REPEAL ANTI-UNION LAWS

The "right to work" provision is the only good provision of the bill, that gives workers the right to decide if they want to be in the union or not. So "feelin' the Bern" only leaves you with a shitty, ineffective union that isn't doing shit for you, that you are not OBLIGED TO PAY YOUR MONEY TO otherwise you're not ALLOWED to work.
More authoritarian theft and YOU GET FUCKED
That's Bernie Sanders.
That's the left.
That's socialism.
That's NOT a solution to this problem and that's NOT what my OP is about.

>You say this like there are no federal anti-union laws that are currently on the books and in effect and are strangling our workforce into slavery while simultaneously being unconstitutional.

There aren't. The federal government is inherently pro labor. Sickeningly so. You post this wikipedia picture like it's relevant. Do you know what the Taft–Hartley Act actually does? Did you read it? What exactly anti-union about it?

You claim there are no anti-union labor laws, I literally post a screencap of one and you say "Hurrr that's not relevant".
Are you even serious right now? There's no question up for debate about whether Taft-Hartley is an "anti-union law" LMAO. You just got outright humiliated by my response and you don't want to admit it now.

>There aren't. The federal government is inherently pro labor. Sickeningly so.
Good. Labor is all goyim and capital is all jews pic related. Anything that serves goy interests at the expense of jew interests is good at this point.

Attached: 291e73c1726e409f99fff551dec8440c_A.jpg (640x437, 210K)

Fucking retard. The Taft–Hartley Act is actually pro-labor, Not anti-union. It safeguards the rights of the individual in the relevant parts. I asked you to specifically define what parts of your retard screenshot is anti-union. Can you do that or not?

Yeah. That doesn't concern me.

LOL it is literally a massive anti-labor law. It has one "right to work" provision, which I mentioned earlier in the thread, which is the only good provision in it and it's just a small part of the bill. It is literally a slave labor bill that indisputably restricts the rights of unions. Go read the wikipedia yourself, or the text of the bill itself. You're being pathetic and stupid. None of this is up for debate. I mean even anti-union people wouldn't claim taft-hartley is "pro-union", you're just being a mendacious propagandist.

>It is literally a slave labor bill that indisputably restricts the rights of unions.

Shitskin monkey. No one White can be this stupid. I've read the "wiki" myself, which is why I am asking you to clearly illustrate what is anti=union about this bill. Why are you unable to do that?

Yeah right beaner.

>(((Yeah. That doesn't concern me.)))
>(((Silly goy! This blatantly anti-union and anti-labor law is actually PRO union and PRO labor! Stop questioning, goyim!)))
I'm just surprised you don't have a memeflag. You must be on vacation, rabbi.

Attached: hebrew detected parenthesis schlomo jew.png (460x191, 10K)

I deleted that comment and reposted it here cuz I wanted to put the jew brackets around the comment. Cuz you're obviously a Jew.
And LMFAO @ beaner, jesus christ. I was right, you're not really from America are you? Fuckin' rabbi on a VPN over here.
Literally the first sentence of the wikipedia entry says that it restricts labor unions. Pic related. Please stop rabbi.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 5.12.17 AM.png (788x294, 110K)

Whatever spic. Why are you unable to provide the relevant parts of the text?

"he Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 29 U.S.C. § 141-197, better known as the Taft–Hartley Act, (80 H.R. 3020, Pub.L. 80–101, 61 Stat. 136, enacted June 23, 1947) is a United States federal law that restricts the activities and power of labor unions."

In what regard? Do you know what it restricts?

Campaign expenditures
According to First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams, the Act "was the first law barring unions and corporations from making independent expenditures in support of or [in] opposition to federal candidates".[3]

Union security clauses
Main article: Union shop
The amendments also authorized individual states to outlaw union security clauses (such as the union shop) entirely in their jurisdictions by passing right-to-work laws. A right-to-work law, under Section 14B of Taft–Hartley, prevents unions from negotiating contracts or legally binding documents requiring companies to fire workers who refuse to join the union.

etc. There is a 2000 word limit. I'm not seeing any problem here. Why are you unable to properly define your argument? Why because you're a moron with a high-school diploma (if even that) that takes what others say verbatim without actually understanding what things actually mean. Kill yourself wetback.

>Why are you unable to provide the relevant parts of the text?
The entirety of the article I posted details the ways in which the law restricts unions. That's literally what the law exists to do. The "right to work" provision also restricts unions but is the "not bad" part of the bill. It's only one part though. The entire thing is solely an explicit union restricting bill. I can't "cite the relevant text" because I provided you with a citation already (more than I need to do on Jow Forums) in which THE ENTIRETY of the text is relevant and details the anti-union effects.

Like this is some fucking hardcore Hebrew you are pulling here, doubling down on your claim that a bill that literally exists for the express purpose of restricting unions somehow does not restrict unions. That is massive Hebrew.

>why can't you cite the relevant text?
Note the screen shot is the table of contents. Note the size of the "effects of the act" subsection. Literally the entire page I cited for you is a description of how the act restricts labor unions in various, almost entirely unethical ways.
What you're doing is so fucking Hebrew right now that it can only be considered a massive embarrassment to yourself, your "side" and your homeland of Israel.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 5.24.59 AM.png (310x459, 43K)

hmmm

Attached: 1545694243371s.jpg (125x125, 4K)

Fucking monkey. Let's go through the provisions 1 by 1.

Jurisdictional strikes
In jurisdictional strikes, outlawed by Taft–Hartley, a union strikes in order to assign particular work to the employees it represents. Secondary boycotts and common situs picketing, also outlawed by the act, are actions in which unions picket, strike, or refuse to handle the goods of a business with which they have no primary dispute but which is associated with a targeted business.

What is wrong with that?

Campaign expenditures
According to First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams, the Act "was the first law barring unions and corporations from making independent expenditures in support of or [in] opposition to federal candidates".[3]

Already been stated.

Closed shops
Main article: Closed shop
The outlawed closed shops were contractual agreements that required an employer to hire only labor union members. Union shops, still permitted, require new recruits to join the union within a certain amount of time. The National Labor Relations Board and the courts have added other restrictions on the power of unions to enforce union security clauses and have required them to make extensive financial disclosures to all members as part of their duty of fair representation.

Already been stated.

Union security clauses
Main article: Union shop
The amendments also authorized individual states to outlaw union security clauses (such as the union shop) entirely in their jurisdictions by passing right-to-work laws. A right-to-work law, under Section 14B of Taft–Hartley, prevents unions from negotiating contracts or legally binding documents requiring companies to fire workers who refuse to join the union.

Already been stated. We're halfway done. What is wrong with anything that has been posted thus far?

Fucking wetback retard.

Unions are trash.
>t. former teacher

Literally what happens:
>shitty workers get protected
>good workers have no ability to be rewarded
>bureaucracy is created
>career bureaucrats are created within the union that gorge themselves on inflated wages while the workers suffer
>union dues rape your wallet to cover legal expenses for shitty workers/bureaucrat's wages
>Union acts as a PAC
>Union often acts as a social activist group based upon political values of leading members

And it gets worse. In my country, the government repealed:

>C-377 = forces unions to have open books/show how they spend money
>C-525 = gives workers the right to secret ballot to certify or decertify a union

On the grounds that they were "anti-union". Here's an example of their claim as to why they oppose it:

"In its current form, C-377 places onerous financial reporting requirements on unions. For example, the law forces unions to disclose “detailed financial information as well as information on political, lobbying and other non-labour relations activities” to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The CRA would then make the information public."

“The Government of Canada has indicated its intent to repeal Bill C-377. As a result, this waiver ensures that unions and other stakeholders affected by the Bill will not be required to develop and submit detailed tracking of their activities to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for these fiscal periods"

So in short, they've streamlined the corruption shit. Which is already notorious in Canada. Teacher's unions for example, were utilized to push through gun laws.

The reason unions were done away with in Amerikkka is because brown-skinned people had joined them, and white Amerikkkans will always be rabid white supremacists who can't stand to see anything with even so much as connotations of the color brown get anything like ahead in life.

So white Amerikkkans supported Ronald Hitler Reagan and his gestapo, who used coded race language like "privatization" and "smaller government" in order to keep everything good, like all jobs and money, confined exclusively to the white population.

And part of this was Herr Reagan's going after unions, which racist whites cheered on. And that's how we end up in the shithole we're in today, because white people will always look for cleverer and cleverer ways to achieve racism, even if it ends up hurting them as well.

Attached: lantern-3.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.jpg (710x686, 251K)

This is usually what ppl say when they can’t get into a union

Side note to all this. Who agrees we should have a 4 day work week instead of 5. 5 days is old and antiquated. Every weekend should be a 3 day weekend to allow people time with their families and simply to enjoy life more.

Unions are whatever, but what OP is talking about is pure tard bullshit. The federal government is the most pro labor organization on the planet. (It may become necessary to draw a distinction between pr-labor and pro-union, but at this point in discourse conflation of the two terms is sufficient.)

This is why the federal government is holding 7 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities.

7 trillion. That's a really big number, in comparison the GDP of Japan for example is 4.872 trillion.

The GDP of the United States of America is 19.39 trillion USD.

Thats nearly half of the countries GDP to be paid to retirees who are no longer working thanks to labor unions and collective bargaining wage increases. OP has no clue what he's talking about.