Bosses do not need consent for temps to unionize in mixed bargaining units
Working In These Times reports
[In a 3-1 decision,] the National Labor Relations Board on [June 11] overturned a Bush-era standard that said a union could only organize a bargaining unit of jointly employed and regular employees if both employers consented--even if those employees worked together closely. "Jointly employed" includes temps who are hired through staffing agencies.
The new decision allows jointly employed temps to bargain collectively in the same unit with the solely employed workers they work alongside, ruling that bosses need not consent so long as workers share a "community of interest".
[...] In this new ruling from Miller & Anderson, Inc., the Board returns to a standard set in 2000, during the Clinton administration, in a case called M.B. Sturgis, Inc., which was overruled in Oakwood [Care Center].
[...] In a statement announcing the ruling, the NLRB said, "requiring employer consent to an otherwise appropriate bargaining unit desired by employees, Oakwood has ... allowed employers to shape their ideal bargaining unit, which is precisely the opposite of what Congress intended".
The ruling represents a blow to corporations that have moved forcefully, sometimes overwhelmingly, toward using temporary workers in an effort to block worker benefits and collective bargaining.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @04:34AM
Right. And what do they do for capital? Sell stoc... oh no, can't do that. Get investm... uh, no. Take out loan... no wait, that would involve evil blood-sucking capitalist paper tiger monsters, right? So how do they get their vast factories? Accumulated profit? No, that's capitalist, can't have that. So what is it?
And where's the one you've started? They're quite legal in the USA. You are in the US, aren't you?
Why? They're qualitatively different. Public companies are responsible to their stockholders, and can be called to account for ill-advised or undesired expenditures. Rich people can spend their own money on their own opinions. Unions spend other people's money on their leadership's agenda. What do you not see that makes this look like the same thing to you?
That's not actually a paradigm. It's just an economic system. And while socialism MIGHT be known to you as democracy everywhere, to me it's known as folly. Evidently, your mileage varies. And frankly, democracy everywhere seems quite iffy. It's not at all clear that democracy is the right fit for every situation. And a lot of people are pretty unhappy with some of its outcomes (Brexit, anyone?) even though it's generally well-regarded on the surface. Also, what about times when democracy is just asking the public's opinion about something the average member of the public is manifestly ill-equipped to judge? Reality isn't a popularity contest. Hell, in my job it's crystal clear that a lot of people in the company are utterly clueless about the foundations of the technology that makes it possible. Sounds like a wonderful recipe for lousy decisions.
Oh, right. So the system is good when it's not followed. Got that. Taking notes here.
No, the union gives the union a fighting chance, and the stiffs on the picket lines get to suck down whatever the union reps shake on with the megacorporation. I've been in union shops my friend, I know how it works and I've seen the pointy end coming down in my direction.
Maybe they just don't agree with the union? Oh, wait, that's unthinkable. If they disagree it's because they're wrong, and evil, and must be forced to join the union for re-education, and if their union dues are spent on political goals they don't like, that's just equal time, eh comrade?
Right, vast list. Got it. Can you list the defining criteria for limited fields of endeavour in which rugged individualists may extend their skills for filthy lucre? Since no true socialist will ever accumulate capital (whether in human, physical or pecuniary form) how are they supposed to do this? Your views intrigue me and I wish to hear all the details. Get specific. Get long. Get detailed.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @07:27AM
what do they do for capital?
You weren't interested enough to click the link and find out?
...and the point on the top of your head is likely more interesting than your other "points" were.
You are boring. Bye-bye.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @09:48PM
It comes down, in the big picture, to grants and loans. Nothing about this is self-sustaining or self-founding. Your proposal depends on someone else first generating the capital. So much for the socialist way.
And just because you find the points that poke holes in your ideology boring doesn't mean they aren't valid. If people wanted to implement your ideas (because they're SO COOL, right?) then those questions deserve answers: what, why and how?
Is democracy the right way to run a business? Based on what? What makes it right?
Why should unions exercise monopoly (or monopsony) power in employment, with respect to management or employees?
Are unions really functionally identical to the independently wealthy or the great corporations, given their intended roles as intermediaries for the purposes of negotiation? What about the discrepancies where they act as agents to the unwilling?
Put up or shut up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @12:14AM
The seed money is something that was ALREADY EARNED by the workers and is OWED to them from the failed Capitalist system.
No loans are needed.
I'd explain it to you but your head is so full of nonsense that I'd have to dredge out all that stupidity before starting to educate you.
I don't have that kind of time.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @02:27AM
Right. Got it. Evil capitalist theft-based system. Accumulation of capital is evil. Except when virtuous workers' cooperatives do it - then it's OK, but riddle me this, o sage: who gets to determine which capital, and how much of that, flows in which directions?
Or, to put it another way, what dispute resolution mechanism do you recommend for the adjudication of rival claims to given capital resources?
To give you a more concrete example, let's say that the Workers' Democratic Ironmongery wants to use the same water as the Soviet Peasantry's Farming Collective? Who decides? On what grounds?
Or, to bring it around to accumulated capital cases, both groups want to use the hydropower output from a wicked capitalist-constructed dam. Who gets how much? Adjudicated by whom? And why? What system of reasoning resolves these conflicts?