PDA

View Full Version : Unions



Hayvern
02-17-2011, 10:16 PM
In the main topic area, I have been ranting on unions lately, and I think I should explain why I have such hatred for unions.

I worked in a number of unions in my years being on this planet. My first foray into the world of legalized extortion came when I worked on a Government contract installing public utilities. To work for the government you had to be in a union. It did not say what union it had to be, so my company chose a different union than the local chapter.

So we got picketed. I remember having a guy standing over me as I was working hooking up a natural gas line and had him screaming at me, all the time he was standing there with a lit cig and endangering my life. We called the police, but was told there was nothing they could do. So for two weeks these guys put not only MY life, but the lives of many other people in danger for their "right" to picket my workplace.

It did not stop there though. We would come in to work and find our equipment dangerously sabotaged. One morning, the lug nuts had been loosened on my work truck, had I not been diligent about inspecting the truck each morning me and my crew could have been killed.

My next round came when I worked in the public school system. They took my monthly dues, no matter if I wanted them to or not. Oh, they game me a choice to not be in the union, but they were going to take my dues anyway. Then, they took those same dues and used them to support government legislation that ultimately led to my job being taken away. There was no defense for me, I was let go unceremoniously and left without the 2 years of dues I paid for nothing.

Unions had a purpose at one point, and they could still have a purpose again, but the unyielding attitude of the people who are members of those unions need to change. The days of the union caring about the workers are over, they are some of the most powerful organizations in the United States and are certainly more powerful than the very CEOs that end up hiring their workers. Something is terribly wrong with that.

andrewk78
02-18-2011, 04:48 AM
bust em up

chief31
02-18-2011, 04:56 PM
In the main topic area, I have been ranting on unions lately, and I think I should explain why I have such hatred for unions.

I worked in a number of unions in my years being on this planet. My first foray into the world of legalized extortion came when I worked on a Government contract installing public utilities. To work for the government you had to be in a union. It did not say what union it had to be, so my company chose a different union than the local chapter.

So we got picketed. I remember having a guy standing over me as I was working hooking up a natural gas line and had him screaming at me, all the time he was standing there with a lit cig and endangering my life. We called the police, but was told there was nothing they could do. So for two weeks these guys put not only MY life, but the lives of many other people in danger for their "right" to picket my workplace.

It did not stop there though. We would come in to work and find our equipment dangerously sabotaged. One morning, the lug nuts had been loosened on my work truck, had I not been diligent about inspecting the truck each morning me and my crew could have been killed.

My next round came when I worked in the public school system. They took my monthly dues, no matter if I wanted them to or not. Oh, they game me a choice to not be in the union, but they were going to take my dues anyway. Then, they took those same dues and used them to support government legislation that ultimately led to my job being taken away. There was no defense for me, I was let go unceremoniously and left without the 2 years of dues I paid for nothing.

Unions had a purpose at one point, and they could still have a purpose again, but the unyielding attitude of the people who are members of those unions need to change. The days of the union caring about the workers are over, they are some of the most powerful organizations in the United States and are certainly more powerful than the very CEOs that end up hiring their workers. Something is terribly wrong with that.

They still serve a far bigger purpose than most would like to admit.

Just as things were prior to unionization, things would dwindle back to that same level without the unions.

Are the unions currently working as intended?

Not entirely.

Union workers should not be picketing other union workers, and should certainly not be playing as dangerously as you described in any situation.

But those are individual acts. Representatives of a union, yes. But acting on their own.

Your experience with the school system I don't know about. I have to imagine that they lobbied for a law that helped more union workers than it hurt, and you were just unfortunate enough to have been in a bad position.

But I know that most unions still serve the workers, because that's who the union is. And because every time I see them do something, I can hear all the complaints about how dirty it is that they helped themselves.

As I said, I acknowledge that there is some dirt in the unions. A lot of it comes from having to play the game that corporates are going to play against them. ALot of it is just a bad element of people. (You'll find that anywhere.)

But, unless you are higher up on the management ladder, or self-employed, the union does help you.

Even if you are self-employed, in a field that competes with a union, then you can thank that union for raising the rates that non-union companies get to make.

If you work in a field with no unions to compete against, you can still thank unions for raising the expected pay of all labor.

You have issues with unions? I understand that.

But, without them, it's only a matter of time before we are at each other's throats for illegal immigrant wages, then Chinese labor wages.

There are four choices. 1.) Accept or support unionization. 2.) Accept slave wages. 3.) Pray for socialism to do the job left behind by fallen unions. 4.) Become one of the elites who exploit the rest of the nation.

We all know that big business is about profits. And we should all know that the well-being of those who work for them is of no concern to the profit margins.

Unions. I don't love them. But I sure like them a lot better than the alternatives.

PS. Thanks for moving the discussion to a new thread. I thought about it after I posted lastnight. But it was late, and I needed to get to bed.:D

honda522
02-19-2011, 12:24 AM
We recently had a vote to get more union in or kick them out at Delta for ACS as well as flight attendants...We voted them out. It came from Northwest union guys. They wanted the union in. It pisses me off so much, these guys are so lazy its ridiculus. They are still under union contracts from a bit longer. I can't wait till its all said and done. Alot of these guys will be out the door then.

chiefnut
02-19-2011, 07:55 AM
i am not a big fan of unions though i will admit they do serve a necessary purpose[to protect employees from the greed of industry]. they sank our steel industry when us steel saw japan taking over the world steel market they told the union they need to retool all of the plants to convert to a cold rolled steel process in order to compete. they gave them a choice to take a pay cut or close down......the union chose unemployment!!! all i can say is if my employer said take a pay cut while we gut all of our stores to remodel in order to stay in business i would say ok, while i started looking for another job.

Drunker Hillbilly
02-19-2011, 11:31 AM
They serve a purpose when things are all well and good but the situation in Wisconsin is dire as well as in our country right now. IMO, unions are bad for everyone involved, including union members, in this day and age.

Hayvern
02-19-2011, 11:33 AM
They still serve a far bigger purpose than most would like to admit.

Just as things were prior to unionization, things would dwindle back to that same level without the unions.

Are the unions currently working as intended?

Not entirely.

Union workers should not be picketing other union workers, and should certainly not be playing as dangerously as you described in any situation.

But those are individual acts. Representatives of a union, yes. But acting on their own.

Your experience with the school system I don't know about. I have to imagine that they lobbied for a law that helped more union workers than it hurt, and you were just unfortunate enough to have been in a bad position.

But I know that most unions still serve the workers, because that's who the union is. And because every time I see them do something, I can hear all the complaints about how dirty it is that they helped themselves.

As I said, I acknowledge that there is some dirt in the unions. A lot of it comes from having to play the game that corporates are going to play against them. ALot of it is just a bad element of people. (You'll find that anywhere.)

But, unless you are higher up on the management ladder, or self-employed, the union does help you.

Even if you are self-employed, in a field that competes with a union, then you can thank that union for raising the rates that non-union companies get to make.

If you work in a field with no unions to compete against, you can still thank unions for raising the expected pay of all labor.

