Only if you’re a tightass!
Okay, here’s the game: everyone takes turns naming something that used to be national policy, but is now clearly inhumane/really stupid. Since I came up with the game, I get to pick the easy one: slavery. Ok, who’s next?
(Incidentally, lest anyone think I’m comparing unions to slavery, I fully support unions. However, I am steadfastly opposed to morons.)
What?! You don’t like slavery?
Then bite me! 
Oh yeah, somebody calls me a leech and I don’t get to respond with a “Bite me” I don’t think so.
As far as collective bargaining being the national policy of this country; I have yet to see anybody articulate an argument disputing this.
I don’t bite tightasses.
Women who vote can bite my tight ass.
Since you offered, and none of us wanted to volunteer to bite your ass, we decided to elect an official ass biter.
Unfortunatley (for you), nobody wanted to run for election, so your ass will have to remain unbitten.
We consider this election a success for women voters everywhere.
I’m just wondering what County’s fixation is with wanting to be bitten on his/her tight ass??
I don’t think I wanna know the answer to THAT, johnnyk.
shudder
Maybe county is actually Marv Albert.
You must have missed my post a little while back. Yeah, you “responded” to it, but your response was nothing but you saying “he’s wrong.” You never said why I was wrong. That’s so feeble that I really don’t think it should count as a response.
Part of the problem is your inability to articulate what you mean by a “national policy.”
If by “national policy” you mean that the law protects the right of workers to unite and bargain as one entity, and provides a framework within which they may do so, then you are correct. No one disputes that.
On the other hand, if by “national policy” you mean that the official position of the US government is to actively encourage unionization in all businesses under all circumstances, you are wrong. The law protects the right of workers to collectively act on their own behalf; that protection is not the same thing as saying such collective action is the best policy choice in every situation.
Indeed, the “national policy” line in the statute you cited only applies to federal employees – i.e., it represents findings regarding civil service employees; it is not a set of findings applicable to every employer in the private sector.
More to the point, you seem to think that people who decry unionization are somehow disputing the content of US labor laws. But they aren’t. They’re just saying that unionization may have costs that outweigh its benefits on a society-wide level. Heck, very few folks think that the government shouldn’t protect the right to unionize, even if they disfavor unions generally – unionization may be a poor choice in some circumstances, but being a freedom-loving people, most folks think workers should be able to try that option if they wish (with the possible corollary that they shouldn’t be able to drag other, less union-inclined workers along with them kicking and screaming).
A side question on “tightass.” What’s the opposite of that? A loose ass? Kind of like Goatse man? (If you don’t know what that is, don’t ask.) Frankly, I’ll keep my ass tight if that’s the alternative.
Country:
First: I’m no legal expert, but if collective barganing was and is national policy as stated through a United States Code, wouldn’t it superceed any state code (my own case being South Carolina’s Right To Work laws, eg, ‘open-shop.’)?
Second: Why are unions such a good thing, especially when all they seem to do is drive up cost of employment for union workers, thus making it less desirable to have unions? If GM were to move their plants from Flint, Michigan to Sumter, SC, the UAW would follow, right? Now, under South Carolina laws, any empolyee has the right to terminate their contract with the company for any reason at any time, without question. Just “I quit!” And, the company has the right to terminate the same contract for any reason at any time (within legal limits, such as the EEA and AWDA), eg “You’re fired.” Now, with this on the books, if the UAW were to stage a strike the way they did in Michigan, every single goddamned union worker who didn’t show up wouldn’t have a job (voulentary self-termination by failing to show for a scheduled work period) and an assload of non-union workers would take their places, at lower cost (which, by corollary, increase the amount available for payroll, thus allowing more workers, thus benifitting the whole goddamned community instead of just the members of the union.) In a nutshell, why join a union when they drive up employment costs, cost you dues, and in the end don’t have ANY power in Right To Work states?
Third: What’s your hangup with the phrase “Bite me?” Couldn’t you come up with something more creative, like “Suck it (insert name.)! Suck it long and suck it hard!” ?
Dewey: I responded appropriately to your previous statement(s)
Suggest you reread the begining of 7101 where Congress stated “that experience in both the private and public sector…”
That is the Congress of the United States speaking.
The right of workers to organize in this country was won with more than votes and legislation, people were murdered, citizens fought in the streets.
Whether one agrees or disagrees, the laws of the land safeguard the right of American workers to organize and speak collectively through unions if they so choose.
That is a short version of what I mean by national policy of our country.
On a side note - “tightass” and “bite me” just sort of came to me as appropriate at the moment. You know how the muse just strikes you on occasion.
Must be a half-retarded jelly fish muse.
The muse appears to have struck you repeatedly. On the temporal lobe.
sticks and stones
That they are prevalent in the South is correct. Georgia, for example, is a “right to work” state. What does that mean? That employers can fire you at any time, and for any reason, or for no reason. What right to employees get in return? The right to quit, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason.
In short, Georgia and the other Southern states are in essence slave states still. That’s really why they’re so prevalent in the South – the moneyed elite missed slavery.
I wonder if all the middle class office workers could be encouraged to go collective if they were encouraged to join Workers’ Associations which fought on a local, state and national level to imrpive the lot of workers in their bailiwicks. It seems to me that right now corporations are VERY well represented in government, but workers have little or not representation owing to the fact that the Dem leadership knows unions have no choice but to support them over Pubbies, so their total interest in unions is getting money from them, but feel no need to act on their concerns.
Slavery? How so?
The word ‘ass’, in several forms, appears 26 times in this thread.