If a small percentage of non-union members do not pay union dues then the union is minimally impacted, but if that small percentage grows too large then the union can no longer afford to carry out union activities, and the union dies.
What makes you think the union would actually die? ... And if a large percentage don't pay the fees - then the union would be largely impacted (and maybe even die).
You questioned what I said, then agreed with me, except you said "maybe". There's no "maybe" about it. If you reduce the income of any entity sufficiently, be it a business, a union, a non-profit, a church, then it dies (or if you prefer some other term, then it goes bankrupt or decertifies or disbands or ceases operations or whatever). That's just a fact.
But if a large percentage aren't paying the fees - isn't this an indication that the union itself is charging too much for the services it is rendering to it's members?
Never underestimate the influence of ignorance, nonsense and flim-flam. Let's rephrase your question into a different context: "But if a large percentage aren't getting vaccinated - isn't this an indication that vaccination isn't effective?"
Where people are involved nothing is perfect, but we need both employers and unions.
Sounds like a decent balancing mechanism at this point to have more and more people not paying union fees rather than giving the union itself a "monopoly" where union leaders could make bad decisions and take advantage of the union members.
Abuse of power is a problem everywhere, and we could tell stories about abuse of power in all human endeavors, including government, commercial companies, unions, non-profits, charities, churches, and on and on. Examples of abuse of power only tell us that people are the same no matter where they work, not that the entities they work for are bad ideas.
So... what's stopping the workers from creating another union at this point?
A better question might be why there is much less enthusiasm for unions today than 50 and 100 years ago. Part of the answer must be that the times are different today. Unions rose to power during a period when socialism was also receiving a lot of attention, which isn't true today. Also, too many people see the abuses unions opposed in the past as solved problems, when the reality is that eternal vigilance is necessary to protect the hard won victories of the past.
There's a strong analogy with the anti-vaccination movement.
I don't think there is.
With vaccines - there's nothing else in place to prevent diseases from spreading if they are not used. With unions - there's plenty of laws now that prevent many things from occurring even if the unions disappeared completely.
Actually, the way you've expressed this, there's a perfect analogy with the anti-vaxers. Anti-vaxers think the problem of disease is solved, and anti-unionists and union agnostics think the problem of worker exploitation is solved. Of course, now that Trump is in charge we don't have to worry about growing corporate power and abuse.
For example, wiki says that company scripts are illegal in the UK. Although I couldn't find anything saying they're illegal in the US... I couldn't find much information on them at all. Are they still in use anywhere?
Why not pass a law forbidding scripts rather than refusing to weaken unions at the decision of the workers they are protecting?
It's scrip, not scripts. I think Jar raised it as an example of past company abuse, not current, but at the bottom of that Wikipedia page you linked to it cites an example of Walmart using scrip in Mexico in 2008. Anyway, scrip isn't the point. The point is that it's in the company's best interest to get the most work from workers at the least cost. This is an unrelenting motivation for abuse. Unions protect against that.
If the workers desire protection - then I think it's rather obvious that they'll pay the dues and only an insignificant minority would refuse.
The analogy with anti-vaxers pokes its nose out again. We don't need an epidemic to tell us we need vaccines. And workers shouldn't need a return of company abuses to tell them they need unions.
There are also minimum wage laws in place now. As well as mandatory holidays and hours-worked-per week/day and such labour laws and regulations.
Right, and I'm sure nothing could ever happen to erode these laws and regulations, especially with Trump at the helm.
quote:U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Sunday brushed aside North Korea's accusation of "gangster-like" demands, maintaining that his third visit to the country was producing results but vowing that sanctions would remain until Pyongyang follows through on leader Kim Jong Un's pledge to get rid of his nuclear weapons.
This reinforces several things that we've already long known:
North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons.
Trump gained nothing when he met with North Korean leader Kim Jung Un, except to give up military coordination exercises with the South Korean military.
Trump lied about the success of the meeting.
Officials of the Trump administration, Mike Pompeo in this case, also lie.
North Korea is just stringing us along.
More from the NBC article:
quote:The North's statement, coming so soon after Pompeo's trip, was sure to fuel growing skepticism in the U.S. over how serious Kim is about giving up his nuclear arsenal.
Growing skepticism? What growing skepticism? There's been total skepticism since Trump's meeting with Kim Jung Un and even before. The only people stupid enough (sorry) to believe Trump's making progress with North Korean denuclearization are the Trump base, the Trump administration, and Republicans in Congress. Stringing us along is what North Korea does, and their recent nuclear progress was just the most recent opportunity for beginning another round of leading us around by the nose ring. To those who believe there's progress, learn a little history, much of it very recent.
Said Pompeo, "People are going to make stray comments after meetings. If I paid attention to the press, I'd go nuts."
Mr. Pompeo is referring to the statement from the North Korean Foreign Ministry and carried by state-run news agency KCNA. Mr. Pompeo is telling reporters to ignore statements by official outlets of the North Korean government. The truth is that Trump meeting was not a success, the Pompeo meetings were not a success, and any future meetings will not be a success. The Kim dynasty views nuclear weapons as their key to maintaining total power and invulnerability against outside pressures. The Trump administration views "doing stuff" like holding meetings and then declaring them a spectacular success as a tried and true formula for pumping up the base while accomplishing nothing.
The U.S. opposed a report from the World Health Organisation, in favour of promoting breast feeding as the best way to nourish infants. The U.S. government decided to put the interests of the breast-milk substitute industry ahead of babies’ health.
They even threatened economic sanctions and withdrawing military aid from countries that supported the report.
But Russia sponsored the report and the U.S. wouldn’t go that far against them.
And extreme Nationalism, a lean towards Fundamentalist Religion, Corporatism (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) and aligning education as solely job training. The latter is best exemplified by the suggestion that the Department of Education should be subsumed into the Department of Labor.
Yesterday's Guardian ran an opinion piece declaring Trump not welcome in Britain. I'll let it speak for itself with a few excerpts, but apparently the Trump malevolency is as apparent there as here:
quote:Mr Trump does not come with a message of peace...but with messages of conflict and disruption. He arrives not as the optimistic upholder of an international order but as its casual potential destroyer. Mr. Trump arrives...as the vengeful tribune of might and injustice. ... There are many reasons for feeling the unusual sense of outrage and violation that attach to the Trump visit to Britain. Mr Trump’s personal character and behaviour are more than enough reason for many. They certainly belong on any list of objections to his presence here, for he is one of the most unsuitable people to hold his great democratic office in American history. But it is Mr Trump’s politics, his expressed views, his actual actions, and above all his effect and his intentions that are the fundamental issues.
The charge list against Mr Trump is long, unignorable and impossible to tolerate. Morally, it is headed by the racism of the immigration policies he was so proud of in Brussels on Thursday, the cruelty of their enforcement, especially in the separation of children from their parents, the racism to which he gives encouragement at home, and the taunting and visceral threat to the rights and dignities of women, people of colour, and LGBT people, who are all now directly threatened by his latest supreme court nomination. He has ignorantly spurned the threat from climate change, has sucked up to tyrants, has conducted an unprecedented campaign against the free press, launched a trade war, insulted America’s allies, praised America’s enemies and made dangerous mischief in the domestic and regional politics of countless parts of the world. Only this week, heading for Europe, he insulted Germany and said meeting Vladimir Putin would be easy work compared with his meetings in Brussels and Britain. ... Mr Trump...is unique in his egotistical disrespect for international order and agreement, his overt malice towards long-term allies and institutions, his shameless disregard for truth, and his clear willingness to make trouble and do direct harm to European nations like ours. ... When such a leader spits on the foundations of that alliance and actively promotes values and interests which are hostile to ours, the tough lesson of history is that he should not be honoured and must not be appeased. ... Before leaving for Britain on Thursday, Mr Trump told the press: “They like me a lot in the UK.” Fake news again. We don’t like him at all. He is not welcome here.
40% Putin's whores, 50% Severe Anxiety, 5% Opioid addicts, 5% French Revolution version 2.0.
Vive la France!
P.S. - I hope the CIA is monitoring that unsupervised meeting on Monday twixt textbook early onset dementia and his handler in Helsinki in case he provides the nuclear codes in exchange for a Trump tower.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
I'm still amazed that a large Christian base vociferously supports Trump even though he so obviously could give a crap about Christianity and is pandering to a base. Even at the height of my Republicanism and my Christianity, I could have never supported a more obvious wolf in sheep's clothing. How is this not GLARINGLY OBVIOUS? It makes no sense.
I could only attribute this support to a growing detachment from the actual tenets of Christianity with an amalgamation between American nationalism and Christianity. While I feel you can perfectly be nationalistic and a Christian, there is a clear line that cannot be crossed and still being able to call yourself a Christian. This guy not only steps over the line, he obliterated the line so that any inkling that a line is existed is erased.
While I don't think pacifism is exactly what Jesus called for, the hawkishness of these folks who would call themselves "ordinary Americans" have no real clue who the Jesus of the bible was. He's now become an extension of Americanism -- like some kind of glorified mascot or a cheap caricature of the real personage. Disgusting and idolatrous, if you ask me.
So... any Trumping Christians want to explain to me why I'm wrong?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Edit to add emphasis
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
So... any Trumping Christians want to explain to me why I'm wrong?
I don't know about telling you you're "wrong", but I can explain how Christians support Trump. First though, I'll need to be clear on just what you mean by "wolf in sheep's clothing". Do you mean he pretends to be a Christian and is really not, or do you mean he has something tricky up his sleeve, for a non-Christian act he plans to do in the future?