completely illogical. If you have no money and that money becomes worth less, you haven't lost much. If you have millions and it suddenly becomes worth a lot less, thats a huge loss.
First of all the rich have the know-how to shield themselves from inflation, or they wouldn't be rich for long. They invest the money, or store their wealth some other way. No one (rich) is stupid enough to hold on to cash.
Secondly I think we should clear up what inflation actually is. It's not an increase in prices - that's just a consequence of inflation, which is an increase in the supply of money.
Now, when new money is created, people who get it first are the ones who benefit the most, as they get to spend the money before anyone even knows anything has changed with the money supply. As it's spent and makes it's way through the economy, it adjusts to the new money supply by increasing prices. People at the end of the line will have to deal with increased prices before they see a cent of the newly created money.
So the people who get the money first, benefit the most.
People who get it last, lose the most.
People who get it first are bankers, and government contractors.
People who get it last are wage workers.
Quote:
I think you're going to have to qualify "unable to do shit" with an example.
You already did that.
You know, that part about the richest top 0.1% getting a 500% income increase, while other's income is stagnant?
How is it that unions were unable to increase people wages even tough many more workers are unionized then a century ago, and they have a shitload of legal privileges.
Quote:
Think about who's feeding you this information before you take it at face value. Ever wonder why there's an anti-union slant in media that's completely controlled by a small number of powerful corporations due to deregulation by the FCC?
First of all, I'm not from the States, so the media over here are not under control of FCC.
Secondly, the vast majority of what I see has a pro-union slant to it.
Quote:
With everything going on in the world right now, who can deny that those in power in the U.S. have been abusing it?
Oh I agree, I just think unions are abusing power just as much, but I'm all for eliminating abuses of power, whether they're committed by corporations, unions, or whatever else. _________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea.
Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 837 Local time: 8:04 PM
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject:
cheapsurprise wrote:
So how are you going to prevent people from earning billions of dollars? How are you going to prevent people from liveing in shacks?
I'm not gonna prevent shit, but a differently-structured economic and social system could concievably prevent it without the active support of the state or other authoritarian institutions.
Who prevents a Frenchman from owning a large estate and using serfs to till his fields? Fucking no one...the change in economic systems has made serfdom obsolete, along with large parts of the legal system that accompanied feudalism (with the exception that the master-serf relationship from English common law is still recognized in modern labor and employment law in the English-speaking nations).
Who says late-stage capitalism is the end of history and no further systemic economic or social development will take its place? Pro-capitalists remind me of Candide's teacher.
Ivan wrote:
So I wouldn't own my body, my garage and my tools, my computer, my kitchen and all it's accessories... they're all means of production you know.
And how exactly did you fit my car into personal property? What if I want to start a transportation service?
Good points, but obviously when you employ other people to operate your means of production, remunerating them for only a small portion of what they are producing and keeping the excess as profit, there is a different property relationship at play than if you are using your circular saw to cut planks for your new deck.
Ivan wrote:
]And how are you gong to achieve all this without authoritarian institutions, or infringing on people's property?
See my response to cheapsurprise above. Now am I saying at no point in the process will expropriations occur? No, I'm not, whenever an economic-political-social system changes there is always some level of expropriation involved, as it is necessary to revoke the privileges of the former ruling class. This happened to some extent during the American Revolution when crown property was seized. I will not speculate as to the level of expropriation necessary to achieve a society with fewer disparties of wealth and power than exists under the capitalist model, however, just as free-marketeers can envision a mostly self-regulating capitalist economy, I can envision a mostly self-regulating socialist economy.
Gettin' In Tune wrote:
Jesus Fucking Christ. Mining is one of the most dangerous jobs. Unions won't change this fact.
No, they won't. But they can bargain safer working conditions.
Gettin' In Tune wrote:
I will argue that this wage floor is above the equilibrium wage
Presumes gnosis accepts the existence of "equilibrium wage"
Gettin' In Tune wrote:
Unions only exist in trades, which is a historical extension of Britain's guild.
Define "trades". By my definition, this statement would be patently false.
Gettin' In Tune wrote:
If I were you, I would be arguing for unions in the retail industry. Why isn't your Marxist ass fighting for retail unions?
1. Is gnosis a Marxist? Not all socialists are.
2. Two if the U.S.'s largest unions-- SEIU and UFCW do in fact represent workers in the retail sector. Most U.S. labor growth over the last decade has come from the service-producing sectors.
Ivan wrote:
For most of the time of their existence they've had the backing of government guns, so historically your argument fails.
You should tell this to the cops who have arrested or beat me or my union brothers and sisters on numerous picket lines over the years. How about Taft-Hartley? A prominent pro-capitalist, Murray Rothbard, denounced this law as a "slave labor bill". Since 1947, the law allows the Feds to enjoin strikes and force people back to work at gunpoint or else be jailed.
Ivan wrote:
I'd also like to discuss a specific example of said violence against labor unions, because truth be told something stinks about this claim.
You really from Poland, Ivan? How about Solidarnosc? In the U.S., we've had a bloodier history of labor violence than anywhere in Europe. There are literally thousands of examples, large and small of anti-union violence here. Two of the worst-- (1) Little Steel strike...police fired into a crowd of strikers and their families having a picnic then continued shooting them in the back as they ran. (2) Ludlow massacre...Rockefeller had his hired thugs go into a striking miners' camp at night and burn tents to the ground with women and children in them, and machine gunned down the victims as they fled. In my old union office, we had all kinds of photos of our union members just from that area who had bandages on their heads after being bludgeoned by cops, as well as photos of cops assaulting a march and ripping an American flag from the hands of a war vet in the march, and a photo of 5 cops beating one marcher on a side street nearly to the point of death. Doesn't happen as much nowadays, but it still does happen from time to time.
Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 2373 Local time: 8:04 PM Location: California
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject:
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
With everything going on in the world right now, who can deny that those in power in the U.S. have been abusing it?
Oh I agree, I just think unions are abusing power just as much, but I'm all for eliminating abuses of power, whether they're committed by corporations, unions, or whatever else.
OK this is where we agree. I just think that crimes should be prosecuted evenly across the board. Take a closer look at laws regarding labor unions in the United States nowadays and you will see that unions are under way more legal scrutiny than the government. I work in a labor union and I know that every cent of their expenditure is closely monitored by the Department of Labor while there is rampant waste and corruption in government. Jesus, look at the Department of Justice under Alberto Gonzales. You can see how justice is not living up to the expectations of the people in this country, and honestly Labor Unions are the least of our worries when it comes to crime nowadays.
As far as wages and their effect on the economy, just take a loot at the current economic situation in the U.S., where I do agree that unions have been losing power. Does it look like that's been a good thing for the economy? If a larger proportion of the population is making a reduced wage, not able to pay for their healthcare and their house loan, not able to buy goods to keep the economy moving, tell me how that's been a good thing for the U.S..
I can see how you might have a different view being from Europe however, where politics are a lot different and unions do indeed have corruption problems. 2/10 American workers are in a union, compared to 9/10 in Europe. We also are the one of the hardest working, most productive nations in the world.
Last edited by gnosis on Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:46 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 10021 Local time: 7:04 PM Location: USA
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject:
Gettin' In Tune wrote:
A libertarian socialist is an oxymoron. A libertarian values the individual, while socialism values the collective.
gnosis wrote:
Not so, you can value both.
In a way, yes, but it's more of valuing the benefits you can get from individuals doing their own thing in cooperative competition.
Gettin' In Tune wrote:
Economic disparities are not necessary a bad thing. Disparities spring up via hard work and natural skill. If people are living in shacks in this country, then I lay the blame on them more than I would capitalism. The US is not a perfectly free market, but people can put themselves ahead via hard work, skill, and the occasional luck.
gnosis wrote:
This may be more the case in the U.S. than in other countries, but it's not completely true. There are disparities due to other factors besides personal motivation or dedication. Racial, ethnic, and sexual discrimination still exists in the country despite what some people may think. Slavery was institutionalized less than 200 years ago. Women didn't even get the right to vote until 1920.
And that has what to do with what now?
Gettin' In Tune wrote:
Taking away people's voluntary agreement is restricting. Labor Unions are coercive in nature. Labor unions form a barrier to entry to employ your labor. Labor unions create unemployment and also distort the market price. Worker collectives on the hand are slightly different. People have the right to form into voluntary collectives and own a business. When these collectives are founded on voluntary agreements, usually fare well.
gnosis wrote:
Historically, labor unions have most often been at the receiving end of violence from management.
Historically, management has most often been at the receiving end of violence from labor unions, and in the US, they can't do shit about it because they are legally prevented.
gnosis wrote:
I think you have it a bit backwards as to who is more coercive. Luckily in the United States workers have the right to join a union, or you would see a helluva lot worse working conditions.
Nonsense. That myth has been debunked so many times that it's not funny anymore.
gnosis wrote:
The recent collapses of Mr. Murray's mines and his anti-union stance are a case in point as to how unions are still relevant to worker rights and safety in the U.S..
No it's not. Mining is inherently dangerous. Accidents happen from time to time, just like firefighters die from time to time. What--are you going to sue cities because firefighters died fighting fires? Want to impose safe environments for firefighters--and I don't mean the equipment they wear.
gnosis wrote:
Look at statistics as to how the wealth in the United States has become much less distributed, the smallest .01 of the population has had near a 500% increase in wealth while the rest of the population's wages have remained stagnant.
Blatant fucking LIE.
gnosis wrote:
How then are Labor Unions responsible for unemployment when corporate profits are at record levels?
They keep wage rates above the prevailing market rate. Further, corporate profits are just a red herring.
You might want to learn about economics. Just a hint. _________________ aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Posts: 3942 Local time: 3:04 AM Location: Poland
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject:
Godless Red Scum wrote:
Good points, but obviously when you employ other people to operate your means of production, remunerating them for only a small portion of what they are producing and keeping the excess as profit, there is a different property relationship at play than if you are using your circular saw to cut planks for your new deck.
An obviously arbitrary distinction.
What is an excess, and how much is a small portion?
What if there's a guy that agrees to cut some planks for me if I make him a new desk? Am I somehow keeping an excess profit to myself? How would you establish that?
What if there's another guy agrees to cut twice as many planks if a make a desk for him first? Am I somehow exploiting him? Am I obliged to hire the first guy?
Quote:
See my response to cheapsurprise above.
It lacked any specifics.
Describe what mechanisms would be in place, that would not involve authoritarian institutions, otherwise you haven't said anything, really.
Quote:
Now am I saying at no point in the process will expropriations occur? No, I'm not, whenever an economic-political-social system changes there is always some level of expropriation involved, as it is necessary to revoke the privileges of the former ruling class
I can agree to some extent, but that's not where I see the problem.
I'm more interested in the system as a whole, how will it ensure lack of private ownership of means of production without expropriation after the revolution is done?
Quote:
You should tell this to the cops who have arrested or beat me or my union brothers and sisters on numerous picket lines over the years.
You should tell that to the "scabs" beaten up by union workers over the years.
Quote:
How about Taft-Hartley? A prominent pro-capitalist, Murray Rothbard, denounced this law as a "slave labor bill". Since 1947, the law allows the Feds to enjoin strikes and force people back to work at gunpoint or else be jailed.
How about the Norris-La Guardia Act which, among other things, shielded unions from persecution for violence and property destruction?
How about the National Labor Relations Act that forced non-union workers to pay dues if the majority of workers were unionized, forced employers to negotiate "in good faith" as determined by the National Labor Relations Board, prohibited employers from persuading the workers to not unionize but forced them to allow unions to do as much persuading as they want, and gave union members further protection from persecution for acts of violence.
So... how are going to determine who do the laws favor more?
By the way, you happen to remember where Rothbard discussed Taft-Hartley?
Quote:
You really from Poland, Ivan? How about Solidarnosc?
I'm not sure how a communist government gunning down workers proves the point that governments favor businesses.
Quote:
Two of the worst-- (1) Little Steel strike...police fired into a crowd of strikers and their families having a picnic then continued shooting them in the back as they ran. (2) Ludlow massacre...Rockefeller had his hired thugs go into a striking miners' camp at night and burn tents to the ground with women and children in them, and machine gunned down the victims as they fled.
Can you point me to a detailed account of these? _________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea.
Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 837 Local time: 8:04 PM
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:12 pm Post subject:
Gettin' In Tune wrote:
A libertarian socialist is an oxymoron. A libertarian values the individual, while socialism values the collective.
I would argue the opposite of Ayn Rand-- individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive, but rather must interact symbiotically in order to maximize individual freedom. A hyperindividualist and atomized society, everybody constantly competing rather than ever collectively collaborating-- as far as I'm concerned that's no kind of freedom, especially for the vast majority who get buried by the wealthiest and most powerful.
Quote:
Economic disparities are not necessary a bad thing.
Small to moderate disparities-- no. Large ones which are inevitable under capitalism are bad however. That's because wealth disparities lead to power disparties, and power disparties limit individual freedom, as conglomerations of power allow an individual or small group of people to forcibly impose their will onto others. So you may still disagree with me, but are you at least starting to understand why I believe an organic (non-statist) socialist economy would benefit individual liberty?
Quote:
Disparities spring up via hard work and natural skill.
