PDA

View Full Version : Other: Unions: Is Ron Paul anti-union? How will he protect workers?




Unknown.User
12-29-2011, 12:26 PM
..

erowe1
12-29-2011, 12:33 PM
Why does anybody think protecting workers is any of the government's business?

TonySutton
12-29-2011, 12:51 PM
why is Right to Work anti-union? All it does is keep the union from having a monopoly on labor. It keeps the decision to join a union with the individual. It is the liberty stance.

Keith and stuff
12-29-2011, 01:20 PM
He is pro-Right to Work, does anyone have further information other than what is on his website?

I know that he has people that used to work for the right to work group working on his campaign.

specsaregood
12-29-2011, 01:27 PM
He is pro union; he thinks it is your right to associate with whomever you wish.

Badger Paul
12-29-2011, 01:28 PM
"why is Right to Work anti-union? All it does is keep the union from having a monopoly on labor. It keeps the decision to join a union with the individual. It is the liberty stance. "

Exactly. If workers want to join a union great. If not, that's fine too.

specsaregood
12-29-2011, 01:29 PM
"why is Right to Work anti-union? All it does is keep the union from having a monopoly on labor. It keeps the decision to join a union with the individual. It is the liberty stance. "

Exactly. If workers want to join a union great. If not, that's fine too.

In fact; such a union is more likely to stay honest and responsible to its members rather than to govt whims. I've met plenty of people that hate their own corrupt crony-unions.

The New Deal Sucked
12-29-2011, 06:49 PM
In fact; such a union is more likely to stay honest and responsible to its members rather than to govt whims. I've met plenty of people that hate their own corrupt crony-unions. Agreed. My mother is a Conservative (and almost Paul supporter now to boot :D ) and she is a special ed. teacher in NJ. She hates all the political BS the union sends her. If she had a choice she wouldn't be in it...

brandon
12-29-2011, 06:50 PM
He is pro union and supports workers rights to organize.

Pierre_M
12-29-2011, 09:10 PM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, I believe he is against forced unions. There are jobs where you cannot be hired unless you join the union. Freedom of association goes both ways, free to associate, free to not.

specsaregood
12-29-2011, 10:57 PM
//

Pierre_M
12-30-2011, 12:35 AM
I thought the teachers union was that way. They couldn't do a thing for my father when the school he worked for ended his position, created a new one (the same thing, but with one extra class), and then hired an unlicensed teacher for it (The school managed to "lose" my fahter's application to claim there were no licensed applicants). But they could collect dues from every paycheck.

Tannenzšpfle
12-30-2011, 04:32 PM
Whenever I explain the libertarian position on organized labor, I do it as follows:

The government should not do anything to hurt a labor union's right to negotiate, but it shouldn't hurt a business's right, either. If the government gets involved, the people spend time trying to get the government to fight their battles instead of coming to an agreement in an equilibrium. If you look at Detroit, the government gave a lot of favor to the unions and that actually destroyed a lot of the long-term profitability and competitiveness in the market. There is a place for unions in America. There is no place for politicians passing laws forcing people to pay union dues or laws that protect businesses from unions.

TL;DR: Make the government stop distorting the labor market so that unions and companies have to come to an agreement like grown-ups.

Tod
12-30-2011, 04:50 PM
This whole video is particularly exceptional, but the union discussion starts at about 53 minutes...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=g-mVNYqNkZU#t=3206s

redbluepill
12-31-2011, 01:38 AM
This is a pretty good pro-union post from a libertarian perspective: http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=753

I'm sure Dr. Paul would agree with it.

Unknown.User
12-31-2011, 07:40 PM
..

bluesc
12-31-2011, 07:42 PM
Allowing for competing unions weakens unions by lessening their individual collective bargining power.

I watched the video and read some articles by Paul... This is one area I fail to see his reasoning on. The consitution permits government to look after the welfare of the populace. Ensuring just pay and benefits for labor seems like a good way to start.

If you expect individuals to bargin their own wages and benefits with private sector big business I invite you to look into the unionization efforts taking place at Walmart.

Nobody is debating that there should be an accountability mechanism for fraud, cronyism, and corruption. I simply fail to see how the system under Ron Paul would allow workers to recieve just pay for their work.

Note I am mainly thinking of private sector workers as opposed to public sector. Public sector unionization is an entirely different topic.

The general welfare clause doesn't mean what you think it means.

Cutlerzzz
01-01-2012, 12:51 AM
Allowing for competing unions weakens unions by lessening their individual collective bargining power.

I watched the video and read some articles by Paul... This is one area I fail to see his reasoning on. The consitution permits government to look after the welfare of the populace. Ensuring just pay and benefits for labor seems like a good way to start.

If you expect individuals to bargin their own wages and benefits with private sector big business I invite you to look into the unionization efforts taking place at Walmart.

Nobody is debating that there should be an accountability mechanism for fraud, cronyism, and corruption. I simply fail to see how the system under Ron Paul would allow workers to recieve just pay for their work.

Note I am mainly thinking of private sector workers as opposed to public sector. Public sector unionization is an entirely different topic.James Madison on the General Welfare Clause...


If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.

The Free Hornet
01-01-2012, 01:31 AM
If you expect individuals to bargin their own wages and benefits with private sector big business I invite you to look into the unionization efforts taking place at Walmart.

... I simply fail to see how the system under Ron Paul would allow workers to recieve just pay for their work.

What makes you think this is or should be a right? What if you start a janitorial business. Just starting, you are the only employee. You offer your services at $20/hr but after your startup, equipment, travel, licensing, advertising, and related costs, you are only making $2/hr. Your work is good and worth far, far more and you are charging enough, but you fail to make enough even after two years at it. Whose fault is that?

Realizing the folly and difficulty of starting your own business - face it, things ain't working - you accept an offer to work for an established janitorial company at $4/hr. It is double what you made on your own but some greedy capitalist is making $10/hr on your labor (assume her costs are $6/hour and the client cost is $20/hr).

What is she doing wrong? You have two choices: work for yourself at $2/hr or work for her at $4/hr. Eventually, you may have clients and contacts loyal to you and not your boss and it will be easier to start a company without some of the other costs (advertising, less travel or downtime between jobs). But why do you deserve more money from your future and past competitor. What gives you the right? Also, what if you suck at cleaning and your work is only worth $1/hr (far below the national minimum wage)? Do you starve or become a charity case? Are you allowed to work at various jobs for $1/hr until you find your speciality? No, you are barred from the legal labor market and forced to make ends meet with prositution or selling drugs or a kidney.

There are examples of corruption. E.g., you can't make cars or smartphones due to all the government entanglements with patents and FCC rules and all the regulations to make a car. You can argue that a government-erected barrier to competition exists and you would be right.

Also, to understand basic economic theory and history, you should realize that communism fails - in part - because it does not have a pricing mechanism:


Under communism, there is no price mechanism - central government decides how much of a particular type of goods should be produced and how it should be distributed. Source (http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/43247)

Labor, and your labor in particular, is like any other product. If you are getting the wrong price, it is your responsibility to remedy that. Government will just screw up the situation. This is why real unemployment might be upwards of 20%.

Unknown.User
01-01-2012, 10:54 AM
..

mosquitobite
01-01-2012, 11:33 AM
The liberty position is pretty easy to see.
No one should be FORCED to join a union.
Every company does not need a union.

tod evans
01-01-2012, 11:41 AM
It's not the federal governments place to be involved in private labor.
If disputes cannot be settled in state courts then file for certorari in the supreme court.
Looking for federal legislation to support one side or the other flys in the face of constitutional authority.

Inny Binny
01-01-2012, 09:47 PM
Right-to-work laws are not in any sense libertarian, and I'm unsure why Paul supports them, although he does tend to land on the conservative side when he misses the standard libertarian position. They essentially prohibit me, as a business owner, from requiring my employees to join a union. What right does the government have to stop me from doing whatever I like on my property? Most here would say that someone can hire whites only (even though everyone else would have the right to totally ostracise that person for their disgusting bigotry), and so the same logic applies to individuals who want to hire union members only.

The libertarian solution is simple: abolish all union laws, including Wagner, Taft-Hartley and right-to-work.

Here was the LP's old platform before it was gutted: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/platform.html#uniocoll

And a more detailed argument: http://mattbruenig.com/2011/07/20/the-anti-libertarian-nature-of-right-to-work-laws/

HigherVision
01-07-2012, 04:45 AM
Right-to-work laws are not in any sense libertarian, and I'm unsure why Paul supports them, although he does tend to land on the conservative side when he misses the standard libertarian position. They essentially prohibit me, as a business owner, from requiring my employees to join a union. What right does the government have to stop me from doing whatever I like on my property? Most here would say that someone can hire whites only (even though everyone else would have the right to totally ostracise that person for their disgusting bigotry), and so the same logic applies to individuals who want to hire union members only.

The libertarian solution is simple: abolish all union laws, including Wagner, Taft-Hartley and right-to-work.

Here was the LP's old platform before it was gutted: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/platform.html#uniocoll

And a more detailed argument: http://mattbruenig.com/2011/07/20/the-anti-libertarian-nature-of-right-to-work-laws/

Are you sure that they don't prohibit the government from forcing people to join unions rather than employers? Typically business owners don't want their employees to be in unions.

Liberty74
01-07-2012, 05:26 AM
Agreed. My mother is a Conservative (and almost Paul supporter now to boot :D ) and she is a special ed. teacher in NJ. She hates all the political BS the union sends her. If she had a choice she wouldn't be in it...

And that was the REAL FIGHT in Wisconsin. That Union Bill would have required a majority of workers to approve to be in the Union each year. The Union made it about other issues because they know that most Americans and the workers when given a CHOICE would say "I'm out." The powers to be in the Unions were protecting their corrupt, murdering asses while herding their violent sheep to cover for them (not knowingly of course).

newbitech
01-07-2012, 06:14 AM
He is pro-Right to Work, does anyone have further information other than what is on his website?

He would repeal Davis Bacon

newbitech
01-07-2012, 06:19 AM
Are you sure that they don't prohibit the government from forcing people to join unions rather than employers? Typically business owners don't want their employees to be in unions.

that is just not true. Unions are not just made up of laborers.

roho76
01-07-2012, 06:47 AM
I worked for Nissan outside of Jackson Mississippi and they are without a Union. When I talked to the guys that worked there they said they don't want a Union even though since then I have read about the UAW trying to push their way into Nissan (you know, for the workers of course). He makes $28/hr and has great benefits and vacation. Even during the downfall in '08' which, I had a hard time with because my bread and butter comes from the big 3, his hours were reduced to 40 hours a week which is more than I can say for their Detroit counter parts. They are happy when a contractor comes in and helps them get their lines running smoothly so they can continue to have jobs and a future, meanwhile in Detroit I get harassed by the UAW workers for doing my job. Sometimes I'm not even allowed to touch anything because I'm "not qualified" (what ever that means. I guess belonging to the Union makes you qualified.). Basically they hinder progress at every step of the way. Which effects the bottom line and they think they should be able to hold the company hostage because they "have the right".

IMO I believe that public sector unions should be banned by our government. A union shouldn't have direct access to my tax dollars to spend on political campaigns that I don't agree with (Obama '08'). As far as right to work legislation. I used to be against it but then I came to the conclusion that, even though I disagree with their ideas and means of going about it, the government shouldn't have any business in negotiations of labor contracts between workers and the companies what so ever. If a company wants to have a labor union control their work force then so be it. If they don't and want the unions to leave then they should be able to kick them off their property which means no baseball bats and beer tents in the parking lots. Trust me it happens. It's scary to cross the picket lines with these savages.

MewMint
01-07-2012, 07:14 AM
How will he protect workers?I think where you're getting mixed up is that Paul bases his positions on what the constitution lays out, not on improving the lot of workers. Keep in mind, the constitution was drafted by land and business owners, not day laborers.

Unions have distorted the vision of America that the founding fathers held. Unions were at the forefront of universal suffrage, decreased productivity due to wage spikes for "overtime" and expensive workplace regulations that harm profitability.

We didn't have a union presence in the labor market at the time the constitution was drafted. That's because unions require government backing to survive and especially to expand.

By removing onerous protections for unions we can grow closer to original intent. Right to work laws are a great step in that direction.

newbitech
01-07-2012, 07:53 AM
I think where you're getting mixed up is that Paul bases his positions on what the constitution lays out, not on improving the lot of workers. Keep in mind, the constitution was drafted by land and business owners, not day laborers.

Unions have distorted the vision of America that the founding fathers held. Unions were at the forefront of universal suffrage, decreased productivity due to wage spikes for "overtime" and expensive workplace regulations that harm profitability.

We didn't have a union presence in the labor market at the time the constitution was drafted. That's because unions require government backing to survive and especially to expand.

By removing onerous protections for unions we can grow closer to original intent. Right to work laws are a great step in that direction.

that is just not true. I think there is a huge misconception of what a "union" is. I think it would be wise for educated and enlightened folks that support Ron Paul to do some research on the history of unions.

Unknown.User
01-09-2012, 12:30 AM
..

DEGuy
01-11-2012, 10:49 AM
Allowing for competing unions weakens unions by lessening their individual collective bargining power.

I watched the video and read some articles by Paul... This is one area I fail to see his reasoning on. The consitution permits government to look after the welfare of the populace. Ensuring just pay and benefits for labor seems like a good way to start.

If you expect individuals to bargin their own wages and benefits with private sector big business I invite you to look into the unionization efforts taking place at Walmart.
Nobody is debating that there should be an accountability mechanism for fraud, cronyism, and corruption. I simply fail to see how the system under Ron Paul would allow workers to recieve just pay for their work.

Note I am mainly thinking of private sector workers as opposed to public sector. Public sector unionization is an entirely different topic.

IMO, the problem with labor practices at Wal-Mart is that Wal-Mart has been given too much power to squash union efforts, going as far as firing employees who even attempt to unionize.

rockerrockstar
01-11-2012, 03:02 PM
I am pro union and concerned about these right to work laws. I understand the right of freedom of choice and that is the argument for the Right to Work laws. The issue is the Union could lose enough power from the Right To Work laws to basically lose their bargining powers with the corporations/companies. If there is less people in the Union then it loses it power to negotiate wages and benefits for the workers. There would be less impact if there was a strike. This means lower wages and benefits for all workers.

I have heard the Right To Work laws grant all the benefits and wages that Unions negotiate to Non union workers. The problem with this is that people will get out of the union just to stop paying union dues do to getting the same wages and benefits. After that the Union will lose too many people and basically be busted. Then wages and benefits will sooner or later go down for all workes in the corporation/company.

The government is needed to protect workers because they can't protect themselfs well from the rich corporations and companies.

By the way I can't join a union because I am a engineer but my Dad was a coal miner and I can understand a need for a union to protect workers rights. My dad went on strike for 5 years in the 80s. The company locked them out. The union won the lawsuit and they were entitled to back pay wages. My dad worked for the company for 16 years.

newbitech
01-11-2012, 03:24 PM
I appreciate everybody's input, however what I really need for the sake of canvassing is an article or video where Dr. Paul clearly addresses the concerns of pro-union voters. In the previously posted video he claims that the government has no role in the union argument, however that does little alleviate pro-union voter worries about exploitation of workers by large corporations. Even if you feel there is no need for protection of workers, I prefer a clip or passage where Dr. Paul directly states that so that I can be clear on his position.

Thanks!

I had forgot about this thread.

Google and YouTube. There is so much stuff out there just type Ron Paul + Labor Unions.

There is Public vs Private Union concerns here.

With Public Unions, this is simply a conflict of interest.
With Private Unions, this is a conflict of government bailing out failed business.

Again, go look up Ron Paul + Unions.

Policy positions aren't laid out in video like I think you are looking for.

For a policy position go here http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/right-to-work/

Also, Ron Paul's Restore America plan http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Repeals Davis-Bacon prevailing wages (look it up)

Bans Union projects (federal)

HigherVision
01-11-2012, 03:44 PM
Here, this is a perfect video for those of you who are concerned about this issue to watch: Economics in One Lesson XVII: Do Unions Really Raise Wages? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stkaorwJ6o8) It's based from the book Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt which Ron Paul recommends.

Inny Binny
01-11-2012, 11:05 PM
Are you sure that they don't prohibit the government from forcing people to join unions rather than employers? Typically business owners don't want their employees to be in unions.

Positive. Right-to-work laws have been criticised by many libertarians as restricting freedom of contract between employers and unions, and as I said were specifically targeted in the old Libertarian Party platform.

All right-to-work laws do is continue the taming of unions while simultaneously propping up corporate friendly union bosses. The NLRB and Taft-Hartley are an awful combination, and right-to-work laws enhance that.

Kevin Carson has this good study on free market unionism: Labor Struggle: A Free Market Model (http://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/C4SS-Labor.pdf)

capsicum
01-14-2012, 05:24 PM
I would say contract rights trump a mysterious right to work, but unions should be treated as any other corporation or sub contractor. (unless RTW means I can't stop you from digging up your yard) Same goes for public unions, besides negotiating one big contract vs 100k individual contracts has scale efficiencies. Maybe the platform should be reworded to emphasize contract rights, or so it doesn't sound anti-union more union-reform.

Icymudpuppy
01-14-2012, 05:39 PM
IMO, the problem with labor practices at Wal-Mart is that Wal-Mart has been given too much power to squash union efforts, going as far as firing employees who even attempt to unionize.

I support their right to fire whomever they want for whatever reason. Nobody is forcing them to work at Walmart, why should they force Walmart to have a union? In my hometown, there used to be six different supermarket chains. Now there are only 3. The three that remain are the three non-union shops. The union supermarkets couldn't compete. They dug their own graves.

capsicum
01-15-2012, 08:25 PM
There is also the issue of right to associate, or not, as the case may be. Also blaming unions is about 40 years out of date they make up less than 10% of the private workforce these days.
I reaffirm my view that unions are just another private party, to be legislated in the same class as all other private parties, corporations, partnerships, groups, clubs, co-ops, and associations in all regards, including the right to contract. Wal-mart does have a right to fire people, but people have the right to not be stalked and harassed outside of work by their employer or anyone else.

