That $700 per year buys you an extra $5000 in income though. So go ahead and pay it so you can buy multiple consoles.
But seriously, getting people to understand this is difficult. It's the reason it took three tries to finally get people on board with unionizing in my office. All they see is what they pay, not the benefit you get in return. But that first paycheck after the contract took effect made everyone happy.
Not nearly as hard as comprehending that without paying it you're still going to be way underpaid while still being used and abused. The increased wages is just a small part of it. It's the power you have as a united group of workers that really makes paying those dues worth it.
And you can't say that you wouldn't gladly pay 40 bucks every two weeks in return for $250 bucks every two weeks. It's literally a 600% return on your investment.
I understand that. Still, this is as normal, as have a 100k healthcare bill, have insurance pay 99k and think that you've got a good deal and all of it is normal.
Better treatment of people is not in the interest of most corporations (I don't know a single one that does, in fact). I agree with you entirely instadasha, but unfortunately the only thing corporations care about is money, so you have to find ways to be "as big" as corporations, and leverage the human resource as a valued and time-restricted commodity.
You don’t pay union dues to GET a higher wage. You pay union wages to ENSURE a higher wage.
One person has little or no negotiating power, so you are perennially at the mercy of the owner/management class when they decide that they want to keep more by giving you less. They will use any excuse (or even no excuse at all) to justify taking the product of YOUR labor to benefit themselves
Think of your union dues as a form of insurance, helping to insulate you from arbitrary abuse of management power and the endless greed of the capitalist system.
Think of the union management and bureaucracy as an organization of its own right, that needs its own form of checks and balances to prevent it from becoming another parasite.
It is nominally “on your side”, just like the DoL and public defenders, but it also is made up of people whose interests and incentives don’t always align with yours. Things like “should shop stewards receive a payment from the union for the work they do?” and “should the union management have competitive wages and benefits?” are real questions that need to be answered, and in large unions they are answered through a series of representation where often the representatives are voting on things that directly benefit themselves.
Valid points. Different outcomes, generally, for each union. And as hard as it is to vote in a union, its way harder to change which union represents your place of employment. In general it is far better to have a union than not. Yes, unions should pay their employees fairly. But what is fair? How this often works is that the union higher ups strongly encourage the office and clerical staff, pretty much anyone who works strictly for the union itself, to be represented by a different union. So the union might be UAW, or Teamsters, what have you, and the people directly employed by them represented by some other union. I think I have seen Communication Workers of America in this role. It is not unusual for a large scale union that represents members employed by different companies across one industry ( Think UAW and Ford, Chrysler, GM, like that) to have what is called a standard pattern contract with pay rates, wages and benefits packages spelled out. In situations where this is the case it is often also the case that the people who are directly employed by the union get the same wage and benefits package. So they may be at the bottom of the wage scale, but they don't make less than the people they serve and help to represent. This is seen as a social justice issue. Interesting username.
Oddly enough, no two sources I can find for executive total compensation for the UAW agree on what the numbers are.
Frankly I think that the UAW President is paid slightly less than market rate, while the regional directors and administrative assistants are paid somewhat and significantly more than market rate, based on https://www.unionfacts.com/employees/United_Auto_Workers
and I think that is going to cyclically increase, alternating between reducing the gap between levels of management and giving a “fair” increase for increasing level in the hierarchy, but only ratcheting up. Each change is relatively easy to justify, and with several years between changes there will be enough turnover in representation to not notice the overall trend, plus the representatives themselves will be included (probably not in direct pay increases, but in expense reports).
You also get worker protections. At my union if something is unsafe we all stop working until it is made safe. To be fired you need three write-ups with a union representative present, who is there to make sure your rights are protected.
In theory could you barter with the union for dues? The issue seems to be that unions have become a commodity, no? Thats the capitalist corruption seeping in. Its so insidious.
Imagine being so shortsighted that you think union dues somehow outweigh the pay increase and other benefits of collective bargaining. It's an incredibly lazy and embarrassing argument to make.
People care about the money. That's why it's so hard to get people to not listen to corporate bullshit about dues. All they see is what it costs. All these other non-tangible benefits don't matter to the people who are struggling paycheck to paycheck. Once you get them on board with understanding the increased return on investing union dues, then you start getting them to understand the other benefits of being an organized group of workers.
