Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
That press release has been getting a lot of coverage today, and I'm convinced it's a trick. They're waiting for the inevitable "MS-13 isn't that bad/that much of a threat/worse than us" thinkpieces so they can claim the left is soft on crime. It wouldn't be the first time they've done that.
They should have sent a poet.Sometimes you only need a skeleton crew to keep open, and if you can keep open without losing too much because of a strike, it nullifies the threat. "It's only a few people" is all you need to start curtailing any effect it has on some industries.
Ditto the collective bargaining. The employer could offer SLIGHTLY better rates or terms if people agree to not abide by union decisions and keep working and dismantle it that way.
Also, free rider problem. There's a critical mass where people that won't care enough just take the whole situation apart.
Greed, apathy, naked self interest and not wanting to pay... no, de-fanging unions because "workers' rights" is the first step to eliminating any rights. What's good for someone in the obvious short term is not necessarily good long term. Especially if it works to harm others.
edited 21st May '18 3:49:21 PM by RainehDaze
Mandatory dues will stop mattering if you remove all the power the union has.
And the other main one is collective bargaining only works if the people the company hires ALSO get bound to these contracts.
Which is vastly harder to enforce if the union can't MAKE people strike or have a say in who's employed.
What good is going on strike if they can just hire other people?
In more silly news:
At Yale commencement, Hillary Clinton tweaks Trump with Russian hat
:
The audience laughed as she held up the hat and said, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
Clinton said she's concerned about the country's political polarization but believes the current crop of graduates is prepared to rise to the challenge.
She also spoke a bit more seriously about her loss in the 2016 presidential campaign, saying, "Let me just get this out of the way. No, I'm not over it. I still think about the 2016 election. I still regret the mistakes I made. I still think, though, that understanding what happened in such a weird and wild election in American history will help us defend our democracy in the future."
![]()
For the former, usually what happens is that the employer is bound to rules regarding pay, seniority and working conditions specified in the union's contract, which in turn binds any employees he wants to hire. If the employer doesn't abide by these requirements, they've breached a contract and should be liable in court. (Unless the court is the Supreme Court under Republican domination, but that's true of any law.)
For the latter, there are generally regulations (not negotiated by the union, written into legislation) against hiring strikebreakers, particularly for non-economic strikes such as unfair labor practices (which shouldn't be a strike issue at all, by the way, it should be an issue where the employer is compelled to fix that by the lawyers). Furthermore, again, the union contract can and usually does prevent pay undercuts like the kind you're suggesting.
Bottom line, compulsory strikes and union authority over hiring infringe on both employer and employee rights, and the venue for most of the issues you raise should be the courts rather than the picket line.
edited 21st May '18 4:37:26 PM by Ramidel
@Pushover Media Critic: I see nothing wrong with specific dehumanization. I know I'll never be as bad as ISIS members who kill innocents for not conforming to their sect and take girls for sex slaves.
Life is unfair...Humans are humans. Saying that some humans aren't humans just because of their actions is a species-wide example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Call them criminals and gang members, and detail their crimes. Anyone with a remotely functional moral compass will agree that groups like MS-13 are dangerous and need to be brought to justice.
Oh wait, that wouldn't drum up the racist sentiment that Trump lives and dies on. When they say animals, they mean immigrants/Hispanics.
edited 21st May '18 5:20:23 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.I don't think there's anything different if you call a person an animal versus saying you hate them.
Hatred is hatred and arguing over the terminology does nothing.
If you don't attack the hate, it's a meaningless gesture.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Seems to me those two sentiments are mutually exclusive. The one naturally incorporates the other. Righteous indignation just doesn't cut it if you go so far as to label someone an inhuman monster.
edited 21st May '18 5:41:24 PM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.Some people do such horrible things that they're deserving of hate. That doesn't mean that they aren't people and saying they aren't conveniently excludes you from having to admit that you are just as fallible as they are and capable of the same horrible actions.
Hatred means that you find what they did incredibly reprehensible and you vow not to be the kind of person they are. Dehumanization means that you find what they did incredibly reprehensible and you breathe a sigh of relief that you don't have to worry about ever doing what they did because you're better and different than they are.

As for cooperating with collective bargaining, the responsibility there is on the union to get the employer to abide by decisions made by collective bargaining, such as the union shop, seniority rules and standard contracts. (Which isn't usually too difficult, unless you're dealing with Wal-Mart or other Evil, Inc. employers.)
edited 21st May '18 3:33:38 PM by Ramidel