Blah blah fucking blah. If you think I obsess over you, you've got a really fucking weird concept of obsession. And I'll post however the fuck I like. You don't like it, there a bag somewhere with your name on it.

What exactly are you expecting here? When a $1.9 Trillion "Pandemic Relief Bill" spends the majority of it's funds on non-pandemic expenses, and the majority of the legislation in the bill is targeted towards invalidating state-level right to work laws, did you expect it to just slide through?

The problem with the bill isn't that anyone on either side of the aisle doesn't want to help people who've been suppressed by lockdowns. The problem is that the "stimulus package" is attempting to end right to work. What does that have to do with the pandemic? Nothing! So why's it a problem? Because aid to "the poor" due to arbitrary government mandates are being held hostage unless unrelated legislation can be rammed through with it.

So... "Get this shit done" now has some honest context.

right to work is garbage anti free market legislation anyway. That is if you're using it in the common American sense, where it restricts union bargaining rights.

I don't think that's in this bill so I think you're just referring generally to the minimum wage part that was dropped?

Right to work is as free market as it gets. No mandatory union fees, no mandatory union training, no mandatory trade schooling. Competition in labor markets are part of the "free market". Labor Unions prevent active competition.

Right to work does not guarantee union-free workplaces. It merely allows for the option of them. You don't know the first thing about private sector unions.

You are correct on one thing, been following so many attempts to ram through harmful bills that I did conflate the "Protecting the Right to Organize Act" with the Pandemic Relief Bill. Perhaps Dems in Congress are too busy attempting to violate states rights to focus on relief for the American people?

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Mar 9 2021 02:47pm

If a union wants to negotiate an exclusivity agreement with a business how is that not the free market? The worker knows what they're getting into when they take the job, that they will pay union dues whether or not they join, so how is that not free association?

It's enforced by the state though. Unions using their collective bargaining power to consolidate their power IS the free market. Now, you could argue that right to work legislation is pro LABOR but the legislation is market interference by definition.

it's just that you have a habit of weighing into discussions i have with other people with unsolicited personal remarks, but never contribute anything of value or worth discussing yourself. sure looks like a bit of an obsession to me. i have not once had the urge to comment on your discussions like that - if you even have them, and not just appear as someone's toady...

obviously you're free to obsess however much you like, but i think it's ironic that you both suggest i should only share my opinion when you ask me (ironically after sharing your comments without invitation), and then in the very next post defiantly claim that you post whenever you like. well ok, rebel, so you want to have your cake, eat it too, and then want to have it again...

ok, enough of that now, back to the kid's table with you, silly goose...

I said:



...not "American beer IS SUPERIOR" you nincompoop. I made a reasonable statement, and you went full fenderp, like you're wont to do.

Go find your fucking clown shoes when you pick up your clown nose.

If a union negotiates an exclusivity agreement with a business, and then immediately organizes a strike that requires that the business quadruple the pay of the workers while cutting their hours in half, how IS that the free market?

"Right to Work" gives businesses the out to simply fire everyone involved in the union and nullify union contracts, while hiring up willing labor when the union fails to meet their production obligations.

And as far as the worker goes, that's the weakest possible argument you could make. As it stands right now, if you want to be an Amazon delivery driver, you can do it as a direct employee, a contract employee, etc. You can provide your labor in a massive variety of ways, either direct to Amazon, as an independent contractor negotiating with Amazon, or through companies that are contracting via Amazon. Thus, as the laborer, you can choose which option best fits your needs. Some pay more up front "paycheck money" while others have better insurance incentives, stock plans, etc. If the Amazon direct-employees unionize and force an exclusivity contract, suddenly 2/3rds of the labor pool have no option and no voice, and joining the union will remove all option.

There's a reason private sector unions went into the shitter. It's not "right to work giving the power to the corporations". It's the ability to provide the individual laborer enough options that they can get better non-union terms.



Right to work does not prevent unions. It prevents unions from forcing exclusivity contracts, then weaponizing them to bankrupt businesses.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Mar 9 2021 02:57pm

Then that's the business being really dumb about its contract negotiation. If a business really signed a contract saying "we will only hire out of the union and the union has no obligation to show up for work" then that business deserves to fail. The next business will be more discriminating about its contract negotiation.

Also, the union who drives its employer out of business is also dead. So really your argument is garbage on its face.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Mar 9 2021 02:59pm