Quantcast

Comments about ‘My view: A legislative fix for workplace inequality’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, April 25 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Busting unions has proved to increase the well being of American workers so well for the last four decades, let's do some more. Unions power peaked in 1970 and has been declining ever since. Wages for working class men peaked in 1973 and have been declining ever since. Doesn't anyone else see a correlation?

On another point, does this guy write the same anti-union, anti-worker column over and over again, or do some of the words get changed?

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

FYI, the writer of this "editorial" is a lobbyist who, according to Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, represents large special interest groups and;

"advocates against labor unions; public-health advocates; and consumer, safety, animal welfare, and environmental groups".

We should get all sides an issue, but is this the sort of "source" we want to get it from?

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Surprise, surprise! The Deseret News runs a piece by a noted union buster. For a different point of view please see my responses to "Ends and means: Do we serve the economy, or does it serve us?" in this same issue of the News.

I wish Senator Hatch were interested in protecting employees from their employers.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"This provision requires union officials to receive express written consent from individual members before spending their dues on political activities."

I can wholeheartedly support this logic. But only if it ALSO applies to corporations.

Wouldn't the same logic and rationale apply to corporations?

Would Mr Hatch also want Corporate Leadership to "receive express written consent from" stockholders (you know, the people who actually own the corporation) before spending corporate money on political activities?

Why is this any different.

Given both a Union AND a Corporate requirement, I think this is a great idea.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

Watch the liberals line up to protect their money source. They must love the current system, where they force conservatives to pay for democrat campaigns.

Unions are supposed to work for the laborers. The laborers should have a voice in what the unions do with the dues.

Labor unions today abuse the laborer to accomplish their own agenda, and many laborers are waking up to this fact. It is time for some changes.

FT
salt lake city, UT

You can be sure if Mitt Romney won the election that he would not be saying a word on the issue. America is so fortunate we have a President who actively encourages public debate on issues like this. Goverment can't affectively legislate the problem but it can expose it, encourage debate and discuss the issue with business leaders.

ordinaryfolks
seattle, WA

Badger

Corporations are supposed to work for their shareholders. As a shareholder, I do not receive all the profits from the corporations into which I invest in a fair and equitable manner. Much of the profit from the business is channeled into executive overpayments, executive benefits, lobbying and frivolous expense. Much of the profit is withheld from me, and sits in off shore accounts. Corporate America is not held accountable for its misdeeds. No one in corporate America is ever penalized for mis/malfeasances.

So corporate American does not work for me. It works to serve a very few already wealthy individuals with an outsized voice in what happens in the country. I don't think that your vituperative reaction to working Americans is in any way analogous to what corporate America does to its shareholders and the public in general.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Roland,
Who says the bill is about busting the unions?

Liberal Larry, Marxist,
So rather than attack the content of what he said, you attack the author. Are you unable to argue with any of the statistics he cited or any of his reasoning?

JoeBlow,
If it applies to corporations?
You ask why it is different.

Stockholders give their consent to the actions of the board and management by their decisions to sell or retain the stock and by their votes in the annual shareholder meetings. Shareholders are not FORCED to pay into the corporation as union members are FORCED to pay dues. THAT is why it is different. Glad I could explain it for you.

FT,
Lucky to have a POTUS who encourages public debate – why did he wait until his 6th year if it was so important? He’s only doing it now because his party has such a poor record on which to run he needs to divert attention from it.

KDave
Moab, UT

No-one is forced to invest in a Corporation or buy its products. However, in many states (not Utah} you are forced to join a union if you want to work. Big difference.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Lost in DC and KDave.

Good points. Stockholders and consumers are free to sell their stock or not buy a companies product based on their political donations and lobby efforts of the corporation.

Except that there is no requirement for Corporations to publicly disclose these political activities, therefore leaving investors unaware.

Do you support mandatory disclosure of corporate political activity?

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

Ad hominem arguments are when someone's argument is discredited on the basis of an irrelevant fact pertaining to the author making a claim. The fact that someone is a lobbyist is hardly irrelevant.

I just want people to realize that the author is paid to represent corporate interests.

He may be correct in his presentation, but his he is hardly an "objective" source of information.

Shaun
Sandy, UT

No one is forced to be a union member. If you do not like that your union supports democrats then quit your job and go work non union.

On the other hand I can not understand why union members would vote republican. Republicans hate the idea of some regular guy making a decent living. I understand there are social issues republicans represent that union members may agree with, but you can not feed your family on social issues.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

When businessmen make the rules for employees and their unions, we are guaranteed to have two losers, the employees and their unions.

The real problem with our economic system is the growing imbalance in the sharing of wealth produced by the people of our society. Traditionally labor was required to create most of the wealth and thus the people had a way to participate in the sharing of the overall benefits of our society. Such is not the case now, technology, and foreign labor have starved the need for the American worker.

We need jobs and the only entity that could provide those jobs and the proper pay is the government of the USA. We need for the government to hire every unemployed worker at a salary that fits the employees need and qualification. This would not be welfare but real jobs that are needed by the people of America. Private business will not voluntarily give us full employment. Businessmen cannot be bribed or forced to do the needed action, competition from the government can.

kiddsport
Fairview, UT

Ultra Bob,
I hate to break it to you but the government of the USA cannot and should not provide full employment at "proper pay," especially when people are accustomed to sitting at home and collecting a check for processing oxygen. Government produces nothing; it is a parasite that can only rob from the means of production to redirect it elsewhere, typically in an inefficient and wasteful, and generally directed to "friends and family." The founders of our Republic recognized this governmental tendency and laid the groundwork for keeping it in check. Unfortunately, our short-sightedness and lackadaisical voting has kept people in power who succumb to this tantalizing greed for living high off the public largesse.
Your reading of history doesn't jibe with the facts. Wealth always has and always will be created by those willing to take risks and invest labor AND capital with uncertain prospects of outcomes. Solyndra, Homeland Security, and the USPS are poster children for how poorly the government runs businesses.

Shaun
Sandy, UT

@kiddsport. The attitude that the government is a parasite is the problem with this country today. To say government does not have a proper and productive role in society is shortsighted.

Mikhail
ALPINE, UT

The real problem with jobs is that there aren't enough of them to go around. This is likely caused by uncertainty created by an administration that is opposed to traditional management of economic problems. Creating more government and more government jobs has never been the solution. Getting government and more rules and regulations out of the way seems to stimulate economic activity - creating more job opportunities. Regulating unions doesn't fix the problems. In a free market, unions will need to meet the needs and desires of their members, or the members will go away.

More government is akin to more unionization - it is about control and power of the few over the many.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

IMO... Legislating our thoughts and actions rarely works. It's better to hope good people will do good things for the right reasons (not just because they are required to by law).

And realize that there will always be BAD people out there... and just don't work for them (and the will not have the best workers and go out of business).

====

Or... Have more women starting their own companies. And running their own companies. Then IF they pay women less than men... they only have themselves to blame (not the evil men).

====

I mean we already have unions.... right?

Are they not supposed to represent women workers too? And insure that there's not inequality? Have they just been letting it happen? Or contributing to it?

Maybe we need Women's unions and Men's Unions... as the normal unions don't seem to be representing women equally.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

JoeBlow,
Mandatory disclosure of corporate political activity on its face does not sound like a bad idea – but then you have the hate groups that boycott chik-fil-a or force the resignation of a CEO or sue business owners because they do not agree with your point of view.

Liberal Larry,
Thanks for admitting what he said was factual, even if you do not like his employment

Shaun,
Yes, people ARE forced to be union members. Many states are “closed-shop” states, meaning by law if there is a union, you MUST belong and you MUST pay dues. Union members vote republican because republicans believe in the opportunity to get ahead, and that you should be able to keep what you earn rather than have it flushed away on failing government programs.

Yes, government does have a proper and productive role in society; too bad it has gone far beyond that proper and productive role.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Ultra Bob: I've always wanted to make Egyptian pottery at $100,000 a year! I'm sure all those undertaxed workers will be more than happy to give that to me! Let's just nationalize all businesses, guarantee everyone the same wage, and add a big screen tv in every home and free contraception! That will make America great again!

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

I've read this a dozen times now and, frankly, I just can't make the connection the Employee Right's Act and fixing workplace inequality? I get it that the author does not have a very high regard for unions but he fails miserably at showing how the ERA will do anything to address workplace inequality.

A question to Lost in DC: what "hate groups" boycotted chik-fil-a?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments