MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Thursday, December 25, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 36.0° F  Mostly Cloudy
Collapse Photo Bar

Let's Talk About Union Rights

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:57 am

johnfajardohenry wrote:Good golly, Marvell,

You mean the National Socialists (NAZIs as you call them) were not socialists?

Who knew?

I know a fair amount about socialism and they meet every definition I've ever seen.

Stated as simply as possible socialism is "Control of the means of production" Not necessarily "ownership" but control. As was the case of the German National Socialists as well as the the Italian Fascists (note capitalization in both cases)

Control was ostensibly for the benefit of the people.

Then please explain why so many American industrialists were enamored by European Fascists. Did they wish for government control over their industries? Or just a partnership?

The contract Zyklon B was awarded through open bidding. No company was forced to produce it.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20282
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby johnfajardohenry » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:13 pm

Well, Detritus, perhaps you should read what I said:

"Workers have a perfect right to quit their jobs either individually or en masse ie a strike. Management has, or should have, a perfect right to replace them when they do."

So, first, I realize that there are some restrictions on replacing striking workers. Some, not total. Management can replace them in many cases.

But I still think management should have an absolute right to replace them.

Is there a difference between a strike and quitting en masse as part of a job action? Not really, though if you want to say there is, OK. In any event, I did not say anything about strike. I said workers have a right to quit. Would you deny that they do? Are they enslaved to the employer? Chained to their desks? etc.

Nope. Any time conditions get onerous they can quit, either individually or en masse.

So, call me names if you like. Criticize what I did not say, if you like.

So who is the toad here?

John Henry

PS-I should not need to but I find that in this kind of forum I always to need to repeat my caveat that I am not talking about strikes over contract violations.
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby O.J. » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:21 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:So who is the toad here?

John Henry


Damn, beat me to the punch.
O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby johnfajardohenry » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:26 pm

Henry Vilas asks:

"Then please explain why so many American industrialists were enamored by European Fascists. Did they wish for government control over their industries? Or just a partnership?"

What the heck is a "European Fascist"? I know of Italian Fascists. I know of European fascists. Never heard of a European Fascist before.

In any event, in the 30's we had lots in US govts (including Wisconsin's) as well as businesses enamored of fascism.

Business people like to be part of the select group as much as anyone else. They would be loyal party members. They would get carved out markets and govt protection. If other companies started poaching on their customers they could get the govt to stop them. If they were members of the chosen they would get preferential access to raw materials.

It makes them a nice comfortable coccoon.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:37 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:Henry Vilas asks:

"Then please explain why so many American industrialists were enamored by European Fascists. Did they wish for government control over their industries? Or just a partnership?"

What the heck is a "European Fascist"? I know of Italian Fascists. I know of European fascists. Never heard of a European Fascist before.

Besides Mussolini there was Franco and Hitler. But being the argumentative type, you probably are going to say that term only applies to Mussolini. Quibble away if you must and be sure to point out if I made a mistake in grammar.

Now tell he again how they were Socialists (or is that socialists)?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20282
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Detritus » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:39 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:Well, Detritus, perhaps you should read what I said:

"Workers have a perfect right to quit their jobs either individually or en masse ie a strike. Management has, or should have, a perfect right to replace them when they do."
.
.
.
Is there a difference between a strike and quitting en masse as part of a job action? Not really, though if you want to say there is, OK. In any event, I did not say anything about strike. I said workers have a right to quit.

Perhaps you should read what you said yourself--or are you unfamiliar with Latin abbreviations?
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby snoqueen » Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:40 pm

PS-I should not need to but I find that in this kind of forum I always to need to repeat my caveat that I am not talking about strikes over contract violations.


Ahh, another pro rides in to enlighten the liberal masses. Enjoy your stay.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11845
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby pjbogart » Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:23 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:I said workers have a right to quit. Would you deny that they do? Are they enslaved to the employer? Chained to their desks? etc.

Nope. Any time conditions get onerous they can quit, either individually or en masse.


I think this point is where you find a fundamental disconnect between Republicans/Libertarians and Democrats. The law recognizes that an employer is in a superior bargaining position and seeks to add protections for the employee to even the playing field a bit. I think most Libertarians bristle at this notion because they feel the employer is being punished for their success. Furthermore, Libertarians doggedly insist that the free market will work out any injustices should the employer abuse their position. In practice it has rarely worked out this way.

In a perfectly free market an employer should be able to refuse employment to anyone who is Asian, Mormon or homosexual, right? In a perfectly free market an employer should be able to force workers to stay and work off the clock. If the employee doesn't like it, they can always quit, right? What about that pesky minimum wage? Wealth redistribution! We have labor laws because we recognize that employers do not always behave fairly, employees are at a disadvantaged bargaining position and the free market rarely, if ever, cures these injustices.

But what gives us the right to legislate morality upon employers, or anyone else for that matter? I would submit that we, the American people, collectively own our economic system. We might not own UPS, but we own the roads that UPS uses to make their money. We don't own Wal-Mart, but we own 100 years worth of public education that has created a population that can read and write so that Wal-Mart has both customers and employees. We don't own US Bank Corp, but we own our collective prosperity, that is the social programs that have created a middle class capable of purchasing houses, cars and investing for their retirement.

Employers do not operate within a vacuum. They operate within our society and they avail themselves of our collective efforts in order to enrich themselves. So what do they owe back to that society that made their wealth possible? Whatever we say they owe. But just as employers need to be careful not to overfish their consumers and collapse the economy, we the people also need to be careful not to overfish our employers and collapse the economy.

It's a balancing act, but right now the scales are tipped significantly toward the rich.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6189
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby johnfajardohenry » Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:41 pm

Snoqueen,

Have you ever been a member of a union? More to the point, have you ever been a member of a union that falls under the NLRA & NLRB control?

I get the impression that many who hang out on this board have not and may not be aware that there are different sets of rules covering the two types of strikes.

One the employer can replace the strikers (with some restrictions) the other they can't.

So if we are going to talk about strikes, it is important to know what kind we are talking about.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:46 pm

John Henry, Just curious, since corporations have a "right" to maximize their profits in a system that mostly benefits the corporation, then why shouldn't workers have the same right to use the same system to maximize their wages?
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3219
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby johnfajardohenry » Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:57 pm

[quote="Henry Vilas"][quote="johnfajardohenry"]Henry Vilas asks:

Besides Mussolini there was Franco and Hitler. But being the argumentative type, you probably are going to say that term only applies to Mussolini. Quibble away if you must and be sure to point out if I made a mistake in grammar.
+++++++++


No, if I had thought that you knew the difference between a Fascist and a fascist, I would not have quibbled over a typo "F" I mis-capitalize frequently myself.

I didn't think you knew the distinction and you then went on and demonstrated that.

As far as Fascist goes, it does apply only to Mussolini and the explicitly socialist party he formed and ran in Italy.

Franco and Hitler?

Well, Hitler got called a fascist (as well as a NAZI) mainly to avoid calling him a socialist. Franco had little in common with either other than being a pretty nasty piece of work in his own right.

As Orwell noted 65 years ago, "fascist" (small f) is a meaningless word basically used as an epithet towards someone you dislike. Nothing at all to do with their politics or social views. Just someone you disagree with and/or dislike.

So yeah, keep on using it. I don't think it means what you think it means.

I don't think you even know what you think it means. You could simply call Hitler an asshole and it would have as much meaning.

Name calling seems par for the course here in the Forum.

John Henry
Last edited by johnfajardohenry on Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby johnfajardohenry » Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:01 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:John Henry, Just curious, since corporations have a "right" to maximize their profits in a system that mostly benefits the corporation, then why shouldn't workers have the same right to use the same system to maximize their wages?



I thought they did? Am I wrong?

Actually corporations have the right to attempt to maximize their profits. So do workers.

Corporations do not have the right to form cartels in restraint. (generally) See the Sherman Act.

Why should workers have the right to form cartels in the restraint of trade?

If it is good for one it is good for the other.

Have you ever been a union member, Johnny?

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Cornbread » Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:01 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Then please explain why so many American industrialists were enamored by European Fascists.


I'm constantly amazed how many leftists live in the past when they have to actually have to try and use logic to justify their socialism.
And if they don't have to justify it, they use emotion and project BS in the future. (we all can be equal/smart/rich/tall/etc.)

But then again, I'd guess there are still hippies living in madison, living their dream of karlton armstrong and their days of (adolescent) rage, over a half century ago, when gas was a quarter a gallon, a new car was three grand, etc.

Times changes, some people apparently cannot......
Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby snoqueen » Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:14 pm

You're changing the subject again and trying to avoid addressing Henry's question. Must be a touchy topic.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11845
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:27 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote: I thought they did? Am I wrong?

Actually corporations have the right to attempt to maximize their profits. So do workers.

Corporations do not have the right to form cartels in restraint. (generally) See the Sherman Act.

Why should workers have the right to form cartels in the restraint of trade?

If it is good for one it is good for the other.

Have you ever been a union member, Johnny?

John Henry
That's very cute, John.
Let's visit America on Planet Earth and see what's going on down there just for fun.

The trend, exacerbated over the last 30 years, has been one of corporations buying politicians who give them favorable policies so they can walk all over workers. Every single analysis of the wage and tax code shows the massive redistribution of wealth to the top away from the workers who are actually producing things. Whenever this has happened in the past, the economy stagnates due to the loss of buying power, usually coupled with deregulation of the financial industry, and almost always enacted by Republicans. The Great Depression, the recession of 1991 and this one were caused by these same conditions in the years preceding them.

So you're going to ignore the single most notable recent change in our system, and base your thoughts on scenarios that are the polar opposite of the reality, and try to make a point that way...?
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3219
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Previous

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar