AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Not to mention that unions have been known time and time again for keeping people in jobs that they are ill suited for to make cheddar off of the situation under the guise of protecting workers rights. That kinda stuff has been going down in New York for so long it isn't even funny. There was a man in one of the state mental health affiliated unions who was directly responsible for a developmentally disabled boy under his care when he left him in a car while he went and bought video games, and then proceeded to restrain him when he got back by sitting on him and forcing his limbs in violent ways. The child died and there were plenty of witnesses and another staff member also involved who testified to his guilt, yet the guy still managed to keep his job for MONTHS after the fact due to union intervention. It was completely sickening and that kind of thing (though not always to that extreme level) happens every day. There needs to be monumental union reform before things can get any better.

In that sense, I'd support getting rid of the unions altogether. As was said, they will likely be needed again eventually, but while they're out of commission and without power they won't be able to stop the changes made that would take effect when they reform.

California is no different from New York. We have two immensely powerful unions that control politics here. The teachers union and the correctional officer union. The teachers union doesn't care about teachers, it only cares about its own power. Because of it, teachers accused of molesting children or worse are free to keep their jobs while the union does everything it can to retard the investigation. The CO union is slightly better, but not by much. When cuts are being made to state positions, which let me tell you are NOT diamonds and caviar for non-politicians/assistants, they use their power to demand higher wages, pensions, and stopping any attempts to bring them in line with similar positions.

Problem is, itd be much, MUCH worse without unions, because like it or not, the relationship between employer and employee is forever a struggle. The employers goal is to get away with as much profit as possible, while the employees goal is to get paid as much as possible. Since employers have nearly all the power in that situation, unions are the employees only protection from exploitation. I agree that unions have become bogged down with issues and corruption, but they need to be cleaned up, not done away with. Getting rid of them just leaves us all open for unjust treatment, and trust me, that WILL happen.

You didn't read my post. I said do away with them long enough to fix their issues without them blocking the changes. Then they can reform without being able to abuse their power.

Madican wrote:You didn't read my post.

Keep that out of this thread, please, you don't need to belittle someone just because they didn't answer the way you expected them to.

I didn't belittle anyone. I just said they didn't read the post because in the second sentence I said that while they were disbanded they could be changed. When someone responds in a way that implies I said get rid of them forever I know they only read the first sentence of the post and I note that.

Lotharu wrote:These people have no idea what they're talking about. Indiana recently passed something like this and it is AMAZING. "Oh, I don't personally agree with Unions and don't want to be forced to pay dues for something I don't believe is needed anymore, and could potentially force me to not work" Or, alternatively, "I think we still need unions and would like to security that comes with being in one, so I think I will opt in"
If a job cuts all of their benefits, people will leave for ones with them, it is simple business.

Personally, I believe unions are outdated, and unneeded. They only exist to make cheddar for the unions now a days. A fairly unneeded union strike is what caused Hostess to choose to liquidate the company, rather than deal with people being forced not to work (Even though they had record amounts of people breaking the picket lines to work, if I recall correctly [which should show you why unions aren't 100% favored already]), they just decided to give up on the company.

Hostess was really killed by poor management, but whatever, I think we argued this in current events or this thread a while back. Who cares about shitty pastries anyway.

I think Unions are worth keeping around even if some very few have defended pedophiles or assholes who sit on mentally disabled kids. They're a key defense against the absurd amount of cheddar coming out of dozens of corporations that poisoned political discourse. They really need to adapt though, they really only exist on the goodwill of democrats these days.

Here's another question: Walmart doesn't pay their average employees living wage. A fair portion of them are under the poverty line and many are on foodstamps. Does this count as socialism?

edit: Could you guys who said unions protect kiddie diddlers and assholes who kill mentally disabled children at least cite the instance of that happening and maybe prove it's not some sort of isolated incident? Don't just tell me to google it, or I'll assume you're pulling it out of your booty. Like are these unions making a concerted effort to protect pedophiles like the roman catholic church did?

Lambeth wrote:Here's another question: Walmart doesn't pay their average employees living wage. A fair portion of them are under the poverty line and many are on foodstamps. Does this count as socialism?

Socialism would usually mean Walmart was forced to pay their employees a certain minimum wage determined to be adequate to uphold a certain standard of living.

Is it really? I mean the government already mandates a minimum wage, it just doesn't happen to be enough that they're above the poverty line.

Syobon wrote:

Lambeth wrote:Here's another question: Walmart doesn't pay their average employees living wage. A fair portion of them are under the poverty line and many are on foodstamps. Does this count as socialism?

Socialism would usually mean Walmart was forced to pay their employees a certain minimum wage determined to be adequate to uphold a certain standard of living.

Yeah, good thing it's not like that here in 'murica.

Lambeth wrote:Is it really? I mean the government already mandates a minimum wage, it just doesn't happen to be enough that they're above the poverty line.

I didn't really get what you were asking and you didn't make it clear the government was forcing walmart to pay a minimum wage. If it's about employed people getting foodstamps for free so they don't starve, then yes, that's a form of socialism I guess.

Socialism has some bad connotations, so making sure your citizens don't starve to death because their employers are greedy bastards is not something I would call socialism.

Socialism is bad to capitalism like capitalism is bad to socialism. Honestly, I find it asinine when people think that just throwing that word out as a conversation ender will win them the argument.

"Your suggestion is socialism!"

OK, we'll just label it as scary and never move on then. Terrific...

D-vid wrote:Socialism has some bad connotations, so making sure your citizens don't starve to death because their employers are greedy bastards is not something I would call socialism.

Socialism having bad connotations is retarded though, and stems from the irrational fear of any form of communism caused by the Cold War.

I think every full-time job should pay enough for a livable wage. Not even the managers at Wal-Mart can get by without food stamps. On that note, I also think there needs to be regulations to stop this bullshit standard of hiring people part-time to deny them benefits while giving them full-time hours.