# New laws will make Michigan 24th "right-to-work" state



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/protesters-march-michigan-capitol-over-vote-054656984.html

Looks like the union lost a battle (a pretty big one).


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> "Let me tell the governor and all those elected officials who vote for this shameful, divisive bill - there will be repercussions," Hoffa said. "Some day soon, they will face the voters of Michigan and they will have to explain why they sided with the billionaires to back this destructive legislation."


I can imagine Jimmy bellowing his loudest from the _'we fool you'_ tier...








~CS~


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> I can imagine Jimmy bellowing his loudest from the _'we fool you'_ tier...
> 
> ~CS~


Do you actually think this is going to raise the standard of living in Michigan?
The 'little guys' (all blue collar workers) have lost in this decision.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

hardworkingstiff said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/protesters-march-michigan-capitol-over-vote-054656984.html
> 
> Looks like the union lost a battle (a pretty big one).


I love how the douchebag republicans had to backdoor and sneak this in - very reminiscent of wisconsin. 

So much for the Party of Family Values. Maybe they mean the Manson family.


----------



## BurtiElectric (Jan 11, 2011)




----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

If its Sh-TTY football teams you left out new Orleans


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Theriot said:


> If its Sh-TTY football teams you left out new Orleans


OMG what are you saying about my Bengals?!?!?!?!

Oh, yeah. We lost to Dallas. We suck. 

nvm.


----------



## ace24wright (Jul 10, 2012)

eejack said:


> OMG what are you saying about my Bengals?!?!?!?!
> 
> Oh, yeah. We lost to Dallas. We suck.
> 
> nvm.


 ouch!


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

hardworkingstiff said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/protesters-march-michigan-capitol-over-vote-054656984.html
> 
> Looks like the union lost a battle (a pretty big one).


Except for civilian police and fire fighters. :thumbup:


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

BurtiElectric said:


> View attachment 19963


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


----------



## jbfan (Jan 22, 2007)

jrannis said:


> ..................


You really went there?:laughing:

Nevermind!


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

I actually don't understand this. I thought federal labor law already protected the right of people not to unionize in an organized shop. If that's the case, why is this law being touted as protecting the right of the worker not to participate in the union?

-John


----------



## howabout (Mar 25, 2012)

If you do not want to be in the union. Then find a shop that is non-union.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

I think it's going well. :blink:  But at least some union Christmas party had a Santa last weekend so :laughing:


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

360max said:


> Do you actually think this is going to raise the standard of living in Michigan?


You bet. They will now be up there with India and Bangladesh. :laughing:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

electricmanscott said:


> I think it's going well. :blink:  But at least some union Christmas party had a Santa last weekend so :laughing:


So - a little background...

from his own page:


> About Steven Crowder
> Videos of the stand-up comedian, FoxNews Contributor and social/political commentator Steven Crowder.
> "Liberalism is a disease... Meet the cure."


From other sources:


> Crowder argued with protesters who began to tear down a tent pitched on the Capitol lawn by the pro-right-to-work group Americans For Prosperity.


Oh wait...where have we heard that name before...



> The conservative group Americans for Prosperity is enticing supporters to rally at the Michigan state capitol in support of right-to-work legislation with $25 gas cards and free food and drinks, according to a staffer for the organization's Michigan chapter.
> AFP's Michigan chapter also used gas cards and free lunches to lure supporters to a lobby day on December 6, the day GOP Gov. Rick Snyder and Republican lawmakers abruptly unveiled their right-to-work bills. Greg George, a government affairs associate with AFP-Michigan, says no one has taken the group up on its most recent gas card offer, but that the offer remains. "We've offered to gladly give them out," he says. (Because it is a nonprofit organization, Americans for Prosperity, which is partially backed by the Koch brothers, does not publicly disclose its donors.)





> Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is an American conservative political advocacy group headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. AFP’s stated mission is "educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing citizens as advocates in the public policy process." The group played a major role in the Republicans’ 2010 takeover of the House of Representatives, and has been called "one of the most powerful conservative organizations in electoral politics."


Please just stop pretending you are nothing more than a shills who are doing the bidding for a bunch of really really rich folks who do not give a damn about you. You are only hurting yourself.

And if you are not getting paid, please seek help. You are brainwashed members of a cult.


----------



## BurtiElectric (Jan 11, 2011)

jrannis said:


> ..................












Maybe you'll understand this one


----------



## BurtiElectric (Jan 11, 2011)




----------



## halfamp (Jul 16, 2012)

electricmanscott said:


> I think it's going well. :blink:  But at least some union Christmas party had a Santa last weekend so :laughing:


See this is exactly what unions need to distance themselves from. I personally don't agree with right to work. I am a union electrician. I don't think unions are the answer to everything and golden calves and all that like eejack does. This behavior on the video is completely unacceptable and certainly isn't going to gain them any sympathy, it just makes them look like brainless and aggressive apes.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Not...Going...To...Get...Sucked...In...Must...Refrain


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Big John said:


> I actually don't understand this. I thought federal labor law already protected the right of people not to unionize in an organized shop. If that's the case, why is this law being touted as protecting the right of the worker not to participate in the union?
> 
> -John


The law simply makes job openings,Open to all ,Not just those who happen to be in the Union.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> Please just stop pretending you are nothing more than a shills who are doing the bidding for a bunch of really really rich folks who do not give a damn about you. You are only hurting yourself.
> 
> And if you are not getting paid, please seek help. You are brainwashed members of a cult.


Do you mean all those Rich politicians that are in charge of the senate?and the white house and just about all the other nations of the world?......Those Folks?:blink:,,,,,,,Say It ain't so....


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

eejack said:


> So - a little background...
> 
> from his own page:
> From other sources:
> ...


*Shill;*
_One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle._

You wouldn't sink so low as to call ME a shill would you Sir EEJACK!:notworthy::notworthy:Oh well, I guess that's better than being, not only a monkey, but a *LAME* monkey!!:laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

halfamp said:


> See this is exactly what unions need to distance themselves from. I personally don't agree with right to work. I am a union electrician. I don't think unions are the answer to everything and golden calves and all that like eejack does. This behavior on the video is completely unacceptable and certainly isn't going to gain them any sympathy, it just makes them look like brainless and aggressive apes.


So we will just ignore all the edited out parts of the video, the fact that the 'reporter' was aggressive and confrontational and eventually found someone hot headed enough to take a swing at him.

Unacceptable? I find it a travesty that any news organization would sully their chosen field by intentionally making news. Journalism has become theatre and News Corp should be held accountable for the violence it created. 

The next time they send out a brainless and aggressive ape with a cameraman perhaps some sweet little old grandmother will get maimed or killed - we need to put a stop to this sort of intentionally dangerous for profit behavior.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> Unacceptable? I find it a travesty that any LABOR organization would sully their chosen field by intentionally making news.


 
:no::no::no:

~CS~


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

The way they are acting you would think they made unions illegal. If I'm not mistaken you still have the right to unionize.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> So we will just ignore all the edited out parts of the video, the fact that the 'reporter' was aggressive and confrontational and eventually found someone hot headed enough to take a swing at him.
> 
> Unacceptable? I find it a travesty that any news organization would sully their chosen field by intentionally making news. Journalism has become theatre and News Corp should be held accountable for the violence it created.
> 
> The next time they send out a brainless and aggressive ape with a cameraman perhaps some sweet little old grandmother will get maimed or killed - we need to put a stop to this sort of intentionally dangerous for profit behavior.


They were trying to protect a tent filled with women and children and the thugs could have killed someone.

You say news corp should be held accountable for the violence the thugs created,When in fact the rest of the news media has created this unrest by misinforming the public enough so that we will have to live with this class-warfare crap for another four years.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

ah, but it's an old war raft with fraternization Harry....>












American financier Jay Gould. After hiring strikebreakers, he said "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half



~CS~


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

wendon said:


> *Shill;*
> _One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle._
> 
> You wouldn't sink so low as to call ME a shill would you Sir EEJACK!:notworthy::notworthy:Oh well, I guess that's better than being, not only a monkey, but a *LAME* monkey!!:laughing::laughing::laughing:


Yes Wendon, either a shill or a dullard. 

Your blind and dogged devotion to a line of reasoning that can only harm the financial future of workers in this country (including yourself) defies comprehension unless you are either intentionally doing so or too much of an idiot to understand.

Since I don't consider you an idiot I surmise you must have intentions, and I can only guess at them. 

First guess is you are just one of those unfortunates who has watched so much 'News' so as to become brainwashed - sad sad folks who bleat on about whatever Rupert tells them to. I have tried helping a few of those folks out - I wish I can say I have had some even minor success.

Another is you are intentionally trolling - a noble and exciting sport which I have been known to practice at. You have found a forum ( pun intended ) and a subject and lots of opportunity to practice here and I suspect you might get better at it at some point.

Or you could be one of the paid trolls I have met. I rather doubt it but they exist - mostly on the bigger forums and places like twitter. 

So yes Wendon, a shill. Consider it a compliment...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Theriot said:


> The way they are acting you would think they made unions illegal. If I'm not mistaken you still have the right to unionize.


As long as they Know how you voted....


~CS~


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

If unions are so great and people have a choice than everyone will choice union. So this law is useless and changes nothing and does nothing. Why so up in arms?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

eejack said:


> > First guess is you are just one of those unfortunates who has watched so much 'News' so as to become brainwashed -
> 
> 
> guilty as charged....>
> ...


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Do you mean all those Rich politicians that are in charge of the senate?and the white house and just about all the other nations of the world?......Those Folks?:blink:,,,,,,,Say It ain't so....


No. Those folks are not rich. They are well off. I mean rich folks. Seriously the people you mentioned are not even billionaires.

How about a pair of Koch - $31B each. Throw 4 Waltons on that pile - another 100 or so billion. Heck, even Sheldon Adelson barely makes the list at over $20b


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Theriot said:


> If unions are so great and people have a choice than everyone will choice union. So this law is useless and changes nothing and does nothing. Why so up in arms?


 
If you're referring to HR800, it violates the democratic fundamental of a secret ballot

unless of course you wish Union reps , or company management for that matter, at your door demanding an explanation of your vote....

~CS~


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

Lets put a positive spin on it. Lets look at it as a Pro Choice victory. The left won another Pro Choice Vote.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

eejack said:


> No. Those folks are not rich. They are well off. I mean rich folks. Seriously the people you mentioned are not even billionaires.


As Chris Rock said


> Shaq is rich, the white man that signs his paycheck is wealthy.



The wealthy have bought and paid for the legislators. 

They dangle the carrot out in front of us and say if you work hard, keep your nose to the grindstone, you also can be rich. BS, it's just a way to keep you working hard with little supervision.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

eejack said:


> Your blind and dogged devotion to a line of reasoning that can only harm the financial future of workers in this country (including yourself) defies comprehension unless you are either intentionally doing so or too much of an idiot to understand.
> 
> Since I don't consider you an idiot I surmise you must have intentions, and I can only guess at them.
> 
> ...


You are describing yourself. Everything you bitch about everyone else being is EXACTLY you. :laughing: The only thing you left out is apologist head buried in the sand sheep.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

eejack said:


> So we will just ignore all the edited out parts of the video, the fact that the 'reporter' was aggressive and confrontational and eventually found someone hot headed enough to take a swing at him.
> 
> Unacceptable? I find it a travesty that any news organization would sully their chosen field by intentionally making news. Journalism has become theatre and News Corp should be held accountable for the violence it created.
> 
> The next time they send out a brainless and aggressive ape with a cameraman perhaps some sweet little old grandmother will get maimed or killed - we need to put a stop to this sort of intentionally dangerous for profit behavior.


You are one twisted mother fckr


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

eejack said:


> Yes Wendon, either a shill or a dullard.
> 
> Your blind and dogged devotion to a line of reasoning that can only harm the financial future of workers in this country (including yourself) defies comprehension unless you are either intentionally doing so or too much of an idiot to understand.
> 
> ...


So now it's a "paid troll" "possible idiot" "brainwashed" "unfortunate" "sad sad folk" and to top it off "a shill" 
To tell you the truth I think it's a joke, and yes I mean a joke the way some people feel that anyone who thinks differently than themselves is a poor unenlightened shill or whatever derogatory term you choose to use. I challenge you to find one post where I've used those terms in reference to you?? I refuse to sink to that level. I put in my time working for others for 23 years and have owned my own electrical business for 7 years and the only payment I get is from my customers. I can assure you I'm not a "paid troll" so you can wipe that one off your list. I do enjoy a good discussion though and believe if you're going to give, you better be willing to receive graciously!:yes:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> eejack said:
> 
> 
> > guilty as charged....>
> ...


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> No. Those folks are not rich. They are well off. I mean rich folks. Seriously the people you mentioned are not even billionaires.
> 
> How about a pair of Koch - $31B each. Throw 4 Waltons on that pile - another 100 or so billion. Heck, even Sheldon Adelson barely makes the list at over $20b


warren Buffet,Bill gates, George Sorro's The Owners of Google Jeff Emalt the owner of GE, are all multy billionaires and all part of the left's super power world wide.,The right only egists in the USA because we've had freedom for 236 years,And they want us back under their control.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Well it's always been about _control _Harry....~CS~


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

Dems are celebrating in the streets. Pro Choice wins again. Men finally have a choice now.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

hardworkingstiff said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/protesters-march-michigan-capitol-over-vote-054656984.html
> 
> Looks like the union lost a battle (a pretty big one).


The working man lost. When unions lose power, wages go down. When wages go down, prevailing wage lowers. When that happens, the standard of living lowers. So, in essence, anyone who works for a living loses. 
And when the state government has a lower expenditure rate for the tasks at hand, rest assured they will lower taxes, and pass the savings on to the taxpayer.:laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

big2bird said:


> The working man lost. When unions lose power, wages go down. When wages go down, prevailing wage lowers. When that happens, the standard of living lowers. So, in essence, anyone who works for a living loses.
> And when the state government has a lower expenditure rate for the tasks at hand, rest assured they will lower taxes, and pass the savings on to the taxpayer.:laughing::laughing::laughing:


Sorry but the working man wins in this case because these jobs that closed to union members only are now open to those men who have been excluded from the unions all these years.

On the other hand the working man lost six years ago when the fed decided that the unemployment rate must go up and be held in the 8-10%range to fight off inflation......what is inflation?........ The workingmans wages,yes that's right whenever you here the word inflation they are talking about wages,Why do you think they want to raise taxes on the Rich? ,because raising taxes takes money that could have been used too give wage increases to employees and hire more workers,the Feds do not want that and will do all they can to stop it and blame it all on the people that are trying to help grow the economey.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> On the other hand the working man lost six years ago when the fed decided that the unemployment rate must go up and be held in the 8-10%range to fight off inflation......


WTF are you talking about?

It looks like you just said that the FED is fighting inflation? Are you crazy?


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Sorry but the working man wins in this case because these jobs that closed to union members only are now open to those men who have been excluded from the unions all these years.


All those jobs will be at a lower rate. That means the income tax collected on those jobs goes down. A few unemployed will gain, but in the long run, wages for all will decend, not to mention the tax increases to make up for lost revenue.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> It looks like you just said that the FED is fighting inflation? Are you crazy?


Yes the fed is fighting inflation "wage inflation"that is why they are holding unemployment at 8-10%

And raising taxes will help keep it that way.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

wendon said:


> So now it's a "paid troll" "possible idiot" "brainwashed" "unfortunate" "sad sad folk" and to top it off "a shill"
> To tell you the truth I think it's a joke, and yes I mean a joke the way some people feel that anyone who thinks differently than themselves is a poor unenlightened shill or whatever derogatory term you choose to use. I challenge you to find one post where I've used those terms in reference to you?? I refuse to sink to that level. I put in my time working for others for 23 years and have owned my own electrical business for 7 years and the only payment I get is from my customers. I can assure you I'm not a "paid troll" so you can wipe that one off your list. I do enjoy a good discussion though and believe if you're going to give, you better be willing to receive graciously!:yes:


Well, when you put it that way. Yes. ( though you left sport troll of the list ).

See, you threw the word think out there. Dangerous word think. Scary word.

If you think about it, there is no reason at all to support the diminishment of worker rights. 

If you think about it, every step away from collective bargaining is a step toward wage slavery.

If you think about it supporting worker rights is in your own best interests.

Since I know you are no idiot you have to come to this conclusion.

Ergo, your behavior does not match your interests and the reason for it must lie in that list. Logical.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Sorry but the working man wins in this case because these jobs that closed to union members only are now open to those men who have been excluded from the unions all these years.


And the real loser is everyone since wages, training etc. etc. go down and businesses have to charge less because folks can no longer afford basic goods and services and we end up like a third world nation.

Basically business owners win in the very short term and everyone loses long term.

The real question is if this is so necessary and wanted by the public, why did they find a back door to do it. Why not just be men and do it in the daylight?

( the answer involves lobbyists and the continued schtupping of the American people by the GOP in case you needed a hint ).


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Yes the fed is fighting inflation "wage inflation"that is why they are holding unemployment at 8-10%
> 
> And raising taxes will help keep it that way.


You need to quit your day job because all of the economists are wrong and you need to go straighten them out. We need you.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

howabout said:


> If you do not want to be in the union. Then find a shop that is non-union.


:laughing:

That is so freaking funny.

I have always said that about those that try to force a company to become union.

If you want to work union find a shop that is union.:laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> Not...Going...To...Get...Sucked...In...Must...Refrain


:thumbup:

It is so difficult not to get pulled in .... :jester:


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

eejack said:


> And the real loser is everyone since wages, training etc. etc. go down and businesses have to charge less because folks can no longer afford basic goods and services and we end up like a third world nation.
> 
> Basically business owners win in the very short term and everyone loses long term.
> 
> ...


Walmart is just the start. Soon we will all be slaves to the Chinese.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

big2bird said:


> The working man lost. When unions lose power, wages go down. When wages go down, prevailing wage lowers. When that happens, the standard of living lowers. So, in essence, anyone who works for a living loses.
> ...


 And then we will all buy less and those big companies will have no idea why their profits have gone done. They will no longer be paying us enough to buy thier products. They will then lower the wages again in an effort to bring their profits back up. Soon the companies will be bankrupt like the many state governments and the federal government. 

Oh, by the way, the governments will have even less income with the lower wages.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> And then we will all buy less and those big companies will have no idea why their profits have gone done. They will no longer be paying us enough to buy thier products. They will then lower the wages again in an effort to bring their profits back up. Soon the companies will be bankrupt like the many state governments and the federal government.
> 
> Oh, by the way, the governments will have even less income with the lower wages.


I have a real question. How high can wages be pushed above 'what the free market determines' before it stops helping the economy? 

Don you know as well as I do valid arguments can be made on either side of this. Higher wages could also result in less jobs to be done, less jobs less taxes, less jobs more on unemployment, less goods being purchased.

None of us truly know the real answer, hell there may well be no single answer. It may just be that the economy has to keep swinging back and forth between one view and the other.

I think the unions are a good thing, but they also need to be kept in check. If left unmolested the demands would become ridiculous, it is just human nature to always want more.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Citizes United V the FEC heralded in Corporatisms guilded age redux

_we didn't see unions protesting......_

Nafta created that 'giant sucking sound' Perot waned us of

_we didn't see unions protesting....._

The walmartization of America through WTO legislation , and lack of VAT and/or other tariffs has created a tenant/landlord relationship with communist countries

_we didn't see unions protesting......_

The insurance cabal legislated mandatory policy, basically edgeing out any entrepenure from foriegn competition

_we didn't see unions protesting......_

The Gub'mit basically broke the concept of Capitalism bailing out what were uncompetitite auto manufacturers dying under the wieght of their unions

_we didn't see unions protesting......_

Yet you lot come here and have the unmitigated gall to tell me _my_ interests are economically tied to unions?

I want a divorce!

~CS~


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> Citizes United V the FEC heralded in Corporatisms guilded age redux
> 
> _we didn't see unions protesting......_Wrong
> 
> ...


Do a little fact checking first.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

BBQ said:


> I have a real question. How high can wages be pushed above 'what the free market determines' before it stops helping the economy?
> 
> Don you know as well as I do valid arguments can be made on either side of this. Higher wages could also result in less jobs to be done, less jobs less taxes, less jobs more on unemployment, less goods being purchased.
> 
> ...


God help me, I agree with this.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> And then we will all buy less and those big companies will have no idea why their profits have gone done. They will no longer be paying us enough to buy thier products. They will then lower the wages again in an effort to bring their profits back up. Soon the companies will be bankrupt like the many state governments and the federal government.
> 
> Oh, by the way, the governments will have even less income with the lower wages.


Bought a car lately.?
When I started the trade in 1979, you could save up for 6 months, and buy a car. I make more than ever, and cannot afford a new car saving 3 years. It's just nutz.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Yes the fed is fighting inflation "wage inflation"that is why they are holding unemployment at 8-10%
> 
> And raising taxes will help keep it that way.


The Fed is regulating unemployment?
I can't wait to hear this one. Explain to us poor folks Harry.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

big2bird said:


> God help me, I agree with this.


I often agree with Bob, and don't see the need for God's help.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

big2bird said:


> The Fed is regulating unemployment?
> I can't wait to hear this one. Explain to us poor folks Harry.


Not that far a leap BB

you see, the unemployment bone is connected to the outsourcing bone, which is connected to the legislative bone

now i might be wrong about the legislative bone, it might be more a ligament that reaches out to a number of bones

this is why we'll all be talking Chinese soon btw.....

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

BBQ said:


> ... I think the unions are a good thing, but they also need to be kept in check. If left unmolested the demands would become ridiculous, it is just human nature to always want more.


The big corporations also have to be kept in check. What method, other than unions, can do that? The demands of the unions are no more ridiculous than the damands of the big corporations. 
As I have said a couple of times before, if there is excessive pay and benefits given to union members, both sides are at fault. There cannot be a contract without the agrement of both sides.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

i'll believe corporations are people when we see Texas executing them

i'll believe the captians of industry here have any allegiance to America when i see them invest in America

i'll believe Unions are _'still a good thing'_ when i see them stop telling us what we'd like to hear publicly, while sucking up to either faction behind legislative doors

~CS~


----------



## NacBooster29 (Oct 25, 2010)

BBQ said:


> I have a real question. How high can wages be pushed above 'what the free market determines' before it stops helping the economy?
> 
> Don you know as well as I do valid arguments can be made on either side of this. Higher wages could also result in less jobs to be done, less jobs less taxes, less jobs more on unemployment, less goods being purchased.
> 
> ...


Ultimately if the lowest workers are making 20 dollars sweeping floors, with no real education, or training. Then the cost of items which are produced rise in cost. If everyone is making a good living than why try to better yourself, hell drop out in elementary school. There will be a job paying 20+ great bennies.
Realistically there needs to be an open market where people are able to bargain for themselves. Based on merit.
In a nutshell if every worker is part of a union, that will drive the cost of living up, and it gets into a nasty circle.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

BBQ said:


> I have a real question. How high can wages be pushed above 'what the free market determines' before it stops helping the economy?


There isn't a top wage - country helped line - more wages means more taxes paid.

However, there must be a point where someone makes too much. 

Now, we often pick on the guy who assembles cars - so and so installs the door unlock button for a 70 dollars an hour - or we pick on executive pay - look, Mr. CEO is making 17,000 times what a line worker makes.

While both examples make good press I would rather look at the other end. How little can a person earn and live?

If we as a country could allow someone who is willing to work, willing to put the effort in, allow that person to make a livable wage, enough to feed and cloth a family, to afford decent schooling and healthcare, then we can worry about the folks who make too much.

Sadly we all know folks who do not met these basic requirements - honest and hard working people, who are working multiple jobs by multiple family members and they are saddled with crushing debt. This is America - this should not happen.

Unions are the only protection against institutionalized greed and in recent years, due to massive attack those unions are reeling.

Ask, who does 'right to work' benefit? The answer is not me or you, or that poor schlub working his second job.

When that guy can make a real living, ask me about top wages.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

eejack said:


> Unions are the only protection against institutionalized greed and in recent years, due to massive attack those unions are reeling.


prove it then eejack

you've seen my _'list of woes'_ here, prove that the unions have put some serious $$$ toward it , vs. lip service

~CS~


----------



## devosf (Jan 17, 2012)

eejack said:


> No. Those folks are not rich. They are well off. I mean rich folks. Seriously the people you mentioned are not even billionaires.
> 
> How about a pair of Koch - $31B each. Throw 4 Waltons on that pile - another 100 or so billion. Heck, even Sheldon Adelson barely makes the list at over $20b


Your hipocrisy is stunning!


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

More employed means more taxes. Top pay for a job that isn't hiring pay no taxes.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Top pay for a job that gets outsourced isn't much of a tax base....~CS~


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

eejack said:


> There isn't a top wage - country helped line - more wages means more taxes paid.
> 
> However, there must be a point where someone makes too much.
> 
> ...


Just curious EEJACK what your take is on the poor black man that had his hot dog stand supplies destroyed and was subjected to racial slurs. Wouldn't that be a "hate" crime? I don't think replacing his supplies would be sufficient would it??

The Shill, Sport Troller, Bottom Feeder, etc.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

wendon said:


> Just curious EEJACK what your take is on the poor black man that had his hot dog stand supplies destroyed and was subjected to racial slurs. Wouldn't that be a "hate" crime? I don't think replacing his supplies would be sufficient would it??
> 
> The Shill, Sport Troller, Bottom Feeder, etc.


I'm sure it never happened. :laughing:


http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/12/t...dKcrbGfooiZCbgsgRWLHZBQugZDZD&expires_in=4252


I'm on the edge of my seat here. Can't wait to hear the spin on this. Brother Noah, where you at dude??


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


> I'm sure it never happened. :laughing:
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/12/tea-party-thugs-destroy-black-mans-business/#access_token=AAAAAIWijSp4BABiZA6DiHp5yOBpdH5nUabyTJoI2dzthltzdG8XpwZA3exR0KaxCa3P1bJZAx5p31X3y7jdKcrbGfooiZCbgsgRWLHZBQugZDZD&expires_in=4252
> 
> I'm on the edge of my seat here. Can't wait to hear the spin on this. Brother Noah, where you at dude??


He should of had union protection.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

devosf said:


> Your hipocrisy is stunning!


Yeah, you got me there. I usually just have my servant burn my millions in barrel instead of doing it myself.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

wendon said:


> Just curious EEJACK what your take is on the poor black man that had his hot dog stand supplies destroyed and was subjected to racial slurs. Wouldn't that be a "hate" crime? I don't think replacing his supplies would be sufficient would it??
> 
> The Shill, Sport Troller, Bottom Feeder, etc.


What are you talking about?

I say something about wages and you come up with a hot dog stand?

That I am supposed to know about.

Do you even visit reality occasionally?


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

eejack said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> I say something about wages and you come up with a hot dog stand?
> 
> ...


Click the link I posted.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> prove it then eejack
> 
> you've seen my _'list of woes'_ here, prove that the unions have put some serious $$$ toward it , vs. lip service
> 
> ~CS~


Actually I have not seen any list of woes.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

electricmanscott said:


> Click the link I posted.


Do you have a link from a news organization?

Actually - lots of googling comes up with this gem in comment on one of the Freeper sites....



> If Mr. Tarver hadn't set up shop inside the AFP tent I doubt he would have encountered any trouble or loss of equipment. Everyone there knew Americans for Prosperity were only there to stir up trouble and stick and twist their knife into the fresh wounds of the Michigan union workers. Fortunately, these same protesters cared enough about this hot dog vendor to collect money to pay for the loss he experienced, which is pretty decent of them. I doubt this would have happened (the reimbursement) had the tables been turned and it was Republicans/conservatives protestin


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

eejack said:


> Do you have a link from a news organization?
> 
> Actually - lots of googling comes up with this gem in comment on one of the Freeper sites....


www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=38321&content...1

http://newsdeskinternational.wordpr...michigan-protestors-destroy-vendors-supplies/


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

big2bird said:


> The Fed is regulating unemployment?
> I can't wait to hear this one. Explain to us poor folks Harry.


Sure," ... a labor force with a degree of bargaining power hard to imagine today."

And where did the labor force of the 1950s get their bargaining power? From the fact that unemployment was around 3%. Workers didn't have to hang onto their jobs for dear life; if they were fired then they could find another job. This gave them the confidence to form unions and to strike for better wages, working conditions and benefits, including health insurance. And employers had to pay competitive wages or nobody would work for them.

Based on the Full Employment Act of 1946, amended in 1978 as the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act, the unemployment goal is supposed to be 3% for people 20 and over and 4% for teenagers. 

Economists have done a disservice to our nation by using as a target the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU), which they calculate to be between 4.3% and 7.3%; they settled at about 5%, however some economists are now saying the new normal will be 6.5%. The Fed and lawmakers are targeting an unemployment rate where the workers will be cowed and the unions will be busted. In doing so they are controlling price inflation by preventing wage inflation. Is it any wonder why workers have lost earning power?

The US government and the Fed should target 3% unemployment, realizing that wage inflation is a good thing, for our workers because it will help them make up lost ground, and for our economy because it will create demand for goods and services."


Which leads you to read this..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Act_of_1946


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphre...Employment_Act __________________


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

eejack said:


> Do you have a link from a news organization?
> 
> Actually - lots of googling comes up with this gem in comment on one of the Freeper sites....


You are awesome. :laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

eejack said:


> Actually I have not seen any list of woes.


post #57>



Citizes United V the FEC heralded in Corporatisms guilded age redux

_we didn't see unions protesting......_

Nafta created that 'giant sucking sound' Perot waned us of

_we didn't see unions protesting....._

The walmartization of America through WTO legislation , and lack of VAT and/or other tariffs has created a tenant/landlord relationship with communist countries

_we didn't see unions protesting......_

The insurance cabal legislated mandatory policy, basically edgeing out any entrepenure from foriegn competition

_we didn't see unions protesting......_

The Gub'mit basically broke the concept of Capitalism bailing out what were uncompetitive auto manufacturers dying under the wieght of their unions

_we didn't see unions protesting......_

Yet you lot come here and have the unmitigated gall to tell me _my_ interests are economically tied to unions?

I want a divorce!

~CS~


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> You are awesome. :laughing:


 
In THIS sense of the word:


*Definition of awesome (adj)*

bing.com · Bing Dictionary
*awe·some*
[ áwssəm ] 



impressive and frightening: so impressive or overwhelming as to inspire a strong feeling of admiration or fear
 


It's definately scary to see someone sooo brainwashed.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> The US government and the Fed should target 3% unemployment, realizing that wage inflation is a good thing, for our workers because it will help them make up lost ground, and for our economy because it will create demand for goods and services."


That's a great target, and just how do you think they can do this? In the last 4 years they have dumped trillions of dollars into the economy trying to jump start it and all it has done is kept us from going into the great depression 2 (which may still be coming as soon as we start austerity).

They can target all they want, but greed will prevent it from happening.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> post #57>


You didn't see the protests because you were not looking or your bizzaro scenarios are goofy.

You don't have a list of woes, you have a bunch of bullet points.

And yes, your interests are tied to unions - the further away from unionism we get, the worse the middle class does. You can make all the silly bullet point lists you want with your _italic_ denials next to them, they don't magically become true or valid.

The country is doing worse because wage earners are doing worse because businesses are taking advantage of workers without any sort of voice.

Of course since you are a billionaire it doesn't apply to you....


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

hardworkingstiff said:


> They can target all they want, but greed will prevent it from happening.


eggggzactly

~CS~


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> That's a great target, and just how do you think they can do this? In the last 4 years they have dumped trillions of dollars into the economy trying to jump start it and all it has done is kept us from going into the great depression 2 (which may still be coming as soon as we start austerity).
> 
> They can target all they want, but greed will prevent it from happening.


They are not going to do that today.Can they?,Yes.Will they ? No way in my opinion,Whether both sides want it this way, or not I really don't know but it sure seems that way,My side could be fighting a lot harder and could have won the whole show,But the fact is they did not,Not like they did in 2010 at least.
There is a huge difference in the dems from 1946 when the goal was full Employment., To today's D's who believe that An economy set on endless growth is Unsustainable.,How do you prevent Growth?,,By doing exactly what they are doing now.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> They are not going to do that today.Can they?,Yes.


Please inform us of how Harry. Just how do you think they could drive unemployment to 3%? Details, PLEASE!


> Will they ? No way in my opinion,Whether both sides want it this way, or not I really don't know but it sure seems that way,My side could be fighting a lot harder and could have won the whole show,But the fact is they did not,Not like they did in 2010 at least.
> There is a huge difference in the dems from 1946 when the goal was full Employment., To today's D's who believe that An economy set on endless growth is Unsustainable.,How do you prevent Growth?,,By doing exactly what they are doing now.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKzlk1L3ADs


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Please inform us of how Harry. Just how do you think they could drive unemployment to 3%? Details, PLEASE!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKzlk1L3ADs


I'm an Electrician not the federal reserve Chairman..:laughing:

They have to set the goal just like in 1946,We have enough history to know how to do it,But they either don't understand how to do it ,OR they Know exactly what they are doing and they want unemployment high so they can build an even larger Underclass so they can control them and blame the rich.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

eejack said:


> > You didn't see the protests because you were not looking or your bizzaro scenarios are goofy.
> >
> > You don't have a list of woes, you have a bunch of bullet points.
> 
> ...


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> I'm an Electrician not the federal reserve Chairman..:laughing:


Well then how can you make the assertions in your earlier posts?


> They have to set the goal just like in 1946,We have enough history to know how to do it,But they either don't understand how to do it ,OR they Know exactly what they are doing and they want unemployment high so they can build an even larger Underclass so they can control them and blame the rich.


I read this book almost 4 years ago and the authors pretty much spelled out that the Fed would continue monetary easing and it will not do the job. He also predicted that the politicians will not come together to make the tough decisions needed because they would not get reelected (I guess we will find out in a couple of weeks if they are right on this point or not). Their next prediction is that we will go away from Fed easy monetary policy when our bonds won't sell and then turn to outright money printing (which I guess means the Fed goes away?). At that point, the chit really hits the fan.

If these authors are correct, it will really get bad in the next few years.

Personally, I hope they are wrong. So far though, it doesn't look good. I think I need to read this again.

http://www.amazon.com/Aftershock-Pr...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311858242&sr=1-1


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Please inform us of how Harry. Just how do you think they could drive unemployment to 3%? Details, PLEASE!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKzlk1L3ADs


The potus who singed Nafta & Glass Stegal, cheerleading middle class _togetherness_ HWS?

~CS~


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> I would counter that the Union 'voice' is entirely self serving, short sighted and quite frankly detrimental to all workers at this point....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


NO, you are not asserting the union bosses are greedy and using the system to line their pockets are you? :laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Well then how can you make the assertions in your earlier posts?
> 
> I read this book almost 4 years ago and the authors pretty much spelled out that the Fed would continue monetary easing and it will not do the job. He also predicted that the politicians will not come together to make the tough decisions needed because they would not get reelected (I guess we will find out in a couple of weeks if they are right on this point or not). Their next prediction is that we will go away from Fed easy monetary policy when our bonds won't sell and then turn to outright money printing (which I guess means the Fed goes away?). At that point, the chit really hits the fan.
> 
> ...


iirc, some 'aftershock' excerpts are available on the 'net HWS, but the shell game the Fed has been playing , and the pols who are playing along with it are all a short term economic smoke/mirrors

That Moody's , as well a s Standard & Poor (bond raters) have taken us down a star _after this publish _validates their position imho

~CS~


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> The potus who singed Nafta & Glass Stegal, cheerleading middle class _togetherness_ HWS?
> 
> ~CS~


LOL, ok, I got the sarcasm.

Maybe he's reformed? :no:

My father was of the opinion that the democrats had the working class people 1st and the republicans had the rich people 1st. I have not seen anything to change that viewpoint, so, until we have more than a 2 party system, I will have to side with the democrats. Don't get me wrong, I know they are both out for themselves and really don't have my best interest at heart.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

hardworkingstiff said:


> NO, you are not asserting the union bosses are greedy and using the system to line their pockets are you? :laughing:


Hevean forbid we follow the $$$, not their rhetoric....~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

hardworkingstiff said:


> > LOL, ok, I got the sarcasm.
> 
> 
> :thumbsup:
> ...


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> ...
> My father was of the opinion that the democrats had the working class people 1st and the republicans had the rich people 1st. I have not seen anything to change that viewpoint, so, until we have more than a 2 party system, I will have to side with the democrats. Don't get me wrong, I know they are both out for themselves and really don't have my best interest at heart.


 In the past, before big business got super greedy, big labor did best when big business did best and that happend most of the time under republican leadership.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> that happend most of the time under republican leadership.


Substantiation please.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The big corporations also have to be kept in check. What method, other than unions, can do that?


And again I point out I think the unions are needed, I just wish they could act a little bettter around me anyway. 



> The demands of the unions are no more ridiculous than the damands of the big corporations.


I guess I will just agree to disagree there. 



> As I have said a couple of times before, if there is excessive pay and benefits given to union members, both sides are at fault. There cannot be a contract without the agrement of both sides.


Here is the problem I have with that, when the agreement is reached due to walkouts, slowdowns, pickets, or harassment etc. it really was an agreement made under duress and I think that makes the blame all on the union. 

If the unions actions put the company in a position to go under today vs agree to demands they should not that is really not a choice.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> when big business did best and that happend most of the time under republican leadership.


Not everyone agrees with that statement.


> For the last 50 years Republicans have been lying their asses off when it comes to this Myth. Now of course Willard Romney likes to make speeches at every whistle stop saying the same lie Republicans have been saying for 50 years. In all actuality it is Democratic administrations that have been good for Business!
> 
> This is not news from a Democratic leaning news organization but from Bloomberg News!


http://current.com/community/936845...s-better-for-business-is-just-that-a-myth.htm







> Why Do Business Leaders Prefer Republicans? It is obvious that most business leaders prefer having Republicans in power rather than Democrats. Why is that the case? Is it because that the economy performs better when Republicans are in power than it does when Democrats are in power? Or is it because Republican control makes it possible for business leaders to accumulate more personal wealth than does Democratic control?
> 
> I will briefly examine the performance of the federal economy relative to Republican or Democratic control of the federal government. It will be seen that most economic indicators were better, on the average, during periods of Democratic control of the federal governments since the Franklin Roosevelt administration than they were during periods of Republican control. Details about these analyses can be found at http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/economy.htm, which gives references for the data used.


http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/busleadersrep.htm


I've read many more articles that support the opinion that democrats are better for business and stocks than republicans.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Lou , come on , Bloomberg is as left wing as you can get.:laughing:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Lou , come on , Bloomberg is as left wing as you can get.:laughing:


OK Harry, please post an article link from your source that says otherwise. I would like to read it. Please remember, the discussion is about which party in power is better for business, historically, not opinion of going forward, but looking back through history. I feel the need to state this because of your habit of changing the topic in mid discussion.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> OK Harry, please post an article link from your source that says otherwise. I would like to read it. Please remember, the discussion is about which party in power is better for business, historically, not opinion of going forward, but looking back through history. I feel the need to state this because of your habit of changing the topic in mid discussion.


Hands down the republicans are better for business,democrats put up taxes and regulations to make it harder to conduct business, just look at the EPA's agenda.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Hands down the republicans are better for business,democrats put up taxes and regulations to make it harder to conduct business, just look at the EPA's agenda.


OK, I got it, that is your opinion and it is well known on this forum. I'm asking you to post an article link in which the author shows how historically that republicans have been better for business than democrats. (2nd request)


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> OK, I got it, that is your opinion and it is well known on this forum. I'm asking you to post an article link in which the author shows how historically that republicans have been better for business than democrats. (2nd request)


Okay , but it's got wait till tonite ,I've got to get my work done..:laughing:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

BBQ said:


> ...
> Here is the problem I have with that, when the agreement is reached due to walkouts, slowdowns, pickets, or harassment etc. it really was an agreement made under duress and I think that makes the blame all on the union.
> 
> If the unions actions put the company in a position to go under today vs agree to demands they should not that is really not a choice.


The problem is how does the union get the attention of the company when the company refuses to bargin. The IBEW construction locals have a "no strike" clause in every local agreement. If NECA and the IBEW cannot agree, it goes to binding arbritration. 
As I said before the demands on both sides are often very extreme and when one or both sides refuse to move from those extreme positions, there will be problems. I think the "no strike" clause is good as long as you can get an impartial arbritration panel. I think in our case, NECA selects one member, the IBEW selects the second and those two select the third.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

*Bump*



HARRY304E said:


> Okay , but it's got wait till tonite ,I've got to get my work done..:laughing:


Harry, just checking in for that link. :whistling2:


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Hands down the republicans are better for business,democrats put up taxes and regulations to make it harder to conduct business, just look at the EPA's agenda.


THE EPA??


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Yes The EPA.

No use screaming about it. This is the power of incumbency and even though it is dishonest and hypocritical, it is legal. And there's nothing the GOP can do about it.

For months, federal agencies and the White House have sidetracked dozens of major regulations that cover everything from power plant pollution to workplace safety to a crackdown on Wall Street.
 The rules had been largely put on hold during the presidential campaign as the White House sought to quiet Republican charges that President Barack Obama was an overzealous regulator who is killing U.S. jobs.
 But since the election, the Obama administration has quietly reopened the regulations pipeline.
 In recent weeks, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed rules to update water quality guidelines for beaches and other recreational waters and deal with runoff from logging roads. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, meanwhile, has proposed long-delayed regulations requiring auto makers to include event data recorders - better known as "black boxes" - in all new cars and light trucks beginning in 2014.
 The administration also has initiated several rules to implement its health care overhaul, including a new fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions.
 Some GOP lawmakers fear the worst.
 Obama has spent the past year "punting" on a slew of job-killing regulations that will be unleashed in a second term, said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. With the election over, it's now "full speed ahead" for federal rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions, requiring cleaner gasoline and putting controls on drilling for oil and natural gas, said Inhofe, the senior Republican on the Senate Environment Committee.
​Obama may not have to run again, but other Democrats do. I daresay that overregulation will be a big issue in 2014 when unemployment will still be high and the economy growing an an anemic rate.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...tions_-_after_the_election.html#ixzz2EzgKJKOw


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Harry, just checking in for that link. :whistling2:


Surprisingly I'm having trouble finding what I'm looking for:blink:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The problem is how does the union get the attention of the company when the company refuses to bargin. The IBEW construction locals have a "no strike" clause in every local agreement. If NECA and the IBEW cannot agree, it goes to binding arbritration.
> As I said before the demands on both sides are often very extreme and when one or both sides refuse to move from those extreme positions, there will be problems. I think the "no strike" clause is good as long as you can get an impartial arbritration panel. I think in our case, NECA selects one member, the IBEW selects the second and those two select the third.


 

In the broader perspective, the real _'problem'_ is, this scenario does not exist in the domestic vaccum it once did Don.

Now the company, corporation , the entire works, can be outsourced , and done so with the _blessings_ of the US government

Now we've seen everything from sneakers to twinkies hit the free trade road in this country for over 30 years, to the point where we are referred to as the _'rust belt'_ here in New England

Given this history, why would _anyone _place faith in orginized labor _(the folks who have the $$$ like any other org)_ to be the spokespeople for the working class?

IMHO, unions make every effort toward collectivist _lip service_, while serving as inversley proportional _example_ to it.

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> Yes The EPA.
> 
> Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...tions_-_after_the_election.html#ixzz2EzgKJKOw


 
Oh, you mean those nice folks that are santioned by the powers that be here to create huge enviromental hurdles for any given domestic business, while allowing completely diseased imports marketed here Harry?

~CS~


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Surprisingly I'm having trouble finding what I'm looking for:blink:


Thank you for being honest about this Harry. I think the reason you can't find what you want to find is that the documentation is not there (I've looked for it when I was trying to decide how to vote).

We all have our preconceived unproven beliefs, and I believe you may have stumbled upon one of yours.

Please don't take my comments as a blanket statement that one side is better than the other, I just like to know the truth, and the truth is that historically, Democrats in general have been better than Republicans for business, and the stock market (from what I've been able to find).

Anyone who finds an article (from a reasonably credible source) stating otherwise, please post a link.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Yes The EPA.
> 
> No use screaming about it. This is the power of incumbency and even though it is* dishonest and hypocritical, it is legal. And there's nothing the GOP can do about it.*
> 
> ...


The GOP fears the worst? I fear the worst...
I think this type of abuse of the American people should be stopped.
I want open sewage on our beaches.
People with health problems should just suck it up and me good Americans.

This is an abomination. Abuse of this great land!!! Where does it end? When will it end??


----------



## Acadian9 (Jun 6, 2009)

I pay about $37/month in union dues. That's a small price to pay for the benefits and wages I earn.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Acadian9 said:


> I pay about $37/month in union dues. That's a small price to pay for the benefits and wages I earn.


I would agree with that statement. Is that typical in Canada?

What are the typical union dues in the USA?


----------



## jimmy21 (Mar 31, 2012)

Acadian9 said:


> I pay about $37/month in union dues. That's a small price to pay for the benefits and wages I earn.


i pay more than that when im NOT working 



hardworkingstiff said:


> I would agree with that statement. Is that typical in Canada?
> 
> What are the typical union dues in the USA?


the last job i was on i was paying about $500 a month, but that was because i was making about 10k a month. Union dues around here are 4.5% of your pay and $40 per month. Sounds like a lot but you won't net nearly as much working non union.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Ok.......

so just how much of {_4.5% union dues X the last 30 years_} went toward legislative efforts to keep American jobs IN America?


~CS~


----------



## jimmy21 (Mar 31, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> Ok.......
> 
> so just how much of {_4.5% union dues X the last 30 years_} went toward legislative efforts to keep American jobs IN America?
> 
> ...


more than if it was 0%


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

And so the official stats of Union participation supporting the entire working class ,whom are consistently told _'we're all in this together'_ is>>>>>>





jimmy21 said:


> more than if it was 0%



~CS~


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

hardworkingstiff said:


> I would agree with that statement. Is that typical in Canada?
> 
> What are the typical union dues in the USA?


My dues are $360 per year and there is a 2% assessment on my gross wages.


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/protesters-march-michigan-capitol-over-vote-054656984.html
> 
> Looks like the union lost a battle (a pretty big one).


Maybe they'll finally find mr. Hoffa as he rises from his grave in Michigan.


----------



## jimmy21 (Mar 31, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> And so the official stats of Union participation supporting the entire working class ,whom are consistently told _'we're all in this together'_ is>>>>>
> ~CS~



I don't really care to argue. I'm not a die hard union guy that wants to argue about it at every chance. I have to look at my own well being. I make more with better benefits than if I was at an open shop. Maybe in your part of the country it wouldn't make sense to be union but here the opposite is true


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

jimmy21 said:


> I have to look at my own well being.


 
An apt update for the Labor Slogan list ....

~CS~


----------



## jimmy21 (Mar 31, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> An apt update for the Labor Slogan list ....
> 
> ~CS~


So then would then would the open shop slogan be "don't worry about your own well being, your boss has toys to buy"


----------



## NacBooster29 (Oct 25, 2010)

This thread is the most useless ever. No one changes their opinion based on a thread about other guys experiences. You can talk or type til you're blue in the face about how one is right and one is wrong. But ultimately its about balance. 
If it was all one way.there would be no competition which is what drives a capitalist society. One side keeps the others in check so to say.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

that would be a non sequitur Jim

because unions and union shops were _predicated _on collectivism, open shops were not...

that they have evolved to embrace the _'me generation' _simply means this very fundamental foundation is cast to the wind

sadly the unions will follow....

~CS~


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

NacBooster29 said:


> ...One side keeps the others in check so to say.


 Agreed. Unfortunately, one side is losing. Woe to the working man when that balance is completely destroyed.

-John


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

NacBooster29 said:


> One side keeps the others in check so to say.


:thumbsup:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Big John said:


> Agreed. Unfortunately, one side is losing.


I think they need to look within to find the many if the reasons why.

Certainly not all the reasons, but definitely some of them.


----------

