desert dude
Well-Known Member
I think Cheesus must have voted for this.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/michigan-lawmakers-pass-right-to-work-le
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/michigan-lawmakers-pass-right-to-work-le
Union extortion now illegal in Michigan
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
desert dude
Well-Known Member
It is also a "right to work for more" state, and a "right to work for the same amount" state. It is also a, "right to choose whether to join a union, or not" state.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Worker extortion still completely legal for US corporations in third world countries who outsource our jobs to slaves. How can we compete with that? If we need jobs, we have to become slaves.
Bourgeoisie gonna bourgeois.
Bourgeoisie gonna bourgeois.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
You're being a bit generous in your use of the word slave. It isn't strengthening either the word or the argument imo. cn
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Worker extortion still completely legal for US corporations in third world countries who outsource our jobs to slaves. How can we compete with that? If we need jobs, we have to become slaves.
Bourgeoisie gonna bourgeois.
Not Buck, he don't need no steenking job!
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
He is a feminist, nothing wrong with that. Why hate?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Two dollars a day is a common wage paid by US corporations to third world workers. If the cost of keeping slaves in the US south in the 18th and 19th centuries was more than that (considering what would be worth 2 dollars in the money of the time) then yes, slave is the correct word to use.
Even a small amount of research will show that I am being very generous by saying two dollars a day. On that note, southern plantation owners were known to feed black slaves well since they wanted them to work so hard.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Hate? Not me, I only have love and envy in my heart for Buck.
He snagged a woman who is content to work and pay the bills while he stays home playing with his big, black cock. My wife is not nearly so generous.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Wage inflation has been running at 15% per annum in China. Damn slaves don't know their place!
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
You're avoiding the core of it: slavery is about outright ownership of humans by other humans. "Wage slavery" isn't de jure slavery; even so it obtains under specific conditions.
A low paycheck is not sufficient to qualify a 3rd-world worker as a wage slave. If that worker makes enough to save money, even a little bit, the requisites for wage slavery aren't in place.
I do think you're overusing the word slavery for its rhetorical impact, and harming that impact in the process. cn
canndo
Well-Known Member
that is how Michigan got taken. Tout Choice and "fairness" and you will have the support of the people, who really havn't examined the issue very closely. You have the right not to be a member of a union, by not working for a union shop. So what really happens? someone works for a company that has a union but they get all the benefits of that union's presence without having to pay - how nice, except that few will do otherwise and so the union will wither and die from lack of funds. How nice - for the company and management because sooner or later... no union. Sooner or later... no need to adhere to union contracts and.... no union protection. I talk to people all the time who can't see any use for unions but have all of the advantages of what unions enforced in other competing companies. Eventually those advantages will go away if unions do.
So a company now has no union, nor does any of it's competetors. What exactly is now stopping them from enforceing a 9 hour work day? How about 10? or 12?
The point is that we are slowly being indoctrinated into believing that any work at all is good work, like all the folks who are down on the bakers union for shuttering Hostess. Sure Hostess management was trying to reduce wages over the course of 5 years even though they had no idea of what the state of the economy might be but at least, so the argument goes, those thousands of folks had a job!
Never mind that Management wound up spending all of the pension money on operations and paid themselves bonuses while they were doing so.
Is it really best that there be no unions Desert Dude? as that is what is going to happen in Michigan.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Maybe I should invest in "bonds"! cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Abandon, really?? cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr.colombia
Subjects in Colombia ought to learn their place. Maybe the US military can spray more herbicides on the rain forest.
Subjects in Colombia ought to learn their place. Maybe the US military can spray more herbicides on the rain forest.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
People are usually willing to pay for something that is valuable to them. Some guy came to my door selling magazines and I declined.
I have absolutely no problem whatever with unions. Unions are selling a service. They need to work to sell their services just like the rest of us.
What has happened in multiple states, California a PRIME example, is that unions of state employees have taken over the legislature and looted the public treasury, which will almost certainly result in California's bankruptcy. As a California citizen I have a vested interest in opposing the state government unions. I agree with FDR, unions representing government employees is an oxymoron and they should be outlawed.
canndo
Well-Known Member
What is realy going on is the seeding of the word "slave" because it is still, even with the misuse of the concept, a hot button word, it connotes evil and causes people's hackles to be raised.
No, what is more proper is serfdom. Those who wind up giving up all of their earnings are serfs. In the end, and this is what we are headed for more rapidly every year, is a large class of people who do not have any personal property, they cannot show any net personal worth, they have no savings, they have no land and they are being rendered incapable of achieving that. What is the difference between a family that works the land for a land barron, a king or a lord and someone who rents his appartment, and works the hours he does to do nothing more than pay all of his bills, getting a tiny bit in debt every month?
That person is free to leave, legaly. He does not fear separation from his family, he is not physcialy punished and he cannot be sold but he does "come with the land". He is tied to it and must work it for the enrichment of the owner of that land and not for himself. With the destruction of unions, the working middle class will look more and more like those little towns where all the production, the profit and the wealth flows directly from the land to the owner.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I think you nailed it, canndo. cn
canndo
Well-Known Member
you aren't seeing the true purpose of the new law Desert Dude. Do you really think that the law was intended to offer workers a choice? Do you for a moment actually believe that the law had anything to do with protecting workers?
Now we might find some agreement that there may not be a place in government for unions, at least not unions with the sort of clout that normal, private worker's unions have. But this is not the case. This has little to do with state employee unions,it has to do with a direct attack on unions themselves.
How exactly are you going to convince a worker that he needs to pay union dues when he gets the exact same benefits without paying? It may be possible to expalain that if he does not pay, then the union that now protects him will wither, but it is unlikely. Hell, I know what happens and I, in that same situation may not opt to pay figuring that by the time the union fails, I will be out of there.
It is clear that business is using this current sentiment against public workers unions to attempt to unravel all unions and it appears to be working rather handily for them.
Similar threads
