|
Originally Posted by baseball
(Post 2182326)
If you don't want a labor union you should fly corporate or military. The airlines aren't for you.
I'm sure Martin's "rugged individualism" will bring him the results he so richly deserves -- unconstrained by the limits of collective bargaining and such socialist constructs as seniority systems. |
Originally Posted by MartinBishop
(Post 2181777)
However it is unconstitutional for the federal govt to have anything to do with labor, including the NLRB. On a state level that depends on state Constitutions of course. It is also antithetical to freedom to be forced to join a union in order to have a job. If an employer wants to only hire from a union that should be the employer's choice. If an employer doesn't want a union at their location that should be their choice too. It's about freedom. 2. US Flag carriers don't much care about State law as it relates to unions. They follow Federal law. 3. Your knowledge of the Constitution and the NLRB is lacking. The Federal government, specifically the executive branch appoints those individuals it feels represents their values and expectations to the NLRB. Not much different than appointing justices to the Supreme Court. The Executive branch uses the DoL and the DoJ to enact policy through the NLRB when it doesn't get what it wants through the legislative branch. |
Originally Posted by MartinBishop
(Post 2168020)
Experience is not required for basic observations.
|
Originally Posted by MartinBishop
(Post 2180943)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with earning a living, and it isn't anyone else's business. Sheesh, the unions are still stuck in the 19th century sometimes. :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by baseball
(Post 2182339)
1. You don't have to join the union, you do have to pay the union expenses. The law is settled on this. Any questions on it call the DoL.
Originally Posted by baseball
(Post 2182339)
The Federal government, specifically the executive branch appoints those individuals it feels represents their values and expectations to the NLRB. Not much different than appointing justices to the Supreme Court. The Executive branch uses the DoL and the DoJ to enact policy through the NLRB when it doesn't get what it wants through the legislative branch.
|
Originally Posted by Winston
(Post 2182009)
Martin, the collective experience, knowledge, and insight of the pilots you vehemently disagree with on this forum probably runs over a thousand years of professional flying, hundreds of thousands of flight hours, and dozens of drawn out contract negotiations (and a few strikes) resulting in the industry that you very much desire to join today.
Originally Posted by Winston
(Post 2182009)
I know it's hard for you, because your parents apparently never taught you concepts like humility, wisdom, or apprenticeship, but why don't you just take a moment and TRY to wrap your mind around the concept that you might just not know everything about everything.
|
Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
(Post 2181996)
Who forces companies into collective bargaining agreements? Who twists their arm?
Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
(Post 2181996)
If joining a union is voluntary, and the company is allowed to hire two sets of workers -- one covered by a negotiated agreement and the other "at will" with reduced pay and benefits -- tell me what you think will happen over time.
|
Originally Posted by MartinBishop
(Post 2182471)
Which is completely unjust. Why should I be required to pay for it if I don't want it?
Yes, but the Constitution does not grant ANY authority to the federal government on the issues of labor, except maybe immigration. If you don't like the agreement, you can resign, or you can run for union office to change the terms and provide your own vision of leadership. You can vote yes, or no. But, in the end we have to live with the result. The status quo is already fully explained. If that doesn't make sense to you, I would advise some course-work in labor law, collective bargaining, and/or industrial law. You may find the commerce clause particularly insightful. |
Originally Posted by baseball
(Post 2182578)
You may find the commerce clause particularly insightful.
|
Originally Posted by MartinBishop
(Post 2182724)
If you understood history then you would know why the commerce clause is incorrectly applied.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:28 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands