# Right to work state



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

The state I live and work in (minnesota) is considering a state constitutional amendment that we the voters can vote on in the November election. The amendment would state whether or not we desire to become a right to work state. My questions is: what would be the pros and cons to becoming a right to work state?


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

Chris1971 said:


> The state I live and work in (minnesota) is considering a state constitutional amendment that we the voters can vote on in the November election. The amendment would state whether or not we desire to become a right to work state. My questions is: what would be the pros and cons to becoming a right to work state?


you make less money


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Chris1971 said:


> The state I live and work in (minnesota) is considering a state constitutional amendment that we the voters can vote on in the November election. The amendment would state whether or not we desire to become a right to work state. My questions is: what would be the pros and cons to becoming a right to work state?


Pro= you will not be forced to pay union dues to be a Union Member.

Con = If you like being forced to pay union Dues to be in a union and live in a high cost of living state then you will be out of luck.:thumbsup:


----------



## CADPoint (Jul 5, 2007)

It doesn't mean right to work it means, right to fire!


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> Pro= you will not be forced to pay union dues to be a Union Member.
> 
> Con = If you like being forced to pay union Dues to be in a union and live in a high cost of living state then you will be out of luck.:thumbsup:


Pro- right to work for less
Con - chose to be union pay the dues


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> Pro- right to work for less
> Con - chose to be union pay the dues


Paying Dues would not be a problem if they were using the dues to support the men who are in the Union .

We all know what they are doing with the money instead and that is why people are voting their states to go Right to work.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Chris1971 said:


> The state I live and work in (minnesota) is considering a state constitutional amendment that we the voters can vote on in the November election. The amendment would state whether or not we desire to become a right to work state. My questions is: what would be the pros and cons to becoming a right to work state?


It has nothing to do with any right to work. It is a trick worded phrase that basically means you will no longer have a voice in how your wages and benefits are negotiated. You will either take what is offered or hit the road.
If you look at a map that displays the highest poverty rates and the highest public assistance rates, you will see that all of them are "right to work" states. It is really a right to poverty.
Some people are equipped to aggressively peruse their own business interests and cannot understand that not everyone possesses the mentality to do the same. 
I have some extremely ambitious people provide services for me and I know they make very little for the effort they but into it. But, it is what the job pays and it is what they choose to do for a living. I do not think any less of them than those that provide my professional services. 

Don't take the bait.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Paying Dues would not be a problem if they were using the dues to support the men who are in the Union .
> 
> We all know what they are doing with the money instead and that is why people are voting their states to go Right to work.


Really, we have full disclosure of where our five cents an hour pac money goes.

BTW,
Did you know that your unclothed emperor, Rush gives PETA 100k per year to use the Back in the Chain Gang bumper music?


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

jrannis said:


> Really, we have full disclosure of where our five cents an hour pac money goes.
> 
> BTW,
> Did you know that your unclothed emperor, Rush gives PETA 100k per year to use the Back in the Chain Gang bumper music?


I was in the union for 16 years, they never disclosed where the money goes, ever!


----------



## jbfan (Jan 22, 2007)

You have to be kidding me!!!!

No Poll??????????


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jrannis said:


> Really, we have full disclosure of where our five cents an hour pac money goes.
> 
> BTW,
> Did you know that your unclothed emperor, Rush gives PETA 100k per year to use the Back in the Chain Gang bumper music?


Cool good for rush....:thumbup:



> Really, we have full disclosure of where our five cents an hour pac money goes.


Yes we all know where the money goes ,"The wage Control Party".


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

backstay said:


> I was in the union for 16 years, they never disclosed where the money goes, ever!


Your Local was ******** then, we vote on each and every political expenditure we make.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jrannis said:


> It has nothing to do with any right to work. It is a trick worded phrase that basically means you will no longer have a voice in how your wages and benefits are negotiated. You will either take what is offered or hit the road.
> If you look at a map that displays the highest poverty rates and the highest public assistance rates, you will see that all of them are "right to work" states. It is really a right to poverty.
> Some people are equipped to aggressively peruse their own business interests and cannot understand that not everyone possesses the mentality to do the same.
> I have some extremely ambitious people provide services for me and I know they make very little for the effort they but into it. But, it is what the job pays and it is what they choose to do for a living. I do not think any less of them than those that provide my professional services.
> ...





> If you look at a map that displays the highest poverty rates and the highest public assistance rates, you will see that all of them are "right to work" states.



Simple get rid of public assistance and the poverty rates will go down.

You want to eat and have a roof over your head then get out of bed put your pajamas in the hamper take a shower shave and get a job.

And stop voting for the wage control and poverty party..


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

erics37 said:


> Your Local was ******** then, we vote on each and every political expenditure we make.


Don't BS me. And your A dues? I'm sure the international sent you a list of where all that money went.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

backstay said:


> Don't BS me. And your A dues? I'm sure the international sent you a list of where all that money went.


It's full disclosure. What part of that do you not understand?


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Simple get rid of public assistance and the poverty rates will go down.
> 
> You want to eat and have a roof over your head then get out of bed put your pajamas in the hamper take a shower shave and get a job.
> 
> And stop voting for the wage control and poverty party..


Harry, on your island that would work. In the real world, people will eat you if you do not feed them.
Either hire them, or pay to feed them. NO THIRD CHOICE.


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

backstay said:


> Don't BS me.


I s**t you not. A copy of our monthly financial report summary gets handed out at each union meeting. We're a small local, we vote yay or nay on all political expenditures.



> And your A dues? I'm sure the international sent you a list of where all that money went.


No but it's not hard to find that crap out.

IBEW Political/Legislative Affairs Department


----------



## Ty Wrapp (Aug 24, 2011)

Kansas is also a Right to Work state. It does not effect me because I am in the union (Communication Works of America). I pay union dues to support the negotiation of my wages and benefits. Non-union employees do not pay union dues but still receive the same wages and benefits and also get union representation at grievences. I do not know if this is true all over the state, or only in the CWA. Political contributions are included in my dues, but I can opt out of that if I desire.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jrannis said:


> Harry, on your island that would work. In the real world, people will eat you if you do not feed them.
> Either hire them, or pay to feed them. NO THIRD CHOICE.


Sorry but if they want to hang around in their pajamas all day 24/7 then they can starve that is their choice not mine.

If you give people a check and food stamps and free housing then they will stay home in their pajamas and do nothing to better them selves.


----------



## Nobaddaysinak (Jan 17, 2012)

Right to work for less....


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

First, backstay, you are a flipping idiot. Every single cent that's spent has to be meticulously recorded and reported. It's federal law. Unions are under more scrutiny by uncle sam then Banks or Investment firms. I would tell you to Google your locals PAC or whatever they may call their political contributions but I know your just a troll so why bother?

As a side note, you could even Google your name and if you make PAC contributions it would come up. It's all public record.

Now on to the OP,

Right-to-Work Laws vary slightly from state to state but for all intents and purposes these are the major points or concern,

-It makes collecting dues and/or check off's automatically from the pay check illegal.
-It makes contracts with government entities (like say a school board) null & void. And any future contracts illegal.
-It makes union membership as a term of employment illegal. In other words it rips down the hiring hall. In essence, any swinging **** can sign the work list and work for the union wages and benefits but not be obligated to dues or terms of membership.
-Collective bargaining, Illegal.
-Prevailing Wages, either become eliminated OR become set by the government as appose to a wage survey.

The whole law is an end around of 70 plus years of not union rights, but all workers rights.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but these are the facts. These laws have nothing to do with a "right-to-work" and everything to do with taking what little control people have over their work place out of there hands.


----------



## Frank Mc (Nov 7, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> First, backstay, you are a flipping idiot. Every single cent that's spent has to be meticulously recorded and reported. It's federal law. Unions are under more scrutiny by uncle sam then Banks or Investment firms. I would tell you to Google your locals PAC or whatever they may call their political contributions but I know your just a troll so why bother?
> 
> As a side note, you could even Google your name and if you make PAC contributions it would come up. It's all public record.
> 
> ...


Vic

Are you serious...
-Collective bargaining, Illegal.


Thank whatever ..I live in Oz.... Collective bargaining here is legal.....

I thought you guys lived in the land of the free ;-) what a load of croc...

Frank


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> First, backstay, you are a flipping idiot.


Yeah, way to make a point. Typical though.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

BBQ said:


> Yeah, way to make a point. Typical though.


Well said...:thumbsup:


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

He's right, I was an idiot. But I quit the union and am recovery now, thank you. 

I've belong to two unions in my life. The Teamsters and then the IBEW. The Teamsters added a dollar a month to our dues to pay for Jimmy's legal fees. Jimmy goes and gets himself offed and the dollar is still there, every month. They had to tell the BAs to quit driving black Lincolns, looked to much like a mob boss(they were). 

The IBEW gets caught giving special treatment to salts, by moving them up the books above other brothers. So much for giving equal representation to the members.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Mr Rewire said:


> Pro- right to work for less
> Con - chose to be union pay the dues


And you chose the CON?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Frank Mc said:


> Vic
> 
> Are you serious...
> -Collective bargaining, Illegal.
> ...


Frank before you make some outrageous statements consider the source.

There are two sides to every story, either you want to hear what you read and could care less, or you try to inform yourself of the real issues.

If union is truly the better path, the VOTERS can decide, you have an issues with the majority voting?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

While I feel being a union contractor is best for my employees, but offers me little I am a union shop.
If you read this it would seem that Right To Work limits unions, but prior to the "Right to Work" laws, folks such as myself that were denied membership into the union would not be able to work in our chosen profession. I worked open shop and got into the local through the back door and took a fair amount of crap for NOT BEING A REAL UNION TRAINED ELECTRICIAN.
Any of the open shop members of this forum that tried to join a union and were denied membership would not be electricians. 
I do believe there are more open shop members than union members on this forum, but I also believe that many of the highly technical post are by far from open shop members.


Additionally states without right to work have higher cost for public projects as almost all projects go union, so the taxpayer is hit with higher taxes. I COULD FIND NO LINKS TO VERIFY THIS


Right to Work permits ANYONE the chance to work not a select few as many unions would prefer. No daddy, no uncle, no knee pads and you sit home or take a job at Walmart in lieu of a field you might prefer.

Right to Work limits our freedoms and our choices. If union is that much better than everyome would be union. But many have seen the coruption, the strong arming, what many feel is the union BS and have and excessive job cost and said NO MORE.

From Wikipedia


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

A *"right-to-work" law* is a statute that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. Right-to-work laws exist in twenty-three U.S. states, mostly in the southern and western United States. Such laws are allowed under the 1947 federal Taft–Hartley Act.

Prior to the passage of the Taft–Hartley Act by Congress over President Harry S. Truman's veto in 1947, unions and employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act could lawfully agree to a closed shop, in which employees at unionized workplaces must be members of the union as a condition of employment. Under the law in effect before the Taft-Hartley amendments, an employee who ceased being a member of the union for whatever reason, from failure to pay dues to expulsion from the union as an internal disciplinary punishment, could also be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.
The Taft–Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop. The union shop rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire, is also illegal.[1] As such, it is illegal for any employer to force an employee to join a union.


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

brian john said:


> While I feel being a union contractor is best for my employees, but offers me little I am a union shop.
> If you read this it would seem that Right To Work limits unions, but prior to the "Right to Work" laws, folks such as myself that were denied membership into the union would not be able to work in our chosen profession. I worked open shop and got into the local through the back door and took a fair amount of crap for NOT BEING A REAL UNION TRAINED ELECTRICIAN.
> Any of the open shop members of this forum that tried to join a union and were denied membership would not be electricians.
> I do believe there are more open shop members than union members on this forum, but I also believe that many of the highly technical post are by far from open shop members.
> ...


So much misinformation I don't know where to begin.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> So much misinformation I don't know where to begin.


That's funny because I just read his post and there was not one untrue statement ,Sorry but it is a fact.

He is a Union EC so he has nothing to lose by telling it like it is,He said it is better for his men in the union what more do you want?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> So much misinformation I don't know where to begin.


Then don't because you are a major source of misinformation.


----------



## jbfan (Jan 22, 2007)

Mr Rewire said:


> So much misinformation I don't know where to begin.


Are you a union contractor?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

jbfan said:


> Are you a union contractor?


He is, he isn't, it depends on the day and how he is feeling.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> First, backstay, you are a flipping idiot. Every single cent that's spent has to be meticulously recorded and reported. It's federal law. Unions are under more scrutiny by uncle sam then Banks or Investment firms. I would tell you to Google your locals PAC or whatever they may call their political contributions but I know your just a troll so why bother?
> 
> As a side note, you could even Google your name and if you make PAC contributions it would come up. It's all public record.
> 
> ...


I can't speak for every state that has passed a right to work law but the one just passed in Indiana specifically does not include the (2) items I underlined in the quoted post.
It does make union membership as a term of employment illegal but I don't see how the rest of that statement makes any sense. You still can't show up at a union hall and "sign the book" with out joining.
I don't have a problem with right to work as enacted in my state. If unions do a good job of selling the benefits of membership the workers will join. 
In the 1980s a UAW plant in Indy couldn't get enough millwrights for a plant re-fit. The local "sold" 200 conditional millwright journeyman cards for $500.00 each that were only good for 12 months. I know this to be fact because my brother and his friend were among those who bought the cards. They had to "pay to play" but were told by the union they were on their own as far as representation went. They were only "conditional" journeymen.
One of the local school districts here are fed up with their union. They don't get any support from it when it comes to contract negotiating time. Their union sees them as small potatoes, or at least they feel that way. They don't want to pay dues to a union that offers them nothing in the way of contract negotiating or contract enforcement and I can't say I blame them.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> That's funny because I just read his post and there was not one untrue statement ,Sorry but it is a fact.
> 
> He is a Union EC so he has nothing to lose by telling it like it is,He said it is better for his men in the union what more do you want?


...you* WILL* make less money if it become a right to work state. It will enable employers to again take advantage of employees . You will have a 'few' well paid employees and the rest will be 'grunts', lining the employers pockets by underpaying workers. The grunts will never learn the full trade, which will give the employer reason not to pay the proper rate. They will however be strung out and told, 'now that you can run pipe faster than my best guy, we will move you along to the next stage, wiring pulling and rigging,' this conversation taking place 5 years after hire date.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

360max said:


> ...you* WILL* make less money if it become a right to work state. It will enable employers to again take advantage of employees . You will have a 'few' well paid employees and the rest will be 'grunts', lining the employers pockets by underpaying workers. The grunts will never learn the full trade, which will give the employer reason not to pay the proper rate. They will however be strung out and told, 'now that you can run pipe faster than my best guy, we will move you along to the next stage, wiring pulling and rigging,' this conversation taking place 5 years after hire date.


 
The majority of the electrical work force is open shop. And in my experience I see little difference in how jobs are run and how the men operate, I do see men making about 80% of scale and with limited benefits.

It seems that maybe most of your knowledge about open shop was taught in a union school?


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

jbfan said:


> Are you a union contractor?


I was a union member for ten years and a union contractor for five. I am no longer on the union nor are we a signatory contractor


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Then don't because you are a major source of misinformation.


And you know so much about so little


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

brian john said:


> The majority of the electrical work force is open shop. And in my experience I see little difference in how jobs are run and how the men operate, I do see men making about 80% of scale and with limited benefits.
> 
> It seems that maybe most of your knowledge about open shop was taught in a union school?



The majority of the best paying jobs, as a whole, are with the union. '80% of rate with limited benefits' is a generous statement if your comparing it to union rate and all the union benefits. 

You make an incorrect statement with a question mark, nice.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

360max said:


> The majority of the best paying jobs, as a whole, are with the union. '80% of rate with limited benefits' is a generous statement if your comparing it to union rate and all the union benefits.
> 
> You make a statement with a question mark, nice.


 

Would you prefer a country where a minority (UNION) makes the laws and even if the majority vote for "Right to Work", they are denied their vote?

Do you understand electricians like me have a distaste for the union because of their selective choices of who works and who doesn't?


The local told me to try another trade as I was not a minority, had no uncles or a daddy and could not wear a skirt. In the mean time I know 3 electricians that got in that year, two were the local presidents sons another was an owner’s son, all 3 were major druggies and only made it through 4 years because of Daddy. Yet I was not qualified.

To this day I can work them into the dirt physically and with my knowledge.

If you are against Right to Work you must be for NO Right to Work?


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

All benefit packages apart fro the I.O are negotiated by each individual local...therefore, some locals look much more appealing from a wage/benefit perspective....The one thing that is of great benefit to the contractors is the ability to man large projects with a large pool of qualified electricians...That does not mean that everyone is going to be to the same level of competence, but overall, the manpower is well trained and competent...That in my opinion is the greatest benefit to the contractor...As far as the journeyman goes, it's his choice if he wants to do the same work, in most instances for less wages and benefits...that's been the consensus of most non-union electricians that I know...Hey, to each his own...:cowboy::red_indian:


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> And you know so much about so little



Stay on subject and quit throwing in your useless rant.


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

brian john said:


> The majority of the electrical work force is open shop. And in my experience I see little difference in how jobs are run and how the men operate, I do see men making about 80% of scale and with limited benefits.
> 
> It seems that maybe most of your knowledge about open shop was taught in a union school?


I see a lot of open shops making less than half scale and many cannot complete the major jobs they bid due to s lack of skilled workers.The majority of open shops have no formal training program the IEC and ABC. Have programs but they enroll only to compete on prevailing wage jobs.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Mr Rewire said:


> I see a lot of open shops making less than half scale and many cannot complete the major jobs they bid due to s lack of skilled workers.The majority of open shops have no formal training program the IEC and ABC. Have programs but they enroll only to compete on prevailing wage jobs.


 
Do not judge every shop by what you do.:laughing:

Lastly I can only speak for where I work.

That your education system is so lacking you cannot produce responsible workers (and then you hire them?) is a fault of where you live, not me.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> Would you prefer a country where a minority (UNION) makes the laws and even if the majority vote for "Right to Work", they are denied their vote?
> 
> Do you understand electricians like me have a distaste for the union because of their selective choices of who works and who doesn't?
> 
> ...


 That was obviously years ago Brian...I can only speak for my local and those nearby that I've worked out of in the past: You sign the out of work list...call the job line in the evening to check the calls for the next day...BE AT THE HALL FOR JOB CALL WITH (ID, STATE CERT., SS/CARD AND ANY OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS NEEDED) I.E...osha 10, 30, nfpa 70e, required to take the call...Roll call starts at #1 on book 1 and then goes through book 2, 3....Calls go out according to who is present that wants the call with the lowest number and has docs. and can pass a drug test....Pretty straight forward but I empathise with your earlier dealings because at one time, that was the standard and it was exactly as you described...Again, I am only speaking from my own knowledge and experience with locals I've dealt with...:cowboy::red_indian:


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

brian john said:


> Do not judge every shop by what you do.:laughing:
> 
> Lastly I can only speak for where I work.
> 
> That your education system is so lacking you cannot produce responsible workers (and then you hire them?) is a fault of where you live, not me.


What does the education system have to do with training someone to be an electrician?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> All benefit packages apart fro the I.O are negotiated by each individual local...therefore, some locals look much more appealing from a wage/benefit perspective....The one thing that is of great benefit to the contractors is the ability to man large projects with a large pool of qualified electricians...That does not mean that everyone is going to be to the same level of competence, but overall, the manpower is well trained and competent...That in my opinion is the greatest benefit to the contractor...As far as the journeyman goes, it's his choice if he wants to do the same work, in most instances for less wages and benefits...that's been the consensus of most non-union electricians that I know...Hey, to each his own...:cowboy::red_indian:


That is great for assembly line type work for large companies. 

NO ONE, not one poster has ever been able to tell me as an owner what benefits I get from being union. I am a small shop (27 years), 20 employees, all but one or two hired off the street, all union. One of the top firms in the area, hired by other EC's (open shop and union) to perform technical aspects they are not familar with.

Please tell me what the benefits are to me, 

Less take home pay, for me?
More union paper work?
Hassles with the local?
The local telling my employees I am taking advantage of them?

Where is the love, where are the benefits FOR ME.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Mr Rewire said:


> What does the education system have to do with training someone to be an electrician?


 
Becoming an electrician is not all that complicated, a good education system trains students for a future in many fields. (I needed to tell you that?)

All the rest can be OJT, with experience any DECENT worker can do the vast majority of jobs in our trade.

I do not know what percentage of electricians work commercial construction, but apprenticeship school is wasted on these guys IMO. The vast majority of apprentices never think about additionally training after completing the program, nor should they, they will be stuck on the assembly line of large construction till they retire.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

brian john said:


> Would you prefer a country where a minority (UNION) makes the laws and even if the majority vote for "Right to Work", they are denied their vote?
> 
> Do you understand electricians like me have a distaste for the union because of their selective choices of who works and who doesn't?
> 
> ...


Why where unions needed in the first place? 

Anyone trying to compare union with non union is going to have a difficult time,at least in NY, because the unions fought tooth and nail to receive a decent wage for all union families.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

360max said:


> Why where unions needed in the first place?


Who gives a crap. We are talking today



> Anyone trying to compare union with non union is going to have a difficult time,at least in NY, because the unions fought tooth and nail to receive a decent wage for all union families.


Cry me another song, I have heard this song and dance too many times. 

Answer my questions.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> That is great for assembly line type work for large companies.
> 
> NO ONE, not one poster has ever been able to tell me as an owner what benefits I get from being union. I am a small shop (27 years), 20 employees, all but one or two hired off the street, all union. One of the top firms in the area, hired by other EC's (open shop and union) to perform technical aspects they are not familar with.
> 
> ...


