3 ms·

>>Why are the employers rights being trampled here if the union is a bunch of employees who agreed to negotiate together? Because federal law forces the employ

>>Why are the employers rights being trampled here if the union is a bunch of employees who agreed to negotiate together? Because federal law forces the employer to negotiate with the union, and prohibits the employer from negotiating with any other party. This violates the employer's rights by giving unions special rights to the employer's private property. >>The employers dont have a right to divide and conquer the employees so that they can get better terms. Yes they do. In a free society, you can negotiate with whoever you want. You unionizing shouldn't impose any restrictions on me negotiating with a third party, or obligations to negotiate with you. Laws that impose these requirements are oppressive. >>How is this even replacing contract with central planning? The laws that regiment employment relationships are decided by a central body, and restrict the contract freedom of millions of people.

lovich 8y ago
The federal government doesn't make employers have to continue working with unions. Scabs are a real thing. The unions are able to force companies to negotiate anyway because it is difficult to replace a large number of employees at once, especially if they have any skills. >The laws that regiment employment relationships are decided by a central body, and restrict the contract freedom of millions of people. By this argument any employment law is central planning. That's hyperbole
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  If the majority of employees in what federal law defines as a work unit unionize, and vote to collectively bargain, the law prohibits the employer from negotiating individually with any employee in that work unit, even if they did not vote to collectively bargain: https://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/basic-page/node-3024/basicguide.pdf https://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/basic-p... >>The Employee Representative. Section 9(a) provides that the employee representatives that have been “designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.” >>What is an appropriate bargaining unit. A unit of employees is a group of two or more employees who share a community of interest and may reasonably be grouped together for purposes of collective bargaining. The determination of what is an appropriate unit for such purposes is, under the Act, left to the discretion of the NLRB. Section 9(b) states that the Board shall decide in each representation case whether, “in order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act, the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof.” There are numerous violations of the employer's freedom of contract in federal law, enacted at the behest of unions and their supporters. >>By this argument any employment law is central planning. Any labor law that violates the freedom of contract, by regimenting the range of employment contracts that may be entered into by consenting adults, is a form of central planning. >>That's hyperbole Why?
  - lovich 8y ago
    What is the "freedom to contract" that you keep bringing up. Contracts are legal instruments defined and enforced by the government, so if the government says you can't do x in a contract then you can't do x. >That's hyperbole Because you are stating that anything other than absolute freedom is central planning. Beyond all of this, you started off this thread by saying that you think this will bias the journalists and affect their integrity. You've moved the goalposts multiple times and it's obvious you just don't like unions. If you want to have a discussion about that then put you're argument all out on the table instead of shoving it in after saying something provocative
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      The freedom to contract is what I described. The prohibitions you bring up violate the freedom to contract. You're making an appeal to legality to claim that freedom to contract doesn't exist, which is an intellectually weak argument. >>Contracts are legal instruments defined and enforced by the government A contract is defined by the parties that sign it. It is an agreement. Agreements between individuals are not defined by the government. In other words, agreements do not exist only by virtue of the govermment willing them to exist. They are private arrangements that we have delegated the enforcement of to govermment. >>Because you are stating that anything other than absolute freedom is central planning. I asked you 'why' because I don't see what's hyperbolic about that. Any rule that supplants free choice with a rule imposed by a central authority is an expansion of the scope of central planning at the expense of personal freedom. This is absolutely undeniable and I don't understand why you're trying to make it out to be a controversial statement. >>Beyond all of this, you started off this thread by saying that you think this will bias the journalists and affect their integrity. You've moved the goalposts multiple times How could you possibly accuse me of that, when I was only answering the questions posed to me? You're not treating me reasonably at all.

lovich 8y ago

The federal government doesn't make employers have to continue working with unions. Scabs are a real thing. The unions are able to force companies to negotiate anyway because it is difficult to replace a large number of employees at once, especially if they have any skills. >The laws that regiment employment relationships are decided by a central body, and restrict the contract freedom of millions of people. By this argument any employment law is central planning. That's hyperbole

CryptoPunk 8y ago
If the majority of employees in what federal law defines as a work unit unionize, and vote to collectively bargain, the law prohibits the employer from negotiating individually with any employee in that work unit, even if they did not vote to collectively bargain: https://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/basic-page/node-3024/basicguide.pdf https://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/basic-p... >>The Employee Representative. Section 9(a) provides that the employee representatives that have been “designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.” >>What is an appropriate bargaining unit. A unit of employees is a group of two or more employees who share a community of interest and may reasonably be grouped together for purposes of collective bargaining. The determination of what is an appropriate unit for such purposes is, under the Act, left to the discretion of the NLRB. Section 9(b) states that the Board shall decide in each representation case whether, “in order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act, the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof.” There are numerous violations of the employer's freedom of contract in federal law, enacted at the behest of unions and their supporters. >>By this argument any employment law is central planning. Any labor law that violates the freedom of contract, by regimenting the range of employment contracts that may be entered into by consenting adults, is a form of central planning. >>That's hyperbole Why?
- lovich 8y ago
  What is the "freedom to contract" that you keep bringing up. Contracts are legal instruments defined and enforced by the government, so if the government says you can't do x in a contract then you can't do x. >That's hyperbole Because you are stating that anything other than absolute freedom is central planning. Beyond all of this, you started off this thread by saying that you think this will bias the journalists and affect their integrity. You've moved the goalposts multiple times and it's obvious you just don't like unions. If you want to have a discussion about that then put you're argument all out on the table instead of shoving it in after saying something provocative
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    The freedom to contract is what I described. The prohibitions you bring up violate the freedom to contract. You're making an appeal to legality to claim that freedom to contract doesn't exist, which is an intellectually weak argument. >>Contracts are legal instruments defined and enforced by the government A contract is defined by the parties that sign it. It is an agreement. Agreements between individuals are not defined by the government. In other words, agreements do not exist only by virtue of the govermment willing them to exist. They are private arrangements that we have delegated the enforcement of to govermment. >>Because you are stating that anything other than absolute freedom is central planning. I asked you 'why' because I don't see what's hyperbolic about that. Any rule that supplants free choice with a rule imposed by a central authority is an expansion of the scope of central planning at the expense of personal freedom. This is absolutely undeniable and I don't understand why you're trying to make it out to be a controversial statement. >>Beyond all of this, you started off this thread by saying that you think this will bias the journalists and affect their integrity. You've moved the goalposts multiple times How could you possibly accuse me of that, when I was only answering the questions posed to me? You're not treating me reasonably at all.