Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday May 18 2015, @12:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the right-to-shirk dept.

AlterNet reports:

Illinois governor Bruce Rauner watched his anti-union bill called, "Right-To-Work", die a swift, cruel death in the House [May 14]. [...] The the tally [PDF] was 0 yes votes, 72 no votes, and 37 voting present.

Fun with math: The Illinois House has 118 members.

A handful of Republicans went for a walk during the vote, not publicly falling on one side or another.

Source: Chicago Sun Times

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday May 18 2015, @02:38AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Monday May 18 2015, @02:38AM (#184272) Journal

    Use the _full_ name of such legislation: "The Right to Work for Less". Someone has a very tenuous grasp of economics:

    Unions are the ones preventing people from working, by forcing these victims into submitting to collective bargaining, especially when it is not in the best interest of these victims.

    Post previous to this, most likely by the same economic-theory-challenged AC, pointed out the choices for American labor were to unionize and demand fair pay for fair work, and somehow thereby driving corporations out of business and ending up unemployed, or to not form unions and have their jobs out-sourced to third-world workers and ending up unemployed. Now I must ask, how is being forced to join a union against the best interests of the workers? Some workers, in America, have been brainwashed by ALEC and corporate campaigns to demonize organized labor enough to think that unions are not in their interests, but that is because they have no idea what their interests are. If the false dilemma posed is accepted, it would be better for American labor to take the bloodthirsty corporations down with them. But since it is a false dichotomy, that is not likely to happen. It is not corporations that are the problem, it is capital. Capital does not actually know what is in it's interests, either. The unequal accumulation of capital is going to lower its value, and if the workers are unemployed, there will be no market for product, and thus no profit. Outsourcing relies are what are very transient disequilibriums in the global capitalist system, and it is sowing the seeds of its own demise.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:42AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:42AM (#184276)

    Economic theory is fucking useless. It doesn't matter what your beloved Herr Marx wrote so many decades ago. Economic reality is what matters. Anyone with even the smallest comprehension of the history of American industry will know that unionization destroyed it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:34AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:34AM (#184315)

      even the smallest comprehension of the history of American industry will know that unionization destroyed it.

      Uh-huh. And what's your take on the destruction of the housing market? All those people signing contracts that they didn't understand and/or couldn't afford?

      Industry destroyed itself. Signing union contracts it couldn't afford, but knew that it could get out of through perpetual reorganization, which is why everyone shit themselves when Obama put an end to it for GM.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Monday May 18 2015, @04:56AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Monday May 18 2015, @04:56AM (#184349) Journal

      Anyone with even the smallest comprehension of the history of American industry will know that unionization destroyed it.

      No, you imbecile, you are wrong!!! Do you know why? Let me explain it to you, and I will be sure to use small words so you can understand..

      The idea that Unionization lead to the downfall of American Industry is a Theory. I am not sure I would call it an "economic theory", and evidently you are leary of doing the same. But we will take that as read. The period of the greatest economic prosperity in America correspond to the highest levels of union membership, in, of course, the industrial period. This would suggest that your theory may be wrong!! It was the concerted anti-union efforts of American industry that destroyed it, which again makes my point that capitalists have no idea where their true interests lie.

      And now let me refute your bone-headed, no-nothing, anti-intellectualism: Theory is not useless, theory is ubiquitous, there are no facts without theory. This may be difficult for someone as "grounded" in "reality" as you no doubt think you are. But just think, a little, how could it be that capitalists know where, and when, to invest? Is it random? Or instinctual like a dog turning three times before laying down? No, it is all done on theory, a view of how the world works. So theory is not useless, but wrong theory is indeed worse than useless, it leads to situations like this where the working class can almost be persuaded to vote for their own elimination.

      (And an aside: you know, we have lots of interesting debates here on Soylent News. This is what makes the site what it is, as opposed to, um, theoretical alternatives. So just a gentle suggestion that when we are engaged in arguments of substance and not just calling each other names (you melon-headed AC!), it would be nice if you had a user name to attach you views, as wrong as they may be, to a particular disputant. Just a thought. If you are anti_gewg_, you can disregard this addendum.)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @12:18PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @12:18PM (#184472)

        It's not a theory. The unionization of American industry did lead to its downfall. That's a fact.

        • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @12:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @12:44PM (#184486)

          Bring back the Robber Barons!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @06:53PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @06:53PM (#184712)

          [Citation Needed]

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday May 18 2015, @07:10PM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Monday May 18 2015, @07:10PM (#184732) Journal

          The unionization of American industry did lead to its downfall. That's a fact.

          Not too bright, eh? Alright, I will repeat. It is not a fact, it is a theory. You might be able to say that American industry "fell" (what are your definitions and data on this, anyway? Did not actually "fall", you know!) some time after America reached its highest level of unionization (which was still pretty pathetic, for a civilized first-world economy). Now thinking that some thing happens because of something that happened before it is not a fact, it is a theory, a possible explanation. And if you leap to a conclusion by asserting your theory is a fact, you are making an assumption of causality. There is a name for this, it is called the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, or "after this, therefore because of this."

          Now that we are aware that you are one of the ACs whose intellect is truly dizzying, perhaps you could explain again the mechanism by which unionization brought about the downfall of American industry? I know, I know, since you maintain it is just a brute fact, it does not need explaining. But humor the rest of us. How did this actually work?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @08:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @08:15PM (#184771)

    Ah, you finally got to +5.
    Well deserved. A very important comment.
    Maybe if you had put The Right to Work for Less in bold, that would have happened a bit earlier.

    ...and you need to use the word "hypothesis" more.

    -- gewg_