Our local puts out specialty calls at the contractors request...Not every electrician is going to have accquired the same skills throughout his apprenticeship and journeyman experience...That why most locals try to move their apprentices around so they don't just learn schools or gas stations or industrial....You should, as a contractor be able to find electricians with the particular skill sets you require...My local also offers daytime and evening classes for all kinds of different certifications or even refresher courses not just for c/e for state cert. but for additional knowledge to be more marketable for specialty calls....I don't know what particular type of electrical you do but we have had calls that were so specialized that the contractor did onsite training...That's not the norm but the exception...:cowboy::red_indian:


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

brian john said:


> Who gives a crap. We are talking today
> 
> 
> 
> ...


..the needs of the masses far outweigh the needs of a few individuals.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Mr Rewire said:


> I was a union member for ten years and a union contractor for five. I am no longer on the union nor are we a signatory contractor


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

360max said:


> ..the needs of the masses far outweigh the needs of a few individuals.


Then you agree the voters should be able to decide Right to Work, or No right To Work?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

360max said:


> ..the needs of the masses far outweigh the needs of a few individuals.


Spoken like a true Marxist.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

jrannis said:


>


Again, TO EACH HIS OWN...........:cowboy::red_indian::thumbup:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> Our local puts out specialty calls at the contractors request...Not every electrician is going to have accquired the same skills throughout his apprenticeship and journeyman experience...That why most locals try to move their apprentices around so they don't just learn schools or gas stations or industrial....You should, as a contractor be able to find electricians with the particular skill sets you require...My local also offers daytime and evening classes for all kinds of different certifications or even refresher courses not just for c/e for state cert. but for additional knowledge to be more marketable for specialty calls....I don't know what particular type of electrical you do but we have had calls that were so specialized that the contractor did onsite training...That's not the norm but the exception...:cowboy::red_indian:


NO UNION MEMBER WILL ANSWER MY QUESTION.

What are the benefits to me as an owner?


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> NO UNION MEMBER WILL ANSWER MY QUESTION.
> 
> What are the benefits to me as an owner?


 
I answered you in my previous post but here goes again...In my opinion, the greatest benefit to the contractor is the ability to man large jobs due to the large number of qualified and skilled workers at his disposal...If you call the hall and they cannot fill the position with a qualified electrician with the particular specialized skill you require, then by all means, find that person where you must...But in my opinion and my experience, you will be able to find the workforce you need with rare exception....Another benefit I did not mention, is if you only need someone for a short period of time, you can put in a short call,(2 weeks or less in nmy local)and have no problem filling it....I am not speaking for locals across the U.S.A and Canada but rather the one in the San Francisco bay area...You asked a question and I, an IBEW member gave you the best answer I could based on my experience with the locals I've worked out of...You may not like the answer I gave you but it's the one I have to offer you...Good luck....


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> I answered you in my previous post but here goes again...In my opinion, the greatest benefit to the contractor is the ability to man large jobs due to the large number of qualified and skilled workers at his disposal...If you call the hall and they cannot fill the position with a qualified electrician with the particular specialized skill you require, then by all means, find that person where you must...But in my opinion and my experience, you will be able to find the workforce you need with rare exception....Another benefit I did not mention, is if you only need someone for a short period of time, you can put in a short call,(2 weeks or less in nmy local)and have no problem filling it....I am not speaking for locals across the U.S.A and Canada but rather the one in the San Francisco bay area...You asked a question and I, an IBEW member gave you the best answer I could based on my experience with the locals I've worked out of...You may not like the answer I gave you but it's the one I have to offer you...Good luck....


In a perfect world, this would be an undeniable fact and is the intended benefit to the union contractor. Sadly, in actuality, the union contractor in this situation has to play catch and release for a while to assemble a large competent crew. A journeyman card is no guarantee of experience, ability or good work ethic.


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

brian john said:


> Becoming an electrician is not all that complicated, a good education system trains students for a future in many fields. (I needed to tell you that?)
> 
> All the rest can be OJT, with experience any DECENT worker can do the vast majority of jobs in our trade.


your kidding right? If you rely solely on OJT then you can take basic education out of the equation


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

brian john said:


> That is great for assembly line type work for large companies.
> 
> NO ONE, not one poster has ever been able to tell me as an owner what benefits I get from being union. I am a small shop (27 years), 20 employees, all but one or two hired off the street, all union. One of the top firms in the area, hired by other EC's (open shop and union) to perform technical aspects they are not familar with.
> 
> ...


Access to trained electricians with s phone call. Ability to pay apprentice wages on prevailing wage jobs.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> I answered you in my previous post but here goes again...In my opinion, the greatest benefit to the contractor is the ability to man large jobs due to the large number of qualified and skilled workers at his disposal...If you call the hall and they cannot fill the position with a qualified electrician with the particular specialized skill you require, then by all means, find that person where you must...*But in my opinion and my experience, you will be able to find the workforce you need with rare exception...*.Another benefit I did not mention, is if you only need someone for a short period of time, you can put in a short call,(2 weeks or less in nmy local)and have no problem filling it....I am not speaking for locals across the U.S.A and Canada but rather the one in the San Francisco bay area...You asked a question and I, an IBEW member gave you the best answer I could based on my experience with the locals I've worked out of...You may not like the answer I gave you but it's the one I have to offer you...Good luck....


For large jobs that need semi-skilled electricians basic pipe and wire guys that you can train monnkeys to do (I WAS TOLD THIS BY THE HEAD OF APPRENTICESHIP in 1980). The Union is a good option



But for a small shop
 UNDERLINED
No that DOES NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.

BOLD-Horse Hockey, with 27 years of experience I can truly say HORSE HOCKEY.

I hire and train my own, have for 27 years. I have some good union people some I hired from open shop, others I negotiated away for union shops.

Seriously give me some decent reasons. The you call the hall lines fails miserably, first because it does not work, second I can do the same calling any electrician I meet in a supply house.

I would bet I could call 5 halls and not get one usable man from each hall for the work we do, they would send someone and I would have to send him packing.

Small firms are looked upon with disgust by halls, treated poorly, given nothing, trashed talked to our men about us and when the big guys need apprentices the hall takes ours.

If I was not so far in I would get out, the union BS in particularly recently has me so mad, screw them.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Mr Rewire said:


> Access to trained electricians with s phone call. Ability to pay apprentice wages on prevailing wage jobs.


 
I got that with my Iphone and so does every open shop. NOPE

And At least around here 95% of the open shops that do prevailing wage jobs have signed apprentices in an approved program.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

So far the benefits to me is an increase in wages (less money in my pocket) and I can use a phone to hire someone. WOW, I need two phones with that advantage.

:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:


Guys I am serious come up with SOMETHING substantial because so far you are going backwards.

Think about it in my area I would make 10-20 % more in my pocket a year, in your areas 30-50% more.

Where are the positives for being union, so far all you are giving are negatives (or at a minimum something I can get with a simple trip to the supply house)? Making open shop seem like a dream team.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Should have added, if you can't sell union to a union contractor how to heck do you expect to sell it to the masses? Right to Work here it comes.


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

brian john said:


> Should have added, if you can't sell union to a union contractor how to heck do you expect to sell it to the masses? Right to Work here it comes.


You hate the union it is simple to see. Dint know why you have an ace to grind. If you see no benefit then it begs the question why are you?


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

BBQ said:


> Yeah, way to make a point. Typical though.


Typical of what?
How about this, when it comes to union conversations, you don't have a leg to stand on. You're not a member, never have been a member, nor do you employ members or compete in our industry as a member. Therefor anyone with a pulse can clearly see that your opinions and stances are bias, pointless, and thoughtless.

You have no standing in an informed conversation regarding unions.

On to Brian John. ET's resident "Union" Contractor. I'd would really like to see some proof of that. Because the doubt has really been creeping into my head as of late.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

amptech said:


> In a perfect world, this would be an undeniable fact and is the intended benefit to the union contractor. Sadly, in actuality, the union contractor in this situation has to play catch and release for a while to assemble a large competent crew. A journeyman card is no guarantee of experience, ability or good work ethic.


You're always going to have setiment at the bottom of the barrel....That's just a given...You will however, have a skilled mass that has been IBEW trained for the most part....We "DO", have some good brothers that have "NOT" gone through the IBEW apprenticeship....There are good and bad electricians on both sides but I must say, I would have to side with the union and our training program that "THE CONTRACTORS/CUSTOMERS"
BENEFIT FROM....I can speak for the majority of good brothers I've worked with that we are conscientious about our work and our trade with the understanding that if the contractor makes money and has a positive experience, he will bid work in our local again....I salted a prevailing wage job once with the owners' full knowledge that I was a union electrician....When his foreman had to go to reserve (MARINE)training for 3 weeks, he left me in charge....When the job was finished, the owner told me he would be happy to have me work for him anytime....Another satisfied owner and customer....Code of Excellence...Should be called the Code of Common sense....I can't speak for the local Brian works with only the ones I've worked out of....I'm very surprised if he can't find the QUALIFIED manpower he needs out of his local....:cowboy::red_indian:


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

brian john said:


> So far the benefits to me is an increase in wages (less money in my pocket) and I can use a phone to hire someone. WOW, I need two phones with that advantage.
> 
> :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:
> 
> ...


Yell me how you can get 50 men who are trained in less than three days? Are their that many unemployed non union guys in your area?


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

slickvic277 said:


> Typical of what?
> How about this, when it comes to union conversations, you don't have a leg to stand on. You're not a member, never have been a member, nor do you employ members or compete in our industry as a member. Therefor anyone with a pulse can clearly see that your opinions and stances are bias, pointless, and thoughtless.
> 
> You have no standing in an informed conversation regarding unions.
> ...


Typical for calling me an idiot because you don't agree with my point of view. Typical of the left to name call anyone they disagree with. Typical in that you change the argument because you can't rebut my post. I have union experience, was on my executive board, have experience being a member of two different unions. Yet your response is to name call.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Mr Rewire said:


> You hate the union it is simple to see. Dint know why you have an ace to grind. *If you see no benefit then it begs the question why are you?*


I'm really beginning to think that he's not.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Mr Rewire said:


> Yell me how you can get 50 men who are trained in less than three days? Are their that many unemployed non union guys in your area?


 
I do not need 50 men, but the large open shops seem to do OK.

And unemployment is low compared to the rest of the states.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

Mr Rewire said:


> Yell me how you can get 50 men who are trained in less than three days? Are their that many unemployed non union guys in your area?


 
SWEEEEEET.............THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT.......:thumbupID BRIAN EVER SAY WHAT TYPE OF ELECTRICAL HE DOES? JUST CURIOUS......


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Mr Rewire said:


> You hate the union it is simple to see. Dint know why you have an ace to grind. If you see no benefit then it begs the question why are you?


 
I hate the union management and their anti-owner stance, they NOT ME injected themselves into my company and told an employee what POS's we were.

If they do nothing to promote themselves to me a union contractor how can they (YOU UNION MEMBERS) expect to gain new contractors. I'll never again tell open shop owners why I fell they should become a union contractor. 

I will tell workers the benefits to them as members. 

The union continues to shoot themselves in the foot, and other small Unon contractors feel as I do (IN MY AREA)

Obviously Rewire has feels the union is not for him and his employees.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> SWEEEEEET.............THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT.......:thumbupID BRIAN EVER SAY WHAT TYPE OF ELECTRICAL HE DOES? JUST CURIOUS......


 
I am a specialty electrical contractor. We solve complex problems other ECs can't, won't, do not have the time to do, we service generators ATS's, paralleling systems, electrical testing, battery systems, UPS systems, Infrared and something’s I forgot what else.

Myself I am a problem solver, I resolve issues with power quality, grounding, and emergency restoration of power, service and repair bolted pressure switches.

And shovel crap if it pays the bills.

Our primary customers are other EC's, engineering firms, federal agencies, hospitals and data centers.


In defense of the hall it would be very difficult for them to supply a man with the training we need to do the wide variety of work we complete. I typically train in house and send the men out for classes. I would never rely on the hall for manpower, while there are some very good local, they are never on the bench, those on the bench are usually bench warmers or construction workers, good service men hardly ever make it to the bench, good technicians NEVER.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

BUT, to return to the OP.

Should voters have the right to vote up, down on Right to Work?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

brian john said:


> BUT, to return to the OP.
> 
> Should voters have the right to vote up, down on Right to Work?


Yes!...


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Yes!...


 
Te real question that begs to be answered is do they have the right to limit others workers from working. "No Right to Work" laws.


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

brian john said:


> Te real question that begs to be answered is do they have the right to limit others workers from working. "No Right to Work" laws.


The question is can they knowingly join s union shop and enjoy all the benefits of the collective bargain agreement jet not pay their fair share


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

Mr Rewire said:


> The question is can they knowingly join s union shop and enjoy all the benefits of the collective bargain agreement jet not pay their fair share


 
I say not....In for a dime, in for a dollar...


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Mr Rewire said:


> The question is can they knowingly join s union shop and enjoy all the benefits of the collective bargain agreement jet not pay their fair share


Why not. Like it cost anything for what they do. All the money goes to the men running the IBEW, cut the fat make them work with their tools.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> I say not....In for a dime, in for a dollar...


Two questions you keep evading.

Should your union have the right to stop me from working?

Should the public be able to vote UP or Down on Right to Work?

Ask me anything I will tell you the answer if I know it, ask your guys anything union and you answer everything but what you are asked.

I gave up on knowing any benefits to me being a union contracto coming from the poor working masses, the union brains CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I have a very legtimate answer for me being union BUT DO YOU?


----------



## mnelectrician (Dec 1, 2008)

Chris1971 said:


> The state I live and work in (minnesota) is considering a state constitutional amendment that we the voters can vote on in the November election. The amendment would state whether or not we desire to become a right to work state. My questions is: what would be the pros and cons to becoming a right to work state?


Wisconsin where you said you grew up is a right to work state. The wages and shop rate are a lot higher here then there. Union wages make Nonunion wages and shop rates higher because they compete with the Union shops. Personally I'm going to vote no for Minnesota being a right to work state.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> I am a specialty electrical contractor. We solve complex problems other ECs can't, won't, do not have the time to do, we service generators ATS's, paralleling systems, electrical testing, battery systems, UPS systems, Infrared and something’s I forgot what else.
> 
> Myself I am a problem solver, I resolve issues with power quality, grounding, and emergency restoration of power, service and repair bolted pressure switches.
> 
> ...


Wish I could agree with you on that.....We have a lot of excellent electricians on the bench right now.....We cannot solicit our own work...It is a referal system and a brotherhood and in some of the older shops, you'll still find the good ol boys network...If there's no work, there's no work....I know some guys who only get a couple of days here and there and they're okay with that....I'll go back when it's my turn and god willing and the creeks don't rise, there will be copius amounts of work in the near future for everyone....Lets face it, when there's work to be had by all who want it, nobody complains....:whistling2:This too shall pass....


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

brian john said:


> Then you agree the voters should be able to decide Right to Work, or No right To Work?


NY is a union state, good luck changing that. Right to work is nothing less than taking money out of the workers pocket. Spin all you want Brian!!


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

brian john said:


> BUT, to return to the OP.
> 
> Should voters have the right to vote up, down on Right to Work?


We should have a right to vote on this issue.


----------



## pjmurph2002 (Sep 18, 2009)

Another usless Union vs Non Union thread.


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

mnelectrician said:


> Wisconsin where you said you grew up is a right to work state. The wages and shop rate are a lot higher here then there. Union wages make Nonunion wages and shop rates higher because they compete with the Union shops. Personally I'm going to vote no for Minnesota being a right to work state.


Wisconsin is not a right to work state.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

360max said:


> NY is a union state, good luck changing that. Right to work is nothing less than taking money out of the workers pocket. Spin all you want Brian!!


So you are against voters having the right to decide?
New York and Ca are also losing businesses at an alarming rate, the voters won't have to decide the businesses will.
Ask Buffalo and Rochester, how well their unions are doing the only reason Messina NY still has Alcoa is the state is paying Alcoa about 50,000 per employee (subsidies and tax incentives) to keep that plant open

Another union member that cannot answer a question.

On another note 360, have you ever worked open shop or does all your rhetoric come from your indoctrination at the hall?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

pjmurph2002 said:


> Another usless Union vs Non Union thread.


 
You do not see any fun in this, them defending a dying horse? 
Can't answer ONE question straight.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Mulder said:


> Wisconsin is not a right to work state.


Alabama
Arizona †
Arkansas †
Florida †
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana[23]
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi †
Nebraska
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma †
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

The the voters vote on this issue. Let the majority decide yes or no.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Chris1971 said:


> The the voters vote on this issue. Let the majority decide yes or no.


 
Correct and the ad agencies will reap the benefits as both sides throw millions at it.


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

brian john said:


> Correct and the ad agencies will reap the benefits as both sides throw millions at it.



Believe me, they already are.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> Why not. Like it cost anything for what they do. All the money goes to the men running the IBEW, cut the fat make them work with their tools.


 
And then watch wages and working conditions go down.....Also, the jobs I've been on are all about working safely and not a bunch of lip service...I've worked with guys that were from the non-union side and they were afraid to bring up safety issues because if they brought them up to their previous employers they were sometimes frowned upon....I first started for a non-union contractor in Washington...He in turn sent me to a job in Oregon....He joined the union while that job was in progress....The non-union foreman bailed on the job while it was in the underground phase...The owner left me there for a month by myself....I was lucky the foreman had gone over the prints thoroughly with me before he bailed....A union electrician came onto the jobsite and I called the owner and got the guy hired....I did'nt know at the time that you were'nt supposed to solicit your own work but thank god for the union as we needed a lot of manpower to finish....There were a few bad apples at first but it all came together....until then, I had a lot of unreasonable expectations put on me which I met but after that, I was paid for them....:thumbsup:


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

Union dues mostly go to pay high price lawyers and support for people you might care for or agree with to win elections. If you make more money but have to pay more for everyday items what good is that. You you had a business and where looking for open a new shop what state would you choose?  As a small business owner if there were two guys with equal attributes but one wanted more money and and demanded a no fire clause,I know which one I would hire.


----------



## pjmurph2002 (Sep 18, 2009)

brian john said:


> You do not see any fun in this, them defending a dying horse?
> Can't answer ONE question straight.


 

Just my opinion.

It would be hard to disagree that the Unions are dying. I would agree with some of what you have stated that the Union Management in some locals operate in a very backwards manor. Why? Money. The more they brainwash members into believing that all Union electricians magically become more intelligent and far superior electricians by simply joining the local is ludicrous. But members pay dues. 

Conversely, we as a society need Unions, just as we need Greenpeace, Republicans, Democrats, etc. The Ying & Yang. It is hard to argue the fact that big business would have everyone working for minimum wages if possible. The people we elect to represent us should be able to stop this, but they too are driven by, you guessed it, Money. I agree with something that Bob Badger (Non-Union) has indicated in previous threads. Without the Unions, all wages for electricians would fall. 

What does the Union provide Brian John? I would like to think that the pool of labor to hire from gives you a better chance to find a worthwhile “keeper”. Or at least someone that can hit the ground running when hired to perform the majority of what we do as electricians. The reason for this speculation is the training provided by the Union vs. the lack of training on the Non-Union side. Specialty work is exactly what it is, Specialty work. Being Union or Non-Union is irrelevant; the aptitude of the individual is what counts.

So in the end, just another useless Union vs. Non-Union thread. It sure would be nice if we could try and understand each person’s position, and show a little respect. I’ll keep dreaming!


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> You do not see any fun in this, them defending a dying horse?
> Can't answer ONE question straight.


 
I can't help it if you don't like or want to accept any answers you are given....You obviously already have the answers you want for yourself so why ask the same questions over and over if you simply cannot accept a truthful answer or an answer you do not deem acceptable? If one does work for an open shop and chooses not to be union, then no they should not be afforded the same wages and benefits as the person who pays to have his wages and benefits negotiated.....If you fly coach, do you expect to have the same leg room and upgrades as the person who paid for business or first class? :no: You're funny, you should've done stand up...:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::no:


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

I once flew to Newark to install some prox switches. The yard had its own electritians but whatever. I asked the Forman for a wielder to wield some angle iron on for me. He really helpful and sent one over to my work area. The wielder arrived with his weilding machine and just stood there for over fifty min. I wanted to get this done and head home back to new Orleans. So I asked him what was he waiting on he told me that he don't pull his leads that was someone else's job. Break time come and off he went so I pulled his lead and tacked it up myself. All hell broke lose. By the way the work was twenty- five feet away. This company no longer brings their equipment there any more. They bring it to Vergina now.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> I can't help it if you don't like or want to accept any answers you are given....You obviously already have the answers you want for yourself so why ask the same questions over and over if you simply cannot accept a truthful answer or an answer you do not deem acceptable? If one does work for an open shop and chooses not to be union, then no they should not be afforded the same wages and benefits as the person who pays to have his wages and benefits negotiated.....If you fly coach, do you expect to have the same leg room and upgrades as the person who paid for business or first class? :no: You're funny, you should've done stand up...:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::no:


Because if you can't answer a few simple questions to back up what you feel is a better choice, how can you stand by what you believe, how can you promote unions to open shop workers and the owners.


----------



## mnelectrician (Dec 1, 2008)

Mulder said:


> Wisconsin is not a right to work state.


I was told it was sorry. I should of looked it up.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Chris1971 said:


> The state I live and work in (minnesota) is considering a state constitutional amendment that we the voters can vote on in the November election. The amendment would state whether or not we desire to become a right to work state. My questions is: what would be the pros and cons to becoming a right to work state?


It is a tough question to answer. I am and have been union all of my life. I have made a fair living wage all of those years. As I grow older I think about other things than myself and one of those things is that the people of a given state should have the right to vote as they wish. If a state votes "up" the right to work system then they should have it.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

360max said:


> NY is a union state, good luck changing that. Right to work is nothing less than taking money out of the workers pocket. Spin all you want Brian!!


Doesn't higher TAXES and a higher cost of living that prevails in a No right to work state,,,Taking money out of the workers pocket. ?:blink:


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

jrannis said:


> It has nothing to do with any right to work. It is a trick worded phrase that basically means you will no longer have a voice in how your wages and benefits are negotiated. You will either take what is offered or hit the road.
> If you look at a map that displays the highest poverty rates and the highest public assistance rates, you will see that all of them are "right to work" states. It is really a right to poverty.
> Some people are equipped to aggressively peruse their own business interests and cannot understand that not everyone possesses the mentality to do the same.
> I have some extremely ambitious people provide services for me and I know they make very little for the effort they but into it. But, it is what the job pays and it is what they choose to do for a living. I do not think any less of them than those that provide my professional services.
> ...


If you feel badly for them I suppose that you give them the "extra" money that they deserve...don't you, when you pay them? You know...the money that they deserve?


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

The union gives extra money I didn't know that. I thought you work for a wage and that's what you get. Wow extra I'm pro union now where do I send my dues?


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Theriot said:


> The union gives extra money I didn't know that. I thought you work for a wage and that's what you get. Wow extra I'm pro union now where do I send my dues?


The UNION does not "GIVE" extra money. The Union contractors agree to an amount that they can live with paying to their employees and still be in business. Sure, they may not love paying the amount negotiated but the bottom line is that if they could not afford it they would fold...but they usually don't.


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

There is no extra money. Union jobs charge the customer more and so you get more. For how long will customers want to pay more? As long as they are willing to be stronger arm by unions then there will be extra money. As there power lessen so will these jobs.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Theriot said:


> There is no extra money. Union jobs charge the customer more and so you get more. For how long will customers want to pay more? As long as they are willing to be stronger arm by unions then there will be extra money. As there power lessen so will these jobs.


It is not possible to strong arm someone into paying more than they can afford to pay.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

K I'll admit, I am a moron.

I have know idea what a work to what ever is.

Present a resume. get a job. or not. perform. keep the job.

sounds like governmental BS.

and if I pay dues I want the bennies! And all that goes with it.

Why in gods good name... Would i want the bennies and not have the responsibilities?

As stated above. I am a MORON.. But you EITHER IS OR YOU Aint. (union)

I PERSONALLY DON'T CARE. i AM VERY HAPPY IN MY CURRENT SITUATION.

And this 'Right to work' stuff..... 'Course you got the right to work.
Employers every where are looking for help.
But..... If you think you get the union wages - with out being union.
or the benefits.

ANY CLUB comes with rules. But ... If it is your paid Government officials that make the rules.... Thats different.

Wish I had the time to worry about this - non union and out straight !!!!


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

I've lived in both types of states and can't tell a difference..


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

Am the only one who has seen I union worker who is just lazy and slow knowing it's is almost impossible for the company to fire them. No I'm not saying all or most or even a few but I have heard it and seen it. I had one tell me who was trying to recruit me that once I put a couple years in that I'll get to take it easy. Is that the attitude I would want my employees to have. Start your own company and have to deal employees some of them are great and I try to take care of them because they make my company. So I have an incentive to pay them more and let go of the ones that bring my company down.


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

I think many of you are making the assumption that the voting public in many of these places are *informed voters*. I suspect that the majority of people voting for or against Right to Work laws have no idea what they're even about.

"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Y'all forget we live in a nation of idiots.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

erics37 said:


> I think many of you are making the assumption that the voting public in many of these places are *informed voters*. I suspect that the majority of people voting for or against Right to Work laws have no idea what they're even about.
> 
> "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

K Now I get it. I think.

All union employees in at a college, can and will fight for subordinate pay.
Then pay the dues to the left wing Liberal wacko SEU .
to give a 'livable wage' to non resident 'Citizens (wink/Knod' )(not that I have seen this, but a friend has told me) Then, They can opt out, yet remain receiving all the bennies.
Screw up, and receive all the UNION protection.

Simpleton that I am- (Non union) That just don't seem right.

You IS or YOU aint.

DECIDE.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

erics37 said:


> I think many of you are making the assumption that the voting public in many of these places are *informed voters*. I suspect that the majority of people voting for or against Right to Work laws have no idea what they're even about.
> 
> "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
> ...


To make that statement implies that you DO know all about both sides. If you study both sides that is a good thing. However, it usually is the elitist's viewpoint.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

Theriot said:


> The union gives extra money I didn't know that. I thought you work for a wage and that's what you get. Wow extra I'm pro union now where do I send my dues?


Spoken from a man from the most corrupt state in the U.S.....so corrupt, even Boss Hogg would shake his fat little head....:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

Theriot said:


> There is no extra money. Union jobs charge the customer more and so you get more. For how long will customers want to pay more? As long as they are willing to be stronger arm by unions then there will be extra money. As there power lessen so will these jobs.


 
And bringing in these illegal immigrants only exacerbates the situation...


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> To make that statement implies that you DO know all about both sides. If you study both sides that is a good thing. However, it usually is the elitist's viewpoint.


Install any extraneous ground rods lately?


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

erics37 said:


> Install any extraneous ground rods lately?


I gotta say that I love that statement. I can peel out the unknowledgeable people.


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

Why do unions make their guys where patches and non union members don't? Is it so they can tell who the enemy is. Maybe the Taliban should form a union so we could tell them apart. Just tell them they will get more virgins if they join and extra money and they can't get fired. Who would want to be one of those dumb nonunion Taliban? Killing them selfs for less virgins and they don't even get a cool patch. Idiots


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

erics37 said:


> I think many of you are making the assumption that the voting public in many of these places are *informed voters*. I suspect that the majority of people voting for or against Right to Work laws have no idea what they're even about.
> 
> "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
> ...


An educated citizenry is a dangerous thing for liberals...:laughing:


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

*Educated Electurate*

I'm in the Trade. 28 years.

Still trying to figure out this 'right to work' stuff.
Don't really care. been busy (very) for 25 of my 28.

Do you really think the general public #1 cares. #2 realizes ?

Honestly - I aint too embarrassed about not knowing about the subject.
I probably should be... But..........


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

Are the patches like a motorcycle gang thing so if a fight brakes out y'all know who is on your side? Is like a happy meal prize the union cooked up so when they take your money they can give you something to make you feel better? Are so you can tell who to look down at and try to convert? The patch is a sign of intelligence for all to see and be amazed by. It's like the union is god and god has gave me his blessing and I have a patch to prove it. Praise be almighty UNION.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

Theriot said:


> Are the patches like a motorcycle gang thing so if a fight brakes out y'all know who is on your side? Is like a happy meal prize the union cooked up so when they take your money they can give you something to make you feel better? Are so you can tell who to look down at and try to convert? The patch is a sign of intelligence for all to see and be amazed by. It's like the union is god and god has gave me his blessing and I have a patch to prove it. Praise be almighty UNION.



And that pays the mortgage..... How?

Doing side work? Faith full?...... What ever.

I got the right to work. Called a resume. and history, references, work diversity, Experience, Talent, and MAD SKILLS. :thumbup::thumbup::whistling2:

Know where I got it? I earned it. :thumbsup:


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

So you don't get the patch till you earn it. Sorry I was misinformed I thought they give it to you when you give them money again sorry.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

Theriot said:


> So you don't get the patch till you earn it. Sorry I was misinformed I thought they give it to you when you give them money again sorry.


 
I'm not saying you're stupid but you sure are ignorant about the union.....


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

Just starting trouble thats all. Poking the lion in the cage. Having a little fun. Hail union


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

What does it really matter union or not we don't make anything in America anymore. I would like to see the growth of unions expand if you will to places like china. So their wages would go up and made a fair market. How much union dues would be on a dollar a day wage?


----------



## millerdrr (Jun 26, 2009)

My company works around the country, for one major Fortune 50 company. It's not unusual for us to use union subcontractors, as neither me nor the owner are licensed in all the jurisdictions covering 3000 stores.

Most of the union guys were good. A group I had in Minnesota/Wisconsin last fall were absolutely amazing. 

The poor performers are nearly always coming out of a hall, instead of working steady. The ones who stay busy...well, they ain't cheap, but then again, they shouldn't be.

I've never had a problem firing a poor performer. I just call his company's lead and tell him to send me another guy. Union membership isn't gonna save a guy who spends two hours changing a light bulb, harasses a cashier, starts a fight, or smokes on company property.

Right-to-work states don't seem to be that much different from the other states. Wages are a bit lower; cost of living is a bit lower. Biggest difference I've noticed is primarily in real estate; fast food in Connecticut is 20% more expensive than North Carolina, gas is 20% higher, average wages are 20% higher...but home prices I looked at are damn near five times higher. 

I'm in a Right-to-Work state. I couldn't care less, whether it stays that way or changes. Anyone who expects major life changes based on right-to-work legislation is not properly accounting for a long list of regional variations that affect union membership. Right-to-work laws might make it a tiny bit tougher on union organizers here, but I doubt it makes much difference in a state where half the population has been taught since the day they were born that unions are for lazy communists. I'd be bold enough to state that, if Right-to-Work laws were stricken down by the Supreme Court tomorrow...nothing would change.:whistling2:


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

brian john said:


> Should have added, if you can't sell union to a union contractor how to heck do you expect to sell it to the masses? Right to Work here it comes.


He does this every time he has to write that benefits check..


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

found it in Red/ Blue, for those who might seek relevance....

a quick definition>



> Right-to-work laws are state laws that prohibit both the closed and union shop. A right to work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union.


http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/right-to-work/


and the card check kicker>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act



> Opponents' views
> Critics contend that additional use of card check elections will lead to overt coercion on the part of union organizers.[37] Opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act also claim that the measure would not protect employee privacy. Representative John Kline, R-Minn., has stated:
> *It is beyond me how one can possibly claim that a system whereby everyone — your employer, your union organizer, and your co-workers — knows exactly how you vote on the issue of unionization gives an employee 'free choice'* ... It seems pretty clear to me that the only way to ensure that a worker is 'free to choose' is to ensure that there's a private ballot, so that no one know how you voted. I cannot fathom how we were about to sit there today and debate a proposal to take away a worker's democratic right to vote in a secret-ballot election and call it 'Employee Free Choice.'[38]​


 
so it would seem exactly what _'rights' _you _do _have is in question here

~CS~


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Theriot said:


> Are the patches like a motorcycle gang thing so if a fight brakes out y'all know who is on your side? Is like a happy meal prize the union cooked up so when they take your money they can give you something to make you feel better? Are so you can tell who to look down at and try to convert? The patch is a sign of intelligence for all to see and be amazed by. It's like the union is god and god has gave me his blessing and I have a patch to prove it. Praise be almighty UNION.


This is the brain washed ignorance that resides in a typical poor "right to poverty" state. If you think this is not the case, look to how the major producing states have a high standard of living and allow the working people to have a collective voice in the jobs that make it that way.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> found it in Red/ Blue, for those who might seek relevance....
> 
> a quick definition>
> 
> ...


Steve, you really got me with the "card check" thing. Can you tell me where this is done?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

millerdrr said:


> My company works around the country, for one major Fortune 50 company. It's not unusual for us to use union subcontractors, as neither me nor the owner are licensed in all the jurisdictions covering 3000 stores.
> 
> Most of the union guys were good. A group I had in Minnesota/Wisconsin last fall were absolutely amazing.
> 
> ...


Excellent post, you missed one issue, extremely higher taxes, I have a very nice house on 10 acres in Loudoun County VA, (for the umpteenth year in a row named the richest county in America). My cousin lives in Monroe County NY, his real estate taxes on a small 3 bedroom rambles on 1/3 of an acre are higher than mine. Plus all other taxes exceed what VA hits you with.


And you would be right with the underlined comment.

I have traveled as well and everywhere I went except NYC, the union and/or open shop electricians were all very friendly, good workers and helpful. In Delaware I think the local went out of their way to send us their top notch guys, we had a several months work in the project and these guys busted buns and finished weeks early. 
NYC it may just be the bad luck of the draw, but the electricians were just difficult people. We did not need them to do anything but sit and watch (the local rules we need two men for our one). We tried to explain to them what we were doing and finally one guy tells me he could give a crap. They would drag their feet every time we had to relocate. He told me if I would sign his ticket for 8 hours he could leave and my job would get easier. The other times they were just difficult individuals and did not appreciate us in their territory and made it known.


----------



## millerdrr (Jun 26, 2009)

I've only dealt with the NYC guys once, for a job that ended just before New Year's at the east end of Long Island. Their work was very good, but still average for union. NEI out of Minnesota set a pretty high bar for other union contractors. 

Normally, I get better results from union workers, although our non-union subcontractors have stepped up over the last few years. It's due to better communication from my bosses, more overall field supervision from me, and better job foremen from my company. Due to higher labor costs, union subs were getting more leadership. I've evened the playing field a bit, and the results from non-union labor improved dramatically.

It really seems to make a difference if the guys are regular employees of the subcontractor or are coming out of a hall. The hall guys have generally been decent, but the crew leaders that work 3000 hours a year with companies that heavily invest in training...wow, those guys sometimes make my regular employees look bad. That's not easy to do, considering the jobs are "cookie-cutter" for us, plus the fact that I generally have to train the subs how our modular wiring systems work (Reloc, Day-Brite, etc...) Even with the handicap of not knowing where lights/receptacles go without a blueprint, or very little experience with Reloc, a top-notch electrician can hold his own with my regular employees in just a few days.

I guess I'm just lucky; out of hundreds of subcontracted employees per year for nearly a decade, I've only came across two or three that were worthless, union or not. Maybe Lowes is kickin' them a lot bigger check than I get, but no matter what, some of these guys sure are motivated to perform.


----------



## retiredsparktech (Mar 8, 2011)

brian john said:


> Correct and the ad agencies will reap the benefits as both sides throw millions at it.


 Wisconsin is advertising heavily for pro-right to work status. It shows four workmen discussing, who was responsible for voting the union in. Naturally, they showed one inept buffoon, fumbling with a job. The other three said "it must have been him".


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

retiredsparktech said:


> Wisconsin is advertising heavily for pro-right to work status. It shows four workmen discussing, who was responsible for voting the union in. Naturally, they showed one inept buffoon, fumbling with a job. The other three said "it must have been him".


 
That buffon is the same guy used in every add for late nighh TV ads. Can't figure out how to use paper towels but hand him a ShamWow, and he cleans the world.:laughing:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

millerdrr said:


> I've only dealt with the NYC guys once, for a job that ended just before New Year's at the east end of Long Island. Their work was very good, but still average for union. NEI out of Minnesota set a pretty high bar for other union contractors.
> .


I should add all the new work I have seen in NYC was average to excellent.


----------



## JacksonburgFarmer (Jul 5, 2008)

I dont get the need for "non-right to work". It seems to me, that if the union is that good, and there men are that much faster, and better electricians, that they would not need such agreements to keep afloat. They would do so by being the best.

I guess this proves that they cannot keep afloat upon their own....without making everyone else pay higher taxes. 

If a person or company does not want to be union, they should not have to.....and no other person or people should be able to dictate otherwise.


----------



## Tom45acp (Sep 6, 2011)

I couldn't bring myself to read all seven pages of this thread, so I hope I'm introducing a couple of new factoids.

If you live in a right to work state you generally- pay a higher percentage of your pay in taxes, your schools are probably worse than the national average, your health care costs are higher and you spend a higher percentage of your income on necessities, such as food, shelter, etc. Oh, and you make less money.

When right to work started, only two right to work states had a median income higher than the national median income. Now, 60+ years later, right to work is so good that three right to work states now have a median income higher than the national median income.

One interesting thing I noticed a few years ago, when you visited a web site talking about how good right to work is, all you saw were words. When you went to a site that was against right to work, on the first page were plenty of statistics (courtesy of the U.S. Department of Labor) that showed you how much worse off you were likely to be.


----------



## JmanAllen (Aug 3, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> Cool good for rush....:thumbup:
> 
> Yes we all know where the money goes ,"The wage Control Party".


You can't tell me you support PETA if you do you have never researched them. They would put your dog down rather then let him be your pet


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

jrannis said:


> This is the brain washed ignorance that resides in a typical poor "right to poverty" state. If you think this is not the case, look to how the major producing states have a high standard of living and allow the working people to have a collective voice in the jobs that make it that way.


Like Detroit every high standard of living. How about another bailout. The auto companies are mostly at fault but the union will never take any blame will they?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

jrannis said:


> This is the brain washed ignorance that resides in a typical poor "right to poverty" state. If you think this is not the case, look to how the major producing states have a high standard of living and allow the working people to have a collective voice in the jobs that make it that way.


 
But of course everyone that disagrees with you is wrong. 

A very narrow minded approach to any issue.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> Excellent post, you missed one issue, extremely higher taxes, I have a very nice house on 10 acres in Loudoun County VA, (for the umpteenth year in a row named the richest county in America). My cousin lives in Monroe County NY, his real estate taxes on a small 3 bedroom rambles on 1/3 of an acre are higher than mine. Plus all other taxes exceed what VA hits you with.
> 
> 
> And you would be right with the underlined comment.
> ...


 
And all that earlier BULL S**T about not being able to get good electricians out of the union halls? REALLY? Your indian name should be "HE WHO TALKS OUT BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH".....You can't have it both ways and if I read this post correctly, your UNION guys are'nt doing such a bad job for you afterall....Regardless of any training you've given them after you hired them, sounds like the UNION has NOT diminished their work ethic....Many electricians are availed specialty classes by their employers...It's nothing new, it's called investing in your company, the cost of doing business.....Most of what an electrician learns is practical application on the job....If he's never done something before, it's ludicrous to think he will do it as quickly as somebody else who has done the same task repeatedly....I also looked at what it takes to get a J.W License in Virginia.....OH MY GOD....It's no where near what most other states require.....I'm surprised your not more pro-union....At least you can be assured they have a first rate electrical education and have to have a decent amount of hours on the job.....:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::cowboy::red_indian:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> And all that earlier BULL S**T about not being able to get good electricians out of the union halls? REALLY? Your indian name should be "HE WHO TALKS OUT BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH".....You can't have it both ways and if I read this post correctly, your UNION guys are'nt doing such a bad job for you afterall....Regardless of any training you've given them after you hired them, sounds like the UNION has NOT diminished their work ethic....Many electricians are availed specialty classes by their employers...It's nothing new, it's called investing in your company, the cost of doing business.....Most of what an electrician learns is practical application on the job....If he's never done something before, it's ludicrous to think he will do it as quickly as somebody else who has done the same task repeatedly....I also looked at what it takes to get a J.W License in Virginia.....OH MY GOD....It's no where near what most other states require.....I'm surprised your not more pro-union....At least you can be assured they have a first rate electrical education and have to have a decent amount of hours on the job.....:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::cowboy::red_indian:


I have NEVER posted that union workers were NO GOOD, but you seem to get that feeling. What based on your skill level?:yes:

What I said above is that union electricians were NO BETTER or NO WORSE than open shop electricians. That MOST union members are not pig headed, stuck up fools that in reality do not know 1/4 what they think they know.


Obviously you have NO IDEA what the difference between doing a decent conduit run and neat installation of panels and the type of work I do. Durn near anyone can do both, I am proff of that. BUT 

1. The union does not train for what we do.

2. I DO NOT TRUST anyone else BUT ME to hire my employees and if you do not understand that then you have no clue about running a business.

3. As far as what Virginia or other states require what states I carry numerous licenses. Whats your point.

The ABC in our area stacks up quite well when compared to the IBEW.

Look at many of the better electricians posting on this site UNION? or Open SHOP? 

I fail to see your point.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

jrannis said:


> Steve, you really got me with the "card check" thing. Can you tell me where this is done?


I believe HR800 is federal law

but how would you be informed if_ your_ vote is brought to the light of day?

so to answer your Q, anywhere you hear jackboots, along with the usual supporting cast members>>>










oh, and , look who else chimmed in>>>











there's really nothing quite like informing unions to _go to hades_ in the fashion that has them _cheerleading_ for the trip imho....

~CS~


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> I have NEVER posted that union workers were NO GOOD, but you seem to get that feeling. What based on your skill level?:yes:
> 
> What I said above is that union electricians were NO BETTER or NO WORSE than open shop electricians. That MOST union members are not pig headed, stuck up fools that in reality do not know 1/4 what they think they know.
> 
> ...


 My point is, I've seen your rants in other posts that don't paint a very good picture of union labor.....My point is also that if it comes down to you training a non-union vs union worker for a specific type of work, that union trained, I.E. apprenticed electricians have a better general knowledge to start with but many journeymen are already skill specific for what you require or at least in my neck of the woods.....:cowboy::red_indian:


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Theriot said:


> Like Detroit every high standard of living. How about another bailout. The auto companies are mostly at fault but the union will never take any blame will they?


The bailout that saved millions of jobs and an entire manufacturing base?

The money was well invested. There is no argument to the contrary.


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

cowboyznindianz said:


> My point is, I've seen your rants in other posts that don't paint a very good picture of union labor.....My point is also that if it comes down to you training a non-union vs union worker for a specific type of work, that union trained, I.E. apprenticed electricians have a better general knowledge to start with but many journeymen are already skill specific for what you require or at least in my neck of the woods.....:cowboy::red_indian:



So union electricians are trained better than non-union trained people? I have worked with both and in my experience, 
There is no difference between the two. Some great merit shop people and some great union trained guys. And and equal amount of duds on both sides.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

Mulder said:


> So union electricians are trained better than non-union trained people? I have worked with both and in my experience,
> There is no difference between the two. Some great merit shop people and some great union trained guys. And and equal amount of duds on both sides.


 Yes, in my opinion, union electricians whom have gone through the union apprenticeship are better trained....Yes, there are certainly exceptions on both sides of the fence which I have pointed out in earlier posts...Overall, the union electricians are better and there is a job ready pool in most circumstances....Occasionally, in my local at least, it has been a walk through where everyone is working and book 2 has cleared....This is not often but great when it happens....I am not saying that all non-union electricians are sub standard....I've worked with some great ones that have joined our local....For the most part, the ones I've worked with are so worried about production, that they sacrifice quality....If your good, you can produce quality work AND still make a profit....Believe it or not, quality will speak for itself and get you jobs.....:thumbsup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

jrannis said:


> The bailout that saved millions of jobs and an entire manufacturing base?
> 
> The money was well invested. There is no argument to the contrary.


 
so how's that workin' out?

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

cowboyznindianz said:


> Yes, in my opinion, union electricians whom have gone through the union apprenticeship are better trained....Yes, there are certainly exceptions on both sides of the fence which I have pointed out in earlier posts...Overall, the union electricians are better and there is a job ready pool in most circumstances....Occasionally, in my local at least, it has been a walk through where everyone is working and book 2 has cleared....This is not often but great when it happens....I am not saying that all non-union electricians are sub standard....I've worked with some great ones that have joined our local....For the most part, the ones I've worked with are so worried about production, that they sacrifice quality....If your good, you can produce quality work AND still make a profit....Believe it or not, quality will speak for itself and get you jobs.....:thumbsup:


 


an apprenticeship is not the _end all_ Cowboy

an electrician is the sum total of his experience(s), and what he chooses to gain from them

~CS~


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Mulder said:


> So union electricians are trained better than non-union trained people? I have worked with both and in my experience,
> There is no difference between the two. Some great merit shop people and some great union trained guys. And and equal amount of duds on both sides.



.........:laughing:


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> so how's that workin' out?
> 
> ~CS~


*General Motors Regains #1 CarMaker Spot*


General Motors has bounced back from bankruptcy and sold 9.026m vehicles last year to again claim the number one carmaker position.
General Motors regained its mantle as the world’s top-selling carmaker from Toyota last year, but faces a challenge to stay on top this year as its rival rebuilds its business after being affected by disasters in both Japan and Thailand.
GM, which has bounced back from bankruptcy less than three years ago, said on Thursday that it sold 9.026m vehicles last year, up 7.6% from 2010, with its Chevrolet brand setting a sales record of 4.76m.
The Detroit-based carmaker’s return to the top comes after its 2009 taxpayer-funded bankruptcy restructuring allowed it to cut spiralling legacy costs.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> an apprenticeship is not the _end all_ Cowboy
> 
> an electrician is the sum total of his experience(s), and what he chooses to gain from them
> 
> ~CS~


I wrote what I have found the overall rule to be....I did note that I have worked with some excellent non-union electricians...You did read that part did'nt you?:no:


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

jrannis said:


> *General Motors Regains #1 CarMaker Spot*
> 
> 
> General Motors has bounced back from bankruptcy and sold 9.026m vehicles last year to again claim the number one carmaker position.
> ...


Maybe the housing market will start going up again.....I think you can buy a city block with houses in Detroit for about 200k now......For another 5k you can have a street gang keep an eye on it for you...:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

cowboyznindianz said:


> I wrote what I have found the overall rule to be....I did note that I have worked with some excellent non-union electricians...You did read that part did'nt you?:no:


i nothing union or otherwise, ergo i do not need respond to what you precieve as addressing said concern Cowboy

read what i wrote!

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

jrannis said:


> *General Motors Regains #1 CarMaker Spot*
> 
> 
> General Motors has bounced back from bankruptcy and sold 9.026m vehicles last year to again claim the number one carmaker position.
> ...


 
lets get the whole story please>



> The Detroit-based automaker's return to the top slot comes as Japanese rival and former No. 1 seller Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) slips in the rankings *after an earthquake in **Japan** and deadly floods in Thailand hampered its production in 2011.*


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/20/us-gm-idUSTRE80J22H20120120

~CS~


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

brian john said:


> I do see men making about 80% of scale and with limited benefits.


Here in SC, a non-union journeyman makes bout 1/3 what I made in 1980. We are a right to work state. 



brian john said:


> NO ONE, not one poster has ever been able to tell me as an owner what benefits I get from being union. I am a small shop (27 years), 20 employees, all but one or two hired off the street, all union. One of the top firms in the area, hired by other EC's (open shop and union) to perform technical aspects they are not familar with.
> 
> Please tell me what the benefits are to me,
> 
> ...


Brian. Why are you a union contractor? 



brian john said:


> Who gives a crap. We are talking today
> Cry me another song, I have heard this song and dance too many times.
> Answer my questions.


I said the same thing about the constitution. Its old, outdated and you are all over it.



brian john said:


> What are the benefits to me as an owner?


If you have no incentive, why are you in this. I wonder if there is more to your story. For a union contractor, you sure do not sound like one. Do you vent this crap to your employees too!



jrannis said:


> The bailout that saved millions of jobs and an entire manufacturing base?
> The money was well invested. There is no argument to the contrary.


John. The bailout would have been a resounding success had a Republican had authored it. 



Mulder said:


> So union electricians are trained better than non-union trained people? I have worked with both and in my experience,
> There is no difference between the two. Some great merit shop people and some great union trained guys. And and equal amount of duds on both sides.


I have worked with both too. I found the union to have better trained people on average and the ability in most cases to handle the bigger jobs.



chicken steve said:


> so how's that workin' out?~CS~


I see three automobile manufactures still in business, with more and more American cars and trucks on the road. Seems like its working out okay.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chicken steve*
> _so how's that workin' out?~CS~_
> 
> I see three automobile manufactures still in business, with more and more American cars and trucks on the road. Seems like its working out okay.


Not if _'too big to fail'_ means they're on my tax $$$ anytime they have a bum year, and go before Congress with hat in hand it isn't

~CS~


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

jrannis said:


> The bailout that saved millions of jobs and an entire manufacturing base?
> 
> The money was well invested. There is no argument to the contrary.


You miss the point. The high standard of living in Detroit and how great unions where for business.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Theriot said:


> You miss the point. The high standard of living in Detroit and how great unions where for business.


 
now _that's_ a riot.....~CS~


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

That is what I was told that union states have a higher standard of living and that they are great for business.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

John Valdes said:


> John. The bailout would have been a resounding success had a Republican had authored it.
> 
> I see three automobile manufactures still in business, with more and more American cars and trucks on the road. Seems like its working out okay.





> John. The bailout would have been a resounding success had a Republican had authored it.


GM and Chrysler should have gone Bankrupt like any other company that mismanaged their money,,Instead they are run now by the government.

Did their prices go down? 

Nope they went up without skipping a beat and now their even more corrupted than before.

Their cars and trucks are priced so only upper class and the rich can afford to buy them ,The middle ,lower and impoverished class ,Shall take public transportation, ride bikes, or walk. Their Dream of Control of the masses has come true.




> I see three automobile manufactures still in business, with more and more American cars and trucks on the road. Seems like its working out okay.


There is only one American automobile manufacture and that is FORD,Ford did on take the money.

All others are Government owned corporations and that makes them UN American regardless of where they are built.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

_



That is what I was told that union states have a higher standard of living and that they are great for business. 

Click to expand...

_
_righto_

red states , just like the ones in the RTW map_ i posted_ have higher teen pregancy rates, while having the loudest christians

they have the highest welfare rates, fed handout rates, gun fatality rates

glad the association to the op wasn't completely lost.....

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> GM and Chrysler should have gone Bankrupt like any other company that mismanaged their money,,Instead they are run now by the government.
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

So if you work for gm and the union then you are on welfare being its government owned right? Lol


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

the concept of socialism doesn't change when it's doled out to the captians of industry any more than the welfare queens on the bad side of town Riot....~CS~


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> HARRY304E said:
> 
> 
> > GM and Chrysler should have gone Bankrupt like any other company that mismanaged their money,,Instead they are run now by the government.
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> chicken steve said:
> 
> 
> > They are already offering $10,000 to people who buy them.
> ...


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

I agree my taxes went to keep the union afloat in Detroit. Please unionize China and the Taliban


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

I wonder if any union employee would open their own business would pay the high wages and let the union dictate how he is going to run his company?


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

I love how Brian can eat you guys up and spit you out without one sensible answer coming from the union side.
Once again can anyone give one good reason for a smaller contractor to be a union contractor?


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

The union side always have a good comeback. Haven't you seen the times they called nonunion stupid and idiots and uneducated. Not to mention the south bashing. I know you but what am I?


----------



## s.kelly (Mar 20, 2009)

Aside from all the rest of this debate, there is more to the RTW issue than is being presented by either side here. Look up ALEC and see the drivers of this issue lately. 

Small shop issues notwithstanding, this is really about big corporations holding more of the power. The "corporate sponsors" of this legislative exchange council are writing wish list bills and handing them to legislators to take home as their own ideas. 

All else aside, there is something deeply wrong with giant corporations having this much power.


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

s.kelly said:


> Aside from all the rest of this debate, there is more to the RTW issue than is being presented by either side here. Look up ALEC and see the drivers of this issue lately.
> 
> Small shop issues notwithstanding, this is really about big corporations holding more of the power. The "corporate sponsors" of this legislative exchange council are writing wish list bills and handing them to legislators to take home as their own ideas.
> 
> All else aside, there is something deeply wrong with giant corporations having this much power.


Today's dreams to build your company enough and sell it for millions to the big guys. Who is to blame the big companies for wanting to buy the competitors or the small guy looking for the quick million?


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

I live in oil country all you have to do is build your company to four million in sells and big oil is at your door with a check. Who is the greedy one in this case the big oil or the guy who takes the check?


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

sbrn33 said:


> I love how Brian can eat you guys up and spit you out without one sensible answer coming from the union side.
> Once again can anyone give one good reason for a smaller contractor to be a union contractor?


 Yes, we can teach you what it means to stand for true AMERICAN VALUES and how to make a decent living wage....Hell, maybe even teach you something you don't already think you know about pride in your trade and quality in your work....You sure do seem to hang on Brian...What is he an athlete and you're his athletic supporter...:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::yes:


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Theriot said:


> I live in oil country all you have to do is build your company to four million in sells and big oil is at your door with a check. Who is the greedy one in this case the big oil or the guy who takes the check?


Where did this little troll come from all of a sudden?
Is this a new user name for one our old professional trolls?
IP address check please..


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

cowboyznindianz said:


> Yes, we can teach you what it means to stand for true AMERICAN VALUES and how to make a decent living wage....


 
you folks tout yourselves as being the epitome of true American values, 

yet you've confronted the very root of democracy by forgoing a secret ballot


you want a decent living, but pull others down to pull yourselves up to do it

you suck up to factions like the chamber of commerce, who have stood for the free traitors selling our manufacturing out to foriegn nationals

you said nothing about VAT, or other protectants, when they came to the table

specifically, just what _american value_ are you talking about?

~CS~


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> you folks tout yourselves as being the epitome of true American values,
> 
> yet you've confronted the very root of democracy by forgoing a secret ballot
> 
> ...


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jrannis said:


> Where did this little troll come from all of a sudden?
> Is this a new user name for one our old professional trolls?
> IP address check please..


What are you ,some kind of a snitch?:laughing::laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

jrannis said:


>


 
more like>>>


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

Wow now you can add troll to the list of come backs.


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

jrannis said:


> Where did this little troll come from all of a sudden?
> Is this a new user name for one our old professional trolls?
> IP address check please..


I don't like what he is saying so have him investigated. You must be in the government free speech is only for people who agree with you. I can give my info so you can do a background check if you like. By the way am not a troll I'm a little person


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> My point is, I've seen your rants in other posts that don't paint a very good picture of union labor.....My point is also that if it comes down to you training a non-union vs union worker for a specific type of work, that union trained, I.E. apprenticed electricians have a better general knowledge to start with but many journeymen are already skill specific for what you require or at least in my neck of the woods.....:cowboy::red_indian:


 
I have never made bad post about union workers WORKING, NEVER, NOPE. I have ranted about the slackers that try to intimidate open shop workers and have ranted recently about open shop workers doing the same.

I have a wide assortment of workers and guess what the open shop workers are as trainable as union members. Sometimes better as they are not as arrogant, though the arrogant types never last long with us. I doubt you have many unemployed test technicians and power quality experts in your local. Those types are seldom to never unemployed. 

You obvious bias shows in your belief that union members are somehow better that an open shop worker. This is not magic or brain surgery, it is electrical work. Give me a green apprentice, that shows up on time, has basic mechanical skills and is willing to work and I/we/you can turn him into an excellent electrician without ever mentioning union or open shop.

Look at it from a business stand point.

I worked countless 70-100 hours weeks for the last 27 years, I built up a decent and IMO impressive clientele list, that require top notch electricians, that are willing to be professional. I then have a truck that originally cost $20,000 in the early years now run me $30,000-$45,000; I also have test equipment that cost in the ball park of $3,000,000.00.

And you are going to tell me you would rely on a local representative that are very good at getting men off the bench, very concerned about keeping large firms being happy, that are trained in organizing and keeping to the letter of the law when dispatching members, but have little actual field experience, to pick an employee for you?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

jrannis said:


> The bailout that saved millions of jobs and an entire manufacturing base?
> 
> The money was well invested. There is no argument to the contrary.


 
There are plenty of arguments to the contrary.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> the concept of socialism doesn't change when it's doled out to the captians of industry any more than the welfare queens on the bad side of town Riot....~CS~


 
And industrial welfare is IMO a bigger problem that social welfare.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Some here call me anti-union:

I bet I have signed more workers at the hall than most of the super-union members on this forum, I also promote the union to workers and did promote it to open shop owners. I will no longer promote the union to open shop workers, due to an incident with the local.

I feel the union is best for the workers, generally better pay, better benefits and better retirement. All in all a win for the men.


When I worked in the field I spent 8 years trying to get into the IBEW, not because of some high and mighty crap spewed by some, but because of the pay, benefits and retirement. If it is good enough for me why wouldn't I want the same for my employees? I have known several die hard union members that spout the union line tooth and nail, start a company and go open shop, these owners seem to be to be two faced, hypocrites. 

I also am very concerned about me men, I want to have the best pay and benefits for them. I spend a lot of time and money on training I want to retain my employees. It is good for me and for my customers.


No pro union member has yet to be able to tell me a reason why I should be union.

I became union because as I noted it was good for me why shouldn't I offer that to my men.

In DC typically the best of the best in open shop usually go union for reason mentioned.

I had several customers that required union membership as a requirement of working in their facilities.

I feel I can sleep well at night knowing in my chosen field I have the best compensated men in the trade (for my area).

Now if that bothers you, sit in on a meeting of owners and see how many big shop owners would drop the union in a second flat if they had other options. Then see how many small shop owners are pro union (more than the big shops), but have grievances with the local. In business and life it is impossible to deal with all the different personalities (union, GC’s, inspectors, vendors, employees, accountants, business partners and……..) and not have some issues, by default management and organized labor are pitted against each other.

I do feel an area is better served if there is a mix of open shop and union.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> Some here call me anti-union:
> 
> I bet I have signed more workers at the hall than most of the super-union members on this forum, I also promote the union to workers and did promote it to open shop owners. I will no longer promote the union to open shop workers, due to an incident with the local.
> 
> ...


Okay...I'm really at a loss here....In one sentence you say, "No pro-union memeber has yet to be able to tell me a reason why I should be union". In the very next sentence, " I became union because as I noted it was good for me why should'nt I offer that to my men. Further down, you comment on some customers requiring union labor. Lets face it. Some people shop for the best price and some people shop for the best quality even if it costs a little more...:whistling2::cowboy::red_indian:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> Okay...I'm really at a loss here....In one sentence you say, "No pro-union memeber has yet to be able to tell me a reason why I should be union". In the very next sentence, " I became union because as I noted it was good for me why should'nt I offer that to my men. Further down, you comment on some customers requiring union labor. Lets face it. Some people shop for the best price and some people shop for the best quality even if it costs a little more...:whistling2::cowboy::red_indian:


 I can give you an answer, when you are repeatedly asked the question you have no viable answer, other than the ability to hire, which as I see it does not seem to be an issue here.

I KNOW why I am union, you have no clue or would not attempt an answer, or cannot come up with a legitimate reason, is it that really that complicated?

Best price can be union or open shop, around here jobs go both ways and best quality can be either the UNION does not have a lock on quality.

You do understand being union lowers my wages?


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> I can give you an answer, when you are repeatedly asked the question you have no viable answer, other than the ability to hire, which as I see it does not seem to be an issue here.
> 
> I KNOW why I am union, you have no clue or would not attempt an answer, or cannot come up with a legitimate reason, is it that really that complicated?
> 
> ...


 
If you lost your contracts that require union labor you would make less wages also....I have given you my answers which you said were not adequate reasons for you to have gone union, so why don't you tell me what your reasons were because you did mention that it was good for you and you wanted to give your employees the same opportunity you had....If I'm not mistaken, an opportunity is something positive not negative...What were your reasons from a small shop perspective?


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

If I agree with y'all will y'all stop calling me names. It's just like high school all over again. Internet wedges. Ohh the pain


----------



## millerdrr (Jun 26, 2009)

sbrn33 said:


> I love how Brian can eat you guys up and spit you out without one sensible answer coming from the union side.
> Once again can anyone give one good reason for a smaller contractor to be a union contractor?


My answer got lost in all the union/nonunion fighting. :laughing:

My company employees thirty people, yet we have contracts for remodeling/new construction for a corporation with over 3000 stores nationwide (service work is rare; usually handled by local contractors).

Sometimes, we need electricians, in large numbers, with local licenses that my employees do not have. Unions have very little trouble supplying me with enough qualified manpower to do the job. I'd love to supply my own guys, but I'd have to constantly hire/layoff/callback/layoff/callback nearly one thousand guys, plus practically purchase every van and truck for sale in the state.

Paying union wages is bad for my boss. Unfamiliar faces on so many job sites is bad for me. Yet, we MUST have the ability to meet the demand, or our customer will not hesitate to replace us.

I'm not sure what advantages might exist for an EC with a more "typical" business structure, but for us, dealing with one client, that tends to drop insane amounts of work on a two-week notice, and cancel just as quickly...union labor gives us piece-of-mind. Hope that helps...


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> If you lost your contracts that require union labor you would make less wages also....


HOPE as those companies now hire open shop, polus DC has changed in the last 27 years, more firms (large data corporations) that never ask, nor care.



> I have given you my answers which you said were not adequate reasons for you to have gone union, so why don't you tell me what your reasons were because you did mention that it was good for you and you wanted to give your employees the same opportunity you had....If I'm not mistaken, an opportunity is something positive not negative...What were your reasons from a small shop perspective?


Hiring is not an adequate answer, ask the open shop owners if hiring is an issue for them?

That is your main reason

Education, I see the same level in open shop men that attend ABC schools.

I posted my reasons above I do it for the men and at this time it is the only reason (besides contractual with the IBEW).

At a substantial cost to me, an average month for a company with 20 employees is $30,000 to the IBEW, plus 20% higher in wages to the men.

This money comes directly out of my pocket.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

millerdrr said:


> My answer got lost in all the union/nonunion fighting. :laughing:
> 
> My company employees thirty people, yet we have contracts for remodeling/new construction for a corporation with over 3000 stores nationwide (service work is rare; usually handled by local contractors).
> 
> ...


 
So, if you did not have the union to pull from, it's safe to say that it would be much more difficult to man your work with qualified labor...It also sounds like the company could stand a lot to lose if they did not have a pool of qualified workers at a moments notice....That answer does not suffice for some of the smaller shops but I'm glad the union is working out for your company....


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> So, if you did not have the union to pull from, it's safe to say that it would be much more difficult to man your work with qualified labor...


 I NEVER said that.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> HOPE as those companies now hire open shop, polus DC has changed in the last 27 years, more firms (large data corporations) that never ask, nor care.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What was the benefit you spoke of to yourself that was the reason you wanted to give your men the same opportunity? I'm not trying to bust your chops, I would really like to understand because some of your posts seem to counter one another and I dont want to miss the point....I understand about the wage thing to the contractors....I don't think it's wrong for a man to pursue his own business ventures but I also think the men working for him should have the right to good wages and benefits especially if they took the time to go through a specialized education to perform that trade....This is also a business that is prone to sometimes fatal accidents....Sometimes at the fault of the injured and sometimes not...Never the less, a job worth being compesated a good living wage for...


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> I NEVER said that.


 
Pay attention Brian....I posted in regards to a quote from MILLERDRR...Try to keep up and answer the question from my last post...:thumbup:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> What was the benefit you spoke of to yourself that was the reason you wanted to give your men the same opportunity? I'm not trying to bust your chops, I would really like to understand because some of your posts seem to counter one another and I dont want to miss the point....I understand about the wage thing to the contractors....I don't think it's wrong for a man to pursue his own business ventures but I also think the men working for him should have the right to good wages and benefits especially if they took the time to go through a specialized education to perform that trade....This is also a business that is prone to sometimes fatal accidents....Sometimes at the fault of the injured and sometimes not...Never the less, a job worth being compesated a good living wage for...


As an owner the union does not by nature work for my benefit,, such as giving a 6.00 raise in the midst of a depression. Additionally there is more cost to me for being a union contractor, no love there. My take home pay is substantially less than a comparable open shop contractor.

Today the only reason I am union is to benefit my employees. There is no real benefit to me, other than I sleep well at night knowing my men have one of the top work packages out there. Additionally I have a signed contract obligating me to remain union and I know if I went open shop many of my men would remain union, and that would impact my business in the short term.

Knowing what I know now I might have done thing differently 27 years ago.


----------



## millerdrr (Jun 26, 2009)

cowboyznindianz said:


> So, if you did not have the union to pull from, it's safe to say that it would be much more difficult to man your work with qualified labor...It also sounds like the company could stand a lot to lose if they did not have a pool of qualified workers at a moments notice....That answer does not suffice for some of the smaller shops but I'm glad the union is working out for your company....


Yes, absolutely. It's easy enough in an area where we can "supervise" a non-licensed guy from two hundred miles away, but when I have thirty seperate job sites pop up near the Great Lakes, and twenty more in New England, all set to begin within a month...IBEW eases my stress. Sure, my boss hates the bill, but that's life.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

But none of this has anything to do with Right TO Work, my initial question regarding this was.

Should the voters have the right to say YES or NO to Right to Work.

I do not think one union guy has answered this question.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

cowboyznindianz said:


> but I also think the men working for him should have the right to good wages and benefits especially if they took the time to go through a specialized education to perform that trade..


We should be paid what the market decides and if that is too little we can find another line of work.

Just because someone wants to be an electrician does not mean they have a right to higher than market wages.




> ..This is also a business that is prone to sometimes fatal accidents....


Yes, and the same is true for all occupations, many much more than ours.

Check out the statistics for a convenience or liquor store worker, does that mean they should get $50.00 an hour because they might get shot?

Life is full of personal choices, people should take more responsibility for their own choices.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

BBQ said:


> Yes, and the same is true for all occupations, many much more than ours.
> 
> .


 
Hookers and Taxi Drivers, very dangerous work.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> But none of this has anything to do with Right TO Work, my initial question regarding this was.
> 
> Should the voters have the right to say YES or NO to Right to Work.
> 
> I do not think one union guy has answered this question.


 
YES...Most definitely the voters should always have the right to vote whatever they choose...That's the benefit of a democracy...Is that straight forward enough for you?


----------



## millerdrr (Jun 26, 2009)

brian john said:


> Should the voters have the right to say YES or NO to Right to Work.


I don't think anything should ever be put on a ballot, other than the names of political candidates. Side issues added to the ballot tend to consist of divisive issues that couldn't make it through the legislature on its own merit. It exists as a "chicken sh*t" move by politicians without courage to stand on their convictions.

The legislature should decide on the Right-to-Work issue. If the citizens are unhappy with the result...replace the incumbents with guys who campaign on repeal.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

BBQ said:


> We should be paid what the market decides and if that is too little we can find another line of work.
> 
> Just because someone wants to be an electrician does not mean they have a right to higher than market wages.
> 
> ...


 
Our wage package is in step with prevailing wage....Whats the matter with that...The only difference is, prevailing wage pays your benefits on the check....Where's the problem?:blink:


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

millerdrr said:


> I don't think anything should ever be put on a ballot, other than the names of political candidates. Side issues added to the ballot tend to consist of divisive issues that couldn't make it through the legislature on its own merit. It exists as a "chicken sh*t" move by politicians without courage to stand on their convictions.
> 
> The legislature should decide on the Right-to-Work issue. If the citizens are unhappy with the result...replace the incumbents with guys who campaign on repeal.


 
There's always inherent danger of different groups losing something or in contrast, gaining something....I believe the issue should be the issue though, without pork filling if you know what I mean....I don't agree with a lot of legislation just because of that...It will never change unless man kind starts from scratch and learns from the past....Again, aint gonna happen...I stand by right to vote though if it's just on the issue with nothing attached...


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

cowboyznindianz said:


> Our wage package is in step with prevailing wage....Whats the matter with that...The only difference is, prevailing wage pays your benefits on the check....Where's the problem?:blink:


'Prevailing wage' is not really the market price, it is the market price including the unions contract prices which have been negotiated in most cases with strong arm tactics.

But you know that.

For myself, I have had opportunities to get in the union, once was what would have been great long term in house gig but I have always turned it down for my own reasons.

Would I make more money if I went IBEW?

Yeah very likely but for me there is much more to a job than money.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

BBQ said:


> 'Prevailing wage' is not really the market price, it is the market price including the unions contract prices which have been negotiated in most cases with strong arm tactics.
> 
> But you know that.
> 
> ...


 
We all do what we do for our own reasons and I respect that.....:thumbsup:


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

cowboyznindianz said:


> Our wage package is in step with prevailing wage....Whats the matter with that...The only difference is, prevailing wage pays your benefits on the check....Where's the problem?:blink:


 The problem is PW is an inflated wage. The actual number would be much lower if the government would use Dept of Labor numbers(which are accurate) instead of "voluntary" numbers submitted. But they will not do that because that would be the end of the unions.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

mgraw said:


> The problem is PW is an inflated wage. The actual number would be much lower if the government would use Dept of Labor numbers(which are accurate) instead of "voluntary" numbers submitted. But they will not do that because that would be the end of the unions.


 
And a major blow to an already devastated economy...


----------



## retiredsparktech (Mar 8, 2011)

Life is full of personal choices, people should take more responsibility for their own choices.[/quote]
Please quit telling the truth! You know it hurts some peoples feelings.:whistling2:


----------



## millerdrr (Jun 26, 2009)

cowboyznindianz said:


> There's always inherent danger of different groups losing something or in contrast, gaining something....I believe the issue should be the issue though, without pork filling if you know what I mean....I don't agree with a lot of legislation just because of that...It will never change unless man kind starts from scratch and learns from the past....Again, aint gonna happen...I stand by right to vote though if it's just on the issue with nothing attached...


Biggest issue with putting stuff on the ballot, it tends to be there solely because it is pitting one group against another, usually things like gay-marriage bans and abortion restrictions. Stuff that no legislator wants to take the fall for, in the event of failure.

Issues aren't placed on the ballot for voter free-choice, or because the government values your opinion...it's because they want to take advantage of you, and they are gambling that their PR machine is going to work better than the opponent's. 

If the media wouldn't have a fit, I'm sure there are legislators that would try removing rights to speedy trial, unlawful search/seizure, cruel and unusual punishments, etc...under some BS banner like "Caylee Anthony Memorial Law". :laughing:


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

cowboyznindianz said:


> And a major blow to an already devastated economy...


 Not really. Unions closed up shop around here years ago and our economy is doing much better than the national averages. Someone will always fill in and take the jobs unions used to do.


----------



## millerdrr (Jun 26, 2009)

mgraw said:


> The actual number would be much lower if the government would use Dept of Labor numbers(which are accurate)


On the website, their numbers for Davis-Bacon in my hometown is minimum wage, for all trades.


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

millerdrr said:


> On the website, their numbers for Davis-Bacon in my hometown is minimum wage, for all trades.


 I guess nobody submitted the "voluntary" forms.:laughing::laughing:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

.
I believe that if the union has a good mix of the work in an area and can keep their members working, the wages can be driven up by there being a strong union presence. 

I also believe a 100% union town screams for trouble. 

100% open shop and the wages are prone to be depressed, but if there is work for 100% of the electricians this will drive wages as men jump shops


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

brian john said:


> .
> I believe that if the union has a good mix of the work in an area and can keep their members working, the wages can be driven up by there being a strong union presence.
> 
> I also believe a 100% union town screams for trouble.
> ...


and i'd sign onto that Brian

but you are dying off at an alarming rate

and it would seem these's no saving your ilk due to this munchenhausen mindset

~CS~


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> and i'd sign onto that Brian
> 
> but you are dying off at an alarming rate
> 
> ...


 
Your tho thmart....:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

brian john said:


> .
> I believe that if the union has a good mix of the work in an area and can keep their members working, the wages can be driven up by there being a strong union presence.
> 
> I also believe a 100% union town screams for trouble.
> ...


A 100% union town would be bad. Who would the union look down upon? Lol


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

millerdrr said:


> I don't think anything should ever be put on a ballot, other than the names of political candidates. Side issues added to the ballot tend to consist of divisive issues that couldn't make it through the legislature on its own merit. It exists as a "chicken sh*t" move by politicians without courage to stand on their convictions.
> 
> The legislature should decide on the Right-to-Work issue. If the citizens are unhappy with the result...replace the incumbents with guys who campaign on repeal.


The initiative petition process is a last resort for a citizen and or a group of citizens to pass or repeal laws that their legislature refuses to pass or repeal.

It is very handy when a state is heavily controlled by one party and typically ignores the wishes of the majority of the people and panders to those in their district who will vote them in no matter what they do.

And so the people start the initiative petition process and gather enough verifiable signatures to get it on the ballot so that the people who have the right to bypass their legislature and governor can vote on the issue at hand.

Bottom line is the people have the ultimate say over A legislature and governor that chooses to ignore them.

The initiative petition process is not an easy task and there are many fire walls standing in the way to block the process and has to be perfect before it ever makes it on to the ballot.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> The initiative petition process is a last resort for a citizen and or a group of citizens to pass or repeal laws that their legislature refuses to pass or repeal.
> 
> It is very handy when a state is heavily controlled by one party and typically ignores the wishes of the majority of the people and panders to those in their district who will vote them in no matter what they do.
> 
> ...


thats actually pretty cool if a states have it


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Theriot said:


> A 100% union town would be bad. Who would the union look down upon? Lol


Any productive workers?
:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

*WARNING WARNING THE ABOVE COMMENT WAS A JOKE*


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

this is no joke.....


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

RIVETER said:


> It is not possible to strong arm someone into paying more than they can afford to pay.


I actually read the entire thread and this is the only thing I cared to reply to. It such a false statement.

PS ther is one person who is a complete a-hole in this thread. Everyone has their view and that's fine. But one person is particularly over the top and just a complete ****. No not Harry. :laughing:


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


> I actually read the entire thread and this is the only thing I cared to reply to. It such a false statement.
> 
> PS ther is one person who is a complete a-hole in this thread. Everyone has their view and that's fine. But one person is particularly over the top and just a complete ****. No not Harry. :laughing:


Fine it's me and sorry.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> No not Harry. :laughing:


Crap! i must be losing my edge...:laughing::laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

im-not so-ho, post #224 portrays the largest loss of 'edge' ~CS~


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> im-not so-ho, post #224 portrays the largest loss of 'edge' ~CS~


I don't see that..


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

AS usual this post was dragged in 5 directions, my main question that took countless pages to finally get an answer to was "Should the voters be allowed to vote on the issue"


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

brian john said:


> AS usual this post was dragged in 5 directions, my main question that took countless pages to finally get an answer to was "Should the voters be allowed to vote on the issue"


Yes they should if they took the time to get the question on the ballot then they should be able to vote on any issue that the legislature and governor chooses to ignore .

They are elected to do the peoples business not to ignore them when the voters want something that is inconvenient to them. 



BTW you can set your account to 50 posts per page so this would only be page 5 so far.


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

Oh that's what you wanted to know. Yes. There that was easy


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

Democracy is the most dangerous form of government.


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

brian john said:


> AS usual this post was dragged in 5 directions, my main question that took countless pages to finally get an answer to was "Should the voters be allowed to vote on the issue"


I thought the OPs question was what are the pros and cons of right to work?


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> The initiative petition process is a last resort for a citizen and or a group of citizens to pass or repeal laws that their legislature refuses to pass or repeal.
> 
> It is very handy when a state is heavily controlled by one party and typically ignores the wishes of the majority of the people and panders to those in their district who will vote them in no matter what they do.
> 
> ...


And then a liberal judge declares it unconstitutional so we're back to square one.:yes:


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

Mr Rewire said:


> Democracy is the most dangerous form of government.


:001_huh:


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

mgraw said:


> I thought the OPs question was* what are the pros and cons of right to work*?


*pros*; owners make more money
*cons*; workers make less money and less benefits


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

wendon said:


> And then a liberal judge declares it unconstitutional so we're back to square one.:yes:


So true..


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Mr Rewire said:


> Democracy is the most dangerous form of government.


Thankfully we have a constitutional Republic and not a democracy .

A republican form of government and not a democratic one.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Thankfully we have a constitutional Republic and not a democracy .
> 
> A republican form of government and not a democratic one.


Democracy is the base of this repulic government....


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

cowboyznindianz said:


> Democracy is the base of this repulic government....


Repulic?


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

Democracy is mob rule


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

backstay said:


> Repulic?


 OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

DEMOCRACY BASED: "To the republic for which it stands"...But it also says "one nation under GOD" but try telling that to the flag burners, atheist's and agnostics...That is a freedom afforded us by the constitution, but I'll bet our forefathers never saw this sh*t coming...To much power in the government because not enough people go to the polls...Sends a message loud and clear that the people don't care...


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

Mr Rewire said:


> Democracy is mob rule


 
What do you suggest Rewire,communism?:confused1:


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

How about monarchy ? How about king Cletis?


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

Theriot said:


> How about monarchy ? How about king Cletis?


 
TOO FUNNY THERIOT....:laughing::laughing::laughing::jester:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

cowboyznindianz said:


> OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
> 
> DEMOCRACY BASED: "To the republic for which it stands"...But it also says "one nation under GOD" but try telling that to the flag burners, atheist's and agnostics...That is a freedom afforded us by the constitution, but I'll bet our forefathers never saw this sh*t coming...To much power in the government because not enough people go to the polls...Sends a message loud and clear that the people don't care...


Add the folks who'll make your vote public knowledge , and i'm with you Cowbrain

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

This fits here>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

~CS~


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

cowboyznindianz said:


> Democracy is the base of this repulic government....


http://www.democracyisnotfreedom.com/

*‘Democracy’* The word can be heard daily—repeated by government officials, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, the media, academia, and our patriotic neighbors. Popular wisdom seems to dictate that whatever may be good about America has something to do with *‘*democracy*’* — _right?_ 
But if democracy is really what makes America great, why did the Founders establish the United States as a consitutional *republic* and *not* a *‘*democracy*’*? (It*’*s curious that *‘*public*’* (i.e., government) education has all but phased out such facts from what*’*s left of *‘*civics*’* and *‘*government*’* studies.)


The two foundational documents that protect the rights and property of individual Americans by limiting the federal
government*’*s power (the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence) don*’*t even once use any form of the word *‘*democracy*’* — and for good reason.
It is disturbingly instructive that, for the most part, American politicians, educators, and the *‘*news*’* media have simplistically described the United States as a *‘*democracy*’* for more than a century — yet the Founders expressed nothing but contempt for the very concept of a democracy


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> Add the folks who'll make your vote public knowledge , and i'm with you Cowbrain
> 
> ~CS~


 
Name calling? REALLY?....If everyone went to the polls instead of crying after the fact, especially the one's whom didn't bother to vote, maybe this country would be in better shape....It's up to us, (WE THE PEOPLE) to get our collective asses out to vote...:bangin:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

The collective are being coerced into believeing unions are _evil_ Cow, and they'll be out in the '12 to dole out thier socially engineered wrath

down the road of ife you can tell your grandkids stories about the _union_, which they'll have as much association to as _'onion' _, lest you intervien...

~CS~


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

George on Voting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

brian john said:


> George on Voting
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk


dearly missed.....~CS~


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

cowboyznindianz said:


> Name calling? REALLY?....If everyone went to the polls instead of crying after the fact, especially the one's whom didn't bother to vote, maybe this country would be in better shape....It's up to us, (WE THE PEOPLE) to get our collective asses out to vote...:bangin:


Better to have very few vote, most people have no grasp of the issues or candidates running for office. How many times have you seen a news clip of a voter saying they are voting for ______, because of the way they look! Brad Pitt ever runs for office, look out.


----------



## mrmike (Dec 10, 2010)

Quote: Do you understand electricians like me have a distaste for the union because of their selective choices of who works and who doesn't?



On the other side of the Coin, in a non-union shop all the brown nosers get all the goodies. It doesn't matter who is a better worker. 

I know of a non-union factory nearby that changed hands & downsized. Just guess on the employees that they kept!! Yep -all the brown nosers. It didn''t matter how many years anyone had like in a union.
I know this firsthand by some good friends & relatives that worked there.......
This is how "your right to work" works!!!


Also, on the question of voting on it- people are followers-and are led to believe the unions are no good-and right now there is only 12% union membership in this country-the deck is stacked,so would it be a fair vote???????? I answered your question!


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

backstay said:


> Better to have very few vote, most people have no grasp of the issues or candidates running for office. How many times have you seen a news clip of a voter saying they are voting for ______, because of the way they look! Brad Pitt ever runs for office, look out.


No news clip needed. Look at the White House. There is one reason and one reason only that the current president sits there. He is Black.

I always vote. It's a waste of my time.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> http://www.democracyisnotfreedom.com/
> 
> *‘Democracy’* The word can be heard daily—repeated by government officials, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, the media, academia, and our patriotic neighbors. Popular wisdom seems to dictate that whatever may be good about America has something to do with *‘*democracy*’* — _right?_
> But if democracy is really what makes America great, why did the Founders establish the United States as a consitutional *republic* and *not* a *‘*democracy*’*? (It*’*s curious that *‘*public*’* (i.e., government) education has all but phased out such facts from what*’*s left of *‘*civics*’* and *‘*government*’* studies.)
> ...












A couple of interesting re-posts on the subject:

"USA is not a democracy - it is a republic (justification to deny voting rights)"
I hear this a lot from conservatives. I would urge everyone to simply "remind" said conservative that a "republic" is just a nation without a king. It has nothing to do with whether it's a democracy or not. China and North Korea are both republics (it's actually in their names!) as is the Republic of Ireland a democracy. So that argument actually makes no sense.



----------------------USA is not a democracy - it is a republic​I've heard this one before, and it upsets me whenever it oozes from someone's mouth. People who use the republic, not democracy reasoning to deny voter rights are worse than shallow because they're trying to be pedantic ( this is a Chicken Steve word, you might have to look it up) but failing miserably at it.
The true pedantry here is the United States Government is a constitutional republic with democratic institutions. To understand this sentence people need to know how the words are generally defined.
The term Republic distilled to it's simplest form as a way to describe our current form of government is an institution that isn't a monarchy (hereditary rule by one person). In a Democracy all citizens have an equal vote and say in public matters, so to follow the logic of those who would deny others voting rights means anyone denied said rights (usually minorities, but often times women and young as well) are not citizens.
We are functionally a democracy, the word is good enough for our purposes in this country, and we need our democratic institutions, not  just the vote but the Bill of Rights as well, to defend everyone (especially the minority voice in a given issue) not just from tyranny of the government but from tyranny of the majority.

----------------------

*The induction:*

I think it is interesting that all of the Coocoo's have the same "talking points" 

Repost from Googlepus:

I typically use unbiased or progressive sources for my news and politics, so for one week i decided to limit myself to conservative shows on Fox and websites like the DrudgeReport. I had of course seen clips from Fox shows and even caught an episode or two years ago but I hadn't sat down for multiple episodes in a row like a true fan. 
My thesis going into my little experiment was that I would find that the conservative sources were more accurate and less cartoonishly biased and ridiculous than how they were portrayed in my typical news sources. My experience surprised me:


*The Facade of Debate:* If I only watched shows like The Five, The O'Reilly Factor and America Live with Megyn Kelly I would think that progressives were all weak, dim, unable to argue even basic issues, and that they didn't believe in their overly convoluted (read: not common sense) rationalizations. The Five is a show with five hosts, where 2 co-alpha males and 2 attractive females belittle an overweight, gray haired buffoon who throws out half arguments then defeatedly nods and exhales as the confident and dismissive conservatives set him straight. On one episode of the O'Reilly factor, they had a segment on the health care birth control controversy and they brought on a small time radio radio host who would make half a point, get cut off and mocked in a dismissive manner (pattern!) by O'Reilly then giggle and acquiesce. In O'Reilly's other segments, Geraldo Rivera and Bernard Goldberg, the latter a conservative and the former a Fox reporter and dullard, would again half-heartedly make one or two "progressive" arguments then be set straight by O'Reilly.
*The Online Echo Chamber, or How To Self-Censor The Greatest Tool For Communication and Information Since The Printing Press:* So the CBO released a new budget projection for Obama's health care plan over 9 years, the big (true) story was that the new projection was billions less than a previous projection and if you searched for articles from non-partisan sources that's exactly what you learned. However when I did a search for "CBO cost health care legislation" over the first 24 hrs, I got a very different result. For me, the very first result was a Washington Examiner article where the journalist proclaims that the CBO budget shows a 1.76 trillion dollar cost to Obamacare, which he says is nearly double Obama's original claim of around 900 billion. The problem here is that his cost is a *gross* cost- it doesn't take into account offsetting revenue and spending reductions which would bring the cost down to ~1 trillion which is what the non partisan sources are reporting. Seems like a clearly, egregiously misleading statement on the reporter's part and surely one that would be quickly rebutted by other sources telling the truth. The problem is that if you went to any conservative site over the first 24 hrs, literally every single site referred to the washington examiner article alone and made the same claim, that Obama lied about the costs by nearly 100%. If you remember the recent study that showed that Fox News viewers are actually less informed than people who don't watch news at all, you can now see exactly how this happens.
 Finally-


*Talking Points As Journalism:* Prior to my week of Conservative media I saw a Daily Show segment about a Conservative talking points memo that Fox News's Steve Doocy erroneously read on the air. Indeed, the most striking part of my experience was how consistently the same set of talking points were made across all Conservative media. On every show and every website the same "common sense" conclusions were made by both "opinion" pundits like O'Reilly and supposedly objective Fox reporters: a) gas prices were not only controllable by the president but the current price was the result of his energy policy (not the shutting down of refineries on the east coast, not the massive consumption growth by the worlds two most populous countries China and India, and not Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz-> a situation that is conveniently being exacerbated by US conservatives' saber rattling), b) Obama lied about Health Care costs by 100% as I explained earlier, and c) Bill Maher's use of the word **** in describing Palin was equivalent to Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut and Obama was hypocritical to not return Maher's donation. I heard these same points hammered into my head over and over again, without any sort of nuance or debate. Even if your media consumption included non-partisan sources, it would be incredibly challenging to not buy into the only arguments being set forth by every conservative news source that you at least respected enough to consume. If you believe that Fox's reportage is compartmentalized from its pundit echo chamber, as they claim, then you have no chance whatsoever. The day after the CBO budget was released, every supposedly unbiased Fox reporter's focus was on the 900 billion to 1.76 trillion dollar gap or on gas prices and the president's early refusal of the Keystone Oil pipeline.
 In Conclusion, if you're like me and you avoided Conservative news sources like the plague not because they were conservative but because you suspected the reportage was terrible, you were right. And if you feel comfortable in Obama's chances for reelection, mostly because of poor competition, don't underestimate just how misinformed conservatives and right leaning independents may be.


