Now however, the whole workforce can walk off and prevent the owner from hiring replacement workers to run his operation. By striking they are interfering with his right to use his property as he wills. They are stealing from him.
---I was with you up until that second to last line. You want to just ban strikes? If it isn't okay for strikes to happen, then it isn't okay for people to walk off their jobs--you want to force people to work, regardless of their contract or (in most cases) lack thereof!
And workers striking (thus stealing time and moiney from the employer) are interfering with the owners control of his own property. if they want to leave work, great. Walk out and don't come back. But don't try to blackmail the owner into giving increased wages etc by trying to destroy his business.
---The owner doesn't have to agree with them. Again, you want to compel the workers to work. If the workers are contracted and violating that contract, the owner should sue. Unions are fat and happy. But preventing strikes is saying that no matter what workers can't quit en masse, which is pretty much their best negotiating tool.
If I own the company I have the only say in who works there. If I treat my employees well I'll have great employees (because the good ones will stay and the bad ones will get fired). If I treat my employees poorly I'll have poor employees (because the good ones will leave and I'll get stuck with the bad ones or none at all). No union or gov intervention is required. Poor management brings its own punishment and that punishment should not be having a group of people trying to destroy your business
---Fine. Don't negotiate with unions, don't give them what they want. Calling unions a group of people 'trying to destroy your business' is going overboard. Unions don't try to 'destroy businesses,' though they often DO exactly that. You should recognize that you're just slinging vitriol, and it's obvious that poor management does NOT bring its own punishment in the companies most likely to have strong unions. Anyone who sees the golden parachutes that popped open during the last crash has got to know better. And the unions generally are trying to get better pay and treatment for their workers, which is a management decision that could be a good one or not.
Say What? Severence pay is totally bogus as is a two week notice. Severence pay in almost all cases is a result of union or gov blackmail. Two weeks notice has no contractual or legal basis. If I choose to leave, I just leave, How can anyone force me to work?
---You act like two week notice isn't standard, but guess what, you need references to get future jobs! Employees don't get to walk off jobs unless they don't want to work in the future, contrary to your imaginative scenario. And what if everyone else wants to leave, too? You want to prevent them from doing so at the same time. Guess those workers who can just walk off now can't, until they train their replacements, so that they don't 'deprive the owner of his property.'
...BTW anti-free-market legislarion should never happen under any circumstances. The market itself will weed out the poor managers
---Agreed. So we should stop backing up poor managers with the strikebreaking powers of the fed, too.
Every union that strikes or requires all employees to join, [is a criminal enterprise] yes.
---I agree with the latter but not the former, for reasons given above.
Calling an apple an apple is not judging
---I'll have to remember that. Meanwhile, I have a mote to pick out of my eye. Check out the plank in yours.
Actually, for those who are die hard NEA members, I'd vote for execution. They are destroying our country and killing our children by indoctrinating them with liberal ideas such as homosexuality and abortion rights. Any member of the NEA who pays dues without protest should be permanently barred from any contact with children. Any exposure of children to homosexual behavior is child abuse
---Okay...so let's see, if you're exercising your right of free association and union leaders take that organization in some ways you don't personally like but you think negotiating collectively benefits you enough to stay in the union regardless of the national organization's wacko viewpoint--you should be SHOT. Boy, I dislike the NEA, and I wouldn't pay dues to any union, but you're just completely overboard.
Christ thought the entire bible was important, after all He wrote the whole thing (By inspiring men to write down what he revealed to them).
---Nowhere do I disagree with this, and nowhere does it lessen the impact of my statement that Mark 12:30-31 is more important than your twisting of other Scripture.
Love thy neighbor as thyself. Note that it doesn't say "gang up on your neighbor with a bunch of other thugs and deprive him of the ability to make a living with his own property". Nor does it say "threaten to destroy your neighbor unless he pays you better".
---You object to this, and yet seemingly you see no way that unions could possibly prevent this from occuring on the part of the MANAGEMENT, that management has done in the past exactly this, what you complain of unions doing today, with the building of 'company towns' and strikebreakers. Unions were literally the only way workers could protect themselves from abuse WITHOUT government intervention. And in my thinking, still are, with most government intervention on the side of business today (both in the U.S. and out).
Union LAWS are a problem. Government intervention is inevitably wrong. But collective action is not. I fail to see the difference between a walkout by one person and a walkout by many, and you seem to think strikes are clear cases, situations where unions are always at fault.
The NEA speaks agains the bible. Most unions preach forced socialism or forced communism which are both anti-biblical concepts. But this is beside the point.
---No, this is the point you made, that they go against the Bible. The Bible can be construed in lots of ways, as you seem to think, since you manage to read Scripture in both the correct way (literally, as Christ viewed it and stated its meaning) and in your imaginary way (labor unions are EVIL). To some, communism is the ULTIMATE in Biblical. Not to ME, mind you, but there are many ways of reading 'Do Unto Others.'
The point I am making is that the very existence of a labor union is anti-biblical. There is no support for forced collective bargaining in the bible and where labor is mentioned it is always a contract between the owner and the worker.
