It is time to outlaw collective bargaining. (wages, legal, terrorism)

[moguldreamer]

It is high time to outlaw the practice of collective bargaining in the workforce. There should never be an intermediary labor union/trade union in between an employee and an employer when it comes to compensation. We now see the economic harm to the country for which the UAW is directly responsible, and this legally sanctioned economic terrorism should be outlawed.

Individual employees should negotiate with employers based on their own talents, skilsets, human capital and the employer's need to keep them on the payroll (or not). There just is no excuse for a labor union to be in the middle.

Unions can exist for any number of reasons other than collective bargaining. For example, Unions can exist to provide pensions to their union members. Members would contribute money to the unions, who in turn would invest it on their behalf and issue pension checks to retirees. THAT is a perfectly acceptable role of a union.

But not collective bargaining.

[Boffking]

I think it falls under Freedom of Assembly in the first amendment.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by moguldreamer

It is high time to outlaw the practice of collective bargaining in the workforce. There should never be an intermediary labor union/trade union in between an employee and an employer when it comes to compensation. We now see the economic harm to the country for which the UAW is directly responsible, and this legally sanctioned economic terrorism should be outlawed.

Individual employees should negotiate with employers based on their own talents, skilsets, human capital and the employer's need to keep them on the payroll (or not). There just is no excuse for a labor union to be in the middle.

Unions can exist for any number of reasons other than collective bargaining. For example, Unions can exist to provide pensions to their union members. Members would contribute money to the unions, who in turn would invest it on their behalf and issue pension checks to retirees. THAT is a perfectly acceptable role of a union.

But not collective bargaining.

Only if we start with police and fire unions. The GOP in Texas hates unions, except for police and fire.

The second step is limiting CEO pay to 100 times the lowest paid employee or contractor on an annualized basis. There is no reason for the CEO of GM to make $26 million when assembly line people are making $50,000.

Vesting periods for executive stock compensation should be the latter of 65 years of age or 20 years after leaving the company.

Eliminating collective bargaining would result in lower wages for workers snd higher pay for executives. I suggest you read some history on collective bargaining and why it exists.

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by Boffking

I think it falls under Freedom of Assembly in the first amendment.

I am not a constitutional scholar by any stretch. But my reading of the following doesn't appear to offer any constitutional justification at all, let alone a Freedom of Assembly justification: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collective_bargaining

Can you please explain to me how collective bargaining itself falls under Freedom of Assembly provision?

[Mike from back east]

The presence of unions and collective bargaining was hammered out over decades of court cases and has long been settled law. I see no need to change it now just to suit the Koch Brothers' network of billionaires and corporate elites who want to grind workers' noses into the dirt and cut pay to poverty level. Collective bargaining balances the equation given that the corporations are bargaining collectively on behalf of tens of thousands of their stockholders.

This might be a good thread in P&OC, but there's nothing new in labor laws to debate here.

Thread closed.