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

jrannis said:


> A couple of interesting re-posts on the subject:
> 
> "USA is not a democracy - it is a republic (justification to deny voting rights)"
> I hear this a lot from conservatives. I would urge everyone to simply "remind" said conservative that a "republic" is just a nation without a king. It has nothing to do with whether it's a democracy or not. China and North Korea are both republics (it's actually in their names!) as is the Republic of Ireland a democracy. So that argument actually makes no sense.
> ...


Is there going to be a test on this. I haven't wrote any of this down


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> http://www.democracyisnotfreedom.com/
> 
> *‘Democracy’* The word can be heard daily—repeated by government officials, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, the media, academia, and our patriotic neighbors. Popular wisdom seems to dictate that whatever may be good about America has something to do with *‘*democracy*’* — _right?_
> But if democracy is really what makes America great, why did the Founders establish the United States as a consitutional *republic* and *not* a *‘*democracy*’*? (It*’*s curious that *‘*public*’* (i.e., government) education has all but phased out such facts from what*’*s left of *‘*civics*’* and *‘*government*’* studies.)
> ...


 
A republic is where sovereignty rests with the individual person and democracy, it rests with the collective group...
So it could be argued that the Presidential elections are of a democratic nature and not republic...The electoral college demands that...If it was republican in nature, It would be a vote for a vote..,Local elections are of a republican nature....In light of this, I would again say we are a nation of both forms of government....

:thumbup1:Standardized testing across the states:thumbup1:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

this mornings bloated blather of blinding jingoism doesn't cover the fact that unions decided to institute employee free choice , every bit an orwellian misnomer in nature as the patriot act

~CS~


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> this mornings bloated blather of blinding jingoism doesn't cover the fact that unions decided to institute employee free choice , every bit an orwellian misnomer in nature as the patriot act
> 
> ~CS~[/quote
> 
> ...


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

cowboyznindianz said:


> A republic is where sovereignty rests with the individual person and democracy, it rests with the collective group...
> So it could be argued that the Presidential elections are of a democratic nature and not republic...The electoral college demands that...If it was republican in nature, It would be a vote for a vote..,Local elections are of a republican nature....In light of this, I would again say we are a nation of both forms of government....
> 
> :thumbup1:Standardized testing across the states:thumbup1:





> So it could be argued that the Presidential elections are of a democratic nature


It is not democratic in nature because it is not a direct vote 1 for 1

The electoral college prevents that by giving the minority states a voice.

Without the electoral college it would be the majority vote that wins every time that means the blue states would have control all the time because they have more voters than the red states ,That is what democracy is 51% controls the other 49% of the people "Mob Rule" And that is why the founders did not form a Democratic goverment.

They formed a Republican government..

*Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government*

http://www.electriciantalk.com/xconst_A4Sec3.html

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec4.html


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> It is not democratic in nature because it is not a direct vote 1 for 1
> 
> The electoral college prevents that by giving the minority states a voice.
> 
> ...


I agree with that as I have stated but that is not the case in our local elections which would imply that they are democratic by nature and definition....:yes:


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Paying Dues would not be a problem if they were using the dues to support the men who are in the Union .
> 
> We all know what they are doing with the money instead and that is why people are voting their states to go Right to work.


 
My union has a benevolent fund that helps brothers and there families out in dire strait circumstances....Can I account for every penny spent by our union....As far as health and welfare costs and how investments fair, yes but I can't account for every cent overall...So if you yourself know then please share....Nobody is ever going to agree where every dime is spent....Kind of like having to pass the pork if you want to pass the bill....:whistling2::laughing:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

A letter to citizens that in the past havwe made donations to:
NAtional Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.



> This week, Indiana's popular Right to Work law officially took effect -- and the much-needed legislation is already paying off.
> 
> "I probably underestimated how important an addition to our already excellent business climate (Right to Work) was going to be," Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels told the press this week after identifying 31 companies considering creating jobs in the Hoosier State now that it protects worker freedom.
> 
> ...


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

double post


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

This is the kind of discussion that should be held in the schools. Whiteout the left's name calling. Bring back the debate classes. Sometimes I wounded if the government even cares about educating the youth. It seems like they push them through to the work force so they can become another source of taxable income. I'm not blaming the teachers union. I don't want be called names again. ( they should takes some of it).


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

> On the other side of the Coin, in a non-union shop all the brown nosers get all the goodies. It doesn't matter who is a better worker.


You realize this statement is about as stupid as the open shop worker saying all union electricians are slackers.


Typically in a open shop all the good workers get all the goodies, brown nosers that are not productive join the union. Now that is as ludicrous as what you posted.

Your statement has no merit


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> Union bosses know that for decades the courts have upheld Right to Work laws while acknowledging the fundamental conflict between compulsory unionism and freedom of association.


this is _complete bs_ if they know how you voted, and can confront you on it

~CS~


----------



## fortyfiveguy (Mar 18, 2012)

brian john said:


> That is great for assembly line type work for large companies.
> 
> NO ONE, not one poster has ever been able to tell me as an owner what benefits I get from being union. I am a small shop (27 years), 20 employees, all but one or two hired off the street, all union. One of the top firms in the area, hired by other EC's (open shop and union) to perform technical aspects they are not familar with.
> 
> ...


 
there isnt any love between the union and owners...but at least you can see that you are doing right by your guys. that in itself tells me your a decent human being and actually care that your guys can support themselves and thier families. if you want a little more input with your local you can always try for the E-Board or your LU equivilent. in my local it is made up of contractors, union officials, and local wiremen.


----------



## fortyfiveguy (Mar 18, 2012)

JacksonburgFarmer said:


> I dont get the need for "non-right to work". It seems to me, that if the union is that good, and there men are that much faster, and better electricians, that they would not need such agreements to keep afloat. They would do so by being the best.
> 
> I guess this proves that they cannot keep afloat upon their own....without making everyone else pay higher taxes.
> 
> If a person or company does not want to be union, they should not have to.....and no other person or people should be able to dictate otherwise.


im fine with that, but at the same time should they be able to benefit from bargaining power of the local union without have to support it? because thats exactly what those dues we pay go to cover. this "right to work" is nothing more than union busting tactics. if enough people decide they want union backing without paying for it what happens to the union, bankrupt. $10 goin out, $5 comin in doesnt wash for very long...


----------



## fortyfiveguy (Mar 18, 2012)

*replies to various posts*

as for "right to work" laws, as far as i can tell they allow any person off the street to hire on with a company and take home not what the union equivilant takes home, but what thier entire benefits package is worth, without oweing a single cent to the union. this cant go on for long. if enough workers decide to go this route the union will eventually have to close its doors. at that point everyone who took advantage of the union will find thier wages slowly decreasing without the unions bargaining power behind them. all it would take is anther person showing up at the bosses door offering to work for less, and your out on your ass. 
next, union dues and how they're spent...US depatment of labor, its publicly disclosed and has to be according to federal law. if you want to know how much your BA is making a year, just look. also in my local we can opt out of any political donations from our dues if we want to. to all the people complaining about paying our reps for nothing...in my local, they work out of a small office here in town. they are there in the am for dispatch, after that they are usually gone till the end of the day dealing with organizing, greivances on jobsites, and general job visits to let the workers know they are there if needed. most of these people work 8-10 hours a day. if you want to complain about paying them try working for free for a week...just because they are not twisting wirenuts doesnt mean they deserve any less than we get. hell, they ARE the reason you get as much as you do. recently in my local we had someone pass an amendment to make thier pay equal to 40 hours at 10% over scale (foreman pay) because they felt they were being overcompensated. it turns out it backfired on him. our reps are now logging every second of overtime, which they are due, and are effectively costing the local more money.
ill probly get a few nay sayers for this post, which im fine with. new poster and all. but before you start know that i have been with the union for 6 years now, and worked for an open shop for 10 years before that. i lucked out in that the open shop where i did my apprenticeship actually payed for a 4 year state accredited course, before WA made that a law.
i have worked both sides of the fence, and know the pros and cons for both. i prefer working for the union, wages, benefits. 

now im gonna list some things that the union members might recognize:

1) organize all workers in the entire electrical industry in the US and Canada.
2)to promote reasonable methods of work
3)to cultivate feelings of friendship among workers of our industry
4)to settle all disputes between employees and employers by arbitration
5)to assist each other in sickness or distress
6)to secure employment
7)to reduce the hours of daily labor
8)to secure adequate pay for our labor
9)to seek higher and higher standard of living
10)to seek security for the individual

And by legal and proper means to elevate the moral, intellectual and social conditions of our members, their families and dependants in the interest of a higher standard of citizenship.

all you union hands out there should know what these are and what they represent, for you others, these are the tenets of the IBEW. this is what we strive for through bargaining and the sweat of our brow on a daily basis. i for one would like to see my children go through college and sit behind a desk making LOTS of money, not sweating in a ditch for 10 hours a day for a check that barely covers the bills. so many people feel that we are overpayed, and i used to feel this way myself. what i want for myself now is a "livable" wage. and before you ask, im gonna tell you what that is. a livable wage is one that allows me to work 40 hours a week, cover all my bills, save some money, and allow my wife to stay home and raise our family if she so chooses. as workers in this country, we havent seen a livable wage since shortly after WWII. what in the hell happened?
GREED! greed by the few, made from the majority. i myself am happy if i can cover my bills with a little left over for playing around. i have no delusions of being rich, nor would i ever want to be. i know rich people, if they're not worried someone is trying to take their money they're worried about how they're gonna make more. how much is enough? and to end this, when will we as workers have taken enough to finally do something about this?


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

brian john said:


> A letter to citizens that in the past havwe made donations to:
> NAtional Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.


Indiana's right to poverty decisicion should have gone on the ballot as "Hoosier's getting hosed"


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

jrannis said:


> Indiana's right to poverty decisicion should have gone on the ballot as "Hoosier's getting hosed"


 
Why? Because a small percentage of the work force wants to hold hostage the other tax payers?


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

fortyfiveguy said:


> as for "right to work" laws, as far as i can tell they allow any person off the street to hire on with a company and take home not what the union equivilant takes home, but what thier entire benefits package is worth, without oweing a single cent to the union. this cant go on for long. if enough workers decide to go this route the union will eventually have to close its doors. at that point everyone who took advantage of the union will find thier wages slowly decreasing without the unions bargaining power behind them. all it would take is anther person showing up at the bosses door offering to work for less, and your out on your ass.
> next, union dues and how they're spent...US depatment of labor, its publicly disclosed and has to be according to federal law. if you want to know how much your BA is making a year, just look. also in my local we can opt out of any political donations from our dues if we want to. to all the people complaining about paying our reps for nothing...in my local, they work out of a small office here in town. they are there in the am for dispatch, after that they are usually gone till the end of the day dealing with organizing, greivances on jobsites, and general job visits to let the workers know they are there if needed. most of these people work 8-10 hours a day. if you want to complain about paying them try working for free for a week...just because they are not twisting wirenuts doesnt mean they deserve any less than we get. hell, they ARE the reason you get as much as you do. recently in my local we had someone pass an amendment to make thier pay equal to 40 hours at 10% over scale (foreman pay) because they felt they were being overcompensated. it turns out it backfired on him. our reps are now logging every second of overtime, which they are due, and are effectively costing the local more money.
> ill probly get a few nay sayers for this post, which im fine with. new poster and all. but before you start know that i have been with the union for 6 years now, and worked for an open shop for 10 years before that. i lucked out in that the open shop where i did my apprenticeship actually payed for a 4 year state accredited course, before WA made that a law.
> i have worked both sides of the fence, and know the pros and cons for both. i prefer working for the union, wages, benefits.
> ...


#3 is a good one, is that what you're doing when you call me a rat or scab?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

backstay said:


> #3 is a good one, is that what you're doing when you call me a rat or scab?


Don't be messing things up with good questions, just accept that everything the unions have done or will do is good for everyone.:laughing:


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

backstay said:


> #3 is a good one, is that what you're doing when you call me a rat or scab?


Same here. The union yards I worked in never was welcoming. Some came around others didn't. One guy was a real pain. When I asked one of his fellow union members what was his problem. I was told because I don't have a patch.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

backstay said:


> #3 is a good one, is that what you're doing when you call me a rat or scab?


I have yet to see a union member call anyone a 'rat or scab' on this forum, and yes, there has been many heated union/non-union debates here thru the years.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> Pro= you will not be forced to pay union dues to be a Union Member.
> 
> Con = If you like being forced to pay union Dues to be in a union and live in a high cost of living state then you will be out of luck.:thumbsup:


...I have yet to see a non union guy complain about pay/benefits when on a prevailing rate job. In fact, most hope it doesn't end!!!


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

If these union guys are so superior what is the problem. My Sh-Ty work and lack of know how should only make them look good. Trust some of them I could only wish for their experience


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> Pro= you will not be forced to pay union dues to be a Union Member.
> 
> Con = If you like being forced to pay union Dues to be in a union and live in a high cost of living state then you will be out of luck.:thumbsup:


 ................


----------



## fortyfiveguy (Mar 18, 2012)

backstay said:


> #3 is a good one, is that what you're doing when you call me a rat or scab?


are you intentionally trying to start an arguement with your ignorance? maybe you should read the whole post instead of what sticks out because theres numbers in front of it. if you read the whole post you will see i spent 10 years working for non union shops. the unions started as a means to end corporate abuse of workers. long hours, low pay, dangerous conditions. one of the men who started it did so after losing his arm on the job, working as a lineman. 

rat is a term used occasionally that i hate to hear, it goes against tenet #1. scab is a term that is used to to describe non union workers from time to time, usually in the users ignorance because they dont know what it means in the first place. what a "scab" actually is is someone who crosses a "legally" backed picket line to work for a company that has shut out its workers. and by "legally" i mean backed by the union, not just a bunch of disgruntled workers sitting out front because they got let go.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

jrannis said:


> Indiana's right to poverty decisicion should have gone on the ballot as "Hoosier's getting hosed"


There's very little union in my area so if the worker doesn't perform like he should, he gets FIRED. That's the sad thing with union is the workers with work ethics make those without look bad.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

Theriot said:


> If these union guys are so superior what is the problem. My Sh-Ty work and lack of know how should only make them look good. Trust some of them I could only wish for their experience


 where did anyone state you have shi..y work or lack knowledge?


----------



## fortyfiveguy (Mar 18, 2012)

Theriot said:


> Same here. The union yards I worked in never was welcoming. Some came around others didn't. One guy was a real pain. When I asked one of his fellow union members what was his problem. I was told because I don't have a patch.


so you've never been to a non union job where there was someone you couldnt get along with? every job is going to come with people you can work with and people you cant, e.g., grumpy old bastards, the world is full of em. theres also my personal favorites, the ones who are always right until they're wrong, and then its your fault for not catching the mistake.
i can say in six years in the union, its about 50/50 for nice or not. and we still have a lot of the old timers around that still firmly believe in the FBI clause, father, brother, in-law. its usually these that spend the most time bitching about how all the "rats" they let in are ruining the union, while the rest of us are finishing the job. we are slowly losing our dead weight and coming back.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

has anyone seen Noah? :laughing: :no:


Unions are for those that can't think for or make it themselves. Ya know, democrat voters.


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

360max said:


> where did anyone state you have shi..y work or lack knowledge?


My father ok there. No it was being sarcastic and meant to funny. I'm a nonunion comedian sorry. Lol


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

Theriot said:


> My father ok there. No it was being sarcastic and meant to funny. I'm a nonunion comedian sorry. Lol


Shame on you. All those comedians out of work and you try cutting into the job market!!!:laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

fortyfiveguy said:


> for both. i prefer working for the union, wages, benefits.
> 
> now im gonna list some things that the union members might recognize:
> 
> ...


uhuh......lesse how that's workin' out.........>


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> uhuh......lesse how that's workin' out.........>


Wow, that graph looks pretty bad. OH well, those of us who are left are making great money, and the company we work for is...as well.


----------



## fortyfiveguy (Mar 18, 2012)

RIVETER said:


> Wow, that graph looks pretty bad. OH well, those of us who are left are making great money, and the company we work for is...as well.


as i said in my original post, FBI clause. father, brother, in-law. ive had to deal with it even now. it started near as i can tell sometime during the sixties. i dont think many of the IBEWs members in that era were very forward thinking. they stated themselves that they wanted a higher and higher standard of living. now for me, that means my kids are goin to college and becoming doctors or lawyers. if that trend took off, then that means their membership drops. to date the unions across this country have one enemy worse than all the rest put together, themselves. in my union, they handed away residential work in the 70s or so because they felt it was beneath their skills. in the 60s it was nepotism. im sure the IBEW isnt the only union to have shot themselves in the foot this way. and the worst part is a lot of these stupid and outdated ideals are still practiced. one of the worst is nepotism. they might be hiring "rats" but for the most part its still a closed membership club. in 6 years i have never run a crew or job, but did it regularly before joining. every job i go to these days its the same "good ol boy" club running the jobs. what they fail to realize is that while they might hae retired before it goes completly to hell, they will still have to rely on present employees to keep their pensions goin. no membership, no pension. ignorance and closemindedness are ruining not only unions and good paying jobs, but this country as well. it has reached epidemic proportions and yet, the public at large so far has sat on their assses and done nothing. im lucky, i married a canadian, if it falls apart i still have an option up north, not sure bout the rest of you...


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

fortyfiveguy said:


> as i said in my original post, FBI clause. father, brother, in-law. ive had to deal with it even now. it started near as i can tell sometime during the sixties. i dont think many of the IBEWs members in that era were very forward thinking. they stated themselves that they wanted a higher and higher standard of living. now for me, that means my kids are goin to college and becoming doctors or lawyers. if that trend took off, then that means their membership drops. to date the unions across this country have one enemy worse than all the rest put together, themselves. in my union, they handed away residential work in the 70s or so because they felt it was beneath their skills. in the 60s it was nepotism. im sure the IBEW isnt the only union to have shot themselves in the foot this way. and the worst part is a lot of these stupid and outdated ideals are still practiced. one of the worst is nepotism. they might be hiring "rats" but for the most part its still a closed membership club. in 6 years i have never run a crew or job, but did it regularly before joining. every job i go to these days its the same "good ol boy" club running the jobs. what they fail to realize is that while they might hae retired before it goes completly to hell, they will still have to rely on present employees to keep their pensions goin. no membership, no pension. ignorance and closemindedness are ruining not only unions and good paying jobs, but this country as well. it has reached epidemic proportions and yet, the public at large so far has sat on their assses and done nothing. im lucky, i married a canadian, if it falls apart i still have an option up north, not sure bout the rest of you...


Damn I was banking on my 401k. I could of just hooked up with a Canadian. Firing my financial adviser tomorrow. Let's see what was is name Bernie something.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

fortyfiveguy said:


> as i said in my original post, FBI clause. father, brother, in-law. ive had to deal with it even now. it started near as i can tell sometime during the sixties. i dont think many of the IBEWs members in that era were very forward thinking. they stated themselves that they wanted a higher and higher standard of living. now for me, that means my kids are goin to college and becoming doctors or lawyers. if that trend took off, then that means their membership drops. to date the unions across this country have one enemy worse than all the rest put together, themselves. in my union, they handed away residential work in the 70s or so because they felt it was beneath their skills. in the 60s it was nepotism. im sure the IBEW isnt the only union to have shot themselves in the foot this way. and the worst part is a lot of these stupid and outdated ideals are still practiced. one of the worst is nepotism. they might be hiring "rats" but for the most part its still a closed membership club. in 6 years i have never run a crew or job, but did it regularly before joining. every job i go to these days its the same "good ol boy" club running the jobs. what they fail to realize is that while they might hae retired before it goes completly to hell, they will still have to rely on present employees to keep their pensions goin. no membership, no pension. ignorance and closemindedness are ruining not only unions and good paying jobs, but this country as well. it has reached epidemic proportions and yet, the public at large so far has sat on their assses and done nothing. im lucky, i married a canadian, if it falls apart i still have an option up north, not sure bout the rest of you...


 
it's unfortunate that it's come to this 45guy, some of us know the history, as well as the impact of union history

American labor has been under attack for some time now, the political side of it has sold labor out with nafta, gatt, free trade, wto, vat, along with tax incentives engineered to _reward _those doing so

now the unions have become a political kicking post, targets, we've seen Wisconsins public ones suffer the slings and arrows , and the phenomenon is metastasizing across the nation 

http://www.unionfreeamerica.com/

Yet all i read from the majority of you is this animal farm mentality, which almost always ends with a _'gee we're the two legged electricians , and all you'se four legged ones best be lookin' up at us'_ mentality

Your leaders have been asleep at the legislative wheel .

The concept of collective barganing tetters on the edge of oblivion.

And the best you folks can do to promote yourselves is pull yourselves up by pulling others down

The very same _others_ who outnumber you ten to one , evident in places like this forum, who your ilk _could _have as allies , alienated in a flurry of rapacious denigration

~CS~


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

CS,

While labor may have been taking it in the cuff, much of what they are reaping they sowed. While member will tell you about how they suffered for us, they fail to explain what they did to alienate the American public. Strikes in WWII which did little to help their image and countless strikes in the 50's and 60's that did little to help the public in general. Union members damaging equipment at their places of employment and general misbehavior which turn many against them. Not to mention the corruption and organized crime in many unions.

As for NAFTA and the like, everybody has their opinion on these free trade agreements, and I really do not know how much they hurt or possibly helped us. I do know there is little the government could do to stop the globalization of the world markets. It started with airplanes and large scale communications shrinking the world.

The America of pre WWII is gone and we need to adapt. The unions still talk about 1900-1941 and ignore that times are different, they really need to get their heads out of the sand and work to improve their image. But in lieu of this they act like asses as seen in several cases where states in attempting to control budgets ask unions for relief.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

360max said:


> I have yet to see a union member call anyone a 'rat or scab' on this forum, and yes, there has been many heated union/non-union debates here thru the years.


And this forum has what to do with the real world?

The fact is if one of the IBEWs goals is _"to cultivate feelings of friendship among workers of our industry"_ as was stated by one of the union members in this thread they are doing a damn bad job of it.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

BBQ said:


> And this forum has what to do with the real world?
> 
> The fact is if one of the IBEWs goals is _"to cultivate feelings of friendship among workers of our industry"_ as was stated by one of the union members in this thread they are doing a damn bad job of it.



The fact is if one of the IBEWs goals is _"to cultivate feelings of friendship among workers of our industry"_ :laughing::laughing:


----------



## electricraypdx (Mar 11, 2012)

*Ignorance or lies*



backstay said:


> I was in the union for 16 years, they never disclosed where the money goes, ever!


If you don't know where your union dues went you probably never went to meetings. Every penny a local spends is meticulously detailed to the United States Department of Labor. Every penny. All of that information is publicly available. Go to the DoL website and do research or call and ask. I bet you can get line item reports for every year you were in the union if you push hard enough. It is far easier to imagine that they are corrupt and shady than to actually go to the effort of proving it, though.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> The fact is if one of the IBEWs goals is _"to cultivate feelings of friendship among workers of our industry"_ :laughing::laughing:


 
I just want to get the job done...You can be my friend or not but at the end of the day, it's a business...Gitter done...


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

cowboyznindianz said:


> I just want to get the job done...You can be my friend or not but at the end of the day, it's a business...Gitter done...


And in any group 90-95% of the workers are of this type, it is the few rabble rousers that unfortunately sign their name to any group.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> * But in lieu of this they act like asses as seen in several cases where states in attempting to control budgets ask unions for relief.*


Yeah, but when the states (government) ask you rich people for relief (in the form of taxes) you all scream, bitch, and rant. It's on the TV and Radio everyday. Yeah sure Brian, I'll help the states out by giving up some of my paycheck, just as soon as you shove your short arms into your deep pockets.

You see how this works, the knife cuts both ways. Again, you people all need to be reminded, your opinions are not the facts.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> Yeah, but when the states (government) ask you rich people for relief (in the form of taxes) you all scream, bitch, and rant. It's on the TV and Radio everyday. Yeah sure Brian, I'll help the states out by giving up some of my paycheck, just as soon as you shove your short arms into your deep pockets.
> 
> You see how this works, the knife cuts both ways. Again, you people all need to be reminded, your opinions are not the facts.



Slick check my post, while I HATE paying taxes and I doubt few here would disagree me. I am not against paying higher taxes, IF the government, county, state and federal would spend MY MONEY in a sane way. I see way too much waste.

Why would I want to throw good money into a trash pit of wasteful spending.

I have always felt the issue with local union employees, firemen, teachers and the like is local politicians shot their wad making future promises they could not keep, pacifying the unions with future moneys in particular retirement packages that are unfunded.

As far as paying my fair share, I am in the group that pays the largest PERCENTAGE of taxes; this is real dollars and is money I earn and hate to see wasted.


----------



## mrmike (Dec 10, 2010)

brian john said:


> Slick check my post, while I HATE paying taxes and I doubt few here would disagree me. I am not against paying higher taxes, IF the government, county, state and federal would spend MY MONEY in a sane way. I see way too much waste.
> 
> Why would I want to throw good money into a trash pit of wasteful spending.
> 
> ...


 
Our system is built aroung taxes, and I don't mind paying my fair share, but in most towns I have lived in it is the businessmen & from the dark political side, that has beat this tax thing to death for years, that ride around in their Mercedes & Bmws, that holler the most about the school & land taxes of their town.

They have issues like the statement above with someone that worked their life for actually "peanuts" compared to themselves & Blame them for high taxes . Who taught them or protected them when needed? It is a Discrace to attack these groups just because they belong to a Union & have some bennies!!! they don't look at the adminisrtation & state mandated costs but only on the workers! They should look at themselves and be ashamed of the finger pointing & blaming the workers for making a decent living !! Again, They are the folllowers!! Do you think they might throw away money on wasteful spending on their own selves!!


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

slickvic277 said:


> Again, you people all need to be reminded, your opinions are not the facts.


and just what facts would you be refering to Slick? ~CS~


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> and just what facts would you be refering to Slick? ~CS~


Fact heard on the news the federal government spent 95 million on advertising last year.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

brian john said:


> Fact heard on the news the federal government spent 95 million on advertising last year.


 
stumping for what Brian?


~CS~


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

mrmike said:


> Our system is built aroung taxes, and I don't mind paying my fair share, but in most towns I have lived in it is the businessmen & from the dark political side, that has beat this tax thing to death for years, that ride around in their Mercedes & Bmws, that holler the most about the school & land taxes of their town.
> !!


You do realize businessmen pay the vast majority of taxes.

FACT, I heard on the news Friday 72% of todays millioniares are self made, DID NOT INHERIT IT.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

brian john said:


> Fact heard on the news the federal government spent 95 million on advertising last year.


You didn't pay close attention. It was $997 million. Almost $1 billion on advertising.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

amptech said:


> You didn't pay close attention. It was $997 million. Almost $1 billion on advertising.


I heard it in passing and thought 995 sounded to HIGH...THANKS


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> and just what facts would you be refering to Slick? ~CS~


I didn't.
I was referring to you, Brian and the rest of the blowhards on this site who think there trumped up ego's and overstated opinions are facts. 



brian john said:


> FACT, I heard on the news


:thumbup::laughing::laughing::laughing:

Ok Harry. :no:


----------



## millerdrr (Jun 26, 2009)

brian john said:


> You do realize businessmen pay the vast majority of taxes.
> 
> FACT, I heard on the news Friday 72% of todays millioniares are self made, DID NOT INHERIT IT.


Is that wealth from passive gains in real estate, or traditional service/sales business?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

slickvic277 said:


> I didn't.
> I was referring to you, Brian and the rest of the blowhards on this site who think there trumped up ego's and overstated opinions are facts.


one inescapable fact is unions are dying Slick

~CS~


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> I didn't.
> I was referring to you, Brian and the rest of the blowhards on this site who think there trumped up ego's and overstated opinions are facts.
> 
> 
> ...


Okay What?:blink:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> I didn't.
> I was referring to you, Brian and the rest of the blowhards on this site who think there trumped up ego's and overstated opinions are facts.


And what you think is a fact ,,,How?:blink:


----------



## mrmike (Dec 10, 2010)

FACTS might be manipulated like on Fox News.....................


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

mrmike said:


> FACTS might be manipulated like on Fox News.....................


they are

however , you may seek your source of choice concerning union membership

they're all pointing in the same direction


~CS~


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

millerdrr said:


> Is that wealth from passive gains in real estate, or traditional service/sales business?


 
Real estate gains? What decade are you living in?

They did not say what the wealth was from, but I would think small business and many of the internet rich?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

mrmike said:


> FACTS might be manipulated like on Fox News.....................


 
Heard on HLN, sorry Mike make another one up.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> I didn't.
> I was referring to you, Brian and the rest of the blowhards on this site who think there trumped up ego's and overstated opinions are facts.
> 
> 
> ...


Slick rather than throwing names around, hit us with facts to counter our argument.
Are Unions dying?

Do voters have a right to vote on Right to Work?

Are taxes reduced when municipal jobs are open to everyone union or open shop?

Did politicians make promises that the local counties and states can no longer afford to keep?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

brian john said:


> Did politicians make promises that the local counties and states can no longer afford to keep?


that's just plain_ too _easy Brian......~CS~


----------



## mrmike (Dec 10, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> they are
> 
> however , you may seek your source of choice concerning union membership
> 
> ...


 
Steve, I am semi-retired and have been for 9yrs and. I am saddened by this direction of Union membership. 
It has been Big businesses & the dark side party's agenda for years & they have got the general population to go along with them.

Sadly, It has done away with everyones benifits & pensions & the American Dream !! 
Right to work-work for less-fend for yourself-with no rights. We are going backwards with our standards of living,and have been since the decline of the unions...........


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I couldn't agree with you more Mike, some of you older dogs opine rather well in fact

my GP's had a hand in starting unions, after being sweat shop immigrant kids here

myself, i'm a diehard classist, guess i got the gene

what i see happening is the unraveling of all that history that was hard won

i just wish those union pups out there had a handle on it all



~CS~


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

mrmike said:


> FACTS might be manipulated like on Fox News.....................


And can you name any news agency that does not manipulate the facts for their agenda?

You bash Fox news because you do not agree with their opinion.

But all the others get a free ride because you agree with them.


The fact is you never spend any time watching Fox news ,you make statements like that only because of what you have heard about fox news.


Your side hates Fox news because your side gets exposed for what they are really doing behind the backs of the people they are supposed to be serving.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

mrmike said:


> Steve, I am semi-retired and have been for 9yrs and. I am saddened by this direction of Union membership.
> It has been Big businesses & the dark side party's agenda for years & they have got the general population to go along with them.
> 
> Sadly, It has done away with everyones benifits & pensions & the American Dream !!
> Right to work-work for less-fend for yourself-with no rights. We are going backwards with our standards of living,and have been since the decline of the unions...........


The only "Right that is being taken away is the Unions right to exclude people from getting a job because they are not a member of that union.

The decline of the unions was brought on to themselves by practicing Racism ,bigotry ,Thuggery and excluding anyone that is not connected and knowing someone in the union in fact their doors have always been closed to those who are not special like them.

The fact is in the professional world that is not unionized those people are being paid way beyond any thing that any union has to offer these are occupations that were never unionized in the first place.

In the late 19th and early 20th century the unions did great things for their workers,,,,Today they are the ones that are holding down their workers and their pay.


Now the people have decided that unions are the problem and they have thrown the cost of living for all of us through the roof.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

mrmike said:


> Steve, I am semi-retired and have been for 9yrs and. I am saddened by this direction of Union membership.
> It has been Big businesses & the dark side party's agenda for years & they have got the general population to go along with them.
> 
> Sadly, It has done away with everyones benifits & pensions & the American Dream !!
> Right to work-work for less-fend for yourself-with no rights. We are going backwards with our standards of living,and have been since the decline of the unions...........


Mike it is business goal to squash unions, a full time job,. Just as it is unions job to work hard for their members to make sure this does not happen



Unfortunately for unions while business has been working against them, so have union leaders and some members.

Major issue is how they give 97% of their money to one party, spread it around, you'd be surprised how money buys loyalty (I KNOW, YOU KNOW, why doesn’t union leadership know) The Dems feel they have the unions sewed up and feel there is little reason to gamble political clout for someone they know is in their pocket.

Major issue how they get bad press, hire a better advertising agency and clamp down on the picketers and strikers that do dumb things like the giant rat, which NEVER garners good press, but they continue to truck the rat out.

Major issue how they treat open shop workers, while it may be a few dummies the unions need to rein these fools in, work with open shop men and companies so both parties see the benefits in union.

Unions are partially responsible for their own demise. I doubt at this time this can be turned around completly, but they could stop the bleeding.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> The only "Right that is being taken away is the Unions right to exclude people from getting a job because they are not a member of that union.
> 
> *The decline of the unions was brought on to themselves* by practicing Racism ,bigotry ,Thuggery and excluding anyone that is not connected and knowing someone in the union in fact their doors have always been closed to those who are not special like them.
> 
> .


Harry, while some of this is true, there is and always will be an effort by business to squash unions and it makes sense on business's part, unions TYPICALLY work against what is good for a company.
After numerous strikes by the steel workers in the 60's, many firms that needed steel for their existence, looked off shore for steel. And while the union steel workers celebrated the success of their strikes they basically were digging their own graves.

For years union threats of strike put the union in the driver seats, but business would not allow that to happen for long.


----------



## fortyfiveguy (Mar 18, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> And can you name any news agency that does not manipulate the facts for their agenda?
> 
> You bash Fox news because you do not agree with their opinion.
> 
> ...


actually, there was a study done recently, and im sorry i cant remember who did it. it was a state college i believe. what the study found was that peo;ple who watch FOX news are actually LESS informed (72% less) than people who dont watch TV at all...LMFAO!


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> You bash Fox news because you do not agree with their opinion.
> 
> But all the others get a free ride because you agree with them.


I must have missed the free ride we give any media.

I can't recall seeing anyone on this forum bragging about how great any news group is other than a few Fox supporters.

I can't recall anyone saying MSNBC is great, or ABC is always accurate, or that Comedy centrals shows are hard hitting journalism. 

I think all of us agree the media sucks.


----------



## mrmike (Dec 10, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> And can you name any news agency that does not manipulate the facts for their agenda?
> 
> You bash Fox news because you do not agree with their opinion.
> 
> ...


 I knew this statement would get a rise!

First, Didn't I say "might" manipulate? Was That bashing? This is exactly what they do-manipulate the words..No, I do not agree with their agenda-it is like listening to Rush Limbaugh. THEY are the ones that spew hatred against Liberals and whomever doesn't agree with their side. 

Just look at the people they have hired-Karl Rove-Sarah Palin & others of the Tea Party movement which are good at keeping Americans mad. What does this show by hiring them & others like them? These people don't have anything positive but b*ashing the other side. *
*Sorry but they are the ones that are Exposed !!!!!*


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

Anyone ever brag about how cheap their doctor or lawyer was? Anyone ever look forward to the day they could replace their Cadillac with a Chevy?

Saying 'all unions' or 'all employers' are the same is simply ignorant. 

We're in a political season, and folks are already complaining about how 'negative' things are.

Once I HAD to walk to church. I hated every step. The next week I CHOSE to walk, and it was fun. 

As I see it, the challenge is for a union to SELL it's ability to provide a valuable product. The unions have to SELL the employer on how their guys are better, more dependable, etc .... and the union has to SELL the membership on the training, insurance, pay, and comradarie benefits of belonging.

Instead, I see a tendency to say bad things, to accent the unhappy moments in life. I see far too much reliance on coertion.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> one inescapable fact is unions are dying Slick
> 
> ~CS~


Funny you didn't deny the "FACT" that you are indeed an OPINIONATED:yawn::yawn::yawn::laughing::laughing::laughing: BLOWHARD....


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

fortyfiveguy said:


> actually, there was a study done recently, and im sorry i cant remember who did it. it was a state college i believe. what the study found was that peo;ple who watch FOX news are actually LESS informed (72% less) than people who dont watch TV at all...LMFAO!


Surprisingly if it is the study I heard about on the radio, it was slightly bias. Skewed to get the outcome the pollsters wanted.


----------



## cowboyznindianz (Mar 4, 2012)

brian john said:


> Surprisingly if it is the study I heard about on the radio, it was slightly bias. Skewed to get the outcome the pollsters wanted.


 
Polls are almost always skewed Brian...After all, somebody has to pay for them...If there's a product to sell, there's a profit to be made...Some are probably legit but I'm sure the majority are swayed from left to right and vice versa quite often depending on political motivators....:cowboy:'Z-N-:red_indian:'Z


----------



## millerdrr (Jun 26, 2009)

brian john said:


> Real estate gains? What decade are you living in?
> 
> They did not say what the wealth was from, but I would think small business and many of the internet rich?


:laughing: Easy, killer.

I wasn't disputing that most of the wealthy did not inherit wealth.

I saw a stat once that slightly less than half of America's millionaires had their gains accumulated through real estate. Given the age bracket of most of the wealthiest people, I've speculated that the largest gains are a by-product of the 1970s inflation, where the baby boomers 1.) bought a house, 2.) saw the house quadruple in value, 3.) saw their salaries quadruple, and 4.) their mortgage payment remained fixed. Even though the cost of nearly everything went up, their homes were essentially a gift, which opened the door for other investments.

I know a lot of people who have a great deal of money, but almost every one of them fit into that category. I was just wondering if the article you had read mentioned similar circumstances.


----------



## millerdrr (Jun 26, 2009)

BBQ said:


> I must have missed the free ride we give any media.
> 
> I can't recall seeing anyone on this forum bragging about how great any news group is other than a few Fox supporters.
> 
> ...


Totally agree; people are too harsh or too trusting, depending on their point-of-view.

I try to remember that journalists are writers first. They are not political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, teachers, etc...They are going to make mistakes in their reporting. It's insane to accept each and every word they say as the absolute truth, or a vicious lie. I'm willing to bet that it's most often neither one. A story filled with errors, or slanted to one side or the other...it's still just a job to the writer. By the time the story is printed, he has already moved on to something else, and he has less than 24 hours to finish. Most people would do well to remember that.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

mrmike said:


> I knew this statement would get a rise!
> 
> First, Didn't I say "might" manipulate? Was That bashing? This is exactly what they do-manipulate the words..No, I do not agree with their agenda-it is like listening to Rush Limbaugh. THEY are the ones that spew hatred against Liberals and whomever doesn't agree with their side.
> 
> ...


Only Fox news and talk radio expose the left for what they really are.

The rest of the news media promotes a extreme left wing agenda and continuously try to brain was people with Hoaxes like "Global warming" "We don't have enough oil" when in fact we have enough for the next 250 years and the promote hatred of anyone that disagrees with their hideous agenda that will bankrupt the nation if it not stopped in it's track's



> Karl Rove-Sarah Palin & others of the Tea Party movement


You can not give one good reason why you hate these people except that you have been told to by the left wing media.



> Tea Party movement


 Have you gone to there web site and read about them your self,,,I bet you have not.

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/?gclid=CJ6MgbCZ-K4CFQfe4AodoFvZzQ


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Harry, save your typing. No one here takes you seriously, even those that are republicans.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Harry, save your typing. No one here takes you seriously, even those that are republicans.


The truth hurts Ahh Vic....:laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

fortyfiveguy said:


> actually, there was a study done recently, and im sorry i cant remember who did it. it was a state college i believe. what the study found was that peo;ple who watch FOX news are actually LESS informed (72% less) than people who dont watch TV at all...LMFAO!


Yup!, Who Knew a study from a left wing college doesn't like Fox news..:laughing:




> LESS informed (72% less) than people who dont watch TV at all


And people people who don't watch TV at all are 72% more informed by What?:blink:


----------



## fortyfiveguy (Mar 18, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Yup!, Who Knew a study from a left wing college doesn't like Fox news..:laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


your obviously literate...you post here. not everything in the world originates in "the god-damn-noisy-box" as i like to call it. i keep up on world events and havent had a TV in my house for years. 

as for reasons not to like sarah palin or karl rove. palin is OK if not a little dim, but rove is a lying, self important asshole. he wsa there when hussein was put in power, there was a nice pic of him shking his hand at the swearing in. hes just another typical career polotician looking to line his own pockets while staying out of prison.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

fortyfiveguy said:


> your obviously literate...you post here. not everything in the world originates in "the god-damn-noisy-box" as i like to call it. i keep up on world events and havent had a TV in my house for years.
> 
> as for reasons not to like sarah palin or karl rove. palin is OK if not a little dim, but rove is a lying, self important asshole. he wsa there when hussein was put in power, there was a nice pic of him shking his hand at the swearing in. hes just another typical career polotician looking to line his own pockets while staying out of prison.


I would like to see that picture. I am no fan of Karl Rove but he was in Texas working for the governor in 1979 when Saddam assumed power. I didn't know he was prominent in national government that early in his career. He has been a political schemer since he was a teenager. He is very smart and even more ruthless.


----------



## millerdrr (Jun 26, 2009)

amptech said:


> I would like to see that picture. I am no fan of Karl Rove but he was in Texas working for the governor in 1979 when Saddam assumed power. I didn't know he was prominent in national government that early in his career. He has been a political schemer since he was a teenager. He is very smart and even more ruthless.


