from my understanding: collective bargaining and labor relations is a thing in us federal code. and the agencies that enforce it are linked straight to the president who appoints the heads. these people go through sectors of employment like trucking for example have certain companies sign collective bargaining agreements, in sectors anticompetitive, but other sectors in trucking are competitive so they can't benefit. but then also along with collective bargaining is ethnic enforcement stuff in the agrrements to force minorities into jobs GOOD payings. but then the excluded classes of people fall into the worser paying trucking jobs. so generally it's like systemic discrimination enforced from the president himself, but uses unions/labor relations agencies(teamsters union is both and it's also linked to the govt). so this is the groups that help promote the systemic discrimination and antitrust with sectors of the market. the focus should be on enforcing companies like ups to create jobs. not to widen pay gaps and create systemic discrimination through collective bargaining agreements. companies with enough market power as ups definitely need presidential help in deciding which path to take as a business, but it shouldn't be centered around antitrust, restraining trade, and systemic discrimination. should be more about creating jobs.
now i finally watched your video. the collective bargaining agreement isn't granting you any rights or protections that you dont' already have. you dont need that collective bargaining agreement to have all of that. what you are arbitration and mediation and that kind of thing. THIS ALMOST NEVER BENEFITS THE ACTUAL EMPLOYEE, as it allows the companies to rig the justice. you almost always use the normal course of legal actions as your protections, after you tried to exhaust internal remedies of some sort. but never resort to bypassing the court system for a companies internal court justice, this is illegal for employers to try to waive that right, and it is NOT beneficial to employees most times because it's an effort of employers to try to avoid litigation which you may win alot more as employee.
from my understanding:
collective bargaining and labor relations is a thing in us federal code. and the agencies that enforce it are linked straight to the president who appoints the heads. these people go through sectors of employment like trucking for example have certain companies sign collective bargaining agreements, in sectors anticompetitive, but other sectors in trucking are competitive so they can't benefit. but then also along with collective bargaining is ethnic enforcement stuff in the agrrements to force minorities into jobs GOOD payings. but then the excluded classes of people fall into the worser paying trucking jobs.
so generally it's like systemic discrimination enforced from the president himself, but uses unions/labor relations agencies(teamsters union is both and it's also linked to the govt). so this is the groups that help promote the systemic discrimination and antitrust with sectors of the market.
the focus should be on enforcing companies like ups to create jobs. not to widen pay gaps and create systemic discrimination through collective bargaining agreements. companies with enough market power as ups definitely need presidential help in deciding which path to take as a business, but it shouldn't be centered around antitrust, restraining trade, and systemic discrimination. should be more about creating jobs.
now i finally watched your video. the collective bargaining agreement isn't granting you any rights or protections that you dont' already have. you dont need that collective bargaining agreement to have all of that.
what you are arbitration and mediation and that kind of thing. THIS ALMOST NEVER BENEFITS THE ACTUAL EMPLOYEE, as it allows the companies to rig the justice. you almost always use the normal course of legal actions as your protections, after you tried to exhaust internal remedies of some sort. but never resort to bypassing the court system for a companies internal court justice, this is illegal for employers to try to waive that right, and it is NOT beneficial to employees most times because it's an effort of employers to try to avoid litigation which you may win alot more as employee.