Liberals admit why they hate unions

[billwald]

>Your union boss owners were that scary?

My union bosses were co-workers and friends, all elected by secret ballot.

 

[targus]

>Your union boss owners were that scary?

My union bosses were co-workers and friends, all elected by secret ballot.

What does that have to do with the conversation here?

 

[Salty]

I agree with these two sentences. If a person is on strike, then at the very least they are violating the "turn the other cheek" scripture, and at the other end of the spectrum possibly trying to damage a good employer who simply does not acquiesce to their demands.

May I play Devils advocate (and no, I am not saying the union is the Devil :saint: :laugh: )

But keep in mind - you can only strike when the contract has expired. So technically he is not currently your boss.

Now concerning accepting demands.

Lets look at two extremes:

1. Suppose the employer demands that you work 12 hours/ day, 6 days a week without a lunch, break time (including the restroom) and no holidays off.

2. Suppose the union demands a 4 hour workday 3 days a week with a 33% pay raise and 29 holidays per year.

3. So, it would appear that a strike would be justified in situation #1, but not for # 2.

So, who determines at what point is it wrong to strike?

Would you strike under situation # 1.

Also, if a strike is called for demands more in the middle, and you as an individual do not strike - how will that be taken by your co-workers? Are you being fair to them?

Wow, lots of question - but do we have good answers?

FTR - I have never been a union member- all my jobs never had unions.

 

[targus]

1. Suppose the employer demands that you work 12 hours/ day, 6 days a week without a lunch, break time (including the restroom) and no holidays off.

I think that this would be illegal so you may need a new hypothetical scenario.

 

[Sapper Woody]

May I play Devils advocate (and no, I am not saying the union is the Devil :saint: :laugh: )

But keep in mind - you can only strike when the contract has expired. So technically he is not currently your boss.

Now concerning accepting demands.

Lets look at two extremes:

1. Suppose the employer demands that you work 12 hours/ day, 6 days a week without a lunch, break time (including the restroom) and no holidays off.

2. Suppose the union demands a 4 hour workday 3 days a week with a 33% pay raise and 29 holidays per year.

3. So, it would appear that a strike would be justified in situation #1, but not for # 2.

So, who determines at what point is it wrong to strike?

Would you strike under situation # 1.

Also, if a strike is called for demands more in the middle, and you as an individual do not strike - how will that be taken by your co-workers? Are you being fair to them?

Wow, lots of question - but do we have good answers?

FTR - I have never been a union member- all my jobs never had unions.

It is never ok to go on strike, in situation 1 or in 2. If the boss is unfair, go to a new job. If there were no Unions, then bosses would have to get fair, as the competitive job market would keep them from becoming too demanding. If a boss demands that you work 60 hour weeks for minimum wage, and another demands you work 40 hour weeks for 1.5x minimum wage, who are you going to try and work for?

"The job market is too competitive then, and jobs will be harder to comeby" you may say. But this is also a good thing. People will become better educated as a society in order to become sought after in the job market (except for those who would rather go on welfare, but that is another topic).

With the increase in knowledge and skills of the laborers, the quality of American products goes up, as well as the efficiency with which we make our products. This in turn leads to a greater exportation of American goods, and an increase in actual revenue in our society, contributing to deflation of our currency.

Unions, imho, are killing our job market. Killing our job market kills our economy.

 

[convicted1]

It is never ok to go on strike, in situation 1 or in 2. If the boss is unfair, go to a new job. If there were no Unions, then bosses would have to get fair, as the competitive job market would keep them from becoming too demanding. If a boss demands that you work 60 hour weeks for minimum wage, and another demands you work 40 hour weeks for 1.5x minimum wage, who are you going to try and work for?

"The job market is too competitive then, and jobs will be harder to comeby" you may say. But this is also a good thing. People will become better educated as a society in order to become sought after in the job market (except for those who would rather go on welfare, but that is another topic).

With the increase in knowledge and skills of the laborers, the quality of American products goes up, as well as the efficiency with which we make our products. This in turn leads to a greater exportation of American goods, and an increase in actual revenue in our society, contributing to deflation of our currency.

Unions, imho, are killing our job market. Killing our job market kills our economy.

Sorry Brother, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on what I bolded. What is killing our economy is, one, jobs being shipped to Mexico, over seas, places like Turkey, India, China, etc. And second, not dipping into our oil supply, so that we don't have to pay over $98.00 a barrell for it, when we have it here.....Alaska and Texas have vast supplies of it for crying out loud.

Unions insure safer working conditions, competitive wages, affordable healthcare, etc. Without unions, we would not have any of these. If you don't believe me, find a history book, and look for yourself.

 

[freeatlast]

Sorry Brother, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on what I bolded. What is killing our economy is, one, jobs being shipped to Mexico, over seas, places like Turkey, India, China, etc. And second, not dipping into our oil supply, so that we don't have to pay over $98.00 a barrell for it, when we have it here.....Alaska and Texas have vast supplies of it for crying out loud.

Unions insure safer working conditions, competitive wages, affordable healthcare, etc. Without unions, we would not have any of these. If you don't believe me, find a history book, and look for yourself.

It seems to be so easy to justify turning our back on what the Lord calls for when money is involved. Certainly the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil.
Colossians 3:22-24, told believers to work for their master as if they were working for the Lord.
1 Peter 2:18-24, counseled Christians to suffer indignity at the hands of masters rather than retaliate.

 

[Eric B]

Talking about reading in to scripture! No company ever sought to put a union in on their own.

Who ever said any such thing? If this is what you're saying I said; then you're reading my words the same way you've been reading scripture. Deal with what's actually written; not what you want it to say.

No person who ever goes on strike can ever be in obedience to the scriptures. it is impossible to work for your employer as unto the Lord and be on strike. You are trying to justify sin.

While some states do require everyone to join the union, where there is a union, there is no state that requires companies to have a union. Also no state requires the employee in the union to stand on the picket line or to even attend the union meetings. So a child of God can be a member if required by law and still not support the things they do that violates the word of God.

So now it's changed. Before, it was a child if God could not be in a union at all. Now, you can be; just don't disobey with them.

Still, your comparing the actions of a group, with instructions to individuals working directly for a "master" (which is different from what we call an "employer".

And again, to give bosses or companies total carte blanche, and cite scripture on persecution, you're inadvertently justifying tyrrany in what is supposed to be a free land; but I guess tyranny is OK if it is by a "private" enterprise. Just as long as it's not a government persecuting you or your interests. (Or are you one of the ones who used to argue that the American Revolution was wrong? If so; I guess you are consistent after all).

It is never ok to go on strike, in situation 1 or in 2. If the boss is unfair, go to a new job. If there were no Unions, then bosses would have to get fair, as the competitive job market would keep them from becoming too demanding. If a boss demands that you work 60 hour weeks for minimum wage, and another demands you work 40 hour weeks for 1.5x minimum wage, who are you going to try and work for?

"The job market is too competitive then, and jobs will be harder to comeby" you may say. But this is also a good thing. People will become better educated as a society in order to become sought after in the job market (except for those who would rather go on welfare, but that is another topic).

With the increase in knowledge and skills of the laborers, the quality of American products goes up, as well as the efficiency with which we make our products. This in turn leads to a greater exportation of American goods, and an increase in actual revenue in our society, contributing to deflation of our currency.

Unions, imho, are killing our job market. Killing our job market kills our economy.

This ideal ignores what happens in practice.

•The 40 hr jobs quickly fill up, and people in desperation continue to spill over into the 60 hr job. Why should he change it then; he knows he will eventually still get workers.

•Then others realize this, and follow suit. "The Market" basically has now determined that the 60 hour week is what is favored.

•Education is financially out of reach, as well as people having no time or energy left for it. Again, some in desperation will pull it all. We say "the CEO" all went that road to become rich, but these people aren't even becoming rich through all this; they're just barely staying afloat.

•If the people don't like it, then we just take the jobs somewhere else where people are willing to work under those conditions and worse. Observers then blame the unions for driving the jobs out!

This stuff is what "market" advocates always forget. (But the final answer to some; just accept it as suffering for Christ!)

 

[freeatlast]

Who ever said any such thing? If this is what you're saying I said; then you're reading my words the same way you've been reading scripture. Deal with what's actually written; not what you want it to say.

So now it's changed. Before, it was a child if God could not be in a union at all. Now, you can be; just don't disobey with them.

Still, your comparing the actions of a group, with instructions to individuals working directly for a "master" (which is different from what we call an "employer".

And again, to give bosses or companies total carte blanche, and cite scripture on persecution, you're inadvertently justifying tyrrany in what is supposed to be a free land; but I guess tyranny is OK if it is by a "private" enterprise. Just as long as it's not a government persecuting you or your interests. (Or are you one of the ones who used to argue that the American Revolution was wrong? If so; I guess you are consistent after all).


This ideal ignores what happens in practice.

•The 40 hr jobs quickly fill up, and people in desperation continue to spill over into the 60 hr job. Why should he change it then; he knows he will eventually still get workers.

•Then others realize this, and follow suit. "The Market" basically has now determined that the 60 hour week is what is favored.

•Education is financially out of reach, as well as people having no time or energy left for it. Again, some in desperation will pull it all. We say "the CEO" all went that road to become rich, but these people aren't even becoming rich through all this; they're just barely staying afloat.

•If the people don't like it, then we just take the jobs somewhere else where people are willing to work under those conditions and worse. Observers then blame the unions for driving the jobs out!

This stuff is what "market" advocates always forget. (But the final answer to some; just accept it as suffering for Christ!)

Stop trying to rationalize and justify your rebellion. Just obey the scriptures as they are given.
Colossians 3:22-24, told believers to work for their master as if they were working for the Lord.
1 Peter 2:18-24, counseled Christians to suffer indignity at the hands of masters rather than retaliate.

 

[Eric B]

First of all; I'm not on strike.
(And I see you just sidestep everything with some recited reiteration).
Why don't you stop misusing scriptures and taking them out of context to justify a form of slavery system under the premise of "indignation for Christ". You totally dishonor all those Christians today who truly are persecuted for Christ by trying to liken this to their trials.
Again, would YOU be willing to suffer indigation? It's easy to toss that around at others from some modern Western armchair where you enjoy freedom.

 

[billwald]

>If there were no Unions, then bosses would have to get fair, as the competitive job market would keep them from becoming too demanding.

In what dream world do you live in? The Bible teaches we are all evil. Without labor unions the employers will conspire to set wages and there will be a race to the bottom of the food chain.

Why wasn't slavery economically successful in the New England states? Because it lowered labor costs to hire poor whites and let them starve when the companies had no contracts. As Jesus taught, there will always be sufficient poor people to depress wages.

The only time wages naturally rise is during a war or a plague. The Black Death in the 1300's killed off half the population and the working class (serfs) made more progress than in the preceding 10,000 years.

 

[targus]

Instead unions Without labor unions the employers will conspire to set wages and there will be a race to the bottom of the food chain.

Instead unions conspired to set wages artifically high and we took a different route to the bottom.

Same result.

 

[freeatlast]

First of all; I'm not on strike.
(And I see you just sidestep everything with some recited reiteration).
Why don't you stop misusing scriptures and taking them out of context to justify a form of slavery system under the premise of "indignation for Christ". You totally dishonor all those Christians today who truly are persecuted for Christ by trying to liken this to their trials.
Again, would YOU be willing to suffer indigation? It's easy to toss that around at others from some modern Western armchair where you enjoy freedom.

Those who violate the word of God dishonor the Lord. Yes I would be willing and have.
Colossians 3:22-24, told believers to work for their master as if they were working for the Lord.
1 Peter 2:18-24, counseled Christians to suffer indignity at the hands of masters rather than retaliate

 

[Eric B]

It's not really "the Word" when you take it out of context.

As I keep telling you, there is a difference between a dispute beween two organizations (one representing workers), and an individual working for another. And there's also a difference between a free society where such collective bargaining is lawful, and slavery or indentured servanthood.

The closest example of those verses for me, is the fact that I still have supervisors who tell me what to do, (in addition to expecting me to know and perform my duties properly).

I do try to work for them as for the Lord and not retaliate. Nobody here is disputing that.

What you're arguing is that certain people have no rights at all if they're in a low position, and that we're basically in slavery (where there is no legal collective bargaining).

Using a verse over and over to elevate this concept to "suffering indignity for Christ" is the same method people used passages like this back when there was slavery in this country, and every other injustice, and they who did that were themselves not subject to this burden they placed on others (Matt.23:4). It used to be called "pie in the sky when you die". We get ours now, but we tell you to wait for Heaven as we trample on your human rights!
Total abuse of scripture that made all of the Church look like a great big scam. Do you want take upon yourself the judgment of the very persecutors these verses refer to, since you apparently support them so much?

 

[webdog]

Sorry Brother, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on what I bolded. What is killing our economy is, one, jobs being shipped to Mexico, over seas, places like Turkey, India, China, etc. And second, not dipping into our oil supply, so that we don't have to pay over $98.00 a barrell for it, when we have it here.....Alaska and Texas have vast supplies of it for crying out loud.

Unions insure safer working conditions, competitive wages, affordable healthcare, etc. Without unions, we would not have any of these. If you don't believe me, find a history book, and look for yourself.

You haven't peeled enough layers back. Unions are directly to blame for jobs being shipped out. Artificially inflated wages and owning the government which over regulate have killed manufacturing in this country. Unions were formed with good intentions (like corporations and banks) but became corrupt and big money. With modern labor laws there is no need for them.

 

[convicted1]

You haven't peeled enough layers back. Unions are directly to blame for jobs being shipped out. Artificially inflated wages and owning the government which over regulate have killed manufacturing in this country. Unions were formed with good intentions (like corporations and banks) but became corrupt and big money. With modern labor laws there is no need for them.

Gonna have to disagree with you Brother. Greedy corporations who want cheaper labor, and cheaper health care payments shipping jobs overseas is what caused these jobs to be shipped out.