Do Americans Workers Have Sufficient Rights?

The difference is only a matter of degree, not of kind. There are basically only two kinds of economic systems, free and command. The only free economic system is capitalism. All others are command. They go by a hundred names and they ALL fail, socialism, communism, marxism, naziism, whatever you want to call it. When the government decides who the winners and losers are, the government wins and everyone else loses.

 

Human nature is that some people will actually stop and read the posters; others will see it but not read it. Furthermore, for some people whose reading skills are sub par (reading comprehension) they may read it but may not digest the contents. That's not the fault of the company, they've met the state requirements, but it's a fact of life. I'll make it even money that if you took aside 10 employees and asked them to tell you what they read and its meaning, most of them would most likely shrug.

Anything involving a discharge or pay, the company generally has access to the information so they can effectively respond in a court of law. OSHA will generally keep confidential the identity of complainant (until the person has to testify in court if necessary) unless it involves an injury or death.

It's good that you were in a position where you could do both; for many people they are not in a position to do that for whatever the reason. I don't know what industry you are in but some industries have a worse track record labor-wise then others.

Well that's something that both you and I agree on.

I found a link to PPACA (patient protection affordable care act); glanced at it briefly and it confirms my belief that companies of over 50 employees are required to offer an insurance plan under PPACA guidelines or pay a tax penalty if the government has subsidized a full time employee's healthcare through tax deductions or other means. So that tells me that the employer has the option to either provide an insurance plan or pay the penalty, so there is a choice for the employer.

Those companies with less then 50 employees can offer insurance if they so choose or not without penalty, so if a company (lets say 48 non-union employees) provides insurance and decides to terminate the plan, the employees have no say it and have no choice but to accept the company's decision. With a labor contract that mandates medical insurance coverage they cannot terminate benefit coverage.

I must admit, I got a good laugh out of this (not at you but at the premise) No company can legally force an employee to come to work if they don't want to. Anyone can quit at any time without notice for what ever reason they feel is justifiable even if they have a labor contract; it's not a privilege but a right under the US Constitution. Companies always say that when unions conduct organizing drives. The premise that the employer should not be able to fire for any reason that the reasons for discharge can at times be capricious and/or arbitrary. All the union contracts do is represent the employee and make sure the discharge was for just cause and not on a flimsy pretext which in many cases is what comes to light during the discharge hearing.
While the states have labor laws, the state DoL are underfunded in most cases, designed to take inordinate amounts of time to the point where the employee most likely has a new job and isn't interested anymore, or the witnesses cannot be located or may have died, etc. It's designed to fail for the most part.

My response is this: while the quality of the member may differ, the company hired this member, the union is required to represent the member. Why is the company hiring a sub-par employee in the first place? Because HR or the manager hired a sub-par employee the union gets stuck representing him/her. From your responses I'm assuming you are in a blue collar industry. My experiences are all from white collar businesses that were union.

My point was people normally sign contracts when purchasing a new vehicle or house. I'm sure if your company is purchasing supplies the chances are they may have a contract which spells out the terms and conditions of the sale. There is a reason for all of this and that is to protect themselves financially and legally.

If you don't mind being discarded with the trash after 19 years of loyal service, then I say god bless you. Once you get into your 50's if you should unfortunately lose your job, finding a new one that is comparable or better then your old one can be quite the challenge and I'm sure you realize this. I personally know of quite a few people in this situation who, for no fault of their own, were laid off after many years of service, yet the newly hired 23 year old in the office was kept (pay & benefits pkg's are more reasonable)

I understand; you are not alone in your beliefs as there are plenty others who feel as you apparently do. My experience on the other hand has been one of satisfaction, not having to worry about my employment status, especially if I come to work on time, do what I am assigned to do, keep my nose clean and comply with the rules and policies set out by the company regarding our work.

There is not much more to talk about (we could beat this to death but why carry on the agony); but thanks for some very good dialogue on this thread. It's nice to occasionally debate a topic without all the trolling and personal insults that generally take place. I wish you all the best.

 

Not to drag out the agony, and yes, I edited down your response for this section.

So if a company is required to carry health insurance by Union mandate, they can, from year to year, change the plan. In order to carry a decent plan that the employees can afford, the company has to contribute. That is pretty much across the board for any company, rare is the one who does contribute something. What happens if the Union says the employer must have this-this and this! but those requirements far exceed what is affordable, for both the employer and the employee. Negotiations, I suppose. But bottom line is, the employer isn't going to actually take that hit, and they will find other methods of reducing their costs, or increasing their revenue. Inflation starts.....

We didn't hire the carpenter, the Union sent him over. We just had the thrill to pay outrageous per hour rates, for a minimum of 8 hours (he was there for 6) and contributions to the Widows and Orphans fund. The guy would have lasted all of 10 minutes as an employee. That wasn't the same company discussed elsewhere, that was a good 40 years ago.

We jokingly call it the 'no collar industry, but yes, blue by the norm.
I

I'm well into my fifties. While everyone is replaceable, it would take three people to figure out what my job actually is, much less be able to do it. I happen to think highly of my employer, and the respect goes both ways. That in and of itself, is a priceless perk.

I enjoyed it also, reasonable adults can have reasonable discussions. The trolling and flaming gets tiresome.

 

It seems like the rich are the only ones winning in America. Socialist capitalism is the way of the future.

 

Perhaps you can provide us with a link that defines 'Socialist capitalism', 'cause I see no way tois a way to put those two together.

 

There are two paths to equity here, and neither is mentioned. Sorry, can't lower myself to the left/right thing.

Socialist countries have regulations protecting workers and America has unions. The second way of equity is through justice. America does not have that so unions are the remedy, except they can be corrupted. All this makes socialism look good, but as long as Americans do not know about spiritual capitalism, such inequity in the workplace will exist.

Spiritual capitalism was what was behind the Potlatch of the Pacific Northwest Tribes. History eliminated any facts of that meaning we are pretty ignorant about independence or adaptation.

 

If you look at the Forbes 400, almost the entire list changes every 30 years. Inherited wealth gets squandered while new billionaires are made every year. There's no such group as "the rich" in America because the people who are rich keep changing. It is a mistake to look at a snapshot of the economy and presume that's how it always is.

There's no such thing as "socialist capitalism". It's an oxymoron. Either private parties are in control of the means of production or the state is. As we saw from Obama's <2% growth and Trump's >2% growth, even modest changes in the direction of capitalism improves growth in the economy.

 

You clearly don't understand what socialism is. This is a common problem among Republicans.

 

That's because you Republicans don't know what socialism is. Many of you confuse it with communism.

In a socialist capitalist society, government acts as to referee the playing field, unlike "free market" capitalism, which is self-regulated.

Have you ever heard of Rhine capitalism?

 

Sure it is.

so·cial·ism
(sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

But keep telling yourself that we don't know what socialism is and you do.

 

I don't know who 'you Republicans' are.

There is no such animal as a socialist capitalistic society. Contradictory methods can't co exist unless someone has redefined words, again.

 

You're not educated enough in this topic. I'm sorry, but there's nothing further to discuss.

 

Yes. Now maybe read the definition you've copy/pasted. America has been practicing socialism on a level for many years.

 

Learn the difference between a societal pool, and socialism. It will benefit you in the future.

 

Medicare is pure socialism.

 

Sufficient rights? Well, American workers have the right to accept employment, and they have the right to quit working for a company also. The only thing I know of that would restrict their ability to come and go as they please is whether or not they signed a contract for a specific period of time with performance stipulations. So, yes, American workers have "rights". I'm not sure exactly why the question was asked that way...(?). If you have the right to work, and, the right to stop working whenever you wish, what else do you require...?

 

Unless you are represented by a union, which has negotiated an employee rights agreement, American employees have no rights and can be dismissed at any time without cause.

 

Do some research of societal pools. The difference is rather blatant.

 

You can find examples of abuses in the private sector by looking for them. They aren't the norm. You can find examples of abuses in the public sector by watching everything they do. That is the norm.

Businesses have competition. They can lose employees or sales through mismanagement. Not so government. Government has no competitors and answers to nobody.

 

And employees can quit at anytime, with no notice and no cause.... and I'd suggest reading both the FDoL and SDoL pages regarding employee protections, laws, and rights.

 

And you REALLY don't understand the USA, wait staff prefer tips just like I prefer commission to wages. I prefer earning my healthcare with my employer not being dependent of government bureaucrats to grant it to me.

 

I got the right to quit. When I own a business I had a right to fire someone who was not performing the job they were hired for or any other reason and replace them with someone else. They did not own the job I did.