A legislative fix for workplace inequality

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 26, 2014 9:33 p.m.

    Ultra Bob: thank goodness that most of the people that believe like you, making the poor poorer and the rich richer, live in Europe, North Korea, and Syria. However, what America really needs are more of those who want to help the poor get out of poverty, instead of keeping them in poverty! I hope someday you will see the error of your ways! In the meantime , I will teach my own children the importance of virtue, thrift, and hard work as a way out of poverty. If I can get a few more to do the same, perhaps our country will again live up to its potential.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 26, 2014 11:45 a.m.


    I NEVER said repubs favor getting union representation and not paying for it. Why do you misrepresent what I say?

    you don't have to work for a union, you can quit and go get a job somewhere else - yeah, in BO's economy you can - at McDonald's!

    In many states if you work in manufacturing or the trades, you MUST belong to a union.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    April 26, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    I could say what I think about unions in general, but I have decided to be nice so I won't. I will, however, point out that you can't increase egg production by strangling the hen and secondly, we no longer have children working in coal mines for 70 hours a week; also we do have places like Detroit that are bankrupt.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 26, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    Well if you can't beat them straight up just sneak in the back door and destroy them from behind.

    Labor reform, voting reform, political contribution reform, affirmative social reforms, all have the same goal...starve the beast. Cut the Democratic party off from it's resources and supporters.

  • MrMas Tucson, AZ
    April 26, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    Err...what does this article really have to do with equal rights? I think the title and comparison to equal wages in the article are quite a stretch.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 25, 2014 7:30 p.m.


    It is not necessary to nationalize all business, Although that might work.

    Capitalism works just fine when properly regulated. However capitalist cannot be bribed or even forced to do what is necessary so competition is the only way to have a free market in labor. Ideally private enterprise business would take the bait and bring full employment themselves, putting the government employment out of business.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 25, 2014 7:18 p.m.

    You say: "but the government of the USA cannot and should not provide full employment at "proper pay."

    I ask WHY? Where is it written that the government cannot hire as many people as it wants? Governments are supposed to serve the citizens that they govern. If the citizens decide that they want full employment and government is the only way to do it, they ask their government to do it.

    You say "government produces nothing." The actual truth is that nothing exists or takes place in the USA but for the permission, the support and the regulations that is legal and not provided by nature itself. The only rights and freedoms are those given to you by the security of the government of the USA.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 25, 2014 5:01 p.m.

    there is no such thing as workplace inequality anymore than a phony war on women or any of the other "distraction" tatics used by Barack. I'm a software engineer and a woman who has the same experience as a man makes the same salary ... period. This is just a bunch of phony campaign nonsense that hatches up every year for the past 6 prior to an election and the purpose is to distract from real issues such as the Obamacare nightmare. Low informatiion people will sop it up but anyone paying even casual attention to their surroundings will see it and reject it for what it is - an Obama campaign tatic. Nice try Barack but strike three your out and the same for your fellow democrat congressmen and women come November !!

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    April 25, 2014 4:40 p.m.

    @lost in dc. So republican union members want the benefits of belonging to a union but think they shouldn't have to pay for union representation? That does sound like the typical republican, mooching off a system they derive benefits from but then attacking it out the other side of their mouth.

    You do not have to work union. You can quit your job and go find some place that is non union to work at. Even in states that are not "right to work" states you can still find places to work that aren't union.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    April 25, 2014 4:12 p.m.

    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?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 25, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    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!

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 25, 2014 3:18 p.m.

    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

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 25, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    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.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    April 25, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    April 25, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    @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.

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    April 25, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 25, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    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.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    April 25, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    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.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    April 25, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 25, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    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?

  • KDave Moab, UT
    April 25, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 25, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    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?

    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.

    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.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    April 25, 2014 8:28 a.m.


    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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    April 25, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 25, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 25, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    "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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    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.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    April 25, 2014 7:17 a.m.

    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?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 25, 2014 12:15 a.m.

    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?