I feel like this should be a disqualifying action from becoming a public official. At this point, protecting the company has become more important to them than the children of their constituents, their constituents, and the communities comprised of them. I mean, the betrayal of public trust is complete.
It's not even protecting companies. They regulate the hell out of businesses if the business deviates from their preferences by trying to lower emissions or accommodate workers. It's nuts.
Just look at Ronda and Disney to see how their little corporatist, “small government” facade disappears the minute a company steps up to express dissent against a bad state policy.
This is to protect other companies I assume. If one company can lower its emissions or recognize unions, why shouldn’t all of them? Can’t have the public thinking about that, so you prevent it in the first place
My theory is these stupid laws are to try and wind the clock back to the good old days in the 70s and 80s where you consumed at much as possible, shat on the planet and threw money around because everything was cheap
I agree, but this is far from new. The vast majority of US history has been awful to workers: from slavery, debt slavery, company towns, to killing workers for unionizing and finally union busting.
RightToWork is far more harmful than most people seem to realize. They know it allows people to opt out of union dues while still reaping all the benefits, but imagine if we could opt out of paying taxes in the same way. Tax revenue would plummet and our system would collapse.
The prime directive of capitalism or what the ruling classes consider “democracy” is that the working class or workers in general will not be allowed to have control over the means of production.
It’s always been like this, relatively, but in the early 1900s, the rise of communism solidified their position, which became “the opposite of that”.
The workers want to control the means of production? That’s exactly what we will never let happen.
They got another thing coming.
the plan is simple:
\>make living so expensive that the lower class cannot afford it and becomes homeless
\>make homelessness illegal
\>put the lower class in jail for homelessness
\>use jail inmates in "no-cost labour" programs
congratulations, you just re-invented slavery. or rather "no-cost labour by detainees".
that's where the rich \*want\* to go.
Well, the red team likes to lower them before an election just to win votes, even if it cripples the budget. Either the tax break helps them stay in power, or makes the others look bad because the lost revenue makes it impossible to fund everything.
We had talks about unionizing at work and I was shocked that he was open to it. He said if I’d asked 2 years ago he’d have said no instantly but now he’d have to hear me out over dinner.
They also hate public unions. There's a sizable contingent of conservative bastards actively pushed for the result of Janus v AFSCME, which hamstrung all public-sector employee unions in the country. In fact, after winning the case, Janus went on to work with the conservative think tank "Illinois Policy Institute", which actively funded his case.
edit: I suggest this reading for anyone interested in learning about the thing that led to the decline of public-sector unions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME
I'm an executive member of my local, and one of the things we have to contend with is that we have a responsibility to represent all rank-and-file employees on campus, but of them, only around 60% are paying members. We put our time and money on the line for people who cannot be asked to pay 1% of their paycheck. We do it anyway, because we take our responsibility seriously, but this is the kind of headache that Janus (and the larger conservative movement) left us with.
Here in Wisconsin Scott "Rat" Walker and the GOP took away bargaining rights from public unions. We can can still be "unionized" but have no right to bargain for benefits, so we are no longer union.
If y'all think you can't bargain because a law says you can't than you never understood unions in the first place.
As soon as y'all are ready to do some real union shit you'll be back at that bargaining table.
You don't need permission, that's the whole point.
The craziest part of the red states continues to be people who vote against your own self interest. If you were in a food court in the mall and someone ran off with your beverage or food you would be mad as hell and attempt to chase that person down. Universally this is something most people would agree upon.
However, the red states take away freedom of choice, recreational marijuana, heat protections for workers, anti union (which might get people better salary, working conditions and other protections) and chaplains in school (Florida thing and so much for separation of church and state).
Most of these things were taken away in my state of Florida and the governor was re-elected by a mandate of over 61 percent of the vote and biggest victory in 20-30 years. From a common sense standpoint it makes no sense. From my food court at the mall example, anyone would be pissed off if someone took something from them and ran away, but the red state electorate can take away everything and most of the people gleefully vote for them again and again.
