DNC Discriminating Against Non-Union Shops

This guy started a shop in North Carolina and tried to bid on work for the Democratic Convention being held there next summer.

.......The person on the committee that he spoke to specifically asked him if he could unionize his shop in order to make bidding possible. After already fleeing union bastions like Canada, that was the last thing he was going to do.

Undoubtedly the response from the DNC Host Committee will be to provide a laundry list of companies that they allowed bids for and awarded work to that weren’t unionized. Companies like Time Warner Cable (which one wonders what else they could’ve done about, but I digress).

The truth is, that is all irrelevant in the face of what John was told about his business. North Carolina is a right to work state. No employee can be compelled to join a union. This is the law. Apparently, the Democrats in charge of the 2012 convention in Charlotte have found a way to get around that. In order to get the DNC’s business, companies are being asked to unionize their employees — regardless of if the employees want a union. And if not, they don’t get the work. Apparently, discrimination is still legal.

http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/201...st-charlotte-businesses-demands-unionization/

 

Because Canada is a "union bastion", business there is terrible.

 

By your logic, we should emulate Saudi Arabia. After all, like Canada, they have oil, a small population and a high standard of living as a result.

 

As someone who has lived in, and is a citizen of both places i can tell you that Canada is by no means a "union bastion" compared to the states, and the places where the oil is are a hell of alot more conservative then most of the U.S. for example Alberta runs no provincial sales tax and actually cuts a cheque to the citizens when they run a surplus as opposed to blowing it on more government waste.

I could very easily make the case that U.S. unions are FAR more aggressive, whoever wrote the article in the OP is an idiot for making this claim.

When you live in places besides the U.S. or travel to places outside the U.S. the picture becomes very clear that there is an inherent sense of greed in the U.S. unlike any other country, whether it is the unions, the CEO's, or the government employees, everyone in the U.S. fights much harder for their piece of someone elses pie then any other country I have seen.

 

Alberta unionization rate:
http://albertacanada.com/about-alberta/unionization-rates.html

North Carolina unionization rate:
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/business/nc-keeps-nations-lowest-unionization-rate

 

And how does that take away from what i said that U.S. unions are far more aggressive???

Please explain your point.

 

Actually these numbers confirm my original belief when i think about it, Unions become too aggressive, and like all other parasites they kill off their host, and then Business goes elsewhere, and there ends up being less unions, if unions are reasonable and businesses feel like they can work with them then they stay.

 

So if I were to look up unionization rates over time for the developed world I should find:
1) countries whose rates have not declined are doing poorly in a business/economic sense, and
2) countries which have declining unionization rates are doing well, economically?

 

Actually i said that unions can survive and thrive if they arent to piggish. Its the thugs like Trumka, who ruin it for everyone. Like i said in my initial post on this thread, the problem with the U.S. is not the number of unions its the greedy thuggish unions, though in fairness I guess what helps exacerbate the problem with U.S. unions is also the legal system, where every company is just waiting on a lawsuit.

Its shit like teachers union where teachers get tenure and send felons off to a "rubber room" to live out their days. Do you think when a business person is looking to expand their business, they see something like that and say "gee thats where i want to do business." Why do you think businesses are flocking to "right to work states?"

You know as well as i do no matter how deep you dig you will never find the level of frivilous lawsuits, and bullshit complaints in other countries that some U.S. unions have done.

 

The problem with unions is that in order to justify their leadership they need to keep reaching for more and more company concessions. There is no reasonable point at which the status quo is maintained. The older and bigger the union the more it has and will over reach and eventually destroy the competiveness and viability of the company. The auto manufacturers are perfect examples of where the union eventually takes a company.