Rick Scott's Union Breaking

About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums > All Posts > Rick Scott's Union Breaking

Displaying all 3 Forum Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

2011-07-25 05:42 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 942

Rick Scott, among other Republican Governors have been passing union breaking legislation lately. I have always felt a bit of underlying hypocrisy when it comes to the conservatives view on Unions. In a free market, where government stays out of the affairs of business, don't workers have a right to collectively bargain without government stepping in and saying "No, that's not allowed, you must do it "

Seems like unions would be a product of free market, absent of government intervention. Curious what you guys think.

2011-07-25 07:34 PM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

A curious question. Open shop laws in right-to-work states are framed like a civil rights issue by rightwingers. However, open shop laws deny the right of management and employers to come to terms mutually on an agreement that prevents the employer from hiring non-union workers. Management can't even agree to it. It's simply unlawful. If they refuse to hire someone who's not a union member or willing to join, they're breaking the law.

The entire notion of the "free market" is widely dubious. For one, laissez-faire ("let be"/"let do" ) was spoken in response to King Louis XIV's interference with the means of production. Instead of regulating to protect liberty, King Louis' government took things a step further in actually regulating the quality of produced items, not as a matter of consumer protection or public safety, but to protect the integrity of the French brand. One sees the legacy of such state-backed bourgeois protectionism in French wine laws, and Francophone state promotion.
But the merchants did not say to King Louis....don't protect my property rights, or recognize and enforce any contracts that I have with people, or provide for the dredging of ports, construction of canals, or the maintence of waterways in any form......they just wanted government out of a central planning dictatorial role in imposing asthetic standards for the production and supply of physical inventory.
(It's like government having final say on the menus of restaurants).

Anyways, I'll think about this some more.

2011-07-26 12:11 AM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Basicaly, union-busting laws are the equivalent of regulating unions to death.

These laws pile on the hoops required for certification and prolong, delay, and weaken the capacity for arbitration in disputes.

Under FDR, this nation sought to reduce the extent and disruptiveness of labor strikes, through tri-parte left corporatism--with government stepping in as a referee in disputes b/n labor & business. Employers and laborers were confered rights, while they were also limited in other capacities (certain industries couldn't strike, employers could not fire union members, etc.).

It wasn't one sided, but FDR is generally credited with helping workers make real wage gains and helping to cool labor unrest that threatened vital industries (sometimes with force).

By the 1930s, labor disputes had boiled over for decades into violent public melees.... ...this alone justifies state action to regulate private employment disputes. By setting up systems of administrative law governing the workplace and unions, both at the national and state level, government provides needed frameworks for mitigating labor disputes and providing relief to those whose rights have been violated.

The thing is these administrative law systems, while helping to facilitate state action, tend to provide cover to business too (ex: caps on fines & damages). While those whose rights have been violated can sue in a court of law for damages, many can't afford a lawyer, or wait it out for a verdict. And in the case of discrimination, employees can't seek punitive damages in federal and state court when intent is lacking, but they may be able to recover lost wages when the Equal Employment & Opportunity Commission recognizes the existence of "disparate impact."

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES