Michigan legislature passes right to work bill

[strawman]

I actually think it will be more interesting when this happens in California.

Can you imagine a Hollywood where actors and writers can't be blacklisted and never work in the industry again? Where a strike by one group doesn't stop the entire industry for months, causing millions to lose their paychecks because one union feels they aren't getting a big enough cut from blockbusters? Where a movie could be produce by non union amateurs and still be distributed without being blocked by the unions without huge fees and forcing the amateurs to join the unions and pay back dues?

Michigan may be the union poster child, but they are far more heavily invested elsewhere, and have significantly more power over more workers elsewhere.

 

[Krisken]

What should be pointed out is these laws are specifically designed to exclude firefighters and policemen, groups that overwhelmingly lean Republican.

 

[strawman]

Those unions are already severely limited by not being able to strike.

 

[Krisken]

Those unions are already severely limited by not being able to strike.

Wait, is eliminating the ability to go on strike a valid reason for enacting right-to-work laws?

 

[GasBandit]

And you'll get the opposite reaction from Paul Krugman, also a Nobel Prize winning economist.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

My point being, there is no consensus on what is best for the economy, even among experts.

Quote from your link:

"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts."

Quoting a nobel-prize-winning economist on things that are economic matters is not appeal to authority. If I had quoted a politician, it would have been.

As for Krugman, you can quote him too, without being fallacious. Unfortunately, you cannot do it without being wrong.

 

[Krisken]

Quote from your link:

"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts."

Quoting a nobel-prize-winning economist on things that are economic matters is not appeal to authority. If I had quoted a politician, it would have been.

As for Krugman, you can quote him too, without being fallacious. Unfortunately, you cannot do it without being wrong.

Awww, isn't that cute, you think the people who agree with you are right.

 

[GasBandit]

Awww, isn't that cute, you think the people who agree with you are right.

... and you don't think people who agree with you are right? Do you consider yourself to be fundamentally wrong? Or do you have an astounding level of cognitive dissonance that allows you to assert that you are right while people who agree with you are wrong?

 

[tegid]

Wait, is eliminating the ability to go on strike a valid reason for enacting right-to-work laws?

I'll admit that I know nothing about the issue, but about 2 minutes ago I felt very proud of myself for deducing that the name of this kind of bills comes from not being forced to strike when you don't want to. If that's that's true, then not including unions who can't strike makes sense.
If it's about limiting the power of reportedly too powerful unions, it still makes sense to not include the ones that are already impaired.

 

[Krisken]

... and you don't think people who agree with you are right? Do you consider yourself to be fundamentally wrong? Or do you have an astounding level of cognitive dissonance that allows you to assert that you are right while people who agree with you are wrong?

No, I form my own opinion based on what is presented to me, not search out people who agree with me and present it as FACT and everyone else is wrong.

I might not be right, and when I find I'm not I try my best to understand the new position. You keep on acting like we're the same, though.

 

[Tress]

I have one simple question: does anyone think that it's okay for union membership to be required for certain jobs in entire industries, to the point where membership is mandatory and dues are involuntarily taken out of a person's paycheck (even if that person doesn't support the union)?

 

[GasBandit]

No, I form my own opinion based on what is presented to me, not search out people who agree with me and present it as FACT and everyone else is wrong.

I might not be right, and when I find I'm not I try my best to understand the new position. You keep on acting like we're the same, though.

Oh, we're definitely not the same. I'm right, and you're wrong. That's very different

 

[Krisken]

I'll admit that I know nothing about the issue, but about 2 minutes ago I felt very proud of myself for deducing that the name of this kind of bills comes from not being forced to strike when you don't want to. If that's that's true, then not including unions who can't strike makes sense.
If it's about limiting the power of reportedly too powerful unions, it still makes sense to not include the ones that are already impaired.

Here I thought it was called right-to-work because it allowed jobs to not exclude people based on not being part of a union. You could very well be right in that's where the name comes from.[DOUBLEPOST=1355355946][/DOUBLEPOST]

Oh, we're definitely not the same. I'm right, and you're wrong. That's very different

Yeah, ok. You can just keep talking to Charlie if infantile discussion is what you prefer.

 

[GasBandit]

Yeah, ok. You can just keep talking to Charlie if infantile discussion is what you prefer.

I just do that with you, because every time an argument with you really starts getting good you go "whatever bye." So I don't invest the effort any more.

 

[Krisken]

I just do that with you, because every time an argument with you really starts getting good you go "whatever bye." So I don't invest the effort any more.

You mean 'getting circular', don't you? I don't like having to constantly repeat myself because you constantly draw assumptions from statements I make. THAT'S when I say "Wow, this is pointless".

 

[tegid]

I have one simple question: does anyone think that it's okay for union membership to be required for certain jobs in entire industries, to the point where membership is mandatory and dues are involuntarily taken out of a person's paycheck (even if that person doesn't support the union)?

I agree with mandatory membership to unions in some cases, but you should always be able to choose different unions... Can't there be more than one union representing workers in the same company or industry over there?

 

[Krisken]

I agree with mandatory membership to unions in some cases, but you should always be able to choose different unions... Can't there be more than one union representing workers in the same company or industry over there?

That would be a fantastic idea. Maybe what unions really need is competition.

 

[Tress]

To answer your question tegid, no. Each industry has one union that workers join with no other options.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

That would be a fantastic idea. Maybe what unions really need is competition.

are you being sarcastic

 

[tegid]

Yeah we got that shit worked out over here*, it's what happens when you're not scared of being a bit of a socialist!

*No we don't

 

[Krisken]

are you being sarcastic

No. You want to enter the discussion and explain why you think I am?

 

[GasBandit]

Competition is good for any endeavor. I have a feeling that if there was true competition between unions, they wouldn't have become so toxic.

Of course, some people will tell you that competition is the complete antithesis to collectivism... as in, collective bargaining.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

No. You want to enter the discussion and explain why you think I am?

Union is...everyone together against the employers. I. Um. IT's the word.

 

[tegid]

Seriously, it blows my mind that you are not able to choose which union represents you. Here it works that way, and to go on strike and things like that a majority of the workers (or the unions that represent them, with a decision power that comes from some union elections thingy but could as well be by number of affiliates) have to agree on it.

 

[Krisken]

Union is...everyone together against the employers. I. Um. IT's the word.

See tegid's post above this one. It's silly that you think a union should be 'everyone'.

 

[GasBandit]

Union is...everyone together against the employers. I. Um. IT's the word.

And you are incapable of imagining multiple unions?

 

[strawman]

Right to work does NOT mean you can choose not to strike.

If you are part of the union, and you choose not to strike when they tell you to, you are in violation of your agreement with the union, and in some cases you may be blacklisted in non right to work states, where you can no longer do the job you were trained to do.

Right to work means that if you are a pipe fitter, you can work at a pipe fitting job and not join the union. That's all.

Without right to work, you CANNOT perform the job you were trained for if you do not also join the union. And if you do get black listed (which I suspect is technically illegal, but unenforceable due to loopholes) then you have to move to a right to work state, or learn a new job. If you violate a strike order in California, since the unions are the same, moving to another union state isn't going to help you.

Alternately, you work under the radar, but if your customers get caught hiring non union labor, the unions will blacklist your customers, and they will have all sorts of problems getting certain things done.

Unions are a legalized form of extortion. They perform a valuable function in our society, and we shouldn't eliminate them, but just like the financial industry there should be limits, and most of all we shouldn't be forcing people to join an organization and pay dues for it if they don't want to. It shouldn't be tied to their job or employer.

 

[PatrThom]

Can you imagine a Hollywood where actors and writers can't be blacklisted and never work in the industry again? Where a strike by one group doesn't stop the entire industry for months, causing millions to lose their paychecks because one union feels they aren't getting a big enough cut from blockbusters? Where a movie could be produce by non union amateurs and still be distributed without being blocked by the unions without huge fees and forcing the amateurs to join the unions and pay back dues?

That's Entertainment!

--Patrick

 

[papachronos]

To answer your question tegid, no. Each industry has one union that workers join with no other options.

I didn't know this was the case. Does that mean that NEA membership is mandatory for public school teachers, and American Federation of Teachers membership is optional? Or can you choose one or the other, or both?

 

[Norris]

Can you imagine a Hollywood where actors and writers can't be blacklisted and never work in the industry again? Where a strike by one group doesn't stop the entire industry for months, causing millions to lose their paychecks because one union feels they aren't getting a big enough cut from blockbusters? Where a movie could be produce by non union amateurs and still be distributed without being blocked by the unions without huge fees and forcing the amateurs to join the unions and pay back dues?

Where the working class writers and actors wouldn't be guaranteed residuals for future sales of their work, thus making it harder to actually make a career out of the business of show.

 

[AshburnerX]

Where the working class writers and actors wouldn't be guaranteed residuals for future sales of their work, thus making it harder to actually make a career out of the business of show.

It's more than that. Being part of SAG gets you access to things like cheap insurance and connections to casting agents. Really, SAG and SWG/WGA are some of the most useful and powerful unions, if only because their focus is basically on one city in America, and this means that paying your dues gets you the stuff you need succeed. The guys on the bottom still have a tough time but just getting in makes continued work much easier.

 

[strawman]

Where the working class writers and actors wouldn't be guaranteed residuals for future sales of their work, thus making it harder to actually make a career out of the business of show.

If there are writers who will do the same work without residuals, why shouldn't we allow studios to use them?

It's protectionist extortion.

 

[tegid]

Can't that argument be done about minimum wages and just about any other worker's rights?

(I don't know what residuals are)

 

[Covar]

(I don't know what residuals are)

A residual is a payment made to the creator of performance art (or the performer in the work) for subsequent showings or screenings of the (usually filmed) work. A typical use is in the payment of residuals for television reruns. The word is often used in the plural form.

 

[GasBandit]

Can't that argument be done about minimum wages and just about any other worker's rights?

(I don't know what residuals are)

Minimum wage laws increase unemployment, hurt those you'd think they're supposed to help, encourage businesses to hide illegal immigration, and give people the false impression that they can expect to live off a wage if they do nothing to improve/make themselves desirable as employees.

 

[PatrThom]

Minimum wage laws...

The biggest problem with minimum wage laws is that without them, you have situations where people are working for nothing. With them, you have people working for a guaranteed minimum payment of $x.xx/hr. Sounds better than working for nothing, right? Unfortunately, the net result is that you have now redefined "nothing" as "$x.xx/hr" which is great for the people who were making nothing, but which is lousy for anyone who was making $x, because their wage has just become "the new nothing."

--Patrick