Poster might have meant Donald Rumsfield. I found a video of him shaking Hussein's hand from the early 80s...(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) ...but I suppose there were a lot of photos of people involved in national politics meeting with people they wished they hadn't. 

It's a situation like I felt when a guy who ate lunch in my "group" every day during my senior year in high school hung himself in a jail cell five years later, awaiting child molestation charges. :blink:


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)




----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

fortyfiveguy said:


> your obviously literate...you post here. not everything in the world originates in "the god-damn-noisy-box" as i like to call it. i keep up on world events and havent had a TV in my house for years.
> 
> as for reasons not to like sarah palin or karl rove. palin is OK if not a little dim, but rove is a lying, self important asshole. he wsa there when hussein was put in power, there was a nice pic of him shking his hand at the swearing in. hes just another typical career polotician looking to line his own pockets while staying out of prison.





> palin is OK if not a little dim,


Says the left wing liberal news media.

Why?

Because liberals hate woman that are Conservative and have children.

Liberals think they own woman and find ways to scare them by telling them that Republicans want to take all their rights away.

So when a woman who becomes a conservative because they refuse to be fooled by liberalism.

Liberals will do everything they can to destroy any Conservative woman that is a threat to them becoming the president.

Remember Liberals always complain that that there has never been a woman president.

But when a woman who is just as qualified is a Conservative they will do everything they can to destroy her reputation and her family's life .

That is a fact that you will never read in the news paper because they are all left wing agenda pushers.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jrannis said:


>




Here this will help.....:thumbup:


----------



## millerdrr (Jun 26, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Says the left wing liberal news media.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


Actually, the controlled media is just our disinformation junkie. We really don't mind if a woman is conservative, just so long as she doesn't stand in our way when we sacrifice puppies to the Dark Lord during the Equinox while teaching the pleasures of bisexuality to toddlers.:laughing:


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Says the left wing liberal news media.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


Just the fact that the GOP found such a loon and actually tried to prop it up as VP, signaled to the world that the GOP just wants puppets like W in office and can no longer be looked upon for leadership.

No matter how much the right wing fringe hate the POTUS, he has a laundry list of incredible accomplishments in spite of the obstructionist attempts and amateur leadership of Boehner and Cantor. Much to their horror, those two butt clowns have created one of the most crisis seasoned POTUS anyone could imagine.
And now, the GOP is without a worthy adversary. It's like they gave up. No self respecting Evangelical is going to vote for Romeny. 
Newt and Santorum are unelectable. 
What now?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

millerdrr said:


> Actually, the controlled media is just our disinformation junkie. We really don't mind if a woman is conservative, just so long as she doesn't stand in our way when we sacrifice puppies to the Dark Lord during the Equinox while teaching the pleasures of bisexuality to toddlers.:laughing:


:laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

Liberal women are always victims while conservative women stand on their own. Actually, groups are always victims in liberals eyes: they look at groups: minorities, women,men, poor/middle class/rich, union, non union...that is their controlling concept; individuality is foreign to them, the very concept of America. Liberalism is socialism.


----------



## fortyfiveguy (Mar 18, 2012)

amptech said:


> I would like to see that picture. I am no fan of Karl Rove but he was in Texas working for the governor in 1979 when Saddam assumed power. I didn't know he was prominent in national government that early in his career. He has been a political schemer since he was a teenager. He is very smart and even more ruthless.


i made a mistake...not rove but donald rumsfeld...rove just looks like a fat litte weasel to me...and he gave an acting undercover agents name to the media as payback...lower than low.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jrannis said:


> Just the fact that the GOP found such a loon and actually tried to prop it up as VP, signaled to the world that the GOP just wants puppets like W in office and can no longer be looked upon for leadership.
> 
> No matter how much the right wing fringe hate the POTUS, he has a laundry list of incredible accomplishments in spite of the obstructionist attempts and amateur leadership of Boehner and Cantor. Much to their horror, those two butt clowns have created one of the most crisis seasoned POTUS anyone could imagine.
> And now, the GOP is without a worthy adversary. It's like they gave up. No self respecting Evangelical is going to vote for Romeny.
> ...


Yeah!

I'm going to vote for Oboma because his second term he will not have to worry about getting elected again..




> he has a laundry list of incredible accomplishments


Really?...:laughing:

Do you mean like passing the Health care law without the consent of the governed,

Fact is the Governed were so pissed off about it they voted out just about every democrat in the house of representatives that they could in November 2010.

Oh! how about that $5. a gallon Gasoline.

He stopped the key stone pipeline Killing at least 100,000 jobs.

Thats an incredible accomplishment ah!

How about all the class warfare that he him self promotes ,,Man that is real leadership 99% any one,,BTW the class warfare "BS" has not been around since the 1970's

The laundry list of incredible accomplishments by him is long alright maybe the 16% of the people who cannot find a job will believe it..:whistling2:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

BuzzKill said:


> Liberal women are always victims while conservative women stand on their own. Actually, groups are always victims in liberals eyes: they look at groups: minorities, women,men, poor/middle class/rich, union, non union...that is their controlling concept; individuality is foreign to them, the very concept of America. Liberalism is socialism.


Well said..:thumbsup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

BuzzKill said:


> Liberalism is socialism.


they are only synonymous due to the current political gestalt Buzz

no more _valid_ than conservatism is facism

~CS~


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

I know what'll help this thread, more grand unsubstantiated generalizations!

-John


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

I think this sums it up....


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Yeah!
> 
> I'm going to vote for Oboma because his second term he will not have to worry about getting elected again..
> 
> ...


Across the country, the oil and gas industry is vastly increasing production, reversing two decades of decline. Using new technology and spurred by rising oil prices since the mid-2000s, the industry is extracting millions of barrels more a week, from the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the prairies of North Dakota. At the same time, Americans are pumping significantly less gasoline. While that is partly a result of the recession and higher gasoline prices, people are also driving fewer miles and replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles at a greater clip, federal data show. 
Taken together, the increasing production and declining consumption have unexpectedly brought the United States markedly closer to a goal that has tantalized presidents since Richard Nixon: independence from foreign energy sources, a milestone that could reconfigure American foreign policy, the economy and more. In 2011, the country imported just 45 percent of the liquid fuels it used, down from a record high of 60 percent in 2005. 
“There is no question that many national security policy makers will believe they have much more flexibility and will think about the world differently if the United States is importing a lot less oil,” said Michael A. Levi, an energy and environmental senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “For decades, consumption rose, production fell and imports increased, and now every one of those trends is going the other way.” 
How the country made this turnabout is a story of industry-friendly policies started by President Bush and largely continued by President Obama — many over the objections of environmental advocates — as well as technological advances that have allowed the extraction of oil and gas once considered too difficult and too expensive to reach. But mainly it is a story of the complex economics of energy, which sometimes seems to operate by its own rules of supply and demand. 
With gasoline prices now approaching record highs and politicians mud-wrestling about the causes and solutions, the effects of the longer-term rise in production can be difficult to see. 
Simple economics suggests that if the nation is producing more energy, prices should be falling. But crude oil — and gasoline and diesel made from it — are global commodities whose prices are affected by factors around the world. Supply disruptions in Africa, the political standoff with Iran and rising demand from a recovering world economy all are contributing to the current spike in global oil prices, offsetting the impact of the increased domestic supply. 
But the domestic trends are unmistakable. Not only has the United States reduced oil imports from members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries by more than 20 percent in the last three years, it has become a net exporter of refined petroleum products like gasoline for the first time since the Truman presidency. The natural gas industry, which less than a decade ago feared running out of domestic gas, is suddenly dealing with a glut so vast that import facilities are applying for licenses to export gas to Europe and Asia. 
National oil production, which declined steadily to 4.95 million barrels a day in 2008 from 9.6 million in 1970, has risen over the last four years to nearly 5.7 million barrels a day. The Energy Department projects that daily output could reach nearly seven million barrels by 2020. Some experts think it could eventually hit 10 million barrels — which would put the United States in the same league as Saudi Arabia. 



So Harry, should we halt the export of refined petroleum products until the price forces our domestic production to a halt?


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

jrannis said:


> Across the country, the oil and gas industry is vastly increasing production, reversing two decades of decline. Using new technology and spurred by rising oil prices since the mid-2000s, the industry is extracting millions of barrels more a week, from the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the prairies of North Dakota. At the same time, Americans are pumping significantly less gasoline. While that is partly a result of the recession and higher gasoline prices, people are also driving fewer miles and replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles at a greater clip, federal data show.
> Taken together, the increasing production and declining consumption have unexpectedly brought the United States markedly closer to a goal that has tantalized presidents since Richard Nixon: independence from foreign energy sources, a milestone that could reconfigure American foreign policy, the economy and more. In 2011, the country imported just 45 percent of the liquid fuels it used, down from a record high of 60 percent in 2005.
> &#147;There is no question that many national security policy makers will believe they have much more flexibility and will think about the world differently if the United States is importing a lot less oil,&#148; said Michael A. Levi, an energy and environmental senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. &#147;For decades, consumption rose, production fell and imports increased, and now every one of those trends is going the other way.&#148;
> How the country made this turnabout is a story of industry-friendly policies started by President Bush and largely continued by President Obama &#151; many over the objections of environmental advocates &#151; as well as technological advances that have allowed the extraction of oil and gas once considered too difficult and too expensive to reach. But mainly it is a story of the complex economics of energy, which sometimes seems to operate by its own rules of supply and demand.
> ...


You are forgetting one thing. We more drill and producing more oil than ever but we are shipping more oil than ever to china. Pump all we want American oil is being sent to china because for their higher demand. We can drill all we want the oil companies will not let a surplus happen in America. They don't want to see lower prices.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Yeah!
> 
> I'm going to vote for Oboma because his second term he will not have to worry about getting elected again..
> 
> Do you mean like passing the Health care law without the consent of the governed,


I am also the "Governed" we need the provisions of the The *Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. *

Key provisions. Tell me what is not necessary. It was approved by both the House and Senate:

Exactly which provision of the Affordable Healthcare Act do you find so objectionable?
Have you even read it?
Its only about 300 pages if you remove the index, introduction and procedures. I have read it twice.

I think you were just told not to like it. It will benefit you, as a small business. And will benefit you when you retire.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Theriot said:


> You are forgetting one thing. We more drill and producing more oil than ever but we are shipping more oil than ever to china. Pump all we want American oil is being sent to china because for their higher demand. We can drill all we want the oil companies will not let a surplus happen in America. They don't want to see lower prices.


So, we might be growing a massive refining business base on these exports. How can the average person benefit from this?
Every alternative to fossil fuel we build will not reduce the global demand for refined petroleum products. The less we use, the more we export, price remains the same.


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

Should the government start it own oil drilling and refining. The oil companies don't really care about America and our needs. They see global now. Not to say the government won't use the oil to make foreign trade or use it as a bargaining tool for foreign affairs.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jrannis said:


> I am also the "Governed" we need the provisions of the The *Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. *
> 
> Key provisions. Tell me what is not necessary. It was approved by both the House and Senate:
> 
> ...


We already have a health care law in mass that at the point of a GUN forces us to buy heath insurance and if you don't pay for it you will be fined and if you continue to refuse to pay for it they will put you in prison.

Since the law went into effect the cost of it has gone from less than $500 a month to over $2,000 per month.

Want dental work done? Well you better have thousands of dollars kicking around not just hundreds.

The entire bill.

The fact is the American people strongly objected to this bill ,But they jammed it through anyhow using Unethical tactics in the senate. 

The estimated cost was intentionally low balled and it will cost the economy.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-would-cost-over-2-trillion


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

What is next. What will the government set their eyes on next. Why not protect us from high fuel prices. That is what I want. Should they start protecting us for cryer bullying and hacking. Let's let them control the Internet. Maybe the best thing would to just set prices for all services including electrical. They are telling doctors what they can make. I'm sure if you would be a doctor you wouldn't be so fast to vote for this. Right we don't get to vote for it.


----------



## mnelectrician (Dec 1, 2008)

jrannis said:


> Across the country, the oil and gas industry is vastly increasing production, reversing two decades of decline. Using new technology and spurred by rising oil prices since the mid-2000s, the industry is extracting millions of barrels more a week, from the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the prairies of North Dakota. At the same time, Americans are pumping significantly less gasoline. While that is partly a result of the recession and higher gasoline prices, people are also driving fewer miles and replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles at a greater clip, federal data show.
> Taken together, the increasing production and declining consumption have unexpectedly brought the United States markedly closer to a goal that has tantalized presidents since Richard Nixon: independence from foreign energy sources, a milestone that could reconfigure American foreign policy, the economy and more. In 2011, the country imported just 45 percent of the liquid fuels it used, down from a record high of 60 percent in 2005.
> &#147;There is no question that many national security policy makers will believe they have much more flexibility and will think about the world differently if the United States is importing a lot less oil,&#148; said Michael A. Levi, an energy and environmental senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. &#147;For decades, consumption rose, production fell and imports increased, and now every one of those trends is going the other way.&#148;
> How the country made this turnabout is a story of industry-friendly policies started by President Bush and largely continued by President Obama &#151; many over the objections of environmental advocates &#151; as well as technological advances that have allowed the extraction of oil and gas once considered too difficult and too expensive to reach. But mainly it is a story of the complex economics of energy, which sometimes seems to operate by its own rules of supply and demand.
> ...


The energy secretary said he wants high gas prices.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jrannis said:


> Across the country, the oil and gas industry is vastly increasing production, reversing two decades of decline. Using new technology and spurred by rising oil prices since the mid-2000s, the industry is extracting millions of barrels more a week, from the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the prairies of North Dakota. At the same time, Americans are pumping significantly less gasoline. While that is partly a result of the recession and higher gasoline prices, people are also driving fewer miles and replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles at a greater clip, federal data show.
> Taken together, the increasing production and declining consumption have unexpectedly brought the United States markedly closer to a goal that has tantalized presidents since Richard Nixon: independence from foreign energy sources, a milestone that could reconfigure American foreign policy, the economy and more. In 2011, the country imported just 45 percent of the liquid fuels it used, down from a record high of 60 percent in 2005.
> “There is no question that many national security policy makers will believe they have much more flexibility and will think about the world differently if the United States is importing a lot less oil,” said Michael A. Levi, an energy and environmental senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “For decades, consumption rose, production fell and imports increased, and now every one of those trends is going the other way.”
> How the country made this turnabout is a story of industry-friendly policies started by President Bush and largely continued by President Obama — many over the objections of environmental advocates — as well as technological advances that have allowed the extraction of oil and gas once considered too difficult and too expensive to reach. But mainly it is a story of the complex economics of energy, which sometimes seems to operate by its own rules of supply and demand.
> ...


How about a link to that john?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293617/seaweed-your-gas-tank-charles-krauthammer
Yes, of course, presidents have no direct control over gas prices. But the American people know something about this president and his disdain for oil. The “fuel of the past,” he contemptuously calls it. To the American worker who doesn’t commute by government motorcade and is getting fleeced every week at the pump, oil seems very much a fuel of the present — and of the foreseeable future.
President Obama incessantly claims open-mindedness, insisting that his policy is “all of the above.” Except, of course, for drilling







off the Mid-Atlantic coast (as Virginia, for example, wants)







off the Florida Gulf Coast (instead, the Castro brothers will drill near there)







in the broader Gulf of Mexico (where drilling in 2012 is expected to drop 30 percent below pre-moratorium forecasts)








in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (more than half the size of England, the drilling footprint being the size of Dulles Airport)







on federal lands in the Rockies (where leases are down 70 percent since Obama took office)
But the event that drove home the extent of Obama’s antipathy to nearby, abundant, available oil was his veto of the Keystone pipeline. It gave the game away, because the case for Keystone is so obvious and overwhelming. Vetoing it gratuitously prolongs our dependence on outside powers, kills thousands of shovel-ready jobs, forfeits a major strategic resource to China, damages relations with our closest ally, and sends billions of oil dollars to Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin, and already obscenely wealthy sheiks.
Obama boasts that on his watch, production is up and imports down. True, but truly deceptive. These increases have occurred _in spite _of his restrictive policies. They are the result of Clinton- and Bush-era permitting. This has been accompanied by a gold rush of natural-gas production resulting from new fracking technology that has nothing at all to do with Obama.
“The American people aren’t stupid,” said Obama on February 23, mocking “Drill, baby, drill.” The “only solution,” he averred in yet another major energy speech last week, is that “we start using less, that lowers the demand, prices come down.” Yet five paragraphs later he claimed that regardless of “how much oil we produce at home . . . that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide.”
So: Decreasing U.S. demand will lower oil prices, but increasing U.S. supply will not? This is ridiculous. Either both do or neither does. Does Obama read his own speeches?
Obama says of drilling: “That’s not a plan.” Of course it’s a plan. We import nearly half of our oil, thereby exporting enormous amounts of U.S. wealth. Almost 60 percent of our trade deficit — $332 billion out of $560 billion — is shipped overseas to buy crude.
Drill here and you stanch the hemorrhage. You keep those dollars _within_ the U.S. economy, repatriating not just wealth but jobs, and denying them to foreign unfriendlies. Drilling is the single most important thing we can do to spur growth at home while strengthening our hand abroad.
Instead, Obama offers what he fancies to be the fuels of the future. You would think that he’d be a tad more modest today about his powers of divination after the Solyndra bankruptcy, the collapse of government-subsidized Ener1 (past makers of the batteries of the future), and GM’s suspension of production — for lack of demand — of another federally dictated confection, the flammable Chevy Volt.
Deterred? Hardly. Our undaunted seer of the energy future has come up with his own miracle fuel: algae. Yes, green slime, upon which Steven Chu’s Energy Department will be sprinkling yet another $14 million of taxpayer money.
This is the very same Dr. Chu who famously said in 2008 that he wanted U.S. gas prices to rise to European levels ($8–$10 a gallon) — and who Tuesday, eight months before Election Day, publicly recanted before Congress, Galileo-style.
Who do they think they’re fooling? An oil crisis looms, prices are spiking — and our president is extolling algae. After Solyndra, Keystone, and promises of seaweed in their gas tanks, Americans sense a president so ideologically antipathetic to fossil fuels — which we possess in staggering abundance — that he is utterly unserious about the real world of oil in which the rest of us live.
High gasoline prices are a major political problem for Obama. They are not just a pain at the pump, however. They are a constant reminder of three years of a rigid, fatuous, fantasy-driven energy policy that has rendered us scandalously dependent and excessively vulnerable.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jrannis said:


> Across the country, the oil and gas industry is vastly increasing production, reversing two decades of decline. Using new technology and spurred by rising oil prices since the mid-2000s, the industry is extracting millions of barrels more a week, from the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the prairies of North Dakota. At the same time, Americans are pumping significantly less gasoline. While that is partly a result of the recession and higher gasoline prices, people are also driving fewer miles and replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles at a greater clip, federal data show.
> Taken together, the increasing production and declining consumption have unexpectedly brought the United States markedly closer to a goal that has tantalized presidents since Richard Nixon: independence from foreign energy sources, a milestone that could reconfigure American foreign policy, the economy and more. In 2011, the country imported just 45 percent of the liquid fuels it used, down from a record high of 60 percent in 2005.
> “There is no question that many national security policy makers will believe they have much more flexibility and will think about the world differently if the United States is importing a lot less oil,” said Michael A. Levi, an energy and environmental senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “For decades, consumption rose, production fell and imports increased, and now every one of those trends is going the other way.”
> How the country made this turnabout is a story of industry-friendly policies started by President Bush and largely continued by President Obama — many over the objections of environmental advocates — as well as technological advances that have allowed the extraction of oil and gas once considered too difficult and too expensive to reach. But mainly it is a story of the complex economics of energy, which sometimes seems to operate by its own rules of supply and demand.
> ...


Any thing that comes from The Energy Department means nothing because they all have the same goal European gas prices.



> Americans are pumping significantly less gasoline. While that is partly a result of the recession and higher gasoline prices, people are also driving fewer miles and replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles at a greater clip, federal data show.


Again "federal data show"Really?..

http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2011/10/20/monro-muffler-ceo-drivers-are-keeping-cars-longer/


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Certain things presidents can control and are responsible for, in some on a small scale others on a larger scale, the economy, energy are two items presidents always want credit for the positives but shy away from the negative. But if you wish to accept any credit for the small improvements in the economy (and this and past presidents always do), then you have to be willing to accept other economic factors that have a negative impact, such as the soaring cost of fuel.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Theriot said:


> You are forgetting one thing. We more drill and producing more oil than ever but we are shipping more oil than ever to china. Pump all we want American oil is being sent to china because for their higher demand. We can drill all we want the oil companies will not let a surplus happen in America. They don't want to see lower prices.



the domestic trends are unmistakable. Not only has the United States reduced oil imports from members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries by more than 20 percent in the last three years, it has become a net exporter of refined petroleum products like gasoline for the first time since the Truman presidency. The natural gas industry, which less than a decade ago feared running out of domestic gas, is suddenly dealing with a glut so vast that import facilities are applying for licenses to export gas to Europe and Asia. 
National oil production, which declined steadily to 4.95 million barrels a day in 2008 from 9.6 million in 1970, has risen over the last four years to nearly 5.7 million barrels a day. The Energy Department projects that daily output could reach nearly seven million barrels by 2020. Some experts think it could eventually hit 10 million barrels — which would put the United States in the same league as Saudi Arabia. 

I don't understand how Harry can keep reading this and post something bizarre about the US not pumping oil. We are pumping beyond our demand and exporting the surplus. How much more would stop the lyin' and cryin'?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Sorry guys but this has taken quite a detour.


----------

