How do we destroy private unions in a constitutional way?

A lot of these rightwing partisan hacks that want to allow states or anyone else to somehow ban private unions don't actually like "liberty", even though it seems like the Right seem to say that their main platform is "liberty", which is rather humorous.

HOW exactly do you plan on banning private unions? The mechanism by which a legitimate (i.e. not government-aided) private union works is simply by striking in some way; the employees realize that something isn't going the way they want, and they agree with each other to all not go to work unless things change.

Now, if they were violently/forcefully destroying property or making threats of violence against the management, or if they used threats of violence against employees that refused to join this union, which indeed, they have done at times in the past, then that would be unacceptable and should be illegal.

But if all they do is go on strike due to an assembly of the employees, and they did this assembly say, at one of the employee's house(s) rather than on the property of the management, how is there any way to justifiably break that up? It would violate our 1st amendment rights of assembly to forcefully attack said assembly.

Obviously, the management can hire new workers that are either too desperate or too foolish to want to join private unions and replace the other workers, and if they can all of a sudden find enough desperate/stupid people to be strike-breakers, then ok, whatever, that's the right of the management to do so. If said strike-breakers are then too dumb and/or don't have the balls to stand up to the management, that's their business, I guess.

But the question remains to you rightwing partisan pseudo-liberty-loving hacks: WHAT do you propose we LEGITIMATELY do to forcefully stop private unions from forming, and yet somehow not violate our 1st amendment rights???

 

Repeal NLRA.

 

Many states have union rights directly in the state constitutions.

 

I'm fairly right-wing, but I have no problem with voluntary private unions. As long as employers are still able to legally fire employees for not showing up to work (even if it is because of a strike) and no employees are forced to join a union or pay any form of dues or fees to the union, then there is no problem with unions.

 

Nice conundrum!

Pesky freedom of association eh? That's what you get for forming a nation based on liberal ideals that were anathema to the rulers of 18th Century states. I mean look at the Brits at that time. Unions? They would have though you meant marriage or the union of England and Wales and Scotland or something. Guilds, well okay, they knew all about them, but they weren't yer trades unions were they? The Brits knew what to do, lock 'em up for illegal association and swearing oaths and transport them to the colonies!

No doubt big biz and its mates would love to dismantle unions, to have individual employees begging rather than collectives bargaining but there you go, that Constitution gets in the way yet again.

As I said, nice conundrum.

 

What a stupid question? It's rather like asking what the liberals plan to do to kill the lederly over 100. All they have to do is wait a short while. In the private sector, unions are not attracting members. It's the government/union complex where union membership is growing and corruption rules.

 

Of course not, you've just taken away the ability of the unions to negotiate! Eunuch unions, heck the idea might catch on!

I hope not.

Anyway the question posed is not yet solved.

 

It's a brilliant question Patrick. You've given a response based on the wasting away of unions, you little Marxist you!

Can they be made illegal without breaching the Constitution?

 

Private sectors unions have some aspects I like, and some aspects I don't like. But, I don't see why or how you can "destroy" private sector unions legally.

 

Unions can still negotiate. If the conditions are really bad enough to justify a strike, every worker will be happy to join the union an will be willing to strike. Likewise, the company will be unable to replace the union workers.

If workers don't want to join the union and/or employers can easily replace the workers, the conditions really aren't bad enough to justify a strike.

 

Private unions have already (and continue to be) destroyed! That is why conservatives in hte USA allowed in so much immigration. But immigration creates all sorts of other problems.

Unions might not be the most ideal thing. They are fundamentally unfair, often corrupt, and can disrupt business with strikes. But at least they helped guarantee decent wages. As unions have dissappeared, so to have decent paying jobs.

 

Right now, I feel better about unions than I do about corporations or the government. Everything bad you can say about unions also applies at least as much to the government and to corporations, whereas the good that you can say about unions only applies to the other two in an ideal setting, which we don't seem to have.

 

Lol. I like to see the true colours of the right.

Workers are rubbish without rights and if they don't do what the master says, they must pay the consequences.

For something are completely necessary unions and if they are revolutionary, better.

 

So you want to end "agreeing with each other"???

 

Actually, I think I'm with hhiimijjeredjfed on this one. The power of the unions has to come from the solidarity of the workers. If it comes from the government, then the purpose is defeated and it hurts the workers in the long run.

On the other hand, though, now that I think about it, a lot of those contracts with employers aren't backed up by the government, they're backed up by the unions themselves. "Don't threaten to fire us, or we'll just extend our strike." I think that's a perfectly valid tactic.

 

I have an idea. Tell the police they can have firearms, just no bullets.

 

The ultimate weapon in the arsenal of the worker is the withdrawal of labour. Without that a worker is merely a supplicant.

 

Allow companies to replace striking workers and allow those replacement workers to be able to come and go from work in safety. This would entail moving the striking workers out of the area so they cannot intimidate or threaten the new workers.

Allow all striking workers to be fired with no government interference. Basically get government out of the union protection business.

 

The only reason that unions still exist is because of government protection and support. If not for that, they would have died off years ago. They are like Amtrak and GM - old outdated and should have died years ago. They don't serve any useful purpose in today's environment and need not persist. Workers can always organize again if conditions get bad, right now unions are just a drain on the system.

 

Unions are a relic from a time past in our history and have outserved their purpose. If there were no companies that treat their people good without unions then I would say you could make a case for them.

However there are many many non-union jobs where the employees are treated very well. Unions compose a huge voting block for the democrats though so this is why they receive the protection they do.

 

Private sector unions share a useful purpose depending on the industry you are in.

Industries that are dangerous, or present an immediate danger to life and limb, such as:

Mining

Commercial Fishing

Heavy Construction

Police & Fire

all make sense to me. These organizations act as very useful watch dogs over working conditions to ensure worker physical safety and health.

That arrogant bureaucrat the BMV however, does not need a Union.

Government workers such as:

Administrators

Social Workers

Teachers

Assorted line bureaucrats like the fat ugly (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) at the BMV

do not need union representation.

No one wants to eliminate private sector unions.

Public sector unions should be eliminated.

This quote says it all:

There really is nothing more that needs to be said regarding Unions.

 

First sentence is simply lies, partisan BS, flamebait, and presonal attacks. Rest of the post starts with a false premise and therefore is not even worth responding to.

 

My grandparents worked in a factory for decades and did strike, and yes the factory management did hire strike-breakers, but they never could hire enough qualified people who were too dumb and too desperate to break strikes, so they eventually hired all the strikers back.

And no, my grandparents weren't aided by the government. It's just that if planned right, private unions are effective.

Sorry, Big Wig Republican. bwahahha!

 

I agree with this completely, as a matter of fact; private unions can be very necessary, but public unions tend to be economically destructive. Public teacher unions are probably the worst kind of unions I can think of at the moment.

 

So should private, law-abiding unions be violently oppressed? Do you believe in freedom/liberty that little? Are you really truly that right-wing?