Boeing NLRB Versus Boeing

  • Thread starter CAC1001
  • Start date

russ_watters

Mentor
18,746
4,946
Thuggery is subjective. Personally, I think work stoppages, sit-ins, and strikes count as 'thuggery'.
When I said "thuggery", I was specifically referring to physical intimidation.
 
Last edited:

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
I see it as unions thwarting the free market by being labor monopolies.
If a monopoly emerges as a result of market forces rather than via government intervention, I imagine that process is still a part of the free market. Laws that prevent the formation of monopolies are not free-market forces, are they? They are very clearly government regulations.

So, there's a distinction here between what may exist or emerge via free market forces (peaceful interactions between consumers and providers, employers and employees) and what may be desirable or efficient or fair, from some point of view. Some government regulations may be needed to ensure the latter (people may disagree), but such regulations shouldn't be considered free market forces.

But I do agree that unions are essentially similar to market monopolies.
 
Last edited:
107
0
Support this. What unions routinely employ "thuggery"? The largest union related protest I can recall recently was the Wisconsin teachers union protests, which were extraordinarily well behaved large crowds.

Also, at least where I live, unions have been declining for decades.
"Well Behaved large crowds"? Were the crowds described as "well behaved" by the news organizations?
 

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
One state official had a great option for dealing with union protesters.

http://www.newsytype.com/4433-live-ammunition-protesters/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
107
0
One state official had a great option for dealing with union protesters.

http://www.newsytype.com/4433-live-ammunition-protesters/ [Broken]
Is this link intended to support your earlier statements?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
Is this link intended to support your earlier statements?
It is intended to point out how precarious the safety of people involved in protest can be. Live ammunition to be used against school teachers and public safety workers? What a wonderful idea.
 
107
0
It is intended to point out how precarious the safety of people involved in protest can be. Live ammunition to be used against school teachers and public safety workers? What a wonderful idea.
I picked the kids up at school yesterday. All of the police officers walking around in the parking lot on safety duty had side-arms with live ammo and possibly shotguns in the cars - not certain?
 

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
It is intended to point out how precarious the safety of people involved in protest can be. Live ammunition to be used against school teachers and public safety workers? What a wonderful idea.
I picked the kids up at school yesterday. All of the police officers walking around in the parking lot on safety duty had side-arms with live ammo and possibly shotguns in the cars - not certain?
And the officers' weapons were the reason the teachers were teaching instead of going on strike?!

1) Hopefully, the comment by the state official was just a lame comment; not a real policy suggestion about how to handle striking teachers. In any event, he was fired just for making the comment. I don't think there is a real possibility of police shooting teachers because they've gone on strike.

2) What the heck does the comment about police officers walking around with weapons mean? I'm positive I misconstrued that comment, but have no idea what it could mean.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,746
4,946
If a monopoly emerges as a result of market forces rather than via government intervention, I imagine that process is still a part of the free market. Laws that prevent the formation of monopolies are not free-market forces, are they? They are very clearly government regulations.

So, there's a distinction here between what may exist or emerge via free market forces (peaceful interactions between consumers and providers, employers and employees) and what may be desirable or efficient or fair, from some point of view. Some government regulations may be needed to ensure the latter (people may disagree), but such regulations shouldn't be considered free market forces.

But I do agree that unions are essentially similar to market monopolies.
I don't find it useful to split such hairs. Regardless of what label it has, it is legal for one and illegal for the other.
 

Ryumast3r

Because, you know... we're not at a shortage of teachers as it is - we need to shoot some of them just to make sure there isn't too much supply.
 

CAC1001

If a monopoly emerges as a result of market forces rather than via government intervention, I imagine that process is still a part of the free market. Laws that prevent the formation of monopolies are not free-market forces, are they? They are very clearly government regulations.
I think monopolies, at least in certain industries, are legal, what are illegal are trusts. Having a monopoly doesn't mean a company controls the whole market, just that it controls so much of it, that everyone else just has a scrap. If a monopoly is achieved via market forces, the company is watched closely and is expected to be a good corporate citizen and not try to abuse its position (for example, Bill Gates back in the early 1990s got caught doing this, I forget the details though).

For example, Intel pretty much has a monopoly over the semiconductor market, at least for the types of chips it makes.
 

CAC1001

Thuggery is subjective. Personally, I think work stoppages, sit-ins, and strikes count as 'thuggery'. They're equivalent to a child throwing a temper tantrum to get their way, unfortunately the parents (businesses) cave in far too often to extreme demands. Skipping work and forcing a school district to totally reschedule their school year is thuggery.
California public unions are especially notorious for these types of tactics.
 

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
Let's back up a bit. When companies want to pressure their workers, they can use spying, misdirection, economic pressure, etc, including shutting down production lines, reducing benefits, reducing hours, and layoffs targeted at "troublemakers". All the unions have in their arsenal is withholding their members' labor. Perhaps they can picket and get some public attention that way, but really they have just a strike or a threat of a strike as leverage. This is not "thuggery" - it is a fact of life.

When I was the shop steward on my paper machine, a new reserve (rotating laborer) on my shift asked for advice. His girlfriend worked for a very large retailer, and her manager trusted her to cash up the register drawers. So much so, that she was required to work every night until after closing and cash up all the registers. After-hours with no pay and no overtime. He asked what I would do in this situation, and I told him that if she complained, the store's manager would retaliate. She complained, and the manager cut her hours to the bone for several weeks. Like most large retail chains, they keep the vast majority of their workers on a part-time status (too few hours to qualify for unemployment insurance) so that the employees can be dumped at any time for any reason at no cost to the company. Now, where is the thuggery?
 
Last edited:
107
0
Let's back up a bit. When companies want to pressure their workers, they can use spying, misdirection, economic pressure, etc, including shutting down production lines, reducing benefits, reducing hours, and layoffs targeted at "troublemakers". All the unions have in their arsenal is withholding their members' labor. Perhaps they can picket and get some public attention that way, but really they have just a strike or a threat of a strike as leverage. This is not "thuggery" - it is a fact of life.

When I was the shop steward on my paper machine, a new reserve (rotating laborer) on my shift asked for advice. His girlfriend worked for a very large retailer, and her manager trusted her to cash up the register drawers. So much so, that she was required to work every night until after closing and cash up all the registers. After-hours with no pay and no overtime. He asked what I would do in this situation, and I told him that if she complained, the store's manager would retaliate. She complained, and the manager cut her hours to the bone for several weeks. Like most large retail chains, they keep the vast majority of their workers on a part-time status (too few hours to qualify for unemployment insurance) so that the employees can be dumped at any time for any reason at no cost to the company. Now, where is the thuggery?
That's not thuggery - it's ILLEGAL to force an hourly employee to work without compensation. They should have reported the matter to the proper authorities. If taken to court, the employee would be paid for all of the accumulated time.
 

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
That's not thuggery - it's ILLEGAL to force an hourly employee to work without compensation. They should have reported the matter to the proper authorities. If taken to court, the employee would be paid for all of the accumulated time.
Tell that to Wal Mart employees who are forced to work off the clock and have been quite unsuccessful in getting paid for decades.
 
107
0
Tell that to Wal Mart employees who are forced to work off the clock and have been quite unsuccessful in getting paid for decades.
http://www.walmartpaclassaction.com/

"On October 13, 2006 a Philadelphia jury returned a $78.5 million verdict in favor of a class of current or former employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (including Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Supercenters and SAM’s Clubs) who were forced to miss rest breaks and work off-the-clock in Wal-Mart’s Pennsylvania stores during the period March 19, 1998 through May 1, 2006. After a five-week trial, the jury found that Wal-Mart violated state laws and breached their agreement to provide paid rest breaks and to pay for all time that employees worked off-the-clock. The parties will likely be filing numerous post-trial motions, and Wal-Mart has publicly stated that it plans to appeal the jury verdict.



Court Awards Class Members an additional $62.3 million in statutory damages."
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,746
4,946
Let's back up a bit. When companies want to pressure their workers, they can use spying, misdirection, economic pressure, etc, including shutting down production lines, reducing benefits, reducing hours, and layoffs targeted at "troublemakers". All the unions have in their arsenal is withholding their members' labor. Perhaps they can picket and get some public attention that way, but really they have just a strike or a threat of a strike as leverage. This is not "thuggery" - it is a fact of life.
By "lets back up a bit", you mean "lets forget all my false claims from before"? We already established clearly that the arsenal of tricks that a union has includes considerable actual criminal activity and activity that would be considered criminal if taken by businesses*.

No one said a strike was "thuggery". "Thuggery" (by my definition earlier) is the physical violence and threats of physical violence that unions often use as a means of coercion. In addition, there's the sabbotage, which I consider different from "thuggery", but others may disagree.

