Wisconsin Union Law Upheld

BenBurch said:
No, Newton's Bit, because I can point to real Unions who really picket with their own members whiile still acknowledging that some are fairly pitiful.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're falling for No True Scotsman as well. What percentage of unions have to exhibit this trait for it to be a trait of unions?? 100%? 99%? 50%? 10% I don't know. I don't even know how many do this. However the union that hired non-union fake picketers against Wal-Mart represents just under 10% of all union members in the country. The one in WildCat's WSJ links makes up ~3% of all union members if you include its parent organization. That's a lot.

Which is why I said it was "bordering" on No True Scotsman. Mattus is dismissing the argument because it's not all unions and provides one he was associated with as anecdotal evidence.

Cool. It's still bordering on No True Scotsman.
 
Maybe unions should picket the unions who hire non-union labor? Preferably with union labor. ;)
 
Newtons Bit said:
Which is why I said it was "bordering" on No True Scotsman. Mattus is dismissing the argument because it's not all unions and provides one he was associated with as anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not dismissing the argument at all, merely clarifying it as an over-generalization. Some unions do this, no doubt, but not all of them. You seem to assume that most unions do this, but what evidence do you have to support that assertion? Why are you over-generalizing based upon one article you read?

Cool. It's still bordering on No True Scotsman.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking there's a lot of straw in your arguments. You seem unwilling to look at the context and nuances of the argument I'm making and merely wish to dismiss it as "bordering on NTS". Nice.
 
So when I stated that my union doesn't engage in this sort of behavior, you're essentially calling me a liar?

Classy
Click to expand...

So you have no idea what the No True Scotsman fallacy is, do you?

MattusMaximus said:
No, I'm not dismissing the argument at all, merely clarifying it as an over-generalization. Some unions do this, no doubt, but not all of them. You seem to assume that most unions do this, but what evidence do you have to support that assertion?
Click to expand...

Try reading the rest of the post.
 
WildCat said:
:rolleyes:

What a nonsensical statement, as if state bureaucrats unionized because US military life can be hard.
Click to expand...

WildCat said:
Not utter nonsense. The unions are paying minimum wage to people to picket for them. They certainly aren't offering them health insurance and other benefits either.
Click to expand...

Assuming your facts are correct... Is it wrong for unions to do this? Why or why not?

I see no conflict or hypocrisy here. Picketing is not a skilled-trade at all. Now, if you can point to a picket sign union that the other unions avoided, then you may have a point.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like we're going back to the days of the Robber Barons where workers had virtually no rights whatsoever.

bikerdruid

WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!
Click to expand...

You don't think the power-elite would be willing to exploit people with exactly your sentiment?

Firstly, they could create an astroturfing left-wing movement (The TEA Party was already an effective astroturfing right-wing movement). Secondly, they could use it as a threat to justify expanded government powers to monitor everybody; alternatively, they could use it to produce a revolution, similar to one in Africa which would either lead to: A crack down in which an internet kill switch would be used to disable the whole internet leaving most people unable to communicate, at which point a crackdown would present; A revolution that is "successful" in that it overthrows those currently in power -- regardless it wouldn't really produce a worker's paradise -- it would simply be the front to justify an all encompassing totalitarian world government.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Not utter nonsense. The unions are paying minimum wage to people to picket for them. They certainly aren't offering them health insurance and other benefits either.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...75362763101099660.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook

So, here we have unions hiring non-union labor to protest a company for hiring non-union labor. :boggled:
Click to expand...



Perhaps the picketers should form their own union. Then, if they are not happy, they can go on strike against the union that is hiring them.
 
thaiboxerken said:
.I see no conflict or hypocrisy here
Click to expand...

Then the fault is in your vision. Unions say they are about workers fighting for thier own rights. Hiring somebody else to do that fighting is therefore hypocritical. Any union that engages in this does lose a lot of credibility in my eyes.

Also any workers that support thier union doing this are just as bad. If you feel that your working conditions are so bad that a strike or pickiting is neccesary to change things, then get off your lazy butt and do it yourself. If you are not even willing to picket for yourself, then you probably don't deserve whatever benefits the union may get for you.

Note: This is not an argument that all or most unions engage in this behaviour, but a claim that those that do are extremely hypocritical.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I was serious. Enlisted guys work in horrible environments and conditions, even in peace time.
Click to expand...

No, they do not. They work in excellent conditions more often than not. When they do not, it is invariably because training requires them to be in conditions that mimic those they are likely to experience in combat.

Soldiers (and I suspect the members of the lesser services as well) live in private rooms with a shared bath and kitchen. These rooms have heat and AC, hot and cold water, cable television and high-speed internet access, and land line telephones.

When Soldiers are not conducting field training, they work in conditions that are much like their civilian counterparts. Office and clerical workers work in offices, mechanics work in air conditioned and heated garages, etc.

Enlisted Soldiers are exceptionally well paid and enjoy tremendous benefits - 30 days of paid vacation from day 1, free medical and dental, free education (Actually, better than free. They get paid to go to school), exceptional home buying guarantees, subsidized tax free shopping, free space available air travel for them and their family........

Sweat shop conditions? Hardly.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I'll take that as a no.
Click to expand...
"No" to what? Are you seriously claiming that state public employee unions were a response to conditions in the military? It's completely nonsensical.

thaiboxerken said:
Assuming your facts are correct... Is it wrong for unions to do this? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's wrong. It's hypocrisy in its rawest form. "Good jobs for me, but not for thee".

thaiboxerken said:
I see no conflict or hypocrisy here.
Click to expand...
That's because you don't want to see it.

thaiboxerken said:
Picketing is not a skilled-trade at all.
Click to expand...
How is that even relevant? The guy who screws the door panel onto a car at a UAW auto plant isn't engaged in a skilled trade either. Neither is a SEIU hotel maid.

thaiboxerken said:
Now, if you can point to a picket sign union that the other unions avoided, then you may have a point.
Click to expand...
Not only did they hire non-unon workers (to do a job uion workers don't want to do) but they paid them minimum wage with no benefits at all. Aren't unions supposed to be against this sort of thing? The union could hire full-time picketers with good pay and benefits, but they didn't want to spend the cash. Just like the company they were picketing.
 
WildCat said:
Not only did they hire non-unon workers (to do a job uion workers don't want to do) but they paid them minimum wage with no benefits at all. Aren't unions supposed to be against this sort of thing? The union could hire full-time picketers with good pay and benefits, but they didn't want to spend the cash. Just like the company they were picketing.
Click to expand...

For me its worse than that. If the working conditions are such a problem, then why are the workers that are actually effected by this not willing to picket to improve thier lot. If you are not willing to spend a few hours a day on a picket line to improve your working conditions then maybe your working conditions are really not as bad as you claim.
 
cwalner said:
For me its worse than that. If the working conditions are such a problem, then why are the workers that are actually effected by this not willing to picket to improve thier lot. If you are not willing to spend a few hours a day on a picket line to improve your working conditions then maybe your working conditions are really not as bad as you claim.
Click to expand...


And, perhaps, if the union can afford to outsource its labor, maybe the wages for the union employees are a bit high.
 
cwalner said:
For me its worse than that. If the working conditions are such a problem, then why are the workers that are actually effected by this not willing to picket to improve thier lot. If you are not willing to spend a few hours a day on a picket line to improve your working conditions then maybe your working conditions are really not as bad as you claim.
Click to expand...
You're misunderstanding. They're not protesting working conditions, just the fact that the company isn't using union workers. The union picketing (or paying the picketers anyway) doesn't have any members at all working in the company they're picketing.

It's like when unions picket WalMart, none of the unions actually have members who work at WalMart. They're protesting the fact that WalMart isn't unionized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom