Conrad Black: Public-sector unions are a blight on our society

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Makarov

...i.e., striking is not cause for termination. However, employees may still be terminated without cause (as long as employer pays damages.)

...now go back to my original post (and your subsequent laughing for no apparent reason). Striking legally cannot be a cause for termination. To me that's unfair perk given to union members, we might disagree but oh well.

[Makarov]

^

Your post:

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Of course I understand, its the law giving you the power to extort perks and benefits you are not entitled to (despite what your leftist soul may be telling you) because other side (the employer) has no choice other than back down to your demands instead of firing your ass that went on strike and hire a better replacement worker.

Seems quite clear that employers do indeed have a choice not to back down to union demands and can, if they so choose, start "firing asses" and hiring "better replacement workers".

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Yeah, people in this thread support unions to protect kids working 12 hour shifts in coal mines. Give me a break.

False dichotomy. There are more reasons to support unions than 1) cushy jobs or 2) saving children from slavery. Your lack of rigourous thinking strikes yet again.

I might as well say of you "Either you just enjoy oppressing the workers and stealing bread from their children's mouths, or you simply believe social Darwinism is the basis of all morality." This would hardly be fair, as, for example, it's entirely possible you just prefer simplistic solutions to complex problems.

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

BTW more fancy language please.

I assume the audience is reasonably intelligent and can read at greater than a grade 9 level.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jammies

False dichotomy. There are more reasons to support unions than 1) cushy jobs or 2) saving children from slavery. Your lack of rigourous thinking strikes yet again.

I might as well say of you "Either you just enjoy oppressing the workers and stealing bread from their children's mouths, or you simply believe social Darwinism is the basis of all morality." This would hardly be fair, as, for example, it's entirely possible you just prefer simplistic solutions to complex problems.



I assume the audience is reasonably intelligent and can read at greater than a grade 9 level.

Check yo assumptions @ da door 2 this Biatch!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by jammies

I assume the audience is reasonably intelligent and can read at greater than a grade 9 level.

Unfortunately, a lot of misunderstanding regarding unions is a direct result of reading publications like the Sun. Granted, reading the Sun may not actually require a grade 9 level.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by jammies

False dichotomy. There are more reasons to support unions than 1) cushy jobs or 2) saving children from slavery. Your lack of rigourous thinking strikes yet again.

I might as well say of you "Either you just enjoy oppressing the workers and stealing bread from their children's mouths, or you simply believe social Darwinism is the basis of all morality." This would hardly be fair, as, for example, it's entirely possible you just prefer simplistic solutions to complex problems.

BS and you know it. There is ZERO need for desk jobs to be unionized other than squeeze out extra perks and have cushy job safety till you retire (at 50 preferably, see Greece). ZERO. Safety issues are handled by law already.

So yeah, the only thing the union does for you is to make your already cushy job even cushier.

Originally Posted by jammies

I assume the audience is reasonably intelligent and can read at greater than a grade 9 level.

more personal insults please

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

BS and you know it. There is ZERO need for desk jobs to be unionized other than squeeze out extra perks and have cushy job safety till you retire (at 50 preferably, see Greece). ZERO. Safety issues are handled by law already.

So yeah, the only thing the union does for you is to make your already cushy job even cushier.




more personal insults please

For the millionth time, yes, collective bargaining is an attempt to improve the bargaining position of employees and thereby negotiate an employment contract with higher wages, more security, better pension, more safety, etc, etc. That is the entire point. No one is arguing otherwise. That is a strawman entirely of your own creation.

However, as you are so dedicated to non-cushiness in the workplace, I presume that you will be marching into your employer's office tomorrow morning to demand a lower wage, less vacation, and longer hours. Inspiring stuff.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Makarov

For the millionth time, yes, collective bargaining is an attempt to improve the bargaining position of employees and thereby negotiate an employment contract with higher wages, more security, better pension, more safety, etc, etc. That is the entire point. No one is arguing otherwise. That is a strawman entirely of your own creation.

However, as you are so dedicated to non-cushiness in the workplace, I presume that you will be marching into your employer's office tomorrow morning to demand a lower wage, less vacation, and longer hours. Inspiring stuff.

For the last time and done arguing in circles with the entitlement crowd, bargaining would be fine if the law did not give unions extra power/rights.

The law (pushed thru by powerful union lobbyist) gives you ammo to demand union perks that you'd otherwise be unable to get.

That's my point. Read it again if needed. Or ask jammies to read it out loud for you. I hear his reading is above grade 9 level.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

For the last time and done arguing in circles with the entitlement crowd, bargaining would be fine if the law did not give unions extra power/rights.

The law (pushed thru by powerful union lobbyist) gives you ammo to demand union perks that you'd otherwise be unable to get.

That's my point. Read it again if needed. Or ask jammies to read it out loud for you. I hear his reading is above grade 9 level.

Firstly, section 2(d) of the Charter, and the SCC jurisprudence interpreting its scope, was certainly not "pushed through by powerful union lobbyists".

Secondly, you note again that collective bargaining, and its protection in law, increases the bargaining power of employees. So what? You have not demonstrated, indeed even attempted to argue, why that is a negative thing.

I would also note that the law similarly permits people to form corporations, which in turn permits the creation of huge and powerful employer organizations with tremendous bargaining power, able to squeeze concessions out of governments and employees alike. I presume you are against the creation of corporations as well? Do you favour a return to good old fashioned natural person to natural person bargaining?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

So yeah, the only thing the union does for you is to make your already cushy job even cushier.

I suppose reiterating your argument with no further support is one way of arguing your point. I wouldn't say it's particularly effective, though. And, for the record, I don't belong to and never have belonged to a union.

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

more personal insults please

Uh, ok. If you think assuming your audience is intelligent is actually insulting them..

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

BS and you know it. There is ZERO need for desk jobs to be unionized other than squeeze out extra perks and have cushy job safety till you retire (at 50 preferably, see Greece). ZERO.

LOL...seriously? You've never heard of employees being mistreated in office jobs? How about managers demanding OT on short-notice, or expecting employees to answer business emails and texts on personal time, without compensation?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by jammies

Uh, ok. If you think assuming your audience is intelligent is actually insulting them..

Uh, how convenient to omit this little jab of yours "Your lack of rigourous thinking strikes yet again."

However, I do agree that arguing about unions with someone who clearly enjoys a cushy union job is ehm... pointless.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by rubecube

LOL...seriously? You've never heard of employees being mistreated in office jobs? How about managers demanding OT on short-notice, or expecting employees to answer business emails and texts on personal time, without compensation?

if you call this being mistreated...dude. I can't argue that.

lol short notice. answering emails after 5pm (or is it 4?). poor you.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Unfortunately, a lot of misunderstanding regarding unions is a direct result of reading publications like the Sun. Granted, reading the Sun may not actually require a grade 9 level.

The Sun has steadily declined over the last quarter century, and it was no shining example of journalism before the decline either. Now I read it for amusement and to make sure I seriously rethink any opinions I have that coincide with any expressed in its pages.

Rick Bell in particular is a caricature of himself. Back when he was a chubby boozer, he at least didn't take himself so seriously. Now he's just another grim fiscal Puritan.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

if you call this being mistreated...dude. I can't argue that.

lol short notice. answering emails after 5pm (or is it 4?). poor you.

Maybe you don't value your time as much as some do, but I tend to believe that people should be compensated for the work they perform. I'm usually the first to volunteer for OT because I'm a single guy and like the money, but I've seen the strain short-notice can put on the guys with families, especially single-parents. And we're not talking a single email after 5 PM, we're talking guys who get home and are instantly glued to their smartphones until it's time for bed. You disagree that these people should be fairly compensated?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Uh, how convenient to omit this little jab of yours "Your lack of rigourous thinking strikes yet again."

That's about on the same level as calling everyone who disagrees with you "entitled". Still, if it really offends you, I apologize and would restate it as "Arguments based on logical fallacies seem to be a recurring feature of your posts that you may wish to address if you want to convince anyone other than people who already agree with you." Although that still comes across as sarcastic, I suppose.

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

However, I do agree that arguing about unions with someone who clearly enjoys a cushy union job is ehm... pointless.

At the risk of sounding even more critical, if you're addressing this to me, I just said I don't and never have worked for a union, so it seems you are either assuming I'm lying, or are unable to properly process facts that don't coincide with your internal reality. Although I'm sure there could be other explanations, but nothing that comes to my mind offhand.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by jammies

That's about on the same level as calling everyone who disagrees with you "entitled". Still, if it really offends you, I apologize and would restate it as "Arguments based on logical fallacies seem to be a recurring feature of your posts that you may wish to address if you want to convince anyone other than people who already agree with you." Although that still comes across as sarcastic, I suppose.



At the risk of sounding even more critical, if you're addressing this to me, I just said I don't and never have worked for a union, so it seems you are either assuming I'm lying, or are unable to properly process facts that don't coincide with your internal reality. Although I'm sure there could be other explanations, but nothing that comes to my mind offhand.

Yes based on your posting history I assume that you are either lying (to appear unbiased) and/or attempting to troll for $hits and giggles.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Yes based on your posting history I assume that you are either lying and/or attempting to troll for $hits and giggles.

[Mr.Coffee]

Pretty interesting thread. I'm not totally sure where I stand but both sides make compelling arguments. I'm not convinced there is a right answer either way though as there are some things I agree with on the "pro having unions" side and some points I agree with on the "abolish unions" side (which would never happen anyway).

It does seem like, however, lobbying is one of the most destructive erosional forces at play in society today. Both ways (corporations and unions).

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Yes based on your posting history I assume that you are either lying (to appear unbiased) and/or attempting to troll for $hits and giggles.

So I should assume from your posting history you're a sweatshop owner from Bangladesh? Do you seriously believe that the only way someone can disagree with you about unions is if they personally benefit from their existence?

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. You define everything as flowing from self-interest, so logically it follows that it's impossible anyone could hold ideals that don't directly benefit them. That you don't see that this doesn't hold - by simple observation of the world around you - and thus realize your premise is false, is baffling, but there it is.