---There's no support for flying planes or piloting submarines or universal suffrage or manumission either. Just because the Bible doesn't MENTION it doesn't mean it is AGAINST it.
Exactly, as collective bargaining has no standing in scripture.
---Exactly, just as the Christian soldier has no standing in scripture, so I expect to see your post wanting to force Mr. Boykin out any second now.
But, PLEASE, don't try to make this claim again: Matthew 20:10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. 11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, 12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. 13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? 14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
That's not about labor unions, no matter what you're trying to twist it to say. It's about those coming late to the kingdom of God being shunned by those who have come early, not collective bargaining! Stop trying to blasphemously bend God's words to your earthly purposes!
It's about both. If you would read the whole bible you'll find that extorting someone out of their property is not allowed
---Either the Bible is literal or not. Christ never said a thing about unions, here or elsewhere in the Bible, and you are reading to your bias in claiming that any mention of extortion means unions are evil. Unions only 'extort' what owners and management are willing to give. If they break the law, and REALLY extort, they can be charged with a crime.
So if everyone in town decided not to buy from a particular store collectively, that would be the same thing, in that they deprive a business of something they would otherwise have.
No. But if they blocked his doors and didn't let anyone else buy from there it would be theft. You are not forced to shop anywhere just like you are not forced to work anywhere. But you never have the right to stop someone else from shopping or working anywhere. Unions stop people from working unless they join the union. They stop people from working during strikes. They block the owners property and prevent him from doing business. All of these actions are different from just deciding not to shop somewhere
---Unions are legally enjoined from stopping people from working in most states (we're in agreement that closed shops are wrong) and legally enjoined from stopping people from buying or working in establishments that try to break strikes. Laws against such actions are on the books and though unions might chafe at them, they must observe them or get sued/charged.
Or better yet, if I decide I'm not going to work for an employer any more because I don't think he's paying me or treating me well, I am personally stealing from him.
If you just leave and leave him alone it is not theft. If you stick around and try to block his business or stop others from working for him it is theft
---Not if you are only exercising your right to free speech. Blocking entrances is wrong, and any union that does it should be sued/charged.
I never said anything about imposing a law. In fact I am for repealing all labor laws now on the books, federal, state and local. Gov has no business whatsoever in the employer/employee relationship. However, laws against criminal activity (such as blocking the entrance to a factory, or hiring thugs to beat the workers) must be rigorously enforced. Almost all these labor laws are anti-business and pro-union.
---If your objective is repealing laws, then we agree. I agree that laws on the books, however, must be enforced. We could start with the hour and wage laws, which are regularly broken. I also agree with the notion we should repeal ALL the laws on the subject.
But your central tenet is to say owners should not be forced to do with their property what unions would have them do. They aren't, just as people aren't forced to show their drivers' license to fly on a plane. They make that choice. Unions are free people making their own choice to collectively act and use their own 'property' in the best way they see fit. You want to intervene for the property rights of one group and not for others. Fine. Just expect it to get that group treated worse, for when the other eventually gets into power they will treat it poorly in retribution. You perpetuate a cycle of unfairness in siding reflexively against workers.
Your response to solving the issue you feel created by unionization is yet unknown to me--what would you do to stop the 'problem?' Ban unions outright? Or are there ANY such things as good unions?
(we have a major problem here. We are both real wordy. I'll try to keep this as short as I can.:^) )
me-> By striking they are interfering with his right to use his property as he wills. They are stealing from him.
you->---I was with you up until that second to last line. You want to just ban strikes? If it isn't okay for strikes to happen, then it isn't okay for people to walk off their jobs--you want to force people to work, regardless of their contract or (in most cases) lack thereof!
If they just walk off and leave then they are not interfering with the owners rights. If they strike, including picketing, harrassing replacement workers, blocking entrances etc, then they are interfering with his property. It is always ok for people to walk off their jobs. You can't force someone to work. Strikes have nothing whatsoever to do with people working. They have to do with people blackmailing other people out of their property
But preventing strikes is saying that no matter what workers can't quit en masse, which is pretty much their best negotiating tool.
No. Strikes are not just the workers walking out en masse. That is easy to deal with, just hire new workers. Strikes are walking out AND preventing the owner from hiring new workers or running his operation. The workers are always free to walk out. The owner should always be free to hire new workers
Don't negotiate with unions, don't give them what they want. Calling unions a group of people 'trying to destroy your business' is going overboard. Unions don't try to 'destroy businesses,' though they often DO exactly that.
And if I don't give them what they want what do they do? They try to destroy my business by interfering with its operation, they harass my replacement workers, they block deliveries they do everything they can to disrupt my business
You act like two week notice isn't standard, but guess what, you need references to get future jobs! Employees don't get to walk off jobs unless they don't want to work in the future, contrary to your imaginative scenario. And what if everyone else wants to leave, too? You want to prevent them from doing so at the same time.
Like I'd give a reference anyway to someone who struck against me. References are nice but are not neccessary in blue collar type work. If you can do the work there is always someplace that can use you. I never said that I want to prevent them from walking off en masse. They have the right to do that. They don't have the right to expect jobs to be there when they come back though. I'd hire replacements as soon as I could. The job doesn't belong to the worker it belongs to the employer
I'll have to remember that. Meanwhile, I have a mote to pick out of my eye. Check out the plank in yours.
I have biblical basis for believing unions are bad. See my discussion with Willie Green.
You object to this, and yet seemingly you see no way that unions could possibly prevent this from occuring on the part of the MANAGEMENT, that management has done in the past exactly this, what you complain of unions doing today, with the building of 'company towns' and strikebreakers. Unions were literally the only way workers could protect themselves from abuse WITHOUT government intervention.
In one of my early posts I make the point that they were once needed but that those days are long gone. Worker mobility prevents such things as company towns etc. The way for the worker to defend himself against bad management is to vote with his feet and leave
Union LAWS are a problem. Government intervention is inevitably wrong. But collective action is not. I fail to see the difference between a walkout by one person and a walkout by many, and you seem to think strikes are clear cases, situations where unions are always at fault.
A walkout by many is not a strike. If the entire workforce decides to quit and go elsewhere that is not a strike. If they decide to walk out and prevent me from hiring new workers or prevent me from running my business that is a strike. Mass walkouts are legal, strikes are criminal activities. The union is always at fault in a strike. Other people's actions do not excuse criminal behavior.
(I'm inserting some text here from your earlier reply to keep the discussion accurate)
you-What American union today speaks against the Bible? NONE, for good reason, that most union members consider themselves Christian and wouldn't stand for it!
me->The NEA speaks against the bible. Most unions preach forced socialism or forced communism which are both anti-biblical concepts. But this is beside the point.
you->---No, this is the point you made, that they go against the Bible.
from post 86
me->The point I am making is that the very existence of a labor union is anti-biblical.
This specific reply was disproving your statement that no union speaks against the bible.
---There's no support for flying planes or piloting submarines or universal suffrage or manumission either. Just because the Bible doesn't MENTION it doesn't mean it is AGAINST it.
The only scriptural reference even close to this topic speaks against collective bargaining in that it establishes the right of the owner to do what he will with his own property
Exactly, just as the Christian soldier has no standing in scripture, so I expect to see your post wanting to force Mr. Boykin out any second now.
John the baptist as reported in the Bible:
Luke 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
(The word translated here as violence means "shake thoroughly" as to intimidate. (see Matthew Henry's commentary or John Gill's expositor for additional background here))
Jesus did not correct this statement so this is an authorization for Christian soldiers.
Either the Bible is literal or not. Christ never said a thing about unions, here or elsewhere in the Bible, and you are reading to your bias in claiming that any mention of extortion means unions are evil. Unions only 'extort' what owners and management are willing to give. If they break the law, and REALLY extort, they can be charged with a crime.
In many places the bible is both. It's a very deep book which can be understood with one reading and yet never understood after hundreds of readings. We'll know all the truth of it when we get to heaven but we do the best we can while we are here.
The parables of Jesus were based on common truths of his day. He used this story about the right of an owner to control his property to demonstrate God's right to allow people into heaven. If the parable itself was not truthful, that is, if the owner was wrong in controlling his property, then the lesson would also be wrong, that is, God has no right to control entry into heaven. Obviously Jesus believed that the owner was correct in controlling his property. Unions get the thumbs down here.
Unions only 'extort' what owners and management are willing to give
Interesting remark here. I guess this means that all blackmail is legal because the victim is willing to give the blackmailer what he wants rather than face the consequences. If the union is striking to get what it wants then the owner has given it under duress. This isn't willingly. Under the same reasoning rape is allowable because the victim would rather have sex with her attacker than be killed by him.
But your central tenet is to say owners should not be forced to do with their property what unions would have them do. They aren't, just as people aren't forced to show their drivers' license to fly on a plane. They make that choice.
The law forces them to recognize a union if the workers vote one in. The law forces them to negotiate with this union. The union when on strike will destroy the business (or has done so in the past). The choice is whether to sacrifice your property rights and stay in business or stand for your rights and go broke. More and more companies have found that it's really a choice between go broke now or go broke after a couple union contracts. And more and more companies are figuring out that if they treat their employees right the employees will be anti-union also.
Your response to solving the issue you feel created by unionization is yet unknown to me--what would you do to stop the 'problem?' Ban unions outright? Or are there ANY such things as good unions?
I'd repeal all labor laws and let the owners do what they want. (this includes all discrimination type laws). Those owners who are good employers will succeed. Those who are not good employers will fail. The owner must recognize that his employees and their skills are his most valuable asset and he should treat them accordingly. If he fails to, his competitor down the block will steal his good workers and leave him with the dregs.
I'd have all criminal laws ruthlessly enforced. Strike (as defined above)- go to jail. Collude with other owners to limit the market - go to jail. The owner is free to hire whomever he can get to work for him and the worker is free to work wherever he can get hired
(and there are no 'good' unions. The very concept is anti-biblical)