SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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, @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?