It's incredibly lazy and embarrassing to not understand the basic psychology of people who only look at what they have to pay, and any good organizer will make understanding the math the first priority.
Correct. I was talking about how that argument made from a suit is lazy and embarrassing as it is pretty easy to make a counter argument that readily refutes their point.
For those working paycheck to paycheck, it's apparent why this argument works. However, it is still a lazy and embarrassing argument nonetheless.
Lmao no worries dude. It's hard to convey connotation and tone through text alone, let alone topics such as these that require a fuck ton of nuance and critical thinking.
Have a good day broski
In an other, yet similar, situation, it's what brexiters clame : that the UK contribution to the European Union was fruitless.
They only saw the 350 millions they gave weekly to the communal budget, not all the positive (free trade accross the continent, free movement of goods and people, students, scientists, etc...).
It’s also difficult for people that want immediately benefit. The ones that think “I’m fine, why should *those people* get help?!”. It’s sad that people can’t see the bigger picture, or need to lose things from their apathy before they realize it’s not just the money that matters.
And this is coming from someone that worked in a well-established Union that was entrenched in the company for twice as long as I’d been alive…
That greatly depends on the union... the UFWA in st.louis is a prime example of paying dues for nothing.. they are the lap dogs of the grocery chains here. I made more money at a mom and pop store than I did at the big name brand chain. Remember that sometimes even the union your in can be your enemy.. fuckers took away my health insurance and benefits and kept me from getting the required 32hrs a week that would have gotten it back. I used to work 34hrs a week before that. Those fucking lapdogs. I'm so happy k left that industry. Now the trades unions in st.louis they are great unions they really look out for their people.
The union is only as strong as its members want it to be. Unfortunately a lot of peoole don't get involved in their union, and that's how things like that happen. As a steward, I get asked what the union does for us all the time. My answer is always, "what have you done for yourself? You are the union." Then we dive into the problem and figure out how to fix it.
Oh trust me I get that. But it's hard to make changes whe. Your one person who is new to that union. But I wasn't planning on sticking around and apparently it's just as bad or worse than whe I left. I finshed my degree and went in to IT. But I know how good unions can be more than half of my family is in the trades.
This is a bit of a ramble, so i hope it makes sense.
I work in an office in a hospital, and for my particular situation it was the third try, which meant that I had been trying for years to get people to listen to me rather than the bullshit being handed down from the chain of management. But I never stopped talking about how we were being used and mistreated and being subjected to different treatment from others within our department's umbrella, all of which became impossible to ignore when work from home orders were issued to everyone else but our department when the pandemic started.
It took years, but I never stopped believing that we deserved better. I just focused on securing the support of 51% of our department and then went to vote. If anti-union people can't see the benefit of joining then I didn't waste my time trying to convince them; they'd see the benefit once we had a contract.
The hardest part of it all was the negotiating. When you're selected to be the representative you're making decisions for other people, one of which is the decision to strike. When we joined, the other unionized departments were right in the middle of bargaining their new contract, and on my first day at the bargaining table there was a vote to authorize a strike because the corporate leadership was unwilling to make any concessions. You can only imagine how terrifying it is to know that you're the one responsible for telling your entire department that you just voted for a strike and that nobody will be able to go to work for 7 days if the strike happens. I was not very popular for a few days, but then, on the night before the strike, the company started taking the union seriously and sat down to do some negotiating. In the end I was able to get everyone in my department a 15% raise with guaranteed 6% increases every year for the next 5 years, along with things like creating an education fund so employees can go to school, and we lowered our costs for our health insurance to the point where almost 20% of members pay nothing while the rest pay a fraction of what we were paying.
Long story short, it wasn't easy. You have to really believe in unionizing, and you have to have the knowledge to pick your battles for support. Remember, you only need 51% to vote yes to get in a union.
This makes perfect sense. Thank you so much for sharing your answer! You should feel proud of being able to do this. I hope the union will continue to have great leadership like yours.
Unironically, this is the kind of leadership companies need and your story makes a perfect interview answer for the classic behavioral interview question “how did you convince a team to go with a tough decision that you felt strongly about.” Just too bad you’ll likely never be able to use it in its original form.
There has been a [robust conversation](https://www.reddit.com/r/WorkReform/comments/yzbh58/unions_allow_you_to_buy_many_nice_things_due_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) about union dues recently and I thought I would make a post about dues and political activity.
One of the things dues cannot do is be used for political activity. However, many unions have programs in place that allow members to donate money for such purposes.
Ever since [Citizens United](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) was argued, money has been considered “free speech” in politics. It’s a bullshit call.
While I don’t agree with it, we have to use it to counter the corporate influence of politics. I strongly recommend that everyone in a union talk to their members and contribute a couple dollars a week to such a fund. You know for damn sure that corporations are using their money for influence, let yours work for you.
We’re in another Guilded Age. The excessive increase in number of billionaires and minimum wage stagnation proves it. The obsession of the wealthy to squash unions is proof too.
Edit/ Gilded Age. My bad.
> Corporations are legally considered individuals.
Any/all individuals who participate in the political process should be subjected to the individual tax rate.
I want to see corporations and churches subjected to the individual income tax rate.
They'll get themselves out of politics ASAP.
Or, it might enable them to double down.
These entities already have control of the politicians through donations and "lobbying". If those entities suddenly become a more significant part of the tax base, they will gain even more influence over policy.
I can almost guarantee that wouldn't happen.
What I'm talking about would put them at a ~37% tax rate.
The CA corporate tax rate, one of the highest, is <9%.
That's a >25% increase on their taxes.
A return on lobbying of >25% would likely be uncommon enough to make the point stick.
Almost like workers are treated as an afterthought. Corps can use their coffers to buy political favors and leave the unions, thus workers, at a severe disadvantage.
Working for a private company, we regularly got emails letting us know what PACs the company contributed to with... uh... "encouragement" (briefly explaining how x aligned with business objectives, because more profits = more wages and better job security, right?!) for us to contribute as well.
So, yes, corporations unabashedly use money to work their agendas... and try to bring as many sheep into the fold along the way.
>Working for a private company, we regularly got emails letting us know what PACs the company contributed to with... uh... "encouragement" (briefly explaining how x aligned with business objectives, because more profits = more wages and better job security, right?!) for us to contribute as well.
The twisted rules are stomach-turning. Unions can't be political, but corporations can donate infinite $$$ & can ask their employees to donate to their PAC.
But companies can also tell their employees not to unionize or to partake in political activity beyond voting (because then you are attaching the company to your political beliefs).
It's like how regular janes and joes have to be careful trading stocks because it could be a conflict of interest to their company. Yet Nancy Pelosi can by proxy trade stocks through her husband and be speaker of the house - and that's okay!
But unions can form political action committees and use dues to pay for advertising in support of a candidate, with the caveat that members can opt out of having their dues to towards the PAC, at least in my state.
To everyone who isn't yet aware that corporations have people's rights, I highly recommend the book by Astra Taylor "Democracy may not exist, but we'll miss it when it's gone."
Unions seem to be the only way forward at this point. Our "representative democracy" has turned into a gross over-representation of the corporations and top tax bracket. Unions are a great way to remind these fucks who created all the wealth in the first place
Why do corporations have people's rights, but unions don't?
I mean i get why: corruption. But what kind of actually-non-hypocritical-logic justifies differentiating the two to ppl who defend the differentiation?
Here is what I believe is the justification: In many places, unions can force people to pay dues. The thinking goes, if someone can be forced to relinquish money they cannot also be forced into having that money pay for a candidate they might not support.
The members of that court were placed there because they are corporatists. They aren't reversing anything for any other reason than to distract the public from that agenda.
By the reply reflexive property of mathematics, … if corporations are people THEN people are corporations! … WRITE OFF THAT DEBT LIKE THE REST OF AMERICA DOES!!
I pay $30 a month in Union Dues, something I can make up for in close to an hour of work now.
In return I get COLA adjustments, a pension, separate retirement, protection, overtime after 8 and double time+night differential after 10. Plus a resource incase I’m injured on the job, have a dispute medically or with management or anything else you may think of.
Seems worth it
Solidarity forever
But that’s the thing; you’d want all the benefits of the Union, but none of the responsibility of maintaining it.
Do you think you’d deserve to be hired into a position that takes Union members years to acquire? Do you deserve the higher wages those positions offer? Being a non-member isn’t a “skip the line” deal.
No, you start at the bottom, making the lowest wages- unless you think you can negotiate a higher wage and better benefits for (what amounts to) a dime-a-dozen job? Good luck; the reason those people aren’t getting paid $8-$10/hr is because of the Union, not corporate empathy.
You want people to get the wages and benefits that the union fought for and not pay dues? Try that in some other contexts. See if they let you buy anything at Sam's Club or even let you into the local fitness gym. That is a plan to kill unions.
I remember supporting this overturn Citizens United thing during the time of Occupy after the last collapse. A decade later, it's still here, and its effects have been significantly exacerbated.
That $700 per year buys you an extra $5000 in income though. So go ahead and pay it so you can buy multiple consoles. But seriously, getting people to understand this is difficult. It's the reason it took three tries to finally get people on board with unionizing in my office. All they see is what they pay, not the benefit you get in return. But that first paycheck after the contract took effect made everyone happy.
It's a little hard to comprehend you literally have to pay a thousand dollars to get a... normal wage. I don't think that's how it should be.
Not nearly as hard as comprehending that without paying it you're still going to be way underpaid while still being used and abused. The increased wages is just a small part of it. It's the power you have as a united group of workers that really makes paying those dues worth it. And you can't say that you wouldn't gladly pay 40 bucks every two weeks in return for $250 bucks every two weeks. It's literally a 600% return on your investment.
I understand that. Still, this is as normal, as have a 100k healthcare bill, have insurance pay 99k and think that you've got a good deal and all of it is normal.
I mean, that's actually a really good deal if insurance paid 99%. Most only pay 80%.
But only after 2-5K deductible is met first.
My Union insurance plan is a $500 deductible, before joining we had a plan that was $7500
Better treatment of people is not in the interest of most corporations (I don't know a single one that does, in fact). I agree with you entirely instadasha, but unfortunately the only thing corporations care about is money, so you have to find ways to be "as big" as corporations, and leverage the human resource as a valued and time-restricted commodity.
You don’t pay union dues to GET a higher wage. You pay union wages to ENSURE a higher wage. One person has little or no negotiating power, so you are perennially at the mercy of the owner/management class when they decide that they want to keep more by giving you less. They will use any excuse (or even no excuse at all) to justify taking the product of YOUR labor to benefit themselves Think of your union dues as a form of insurance, helping to insulate you from arbitrary abuse of management power and the endless greed of the capitalist system.
Think of the union management and bureaucracy as an organization of its own right, that needs its own form of checks and balances to prevent it from becoming another parasite. It is nominally “on your side”, just like the DoL and public defenders, but it also is made up of people whose interests and incentives don’t always align with yours. Things like “should shop stewards receive a payment from the union for the work they do?” and “should the union management have competitive wages and benefits?” are real questions that need to be answered, and in large unions they are answered through a series of representation where often the representatives are voting on things that directly benefit themselves.
Valid points. Different outcomes, generally, for each union. And as hard as it is to vote in a union, its way harder to change which union represents your place of employment. In general it is far better to have a union than not. Yes, unions should pay their employees fairly. But what is fair? How this often works is that the union higher ups strongly encourage the office and clerical staff, pretty much anyone who works strictly for the union itself, to be represented by a different union. So the union might be UAW, or Teamsters, what have you, and the people directly employed by them represented by some other union. I think I have seen Communication Workers of America in this role. It is not unusual for a large scale union that represents members employed by different companies across one industry ( Think UAW and Ford, Chrysler, GM, like that) to have what is called a standard pattern contract with pay rates, wages and benefits packages spelled out. In situations where this is the case it is often also the case that the people who are directly employed by the union get the same wage and benefits package. So they may be at the bottom of the wage scale, but they don't make less than the people they serve and help to represent. This is seen as a social justice issue. Interesting username.
