Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 363: SEC Speed

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ashethan posted...

Most states employers don't even have to give a reason for firing you. They just do it.

If you can prove it was due to organizing a union, you will win your job back. I have personal experience with that.

---

Hence the term "At-Will Employee."

So long as there's no definitive discrimination based on gender/race/religion etc then they can dismiss you for any reason.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Hence the term "At-Will Employee."

So long as there's no definitive discrimination based on gender/race/religion etc then they can dismiss you for any reason.

Incorrect. My father and 8 other employees were fired for organizing a union at my first long term job. They filed a suit with the NLRB who represented them in the case. They were awarded options of their job back and back pay for over a year or a lump sum settlement each and not to go back.

They cannot fire you explicitly for trying to start a union.

---

https://twitter.com/Bob_Ortega/status/1357806428598063104

More horror stories from Trump's immigration policy. newborn US citizens were sent to Mexico under it.

The Guardian reports...

[CBP] dropped her off across from the San Diego-Tijuana border, on the side of the road. She had no idea what to do or where to go. She also didn't have her newborn's birth certificate. When night fell, she and her baby slept right there on the street, on the other side of safety.

That specific case had the mother deported under Title 42 which was the Trump administration using a CDC order they issued in March about the pandemic to allow CBP to "expel" migrants without letting them access the normal legal avenues they should have available, even asylum. There is an allowance in Title 42 for case-by-case exemptions for humanitarian or public interest considerations but given this was the Trump administration the cruelty was, as always, the point.

About another case:

The Guardian reports...

In January, as Natalia's baby cooed and fussed, she said she'd like Americans to know: the border officials told her before her expulsion to Reynosa that her daughter would not be able to get a birth certificate because she was born to parents who were migrants without rights. Her daughter would not have rights either, they said.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Incorrect. My father and 8 other employees were fired for organizing a union at my first long term job. They filed a suit with the NLRB who represented them in the case. They were awarded options of their job back and back pay for over a year or a lump sum settlement each and not to go back.

They cannot fire you explicitly for trying to start a union.

This is correct. It's one of the very few non-discrimination protections.

However, if the company is smart, they'll come up with other bullshit reasons to claim they'll fire you over, and companies are usually smart about it.

---

Can't believe I have to explain why "right to work" is bullshit, but I'll give the extremely simple version.

The power of a union comes from collective bargaining. Said collective bargaining improves conditions for the entire workforce at a given job. Unions also have legitimate costs to engage in such things, such as lawyers, etc. Therefore, if you want to reap the benefits of what the union has won for you at such a job, then paying said dues is what allows the union to keep the benefits that you have because of them. Otherwise, their power wanes, and as a result, employers start getting to fuck over their workers' pay, benefits, and working conditions again.

Unions certainly have their fair share of faults and corruption -- look at the UAW. But "Right to Work" is absolute bullshit with a clever marketing name to make it look like it's pro-labor. It is not pro-labor. It only exists to fuck over unions and reduce the power of workers vs. employers, and employers already had more power there inherently.

---

Not having right to work is not pro-worker. It takes their choice away. It's not complicated.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Not having right to work is not pro-worker. It takes their choice away. It's not complicated.

It is funny how people always cite choice when making bullshit arguments.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Not having right to work is not pro-worker. It takes their choice away. It's not complicated.

Do you think the phrase right to work is literal, referring to the right to have a job?

Right to work laws literally take choice away.

---

I don't want to pay for a corrupt union.

So I can see both sides to it. I would be pretty infuriated to pay union dues to a union that did absolutely nothing for me because I didn't have seniority in the company.

I think the problem is trying to figure out how not to undermine unions while also not artificially proping up terrible ones like the police union.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

It is funny how people always cite choice when making bullshit arguments.

It's a fact. It's not pro-worker. It's pro-union. A union just like a company should have to prove that being a member is worth it to the person. If they cannot, they are no different than the people who think a company has shown in their opinion that they want a union in the first place.

---

Police Unions are not part of the labor movement, police unions are trash.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Police Unions are not part of the labor movement, police unions are trash.

This feels pretty No True Scottsman

---

masterplum posted...

This feels pretty No True Scottsman

Absolutely fucking not. In what world are police labor?

(The answer is "no world at all" btw)

masterplum posted...

This feels pretty No True Scottsman

who do police unions stand together against?
---

Weve had this discussion before, but I dont think you frequented this topic at the time.

Let me explain: The entire purpose of a labor union is to protect workers from abuse by owners of a company.

With police Unions, the Union itself is often run by literally the leadership of the department. Police unions dont protect labor from the owners, they protect them from their CUSTOMERS (us).

For fun, I googled my cities police department Union Boss, and its literally the Chief of Police.

---

At will employment
Reg posted...

Absolutely fucking not. In what world are police labor?

(The answer is "no world at all" btw)

We are having a discussion about Unions. Just because some unions aren't your prefered unions doesn't make them not unions.

The point is that At-Will employment allows people to not join corrupt unions which is good. The government also often undermines non-corrupt unions which entices people not to join them which is bad.

Its a complicated subject. You don't have to be dense and shocked and act like its blatantly obvious

---

masterplum posted...

At will employment

We are having a discussion about Unions. Just because some unions aren't your prefered unions doesn't make them not unions.

The point is that At-Will employment allows people to not join corrupt unions which is good. The government also often undermines non-corrupt unions which entices people not to join them which is bad.

Its a complicated subject. You don't have to be dense and shocked and act like its blatantly obvious

@PrivateBiscuit1


---

Labor unions exist to protect employees from unfair treatment from their employers.

Police unions are literally run by the ones in charge. They are their own employers.

So who does a police union protect police from?

Us.

Police unions literally only exist for them to avoid accountability. They use their power as a union to lobby for the elected officials they want to make it so they have nobody to answer to, and that's the problem.

They have no employers they need to protect themselves from with a union, so they have zero actual need for a union. That's what makes them different.

---

https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/1358204082427674625?s=21

Drag their ass, King.

---

Which Dems want that? I've seen that going around but I don't know who or how many are actually supporting that

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Labor unions exist to protect employees from unfair treatment from their employers.

Police unions are literally run by the ones in charge. They are their own employers.

So who does a police union protect police from?

Us.

Police unions literally only exist for them to avoid accountability. They use their power as a union to lobby for the elected officials they want to make it so they have nobody to answer to, and that's the problem.

They have no employers they need to protect themselves from with a union, so they have zero actual need for a union. That's what makes them different.

@masterplum

Yes hello thank you Chris.

SEP has explained it pretty succinctly here, but I'll make a few other notes.

Police unions are corrupt and only protect cops from accountability at their jobs. They stack the rules in favor of the police so there is literally no accountability for their actions. They murder people and at worst they get two weeks paid vacation. The cop who kneeled on George Floyd's neck had some ridiculous number like 40 something complaints and he didn't get punished at all. They get thrown out because police unions let these terrible, dangerous, racist, reckless cops go wild with impunity.

The police union works with the police to make police contracts, and the police union is also part of the police so how is that just? They are not independent of the police administration here. And they actively spend tons of taxpayer money to actively lobby for whatever politicians will allow them to get away with whatever they want. Some ridiculous amount of money just so their favorite politician can be in office, so it pays for politicians to work with allowing police unions to do whatever they want.

So far only ONE state in the US has done anything about police unions, and it's just Washington, D.C. They make it so police unions can't include anything about punishments and investigations in their contracts, which levels the playing field. Literally no other state has even attempted to do anything like this, because they work hard to ensure there won't be a politician to enact that sort of thing.

I've said it in this topic repeatedly, but until you get rid of police unions, you can't stop systemic racism in the police force. They won't stop unfairly treating people of color until they have a reason to not do so. As it stands, they will never get punished for it, so they have no reason to follow any rules or change anything.

That's why when we have Biden going into office saying "we'll teach em to shoot em in the leg" or "we'll make em take more classes" it's worthless. He knows exactly what the problem is, and it isn't cops not being aware enough that what they're doing is bad, it's that they don't have any reason to hold back at all. They won't get punished over it. But he's not about to come out and say that and wreck the whole system.

It's a broken, abhorrent system that cannot and will not be changed without tearing the whole thing down and building it back up. It's not even close to how other unions operate. It's completely compromised.

---

Police unions literally create a class of citizens who are above the law.

And that is a disaster for society.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Police unions are corrupt and only protect cops from accountability at their jobs.

Every single union does this

---

Corrik7 posted...

Every single union does this

This is an unhelpful comment. Put it in with context of literally every other thing said about police unions.

---

Or hell Corrik, let's put it this way.

Every other union protects employees from accountability. The police can literally murder people with a flimsy enough of an excuse.

Do you see a problem that a police has a union in the first place that they can make it so people can just murder with impunity?

Like miss me with the conversations about "whataboutism" when there's a group of people who are literally able to do anything up to and including murder people and target minorities unfairly if they make up some bullshit excuse for why they did it.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

This is an unhelpful comment. Put it in with context of literally every other thing said about police unions.

I mean your post applies to every union. Corruption is rife. Against accountability is one of their main jobs. They lobby for their causes.

Your DC comment just means they forced their union to be weaker than usual unions.

Every union has clauses on how discipline and termination is handled. Every union is supposed to be run by people in your field. It's why many steelworkers have problems with the USW who branched out to other areas. Teamsters is the biggest union for police at least in my area. My union at a past job was the teamsters and we were not police. They negotiate against the state or municipalities they work for in their contracts.

I don't see the difference anywhere in what you say.

---

The difference is that police unions don't protect them from being held accountable at their job from their employer, because the police union IS their employer.

They protect them from accountability from the taxpayer, who they can murder with virtually no reason, with no punishment at all.

Like just understand that much and you understand why police unions are not like other unions and why they're a far bigger problem.

---

TotallyNotMI posted...

Which Dems want that? I've seen that going around but I don't know who or how many are actually supporting that

There was a ~bipartisan~ amendment during vote-a-rama by a couple Dems like Manchin along with I want to say Collins and a few on the Republican side that were talking about it, but the actual text of the amendment does not specify a number and just says "upper-class" and leaves it to the Senate Budget Chairman (i.e. literally Bernie Sanders himself) to determine what that means.

Back on Wednesday or whenever vote-a-rama was I saw a lot of panic and "betrayal" takes elsewhere over this amendment from people reacting based on what that group of Senators was saying ($50,000 phaseout) when the actual text of their amendment leaves it up to Sanders who obviously isn't going to do that making it all performative on their (the "moderates") part.

Pretty sure no one who actually matters in this process is going for $50,000 with actions that matter.

---

xp1337 posted...

Pretty sure no one who actually matters in this process is going for $50,000 with actions that matter.

That was my assumption based on the vagueness I've been seeing. Thanks!

---

https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1358060048426160131?s=19

---

xp1337 posted...

Pretty sure no one who actually matters in this process is going for $50,000 with actions that matter.

I snipped this part because it's all that's relevant to MI's post, but lol you could not have framed this in a more disingenuous--and wrong--way btw.

TotallyNotMI posted...

That was my assumption based on the vagueness I've been seeing. Thanks!

At least Manchin and Angus King (who caucuses with Dems) are both on the record saying they want it to be $50,000/$100,000.

Considering reconciliation is gonna require every vote, I think it does actually matter. Thanks!

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

The difference is that police unions don't protect them from being held accountable at their job from their employer, because the police union IS their employer.

They protect them from accountability from the taxpayer, who they can murder with virtually no reason, with no punishment at all.

Like just understand that much and you understand why police unions are not like other unions and why they're a far bigger problem.

The police union is not their employer. I don't understand why you think that.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/portland-police-union-contract-negotiations-begin/283-44d2f0e8-dcfb-4d77-9d5b-6f51f9b53fe2

I mean... it doesn't even make sense.

---

Corrik, the article you linked is literally about the Mayor of Portland changing the system so police have civilian oversight, and the Police Union fighting against that.

Like...you just walked into our exact point.

This type of situation literally couldn't/wouldn't happen in any other job.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik, the article you linked is literally about the Mayor of Portland changing the system so police have civilian oversight, and the Police Union fighting against that.

Like...you just walked into our exact point.

This type of situation literally couldn't/wouldn't happen in any other job.

Negative. Read better. Their employers are the State, City, or Municipality. You just seem upset with the contracts they have negotiated. If you want to negotiate against the union, you are going to have to give up something they feel is equal in return. That's how negotiating works.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Negative. Read better. Their employers are the State, City, or Municipality.

Speaking of read better, did you even read my post? Not only did I not say otherwise, this doesn't even refute what I said!

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik, the article you linked is literally about the Mayor of Portland changing the system so police have civilian oversight, and the Police Union fighting against that.

ulti'd
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Speaking of read better, did you even read my post? Not only did I not say otherwise, this doesn't even refute what I said!

My post was responding to PrivateBiscuit who said the Union is their employer, which is incorrect. It's literally just another union. There really isn't much of a difference between their union/s and a normal union. They negotiated their position. It was accepted by their employer. If the employer doesn't like the terms, they have to negotiate a new contract. They unfortunately hold very little leverage, but that is the actual employers fault. If you dislike the contracts, you should be attacking the employers that negotiated them. Not the union. The union did it's job the best it could to protect their workers.

Now, we can argue if unions themselves are good or not, sure. However, this argument again is no different than basically any other union. You are unhappy with a contract negotiated that both sides clearly felt was fair when made. This is like being unhappy that the NL doesn't have a DH or something. That's great and all. However, it's their contract and what was agreed upon. The unions don't make up their own rules. It was negotiated with their employers.

---

The amount of effort you're putting to miss the point means arguing with you is pointless.

Let's go back to talking about getting our fucking checks instead.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The amount of effort you're putting to miss the point means arguing with you is pointless.

Let's go back to talking about getting our fucking checks instead.

You have missed the point because you believe stupid things that go repeatedly said in this topic over and over which are wrong like "the Union is the Police's employer".

Instead of just admitting you dislike their negotiated contracts, you instead argue the union is corrupt and should be abolished and so on. Yet, you would also go to hell and back if it was a teachers union or so on union under fire. You are being hypocritical. You either support the unions ability to negotiate as a collective to assert their will the best they can for their representatives or you don't. You shouldn't be picking and choosing which union shouldn't be allowed to operate because you dislike the contract both sides agree upon. I mean, I get trying to change the subject when the assertion is unequivocally wrong in the first place to try and hide from that instead of admitting the comment was wrong. However, it doesn't go away that the assertion is wrong.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Negative. Read better. Their employers are the State, City, or Municipality. You just seem upset with the contracts they have negotiated. If you want to negotiate against the union, you are going to have to give up something they feel is equal in return. That's how negotiating works.

"Listen, if you want us to actually have our cops be able to be fairly investigated and punished for murdering people for no reason, we're gonna have to have a little bit more from you."

Seems fair.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The amount of effort you're putting to miss the point means arguing with you is pointless.

Welcome to literally every facet of his existence.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The amount of effort you're putting to miss the point means arguing with you is pointless.

Corrik argues in bad faith. News at 9.

Hi Corrik. I just wanted to let you know about the person they elected to be President of the Portland Police Association, Portland Police Bureau's union, is Officer Brian Hunzenker, who was a traffic officer for 20 years.

So tell me more about how it's a completely separate entity again?

---

Corrik7 posted...

You have missed the point because you believe stupid things that go repeatedly said in this topic over and over which are wrong like "the Union is the Police's employer".

I explicitly told you I didnt say this and you say it again.

Incredible.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I snipped this part because it's all that's relevant to MI's post, but lol you could not have framed this in a more disingenuous--and wrong--way btw.

At least Manchin and Angus King (who caucuses with Dems) are both on the record saying they want it to be $50,000/$100,000.

Considering reconciliation is gonna require every vote, I think it does actually matter. Thanks!

Eh, he's not that wrong. While Manchin says he wants the phase-out to start at $50,000, his amendment literally does not say that. xp's right that it's just a vague "upper-income taxpayers." So what he's saying doesn't truly matter since it's not actually the legislation.

So, yes, it does require every vote, but it seems like it's Manchin just paying lip service. He got the proposal he wanted as it was written.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Eh, he's not that wrong. While Manchin says he wants the phase-out to start at $50,000, his amendment literally does not say that. xp's right that it's just a vague "upper-income taxpayers." So what he's saying doesn't truly matter since it's not actually the legislation.

So, yes, it does require every vote, but it seems like it's Manchin just paying lip service. He got the proposal he wanted as it was written.

The way I see it is that if there is a big enough concern that some Democrats feel the need to send a letter saying Please dont do this, then there IS something there.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/02/06/over-50-house-democrats-ask-biden-not-to-lower-income-threshold-for-1400-stimulus-checks/

And the way xp worded his post is literally Bernie is freaking out about a ~bipartisan amendment~ when he controls the final price!! when lol, we know thats not really true, now is it?

---

Hmm. I thought my post was pretty clear, but apparently it requires some clarification.

~Bipartisan amendment~ has the ~ to indicate my sarcasm and eye-rolling. I'll admit this part, and this alone, I felt may have been a bit unclear. I didn't think scare quotes would convey the right meaning, but from the rest of my post I thought it was pretty clear I was taking a pretty dim view of the Senators involved in this amendment given I accused them and this amendment as being purely performative political theater. There may have been a better way to convey that, I kinda feel like there may have been but for the life of me I couldn't think of anything past scare quotes and tildes.

My post does not, in fact, literally state that I think "Sanders is freaking out." In fact, I state I saw worrying elsewhere now, granted I suppose you could stretch this somewhat as me seeing Sanders doing so, but it is with a heavy heart that I must inform you all that Bernie Sanders is not part of my social circle. Also, that I follow political discussion in places other than Board 8's Political Containment Topic and I was referring to people in those discussions and forums freaking out as this amendment was being proposed, voted on, and passed during vote-a-rama.

Additionally, I will very much assert I do not think Sanders is "freaking out" about this. I think he's pretty calm, honestly. I think he knows Manchin and co are acting their act and what he's doing is reiterating and reinforcing the message. In a way, I almost think it's a game, Manchin probably gets street cred back in WV for being able to go to his constituents and say "Hey, look, I was fighting against Sanders for you, look how moderate I am!" Nor am I particularly concerned about House Dems sending a letter, again, I'd take this as them drawing their line here.

The one and only fact in play here that would have me even slightly concerned is the reporting that Biden is willing to at least entertain talks on targeting. However, on the other side of the scale, he had the Senate vote through the reconciliation process for the $1.9t price tag which very much suggests we're not going to see it scaled down and Biden has been surprisingly (to me, at least) upfront with hammering in the messaging that he has no interest in getting bogged down in negotiations and instead wants to forge ahead on getting this done.

Now does this mean I'm saying it's a done deal that the $50,000 phase out is not happening? No, I'm not. But I don't think it's an imminent or likely threat here. Nothing has actually crossed from rhetoric to action yet that has gotten me worried that Democrats are going to fuck this up. I don't begrudge anyone the anxiety that the political theater that is discussing it might bring, but to this point I don't see it as anything more than just that - theater.

If they actually phase it down to $50k, I promise you I'll be raging against them for their utter stupidity and cowardice but we're not there.

---

It would be like the perfect storm of making everyone pissed off have the entire messaging be "finishing the $2000" to justify doing $1400, and then altering who the money applies to compared to the $600.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Hi Corrik. I just wanted to let you know about the person they elected to be President of the Portland Police Association, Portland Police Bureau's union, is Officer Brian Hunzenker, who was a traffic officer for 20 years.

So tell me more about how it's a completely separate entity again?

A local union. Tons of unions are ran by people in their business or field or union. Many are just elected from their own ranks. Those are the best kinds of leaders usually but not always.

https://boilermakerslocal154.com/leadership-1

International isn't much different.

https://boilermakers.org/about/leadership

I honestly think you know very little actually about unions and are just trying to find a distinction to try to justify being pro-union but anti-police unions. They operate same as many other unions.

---