Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Slowly but surely - Nationalization

  1. #1

    Default Slowly but surely - Nationalization

    https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/97525...nizing-efforts

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...house-bill/842

    The sneaky parts which are the setup:

    "The law would prevent an employer from using its employee's immigration status against them when determining the terms of their employment."

    "So-called right-to-work laws in more than two dozen states allow workers in union-represented workplaces to opt out of the union, and not pay union dues. At the same time, such workers are still covered under the wage and benefits provisions of the union contract. The PRO Act would allow unions to override such laws and collect dues from those who opt out, in order to cover the cost of collective bargaining and administration of the contract."

    I am all for people at a business forming a Union if they wish and collectively bargaining.

    I am strongly against the requirement for a person to join and allocate part of their funds to it, if they don't want to.

    Some parts of the bill are reasonable and consider the worker. Those portions should be passed into law to reinforce the peoples right to unionize if they want.

    The two above, along with a few other things wiggled into the legislation, are the initial steps to more governmental control. This is a fundraising measure. Hence, it makes the whole bill a pile of shit.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/industri...e=2020&ind=P04

    They're sneaky like that.
    Last edited by Shaps; 04-20-2021 at 10:30 AM.

  2. #2

    Default

    Their status as a lawful migrant, unlawful migrant, Visa worker, etc., is only relevant once someone gets through the door. There's nothing on the books or in this proposal that would force employers to hire illegals, nor to accept those with transitional immigration status. Employers who sponsor a migrant for a special Visa who then get cold feet are also protected under existing Federal law

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seran View Post
    Their status as a lawful migrant, unlawful migrant, Visa worker, etc., is only relevant once someone gets through the door. There's nothing on the books or in this proposal that would force employers to hire illegals, nor to accept those with transitional immigration status. Employers who sponsor a migrant for a special Visa who then get cold feet are also protected under existing Federal law
    Actual reasonable response for once Seran. I can appreciate that.

    Excellent points and I don't dispute them. My main concern is the second point. I included the first point which you spoke on, because I think it feeds into a larger concept with regards to illegal labor and the increased push by Democratic politicians to expand illegal immigrants.

    It feels that way, and it feels like it can be a setup to apply pressure later down the road. There are already laws regulating the specific aspect as you yourself pointed out. So I ask, and contemplate, why include it? My belief after considering it, it's a backdoor mechanism in order to leverage power over private business further down the line.

    If you see an alternative reason for them including it, I'm open to hearing it.
    Last edited by Shaps; 04-20-2021 at 12:43 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    Democrats have been looking to strengthen collective bargaining positions for ages and the recent Supreme Court ruling about dues really threw a wrench in that effort. This one I feel is redundant and should be stripped.

    I would argue Democrats and some moderate Republicans are trying to expand legal migration or at least the Visa programs. You can't go to a Lowes or Home Depot in Southern California without seeing groups of day laborers, often experienced tile setters, masons or plumbers themselves who are available for hire. This is a pretty big boon for home improvement, but is held back by limitations on just whom is covered by a general contractor's bond. Make it easier to subcontract helps homeowners by offering moreso affordable options.

    I agree with you there's some ulterior motive, but I can't figure it out. Regardless, forcing employers to keep problematic employees is repugnant. Mayhaps a compromise would be an amendment to make stripping teacher tenure easier.

  5. #5

    Default

    A union doesn't force you to keep shitty employees, it simply makes you have to work harder to get cause. Lazy management keeps them around.

    That said, unions are stupid these days as they bargained for things like safe working conditions which is now covered by osha.
    Anonymous is an Idea - not a group.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seran View Post
    Democrats have been looking to strengthen collective bargaining positions for ages and the recent Supreme Court ruling about dues really threw a wrench in that effort. This one I feel is redundant and should be stripped.

    I would argue Democrats and some moderate Republicans are trying to expand legal migration or at least the Visa programs. You can't go to a Lowes or Home Depot in Southern California without seeing groups of day laborers, often experienced tile setters, masons or plumbers themselves who are available for hire. This is a pretty big boon for home improvement, but is held back by limitations on just whom is covered by a general contractor's bond. Make it easier to subcontract helps homeowners by offering moreso affordable options.

    I agree with you there's some ulterior motive, but I can't figure it out. Regardless, forcing employers to keep problematic employees is repugnant. Mayhaps a compromise would be an amendment to make stripping teacher tenure easier.
    Interesting points, and good call on the Court rulings recently.

    We'll have to see how it plays out, but if this goes through I really do believe we'll see something built off of the innocuous legal standing to exert more governmental control over private businesses. That's my opinion, as the wording of it is to broad and could be manipulated further down the line.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In amazement
    Posts
    5,240

    Default

    This seems to me to be a way to circumvent the laws on checking status and makes it harder to prosecute employers that hire illegals. It is also a union power grab and likely a payoff for contributions and support like the "Cash for Clunkers" was.
    I asked for neither your Opinion,
    your Acceptance
    nor your Permission.

    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." Dante Alighieri 3

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alfster View Post
    A union doesn't force you to keep shitty employees, it simply makes you have to work harder to get cause. Lazy management keeps them around.

    That said, unions are stupid these days as they bargained for things like safe working conditions which is now covered by osha.
    LOL... you're wrong and na´ve. If you are a shitty employee, you need to be in a union because you will be able to get paid while still being a shitty employee.
    RETARD HALL OF FAME

    Quote Originally Posted by Back View Post
    There will be no war when guns are more regulated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashliana View Post
    "I originally created an additional account back in the day to mess with the reputation system" Rep system came in 3 months later...
    Quote Originally Posted by Tsa`ah View Post
    Well tell that to the Naval hospital that issued a birth certificate labeled Ft Lejeune ... and then typed it in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Back View Post
    3 million more popular votes. I'd say the numbers speak for themselves. Gerrymandering won for Trump.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •