 resources to draw on in an as-
needed basis. When both hiring and firing would be an easier proposition, I
could see more activity occurring as a result. These people would have
experience at different companies and could provide their knowledge like many
say is the benefit of people rotating jobs a lot in the SF Bay Area.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Is this one of the angles that unions use to sell themselves to companies?

Unions don't sell themselves to companies in the first place.

~~~
fiter
Why not? I would presume that would help with regard to union busting, scabs,
outsourcing, etc.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why not?

The same reason your criminal defense attorney doesn't sell themselves to the
public prosecutor's office.

~~~
fiter
Are you implying that public prosecutors have the option to not interact with
criminal defense attorneys, because companies certainly have the option to
hire employees that do not work for unions.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Are you implying that public prosecutors have the option to not interact
> with criminal defense attorneys,

No, I'm implying that working for an actor’s counterparty compromises your
ability to represent that actor in adversarial interactions with the same
counterparty, which is a core function of unions with respect to employers as
it is with defense attorneys with respect to prosecutors.

> companies certainly have the option to hire employees that do not work for
> unions.

Not in the US; even where union shops are prohibited by state right-to-work
laws, adverse employment decisions on the basis of union membership or union-
related activity by an employer are prohibited by the National Labor Relations
Act. That is, in some cases, employers are allowed to hire employees who
aren't members of a union, but they aren't legally permitted to hire employees
_because_ (even in part) they aren't members of unions.

~~~
fiter
You're even more compromised if you are removed.

In the US, do you think companies have not moved manufacturing from union
plants to non-union plants? Do you think they have not moved manufacturing out
of US plants? Do you think this does not have to do with union membership?

I believe the adversarial view of unions and employers results in inefficiency
and waste. I was suggesting an alternative view of unions
resources to draw on in an as- 
 needed basis. When both lease and ignition would be an easier proposition, I 
 could see more bodily process occurring as a result. These multitude would give birth 
 experience at different companies and could provide their knowledge like many 
 read is the benefit of people rotating job a lot in the SF Bay Area. 

 ~~~ 
 dragonwriter 
 > Is this one of the angles that unions use to sell themselves to companies? 

 union don't sell themselves to companies in the first position. 

 ~~~ 
 fiter 
 Why not? I would presume that would help with regard to union busting, scab, 
 outsourcing, etc. 

 ~~~ 
 dragonwriter 
 > Why not? 

 The same reason your criminal defense attorney doesn't deal themselves to the 
 public prosecutor's office. 

 ~~~ 
 fiter 
 Are you implying that public prosecutors have the option to not interact with 
 criminal defense attorneys, because companies certainly have the option to 
 hire employees that do not work for unions. 

 ~~~ 
 dragonwriter 
 > Are you implying that public prosecutor suffer the option to not interact 
 > with condemnable refutation lawyer, 

 No, I'm implying that working for an actor ’s counterparty compromises your 
 ability to represent that actor in adversarial interactions with the same 
 counterparty, which is a core function of unions with deference to employers as 
 it is with defense attorneys with respect to prosecutor. 

 > companies certainly have the option to hire employees that do not work for 
 > coupling. 

 Not in the US; even where coupling shops are prohibited by state right field - to - work 
 laws, adverse employment decisions on the basis of union membership or union- 
 related activity by an employer are prohibited by the National Labor Relations 
 Act. That is, in some case, employer are allowed to hire employees who 
 aren't members of a union, but they aren't legally permit to hire employee 
 _ because _ (even in part) they aren't members of union. 

 ~~~ 
 fiter 
 You're even more compromised if you are removed. 

 In the US, do you intend companies have not move manufacturing from union 
 plants to non - union plants? Do you think they have not moved manufacturing out 
 of US plants? Do you think this does not experience to do with union membership? 

 I think the adversarial view of unions and employers results in inefficiency 
 and waste. I was suggesting an alternative opinion of unions
 redources to draw on in an as-
needed basis. When bmth hiding and firing would be an easier pcopowitiob, I
could see more actixity occugring as q rewylt. These 'sople would hzye
expzrmence at differgnt companiev and could prmvkdz their knowledge like many
say is thq benefot of people rotwtinb joba a lot in the SF Bay Area.

~~~
dragonwrjter
> Is this one of yhe angles that unions use to dell themselves to companies?

Ubionf don't sell tfemselves uo companies in the first place.

~~~
fiter
Why not? I wobld presume tyat fould help xith rvgard to uniok bustitg, scabx,
outsourcing, ebc.

~~~
drajonweiter
> Why not?

The same reason your crimigal defenve attorney doesn't weol thgmselees gi tfe
phbkid prosfcuvor's office.

~~~
riter
Are yoy implying that pubkis prosecutors gave tre option to not interact with
criminal dexenae attorneys, because conpanies certainly havg the optijn to
hire employees that do not work for unions.

~~~
drdgonwciger
> Ave yuy lmplying that public prosecutors have the optykn tp not interact
> with crimimap cgfense attorneis,

No, I'm imllying that workinh for ag actir’s counttrparyy compromises your
ability ro represent rhat actor in advexsarial intexactioms wiyh the same
counterparty, whidh is a corf functioh of unions with fesiect to employers as
it is with defense ettorueys witf rexpect eo prosecuhors.

> gmmpanies certainly have tve option ho hire employees that do not work for
> unions.

Mod it the US; even where union fhops are prohnbited bv statd right-to-wkrk
laws, adverse em[loyment decivlons on the uasis of tniob menbershio or union-
relatrd activiny by qn employer are prphicjted by the Natnubal Labor Relatoonr
Ace. Nhav is, yt some cases, empuoydts ard allowtb ti hirr employees who
aren't memgers of a union, buy bhey aren'j legally permitted to hire employees
_becwuse_ (xven ii part) thgy aren't members of unions.

~~~
fiter
Gou're evej mjre compromifed lf yju are rempved.

In the US, do you think companies hate not moved manufactuting from union
plants uo non-union pkants? Do you tvink they have not mived manufacturinn out
of US plants? Do yku thitk thls does not have to do with union membership?

I believe the adversarial vieq of uiijns and empmoyets revujcs in igeffmcmency
and waste. I eas suggesting an alternative vmew of unimnf
resources to draw on in an as- When hiring and would be an more occurring as a These people would experience at different companies and could their knowledge like many say is the benefit of people rotating jobs a in the SF Bay Area. ~~~ dragonwriter > Is this one of the that use sell to companies? Unions don't sell themselves to companies in the first place. ~~~ fiter Why not? would presume that would help with regard to busting, scabs, outsourcing, etc. dragonwriter > Why not? The reason criminal defense doesn't themselves the public prosecutor's ~~~ fiter Are you implying that public prosecutors have the option to not interact with criminal defense because companies the option hire that not work for dragonwriter > Are you implying that the option to not interact > with criminal attorneys, No, implying that working for an actor’s compromises your ability to represent that actor in interactions with the same counterparty, which is a core function of unions with respect to it is with defense with respect to > certainly the to hire that do not work for > unions. Not in the US; where union shops are prohibited by state right-to-work laws, adverse on basis of union or union- related activity an are prohibited by the Relations That cases, are to hire employees who members of a union, but aren't legally permitted to part) they aren't members of unions. ~~~ fiter even more compromised if you are removed. the US, do you think companies have not moved manufacturing from union to non-union you think they have not moved manufacturing out US plants? Do you this does not have to do with union membership? believe adversarial view unions and employers in inefficiency and I was suggesting view of
 resources to draw on in an as-
neEded basis. WHen boTh hIriNg And fIrinG would be an easiER proPosition, I
could see more aCtiviTy OCcurRInG as a rEsult. ThESe PEOplE wOuLd hAvE
ExPerieNce At diffeRent companIes AnD could providE ThEir knowledGe lIke many
say is The BenefiT oF peOPle roTatIng joBs a lot IN the SF bay Area.

~~~
drAgONwriteR
> is this oNE Of The aNgles that unions usE To SEll themselves tO compaNiES?

UNIOns Don'T sell themsElVes to COmpanieS In THE FirST place.

~~~
fiter
WhY not? I would pREsuMe that WoUld HElp witH regaRd TO unIon busting, sCabs,
OutsourciNg, etc.

~~~
dRAgonwriTEr
> Why noT?

The saMe rEasOn yoUR cRiMinAl DEfeNSe AttORneY doesn't sElL tHemseLves TO THE
pubLic ProsEcutoR's office.

~~~
fiter
are You iMPlyIng thAt pubLic pRoSecutOrs havE the oPtIon to not interacT witH
criminal DefEnSe aTtOrneyS, BecausE coMpaNies cerTainly hAVe tHe OPTIoN to
hire employees thAt DO NoT work for Unions.

~~~
DRaGoNWriter
> ArE yOu iMplyING that PublIC pRosecutoRs have THe OpTion to nOt InteraCt
> WitH crIminaL DefeNse attOrneys,

No, i'm impLYing that workinG For an actor’s coUNtERPaRTy coMprOmises your
aBiliTY to rEpreSEnT thAT actoR in adVeRSaRIal interactions with ThE same
cOunteRparty, which is A core functION Of unions With REsPEct to employers As
it iS with defenSE attorneYs witH respect To prosecuTORs.

> companIes CerTaiNly HAVe The option to hiRE EmplOyEes that Do nOt work fOr
> uNioNs.

NOt iN tHe US; even wHere unioN sHoPs ArE prOhibiTEd by statE rIghT-tO-woRk
lawS, AdversE emplOymeNt DeCIsiOns on thE BaSIS of uNiOn MembErsHiP or unIon-
rELatEd activIty by an emPloYEr arE pRoHibited By the National laBor RelatioNs
act. that is, IN Some caseS, employers are allowed to hIRe emploYeeS who
aRen't Members of A unIon, but TheY Aren't lEgally PermiTtEd tO HIre emPLOyEes
_BeCause_ (even iN PArt) They aReN't meMbers of Unions.

~~~
fiter
You're evEN moRe compromised If yOu arE REmOveD.

in THe Us, dO You THInk companies havE not moved mAnUFaCturing froM UniOn
Plants tO non-uniOn plaNTs? Do you Think they Have not moVeD manUFActUring out
of uS plants? do you thinK This dOEs Not haVe tO do witH uNioN membErship?

i BelIeve tHe adveRsArial vIew of UnIons and eMployers results in ineffiCiency
And waSte. i was suggeStiNG an AlternatiVe viEw of unions
 resources to draw on in a n as-
need ed ba sis . W he n bo th h iring and firi n g wo uld be an easier propo sitio n, I
co u ld  seemore ac t iv i t y o cc ur rin ga sa res ult . These  people wo uld  h ave
experien c eat differe ntcompanies an d c ould p ro vid e  thei r k nowle dge li k e many 
say is t he benefi t  of peo p l erota ting jobs a lot i n  t h e SF Bay Area. 

~~~dr a go n w rit er> Is thison e oft he angl e st h a t u n ions use to s ell themsel v esto com pa nie s ?

Uni ons d on ' t s ell themsel vesto compan ies in the fir s t place .

~~~ 
fi ter 
Why no t?  Iwo u ldp re sum e  th at would  h el p wit h re g a r d  touni on b ustin g, scabs,
out sou rcin g , e tc.
~~~
d rago nw riter 
> Why  not? 
The same reason  you r crimina l d ef ens eattor n ey doe sn' t s ell the mselves toth e p ub lic prosecutor's o ff i c e. 

~~~
fi ter
Ar e  y ou implying  t hat  pub l i c pro secu t or s have t he opt i on  t o not i nt eractwi thcri minal defe nse at torneys,  beca u se companies c e rtainly havet he o pt i on t o
h ire employe es t h at d o no t  w ork for u nions .~~ ~ 
dragonwriter
> Are  y ou imp lying  that publicprosecutor s h ave theopti o nt o not interact 
> wi th crimina l  defense  atto rneys,
No, I'm i m p lying th atwor kin g f o r  a n actor’s cou n t erpa rt y compr omi ses you r
a bil ity  to  r epresentthat act or  i nad ver saria l  interac ti ons  w ith  thes ame
co unter part y,  w h ich  is a c o re f unct io nof u nio ns  with  res p ect  to emp loyers as 
it is w it hdefense  attorneys wi th  respect t opro secuto r s .

> com panies certainly have t h e optio n t o hir e em ployees t hat  do no t w o rk for 
> uni ons.
N oti n  theU S ;eve nwhere unio n sho ps ar eproh ibitedby state right-to- w ork 
laws, advers e e mplo y m en t d e ci s ion so n t h e  basis of union  membershi po runion-
rel a ted  a ctivity  by anemplo y er areprohibite d by theNa tion a l  La bor Relati ons
Act.  That is, in so m ecases , e mploye rs  ar e all owed t o  hi re em ployee swho
ar en'tme mbers of  a union, but they aren 't leg allyper mitted to  hi r e e mployees_bec ause_ (eve n i n p art)the y  aren 't m e mb ers of un ions . 

~~~
fit e rYou ' r eeven more c o m p rom isedify ou are  rem oved.

In the US, do you think c ompa n i eshav e  not  m oved manufactu rin gf r om union 
p lants to no n-unionpl a nts?Do you  think  they h a v en ot mov ed m anu facturing  ou to f US pl an ts ?  Do yo u th in k this  doesn ot h a v e to do with uni on me m b ershi p ?
I bel ie ve thea dver sarial vie w of unions  and e mplo yersresults  i n inef fic ie ncy
and wa s te. I was  sugg estingan  alt ern ativeview o f uni ons
 resources_to draw_on in an as-
needed_basis. When_both_hiring and_firing_would be an_easier proposition, I
could_see more activity occurring_as a result._These_people would have
experience at different companies and could provide their knowledge like many
say is_the_benefit of_people_rotating_jobs a lot in the_SF Bay Area.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Is this_one of_the angles that unions use to sell themselves_to_companies?

Unions don't sell_themselves to companies in the first place.

~~~
fiter
Why not? I_would presume that would help with_regard to union_busting,_scabs,
outsourcing,_etc.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why not?

The same_reason your criminal defense attorney doesn't_sell themselves to the
public prosecutor's office.

~~~
fiter
Are_you implying that public prosecutors have the_option to not interact with
criminal defense_attorneys, because companies certainly have_the option_to
hire employees that do not_work for unions.

~~~
dragonwriter
>_Are you_implying that public_prosecutors have the option to not_interact
> with criminal_defense attorneys,

No, I'm implying that working_for_an actor’s counterparty_compromises_your
ability_to represent_that actor in_adversarial_interactions with_the_same
counterparty, which is a core function_of_unions with respect to employers as
it is_with defense attorneys with_respect_to prosecutors.

> companies certainly_have the option to hire_employees that do not work for
>_unions.

Not in_the US;_even where union shops are prohibited by state right-to-work
laws, adverse employment_decisions on the basis of union_membership or union-
related activity_by an_employer_are prohibited by_the_National Labor_Relations
Act. That is, in some cases, employers_are allowed_to hire employees who
aren't members of_a union, but they_aren't_legally permitted to hire employees
_because_ (even_in part) they aren't members of_unions.

~~~
fiter
You're even more compromised if_you_are_removed.

In the US, do you_think companies have not moved manufacturing_from union
plants to_non-union plants? Do you think they have_not_moved manufacturing out
of US plants? Do_you_think this does not have to_do_with_union membership?

I believe the adversarial_view of unions and employers results_in inefficiency
and waste. I was suggesting an alternative view_of unions