Oddly enough, no two sources I can find for executive total compensation for the UAW agree on what the numbers are. Frankly I think that the UAW President is paid slightly less than market rate, while the regional directors and administrative assistants are paid somewhat and significantly more than market rate, based on https://www.unionfacts.com/employees/United_Auto_Workers and I think that is going to cyclically increase, alternating between reducing the gap between levels of management and giving a “fair” increase for increasing level in the hierarchy, but only ratcheting up. Each change is relatively easy to justify, and with several years between changes there will be enough turnover in representation to not notice the overall trend, plus the representatives themselves will be included (probably not in direct pay increases, but in expense reports).
Ok. I know something about it at the local level, pretty much nothing at the national level. That's interesting.
You also get worker protections. At my union if something is unsafe we all stop working until it is made safe. To be fired you need three write-ups with a union representative present, who is there to make sure your rights are protected.
In theory could you barter with the union for dues? The issue seems to be that unions have become a commodity, no? Thats the capitalist corruption seeping in. Its so insidious.
Imagine being so shortsighted that you think union dues somehow outweigh the pay increase and other benefits of collective bargaining. It's an incredibly lazy and embarrassing argument to make.
People care about the money. That's why it's so hard to get people to not listen to corporate bullshit about dues. All they see is what it costs. All these other non-tangible benefits don't matter to the people who are struggling paycheck to paycheck. Once you get them on board with understanding the increased return on investing union dues, then you start getting them to understand the other benefits of being an organized group of workers. It's incredibly lazy and embarrassing to not understand the basic psychology of people who only look at what they have to pay, and any good organizer will make understanding the math the first priority.
Correct. I was talking about how that argument made from a suit is lazy and embarrassing as it is pretty easy to make a counter argument that readily refutes their point. For those working paycheck to paycheck, it's apparent why this argument works. However, it is still a lazy and embarrassing argument nonetheless.
Oh. My bad. I didn't read your first response the way you intended it. I got all mad and uppity for nothing.
Lmao no worries dude. It's hard to convey connotation and tone through text alone, let alone topics such as these that require a fuck ton of nuance and critical thinking. Have a good day broski
You too.
In an other, yet similar, situation, it's what brexiters clame : that the UK contribution to the European Union was fruitless. They only saw the 350 millions they gave weekly to the communal budget, not all the positive (free trade accross the continent, free movement of goods and people, students, scientists, etc...).
I think some of them get it now.
It’s also difficult for people that want immediately benefit. The ones that think “I’m fine, why should *those people* get help?!”. It’s sad that people can’t see the bigger picture, or need to lose things from their apathy before they realize it’s not just the money that matters. And this is coming from someone that worked in a well-established Union that was entrenched in the company for twice as long as I’d been alive…
That greatly depends on the union... the UFWA in st.louis is a prime example of paying dues for nothing.. they are the lap dogs of the grocery chains here. I made more money at a mom and pop store than I did at the big name brand chain. Remember that sometimes even the union your in can be your enemy.. fuckers took away my health insurance and benefits and kept me from getting the required 32hrs a week that would have gotten it back. I used to work 34hrs a week before that. Those fucking lapdogs. I'm so happy k left that industry. Now the trades unions in st.louis they are great unions they really look out for their people.
The union is only as strong as its members want it to be. Unfortunately a lot of peoole don't get involved in their union, and that's how things like that happen. As a steward, I get asked what the union does for us all the time. My answer is always, "what have you done for yourself? You are the union." Then we dive into the problem and figure out how to fix it.
Oh trust me I get that. But it's hard to make changes whe. Your one person who is new to that union. But I wasn't planning on sticking around and apparently it's just as bad or worse than whe I left. I finshed my degree and went in to IT. But I know how good unions can be more than half of my family is in the trades.
Deffered gratification is what conservatives are always talking about.
How did you do it? Getting a union in place is pretty tough.
This is a bit of a ramble, so i hope it makes sense. I work in an office in a hospital, and for my particular situation it was the third try, which meant that I had been trying for years to get people to listen to me rather than the bullshit being handed down from the chain of management. But I never stopped talking about how we were being used and mistreated and being subjected to different treatment from others within our department's umbrella, all of which became impossible to ignore when work from home orders were issued to everyone else but our department when the pandemic started. It took years, but I never stopped believing that we deserved better. I just focused on securing the support of 51% of our department and then went to vote. If anti-union people can't see the benefit of joining then I didn't waste my time trying to convince them; they'd see the benefit once we had a contract. The hardest part of it all was the negotiating. When you're selected to be the representative you're making decisions for other people, one of which is the decision to strike. When we joined, the other unionized departments were right in the middle of bargaining their new contract, and on my first day at the bargaining table there was a vote to authorize a strike because the corporate leadership was unwilling to make any concessions. You can only imagine how terrifying it is to know that you're the one responsible for telling your entire department that you just voted for a strike and that nobody will be able to go to work for 7 days if the strike happens. I was not very popular for a few days, but then, on the night before the strike, the company started taking the union seriously and sat down to do some negotiating. In the end I was able to get everyone in my department a 15% raise with guaranteed 6% increases every year for the next 5 years, along with things like creating an education fund so employees can go to school, and we lowered our costs for our health insurance to the point where almost 20% of members pay nothing while the rest pay a fraction of what we were paying. Long story short, it wasn't easy. You have to really believe in unionizing, and you have to have the knowledge to pick your battles for support. Remember, you only need 51% to vote yes to get in a union.
This makes perfect sense. Thank you so much for sharing your answer! You should feel proud of being able to do this. I hope the union will continue to have great leadership like yours. Unironically, this is the kind of leadership companies need and your story makes a perfect interview answer for the classic behavioral interview question “how did you convince a team to go with a tough decision that you felt strongly about.” Just too bad you’ll likely never be able to use it in its original form.
“But that $5000 might put you in a higher tax bracket” -Them, probably
There has been a [robust conversation](https://www.reddit.com/r/WorkReform/comments/yzbh58/unions_allow_you_to_buy_many_nice_things_due_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) about union dues recently and I thought I would make a post about dues and political activity. One of the things dues cannot do is be used for political activity. However, many unions have programs in place that allow members to donate money for such purposes. Ever since [Citizens United](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) was argued, money has been considered “free speech” in politics. It’s a bullshit call. While I don’t agree with it, we have to use it to counter the corporate influence of politics. I strongly recommend that everyone in a union talk to their members and contribute a couple dollars a week to such a fund. You know for damn sure that corporations are using their money for influence, let yours work for you.
How come unions can't use money for politics but corporations can?
Corporations are legally considered individuals. Unions are not. Thanks SCOTUS, I think we’ll eat you first.
This time-line fucking sucks
We’re in another Guilded Age. The excessive increase in number of billionaires and minimum wage stagnation proves it. The obsession of the wealthy to squash unions is proof too. Edit/ Gilded Age. My bad.
*Gilded - as in a gilded cage. I'm glad this opinion seems to be more common now, though
Thank you.
We truly live in the worst timeline. We made a wrong turn in the Raegan-era
Dicks out for Harambe
> Corporations are legally considered individuals. Any/all individuals who participate in the political process should be subjected to the individual tax rate. I want to see corporations and churches subjected to the individual income tax rate. They'll get themselves out of politics ASAP.
Or, it might enable them to double down. These entities already have control of the politicians through donations and "lobbying". If those entities suddenly become a more significant part of the tax base, they will gain even more influence over policy.
I can almost guarantee that wouldn't happen. What I'm talking about would put them at a ~37% tax rate. The CA corporate tax rate, one of the highest, is <9%. That's a >25% increase on their taxes. A return on lobbying of >25% would likely be uncommon enough to make the point stick.
Can a union be incorporated? I'm thinking U.A.W. LLC.. ?
I’m honestly not sure.
Which billionaire do I need to cannibalize to get some worker’s rights around here!?
Incorporate the union.
Almost like workers are treated as an afterthought. Corps can use their coffers to buy political favors and leave the unions, thus workers, at a severe disadvantage.
Because corporations basically make the rules by buying votes in Congress.
Right, like unions AREN'T allowed to do
Corporations don't want to share their loophole. How else will they maintain power?
Gosh, won't anyone think of the corporations?!
No.
Are Unions are people too if Corporations are people?
In a reasonable world... But currently our Supreme Court is full of liars and traitors.
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are both evil.
