PDA

View Full Version : One Man's Freedom is Another Man's Slavery


boxcar
04-22-2012, 10:53 PM
Labor union sues Indiana, calls working alongside nonunion employees ‘slavery’

I love these two sentences:

Mackinac Center for Public Policy senior legal analyst Patrick Wright said on Friday that the union’s legal argument “expands the definition of chutzpah.”

“Compulsory membership and coerced dues and fees are the hallmarks of the union movement, yet they claim that giving workers more choice is an act of enslavement.”

:lol: :lol:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/labor-union-sues-indiana-calls-working-alongside-nonunion-employees-slavery/

Boxcar

DJofSD
04-22-2012, 10:57 PM
1984. Newspeak.

HUSKER55
04-23-2012, 08:51 AM
organized crime,...er labor unions, wouldn't pander to peoples emotions would they?

mostpost
04-23-2012, 03:46 PM
To begin with there is a lot more to the lawsuit than just the Thirteenth Amendment. For example the fact that the National Labor Relations Act, while it says people can not be forced to belong to unions, also states that such people can be required to pay for services provided by the unions. The Indiana right to work law prohibits unions from enforcing this provision. The law is thus in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

There is an instance in the IRTW law in which certain trades are exempted from certain provisions. There is an instance wherein public sector workers are treated differently than private sector workers. Both are violations of the Equal Protection clause.

Here is the union argument as regards the thirteenth amendment. As set forth in federal law, the union must represent all workers regardless of whether they are members of the union or not. That law also states that non union members can be assessed for services provided by the union on their behalf.

The Indiana RTW law prohibits the union for assessing those fees. Since the union is required by federal law to provide such services, and prohibited by Indiana state law from charging for them, the union is in effect a slave to the nonunion workers. Similarly the union workers are in a state of involuntary servitude because they are working without compensation for the financial benefit of another.

boxcar
04-23-2012, 05:54 PM
To begin with there is a lot more to the lawsuit than just the Thirteenth Amendment. For example the fact that the National Labor Relations Act, while it says people can not be forced to belong to unions, also states that such people can be required to pay for services provided by the unions. The Indiana right to work law prohibits unions from enforcing this provision. The law is thus in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

There is an instance in the IRTW law in which certain trades are exempted from certain provisions. There is an instance wherein public sector workers are treated differently than private sector workers. Both are violations of the Equal Protection clause.

Here is the union argument as regards the thirteenth amendment. As set forth in federal law, the union must represent all workers regardless of whether they are members of the union or not. That law also states that non union members can be assessed for services provided by the union on their behalf.

The Indiana RTW law prohibits the union for assessing those fees. Since the union is required by federal law to provide such services, and prohibited by Indiana state law from charging for them, the union is in effect a slave to the nonunion workers. Similarly the union workers are in a state of involuntary servitude because they are working without compensation for the financial benefit of another.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. The union can provide any services it wants to its members and charge them for their services. If I'm not in a union, why would I want them to do anything for me (or more appropriately "to me")? :rolleyes: The union -- a slave, indeed! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

mostpost
04-23-2012, 08:39 PM
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. The union can provide any services it wants to its members and charge them for their services. If I'm not in a union, why would I want them to do anything for me (or more appropriately "to me")? :rolleyes: The union -- a slave, indeed! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar
It's not about you, although I am sure you always think it is. If you were employed in a business with a union for its employees, you would be represented whether you like it or not. (That is the law.) As such you would enjoy all the benefits of that representation, including better wages, better benefits, and a better chance of winning any disputes with management. Further, even if you work for a company that has no union workers, you still benefit from the wages and benefits that unions gain for their workers. Right to work states always have lower wages, lower benefits and worse safety records than non Right to Work states.

johnhannibalsmith
04-23-2012, 09:11 PM
It's not about you, although I am sure you always think it is. If you were employed in a business with a union for its employees, you would be represented whether you like it or not. (That is the law.) As such you would enjoy all the benefits of that representation, including better wages, better benefits, and a better chance of winning any disputes with management. Further, even if you work for a company that has no union workers, you still benefit from the wages and benefits that unions gain for their workers. Right to work states always have lower wages, lower benefits and worse safety records than non Right to Work states.

Sounds like you might support a federal flat income tax also.

boxcar
04-23-2012, 09:36 PM
It's not about you, although I am sure you always think it is. If you were employed in a business with a union for its employees, you would be represented whether you like it or not. (That is the law.) As such you would enjoy all the benefits of that representation, including better wages, better benefits, and a better chance of winning any disputes with management. Further, even if you work for a company that has no union workers, you still benefit from the wages and benefits that unions gain for their workers. Right to work states always have lower wages, lower benefits and worse safety records than non Right to Work states.

So, then, the law promotes and supports slavery by taking away my right to choose whether I want to be in union or not.

And for your info, I think you're full of it. My wife is a professional musician and plays lots of gigs with union people, and she doesn't pay a red cent to the union. Nor does she receive any of the benefits 99% of her mind-numbed, robotic colleagues do.

To go even further, she's actually employed by an Opera Company, and she still doesn't pay the union crooks anything, even though the same percentage of fellow employees are still in the union. (Swampland, of course, is a right- to-work state.) It's meaningless to pass right-to work-laws, then turn around and say that people who don't want to join unions still don't have any rights outside the union.

So, while this issue iss "not about me" (which I never said it was), nonetheless I can draw from the experience of my better half, who is "one flesh with me"; therefore, it was darn near about me. So, stick that in your hash pipe and puff on it.

Boxcar
P.S. And here's something else you can stick in your pipe: My wife would be willing to be paid less for not being a union member. The fact that she isn't paid less is not her problem nor her choice.

sammy the sage
04-23-2012, 10:10 PM
I'm a 1% banker...I create money w/a keystroke...you're GOING TO BE my slave VERY soon ;)

mostpost
04-23-2012, 11:20 PM
Sounds like you might support a federal flat income tax also.
I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

mostpost
04-23-2012, 11:41 PM
So, then, the law promotes and supports slavery by taking away my right to choose whether I want to be in union or not.
The law does not take away your right to choose-which by the way is a right you would deny to a pregnant woman. If you do not wish to join a union, then go to work for a company that has no union. If all the companies in your field are union, then go into another field.

And for your info, I think you're full of it. My wife is a professional musician and plays lots of gigs with union people, and she doesn't pay a red cent to the union. Nor does she receive any of the benefits 99% of her mind-numbed, robotic colleagues do.
I am quite certain your wife does not pay a red cent to the evil unions. I am equally certain that she benefits from the contracts that union has negotiated. Or maybe when she takes a job she informs her employer that she will not accept the full salary because she does not wish to associated with a union. :rolleyes:

To go even further, she's actually employed by an Opera Company, and she still doesn't pay the union crooks anything, even though the same percentage of fellow employees are still in the union. (Swampland, of course, is a right- to-work state.) It's meaningless to pass right-to work-laws, then turn around and say that people who don't want to join unions still don't have any rights outside the union.

So, while this issue iss "not about me" (which I never said it was), nonetheless I can draw from the experience of my better half, who is "one flesh with me"; therefore, it was darn near about me. So, stick that in your hash pipe and puff on it.

Boxcar
P.S. And here's something else you can stick in your pipe: My wife would be willing to be paid less for not being a union member. The fact that she isn't paid less is not her problem nor her choice.

I have a one word-eight letter response which I can not type here. Here is a clue. It's found on a cattle ranch and is something you have in abundance.

mostpost
04-23-2012, 11:59 PM
This discussion with Boxcar and his musician wife has put me in mind of a question which someone here may be able to answer.

I have been involved for several years in community theater in my home town-on stage for several years and now behind the scenes. The performers work for free. The cast and other volunteers design and build the sets. Volunteers sell tickets, act as ushers and sell refreshments. Most of the production staff are volunteers, although the director may receive a stipend.

The band or Orchestra is usually paid. However no community theater can afford to pay anywhere near union scale. So band members who are also union members use a fake name in the program, just as a director will use the name "Allen Smithee" in the credits when the studio has edited his movie in a way he disapproves.

I recall that union members use a specific name when playing in a production for which they are either not being paid or are being paid below scale, but I do not know what it is. Can anyone out there-musician or otherwise-help me out.

boxcar
04-24-2012, 12:10 AM
I have a one word-eight letter response which I can not type here. Here is a clue. It's found on a cattle ranch and is something you have in abundance.

You see, this is what I meant when I told Elysian earlier that leftists are intellectually-impoverished. A bagworm has more intellectual firing power than any leftist does. I thank you for proving it with your insipid response. In fact, it's all the brain-dead zombies in the musicians' union that account largely for my wife's refusal to join. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

johnhannibalsmith
04-24-2012, 12:26 AM
...
I recall that union members use a specific name when playing in a production for which they are either not being paid or are being paid below scale, but I do not know what it is. Can anyone out there-musician or otherwise-help me out.

George Spelvin (aka Georgette)

mostpost
04-24-2012, 12:37 AM
George Spelvin (aka Georgette)
Thank you for that. Of course Georgina Spelvin is not used much anymore since it was used by the "actress" in "Devil In Miss Jones" which someone told me was some kind of pornographic movie.