They spring up due to a variety of factors, hard work and skill being only two of them. Your place of birth, when you were born, your family's income, your family and friends' social attitudes, the strength of your social and family networks, your looks, your education, the entry-level jobs available to you, whether a wartime conscription is taking place, whether your country is winning or losing the warm, and pure luck... these are all variables affecting outcomes, just to name a few. The constant, however, is a capitalist superstructure which demands the majority be employed by a minority of owners, who possess most of the wealth.
Quote:
If people are living in shacks in this country, then I lay the blame on them more than I would capitalism. The US is not a perfectly free market, but people can put themselves ahead via hard work, skill, and the occasional luck.
Okay, let's say you've got two people of equal intelligence and work ethic, Joe and Sam. Joe's dad is a wealthy finance capitalist. He's rasied in a nurturing home and given an excellent education. Sam's dad is a deadbeat who shows up now and then to fuck his mother, beat the shit out of her and beat the shit out of Sam. Sam lives in a run-down ghetto and most of the neighbor kids and kids he goes to school with have long ago resigned themselves to either be losers or drugdealers. Now, who do you figure is going to have a better adult life? Sam or Joe? Now sure it's possible Sam could be as successful as Joe, but it's not terribly likely. It's a lot more likely Sam will have a shittier life than Joe in many ways, but especially materially. If Sam and Joe are both smart, Sam may end up better off than where he started in life, but not likely as good as Joe. If they're both dumbasses, Sam's more than likely fucked, but Joe will likely do alright. And even if Sam is smarter and harder working than Joe, chances that Joe will fare better materially are still high.
Now capitalism needs a lot of Sams and very few Joes to operate. It's a system where the majority of people are working for someone else and making the owners rich. That's not to say the workers won't also benefit materially, but never as much as the owners-- and under modern capitalism there always has to be more owners than workers, unless we want to dispense with mass production and distribution entirely.
Quote:
One would be taking away the incentive to create new technology by forcing economic equality.
As I've stated on numerous occasions, I have no interest in "forcing" economic equality-- I think that neither possible nor desirable. I simply believe that a better economic model than capitalism can exist which naturally limits large inequalities.
Quote:
Taking away people's voluntary agreement is restricting. Labor Unions are coercive in nature. Labor unions form a barrier to entry to employ your labor.
Unions formed by voluntary association exercising the right of free contract collectively-- as a Libertarian you would oppose this? Back when I was in the LP I never understood Libertarianism to be theoretically hostile to the right of labor to organize and bargain.
Quote:
Labor unions create unemployment and also distort the market price.
Now this one I have heard from Libertarians before. But that presumes there is a natural market price. Not sure I buy that.
Quote:
You are being ideal and painting a one-sided picture. People should not have to forced to submit daily to authority. That is called slavery.
Well, modern capitalism does demand, as a system, that the vast majority of people be employed by someone else. So in order to eat, most people on this planet must surrender control over their own labor, indeed their own bodies and minds, 8 hours a day or more, 5 days a week or more (the majority of their waking adult lives) tot he authority of a boss. I know you will argue they are "freely contracting their labor", but wouldn't it be better if we had a system where everybody had if not full control over their labor on a daily basis, at least more control over their labor? Wouldn't that be freer? Let's take the example of worker cooperatives you mentioned above-- who do you figure has more freedom 40 hours a week-- a factory worker taking orders from an appointed manager or a factory worker who participates in self-managing the plant with their coworkers?
Quote:
We all want a freer society, but the means differ.
Not ALL of us do. There are plenty of people out there who don't seek a freer society as an end, whether they claim it or not.
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 10021 Local time: 7:04 PM Location: USA
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject:
Godless Red Scum wrote:
Good points, but obviously when you employ other people to operate your means of production, remunerating them for only a small portion of what they are producing and keeping the excess as profit
Wages come out of profits. All remuneration begins as profit.
This is basic economics. Learn it. _________________ aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Posts: 3942 Local time: 3:04 AM Location: Poland
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
gnosis wrote:
Are you a Republican?
Thanks for conceding that you're wrong on every point. You want to play that childish little candy-ass fucking game, this is what happens.
Now try again.
Come on, he just asked a question. _________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea.
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Posts: 3942 Local time: 3:04 AM Location: Poland
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Without responding to anything I wrote.
Fair enough.
...and come to think of it, he did quote the whole fucking post to write a single line of text, that's a capital crime in my book... _________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea.
Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 837 Local time: 8:04 PM
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject:
Real quick, Ivan, a few responses and I'll have to get to the rest later...
Quote:
You should tell that to the "scabs" beaten up by union workers over the years
Fuck 'em, they're scabs.
