User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 232

Thread: Missouri Voters Overturn Right-To-Work

  1. #21
    Points: 423,358, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    392301
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    140,258
    Points
    423,358
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    13,635
    Thanked 39,869x in 29,533 Posts
    Mentioned
    1648 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    This came to light a couple of days ago, and in Missouri yet! It shows how the times are definitely changing.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0b15abaa751fb

    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    I'm not sure American conservatives understand just how rapidly and dramatically pro-labor public attitudes have shifted in recent years since the last recession. Consider the Occupy movement, the Fight for 15 movement, the strikingly prominent Bernie Sanders presidential campaign of 2016, the wave of wildcat teacher strikes earlier this year (which mostly took place in politically conservatives states that voted for Trump, incidentally). In that context, is it really surprising that the voters of Missouri voted 2 to 1 to overturn a major restriction on unions? The Supreme Court can rule what they want, but the more they rule against labor in this social environment, the more they will only prove their institution undemocratic in nature and themselves to be what they are: corrupt cronies of the rather unpopular corporate world who deserve to be replaced and to have their institution democratized (i.e. rendered elected, not appointed) and to have their "right" of judicial review abolished until such time.

    And the evidence for this great change is a Missouri referendum? Overgeneralize much.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (08-10-2018)

  3. #22
    Points: 423,358, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    392301
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    140,258
    Points
    423,358
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    13,635
    Thanked 39,869x in 29,533 Posts
    Mentioned
    1648 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Right to Work Frequently-Asked Questions

    What is the Right to Work principle?

    The Right to Work principle–the guiding concept of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation–affirms the right of every American to work for a living without being compelled to belong to a union. Compulsory unionism in any form–"union," "closed," or "agency" shop–is a contradiction of the Right to Work principle and the fundamental human right that the principle represents. The National Right to Work Committee advocates that every individual must have the right, but must not be compelled, to join a labor union. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation assists employees who are victimized because of their assertion of that principle....

    What is a Right to Work law?

    A Right to Work law guarantees that no person can be compelled, as a condition of employment, to join or not to join, nor to pay dues to a labor union....

    SO the left is against the individual right to choose and for compulsory joining union or paying dues.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    hanger4 (08-10-2018)

  5. #23
    Points: 48,928, Level: 54
    Level completed: 5%, Points required for next Level: 1,722
    Overall activity: 21.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    nathanbforrest45's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    69174
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    In a house on a hill
    Posts
    18,507
    Points
    48,928
    Level
    54
    Thanks Given
    3,442
    Thanked 7,473x in 5,368 Posts
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Right to Work Frequently-Asked Questions




    SO the left is against the individual right to choose and for compulsory joining union or paying dues.

    When I worked for Yellow Freight Systems in Jacksonville in the late 70's Florida was a Right to Work State. Yellow was a union shop but I didn't have to join the union. If I didn't pay dues I wasn't in the union. However, I did have to pay "Hiring Hall Fee's" which were the same amount as union dues but with no representation. I didn't care about that point since I never felt that I needed representation, I could always walk into the terminal managers office and make my case. So, this isn't about collecting dues its about having control over the membership and keeping everybody in line.
    Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to nathanbforrest45 For This Useful Post:

    Chris (08-10-2018)

  7. #24
    Points: 93,585, Level: 74
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 1,165
    Overall activity: 5.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassSocialVeteran
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    282721
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Madison
    Posts
    45,562
    Points
    93,585
    Level
    74
    Thanks Given
    32,429
    Thanked 14,082x in 10,938 Posts
    Mentioned
    201 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    I'm not sure American conservatives understand just how rapidly and dramatically pro-labor public attitudes have shifted in recent years since the last recession. Consider the Occupy movement, the Fight for 15 movement, the strikingly prominent Bernie Sanders presidential campaign of 2016, the wave of wildcat teacher strikes earlier this year (which mostly took place in politically conservatives states that voted for Trump, incidentally). In that context, is it really surprising that the voters of Missouri voted 2 to 1 to overturn a major restriction on unions? The Supreme Court can rule what they want, but the more they rule against labor in this social environment, the more they will only prove their institution undemocratic in nature and themselves to be what they are: corrupt cronies of the rather unpopular corporate world who deserve to be replaced and to have their institution democratized (i.e. rendered elected, not appointed) and to have their "right" of judicial review abolished until such time.
    The courts are not democratic in nature by design.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MisterVeritis For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (08-10-2018),Peter1469 (08-10-2018)

  9. #25
    Points: 60,354, Level: 60
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 1,996
    Overall activity: 22.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    153060
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    5,152
    Points
    60,354
    Level
    60
    Thanks Given
    5,490
    Thanked 4,480x in 2,599 Posts
    Mentioned
    497 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "Right to work" laws are not about the right to jobs or else the conservatives who support them would support public works programs. They are about de-funding unions by promoting the atomization of the workforce at the expense of the collective well-being thereof.
    Last edited by IMPress Polly; 08-10-2018 at 12:49 PM.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to IMPress Polly For This Useful Post:

    jet57 (08-10-2018)

  11. #26
    Points: 111,957, Level: 81
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 1,693
    Overall activity: 25.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    858680
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    46,115
    Points
    111,957
    Level
    81
    Thanks Given
    904
    Thanked 936x in 671 Posts
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    I'm not sure American conservatives understand just how rapidly and dramatically pro-labor public attitudes have shifted in recent years since the last recession. Consider the Occupy movement, the Fight for 15 movement, the strikingly prominent Bernie Sanders presidential campaign of 2016, the wave of wildcat teacher strikes earlier this year (which mostly took place in politically conservatives states that voted for Trump, incidentally). In that context, is it really surprising that the voters of Missouri voted 2 to 1 to overturn a major restriction on unions? The Supreme Court can rule what they want, but the more they rule against labor in this social environment, the more they will only prove their institution undemocratic in nature and themselves to be what they are: corrupt cronies of the rather unpopular corporate world who deserve to be replaced and to have their institution democratized (i.e. rendered elected, not appointed) and to have their "right" of judicial review abolished until such time.
    As imperfect as the appointment system is, an elected judiciary can be equally problematic and even more susceptible to undue influence since they then often tailor their rulings to please their electors. In the case of SCOTUS, you could then see the entire composition of the Court changing with every federal election and a rush to have prior rulings overturned by the new court. In all likelihood, the political bias of the Court would reflect the party in power. While that can happen to a degree under the appointment system, it is rare that any party has the ability to stack the Court unless there are multiple judges retiring from the bench at one time. The advantage of the appointment system is that once appointed, the judge cannot be removed for ruling impartially i.e. possibly against his or her political benefactors. A judge doing the same under an electoral system would be risking retaliation during the next election.

    Additionally, from a practical perspective, given that there are 9 Supreme Court justices, they would either have to be added to the ballot at every presidential election or have a completely separate election cycle. Of all of the people running for election, they would be the least known to voters, so such elections would involve massive national election campaigns which would be incredibly expensive and for the majority of the people, command little interest.

    Incidentally, in most cases that I have been involved with where an out of state defendant (insured person or company) is being sued in a state court, we try to have the case moved to a federal court, simply because of the improbability of a fair trial with an elected judge, many of whom are more concerned with getting re-elected than with running an impartial court.
    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  12. #27
    Points: 423,358, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    392301
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    140,258
    Points
    423,358
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    13,635
    Thanked 39,869x in 29,533 Posts
    Mentioned
    1648 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    "Right to work" laws are not about the right to jobs or else the conservatives who support them would support public works programs. They are about de-funding unions by promoting the atomization of the workforce at the expense of the collective well-being thereof.

    No, they are about workers having the right to choose to join unions or pay union dues.

    The government should not be picking sides. Doing so is a form of cronyism.

