Yellow dog contract

[Emsworth]

A yellow dog contract is an employment contract in which a worker agrees not to join a labor union while employed. It has been illegal in the U.S. since the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932.

I vote yes. The employer-employee relationship is a purely voluntary one. If the employer wants to forbid his employees from joining a union, and if the employees agree to this condition in the contract, then I see no problem, worry, or concern.

[opebo]

No.  Such coercion of employees by their owners is best prevented.

[Emsworth]

Such coercion of employees by their owners is best prevented.

How is it coercion, if the employee voluntarily submits to it?

[opebo]

Such coercion of employees by their owners is best prevented.

How is it coercion, if the employee voluntarily submits to it?

Naturally such desperate persons will 'voluntarily' submit to almost anything from their betters.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Absolutely not. We need more rights for citizens and less domination by megacorporations.

[??????????]

A yellow dog contract is an employment contract in which a worker agrees not to join a labor union while employed. It has been illegal in the U.S. since the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932.

I vote yes. The employer-employee relationship is a purely voluntary one. If the employer wants to forbid his employees from joining a union, and if the employees agree to this condition in the contract, then I see no problem, worry, or concern.

While we don't have yellow dog contracts where I work we have a policy that advocating unions and trying to create one while working on site can lead to automatic termination. Excellent policy!

[WalterMitty]

yes it most certainly should be legal.

[dazzleman]

I really don't think it should be legal.  The reasons it was made illegal probably still apply.  My own thinking is that unions come in because management fails.  If management treats workers well, unions become less attractive.  That's why workers at auto plants in the south have largely rejected unions.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

A yellow dog contract is an employment contract in which a worker agrees not to join a labor union while employed. It has been illegal in the U.S. since the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932.

I vote yes. The employer-employee relationship is a purely voluntary one. If the employer wants to forbid his employees from joining a union, and if the employees agree to this condition in the contract, then I see no problem, worry, or concern.

While we don't have yellow dog contracts where I work we have a policy that advocating unions and trying to create one while working on site can lead to automatic termination. Excellent policy!

Um, why do you act like unions are a bad thing?

[WalterMitty]

A yellow dog contract is an employment contract in which a worker agrees not to join a labor union while employed. It has been illegal in the U.S. since the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932.

I vote yes. The employer-employee relationship is a purely voluntary one. If the employer wants to forbid his employees from joining a union, and if the employees agree to this condition in the contract, then I see no problem, worry, or concern.

While we don't have yellow dog contracts where I work we have a policy that advocating unions and trying to create one while working on site can lead to automatic termination. Excellent policy!

Um, why do you act like unions are a bad thing?

becayse they are?

[??????????]

A yellow dog contract is an employment contract in which a worker agrees not to join a labor union while employed. It has been illegal in the U.S. since the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932.

I vote yes. The employer-employee relationship is a purely voluntary one. If the employer wants to forbid his employees from joining a union, and if the employees agree to this condition in the contract, then I see no problem, worry, or concern.

While we don't have yellow dog contracts where I work we have a policy that advocating unions and trying to create one while working on site can lead to automatic termination. Excellent policy!

Um, why do you act like unions are a bad thing?

Because I don't hate freedom.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

how is supporting unions hating freedom?

[GOP = Terrorists]

I don't mind opposition to organized labor when it comes from the capital class.  It is in their best interests to oppose labor.

Yet clearly anyone who actually works for a living instead of those who profit off the work of others has a great interest in the success of organized labor and is quite frankly stupid to oppose it.

Disclaimer:  I'm union member.

[dazzleman]

I think unions are a bad thing, in general.  At best, in certain cases they are a necessary evil.

Still, I don't think workers should ever be prohibited from joining one by something that they effectively signed under duress in some cases.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'm in favor of unions because we need more power for the people and end megacorporate rule!

[The Vorlon]

I support the right to Unionize.

The major change I would make is that all contracts, including Union ones, must end.

Under current legislation when the term of a labor contract "ends" it really doesn't end - The employer cannot hire another Union, or another group of individuals to do the works.

They are essentially required to reach a contract with the same Union, or not have employees.

By way of analogy, suppose I agreed for the next 3 years to buy 1000 tons of steel a month from you at $100 a ton.

In three years, I am free to renew our agreement if we agree on terms, or find an alternative steel supplier.

In most states, however, if the steel supplier was treated like a Union I would have two choice at the end of three years - agree to your new terms (however crazy they might be) or simply stop buying steel from anybody.

At then end of a Union contract the contract must end - totally and completetly - the employer needs to be free to pick a new supplier of Labor if they so decide.

Right now... I sure would rather work for non-Union Toyota than unionized GM.... as an aside.

[A18]

The major change I would make is that all contracts, including Union ones, must end.

LINO

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not in favor of the yellow dog.  Consider an equivalent reciprocal contract clause that required an employer to not merge with another business.  Can you imagine that any employee would be able to get a such a contract clause?  That's the clearest test that something is unfair, if you reverse the conditions is it still acceptible?

[A18]

That should be legal as well.

[Emsworth]

Whether a contract is fair or unfair should not be relevant. All that matters is that both parties have consented to it. If a worker wants to consent to a contract that bans union membership, then so be it. He is not violating anyone else's rights by accepting such an agreement.

Of course, the closed shop should also be legal (although it is not at present).

[The Vorlon]

The major change I would make is that all contracts, including Union ones, must end.

LINO

When I say "end" I ceratinly don't advocate aboloishing contracts... what I was trying to say was the contract should be time certain, so that at the end of say 3 years... the contract is actually over.

[A18]

Oh, sorry

[??????????]

What's the difference between a company forcing you to join a union to work for them and signing a yellow dog contract? If a person had objections to a particular union yet wished to work for that company how should it be legal to force them into a union? If actions like that are legal why shouldn't yellow dog contracts be legal?

[??????????]

I don't mind opposition to organized labor when it comes from the capital class.  It is in their best interests to oppose labor.

Yet clearly anyone who actually works for a living instead of those who profit off the work of others has a great interest in the success of organized labor and is quite frankly stupid to oppose it.

Disclaimer:  I'm union member.

It is in my best interest to oppose a union for my company. If we were to ever get a union (G-d forbid) we'd probably lose benefits compared to what we have now. And obviously our workers don't want it because everytime an upstart tries to get it put up for a vote in the Miami Division it gets voted down very handily.

[opebo]

I don't mind opposition to organized labor when it comes from the capital class.  It is in their best interests to oppose labor.

Yet clearly anyone who actually works for a living instead of those who profit off the work of others has a great interest in the success of organized labor and is quite frankly stupid to oppose it.

Absolutely correct, Progress!  Can you believe the masochistic stupidity of these workers?