Quote:
How about the Norris-La Guardia Act which, among other things, shielded unions from persecution for violence and property destruction?
First off Norris-LaGuardia did allow enjoing of strikes under exactly those conditions. Second the law was passed due to rampant abuse of the equity power of courts to stop strikes/boycotts. Lastly, the Act has been so watered down by subsequent legislation and court decisions that it's been next to useless for the last few decades.
Quote:
How about the National Labor Relations Act that forced non-union workers to pay dues if the majority of workers were unionized, forced employers to negotiate "in good faith" as determined by the National Labor Relations Board, prohibited employers from persuading the workers to not unionize but forced them to allow unions to do as much persuading as they want, and gave union members further protection from persecution for acts of violence.
I'm quite familiar with the NRLA/LMRDA, as I have to know it for work and the only part you listed that is true is demanding employers bargain in good faith.
1. The law did not create "union shop" conditions (everybody has to pay dues as a condition of employement)-- that is something that must be negotiated with each employer. Furthermore, Taft-Hartley amended the Wagner Act in 1947 to allow states to pass "right-to-work" laws which prohibit unions and employers from agreeing to a union shop (and to top it off the Federal Law states that unions must represent all employees covered under the contract whether they pay dues or not, thus creating a huge free-rider problem in right-to-work states). Also, even in non-right-to-work states where a union shop exists, an employee has the right under Federal law to register a Beck objection and be required only to pay core dues directly related to representational expenses incurred by the union (essentially an agency fee)
2. I'm pretty sure the original Wagner Act never demanded employer neutrality, and I'm positive the NLRA as amended in 1947 does not. Sections 8(a)(1) & (3) of the Act only prevents an employer from firing, disciplining or otherwise punishing an employee (or threatening to do so) who is exercising his/her rights under Section 7. Also they are not supposed to interrogate people about their support for a union or surveil their activities off-work. That being said, the NLRB is slow to process complaints and the penalties for violations (on employers at least, not always for unions) are so minor that they commit these violations all the time. But is perfectly legal for the employer to say whatever else they want to in order to discourage organizing. They can even lie (and often do) or use veiled threats, and most of it is perfectly legal. Believe me, I've been through enough anti-union campaigns to know.
3. The Act gives absolutely no protection to union members who commit violence. None. Zero. Zilch.
4. Yes, employers are required to bargain in "good faith". But so fuckin what? In 9 years of organizing and representing workers in various workplaces across the country, I've personally filed only three 8(a)(5) charges. Guess how helpful they are? If the company is smart and has a competent labor attorney they can easily meet the standard of "good faith bargaining" while giving you jack shit at the table.
Quote:
So... how are going to determine who do the laws favor more?
Well, I don't know how you are going to determine it, but, from my personal experience in almost a decade of organizing and representing workers, both as a rank-and-file union member and professional union staff, I can tell you in my opinion the law is shit for unions and when it hits employers it's over the knuckles with a ruler, and when it hits us it's over the head with a tire iron.
Company fires a worker for union activity, NLRB only makes the Co. reinstate them w/ back pay less anything they earned while out. We engage in an illegal strike, and the Company goes to federal court and gets us hit with crippling fines and jails our leaders if they violate the injunction. Cops hit me with a baton or tase me, then throws me and my union brothers in jail to clear our pickets from the plant gates, they're just doing their jobs. I punch a scab or a cop and I get hit with a felony and put in jail. When the companies get hit with fines so large it cripples their operations, and when their people get thrown in jail, maybe then I'll think the law is on our side.
When I talk with workers about joining our union for the first time, they always ask me what legal protections they have. I tell them, then I tell them they suck and the only real protection they have is the credible threat of stopping or hampering production, or otherwise hitting the owners in the wallet.
Quote:
By the way, you happen to remember where Rothbard discussed Taft-Hartley?
And Von Mises Institute is far from union-friendly.
Quote:
I'm not sure how a communist government gunning down workers proves the point that governments favor businesses.
Guess it depends whether or not you see Warsaw Pact-era Poland as "state capitalist" or not-- not sure where I stand on that, but plenty of socialists out there would argue Poland and the other Eastern Bloc states operated under a statist and bureaucratic form of capitalism.
Quote:
Can you point me to a detailed account of these?
They're pretty well-known. Just google "Ludlow Massacre" and "Little Steel Strike" and plenty of shit will come up, including some Wikipedia articles. Little Steel actually occured in a few different locations in the East and Midwestern U.S. I believe the incident I mentioned was near Chicago.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
