Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: The Right To Work is Unconstitutional in Wisconsin

  1. #1

    The Right To Work is Unconstitutional in Wisconsin

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...constitutional
    Wisconsin right-to-work law struck down by court as unconstitutional

    Right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements that require all workers, not just union members, to pay union dues

    Associated Press
    Friday 8 April 2016 19.09 EDT Last modified on Friday 8 April 2016 20.28 EDT

    Wisconsin’s so-called “right-to-work” law, championed by Republican governor Scott Walker as he was mounting his run for president, was struck down on Friday as violating the state constitution.

    Wisconsin’s attorney general, Brad Schimel, also a Republican, promised to appeal against the decision and said he was confident it would not stand. Schimel has not made a decision on whether to seek an immediate suspension of the ruling while the appeal is pending, spokesman Johnny Koremenos said.

    “We are confident Wisconsin’s freedom-to-work law is constitutional and will ultimately be upheld,” Walker wrote on Twitter.

    Three unions filed the lawsuit last year shortly after Walker signed the bill into law. So-called right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements that require all workers, not just union members, to pay union dues. Twenty-four other states have such laws.

    The unions argued that Wisconsin’s law was an unconstitutional seizure of union property since unions now must extend benefits to workers who don’t pay dues. Dane County circuit judge William Foust agreed.

    Continued...

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    "The unions argued that Wisconsin’s law was an unconstitutional seizure of union property since unions now must extend benefits to workers who don’t pay dues. Dane County circuit judge William Foust agreed."

    "He said the law amounts to an unconstitutional governmental taking of union funds without compensation, since under the law unions must represent people who don’t pay dues. That presents an existential threat to unions, Foust wrote."


    I can agree with this.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  4. #3
    First line sums it up:

    Right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  5. #4
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/mis...im_2015_04.pdf

    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/acts/1

    under the law unions must represent people who don’t pay dues
    I'm not sure I understand that. Can someone cite that statement from the Act?
    Last edited by presence; 04-08-2016 at 08:24 PM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by The Count View Post
    First line sums it up: Right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements
    [/COLOR]
    That is not the first line. You changed the meaning by leaving out the most important part of the sentence.
    The actual quote is: "Right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements that require all workers, not just union members, to pay union dues."
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  7. #6
    Judge strikes down Wisconsin right-to-work law

    WBAY - ‎4 hours ago‎
    Today, the courts put a needed check on Scott Walker's attacks on working families by ruling that Wisconsin's Right to Work law is in violation of our state constitution… Right to Work goes against the Wisconsin principles of fairness and democracy ...




    Update: Court strikes down Wisconsin right-to-work law

    fox6now.com - ‎4 hours ago‎
    MADISON — A Wisconsin court has struck down the state's right-to-work law championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker, calling it unconstitutional. A Dane County Circuit Court judge issued the ruling Friday in a lawsuit filed by local unions. Wisconsin ...





    Wisconsin judge voids Walker-backed right-to-work law

    Politico - ‎3 hours ago‎
    In yet another election-year blow to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a judge threw out a state right-to-work law that played no small role in his rise as an anti-union crusader. Judge C. William Foust ruled today for two unions that challenged the 2015 ...





    Wisconsin Judge Strikes Down Scott Walker's Right-To-Work Law As Unconstitutional

    Huffington Post - ‎2 hours ago‎
    MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down the state's right-to-work law, saying the measure is unconstitutional by banning unions from charging fees to non-union workers for certain services, court papers showed. Dane County Judge ...



    Court rules Wisconsin right-to-work law is unconstitutional

    TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press - ‎1 hour ago‎
    MADISON, Wis. — A Dane County judge on Friday struck down Wisconsin's right-to-work law, finding it violated the state constitution. Attorney General Brad Schimel said he would appeal and felt confident it would ultimately be upheld, noting every ...



    Judge strikes down Wisconsin's right-to-work law

    Hot Air - ‎3 hours ago‎
    Attorney General Brad Schimel has announced plans to appeal the ruling and issued a statement saying, “We are extremely disappointed that the Dane County Circuit Court struck down Wisconsin's right-to-work law, but we are confident the law will be ...





    Dane County judge strikes down Wisconsin's right-to-work law

    Watchdog.org - ‎3 hours ago‎
    Dane County Circuit Court Judge William Foust on Friday struck down Wisconsin's year-old right-to-work law, asserting that labor unions have a property right to employees' wages. That argument has been rejected by multiple courts and right-to-work ...





    Dane County judge strikes down Wisconsin's right-to-work law, state vows legal fight

    The Daily Cardinal - ‎2 hours ago‎
    In a staggering decision Friday, a Dane County judge threw out Wisconsin's year-old right-to-work law, saying it violated Wisconsin's constitution. In the first known instance of a right-to-work law being struck down by a court, Dane County Circuit ...





    Court: Right-to-work law unconstitutional (UPDATE)

    Daily Reporter - ‎4 hours ago‎
    Mary Will (left) with Local 68, and Corey Smith, with Local 113, chant “Union Strong'” during a rally inside the Wisconsin state Capitol as the state Assembly debates the right-to-work bill in Madison on March 5, 2015. (AP File Photo/Wisconsin State ...



    Judge strikes down right-to-work law

    Channel3000.com - WISC-TV3 - ‎2 hours ago‎
    Foust wrote in the order that Wisconsin's year-old right-to-work law created a "free-rider problem," which is "the ability of non-members to refuse to pay for services unions are compelled to provide by law." The Wisconsin AFL-CIO, Machinists Local ...





    Dane County judge strikes down Right-to-Work law
    WKOW - ‎4 hours ago‎
    MADISON (WKOW) --- Wisconsin is no longer a Right-to-Work state, after a Dane County Judge struck down the law that prevents private sector unions from requiring workers to join or pay dues as a condition of employment. Judge William Foust agreed with ...





    Dane County judge strikes down Wisconsin Right-to-Work law

    Wisconsin Radio Network - ‎4 hours ago‎
    The decision released Friday comes out of a lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin AFL-CIO and other unions, which argued the law signed in March of 2015 amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property. Right-to-work laws prohibit companies from making union ...





    Madison judge strikes down state's right-to-work law

    BizTimes.com (Milwaukee) - ‎4 hours ago‎
    However, that didn't stop a lone Dane County Circuit Court judge from ruling against Wisconsin's Right to Work law on extremely questionable grounds. According to the Court's dubious reasoning, the State of Wisconsin cannot protect employees from union ...



    Dane County Judge: Wisconsin'sRight to Work” law unconstitutional

    The National Law Review - ‎3 hours ago‎
    In a decision issued April 8, 2016, Dane County Circuit Court Judge William Foust ruled that Wisconsin'sRight to Work” law violates the Wisconsin Constitution because it takes union property without just compensation (i.e., it is an unlawful taking ...





    Court Strikes Down Wisconsin's Right-to-Work Law

    WUWM - ‎4 hours ago‎
    The law lets workers decide whether or not to pay union dues. Several unions sued the state after Gov. Walker signed right-to-work into law about a year ago. They insist it unconstitutionally seizes union property by requiring unions to extend benefits ...



    Judge rules state's right-to-work law is unconstitutional

    Wisconsin Gazette - ‎2 hours ago‎
    A judge struck down Wisconsin's right-to-work law, which prohibits businesses and unions from making agreements that require all workers, not just union members, to pay union dues. Three unions filed a suit challenging the law shortly after Gov.



    Wis. Judge Strikes Down Right-to-Work Law

    Courthouse News Service - ‎1 hour ago‎
    Though Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel was quick to point out Friday that no such challenge has survived in any other state, Frederick Perillo of Milwaukee-based The Previant Law Firm argued at the March 2015 hearing that Wisconsin is different ...





    Judge throws out right-to-work law

    WISN Milwaukee - ‎4 hours ago‎
    "We are extremely disappointed that the Dane County Circuit Court struck down Wisconsin's right-to-work law, but we are confident the law will be held up in appeal," said Schimel in a statement. Gov. Scott Walker championed the law. More than half of ...





    Unions Get a Big Win as Judge Tosses Out Scott Walker's Unconstitutional Anti-Union Law

    PoliticusUSA - ‎2 hours ago‎
    After long last, unions got a big win today in Wisconsin as Judge C. William Foust tossed out Governor Scott Walker's “right to work” for less law, saying it violated the Wisconsin constitution. This definitely puts a dent in the anti-union cred of ...

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    That is not the first line. You changed the meaning by leaving out the most important part of the sentence.
    The actual quote is: "Right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements that require all workers, not just union members, to pay union dues."
    yes but his point is... its an agreement.

    Why should one association not be able to forge an agreement with a company regardless of what some other 3rd party wishes?

    In December 2012, libertarian writer J.D. Tuccille, in Reason magazine, wrote: "I consider the restrictions right-to-work laws impose on bargaining between unions and businesses to violate freedom of contract and association. ... I'm disappointed that the state has, once again, inserted itself into the marketplace to place its thumb on the scale in the never-ending game of playing business and labor off against one another. ... This is not to say that unions are always good. It means that, when the state isn't involved, they're private organizations that can offer value to their members."[25]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
    Last edited by presence; 04-08-2016 at 08:33 PM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  9. #8
    Every Conservative victory gets struck down by courts.
    Stop believing stupid things



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    That is not the first line. You changed the meaning by leaving out the most important part of the sentence.
    The actual quote is: "Right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements that require all workers, not just union members, to pay union dues."
    I'm not sure what you're going for here. If that is an agreement that the employer has made, then the workers have the option to not work for that employer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    yes but his point is... its an agreement. Why should one association not be able to forge an agreement with a company regardless of what some other 3rd party wishes?
    That's a great point for voluntary agreements. However collective bargaining agreements are not voluntary due to government interference in the first place.

    Yes workers should have the right to form collective union. Yes an employer should be able to forge voluntary agreement. However collective bargaining should not be compulsory for the employer either. An employer should also have the right not to choose to enter collective bargaining. This is where the hand of government has interfered to prevent free voluntary choice.

    The National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151–169 (aka Wagner Act) created the National Labor Relations Board, which conducts elections that force employers to engage in collective bargaining with labor unions if the Board certifies that a majority of workers voted for the union. The NLRB makes collective bargaining mandatory for the employer when a majority of workers vote for it. Thus they are forced into collective bargaining whether they wish to or not.

    Further the NLRA makes it illegal for the employer to deal separately with workers who don't want to be represented by the union.

    Additionally, the NLRA forces employers to to bargain under coercion by imposing a threat of litigation and damages if they don't bargain in "good faith."

    Forced collective bargaining, under threat of coercion, and under restriction making it illegal for an employer to bargain with employees separately even when they do not wish to be represented by the union - is by no means a voluntary agreement. It is aggressive use of force back by the violence of government. It is completely incompatible with the concepts of free choice, free, civil liberties and the libertarian non-aggression principal.
    Last edited by AZJoe; 04-08-2016 at 09:22 PM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    I'm not sure what you're going for here. If that is an agreement that the employer has made, then the workers have the option to not work for that employer.
    "If that is the agreement the employer has made" then there is no need for the NLRA. The fact the NLRA exists reveals the employer is not necessarily making the agreement, but rather is coerced into it by the NLRA. The NLRA forces an employer into collective bargaining, denies the the right to bargain with non-union employees separately, and forces them to bargain in what the government determines to be "good faith" under threat of coercion.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  14. #12
    Still not sure where you're going with this. Bad legislation is needed because other bad legislation exists? The NLRA restricts an employer's rights, so we need further restrictions to both the employee and the employer's rights to balance that out?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Still not sure where you're going with this. Bad legislation is needed because other bad legislation exists? The NLRA restricts an employer's rights, so we need further restrictions to both the employee and the employer's rights to balance that out?
    It's quite simple.

    I want to work for X employer, but I hate unions because they're archaic relics from an era of mobsters and are essentially just fat-cat middlemen who don't give me much in return for mandatory dues and run around endorsing democrat candidates (that I also hate.)

    However, the employer, who would like to hire me, is bound by NLRA legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with me.

    See? NLRA restricts both the rights of me, the employee, as well as rights of the employer. I don't want to deal with the middleman. He can F'k off for all I care.

    Ideally, yes, just repeal NLRA. But since that's not likely to ever happen, republican states have to enact laws such as Right-to-Work laws.

    These Right-to-Work laws don't restrict the rights of unions to exist whatsoever, it just causes them have to actually do something to demonstrate their worth to potential new hires, rather than just demand dues for f'king breathing air.
    Last edited by nobody's_hero; 04-09-2016 at 03:36 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.

  16. #14
    So called "fair-share" union members neither are any longer entitled to union participation as are other members, yet are expected to pay a very slightly reduced fee.

    If unions are really worth their salt, then their members would happily pay for their aid and safety. How though is it not unconstitutional--and much more so--to compel unwilling individuals to pay for "services" they are uninterested in on the theory they are subjectively benefiting as a result just because they has sought work with an employer on a hook to comply with federal and state law? And where did the federal government acquire the power to mandate such laws as applicable to intrastate businesses?
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020

    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Still not sure where you're going with this. Bad legislation is needed because other bad legislation exists? The NLRA restricts an employer's rights, so we need further restrictions to both the employee and the employer's rights to balance that out?
    Not sure how you conclude it is bad legislation when a State takes the initiative to partially dilute the effects of bad federal legislation, and partially defuse the union monopoly status granted and enforced by the power of the federal government. It is very unfortunate that the federal government distorted the marketplace in the first place, making it necessary to finds ways to neutralize those federal dictates. However it is a positive for freedom for a State to neutralize bad federal laws.

    The unions cry that they must have their monopoly protection enforced by the violence of government to force dues from consumers who do not wish to purchase union services.

    As nobody's_hero acutely points out, by losing its monopoly protection the union is not restricted from selling its services at all. Rather the union now must proffer services that the consumer finds desirable enough to purchase and at a price the consumer employee is willing to pay, just like any other entity selling its services.

    Unions existed prior to the NLRA granting monopoly status because there was a perceived benefit. They can exist without monopoly protection, and if a particular union cannot, then like any obsolete product in the marketplace it shouldn’t. However there are plenty of services innovative unions can offer - in addition to collective bargaining, health insurance, legal representation, life insurance, travel insurance, roadside assistance, transportation, education, investment, finance, training, housing discounts, any manner of assistance, discounts on any measure of products or services, and on and on. Further a union can make itself desirable for employers to actively seek a union. A union in demand with workers can implement quality control standards for membership (just as a highly rated university can set high standards for enrollment) - education and training and skills levels, as well as standards of work ethics such as a pledge to be on time, no no-shows, highest quality standards of work, etc. A quality certification standard. Thereby creating a demand for employer's to seek out union employees, and at the same time increases the demand from workers to want be part of that union and and get that union certification standard. The possibilities and creative ideas are endless, and far too many to list or for one person to even think up. This is the blessing of the free market - everyone benefits. By making market transactions voluntary, all parties must benefit the others to benefit themselves.

    But so long as the federal monopoly protection exists, there is very little incentive for unions to progress and innovate and advance. It stifles productivity. It stifles progress. It stifles creativity.
    Last edited by AZJoe; 04-09-2016 at 09:14 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    The NLRB makes collective bargaining mandatory for the employer when a majority of workers vote for it. Thus they are forced into collective bargaining whether they wish to or not.
    always that moral hazard created by .gov regulation that needs another .gov regulation to keep it in check

    State intervention inevitably fails due to the inherent flaws as highlighted by Austrian political economy. Interventionism distorts prices, disrupts the competitive discovery process, and is socially harmful. Disintervention is posed as a solution, yet typical disintervention is often a centrally planned solution to the problems inherent to central planning.

    []


    Interventionism is distortive, disruptive, and potentially socially destructive because it attempts to defy the criticisms and possibilities of centralized planning according to the market process view of the dynamic market. Yet disintervention faces the same problems. When disintervening, political actors with necessarily limited information and knowledge must somehow decide, not only what to liberalize, but how and when. It is perhaps these latter considerations which are the truly crucial elements for successful disintervention. "Crude" disinterventionism enacted without understanding the complex interactions that occur between an intervention, other interventions, and the dynamic market process may very well lead to cascading negative unintended consequences.

    - Kyle O’Donnell
    Thread: Planning the End of Planning: Disintervention and the Knowledge Problem


    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...




  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    As was pointed out, if one does not wish to pay any union fees one is free to choose another job. If you don't like the conditions of employment, choose another employer. (noting that most "high paying jobs" people complain are disappearing were union jobs at some point).

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    As was pointed out, if one does not wish to pay any union fees one is free to choose another job. If you don't like the conditions of employment, choose another employer. (noting that most "high paying jobs" people complain are disappearing were union jobs at some point).
    What an ignorant retort.