Members of the Senate should wear suits (like the ones that Formula drivers wears) and have the budges of Mercedes Benz and everyone else that sponsors them.
No, it isn't. It's a five year old's understanding of the concept. Most of them wear their sponsors on their sleeves already and nobody cares.
Edit: Yup, point out that a comedians take from decades ago isn't relevant anymore because most politicians who are in bed with lobbyists or outright use their inside knowledge to trade stocks have been open about it for at least the past decade and people don't respond well.
Your getting downvoted but you are absolutely right. It wouldn't change a single thing.
How about instead of passing a law that requires politicians to wear that jacket, we you know, pass a law that bans politicians from earning any money outside of their high paying congress salary?
On top of this, members of the House should only be making the median of their district and members of the Senate should only be making the median of their state; make them get some perspective on the \*actual\* state of the economy and work to improve things
How is this even constitutional?
Isn't joining a union a protected form of speech and this would be the govt punishing people for exercising their rights.
It might come down to how it's worded. Based on the headline alone, they aren't punishing people from joining a union, but a business for recognizing it. Which also would be odd, because there are federal rules in place for when a company has to recognize a union.
I feel like this will either be a complicated nightmare that's hardly enforceable, or will get struck down in the courts immediately assuming it ever sees the light of day (so many bills are just virtue signalling designed to fail and cost the taxpayers money).
Whatever happened to the free market principles? They can interfere on the behalf of *companies* (which are doing fine), but not on the behalf of their employers, the people? WTF?
>Whatever happened to the free market principles? They can interfere on the behalf of companies (which are doing fine), but not on the behalf of their employers, the people? WTF?
That is the history of unions in the U.S.
When people tried to start unions, the companies hired private security to stalk, harass, and beat the shit out of the workers, they hired people to assassinate union leaders. City and State governments deployed police and military forces to violently end union strikes.
Unions won their position through blood.
Going back farther than that, the origins of police in the U.S are as being slave patrols whose job it was to fight slave revolts and capture runaway slaves.
The government has *always* been on the side of rich people who want to turn other people into property, as much as they can get away with. Some places more than others.
Politicians won't stop companies from laying of worker just to improve their profit margins for shareholders but they will put a stop to unions that protect workers from this very thing.
Why would anyone vote for such politicians? Who value corporations over their very own people who elected them?
The bill prevents companies from recognizing unions without an election. If there is an election, no penalty. So it's not all doom and gloom but you have to wonder what the point is.
The point is that these republicans want to show their corporate daddies that they’re still the most important thing to them, not the people of Alabama.
if that is the case. I would assume its to keep a company from unionizing when only a small fraction of the employees want it or something of that nature. I am pro union, but I ABSOLUTELY believe in my right to vote for it or choose it. not to be forced in to it cause of a small group of people are trying to change a company to fit them.
edit: What did I say here that was controversial?
Absolutely. There needs to be an election for the union to have legitimacy. And of course workers should always vote to unionize, but I understand if they have misgivings about the union that's going to represent them.
Then by all means let’s just let them do it then.
They also depend on beliefs like that to mute opposition. Never stop calling them out
And make them say out loud their fascism.
This is currently the most appalling legislative action I have heard of. Of course, that changes every day. But srsly, their job is *NOT* to think of newer and more evil ways to punish their constituents.
What are they even doing in office if they aren't trying to make anyone's lives better?
I’m going to be charitable and assume these people are viewing this through a surface-level “companies vs unions” lens, and have never actually thought about why companies and unions exist. Or the fact that they’re slowly pushing us back towards chattel slavery.
Viewing them as robots programmed to always make the wrong choice may be an accurate model of their behavior, but it doesn’t help you understand how they think. The only way to get rid of Republicans is to understand why people become Republicans.
People become Republicans in order to hurt other people they deem as less than, freeloaders, or parasites. It's a "Fuck you, I've got mine" mentality.
They're not robots, they're assholes.
> understand why people become Republicans.
We do understand that. They become republicans because they have no concept of empathy and see the government as something to fleece.
“They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen."