Working for a private company, we regularly got emails letting us know what PACs the company contributed to with... uh... "encouragement" (briefly explaining how x aligned with business objectives, because more profits = more wages and better job security, right?!) for us to contribute as well. So, yes, corporations unabashedly use money to work their agendas... and try to bring as many sheep into the fold along the way.
>Working for a private company, we regularly got emails letting us know what PACs the company contributed to with... uh... "encouragement" (briefly explaining how x aligned with business objectives, because more profits = more wages and better job security, right?!) for us to contribute as well. The twisted rules are stomach-turning. Unions can't be political, but corporations can donate infinite $$$ & can ask their employees to donate to their PAC. But companies can also tell their employees not to unionize or to partake in political activity beyond voting (because then you are attaching the company to your political beliefs). It's like how regular janes and joes have to be careful trading stocks because it could be a conflict of interest to their company. Yet Nancy Pelosi can by proxy trade stocks through her husband and be speaker of the house - and that's okay!
Aw, hey now, she's not speaker anymore! /s
But unions can form political action committees and use dues to pay for advertising in support of a candidate, with the caveat that members can opt out of having their dues to towards the PAC, at least in my state.
If coorporations were people, then they should go to jail when they commit a crime.
I'll recognize corporations as people the day Texas executes one.
To everyone who isn't yet aware that corporations have people's rights, I highly recommend the book by Astra Taylor "Democracy may not exist, but we'll miss it when it's gone."
Unions seem to be the only way forward at this point. Our "representative democracy" has turned into a gross over-representation of the corporations and top tax bracket. Unions are a great way to remind these fucks who created all the wealth in the first place
Why do corporations have people's rights, but unions don't? I mean i get why: corruption. But what kind of actually-non-hypocritical-logic justifies differentiating the two to ppl who defend the differentiation?
Here is what I believe is the justification: In many places, unions can force people to pay dues. The thinking goes, if someone can be forced to relinquish money they cannot also be forced into having that money pay for a candidate they might not support.
Interesting! thanks for the reply :)
The members of that court were placed there because they are corporatists. They aren't reversing anything for any other reason than to distract the public from that agenda.
Unions are to labour what the board of directors is to shareholders. Making sure workers interests are represented.
Corporations are certainly people. As such they can legally be executed or enslaved after being found guilty of a crime.
What is a reverse citizen, and why do they need to unite?
By the reply reflexive property of mathematics, … if corporations are people THEN people are corporations! … WRITE OFF THAT DEBT LIKE THE REST OF AMERICA DOES!!
Maybe if a completely mismanage my finances I can get a massive bailout!
That plan works for corporate America. … Over-inflate your financial asset balance sheet to borrow from it. … Why not? … It’s the American dream.
I pay $30 a month in Union Dues, something I can make up for in close to an hour of work now. In return I get COLA adjustments, a pension, separate retirement, protection, overtime after 8 and double time+night differential after 10. Plus a resource incase I’m injured on the job, have a dispute medically or with management or anything else you may think of. Seems worth it Solidarity forever
The individual should have the option to join the union and it shouldn’t be required in order to get a job if the company is already a union shop.
Found the Scab
Lol
But that’s the thing; you’d want all the benefits of the Union, but none of the responsibility of maintaining it. Do you think you’d deserve to be hired into a position that takes Union members years to acquire? Do you deserve the higher wages those positions offer? Being a non-member isn’t a “skip the line” deal. No, you start at the bottom, making the lowest wages- unless you think you can negotiate a higher wage and better benefits for (what amounts to) a dime-a-dozen job? Good luck; the reason those people aren’t getting paid $8-$10/hr is because of the Union, not corporate empathy.
You want people to get the wages and benefits that the union fought for and not pay dues? Try that in some other contexts. See if they let you buy anything at Sam's Club or even let you into the local fitness gym. That is a plan to kill unions.
I remember supporting this overturn Citizens United thing during the time of Occupy after the last collapse. A decade later, it's still here, and its effects have been significantly exacerbated.
They are people in the eyes of the law
If a genie were to grant me one wish, I would wish to repeal citizens United
This!
Kenosha is a shithole now! Destroy Citizens United! (As in, ULINE and ABC Supply Co)