    When the US turns commie we'll tak about the collective.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  13. #28
    Points: 60,354, Level: 60
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 1,996
    Overall activity: 22.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    153060
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    5,152
    Points
    60,354
    Level
    60
    Thanks Given
    5,490
    Thanked 4,480x in 2,599 Posts
    Mentioned
    497 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Dr. Who wrote:
    As imperfect as the appointment system is, an elected judiciary can be equally problematic and even more susceptible to undue influence since they then often tailor their rulings to please their electors. In the case of SCOTUS, you could then see the entire composition of the Court changing with every federal election and a rush to have prior rulings overturned by the new court. In all likelihood, the political bias of the Court would reflect the party in power. While that can happen to a degree under the appointment system, it is rare that any party has the ability to stack the Court unless there are multiple judges retiring from the bench at one time. The advantage of the appointment system is that once appointed, the judge cannot be removed for ruling impartially i.e. possibly against his or her political benefactors. A judge doing the same under an electoral system would be risking retaliation during the next election.
    You must live in a bubble if you believe that the Supreme Court rules on the constitutional merits of anything in a non-political way. The judicial system was political from the outset, and judicial review opposed by the immense majority of the American population at the outset of the then-unpopular U.S. Constitution's enactment because the public knew full well that the essential purpose of an empowered court system was to one-sidedly benefit creditors; to collect debts (almost everyone was hopelessly indebted) and imprison debtors who could not pay.

    The bolded arguments against a democratically-elected court system are striking to me. Is it not better for the politics of the highest court in the land to reflect those of the party currently in power at any given juncture than those of the party that has been perhaps voted out of power? Judges ruling against the public will would face retaliation in the next election? Good!! Isn't such accountability to the people the whole point of having a democratic political system in the first place?!

    The type of logic you're throwing out here is akin to saying that absolute monarchs and military dictators govern without political bias because they can't be held accountable to voters, as if democracy, the masses themselves, were the source of all corruption. The source of corruption, in my view of it, is non-accountability.

  14. #29
    Points: 423,358, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    392301
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    140,258
    Points
    423,358
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    13,635
    Thanked 39,869x in 29,533 Posts
    Mentioned
    1648 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    You must live in a bubble if you believe that the Supreme Court rules on the constitutional merits of anything in a non-political way. The judicial system was political from the outset, and judicial review opposed by the immense majority of the American population at the outset of the then-unpopular U.S. Constitution's enactment because the public knew full well that the essential purpose of an empowered court system was to one-sidedly benefit creditors; to collect debts (almost everyone was hopelessly indebted) and imprison debtors who could not pay.

    The bolded arguments against a democratically-elected court system are striking to me. Is it not better for the politics of the highest court in the land to reflect those of the party currently in power at any given juncture than those of the party that has been perhaps voted out of power? Judges ruling against the public will would face retaliation in the next election? Good!! Isn't such accountability to the people the whole point of having a democratic political system in the first place?!

    The type of logic you're throwing out here is akin to saying that absolute monarchs and military dictators govern without political bias because they can't be held accountable to voters, as if democracy, the masses themselves, were the source of all corruption. The source of corruption, in my view of it, is non-accountability.

    Electing judges would not be political? LOL.


    Even monarchs are accountable to the people, ultimately.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  15. #30
    Points: 60,354, Level: 60
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 1,996
    Overall activity: 22.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    153060
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    5,152
    Points
    60,354
    Level
    60
    Thanks Given
    5,490
    Thanked 4,480x in 2,599 Posts
    Mentioned
    497 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Chris wrote:
    Electing judges would not be political? LOL.
    I said nothing of the kind. "LOL."

    Electing them would simply acknowledge the reality that most people already know: that the court system is intrinsically political. Best then that it be accountable rather than not!

    Even monarchs are accountable to the people, ultimately.
    While I would love to hold certain Supreme Court justices 'accountable' in the sort of way you're suggesting, but I think that a process that makes for the peaceful transfer of power would be more desirable.

+ Reply to 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


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO