# Right to work laws



## brother (Nov 25, 2008)

Ive been doing some research on the 'Right to work laws, and states'. I know this is a touchy topic, but I was trying to explain this to a old friend of mine about Right to work laws. 

How would you explain both the pro's and con's of the Right to work laws to someone??


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Simple I can walk in and quit at anytime....I can be fired at anytime. Pretty much it in a nut shell. I can't discriminate against you but I can fire you for being lazy...


----------



## Wingnut (Jan 31, 2010)

http://phoenix.about.com/cs/empl/a/righttowork.htm


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

RTW = Can be fired for any reason at any time with out notice or cause. Basically it give the employer all the rights and the employees are on their own. It is a good way for an employer to dump older higher paid workers for younger lower waged worker and keep any one from asking for a raise.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

drsparky said:


> RTW = Can be fired for any reason at any time with out notice or cause. .............



That's called _At Will Employment_.

_Right To Work_ means you are not required to join the union in order to get or maintain employment.


*§ 731.1 Right to join union*​ It is declared to be the policy of the state of Iowa that no person within its boundaries shall be deprived of the right to work at his chosen occupation for any employer because of membership in, affiliation with, withdrawal or expulsion from, or refusal to join, any labor union, organization, or association, and any contract which contravenes this policy is illegal and void. (Enacted April 28, 1947; Recodified 1977.) 



*§ 731.2 Refusal to employ prohibited* 
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, association or corporation to refuse or deny employment to any person because of membership in, or affiliation with, or resignation or withdrawal from, a labor union, organization or association, or because of refusal to join or affiliate with a labor union, organization or association. (Enacted April 28, 1947; Recodified 1977.)


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

drsparky said:


> RTW = Can be fired for any reason at any time with out notice or cause. Basically it give the employer all the rights and the employees are on their own.




The employee still has rights. Federal and State laws still apply. We have a labor board where you can file for wrongful termination and wage complaints. To say the employer has all the rights and the employee is on his own is false.






drsparky said:


> It is a good way for an employer to dump older higher paid workers for younger lower waged worker and keep any one from asking for a raise.




A good employer wants employees that stay with them. You give them raise's to keep them from going somewhere else. If the company (like some have) does that you would not want to work for them anyway.Most companies that are in construction need experienced guys to make sure jobs turn a profit. I've worked for some really good contractors and only had one problem. The state got me my wages owed in less than 2 weeks.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

drsparky said:


> It is a good way for an employer to dump older higher paid workers for younger lower waged worker and keep any one from asking for a raise.


I agree that either of those acts is morally questionable but I believe a company should have those rights.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

drsparky said:


> RTW = Can be fired for any reason at any time with out notice or cause.


True, but the employee retains the right to quit overnight, for ay reason, without giving the employer any notice what-so-ever.



drsparky said:


> Basically it give the employer all the rights and the employees are on their own.


True, but the employee retains the right to always find a better job, with better pay and better benifits anywhere, and anytime they want. It encourages employees to better themselves, and insures the cream rises to the top.




drsparky said:


> It is a good way for an employer to dump older higher paid workers for younger lower waged worker and keep any one from asking for a raise.


 
True, and it also a good way for older workers to bargain the experience they gained throughout their working lives as a bargaining chip for better pay and better benifits. Ths allows the employee to understand that the more you know, the more you can make in life.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Dnkldorf said:


> True, and it also a good way for older workers to bargain the experience they gained throughout their working lives as a bargaining chip for better pay and better benifits. Ths allows the employee to understand that the more you know, the more you can make in life.


And you do not need to keep older workers that MAY be sitting on their butts waiting for retirement.


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

*From Wikipedia:*
*Right-to-work laws* are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or "fees" a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.


----------



## blusolstice (Sep 17, 2010)

from my perspective being a union member in a right to work state it's more about protecting the interests of the employer rather than that of the employee.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

blusolstice said:


> from my perspective being a union member in a right to work state it's more about protecting the interests of the employer rather than that of the employee.



Why not just get out??


----------



## donaldelectrician (Sep 30, 2010)

*Right to work ?*

SIMPLY PUT. In a " Right To Work State" ...You have the rite to 

work for less...and a lot more **** to put up with.


Don outstanding citizen "Conch Republic"


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

donaldelectrician said:


> SIMPLY PUT. In a " Right To Work State" ...You have the rite to
> 
> work for less...and a lot more **** to put up with.
> 
> ...


Bull chit, that is union propaganda.


Strange how union support for workers choice becomes a problem when that choice may include not joining a union.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Funny How RIGHTS are something union members are against, oh that's right freedoms are OK as long as it does not get in their way?

The Unions job is to protect their workers at all cost and I understand why they would be against freedom for those that are for Right To Work. Just as AARP would trash the future of the younger generation pushing legislation that only benefits retiree's.

Unions should be exposed to the same free market forces as business are, stand or fall on their benefits.


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

brian john said:


> Unions should be exposed to the same free market forces as business are, stand or fall on their benefits.


YEAH, the same free market forces that the Chamber of Commerce shipped all our jobs to China!


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

donaldelectrician said:


> SIMPLY PUT. In a " Right To Work State" ...You have the rite to
> 
> work for less...and a lot more **** to put up with.
> 
> ...


How can you be a Conch if you live in California? My father was a Conch and I was a part time Conch. 



brian john said:


> Just as AARP would trash the future of the younger generation pushing legislation that only benefits retiree's.


Actually AARP hurts retirees and helps to limit benefits. They are nothing more than an insurance company that says they are not an insurance company. I am a member.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

I work in WA and live near ID. Idaho is a right to work state. WA isn't from what I understand. As an employee can I tell a difference. NOPE. Not a single difference.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

miller_elex said:


> YEAH, the same free market forces that the Chamber of Commerce shipped all our jobs to China!


The Chamber does not have any jobs at this time that they out source. Maybe jobs move because, one this is a global economy, two American kids do not want factory jobs, remember the good times we all were posting about the lack of apprentices as kids and parents want something BETTER besides manually labor.

Additionally taxes, regulations and basic PIA's with unions and governments forced their hand. 

I am all for buying American and hate to see companies move overseas. But I see the reality of why it is done.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

John Valdes said:


> . I am a member.


I am not and never will be. F**K AARP.


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

brian john said:


> two American kids do not want factory jobs, remember the good times we all were posting about the lack of apprentices as kids and parents want something BETTER besides manually labor.


Bring in the third worlders to work the factories, I don't care who operates the machinery. The problem is, when the factory leaves, so does all the associated electrical work. 

Building a store where stuff is sold, is a far cry short of building and sustaining a plant where products are made. That's why I hate the Chamber for greasing the skids to move manufacturing away.

Whether you believe in Peak Oil or not, is up to you, but if it is true, much of our needs are going to be sourced locally, rather than globally. Especially in the Northwest where we have more sustainable power than we use, most of it is sold to Cali. That's why we have many electricity intensive industries here, like hi-tech and aluminum. Power is dirt cheap and sustainable.

People fret a dollar collapse, but I do not, it will mean a manufacturing and construction boom.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

miller_elex said:


> Whether you believe in Peak Oil or not, is up to you,
> m.


Peak Oil?

I am all for keeping jobs here and see many negatives to them moving, Bussman moved their manufacturing to Mexico. Last year I needed 3-6000 amp fuses ASAP I had two but did not want to use them. In the past I could get them freighted overnight from St Louis, but St Louis was out, previously they could have gotten them second day. BUT NO they are manufacturing in Mexico and a 10 day wait was required.

I bought one for a higher price from a online supplier and used my two, putting the 3 new ones arriving 2 weeks later in stock.

There are a lot of problems with moving south and west.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

Peak oil is real. It will eventually run out. Just a matter of time.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

nitro71 said:


> Peak oil is real. It will eventually run out. Just a matter of time.


Where does the term Peak Oil come from?


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

brian john said:


> Where does the term Peak Oil come from?


Hubbert. You'll have to look it up online. Abbreviated definition is: when oil production begins to decline in a field, nation, region, etc.


----------



## blusolstice (Sep 17, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> Why not just get out??


i will get out...of this right to work state when the economy picks up out west and i can catch a call lol.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Someone said that there really isn't a difference between a Right to Work State and States that have it.

I would be interested to see a map of the US with wage comparisons between the two. 

I know that Florida is a "right to work" state and the wages here are really bad.

This is what some Washington think had to say about the subject back in 2001. Looks like there is a wage difference. But looking at the States they list, it could be due to education levels, which may be associated with lower wages.

http://www.epi.org/resources/datazone_rtw_index/

*The Wage Penalty of Right-to-Work Laws*

 
[Posted to The _Datazone_ on August 21, 2001] The Wage Penalty of "Right-to-Work" Laws

_by_ _Lawrence Mishel_
The 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act (1935) sanctioned a state's right to pass laws that prohibit unions from requiring a worker to pay dues, even when the worker is covered by a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. Within a couple of years of the ammendment's passage, 12 states passed these so-called "right-to-work" (RTW) laws, as did many other states in the intervening years.*1* Although there has been an extensive amount of research on the effect of right-to-work laws on union density, organizing efforts, and industrial development (see Moore (1998) and Moore and Newman (1985) for literature overviews), there has been surprisingly little examination of the perhaps more important issue of right-to-work laws' effect on wages.
The limited amount of research that does examine the effect of right-to-work laws on wages can be divided into two areas: RTW laws effects on union wage premiums or the average effects of these laws on wages. Our research focuses on the latter. Since right-to-work laws affect union density and effectiveness (Farber 1985), the effect of the union wage premium is not easily disentangled from the effects of RTW legislation. Our analysis tried to overcome the shortcomings in previous research in this area. First, we control for differences in cost of living throughout the United States, thereby making comparable wages in various parts of the country. Secondly, we examine how metropolitan areas located in both right-to-work and non-right-to-work states affect wages.
We find that the mean effect of working in a right-to-work state results in a 6% to 8% reduction in wages for workers in these states, with an average wage penalty of 6.5%. Controlling for regional costs of living reduces this amount to approximately 4%. We find that previous research reporting real wage gains associated with right-to-work states is almost purely the result of border cities that benefit from their proximity to a non-RTW state.
*Data and Analysis*
To determine the effect of right-to-work laws on wages we estimate log wage equations using the Bureau of Labor Statistic's current population survey-outgoing rotation group (CPS-ORG) data for 2000. The sample consists of 152,576 prime age workers, ages 18-64, who earn wages or salaries. Average hourly wages for the sample were $15.54, and median hourly wages were $12.25. Median wages for workers living in right-to-work states were $11.45, while wages for those living in non-RTW states were $13.00, indicating that wages were 11.9% lower in RTW states.
Whether this wage disadvantage in these states is due to RTW laws can only be determined by controlling for other characteristics. To this end, we specify wage regressions (Model 1) that control for the following personal and geographic characteristics: race/ethnicity, age, age squared, marital status, sex, education, urbanicity, employed full-time, hourly worker, union status, industry (22 categories), and occupation (13 categories). A second set of regression results (Model 2) controls for state of residence, which should control all the characteristics of a state-other than its RTW status-that differ from other states, including cost-of-living. A third set of results (Model 3) controls for differences in intra-state and inter-state costs of living.*2* Our regression results follow Dumond, Hirsch, and MacPherson's (1999) specification of the regional cost of living controls. However, we have limited confidence in these estimates, since there is no universally accepted method of adjusting for regional costs of living, and it is impossible to test the accuracy of using an index based on fair market rents. In each model the mean effect is estimated using a simple indicator variable for right-to-work states.
Our first set of regression results indicate that workers living in right-to-work states earn 6.5% less than comparable workers in non-RTW states. This regression model essentially compares workers with similar demographics (education, age, race, etc.) and occupations within an industry across the two types of states, those with RTW laws and those without. The second regression model controls for different state effects not captured by industry and occupation, partially capturing price differences between states. These results indicate that a worker living in a right-to-work state earns, on average, 7.8% less than a comparable worker in a non-RTW state. The final regression model compares workers with similar demographic, industry and occupations but also controls for cost of living using an index of the fair market rents. These results indicate that, on average, a worker living in a right-to-work state earns 3.8 % less than a worker living in a non-RTW state. Estimates from this last regression model, however, are suspect given the lack of an established series for controlling for regional, inter-state, or intra-state costs of living (see *Table 1*). Our best estimate is that workers living in right-to-work states earn, on average, 6.5% less than similar workers in non-RTW states.








An analysis along gender lines reveals similar trends. On average, men in RTW states earn 7.8% less than their counterparts in non-RTW states; women in RTW states earn 6.8% less (*Table 2*).








Unlike previous research by Bennett (2001), we find that, even after controlling for regional costs of living, workers in right-to-work states earn less per hour. Particularly interesting is the affect on workers living in cities that are stretch across state line, placing it in both a right-to-work state and a non-RTW state. Seventeen out of 433 metropolitan areas in our sample (nearly 4%) spill over from a right-to-work state to a non-RTW state. Our analysis indicates that, in areas where a pure RTW state effect exists (i.e., no spill-over effect), the right-to-work penalty is larger (see *Table 3*). In fact, we find that living near a non-RTW state helps raise workers' wages. *3*








There may be reasons why states choose to adopt right-to-work laws that this analysis fails to address. It may be that the wage structure or industry mix within a state helps determine why state legislatures or voters adopt right-to-work laws. To control for this, we estimate a series of regressions that model a state's decision to adopt right-to-work. Both Wessels (1981) and Moore et al. (1986) have designed models that consider the endogeneity of right-to-work law, and find that "once the influence of wages in the passage of RTW laws is accounted for, RTW laws have no independent effect on wages" (Moore 1998, 459). We estimate the probability of a state passing a RTW law using mean and median wages as well as other state-level demographic characteristics. We then use these estimated values in a two-stage least-squares estimation. Even after correcting for endogeneity in this way, we find that RTW laws have statistically significant and negative impacts on workers living in right-to-work states.
*Conclusion*
The most important aspect of right-to-work law is its effect on wages. That there have only been a handful of studies directly assessing the impact of these laws on workers' earnings is surprising. What research there is on the subject is mixed, with findings critically dependent on model specification. Unlike most research up to this point, this analysis focuses on the impact of regional costs of living and finds that workers living in RTW states earn significantly less than workers living in non-RTW states. We also find that care must be taken in examining the true effect of right-to-work legislation.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence of the effect of RTW legislation can be found in those metropolitan areas that occupy both RTW and non-RTW states. In these cases, estimating the effects separately indicates that workers living in these metropolitan areas are helped by the higher earnings typical of the non-RTW state.
*Endnotes
*1. Currently the following states have right-to-work laws: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming. [return to text] 2. Inter-state and intra-state cost of living controls are based on the Department of Housing and Urban Development "Fair Market Rents" for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). We use the 45th percentile in each MSA. [return to text]
3. To test the robustness of these results, we estimate a model that combines both state-level indicators, regional indicators, and costs of living variables as well as all the control variables listed in model (1). In this combined model we find that both the pure right-to-work effect and the total right-to-work effect are -1.9% and -1.7%, respectively; in neither case are the estimates statistically different from zero. As with other estimates that include a measure of cost of living (COL), we find these estimates to be sensitive to the particular COL measure and unreliable since we have no faith in any particular measure of COL. [return to text]
*References*
Bennett, J.T. 2001. Right To Work - Prescription for Prosperity and Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Labor Relations Research. Dumond,J.M., B.T. Hirsch, and D.A. MacPherson. 1999. Wage Differentials Across Labor Markets and Workers: Does Cost of Living Matter? Economic Inquiry. Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 577-98.
Farber, H. S. 1985. "The Extent of Unionization in the United States." in Thomas Kochan, ed., Challenges and Choices Facing American Unions Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Moore, W. J., and R.J. Newman. 1985. The Effects of Fright-to-Work Laws: A Review of the Literature. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 571-85.
Moore, W.J. 1998. The Determinants and Effects of Right-To-Work Laws: A Review of the Recent Literature. Journal of Labor Research Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 449-69.
Moore, W.J., J.A. Dunlevy, and R.J. Newman. 1986. Do Right-to-Work Laws Matter? Comment. Southern Economic Journal. Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 515-24.
Wessels, W.J. 1981. Economic Effects of Right to Work Laws. Journal of Labor Research. Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 55-75.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

jrannis said:


> Someone said that there really isn't a difference between a Right to Work State and States that have it.
> 
> I would be interested to see a map of the US with wage comparisons between the two.
> 
> I know that Florida is a "right to work" state and the wages here are really bad.


Yeah, and at the same time lets see if we can find how many jobs were lost in the higher wage areas to the areas with a free markets.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Bob Badger said:


> Yeah, and at the same time lets see if we can find how many jobs were lost in the higher wage areas to the areas with a free markets.



All the area's with higher wages also have higher cost of living expenses. Most electricians here I know have a nice home, nice vehicle and a family. If wages were so bad they could not afford those things.:no:


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

brian john said:


> Where does the term Peak Oil come from?


 
I think there's a conspiracy theory that oil is going to run out soon. I don't know if I buy into that but to me Peak Oil just means it's going to run out sometime. Does seem that we are working harder to get oil. Drilling deep in the ocean. Those other techniques with shale and what not.


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

nitro71 said:


> Does seem that we are working harder to get oil. Drilling deep in the ocean. Those other techniques with shale and what not.


We'll probably switch over to natural gas.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> Yeah, and at the same time lets see if we can find how many jobs were lost in the higher wage areas to the areas with a free markets.


 
Higher taxes.
Higher cost of living.
In CA higher with possible new pot laws.:thumbup:


----------



## Control Freak (Mar 8, 2008)

The cost of living never stays the same...............
every year or two the poco rasies their rates about 14%
so does the water company,the landlord,the supermarket,
gas station etc.

bottom line is that every year you don't get a raise, you actually take a paycut!


----------



## ramseydax (Oct 26, 2010)

ghghghghgh


----------



## ramseydax (Oct 26, 2010)

*The new Model - Contractors for America*

ggfghhghgh


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

ramseydax said:


> No where in the constitution does it say free market and* in fact this country is based on the ideals of UNITY and SOLIDARITY. *


Care to try to back that up last part up with any kind of facts or references?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

ramseydax said:


> free Market mean a market free to run ramrod over workers. No where in the constitution does it say free market and in fact this country is based on the ideals of UNITY and SOLIDARITY. The companies have a union its called the Chamber of Commerce and the Associated Builders and Contractors. I run my business independent of these greed based organizations. I run it with my customers first my workers second and me third. More owners need to look at this model to be successfull. As long as I can make a profit that allows me to live a good life i pass the rest to customers in savings and workers in fair pay. Then I get more jobs and more production out of my workforce.


You won't be in business for long:no:


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

ramseydax said:


> ... and in fact this country is based on the ideals of UNITY and SOLIDARITY.


No, not ours, but it is a cornerstone of Socialist countries and a common theme in Marxism.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

ramseydax said:


> No where in the constitution does it say free market ...


You're right. It says, "...secure the Blessings of Liberty". A free market is one of the main pillars of liberty. 

To quote the famous economist Adam Smith, "... every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interests his own way and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of other men."

I'd go even further and say that anything other than a free market is contradictory to liberty.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

ramseydax said:


> I run my business....


Sure you do. :laughing::laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

ramseydax said:


> .......I run it with my customers first my workers second and me third. .......


I don't care who you are........... that's funny chit right there. :yes:

Thanks for the laugh. I can go to work today feeling great. :thumbsup:


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

I changed my mind as I have promised to be a better member. So I deleted the complete post.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

John Valdes said:


> I changed my mind as I have promised to be a better member. So I deleted the complete post.


Been there done that......


----------



## brother (Nov 25, 2008)

Ive read the posts, some good, some just 'taking up space' lol . Anyways, I will say that overall, I think its best to be in a state that doesn't have those right to work laws. From what ive read and seen so far is that right work is really not a good deal for employees, not much protection as a whole.


----------



## brother (Nov 25, 2008)

Ive read the posts, some good, some just 'taking up space' lol . Anyways, I will say that overall, I think its best to be in a state that doesn't have those right to work laws. From what ive read and seen so far is that right work is really not a good deal for employees, not much protection as a whole.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

It sounds like there is some difference for unions? But as a employee you get fired/laid off the same in both types of states.


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

No bones about it, if I lived in a right-to-work state, I'd be in business for myself. But I don't live in one, and am glad to work for 'the man.'

Right-to-work's intention is to bust up the mills, factories, and utilities. Nobody in the grand scheme of things cares about contractors.


----------



## ramseydax (Oct 26, 2010)

*wrong*

gh ghghghghgh


----------



## ramseydax (Oct 26, 2010)

*LOL Drink the kool Aid*

geesus bud you have drank the Rush Limbaugh kool-aid. SO SO funny.

Adam Smith was proved wrong by the great John Nash you need to jump into the 21st century and like I said before ---- no where in the constitution does it say capitalism or Free-Market.

The responses I am getting on this website is typical of the chamber nazis 
when I show them that I can run a company successfully and not be a money hungry contractor. 

The invisible hand of Adam Smith has pushed business overseas, provided no health care for the citizens of the 2nd wealthist country USA, and pushed the wages for the average American to crippling scales. Yeah Adam Smith had it right NOT.



MDShunk said:


> You're right. It says, "...secure the Blessings of Liberty". A free market is one of the main pillars of liberty.
> 
> To quote the famous economist Adam Smith, "... every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interests his own way and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of other men."
> 
> I'd go even further and say that anything other than a free market is contradictory to liberty.


----------



## Control Freak (Mar 8, 2008)

The free market isn't free. It costs lives to produce goods so they can be sold in the U.S. at an astronomical price. Ive done alot of research about working conditions and fatalities in these sweat shop/labor camps that produce these goods in third world countries.

Get rid of these tax cuts that only benefit a total of 2% of the entire population and workers in any state will benefit.


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

Control Freak said:


> The free market isn't free. It costs lives to produce goods so they can be sold in the U.S. at an astronomical price. Ive done alot of research about working conditions and fatalities in these sweat shop/labor camps that produce these goods in third world countries.


If the ******** in this country were treated like the factory workers in third world countries, they'd be storming the governor's mansion with torches and pitchforks, tonight. :blink:

But yes, I agree with you, and I find it disturbing the Chamber is giving seminars on how to move your business overseas and reap tax rewards simultaneously. Those loop holes weren't there until the lobbyists had them legislated.


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

I think it should be clear to see that the US Chamber of Commerce does not represent the worker in this country, they represent the large corporations.


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

*American People Hire High-Powered Lobbyist To Push Interests In Congress*


http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpowered-lobbyist-to-push,18204/


----------



## Control Freak (Mar 8, 2008)

I honestly do believe that the playing field should be leveled. The free market is great if everybody is free but they are not. I am not advocating for world peace just pointing out a few things.


Take away the tax breaks for the companies that move their manufacturing over seas...........the argument against removing tax breaks is that the corporations will move their business over seas...........they already have.

We run around pretending we are the champions of democracy and freedom and then we (we as in the country as a whole, my self included) purchase goods produced by some of the countries with most atrocious human rights (forget civil rights) policies.

Think about it for a sec............
we have to protect our social security cards, our identity, account numbers, etc..........then we call one of our creditors or banks with questions concerning our mortgages and speak to a person in India or the Philipines who says "hello my name is John Smith how may I help you?"

Its bizarre just bizarre that this crap flies man!!!!!! how did we get here!!


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

Control Freak said:


> Its bizarre just bizarre that this crap flies man!!!!!! how did we get here!!


 
How? Our "representatives" in Washington do not represent common working Americans. They represent the large corporations and extremely wealthy.


----------



## Control Freak (Mar 8, 2008)

Lol....I know I was just venting man!!!!!!!!!!!!
no but seriously you are right man. We have to get some decent untainted men or woman to represent us. I rather they walk on a construction job and grab a tradesman to run in an election..........we are better off with an ordinary guy with no other interest other than just doing his job and taking care of his family...
you know what I mean right?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

doubleoh7 said:


> How? Our "representatives" in Washington do not represent common working Americans. They represent the large corporations and extremely wealthy.


What do expect their Democrats:no::no::no::no:


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

:stupid:


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

Control Freak said:


> Lol....I know I was just venting man!!!!!!!!!!!!
> no but seriously you are right man. We have to get some decent untainted men or woman to represent us. I rather they walk on a construction job and grab a tradesman to run in an election..........we are better off with an ordinary guy with no other interest other than just doing his job and taking care of his family...
> you know what I mean right?


 
I'm venting too. They do not know the anxiety of losing a career because they shipped it overseas to please their greedy corporate masters. The problems with the economy are obvious: loss of our manufacturing due to free trade, loss of jobs and supression of wages due to legal and illegal immigration, and the loss of jobs that can be done over the computer or phone, such as those moved to India.

Can you name one politician from either major party that is talking about the 3 issues above???????

I bet that you could take a middle managment type (under 75 K annual salary) from one of our top 500 corporations and give them their CEO's position, and they could make the company more profitable. In the long term, not next quarter to appease the Wall Street analysts.


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> What do expect their Democrats:no::no::no::no:


 

Democrats and Republicans will win next weeks election in a landslide. The losers wil be working Americans.


----------



## Control Freak (Mar 8, 2008)

I agree 100%
Instead they speak about abortion or the pledge of allegiance in public schools ............now i know that is a touchy subject and people feel very strongly about it, myself included but it is a wedge issue.

I haven't heard one person talk about what you mentioned. It seems clear as day what the problems are..................I know these problems are complicated but its ridiculous that we are being blatantly screwed.

Its sad that the American people are talking about this stuff though and the reps dont even acknowledge us. Think about it you can't even stop an illegal immigrant who has blown a light and ask if they are here illegally which is basically just asking for id...oh no my rights were violated I have to show this cop who just saw me blow this light my id.............if my license is suspended (me the taxpaying citizen) will go to jail.

How do these policies make any sense???????


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

doubleoh7 said:


> Democrats and Republicans will win next weeks election in a landslide. The losers wil be working Americans.


WRONG democrats will not win anything.They are the problem

working Americans Win when republcans win:thumbup:
Democrats have been in charge for the last 4 years . Are you better off ? 
Not by a long shot.:whistling2:

Here read all of this and learn how our government works.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html


----------



## Control Freak (Mar 8, 2008)

Im not even going near that one


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

Control Freak said:


> I agree 100%
> Instead they speak about abortion or the pledge of allegiance in public schools ............now i know that is a touchy subject and people feel very strongly about it, myself included but it is a wedge issue.
> 
> I haven't heard one person talk about what you mentioned. It seems clear as day what the problems are..................I know these problems are complicated but its ridiculous that we are being blatantly screwed.
> ...


 
Right now, those three issues are what is most important. All of the other stuff can be debated later. This country is in an economic depression that is going to get much worse and last longer than anyone wants to realize. we will probably become a nation like Mexico, corrupt and with a majority in poverty and a small minority of the super rich. 

We need Economic Nationalism! That is the only thing that can bring back a prosperous middle class. The insatiable greed of corporate America will have to be crushed to do this..


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> WRONG democrats will not win anything.They are the problem
> 
> working Americans Win when republcans win:thumbup:
> Democrats have been in charge for the last 4 years . Are you better off ?
> ...


 
I used to drink the Republican kool aid. Now , I hate both parties. How many people can say that they are better off after 8 years of Bush? Don't get me in a pissing match between parties. I do not like either one and my baldder is not full.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

doubleoh7 said:


> I used to drink the Republican kool aid. Now , I hate both parties. How many people can say that they are better off after 8 years of Bush? Don't get me in a pissing match between parties. I do not like either one and my baldder is not full.


 [ my baldder is not full]:001_huh:
First go to the liqure store get a 30 pack of your faverate beer and a quirt whisky ,,down all the whisky first .Then drink all the beer as fast as you can and hold it .you should be able to down your first 15 beers before your Bladder is full . Repeat this for 14 days and you will be just fine:thumbup::laughing:


----------

