Trade Unionism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Newbie2 said:
I agree.

The loss of the secrecy of the balloting screams intimidation and corruption. There is no reasonable argument for removing such secrecy.
Click to expand...
The card check issue has to do with a time period in between the time the petition to unionise has been signed and the time of the actual vote. Alot of intimidation is placed on employees by companies in the time period between the time a union has been granted the right to vote and the actual vote. This is where organizing efforts get stifled.It is the COMPANY’S that intimidate and drag this time period out, as the law stands now. This is one of the main points.You never here about the fear tactics and intimidations used by company’s, only the unions.Remember on every issue there are at least 2 sides and the issue isn’t to make the unions intimidate people(that would work as good as “making people become catholic”). It is to prevent the company from intimidating and firing people who are exercising thier God-given right to organize a labor unions.The church also thinks that companies should also organise their own"unions" amongst business people. It is what makes capitalism work for everybody.
 
human_being said:
The card check issue has to do with a time period in between the time the petition to unionise has been signed and the time of the actual vote. Alot of intimidation is placed on employees by companies in the time period between the time a union has been granted the right to vote and the actual vote. This is where organizing efforts get stifled.It is the COMPANY’S that intimidate and drag this time period out, as the law stands now. This is one of the main points.You never here about the fear tactics and intimidations used by company’s, only the unions…
Click to expand...
Maybe that’s because the unions are the ones doing most of the intimidating. Current labor laws put many restrictions on the companies and few on the union organizers.
Remember on every issue there are at least 2 sides and the issue isn’t to make the unions intimidate people(that would work as good as “making people become catholic”). It is to prevent the company from intimidating and firing people who are exercising thier God-given right to organize a labor unions.The church also thinks that companies should also organise their own"unions" amongst business people. It is what makes capitalism work for everybody
Click to expand...
Do you have a citation for that? It’s not currently legal, in the US anyway, for management to form its own union, even one for the benefit of the employees. This is seen as undue interferenence in the right to free organization. Neither the Church nor US labor laws infer a duty of employees to join a union or participate in union organizing activities.
 
Corki said:
Maybe that’s because the unions are the ones doing most of the intimidating. Current labor laws put many restrictions on the companies and few on the union organizers.

Do you have a citation for that? It’s not currently legal, in the US anyway, for management to form its own union, even one for the benefit of the employees. This is seen as undue interferenence in the right to free organization. Neither the Church nor US labor laws infer a duty of employees to join a union or participate in union organizing activities.
Click to expand...
Pope John Paul II 1991
Code: 
 "7. In close connection with the right to private property, Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical also affirms other rights as inalienable and proper to the human person. Prominent among these, because of the space which the Pope devotes to it and the importance which he attaches to it, is the "natural human right" to form private associations. This means above all the right to establish professional associations of employers and workers, or of workers alone.19 Here we find the reason for the Church's defence and approval of the establishment of what are commonly called trade unions: certainly not because of ideological prejudices or in order to surrender to a class mentality, but because the right of association is a natural right of the human being, which therefore precedes his or her incorporation into political society. Indeed, the formation of unions "cannot ... be prohibited by the State", because "the State is bound to protect natural rights, not to destroy them; and if it forbids its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence".
Therefore woul it not mean that when an employer,or anybody for that matter, intimidates or disuades people from joining a union that they are interfering with a person’s inalienable rights.

It’s like telling a black person that they should really just ride on the back of the bus. Because you would be disuading the black person from exercising their inalienable rights. Even though those rights have been established. The problem of today is that although the black person of today would ignore the disuasion,the disuasions are so strong today against joining unions that the working man as a fool,believs them rights are not “really” rights,but they are.
 
Corki said:
The Church teaches that workers should have the right to organize for thier protection and to avoid exploitation. So in that way, the Church is “pro” union.

On the other hand, the Church teaches that all people need to avoid material cooperation with evil. In the US, many of the big unions are also involved in social engineering activism and have unsavory associations - the teachers unions with Planned Parenthood, for example. Those should be avoided to the extent that they have gone beyond their role of protecting workers.
Click to expand...
If the COMPANY one works for has dealings with pharmaceutical companies who deal in contraceptives.Should someone not work for that company. You could never work at a pharmacy if this is the case,or a grocery store,or the dock that I work on. If your union deals with Planned Parent hood or anything else,for that matter, you do have a say.Most would have democratic elections and access to business agents and such,and general meetings. So it is your union and you do have a say. Nobody is dubbed “KING”. They are elected officials,therefore you would have a better chance of coercing your union not to deal with Planned Parenthood than you would with coercing a company that supplies them with paper. The union stands a chance of listening.The company who profits off of that account will not,most probably.
 
I thank the thread starter for posting this thread,because my mind gets onto this issue with alot of different threads. I think alot of problems our country and the world and capitalism have alot to do with this issue.And I must thank you for posting this thread. My grandparents,and my father and myself will probably fighting this issue forever. We won’t go away until every worker of the world has the right to fair treatment throughout the world. Work is for man. Man is not for work. Or work is for man not just for profit.Thank God for the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Here is another recent news story:

India: Catholic Church creates labor union
A pastoral message from the Keral Catholic Bishops’ Council announced plans to creat a labor union for unorganized workers. A leader of a Communist union predicts the initiative will fail.speroforum.com/a/19065/India-Catholic-Church-creates-labor-union

Unions are made of people.And all people sin. People will accuse union workers of everything under the sun.But you will probably find the same types of people in every facet of life.Minimal priests are child molestors. And minimal union members are lazy and organized criminals,IMO.
 
human_being said:
Pope John Paul II 1991
Code: 
 "7. In close connection with the right to private property, Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical also affirms other rights as inalienable and proper to the human person. Prominent among these, because of the space which the Pope devotes to it and the importance which he attaches to it, is the "natural human right" to form private associations. This means above all the right to establish professional associations of employers and workers, or of workers alone.19 Here we find the reason for the Church's defence and approval of the establishment of what are commonly called trade unions: certainly not because of ideological prejudices or in order to surrender to a class mentality, but because the right of association is a natural right of the human being, which therefore precedes his or her incorporation into political society. Indeed, the formation of unions "cannot ... be prohibited by the State", because "the State is bound to protect natural rights, not to destroy them; and if it forbids its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence".
Therefore woul it not mean that when an employer,or anybody for that matter, intimidates or disuades people from joining a union that they are interfering with a person’s inalienable rights.

It’s like telling a black person that they should really just ride on the back of the bus. Because you would be disuading the black person from exercising their inalienable rights. Even though those rights have been established. The problem of today is that although the black person of today would ignore the disuasion,the disuasions are so strong today against joining unions that the working man as a fool,believs them rights are not “really” rights,but they are.
Click to expand...
This citation only reaffirms the Church’s position on the right of employees to form and join unions. It does not say what you claimed in post #21 that the Church wants companies to form unions. Not forming or encouraging a union is not the same as intimidating employees from joining one. Disuading is not interferring with a person’s rights if it is done using true statements and avoiding scare tactics. For example, one company I worked with had an excellent benefit backage for its employees. The union that wanted to organize the employees would have brought them into its national benefit plan which was not as good. It was not wrong for the company to make sure the employees knew this. In fact, I would say the company had a moral duty to tell them this even if by doing so they disuaded the employees from joining the union.
 
If you had a brother who is a truck driver and 2 companies opened up next door,would you advise your brother to go to the union company which pays $20.00/hour and great benefits and he’s home every night to see his kids,or the non-union company which pays $400.00/ week and he comes home on the weekend or everyother weekend,and inferioir benefits?

Do unto others as you’d have done to you.
 
Newbie2 said:
I agree.

The loss of the secrecy of the balloting screams intimidation and corruption. There is no reasonable argument for removing such secrecy.
Click to expand...
Seniority is a pretty good concept unless you do no physical labor. As you get older and increase in seniority you may get to pick a job or shift that eassier on you physically. I don’t like the attitude of a young person coming in and running aaround like crazy and he/she would get whatever job because of it. I work a very physical job and the shame of where our society has gone towards unions leaves some guys who are very near retirement with some of the lousiest jobs and schedules,after many years in the business. All of their union jobs kept folding due to non-union competition. Then they end up on the bottom of a seniority list under guys in their 30’s. It’s a shame they end up on the bottom after all these years. Heavy weight champs and NFL football players only last til there early 40’s maybe and make millions of dollars. Yet union laborers are expected to go til their 80 now I geuss and people point jealous fngers saying they make too much and shouldn’t have a good pension or healthcare. Still pushin heavy freight down the dock by hand.
 
Corki said:
This citation only reaffirms the Church’s position on the right of employees to form and join unions. It does not say what you claimed in post #21 that the Church wants companies to form unions. Not forming or encouraging a union is not the same as intimidating employees from joining one. Disuading is not interferring with a person’s rights if it is done using true statements and avoiding scare tactics. For example, one company I worked with had an excellent benefit backage for its employees. The union that wanted to organize the employees would have brought them into its national benefit plan which was not as good. It was not wrong for the company to make sure the employees knew this. In fact, I would say the company had a moral duty to tell them this even if by doing so they disuaded the employees from joining the union.
Click to expand...
I agree the company probably had a moral duty to do so but the union probably showed them the plans also and offerred some other things that the company was not offerring.
 
40.png
human_being:
I think this is what would lead me to believe that business owners could form associations. I think France has organizations of businessess,but I could be wrong.I don’t know much about France but I can tell you that I think it’s out of line for unions to kidnap French CEO’s like I’ve heard recntly.But I did hear that on FOX so there may be a side to the story that I’m not aware of.
 
This is a story from 2006. It’s the first time I went on the site but sounds realistic to me. I’m sorry threadstarter I know you are from the UK and this is U.S. stuff.I googled something and this is what came up. Not exactly Glen Becks union thug theory to card check if you read the whole thing.:

"Let’s be clear: If management didn’t object to employees forming a union, they wouldn’t force them to go the NLRB route in the first place. Instead, they’d agree to recognize them as soon as a majority of the employees (50% +1) signed cards. This method is known as the “card check” system. Once fairly rare, it’s become increasingly common as union and community pressure has forced businesses to submit to democracy. But even with the card-check method, intimidation and disinformation still occur. Meanwhile, the old guard remains unmoved. Their view: If you want a union shop, you’re going to have to do it the hard way.

It’s after the cards are in, and the Board is notified, that the real fight begins. During the run-up to an election (which can take months to schedule if company lawyers use creative stalling tactics), management launches a zealous, anti-union campaign whose aim is to inundate the employees, break down their initiative, through terror, intimidation, flattery and bribery.counterpunch.org/macaray11232007.html
 
Daz said:
Good afternoon!

What is the teaching of the Church with regards to trade unionism? From my ill-educated position I can see good and bad- the original idea is very positive, a form of subsidiarity, but certainly in Britain the unions seem rampantly secular.

Should a Catholic join a trade union, or does this depend entirely on the union in question? If it does depend on the union, then what are the tests that should be applied before joining?
Click to expand...
Are not the businesses secular also?I think most society is nowadays not just the unions. I mean how many workplaces are there that stop to pray the rosary or anything like that.
 
I’m bored today. My wife is on medicine and sleeping,so I geuss I’m posting a bunch.
 
Insight said:
I think you are referring to the “Card Check” Bill, actually the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which will be going before Congress. The wording you are utilizing would be indicative of a Big Business or Corporate perspective. I stumbled upon a site that gives the Labor or Worker perspective:

organized-labor.webs.com/

God Bless
Click to expand...
This is probably more the reality of who is the bully and intimidator. I bet the guys in the story from Jersey would have loved to organize. There God-given rights have been violated.Good post.
 
I found the rebuttal to a mass mailing on this topic sent by Senator Jim DeMint on behalf of the National Right To Work Committee (NRTWC) very amusing:

organized-labor.webs.com/themailing.htm

God BlessAnother good link which we’ll never hear on FOX.Probably on no other media channels either.Thank you Insight.
 
Daz said:
Good afternoon!

What is the teaching of the Church with regards to trade unionism? From my ill-educated position I can see good and bad- the original idea is very positive, a form of subsidiarity, but certainly in Britain the unions seem rampantly secular.

Should a Catholic join a trade union, or does this depend entirely on the union in question? If it does depend on the union, then what are the tests that should be applied before joining?
Click to expand...
This is the reason we don’t want the union numbers to keep dwindling as the Heritage Foundation and FOX would like to see. Because history has a tendency to repeat itself and unions keep business in check in a capitalist society,and union #'s are getting very low since Reagan: 1892 by Pope LeoXIII:
"3. In any case we clearly see, and on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class: for the ancient workingmen's guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion. Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself. "http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top