Also while it goes against everyone being equal, there is a significant slice of the populace that just isn't mentally fit enough to properly negotiate or understand individual contracts.

I think the big thing for the campaign is to define what right to work actually means, or just call it fluff and take it off the platform.

guysenjem
01-15-2012, 10:01 PM
Well if anyone thinks unions are the reason we are headed for financial disaster then they are crazy. Unions are grassroots freedom of association. A collective bargaining
agreement is a binding contract between two the employer and employee. "Right to work" breaks the contract via a third party - the government. If the contract is to be
broken it should be upon the completion of the contract and only upon the wishes of one of two parties involved - not the government. Right to work just preys upon the
weakness in human nature. Let's say a teacher signs to work at a union school. Later on, that teachers decides not to pay their union fee. Right to work allows this even
though that teacher has benefited from the services of a union negotiated contract. The fairest free market solution for that teacher would be for him/her to find a job
at a non-union school instead of getting a "free lunch" at the union school. I don't believe in welfare or free lunches so I don't buy into "right to work."

southernsontn
01-16-2012, 12:46 PM
The fairest free market solution for that teacher would be for him/her to find a job
at a non-union school instead of getting a "free lunch" at the union school. I don't believe in welfare or free lunches so I don't buy into "right to work."

I can agree with this. I am a union construction worker, and also a Ron Paul supporter. While I don't like the idea of forced unionism, I also believe that right to work laws, as written, take the situation too far to the extreme. Union work sites hire through the union. They call our hall and place an order for xx amount of workers. Every worker has signed a contract with the hall, stating that they intend to abide by the union rules. Under right to work, they can breach that contract at any time and the union can not. If someone hasn't paid their dues in six months, the union must still represent them in front of the bosses. that is unfair to the union, and it violates our right to association. These people absolutely have a right to work non-union, but if they wish to exercise that right, they should do so at a non union contractor. The fact of the matter is, Ron Paul still has my vote, regardless of his stance on unions

jcools
01-16-2012, 02:15 PM
The problem w/ RTW is it bars people's right to assemble,or form a union.Hence this is the Gov't favoring corp's over workers.I don't think the Gov't should be taking sides.

Unknown.User
01-18-2012, 08:31 AM
..

guysenjem
01-20-2012, 06:45 AM
Well RP chastised Santorum last night for not supporting "Right to Work" so I don't think we have to guess anymore about his support for unions/workers. In 2008 he
seemed much friendlier to unions. I think he loses a lot of votes because of this regrettably.

Diablesse
01-20-2012, 06:58 AM
Hello
You are so right!!

bluesc
01-20-2012, 06:59 AM
OK, so he lost your vote. He gained more in SC.

guysenjem
01-21-2012, 09:44 PM
The results in South Carolina shows he has lost a lot more votes that just one. He used to be somewhat supportive of unions. It's counterproductive for him to focus on
this issue. Not only does he lose votes, but unions had absolutely nothing to do with our countries financial mess. Teachers making a still rather meager salary is a
non-issue. You will only lose votes by opposing unions. It's a stupid strategy and a rare change from his historic stance. I believe Scott Walker and the Republican
establishment have successfully influenced Ron Paul on this issue - something once thought impossible.

southernsontn
01-21-2012, 11:18 PM
I think he loses a lot of votes because of this regrettably.

no candidate will match your views 100%, unless you are the candidate. Ron Paul, however, is probably about 99.9% inline with my ideology regardless of the right to work issue.

Paulitics 2011
01-21-2012, 11:37 PM
The results in South Carolina shows he has lost a lot more votes that just one. He used to be somewhat supportive of unions. It's counterproductive for him to focus on
this issue. Not only does he lose votes, but unions had absolutely nothing to do with our countries financial mess. Teachers making a still rather meager salary is a
non-issue. You will only lose votes by opposing unions. It's a stupid strategy and a rare change from his historic stance. I believe Scott Walker and the Republican
establishment have successfully influenced Ron Paul on this issue - something once thought impossible.

Rand supported it in 2010 I believe, and Ron never said that unions were responsible for the financial mess. He does, however, support Right-To-Work laws.

RTW is big in SC.

thoughtomator
01-21-2012, 11:39 PM
Tell them they're getting a monster raise with a 0% income tax, and that their pension funds are screwed if we don't end the Fed now.