You can't just reboot the argument and hope people will forget your previous false claims and the realities that you don't want to acknowledge.

*In addition to general monopolistic practices, unions have sucessfully gotten their monopoly - and failing that, price fixing - written into law in many places. In some places/contexts, you must, by law, use union labor. In others, if you don't use union labor, you have to pay non-union workers the union rate. That's not as altruistic as you may think: the goal is to eliminate the competitive advantage of the competition. Rockerfeller would be dumbfounded at how they have succeed in creating legally required monopolies where he was busted by other laws against monopolies.

Edit: I wasn't quite right about the origin of "prevailing wage" laws. As it turns out, they are Jim Crow laws, first enacted to keep black from stealing jobs from whites who wanted to get paid more. In some places, they have been repealed, but in others they are kept (and occasionally, new laws are passed) as they help the unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis–Bacon_Act
 
Last edited:

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
http://www.walmartpaclassaction.com/

"On October 13, 2006 a Philadelphia jury returned a $78.5 million verdict in favor of a class of current or former employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (including Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Supercenters and SAM’s Clubs) who were forced to miss rest breaks and work off-the-clock in Wal-Mart’s Pennsylvania stores during the period March 19, 1998 through May 1, 2006. After a five-week trial, the jury found that Wal-Mart violated state laws and breached their agreement to provide paid rest breaks and to pay for all time that employees worked off-the-clock. The parties will likely be filing numerous post-trial motions, and Wal-Mart has publicly stated that it plans to appeal the jury verdict.



Court Awards Class Members an additional $62.3 million in statutory damages."
Wal Mart has a huge stable of lawyers, including Hillary Clinton's old law practice. They will appeal this award all the way to the Supreme Court, if they can. That money is not forthcoming anytime soon.
 
107
0
Wal Mart has a huge stable of lawyers, including Hillary Clinton's old law practice. They will appeal this award all the way to the Supreme Court, if they can. That money is not forthcoming anytime soon.
The workers have the US Department of Labor, States Attorney Generals, and the US Justice Department on their side - what is your point - does WalMart have deeper pockets than the US :surprised:blushing::rofl::cry::confused: - never mind...
 

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
The workers have the US Department of Labor, States Attorney Generals, and the US Justice Department on their side - what is your point - does WalMart have deeper pockets than the US :surprised:blushing::rofl::cry::confused: - never mind...
Let's see...it has been 5 years and Wal Mart hasn't paid. When do you think they will pay?
 
107
0
Let's see...it has been 5 years and Wal Mart hasn't paid. When do you think they will pay?
After reading through this Brief - it looks as though the case is far from resolved.
 

CAC1001

On corporations like Wal-Mart, no one is claiming that they too don't engage in strong-arm tactics when they can get away with it. Corporations are notorious for bribing government officials (BP being one of the latest big examples), trying to "buy" politicians, skirt around regulations, lobbying to have regulations written that favor them, screw over employees left and right (in the old days, this entailed forcing employees to work in horrible conditions and then hiring thugs to bust up unions), etc...in pointing out the bad things done by unions, no one is saying corporations aren't equally bad.

The difference however is that much of that stuff as far as corporations are concerned has been outlawed. Corporations cannot "buy" a politician, but the unions can to a degree. Corporations cannot create legalized monopolies, but the unions can.

Edit: I wasn't quite right about the origin of "prevailing wage" laws. As it turns out, they are Jim Crow laws, first enacted to keep black from stealing jobs from whites who wanted to get paid more. In some places, they have been repealed, but in others they are kept (and occasionally, new laws are passed) as they help the unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis–Bacon_Act
The unions like the minimum wage becuase it prices cheaper labor out of the market and protects the union jobs.
 
107
0
The unions like the minimum wage becuase it prices cheaper labor out of the market and protects the union jobs.
I'd like to hear a supported argument against your summary - well put!

Label this IMO please - On this note, I recently attended a small business breakfast where the hot topic was minimum wage. Several of the business owners in attendance commented they needed extra help but could not afford to pay minimum wage - given lower sales and higher utility costs. Several went on to tell stories about laid off persons and persons no longer or not eligible for unemployment (like salespeople) who have offered to work for less than minimum under the table.
 

Related Threads for: NLRB Versus Boeing

  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • Posted
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
14K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
54
Views
7K
  • Posted
3 4 5
Replies
110
Views
13K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top