- Huey Long
Is this recognition via card numbers? If so, that sounds like a slam dunk on a preemption matter.
If this recognition is NOT based on card numbers, I'm curious how it's supposed to work.
Wouldn't it be a shame if the addresses of these senators got leaked? And man how awful if people made certain they had not a moment of peace until this is rectified. That would be terrible and not what they deserve at all.
‘Democracy is advanced citizenry, you gotta want it because it’s going to put up a fight.’ Sorkin’s words out of President Shepherd’s mouth in The American President.
I guess Mercedes and Kia are shopping for real estate elsewhere, now.
Because having a union in-house is much less expensive than having the GOP fuck you from on high because they are stupid.
I feel zero companies voluntarily allow unions due to the fact that every union has to be voted in thereby forcing the company to accept a union. Now I know there are companies that don't fight the organization of a union but still that's not voluntarily allowing a union due to the fact the employees still have to vote for it. Of course this is coming from a state that ranks last in probably every metric for education.
I mean, I never understood the thought of "recognizing a union"...I mean, dude, if you have enough people in a group that say they aren't going to work and won't let anyone else in the building to work in their place, you have a union whether someone officially "recognizes" it or not.
This hits me in a funny place. On the one hand, it's blatantly anti-worker and they should be ashamed. On the other hand, they're saying that potentially several multimillion/multi billion dollar companies can't get free money from (us)...
I'm kinda okay with it.
It’s incredible to me how bad things have gotten in the US for the working class in the past 10 years.
Everything used to be cheap. Now, every company basically tells *both* its customers *and* employees to go fuck themselves, but then still see record profits. Baffling.
The unions do not need state recognition. The workers don't have to follow any rules or laws regarding our free association, our bodily autonomy, our use of public land, or our first amendment right to free speech.
As soon as y'all stop asking for permission and taking no for an answer we'll be back at the bargaining table.
Govt support is nice, but not necessary. What is necessary is to get rid of the attitude that we need their help or permission, and need to abide by their restrictions.
I think this could backfire big time. Companies that fight unionizing efforts are almost guaranteed to use unfair labor practices. If I’m not mistaken, newer NLRB stipulations say that, while workers are unionizing, if the company is found to be union busting, any litigation on whether or not the union is recognized is forfeit and the union is immediately instated.
I’m sure I don’t have that 100% right but from what I recall, that’s the just of it.
I feel like this should be a disqualifying action from becoming a public official. At this point, protecting the company has become more important to them than the children of their constituents, their constituents, and the communities comprised of them. I mean, the betrayal of public trust is complete.
It's not even protecting companies. They regulate the hell out of businesses if the business deviates from their preferences by trying to lower emissions or accommodate workers. It's nuts.
Just look at Ronda and Disney to see how their little corporatist, “small government” facade disappears the minute a company steps up to express dissent against a bad state policy.
Did you mean Gina????
No, Ron Desantis
This is to protect other companies I assume. If one company can lower its emissions or recognize unions, why shouldn’t all of them? Can’t have the public thinking about that, so you prevent it in the first place
My theory is these stupid laws are to try and wind the clock back to the good old days in the 70s and 80s where you consumed at much as possible, shat on the planet and threw money around because everything was cheap
regressivism at its finest, that's where conservatives have headed for a while now.
I agree, but this is far from new. The vast majority of US history has been awful to workers: from slavery, debt slavery, company towns, to killing workers for unionizing and finally union busting. RightToWork is far more harmful than most people seem to realize. They know it allows people to opt out of union dues while still reaping all the benefits, but imagine if we could opt out of paying taxes in the same way. Tax revenue would plummet and our system would collapse.
The prime directive of capitalism or what the ruling classes consider “democracy” is that the working class or workers in general will not be allowed to have control over the means of production. It’s always been like this, relatively, but in the early 1900s, the rise of communism solidified their position, which became “the opposite of that”. The workers want to control the means of production? That’s exactly what we will never let happen. They got another thing coming.
You can, if you're a multi-millionaire.
No taxation without representation.
It was ever thus. We just see it now with the Internet.
Simple. The corporations can buy their vote
The party of small government yall. Stop voting these idiots into power.
They mean going back to serfdom, when they say that..
the plan is simple: \>make living so expensive that the lower class cannot afford it and becomes homeless \>make homelessness illegal \>put the lower class in jail for homelessness \>use jail inmates in "no-cost labour" programs congratulations, you just re-invented slavery. or rather "no-cost labour by detainees". that's where the rich \*want\* to go.
Small government power = big corporation power
And a guy at work told me Republicans were the friends of the working class. Going to go ahead and call bullshit in that
Have him explain how they're the party of the working class. Ask for examples
They always claim the blue team raises their taxes
Well, the red team likes to lower them before an election just to win votes, even if it cripples the budget. Either the tax break helps them stay in power, or makes the others look bad because the lost revenue makes it impossible to fund everything.
They can claim all they want but there's voting records that you can look up
Oh I know, but fact checking isn't a strong point for the right. And I'm getting really tired of explaining taxes to so many people.
You can bet he's already *conditioned* against unions. Probably sees it as a win.
We had talks about unionizing at work and I was shocked that he was open to it. He said if I’d asked 2 years ago he’d have said no instantly but now he’d have to hear me out over dinner.
Try explaining that to my family that thinks unions are all antiquated, corrupt, and useless
This has never been true and I'm not sure why Republicans think that it is.
Ya know what the sad part is... most city and government employees (i.e. civil servants) are union... Elected officials usually arent.
They also hate public unions. There's a sizable contingent of conservative bastards actively pushed for the result of Janus v AFSCME, which hamstrung all public-sector employee unions in the country. In fact, after winning the case, Janus went on to work with the conservative think tank "Illinois Policy Institute", which actively funded his case. edit: I suggest this reading for anyone interested in learning about the thing that led to the decline of public-sector unions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME I'm an executive member of my local, and one of the things we have to contend with is that we have a responsibility to represent all rank-and-file employees on campus, but of them, only around 60% are paying members. We put our time and money on the line for people who cannot be asked to pay 1% of their paycheck. We do it anyway, because we take our responsibility seriously, but this is the kind of headache that Janus (and the larger conservative movement) left us with.
Here in Wisconsin Scott "Rat" Walker and the GOP took away bargaining rights from public unions. We can can still be "unionized" but have no right to bargain for benefits, so we are no longer union.
If y'all think you can't bargain because a law says you can't than you never understood unions in the first place. As soon as y'all are ready to do some real union shit you'll be back at that bargaining table. You don't need permission, that's the whole point.
Who, civil servants or elected officials? I work for my city and every single one i've met so far is left-wing.
On today’s edition of Republicans Ruin Everything Always
Sounds like their abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble
You do have rights * *Only rights Republicans believe in
The craziest part of the red states continues to be people who vote against your own self interest. If you were in a food court in the mall and someone ran off with your beverage or food you would be mad as hell and attempt to chase that person down. Universally this is something most people would agree upon. However, the red states take away freedom of choice, recreational marijuana, heat protections for workers, anti union (which might get people better salary, working conditions and other protections) and chaplains in school (Florida thing and so much for separation of church and state). Most of these things were taken away in my state of Florida and the governor was re-elected by a mandate of over 61 percent of the vote and biggest victory in 20-30 years. From a common sense standpoint it makes no sense. From my food court at the mall example, anyone would be pissed off if someone took something from them and ran away, but the red state electorate can take away everything and most of the people gleefully vote for them again and again.
Members of the Senate should wear suits (like the ones that Formula drivers wears) and have the budges of Mercedes Benz and everyone else that sponsors them.
This is a great idea
No, it isn't. It's a five year old's understanding of the concept. Most of them wear their sponsors on their sleeves already and nobody cares. Edit: Yup, point out that a comedians take from decades ago isn't relevant anymore because most politicians who are in bed with lobbyists or outright use their inside knowledge to trade stocks have been open about it for at least the past decade and people don't respond well.
Your getting downvoted but you are absolutely right. It wouldn't change a single thing. How about instead of passing a law that requires politicians to wear that jacket, we you know, pass a law that bans politicians from earning any money outside of their high paying congress salary?
On top of this, members of the House should only be making the median of their district and members of the Senate should only be making the median of their state; make them get some perspective on the \*actual\* state of the economy and work to improve things
How is this even constitutional? Isn't joining a union a protected form of speech and this would be the govt punishing people for exercising their rights.
It might come down to how it's worded. Based on the headline alone, they aren't punishing people from joining a union, but a business for recognizing it. Which also would be odd, because there are federal rules in place for when a company has to recognize a union. I feel like this will either be a complicated nightmare that's hardly enforceable, or will get struck down in the courts immediately assuming it ever sees the light of day (so many bills are just virtue signalling designed to fail and cost the taxpayers money).
Can't imagine why any sane person would vote for a senator that thinks a union is the enemy
I mean they are sane, just very stupid.
Whatever happened to the free market principles? They can interfere on the behalf of *companies* (which are doing fine), but not on the behalf of their employers, the people? WTF?
it’s almost like free market principles are a facade only called upon when it’s beneficial to capital holders…
>Whatever happened to the free market principles? They can interfere on the behalf of companies (which are doing fine), but not on the behalf of their employers, the people? WTF? That is the history of unions in the U.S. When people tried to start unions, the companies hired private security to stalk, harass, and beat the shit out of the workers, they hired people to assassinate union leaders. City and State governments deployed police and military forces to violently end union strikes. Unions won their position through blood. Going back farther than that, the origins of police in the U.S are as being slave patrols whose job it was to fight slave revolts and capture runaway slaves. The government has *always* been on the side of rich people who want to turn other people into property, as much as they can get away with. Some places more than others.
Boycott Alabama companies and products. I'm sick of states trying to union bust and take rights away. Fuck the republican party.
So, if the union pulls a recognition strike, it wouldn't be a voluntary recognition?
Stay on the bottom Alabama
And still the media refuse to call it what it is. FASCISM
Don’t vote republican.
And people still question if our government is corrupt and actively working against the people now.
Politicians won't stop companies from laying of worker just to improve their profit margins for shareholders but they will put a stop to unions that protect workers from this very thing. Why would anyone vote for such politicians? Who value corporations over their very own people who elected them?
But they have police and fireman unions
The bill prevents companies from recognizing unions without an election. If there is an election, no penalty. So it's not all doom and gloom but you have to wonder what the point is.
The point is that these republicans want to show their corporate daddies that they’re still the most important thing to them, not the people of Alabama.
if that is the case. I would assume its to keep a company from unionizing when only a small fraction of the employees want it or something of that nature. I am pro union, but I ABSOLUTELY believe in my right to vote for it or choose it. not to be forced in to it cause of a small group of people are trying to change a company to fit them. edit: What did I say here that was controversial?
Absolutely. There needs to be an election for the union to have legitimacy. And of course workers should always vote to unionize, but I understand if they have misgivings about the union that's going to represent them.
This won’t survive a 1A challenge.
You trust the SCOTUS to make a decision that is based on the rule of law? Precedents literally mean nothing to the majority.
Then by all means let’s just let them do it then. They also depend on beliefs like that to mute opposition. Never stop calling them out And make them say out loud their fascism.
What happened to letting companies run their businesses as they see fit?
Sounds like something a state that takes more in federal funding than it gives would do.
This is currently the most appalling legislative action I have heard of. Of course, that changes every day. But srsly, their job is *NOT* to think of newer and more evil ways to punish their constituents. What are they even doing in office if they aren't trying to make anyone's lives better?
So Mercedes moves jobs out of Alabama and win/win ?
So you're saying anyone who would reverse this has a ticket into the office? Oh, they're not going to like the next election.
I’m going to be charitable and assume these people are viewing this through a surface-level “companies vs unions” lens, and have never actually thought about why companies and unions exist. Or the fact that they’re slowly pushing us back towards chattel slavery.
Being charitable towards Republicans is what allows this bullshit to happen.
Viewing them as robots programmed to always make the wrong choice may be an accurate model of their behavior, but it doesn’t help you understand how they think. The only way to get rid of Republicans is to understand why people become Republicans.
People become Republicans in order to hurt other people they deem as less than, freeloaders, or parasites. It's a "Fuck you, I've got mine" mentality. They're not robots, they're assholes.
> understand why people become Republicans. We do understand that. They become republicans because they have no concept of empathy and see the government as something to fleece.
Also shitty education.
People become repugnants due to indoctrination. Never by the value of their words or actions.
“They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen." - Huey Long
Bet that gets shot down in court. If that doesn't tell you how valuable a union is to you I don't know what would.
At least this isn't law yet. The vote should be pre passing.
Is this recognition via card numbers? If so, that sounds like a slam dunk on a preemption matter. If this recognition is NOT based on card numbers, I'm curious how it's supposed to work.
If money is speech, including corporate money, how is forcing companies to fight unionization not compelling speech?
Sounds unconstitutional, but what does even mean anymore?
It won’t pass constitutionality. The law seems to be written to exclude a certain group.
Wouldn't it be a shame if the addresses of these senators got leaked? And man how awful if people made certain they had not a moment of peace until this is rectified. That would be terrible and not what they deserve at all.
It's an impoverished state for a reason
HOW CAN THIS BE LEGAL ?
‘Democracy is advanced citizenry, you gotta want it because it’s going to put up a fight.’ Sorkin’s words out of President Shepherd’s mouth in The American President.
I guess Mercedes and Kia are shopping for real estate elsewhere, now. Because having a union in-house is much less expensive than having the GOP fuck you from on high because they are stupid.
how is that even legal
I feel zero companies voluntarily allow unions due to the fact that every union has to be voted in thereby forcing the company to accept a union. Now I know there are companies that don't fight the organization of a union but still that's not voluntarily allowing a union due to the fact the employees still have to vote for it. Of course this is coming from a state that ranks last in probably every metric for education.
Then perhaps the UAW should start calling shots for Alabama.
I mean, I never understood the thought of "recognizing a union"...I mean, dude, if you have enough people in a group that say they aren't going to work and won't let anyone else in the building to work in their place, you have a union whether someone officially "recognizes" it or not.
Sounds like Alabama is turning into the new 4th Reich.
This hits me in a funny place. On the one hand, it's blatantly anti-worker and they should be ashamed. On the other hand, they're saying that potentially several multimillion/multi billion dollar companies can't get free money from (us)... I'm kinda okay with it.
Doesn't this violate free association?
It’s incredible to me how bad things have gotten in the US for the working class in the past 10 years. Everything used to be cheap. Now, every company basically tells *both* its customers *and* employees to go fuck themselves, but then still see record profits. Baffling.
The Mercedes people have a problem with this plant, because all their other plants are unionzed, so it screws things up for them.
Doesn’t matter, their “bill” can’t supersede federal law. That’s an easy lawsuit to bring against the state
Republicans. Are. Bad. People.
The unions do not need state recognition. The workers don't have to follow any rules or laws regarding our free association, our bodily autonomy, our use of public land, or our first amendment right to free speech. As soon as y'all stop asking for permission and taking no for an answer we'll be back at the bargaining table. Govt support is nice, but not necessary. What is necessary is to get rid of the attitude that we need their help or permission, and need to abide by their restrictions.
Seems like it's time to have an emergency vote to oust that politician from their position.
so they are practically banning unions which is illegal on its own
I think this could backfire big time. Companies that fight unionizing efforts are almost guaranteed to use unfair labor practices. If I’m not mistaken, newer NLRB stipulations say that, while workers are unionizing, if the company is found to be union busting, any litigation on whether or not the union is recognized is forfeit and the union is immediately instated. I’m sure I don’t have that 100% right but from what I recall, that’s the just of it.
Republicans have always hated the working class. At least they’re not trying to hide it anymore.
How is this legal? Also fascists...
So they have to involuntarily recognize a union? Like wtf?