Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "Unions Invade Private Property" video.

@ecomp3069 Does nothing? Do you think a company just magically works with no supervision? The "fat cat" orders the seeds, negotiates product price with buyers, makes sure all equipment is functioning properly, schedules repairs or purchases new equipment, tests the soil, monitors watering, worked to collect the knowledge needed to grow the crop, and much more. Notice how seeds, equipment, the land, etc are all out of the "fat cats" wallet, not the workers. That person assumes all the risks and the worker assumes none. If you think farming is easy and farmers are rich, you know nothing about it. The majority of farmers work a regular job on top of working the farm because the profits from farming aren't enough to live on. They do it so you don't starve, so stop portraying them as bad or evil. It's already hard to get new people into farming, so if people like you keep pushing this BS, every farm will be owned by big corporations instead of the 75% owned by families that we have now. Edit to add: You clearly didn't watch the video because the worker interviewed said he works beside them often.
34
@blogintonblakley2708 Where was anyone blaming poor people? Unions are rich or were you not aware of that? They donate millions to politicans and lobbyists. Plus, these are Libertarians. We don't hate the rich for being rich.
4
@Spencer Hudacko He can pay more than he's required. The government won't stop him. He clearly doesn't, so he doesn't practice what he preaches.
3
It's usually done offsite because for safety reasons. Them doing this violates a ton of safety laws, not just property rights.
2
@benjaminkesler5245 I keep hearing this, but the only thing from California in my produce section is almonds and clementines. California mostly grows nuts, fruits, and rice. They are not the huge suppliers of the majority of the market, contrary to what they advertise.
2
Nope. A Union is limited in what they are allowed to do. Having 100 people invade your property with no warning isn't one of them. You can send a couple of Union representatives to talk with workers, but it's scheduled and usually off property. It's for the workers protection and the representatives protection. That owner is responsible if any of those 100 people get injured on his property. That's true of all property. I really want to see 100 Union members try to do that at a factory or chemical plant. If they aren't allowed on those places without permission, they aren't allowed on a farm without permission. Edit: It's a safety hazard and violates OSHA regulations because they haven't received safety training.
2
YouTube does that. It's been happening for awhile now.
1
Didn't watch the video. He pays them double minimum wage. Even if he paid minimum wage, doesn't justify violating his rights. That means if you hire a cleaning lady and I don't think you're paying them enough, I can bring 100 people into your place and you can do nothing. This is why it's important to view things like this, how they can be used against you.
1
Who are you to decide what the value is? It's always been decided by both parties. If you don't believe you are being paid fairly, you find another job. Nobody is holding anyone hostage, forcing them to perform labor. Without capital to start the business and pay the labor, there is no job for the workers. So no, capital is more important.
1
Only if the co-OP purchased the land. Otherwise it's just share cropping.
1
Unions don't control the means of production. You have no idea what you're talking about. The workers can have the means of production when they monetarily contribute to it by purchasing seed and equipment. Until then, they own nothing but their labor.
1
Maybe watch a video before commenting. Then you won't look like an idiot.
1
That's interesting because the Supreme Court has ruled differently. It recently removed forced Union participation in the federal government.
1
By that logic governments employees don't have property rights. Is that really the road you're advocating for?
1
Correct. People don't understand it. They see a million dollar profit and don't realize most of that gets put into next years crop and to pay off loans to plant this year's crop.
1
The employer doesn't have complete control so not understanding the relevance of that question. They go to a hotel at night after work where they are free to do as they please. If you're referring to farms that include room and board, if you don't want that, don't work there. It's only for a couple of months as well so saying "complete control" is a bit exaggerated.
1
There's nothing about it being a private company mentioned in the video. The government didn't purchase the land, so it's still private property.
1
California 560 miles wide and 1040 miles long. They are probably traveling within California.
1
How is being paid double minimum wage=desperate? If you watched the video you would have seen they are not by any stretch of the imagination. Your comment also has nothing to do with violating property rights.
1
It's funny how you think California feeds the entire country when they don't. They grow nuts, fruits, and rice mainly. I don't like nuts, my fruits are grown closer to my state, and my state grows more rice. The only thing in my grocery stores from California are clementines and almonds. Meanwhile you eat my state's chicken and if you drink Budweiser, you drink our rice. If California stopped growing things today, I wouldn't notice. As for working conditions, California has horrible working conditions in many of their industries, primarily Silicon Valley. Yet, I don't see y'all targeting major corruptions. Instead you try to justify the removal of someone's Constitutional rights who you claim is important to the entire country. Messed up logic there.
1
A booming economy affects wages more than a Union. Plus, that first part was rather childish and off topic. There's a big difference between a worker's Union, which you were fully aware this video is about, and the creation of the country. Since you started with that, so will I as it appears you don't know history. The colonies did not " unite" in the way you are describing. The representatives from each colony were selected by individuals already unhappy with England. That was not the majority of the population so they were not elected, but appointed. Secondly, the states viewed themselves as seperate until after the Civil War. After that, language was intentionally adopted to make the states feel invested in each other. That was when using "we" when talking about the US as a whole came into practice. Now that I've corrected how you're incorrectly using the word "Union" when it comes to this country's history, I'll address the rest. Most Unions aren't as effective as some seem to believe. The refinery my husband works at recently blew up injuring 6 people, with 5 literally catching fire. One is still in ICU fighting for his life. It's Unionized, yet they were unable to improve safety issues that were well known. So this idea that Unions improve all this stuff is complete BS. As for wages, they still make less than the industry standard, so again BS. The only thing positive the Union has done is allowed a couple of guys that were being discriminated against, sue the company. When the economy was booming before the virus, wages were increasing, benefits were expanding, and conditions were improving. That was due to competition for workers because the unemployment rate was so low. That did more to benefit workers than any Union has in decades.
1
Oh the evil capitalists that created all these wonderful devices I am using unironically to post a comment on a site created by capitalism to say how awful it is. If only I had the power of my convictions to not purchase these products or use these sites, but I don't because I'm a hypocrite.
1
@generalyellor8188 There's no envy in the ops comment. Stop projecting. This clearly shows that property rights of farmers don't exist in California because the main point of property rights is control of the property. That includes the right to associate, which is the right to allow and not allow who you choose onto your property.
1
That's worked out so well when it's been done. They aren't chained so I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is forced to work anywhere here so the "chains" thing makes zero sense.
1
Why do you think they are stupid? He pays them double minimum wage and they aren't complaining. If abuse is occurring on other farms, that's illegal and has nothing to do with the government forcing you to allow activists onto your private property. They can talk to them as they arrive or leave the property.
1
It's a new law. Nice long speech though.
1
No where does this say they are illegal. That's a violation of federal law and would result in massive fines. He wouldn't have filed the lawsuit if what you're claiming is true.
1
Yes, because no one but people in California can read laws or court cases. 🙄
1