You have issues with unions? I understand that.

But, without them, it's only a matter of time before we are at each other's throats for illegal immigrant wages, then Chinese labor wages.

There are four choices. 1.) Accept or support unionization. 2.) Accept slave wages. 3.) Pray for socialism to do the job left behind by fallen unions. 4.) Become one of the elites who exploit the rest of the nation.

We all know that big business is about profits. And we should all know that the well-being of those who work for them is of no concern to the profit margins.

Unions. I don't love them. But I sure like them a lot better than the alternatives.

PS. Thanks for moving the discussion to a new thread. I thought about it after I posted lastnight. But it was late, and I needed to get to bed.:D

What's interesting is that the unions were at one time instrumental in getting a lot of safety and labor laws passed. So now that those laws are in the books, the union job is done. Things will not revert back to the way they were because we now have laws in place that protect all workers, not only the union employee.

As for higher wages, they lobby to get those higher wages and benefits while stiff arming their employers to make it happen. The problem here is that the union takes away all incentive for the worker to work harder. Since everyone gets the same wage and the union more or less controls who gets advanced and who stays a lowly laborer, there is no incentive.

Nor would the employer be inclined to provide an incentive since the employees are already overpaid to begin with. You have to admit, when an autoworker's average salary is $40 plus another $33 for benefits that amounts to a compensation package of over $70 per hour. Why is that too much? Because it raises the price of the vehicle to a point that most of the rest of us cannot afford to buy one.

The issue that is going on in Winsconsin right now drives the point home even further. The states in the union cannot afford to pay their workers high salaries AND all the benefits they have been getting, but as long as the politicians are in teh pocket of the union, that will continue to happen to a point where we are all taxed to death in order to pay for the out of control labor monster. The workers do not appreciate what they have and they certainly have no incentive to do a good job, have you ever been to the Department of Motor Vehicles?

We have to get this monster under control. Bust them up and let them reform, limit their ability to donate money to political causes, do something in order to get this under control so we do not end up like France, Greece, or Spain.

chief31
02-19-2011, 01:20 PM
What's interesting is that the unions were at one time instrumental in getting a lot of safety and labor laws passed. So now that those laws are in the books, the union job is done. Things will not revert back to the way they were because we now have laws in place that protect all workers, not only the union employee.

As for higher wages, they lobby to get those higher wages and benefits while stiff arming their employers to make it happen. The problem here is that the union takes away all incentive for the worker to work harder. Since everyone gets the same wage and the union more or less controls who gets advanced and who stays a lowly laborer, there is no incentive.

Nor would the employer be inclined to provide an incentive since the employees are already overpaid to begin with. You have to admit, when an autoworker's average salary is $40 plus another $33 for benefits that amounts to a compensation package of over $70 per hour. Why is that too much? Because it raises the price of the vehicle to a point that most of the rest of us cannot afford to buy one.

The issue that is going on in Winsconsin right now drives the point home even further. The states in the union cannot afford to pay their workers high salaries AND all the benefits they have been getting, but as long as the politicians are in teh pocket of the union, that will continue to happen to a point where we are all taxed to death in order to pay for the out of control labor monster. The workers do not appreciate what they have and they certainly have no incentive to do a good job, have you ever been to the Department of Motor Vehicles?

We have to get this monster under control. Bust them up and let them reform, limit their ability to donate money to political causes, do something in order to get this under control so we do not end up like France, Greece, or Spain.

First, the average UAW worker's salary is nowhere near $40 an hour. I am not sure that there are any UAW workers that make $30 an hour. I am pretty sure that the top of the scale is at $28 an hour.

And the benefits would generally round to less than $10 an hour. Far from $33.

But I absolutely agree have to admit, if you make up crazy numbers, then it looks like a lot.

As a six year veteran with The UAW, my hourly wage, with benefits factored in, is at $25.20 an hour. That is the top end here, and includes the two advancements that I have made to a better job and labor grade.

But that is dealing in reality. If you prefer to go with that $73 an hour estimate, then I have to include that that still isn't enough for each employee to own and maintain the unicorns that are required to keep their jobs.

Deal in fantasy, or deal in reality?

As for the laziness claims, I worked as a non-union construction worker for about ten years prior to landing with The UAW.

Nobody who has ever worked with, or around, me has ever tried to make any claims of laziness at me. A lot of things could be said of me. But that has never been one of them. I have always been extremely competitive with what I am working on. And always managed to be as good as the very best.

I see the same thing that everybody else does, with workers sitting around.... reading the paper during their work hours... and everybody just goes straight for the easy target, of laziness.

The vast majority of the time, that isn't the case at all. And I will explain.

On an assembly line, which is how most big businesses build their products, an employee is put in one location, and asked to do a specific job when the product gets to them.

But, what are they asked to do when they finish and the next product isn't there yet? Clean?

Well, there is almost always an outsourced cleaning company that does that every day. And there is rarely any cleaning that an employee is even allowed to do.

Sweep? Mop? Then what?

As for places like The DMV, they too have a veary slow process to deal with. Such and such of form has to be passed by some manager, who happens to be dealing with such and such other issues, leaving the employee waiting and waiting. Then, they have some other issue to wait out.

But, from an outsider's perspective, it's so much easier to just assume that the worker is lazy, as opposed to actually finding our all of the details.

In most cases, it isn't employee laziness that is responsible for what we are calling employee laziness. It's ineffective, or slow processes, set-up by poor management.

Now, the reason that management doesn't work to improve that is because those at that level who could be deemed responsible for an ineffective process just blame employee laziness.

And we all know how popular it is to accept that employees are lazy, don't we?

As I said, I know laziness. And I do see lazy employees. But, with the way the processes are being set-up, even the laziest employee won't be able to have an effect. And, as a leader of a crew about to go hang drywall in a new house, nine out of ten of the "lazy" UAW workers I have seen are diligent enough to make up a top notch drywall crew.

Now...

The belief is that The UAW protects those lazy employees and forces the companies that they work for to keep them employed.

That is flat-out wrong.

If an employee is bad at their job, and even if they aren't, the company can, and will, get rid of them, if they want to.

The UAW only persists that the employee be given a shot to prove that they can be useful to the company in another spot on the job. Afterall, not every 90 lb. woman is going to excel at lifting hundreds of 30 lb. parts all day long. But they might well be able to keep up with tightening a thousand bolts in that day.

I can't begin to tell you how many lazy workers I have seen get themselves fired, or just quit, since I have been with The UAW and Caterpillar. But it is far harder to be lazy and keep the job. Those people are quite rare.

When an employee needs to be gotten rid of, they can be dealt with. But it is easier to just claim that "the workers are lazy". Easier, or as some may say, lazier.

I know laziness when I see it. Just stop by my house when the sink is full and dishes need to be done. :lol:

But I also know a hard working person when I work with them.

And, if you need a house built quickly, and your choices are to have a crew of thirty from management, or from labor, there is only one way to get the house built.

If you assemble a team of thirty workers together, with no management, a couple of the workers will show their managerial skills.

If you assemble thirty managers together, a couple will show that they have labor skills.

If you need a job done, what do you need more of?


They serve a purpose when things are all well and good but the situation in Wisconsin is dire as well as in our country right now. IMO, unions are bad for everyone involved, including union members, in this day and age.

Unions are more vital when things are going bad.

Look, who gains from having massive unemployment levels?

Is it the government, who has to find a way to help millions out of work, or expect crime levels to bring the government down?

Is it the workers, who will do just about anything just to find even the crappiest of jobs?

Or is it employers who now have hundreds of applicants willing to do just about anything, and accept just about any kind of treatment, for the crappy job that they are now offering?

Hard times are when worker solidarity is needed the most. Now, when the employers are at their greatest advantage, is when people need to demand be treated like a part of the team, instead of like tools that are cats aside when a cheaper tool comes along.

Stand together, as opposed to preparing to fight amongst ourselves for whatever scraps the owners are willing to allow us, or we can prepare to compete against the price of Chinese labor.

Who is ready to go to work for $1.25 an hour?

As for Wisconsin, raise taxes.

People demand to get their kids educated, but the teachers have to make a living.

We demand free usage and frequent repairs to our roads, but no one can do that work for free.

You have to pay the people to do the job. And you have to pay them right. The fact that someone is willing to do the job for less than what it takes to make a reasonable living should not factor in at all.




i am not a big fan of unions though i will admit they do serve a necessary purpose[to protect employees from the greed of industry]. they sank our steel industry when us steel saw japan taking over the world steel market they told the union they need to retool all of the plants to convert to a cold rolled steel process in order to compete. they gave them a choice to take a pay cut or close down......the union chose unemployment!!! all i can say is if my employer said take a pay cut while we gut all of our stores to remodel in order to stay in business i would say ok, while i started looking for another job.

When Caterpillar Inc. had their last contract talks, the same type of offer was made, either take pay-cuts, or watch as the jobs moved away.

The UAW voted to accept the pay-cuts.

Then, the jobs went away, as threatened, anyway.

As a newer employee, I was laid-off for almost a year and a half. I got called back just before the plant moved the final part of their assembly line.

Had it not been for the number of UAW employees with higher seniority having retired, they would have been laying me off again.

Thank God I had enough seniority to cling to a job, because hard work makes no difference to large employers. They have no way to gauge that. Unless you want to count low-level managers' friendships as a measure of working ability.

Not only are owners willing to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want, it's basic practice.

But if a company can not compete while paying fair wages to employees, then they should not be competing. That includes every company that has moved operations overseas. If you have to move your operations to use slave labor, just to compete, then you should not compete.

Unions certainly play a part in pricing themselves out of business. Just as non-union labor does.

But taking wages that do not provide for the employees to a part of what America is all about is hardly something that any worker should be forced to do.

Make no doubt about it, employers are dying to get you to take the blame off of them, and focus it on the working men and women of the unions.

They can't wait to not have to pay fair wages to employees.Alls o that they can make a better profit for the stock-holders.

Good business, right?

Just remember that those are the same people who told us all that you have to work for everything you get. But, how hard does a stock-holder work for it?

The trick is to get other people to work hard for everything you get. Just ask a stock broker.

Sn@keIze
02-19-2011, 03:19 PM
How is the Motor city doing?

The Union is dying.

Drunker Hillbilly
02-20-2011, 10:32 AM
First, the average UAW worker's salary is nowhere near $40 an hour. I am not sure that there are any UAW workers that make $30 an hour. I am pretty sure that the top of the scale is at $28 an hour.

And the benefits would generally round to less than $10 an hour. Far from $33.

But I absolutely agree have to admit, if you make up crazy numbers, then it looks like a lot.

As a six year veteran with The UAW, my hourly wage, with benefits factored in, is at $25.20 an hour. That is the top end here, and includes the two advancements that I have made to a better job and labor grade.

But that is dealing in reality. If you prefer to go with that $73 an hour estimate, then I have to include that that still isn't enough for each employee to own and maintain the unicorns that are required to keep their jobs.

Deal in fantasy, or deal in reality?

As for the laziness claims, I worked as a non-union construction worker for about ten years prior to landing with The UAW.

Nobody who has ever worked with, or around, me has ever tried to make any claims of laziness at me. A lot of things could be said of me. But that has never been one of them. I have always been extremely competitive with what I am working on. And always managed to be as good as the very best.

I see the same thing that everybody else does, with workers sitting around.... reading the paper during their work hours... and everybody just goes straight for the easy target, of laziness.

The vast majority of the time, that isn't the case at all. And I will explain.

On an assembly line, which is how most big businesses build their products, an employee is put in one location, and asked to do a specific job when the product gets to them.

But, what are they asked to do when they finish and the next product isn't there yet? Clean?

Well, there is almost always an outsourced cleaning company that does that every day. And there is rarely any cleaning that an employee is even allowed to do.

Sweep? Mop? Then what?

As for places like The DMV, they too have a veary slow process to deal with. Such and such of form has to be passed by some manager, who happens to be dealing with such and such other issues, leaving the employee waiting and waiting. Then, they have some other issue to wait out.

But, from an outsider's perspective, it's so much easier to just assume that the worker is lazy, as opposed to actually finding our all of the details.

In most cases, it isn't employee laziness that is responsible for what we are calling employee laziness. It's ineffective, or slow processes, set-up by poor management.

Now, the reason that management doesn't work to improve that is because those at that level who could be deemed responsible for an ineffective process just blame employee laziness.

And we all know how popular it is to accept that employees are lazy, don't we?

As I said, I know laziness. And I do see lazy employees. But, with the way the processes are being set-up, even the laziest employee won't be able to have an effect. And, as a leader of a crew about to go hang drywall in a new house, nine out of ten of the "lazy" UAW workers I have seen are diligent enough to make up a top notch drywall crew.

Now...

The belief is that The UAW protects those lazy employees and forces the companies that they work for to keep them employed.

That is flat-out wrong.

If an employee is bad at their job, and even if they aren't, the company can, and will, get rid of them, if they want to.

The UAW only persists that the employee be given a shot to prove that they can be useful to the company in another spot on the job. Afterall, not every 90 lb. woman is going to excel at lifting hundreds of 30 lb. parts all day long. But they might well be able to keep up with tightening a thousand bolts in that day.

I can't begin to tell you how many lazy workers I have seen get themselves fired, or just quit, since I have been with The UAW and Caterpillar. But it is far harder to be lazy and keep the job. Those people are quite rare.

When an employee needs to be gotten rid of, they can be dealt with. But it is easier to just claim that "the workers are lazy". Easier, or as some may say, lazier.

I know laziness when I see it. Just stop by my house when the sink is full and dishes need to be done. :lol:

But I also know a hard working person when I work with them.

And, if you need a house built quickly, and your choices are to have a crew of thirty from management, or from labor, there is only one way to get the house built.

If you assemble a team of thirty workers together, with no management, a couple of the workers will show their managerial skills.

If you assemble thirty managers together, a couple will show that they have labor skills.

If you need a job done, what do you need more of?



Unions are more vital when things are going bad.

Look, who gains from having massive unemployment levels?

Is it the government, who has to find a way to help millions out of work, or expect crime levels to bring the government down?

Is it the workers, who will do just about anything just to find even the crappiest of jobs?

Or is it employers who now have hundreds of applicants willing to do just about anything, and accept just about any kind of treatment, for the crappy job that they are now offering?

Hard times are when worker solidarity is needed the most. Now, when the employers are at their greatest advantage, is when people need to demand be treated like a part of the team, instead of like tools that are cats aside when a cheaper tool comes along.

Stand together, as opposed to preparing to fight amongst ourselves for whatever scraps the owners are willing to allow us, or we can prepare to compete against the price of Chinese labor.

Who is ready to go to work for $1.25 an hour?

As for Wisconsin, raise taxes.

People demand to get their kids educated, but the teachers have to make a living.

We demand free usage and frequent repairs to our roads, but no one can do that work for free.

You have to pay the people to do the job. And you have to pay them right. The fact that someone is willing to do the job for less than what it takes to make a reasonable living should not factor in at all.





When Caterpillar Inc. had their last contract talks, the same type of offer was made, either take pay-cuts, or watch as the jobs moved away.

The UAW voted to accept the pay-cuts.

Then, the jobs went away, as threatened, anyway.

As a newer employee, I was laid-off for almost a year and a half. I got called back just before the plant moved the final part of their assembly line.

Had it not been for the number of UAW employees with higher seniority having retired, they would have been laying me off again.

Thank God I had enough seniority to cling to a job, because hard work makes no difference to large employers. They have no way to gauge that. Unless you want to count low-level managers' friendships as a measure of working ability.

Not only are owners willing to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want, it's basic practice.

But if a company can not compete while paying fair wages to employees, then they should not be competing. That includes every company that has moved operations overseas. If you have to move your operations to use slave labor, just to compete, then you should not compete.

Unions certainly play a part in pricing themselves out of business. Just as non-union labor does.

But taking wages that do not provide for the employees to a part of what America is all about is hardly something that any worker should be forced to do.

Make no doubt about it, employers are dying to get you to take the blame off of them, and focus it on the working men and women of the unions.

They can't wait to not have to pay fair wages to employees.Alls o that they can make a better profit for the stock-holders.

Good business, right?

Just remember that those are the same people who told us all that you have to work for everything you get. But, how hard does a stock-holder work for it?

The trick is to get other people to work hard for everything you get. Just ask a stock broker.


This post clearly indicates which side of the isle you are on. I guess this explains quite a bit to me. I will simply agree to disagree because this could get very, VERY long winded!:meow:

Drunker Hillbilly
02-20-2011, 10:34 AM
How is the Motor city doing?

The Union is dying.
:lol: What? You mean the bailout...eeeerrrrrrrr the stimulous is not helping?

Hayvern
02-20-2011, 10:36 PM
Yeah, it is pretty clear where Chief31 is coming from here. He is pretty clear that Management is all the problem here and not the higher price of workers.

I agree with him. Management in many cases is the problem, management has let this get out of control all of these years. Management has allowed people to be lazy, they have allowed the union to push them around, and now, like the bear who gets a free handout and forgets how to hunt, the union worker screams when they are asked to give back for the benefit of everyone else.

This is why GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to close. It is why the state's with billions in debt from pension benefits should file bankruptcy. The unions and particularly their workers need to go through an adjustment and the only way to do that is to go bankrupt on all the stupidity that has been allowed in the past.

Yeah, it sucks, but welcome to the suck club, the rest of us are sucking it up, but this union monster just won't give.

70 chiefsfan70
02-21-2011, 12:23 AM
Unions are the cancer to the American economy. They cannot be sustained, with all these lifetime pension plans, etc. It is a joke. America will be destroyed just as Rome was. Unions are one of the biggest factors in this economical destruction. It will happen....it isn't a question of if, it is a question of when. Oh well. It was a fun ride while it lasted, folks!

I couldn't agree more! I'm in construction and come across state and government jobs all the time, and what really gets me is I can't even bid on these jobs because I'm non union. In many cases I could do these jobs as well as anyone could and I would hire 100 percent local help. The Union carpenters around here that I've seen do the worst job ever and would never pass the local inspection except for the fact that they are above the law(so to speak).

Now back to the players union, they are just plain greedy and could care less about the players, its all about the dollar. The free market takes care of itself, each team should have their own benefit package, and allow the players to choose. The teams would not have to spent as much money and the players would make more, thus the tickets would be more affordable. Everyone wins!

Just my 2 cents.

chief31
02-21-2011, 12:59 AM
Yeah, it is pretty clear where Chief31 is coming from here. He is pretty clear that Management is all the problem here and not the higher price of workers.

I agree with him. Management in many cases is the problem, management has let this get out of control all of these years. Management has allowed people to be lazy, they have allowed the union to push them around, and now, like the bear who gets a free handout and forgets how to hunt, the union worker screams when they are asked to give back for the benefit of everyone else.

This is why GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to close. It is why the state's with billions in debt from pension benefits should file bankruptcy. The unions and particularly their workers need to go through an adjustment and the only way to do that is to go bankrupt on all the stupidity that has been allowed in the past.

Yeah, it sucks, but welcome to the suck club, the rest of us are sucking it up, but this union monster just won't give.

I'll put ten union workers against any ten non-union workers any day. So long as it is under the same quality of management.

The nonsense about union workers being lazy is just that...nonsense. Unsubstantiated, generalized rhetoric.

And the wages are at, or near, where they should be for a labor-level employee. (Nowhere near the numbers that you offered up though.) The majority of this nation is in this class, and they should be able to make a living for a family, and help put a child, or two, through college. I do not think that American employees should be competing against starving Chinese slaves.

Drunker Hillbilly
02-21-2011, 12:18 PM
Unions make up apprx 10-12% of the general labor population.....

God forbid they pay what the rest of working society pays for health care etc........

And for the record, I don't believe all union workers are lazy. There aer lazy workers on both sides of this fence. I do however believe lifetime (or damn near) pensions for doing the same work as a person who is not a union member is BS. IMO, most union members are unwilling to listen to any new legislation or are unwilling to negotiate because they have had it easier than the avg non union worker when it comes to the perks of being union. This country is in dire straights and they could benefit the country more than they would ever know if they were willing to just accept and adhere to what the rest of working, blue collar Americans do.

chief31
02-21-2011, 08:45 PM
Unions make up apprx 10-12% of the general labor population.....

God forbid they pay what the rest of working society pays for health care etc........

Healthcare is clearly insane.

My question would be "Why should the non-union workers be having to pay the insane amounts?" as opposed to why should union workers get a better deal.

(Healthcare really aught to be one of the few things the government runs. It's the only way end the insanity, without allowing the poor just die because they get sick, or injured.)


And for the record, I don't believe all union workers are lazy. There aer lazy workers on both sides of this fence. I do however believe lifetime (or damn near) pensions for doing the same work as a person who is not a union member is BS.

Don't you think that a man who puts in a full career to help a company make millions should be treated fairly, with, or without, a union?

I do.

But without a group voice, (union) you can't get a large company to even listen to the discussion.


IMO, most union members are unwilling to listen to any new legislation or are unwilling to negotiate because they have had it easier than the avg non union worker when it comes to the perks of being union. This country is in dire straights and they could benefit the country more than they would ever know if they were willing to just accept and adhere to what the rest of working, blue collar Americans do.



Being in a union gives you a voice against an otherwise unwilling to listen large company.

The company is a large group who frequently uses that group power to impose their will on employees, and a union is just a large group of employees working together to counter that kind of one-sided relationship.

Employees need jobs, and employers need workers. The two sides have to be able to work together. If you negotiate as an individual, you will be forced to take whatever the employer decides.

When the working class works together, those talks become two-sided. And they are forced to work together.

As for being unwilling to listen to negotiate, I think this is something that could be said of anybody. But I think tough negotiations are exactly what a Union is about.

The UAW has given back in each of the past several contracts with Caterpillar Inc. (My employer) So I know that The UAW definitely does negotiate.

Unfortunately, Caterpillar Inc. makes a habit of finding loop-holes in any, and every, term that they have agreed to, just the same as any big corporation does.

Laws get passed, and labor contracts are signed, to keep employers from being predatory to the working class, and they cheat those laws and agreements.

Outsource, hire part-time and temporary workers, and just plain find a fault in the way laws are worded.

Last contract, Caterpillar told The UAW "unless you want us to be forced to move the jobs away from the area, you are going to have to accept what we are offering in this contract".

The UAW did accept, including major changes (less) for all employees, and Caterpillar still moved their entire engine-building operation.

In order to deal with an entity that is so satisfied to play dirty, you have to play a little dirty yourself.

Far from perfect. But, unless you are happier with Marxism, anarchy, or a form of slavery, then I don't think there is any way to keep the owners semi-honest.

They aren't going to do it themselves.

Lazeye
02-21-2011, 09:24 PM
Screw the Union it is outdated and they are uncalled for. EVERY union employee I have EVER met is lazy and think they can do things however and they will not get in trouble. If pay was based on performance then well union people would be on welfare. F UNIONS

Hayvern
02-21-2011, 10:08 PM
The interesting thing about Wisconsin right now where everyone is all fired up is that the unions aren't really looking out very well for the workers. The Governor there has said that unless this deal goes through, then 12,000 people will be laid off.

I say, lay them off and let them go get a real job for a while and see how they like it.. Unfortunately, the way unions work is those that are lowest on the totem pole will get laid off first, leaving the expensive and most lazy of the lot.

None of these arguments apply to the players union though. There is little liklihood that the NFL will outsource to China, and there is little liklihood that NFL players are all that lazy with the exception if Jamarcus Russell perhaps.

In this argument it is clearly about money and each side wants more of it. I tend to go along with the owners on this as they are the businessmen in this situation and know what they have to make in order to sustain their business.

I feel that all of you who are siding with the players here would have a different outlook if you were looking at the real numbers and had to make the hard business decisions the owners have to make.

Drunker Hillbilly
02-22-2011, 12:40 PM
Healthcare is clearly insane.

My question would be "Why should the non-union workers be having to pay the insane amounts?" as opposed to why should union workers get a better deal.

(Healthcare really aught to be one of the few things the government runs. It's the only way end the insanity, without allowing the poor just die because they get sick, or injured.)



Don't you think that a man who puts in a full career to help a company make millions should be treated fairly, with, or without, a union?

I do.

But without a group voice, (union) you can't get a large company to even listen to the discussion.





Being in a union gives you a voice against an otherwise unwilling to listen large company.

The company is a large group who frequently uses that group power to impose their will on employees, and a union is just a large group of employees working together to counter that kind of one-sided relationship.

Employees need jobs, and employers need workers. The two sides have to be able to work together. If you negotiate as an individual, you will be forced to take whatever the employer decides.

When the working class works together, those talks become two-sided. And they are forced to work together.

As for being unwilling to listen to negotiate, I think this is something that could be said of anybody. But I think tough negotiations are exactly what a Union is about.

The UAW has given back in each of the past several contracts with Caterpillar Inc. (My employer) So I know that The UAW definitely does negotiate.

Unfortunately, Caterpillar Inc. makes a habit of finding loop-holes in any, and every, term that they have agreed to, just the same as any big corporation does.

Laws get passed, and labor contracts are signed, to keep employers from being predatory to the working class, and they cheat those laws and agreements.

Outsource, hire part-time and temporary workers, and just plain find a fault in the way laws are worded.

Last contract, Caterpillar told The UAW "unless you want us to be forced to move the jobs away from the area, you are going to have to accept what we are offering in this contract".

The UAW did accept, including major changes (less) for all employees, and Caterpillar still moved their entire engine-building operation.

In order to deal with an entity that is so satisfied to play dirty, you have to play a little dirty yourself.

Far from perfect. But, unless you are happier with Marxism, anarchy, or a form of slavery, then I don't think there is any way to keep the owners semi-honest.

They aren't going to do it themselves.


To answer your question, it's called Capitalism. 9.99% of people who are arguing against this would have and entirely different opinion if they were a CEO and/or owner of a large corporation. Socialist countries have exactly what you are intimating. Equal cost for everyone. It simply doesn't work that way in a capitalistic society.

Unions would be and were fine 30-40 years ago. The country is bankrupt and the unions are part of the reason. Part I say again.

Why are union members opposed to paying 10%-12% for their own healthcare?

Why are union member opposed to bumping their share of their own LIFELONG pensions to 5%-6%?

If unions are the answer, then why not make every single person that works, no matter the job, a union member? You don't think ALL AMERICAN workers would absolutely LOVE to have the benefits that union members do?

It's insanity!!! Also, don't get me started on the idiots that have flee'd to Illinios! Leaders are people who stand for what they believe in and do it in the face of adversity. These 14 people are clearly not leaders.

chief31
02-22-2011, 05:09 PM
Unions would be and were fine 30-40 years ago. The country is bankrupt and the unions are part of the reason. Part I say again.

The country is bankrupt....

That sounds so familiar....

Oh yeah. The great depression is exactly what drove workers to eventually stand up to the masters and demand to get their fair share.

The only part of this nation that is going broke, is those at the bottom. If you were a millionaire before this recession, then you still are.

All penalties "trickle down" to the working class, while all benefits trickle up to the masters.


Why are union members opposed to paying 10%-12% for their own healthcare?

Why are union member opposed to bumping their share of their own LIFELONG pensions to 5%-6%?

That's how it goes when dealing with business. That's the way bargaining is done. It is definitely the way the companies will play that game. Challenge everything, and you get your best deal.


To answer your question, it's called Capitalism. 9.99% of people who are arguing against this would have and entirely different opinion if they were a CEO and/or owner of a large corporation. Socialist countries have exactly what you are intimating. Equal cost for everyone. It simply doesn't work that way in a capitalistic society.

Unions are also a part of capitalism. It is the free market of supply and demand.

The laborers have a commodity that companies need, and they supply it for a price.

The days of the companies setting all the prices for their own demands are gone for those with unionized employees.

Now, you have to bargain, as in any trade situation, with those who have the supply of the commodity that you require.

It's exactly capitalism, and yet capitalists hate it, and have cheated their beloved capitalism for the communism of China to avoid it.


If unions are the answer, then why not make every single person that works, no matter the job, a union member? You don't think ALL AMERICAN workers would absolutely LOVE to have the benefits that union members do?

I don't.

If they did, then they would all be unionizing.

But so many are just content to "take the scraps that are offered", so to speak, and call those who have unionized "lazy" because they do unionize to get their employers to negotiate with them, for the things that both sides need.

It never ceases to amaze me how those who horde and acquire multiple private jets, yachts, mansions, and other million dollar toys, without doing a real day's work, get the people who do the work that makes them millionaires, to turn on each other, and actually call the other workers lazy.

I honestly believe that it has to be some sort of submissiveness issue. The masses feel so inferior to the astonishingly wealthy, that they can't even begin to stand up to them, so they take on the guy that know, who does the same kind of work as they do, but gets more for it.

As if it is only fair for all labor-level workers to be suffering, and it's just fine for the upper class to go on just as they always have, reaping all of the benefits.

It's exactly the kind of mentality that has kept so many middle-eastern people slaving away for their master. Fear of reprisal from the master.

And, when the masters do punish us by taking away our bread, (as with moving industry out of the nation) they get us all to blame the slaves that stood up to the masters, and let the masters off the hook.


It's insanity!!!

Indeed it is.

Hayvern
02-22-2011, 09:34 PM
Unions are also a part of capitalism. It is the free market of supply and demand.

The laborers have a commodity that companies need, and they supply it for a price.

The days of the companies setting all the prices for their own demands are gone for those with unionized employees.



This is the part that you just don't get so we might have to agree to disagree on this.

But the union artificially drives up the price. The demand for labor is there, but the price is artificially inflated, which in turn drives up the price of goods.

You see, if I have a good that I can deliver to the market cheaper, then I should be able to do that. But with the unions, I cannot do that. If I bid on a Government contract, then the ONLY room I have is based on how much profit I am willing to take on the project. The unions set the price for labor to a certain point and the amount of time it will take is not all that different from one company to another one, so the only concession that sets me apart from the competition is how much profit I am willing to take against the other guy.

But if I can find equally qualified people to do the work at a cheaper price, and I can, then I have some room to haggle and get the work.

If the union was interested in playing on an equal field, then why do we have laws that require Government projects be paid at union scale? If the union wanted to compete with the private, capitalism sector, they would not need such protections. But since they are not interested in such competition, they have to have these laws to protect them.

Drunker Hillbilly
02-23-2011, 03:05 PM
As long as they are around, they will never want to compete with the private sector.

chief31
02-23-2011, 04:58 PM
This is the part that you just don't get so we might have to agree to disagree on this.

There is no part that I don't get. Evey business creates an artificial demand for their product, at some point.

Common business practice.

As for agreeing to disagree... didn't I already suggest that?


But the union artificially drives up the price. The demand for labor is there, but the price is artificially inflated, which in turn drives up the price of goods.

You see, if I have a good that I can deliver to the market cheaper, then I should be able to do that. But with the unions, I cannot do that. If I bid on a Government contract, then the ONLY room I have is based on how much profit I am willing to take on the project. The unions set the price for labor to a certain point and the amount of time it will take is not all that different from one company to another one,

What happened to all that "Laziness" talk, and the sense of superiority that came with it?


so the only concession that sets me apart from the competition is how much profit I am willing to take against the other guy.

But if I can find equally qualified people to do the work at a cheaper price, and I can, then I have some room to haggle and get the work.

That's exactly how slavery is born. There is always someone who will do it cheaper. For every employee that needs to supply for a family, there is a single young guy who doesn't need as much. And when he gets older and starts a family, you can just go get a younger guy without a family and start over. And I bet you go out of your mind over a competitor that employs illegal immigrants. Or, do you employ illegals?


If the union was interested in playing on an equal field, then why do we have laws that require Government projects be paid at union scale? If the union wanted to compete with the private, capitalism sector, they would not need such protections. But since they are not interested in such competition, they have to have these laws to protect them.

Because, with pure capitalism, labor is about who will do it for the least amount. And the single guy will do it for less than the guy raising children, every time.

Pure capitalism punishes those who choose to have a family. And anyone who seeks making more than the absolute least that is being paid.

When a government contract requires union-level pay for all the slaves, it ensures that your run of the mill exploiter will not be exploiting for this contract.

You may not like that stipulation. But I bet the guys who wind up working those jobs is awfully appreciative to finally make a decent wage.

Pure capitalism is economic anarchy and is no better then social anarchy.

In the social and economic worlds there is a reason that we have laws.

If you were rich and in need of a new heart quickly, you could probably talk some poor fool into selling you his heart.

Just because you can take advantage of somebody, doesn't mean that we should allow you to.

N TX Dave
02-23-2011, 04:59 PM
I am not a union fan I have first hand knowledge that turned me against them. The first was in the summer of '66 when I to a job at KC Structural Steel as a welder for the summer between college. I was not paid scale because I was temporary employee only but I still had to pay my union dues. When I asked why they are not getting me scale wages they said unless you do you don't work here. Not right in my mind. The second happen about '70 my father in law was a union steward at United Air Lines. There was a baggage handled that had been observed opening baggage and taking things out then grabbed a set of golf clubs and they watched him take them to his car opened it up the trunk deposited all the loot close the trunk and turn around to go back to work security told him to turn his badge and leave. My F-I-L went to management and told them the union would go on strike if the did not bring the thief back which they did. His answer to me when I asked why they made the company take him back his reply was "he had paid his union dues" so they backed him.

chief31
02-23-2011, 05:15 PM
I am not a union fan I have first hand knowledge that turned me against them. The first was in the summer of '66 when I to a job at KC Structural Steel as a welder for the summer between college. I was not paid scale because I was temporary employee only but I still had to pay my union dues. When I asked why they are not getting me scale wages they said unless you do you don't work here. Not right in my mind. The second happen about '70 my father in law was a union steward at United Air Lines. There was a baggage handled that had been observed opening baggage and taking things out then grabbed a set of golf clubs and they watched him take them to his car opened it up the trunk deposited all the loot close the trunk and turn around to go back to work security told him to turn his badge and leave. My F-I-L went to management and told them the union would go on strike if the did not bring the thief back which they did. His answer to me when I asked why they made the company take him back his reply was "he had paid his union dues" so they backed him.

There is a similar deal for new employees of Caterpillar Inc., where I work for The UAW.

New employees are called "supplemental employees" and are, basically, temporary employees.

Only a fool believes that this is the idea of any union.

This is just one of many ways that a company cheats the agreements that they sign.

I guarantee that that the union wants every member to make the "scale" wages. And I guarantee that none of them wants you to have to hire in as a 'temp'.

All rewards of that practice are reaped by the employer. Yet you blame the union?

That is always the case.

The unions have nothing to gain by having any laborers making small wages. Even though non-union workers work against unionization, the unions work for those same people.

As for the second case, you are definitely missing some key factor of the events.

My guess, as I have seen multiple people have the union push to get their jobs back, is that the threat of a strike was exaggerated.

I have not heard of the UAW threatening to strike for anything outside of contract negotiations since the '70s.

Did the alleged thief get through some loop-hole? Probably. Just as happens with people all over the planet, sometimes, a guy gets away with something.

N TX Dave
02-23-2011, 05:46 PM
There is a similar deal for new employees of Caterpillar Inc., where I work for The UAW.

New employees are called "supplemental employees" and are, basically, temporary employees.

Only a fool believes that this is the idea of any union.

This is just one of many ways that a company cheats the agreements that they sign.

I guarantee that that the union wants every member to make the "scale" wages. And I guarantee that none of them wants you to have to hire in as a 'temp'.

All rewards of that practice are reaped by the employer. Yet you blame the union?

That is always the case.

The unions have nothing to gain by having any laborers making small wages. Even though non-union workers work against unionization, the unions work for those same people.

As for the second case, you are definitely missing some key factor of the events.

My guess, as I have seen multiple people have the union push to get their jobs back, is that the threat of a strike was exaggerated.

I have not heard of the UAW threatening to strike for anything outside of contract negotiations since the '70s.

Did the alleged thief get through some loop-hole? Probably. Just as happens with people all over the planet, sometimes, a guy gets away with something.



I understand the company was the winner the only thing I did not like is having to pay the dues and not being a member of the union. The company did not keep the my union dues did they? I know it was not much money but being an 18 year old and being told I had give money to the union and not being a member justed rubbed me the wrong way. I might say it was in Kansas which is a union state and has closed shops if it was in Missouri I would not have had to pay.

The second one there was not a loop-hole the guy thought it was all over until the union called him up and told him to come back. My father-in-law is the one who told me that he was talking to management and said there could be a work stoppage if the thief was not brought back. First of all he was a mechanic and the thief was a baggage handler which I thought were two different unions but I figured him being the shop steward he had to represent all unions I don't know I have never belonged to a union before even though I had to pay dues to one.

Drunker Hillbilly
02-23-2011, 06:13 PM
No worries, they will bury themselves before it's all over.

chief31
02-23-2011, 06:55 PM
I understand the company was the winner the only thing I did not like is having to pay the dues and not being a member of the union. The company did not keep the my union dues did they? I know it was not much money but being an 18 year old and being told I had give money to the union and not being a member justed rubbed me the wrong way. I might say it was in Kansas which is a union state and has closed shops if it was in Missouri I would not have had to pay.

The second one there was not a loop-hole the guy thought it was all over until the union called him up and told him to come back. My father-in-law is the one who told me that he was talking to management and said there could be a work stoppage if the thief was not brought back. First of all he was a mechanic and the thief was a baggage handler which I thought were two different unions but I figured him being the shop steward he had to represent all unions I don't know I have never belonged to a union before even though I had to pay dues to one.

The second one, I will just leave to you. Because I have little doubt that you are missing some information, and I don't trust your FIL's words as fact.

But the first case is one where you are a member of the union, but the wording of the contract allowed the company to have temp workers, and as such, those workers would not be allowed the same contractual rights as permanent workers.

But, since the contract says that the company will not employ non-union workers, they get to have you paying dues as a union member, but you don't get all of the benefits.

It is what the company wants, and, believe me, they absolutely know that the common 'temp' will blame the union for taking their dues, while not offering the benefits.

The whole issue is a war for money. On one side, you have Republicans and the richest, most powerful people on the planet, and on the other side, you have (some) Democrats, and the unions defending your interests.

And, as with any people in positions of power, in order to keep their focus off of you, you get them all riled up at other people, or even at each other.

chief31
02-23-2011, 07:05 PM
No worries, they will bury themselves before it's all over.

They probably will get buried. But the guys with the shovels are those who wish they could make a real living.

Then, once they are gone, one of two things will happen...

The working class will see what life is like without the unions around and rise up in revolt (Uniting together) against terrible wages, or the government will take over all duties of protecting the working class from the predatory capitalist system, by going more and more socialist.

One way, or another, financial anarchy (capitalism) will get to the end of the game, with winners and losers.

A whole lot more losers than winners.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do the rest of you see happening when the unions are decimated? How do you see things going afterward?

Do you see the masters being kind and volunteering to pay wages higher than the lowest bidder?

Drunker Hillbilly
02-23-2011, 07:29 PM
I don't even know where to begin.......

Where do you think those due's you pay go?

By your first insulting comment, I guess you if were ever in a position to own and/or operate your own business you would not do so and continue to work for someone else, union or not. Is this correct?

chief31
02-23-2011, 08:24 PM
I don't even know where to begin.......

Where do you think those due's you pay go?

Well, you didn't bother to answer my question. But I'll gladly answer yours.

I don't know exactly where all of it goes, but I do know that alot of it goes to lobbying efforts. The game is dirty, but you have to play the game, or it will played against you.

I know that some goes to professionals at the game of dirt. Can't just play with regular guys, need experts.

I also know that some of it goes into strike funds, so, if we ever have to strike, I have some form of income to help me sustain through it.

And I know that There are a few other funds out there.

Why? What have you got?


By your first insulting comment, I guess you if were ever in a position to own and/or operate your own business you would not do so and continue to work for someone else, union or not. Is this correct?

Wait. Insulting?

You said it was me burying the unions, and I suggested that it was you, and you are insulted?

Whatever you say.

But, on to the question...

I would. But my conscience would never allow me to be one of the masters.

Hayvern
02-24-2011, 01:14 AM
They probably will get buried. But the guys with the shovels are those who wish they could make a real living.

Then, once they are gone, one of two things will happen...

The working class will see what life is like without the unions around and rise up in revolt (Uniting together) against terrible wages, or the government will take over all duties of protecting the working class from the predatory capitalist system, by going more and more socialist.

One way, or another, financial anarchy (capitalism) will get to the end of the game, with winners and losers.

A whole lot more losers than winners.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do the rest of you see happening when the unions are decimated? How do you see things going afterward?

Do you see the masters being kind and volunteering to pay wages higher than the lowest bidder?

Oh I don't see anything happening. Only 12% of the working population is unionized and most of us are doing just fine with that. We have learned that we have to bring value to the company and when we do we get a higher wage. We are not limited to what the union says scale should be for what we do, we are limited only in the amount of competition there is for our services.

As a non-union equipment operator, I made more money than my unionized counter-parts AND had better benefits. I worked on union scale jobs once in a while and made even more money when I did, but I worked more hours each year than other people I knew in the union and in the end made more money per year.

I have since moved into an industry that has no union and again am glad for the opportunity. I have worked my way up from the ground to making a pretty good living wage.

We have protections for workers in place. Safety standards and minimum wages have been enacted. All of these things can be pointed back to the unions, this is some of the good that has come from them, but the good is done. They have now become a cancer, eating away at the prosperity of others around them, and like a cancer, the only thing that can live in the end is the cancer cells.

You say that people will turn to socialism, I say that unions ARE the embodiment of socialism. When you look at countries like France and Greece who are now having riots in the street, it is because of the unions. Both the unions have created the economic issues and are out on the streets rioting.

Drunker Hillbilly
02-24-2011, 08:52 AM
The avg union worker earns more money than the avg non union worker after benefits are figured in. That is hurting America.

tornadospotter
02-27-2011, 02:50 PM
:bananen_smilies046::efpge::plus1:

chief31
02-27-2011, 03:46 PM
Quit demonizing the "Masters" or rich ppl!

It is ok that there are some ppl that have billions and some ppl that have only thousands. THAT IS NOT A BAD SCENERIO!

I make $%$% $30,000 a year and am fine with it. Im not an a-hole American that votes to get more free stuff.

I need rich ppl so i can stay employed. I am not jealous or envious of their success either.

You may only do $30,000 dollars worth of work in a year. But I do more.

Your free market is economic anarchy, and is no better than social anarchy.

And, while I condone neither, allowing one, without the other, leads to slavery.

For a quick reference to check the validity of that claim, check.... human history, past and present.

As far as Capitalism being "the only way, all other ways have failed", so has capitalism.

And while I agree that there is not a damn thing wrong with being rich, aside from greed, the problem for me is when those who are overindulging themselves demand to get even more, while also insisting that everybody else gets less. And also demand that many get nothing.

This isn't the wild. It isn't the jungle. It is called a civilized society.

We have social laws because man has proven that they will do wrong if they are allowed to do wrong.

Oddly enough, that is what we need economic laws for. But we refuse to match economic restrictions with social restrictions, making the playing-field quite unbalanced.

If the government were to keep economic restrictions on par with the social restriction, then we would have far too much socialism for most people.

That's where Unionization comes in. It is the working people demanding that the price of labor meet the needs of the laborers.

If you just go with your "Bidding" theory, then we will need to bid lower than Chinese slave labor to keep jobs.

Because, no matter how great you are at your job, you can't keep up with thirty Chinese laborers who, collectively, still cost less than you.

As for which "party" is for which people, there really is no question about it.

I see Dems pass healthcare reform and extend assistance to the unemployed, and I see Reps come in and demand only gifts for the masters. And extensive cuts to the needy.

And the two parties have been just like that for as long as I have been alive.

I don't have to make elaborate webs of speculative conspiracy to come up with ways to paint the other party as being against me. Everything they do is directly against me, and all of the working-class.

tornadospotter
02-27-2011, 04:21 PM
If your job is only worth so much an hour, then that is what it is. So you make a change if you can.

Drunker Hillbilly
02-28-2011, 09:36 AM
You may only do $30,000 dollars worth of work in a year. But I do more.

Your free market is economic anarchy, and is no better than social anarchy.

And, while I condone neither, allowing one, without the other, leads to slavery.

For a quick reference to check the validity of that claim, check.... human history, past and present.

As far as Capitalism being "the only way, all other ways have failed", so has capitalism.

And while I agree that there is not a damn thing wrong with being rich, aside from greed, the problem for me is when those who are overindulging themselves demand to get even more, while also insisting that everybody else gets less. And also demand that many get nothing.

This isn't the wild. It isn't the jungle. It is called a civilized society.

We have social laws because man has proven that they will do wrong if they are allowed to do wrong.

Oddly enough, that is what we need economic laws for. But we refuse to match economic restrictions with social restrictions, making the playing-field quite unbalanced.

If the government were to keep economic restrictions on par with the social restriction, then we would have far too much socialism for most people.

That's where Unionization comes in. It is the working people demanding that the price of labor meet the needs of the laborers.

If you just go with your "Bidding" theory, then we will need to bid lower than Chinese slave labor to keep jobs.

Because, no matter how great you are at your job, you can't keep up with thirty Chinese laborers who, collectively, still cost less than you.

As for which "party" is for which people, there really is no question about it.

I see Dems pass healthcare reform and extend assistance to the unemployed, and I see Reps come in and demand only gifts for the masters. And extensive cuts to the needy.

And the two parties have been just like that for as long as I have been alive.

I don't have to make elaborate webs of speculative conspiracy to come up with ways to paint the other party as being against me. Everything they do is directly against me, and all of the working-class.

EPIC FAIL!!!!!! I shall :sign0053: myself and no longer post in this thread. The second I saw you revert to Obamacare........GEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

chief31
02-28-2011, 04:49 PM
EPIC FAIL!!!!!! I shall :sign0053: myself and no longer post in this thread. The second I saw you revert to Obamacare........GEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

Right.

Probably a good idea to hold your tongue, instead of going over the top on the mistaken assumption that I think the Healthcare law is a good one.

Well-intentioned? Yes. But hardly an upgrade from the failed system in place.

The point was that I can plainly see who has which people's interests in mind.

And with keywords like "Obamacare" I can plainly see that you and I watch the same news channel.

Drunker Hillbilly
02-28-2011, 07:20 PM
Right.

Probably a good idea to hold your tongue, instead of going over the top on the mistaken assumption that I think the Healthcare law is a good one.

Well-intentioned? Yes. But hardly an upgrade from the failed system in place.

The point was that I can plainly see who has which people's interests in mind.

And with keywords like "Obamacare" I can plainly see that you and I watch the same news channel.

:lol: Doubt it! I'm sure contrary to what you may believe, I try to watch multiple channels to get a perspective from both sides. I just find myself running to the bathroom to vomit when I watch your channel most of the time! I may try to see MSNBC's point now that they fired Olberman. Whack job!!!!!!

Ok, one more post!!! LMAO....

Chiefster
03-01-2011, 09:35 PM
Right.

Probably a good idea to hold your tongue, instead of going over the top on the mistaken assumption that I think the Healthcare law is a good one.

Well-intentioned? Yes. But hardly an upgrade from the failed system in place.

The point was that I can plainly see who has which people's interests in mind.

And with keywords like "Obamacare" I can plainly see that you and I watch the same news channel.

LOL! Yep!

Could not agree more. A government sponsored health care system will run as efficiently as the post office.

dbolan
03-02-2011, 01:06 PM
While Unions haev their issues, they have served employees in other areas. One, in particular was overtime hours. Being an employee of a large aircraft manufacturer years ago during the aviation boom, many, many times the production line managers would come to the employees and DEMAND that the work into the night. So many of us had already worked 12-14 hours that day.

If you said NO, you were insubordinate and could be fired. If you agreed to work, then your family life was dead and your health began to decline to to lack of rest and inhalation of hazardous chemicals for prolonged periods (which was another issue the union helped address).

Just like everything else....MONEY changes people...Including the Leaders. ;-)