    ETA:

    If it is constitutional to compel it then it by deductive reasoning it must be constitutional to restrain it.
    Last edited by Weston White; 04-09-2016 at 12:42 PM.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020

    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    However, the employer, who would like to hire me, is bound by NLRA legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with me.
    The employer is in not bound in any such way by the NLRA. If the employer chooses to enter into a contract with a union, that's a different matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    These Right-to-Work laws don't restrict the rights of unions to exist whatsoever, it just causes them have to actually do something to demonstrate their worth to potential new hires, rather than just demand dues for f'king breathing air.
    As mentioned in the article, the law required the union to provide union services to non-member employees. That's certainly designed to prevent their existence. Would you open a bakery if a law said that you had to give away bread regardless of whether your customer paid?
    Last edited by TheCount; 04-09-2016 at 04:47 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    What an ignorant retort.


    ETA:

    If it is constitutional to compel it then it by deductive reasoning it must be constitutional to restrain it.

    It is constitutional for a private business owner to compel membership as a condition of employment.

    It is not constitutional for the government to compel or restrain membership.


    The difference is who is doing the compelling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount
    As mentioned in the article, the law required the union to provide union services to non-member employees. That's certainly designed to prevent their existence. Would you open a bakery if a law said that you had to give away bread regardless of whether your customer paid?
    The union's elected board of directors votes on whether or not to help their coworkers. Fair share members have zero voice, even though they are still required to pay almost as much other union members. It is not that they are being provided services per se, but that they are supposedly benefiting from their MOU--which is largely subjective from one employee to the next.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount
    It is constitutional for a private business owner to compel membership as a condition of employment.

    It is not constitutional for the government to compel or restrain membership.

    The difference is who is doing the compelling.
    Could an employer require you to make donations or contributions to third-parties using their own personal compensation? Where is the line to be drawn:

    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
    ETA:

    Is this sort of like FedGov can compel labors to purchase benefits from third-parties? laff!
    Last edited by Weston White; 04-09-2016 at 09:56 PM.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020

    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    The employer is in not bound in any such way by the NLRA.
    Guess again. Reread the NLRA. As I highlighted below:

    The NLRB makes collective bargaining mandatory for the employer when a majority of workers vote for it. Thus they are forced into collective bargaining whether they wish to or not.

    Further the NLRA makes it illegal for the employer to deal separately with workers who don't want to be represented by the union.

    Additionally, the NLRA forces employers to bargain under coercion by imposing a threat of litigation and damages if they don't bargain in what government bureaucrats decide is "good faith."
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    Guess again. Reread the NLRA. As I highlighted below:
    Guess again again. The NLRA specifically says:

    For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession
    The only requirement is to show up to the meetings and bargain "in good faith" but you don't have to actually accept any result of the bargaining.


    In addition, this same obligation is put upon the union itself:

    (3) to refuse to bargain collectively with an employer, provided it is the representative of his employees subject to the provisions of section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title];
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    The union's elected board of directors votes on whether or not to help their coworkers.
    That's not what Wisconsin law says.

    6. If an employee does not pay union dues, then is the employee still represented by the union? Yes. The Right-to-Work legislation does not change the underlying obligation of the employer to negotiate in good faith with an exclusive collective bargaining representative over wages, hours, and conditions of employment. Further, the union still has a "duty of fair representation," which obligates the union to represent an employee's interests without regard to any decision the employee may make about paying dues to the union. The union must still represent the employee's interests at the bargaining table, and must be willing to enforce any contractual rights the employee may have while administering the contract on a day-to-day basis.
    http://www.natlawreview.com/article/...sked-questions


    Thus, the law forces unions to represent non-paying employees, discouraging membership. This is like saying "I think that city fire fighting services should be a voluntarily paid service, but still be obligated to respond to non-payers." If you try to have it both ways, you will bankrupt the system by encouraging leechers to receive services without paying, similar to most public goods.






    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    Could an employer require you to make donations or contributions to third-parties using their own personal compensation? Where is the line to be drawn:
    You can't compare this to involuntary servitude when employment is by definition voluntary. The line is drawn at the fact that employees can leave at any time. If an employer wants to enforce onerous or unreasonable conditions of employment, the labor market will respond accordingly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    Is this sort of like FedGov can compel labors to purchase benefits from third-parties? laff!
    Difference being you can't quit the government.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Guess again again. The NLRA specifically says:



    The only requirement is to show up to the meetings and bargain "in good faith" but you don't have to actually accept any result of the bargaining.
    So the employer is in-fact obliged by the NLRA, yes? You are merely describing an impasse, ending frequently with a last, best and final offer.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020

    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Thus, the law forces unions to represent non-paying employees, discouraging membership. This is like saying "I think that city fire fighting services should be a voluntarily paid service, but still be obligated to respond to non-payers." If you try to have it both ways, you will bankrupt the system by encouraging leechers to receive services without paying, similar to most public goods.
    If the members feel the services are worthwhile they will gladly pay, which encourages union representatives to work and continue working hard--otherwise their operations will be unsustainable and will have to terminate the union, which is a process afforded to union members as well, to put up a majority vote to dissolve their union. Otherwise, you will have leeches sitting in a cushy job, doing nothing to the benefit of their members and yet somehow are always reelected to continue representing the union.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    You can't compare this to involuntary servitude when employment is by definition voluntary. The line is drawn at the fact that employees can leave at any time. If an employer wants to enforce onerous or unreasonable conditions of employment, the labor market will respond accordingly.
    Wearing clothing is by definition voluntary, yet go about your life in the nude, ...enjoy the results. No, working cannot be thought to be voluntary, so far as the average individual is concerned; however, whom you work for my likely be voluntary. The labor market cannot "respond" when the employment market is bottle-necked.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020

    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    So the employer is in-fact obliged by the NLRA, yes? You are merely describing an impasse, ending frequently with a last, best and final offer.
    Not obliged in the way described by nobody's_hero, which is what I was replying to in the first place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    If the members feel the services are worthwhile they will gladly pay
    This is entirely contrary to human nature. Very few people will pay for a service that they can otherwise receive for free. Just ask my local independent public radio station, which will be going off the air at the end of the month.


    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    Wearing clothing is by definition voluntary, yet go about your life in the nude, ...enjoy the results.
    The government results, you mean? It's not voluntary when you'll go to jail otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    No, working cannot be thought to be voluntary, so far as the average individual is concerned; however, whom you work for my likely be voluntary. The labor market cannot "respond" when the employment market is bottle-necked.
    You proved the point in your own words: Whom you work for is voluntary. If there is more than one employer in a field and area, then if any one of them were to require something outrageous of their employees, the labor market absolutely would respond. This could be in the form of demanding higher pay or greater benefits from that employer in exchange for whatever is being required as part of the labor contract, by refusing to work for that employer altogether, or by offering their services at a lower rate to the other employers. Any of these possibilities will competitively disadvantage that employer when compared to the others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Not obliged in the way described by nobody's_hero, which is what I was replying to in the first place.
    Yes such is the case for unionized employments, as the "NLRB makes collective bargaining mandatory for the employer."

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    This is entirely contrary to human nature. Very few people will pay for a service that they can otherwise receive for free. Just ask my local independent public radio station, which will be going off the air at the end of the month.
    ..."which will be going off the air at the end of the month." And such is the ultimate result of not paying for something you actually want. So the saying goes, in the end, expect to receive what you pay for. Nothing.

    Otherwise, 7 out of 7 Americans would start claiming qualifications for EBT/WIC and other such "social justice" programs as opposed to just 1 in 7 Americans--then we could see how sustainable such an entitlement system actually is.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    The government results, you mean? It's not voluntary when you'll go to jail otherwise.
    Still it is voluntary, nobody is forcing you to--it all amounts to your own individual willfulness. And the same goes if you do not work, the police can W&I5150 you, place W&I300 holds on your children and place them with CPS, surrender your pets to the SPCA, etc., in cases where you cannot adequately care for yourself or your family (which can include lack of nutritious foods, gas and electric, water services, hygiene, shelter, etc.)


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    You proved the point in your own words: Whom you work for is voluntary. If there is more than one employer in a field and area, then if any one of them were to require something outrageous of their employees, the labor market absolutely would respond. This could be in the form of demanding higher pay or greater benefits from that employer in exchange for whatever is being required as part of the labor contract, by refusing to work for that employer altogether, or by offering their services at a lower rate to the other employers. Any of these possibilities will competitively disadvantage that employer when compared to the others.
    This is only true to a degree, you may be under other contractual obligations, legal obligations, family obligations, and locality also comes into effect, such as living in Detroit and trying to find steady work (or local work around universities/colleges), for example. If the labor market is flowing over with the unemployed, they are compelled to capitulate to the tyranny of employers, just as crime rates--crimes of poverty--consequently increases. Further, the employee/employer relationship must maintain quid pro quo.
    Last edited by Weston White; 04-10-2016 at 09:50 PM.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020

    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •