It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

48% Back GOP Governor in Wisconsin Spat, 38% Side With Unions

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

48% Back GOP Governor in Wisconsin Spat, 38% Side With Unions


www.rasmussenreports.com

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters agree more with the Republican governor in his dispute with union workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) agree more with the unionized public employees, while 14% are undecided.
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on Mon Feb 21 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: BAN threads must use the source title




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
No one should be shocked to find Democrats opposed to Walker’s plan, 21% to 68%, although the opposition seems a little weak, under the circumstances. Also, no one will be surprised to see almost the mirror image among Republicans, 68% to 15%. Independents across the nation give a strong endorsement to Walker, 56% to 31%. Among income demographics, only those earning under $20K per year support the unions (30% to 54%), while Walker gains a plurality or majority in every other income demographic, including a 62% to 27% among the $60-75K demo. Interestingly, unions only barely edge Walker among government employees, 44% to 46%.

The backlash against the public sector is just beginning and is long overdue.


www.rasmussenreports.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Read that this morning.

Yeah. Made me wonder if those same Wisconsin residents were also against Wall Street and the government who robbed and wants to continue robbing the pension funds for these public sector employees like they robbed them for the private sector ones. Fair question. It's all in the presentation, isn't it, and what the easier target is, and it's easy to not think beyond the immediate pressing need (to balance a budget) and not care about why the people who made the bad decisions in government and on Wall Street that actually caused these crises aren't in jail or are still in office. And frankly, the narrow view here is beginning to not only frustrate but sicken me.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 

This is another BS poll that is nothing but propoganda.

Only 1000 residents were polled.. this is rediculously small number to project the real belief of 5,303,925 per US2010 Census data.. Even worse, they weight their data. i.e. some people count more than others.

This is over and on top of the fact they are calling land lines... which skews the data because most younger people have cell phones.

So this is pure BS and in no way is "scientific" or "accurate within +-3%"


methodology
number polled

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on January 6-7, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Data for Rasmussen Reports survey research is collected using an automated polling methodology. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.
Generally speaking, the automated survey process is identical to that of traditional, operator-assisted research firms such as Gallup, Harris, and Roper. However, automated polling systems use a single, digitally-recorded, voice to conduct the interview while traditional firms rely on phone banks, boiler rooms, and operator-assisted technology.
For tracking surveys such as the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll or the Rasmussen Consumer Index, the automated technology insures that every respondent hears exactly the same question, from the exact same voice, asked with the exact same inflection every single time.
All Rasmussen Reports' survey questions are digitally recorded and fed to a calling program that determines question order, branching options, and other factors. Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers through a process that insures appropriate geographic representation. Typically, calls are placed from 5 pm to 9 pm local time during the week. Saturday calls are made from 11 am to 6 pm local time and Sunday calls from 1 pm to 9 pm local time.
After the calls are completed, the raw data is processed through a weighting program to insure that the sample reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political party, and other factors. The processing step is required because different segments of the population answer the phone in different ways. For example, women answer the phone more than men, older people are home more and answer more than younger people, and rural residents typically answer the phone more frequently than urban residents.
For surveys of all adults, the population targets are determined by census bureau data.
For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.
Rasmussen Reports determines its partisan weighting targets through a dynamic weighting system that takes into account the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


Your title is wrong and misleading. This was a poll of 1,000 likely U.S. voters...not Wisconsin residents.

From your source:


A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters agree more with the Republican governor in his dispute with union workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) agree more with the unionized public employees, while 14% are undecided.



I would love to see the complete demographic break down, including how many republicans vs democrats were polled...but Mr. Rasmussen makes people buy a membership for that information (Only 19.95 per month or 199.95 per year
). I wonder why?

edit on 21-2-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by SirMike
 

I would love to see the complete demographic break down, including how many republicans vs democrats were polled...but Mr. Rasmussen makes people buy a membership for that information (Only 19.95 per month or 199.95 per year
). I wonder why?

edit on 21-2-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)


Gee, I dont know, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he has bills to pay?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 



Gee, I dont know, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he has bills to pay?


No other polling company charges for their full information...it is freely available so people can see how the poll was conducted.

Here...I'll give you a little hint as to why Rasmussen does this. Is it easier to spin poll results by making your (biased) write up of the results public...or by making the raw data public???



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin

No other polling company charges for their full information...it is freely available so people can see how the poll was conducted.

Here...I'll give you a little hint as to why Rasmussen does this. Is it easier to spin poll results by making your (biased) write up of the results public...or by making the raw data public???


You are exactly right. Also they have the equipment to do this multiple times over. They can conduct the poll 1000 times (polling 1,000,000 people) times and only report the group that came up with the results nearest to the ones they wanted to report.

Besides they are, self admittedly CHOOSING (see my post above) who they poll. They are deliberately slanting the results even if they only conducted the poll one time on 1000 people. I HIGHLY doubt they only did this poll 1 time on 1000 people.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Read that this morning.

Yeah. Made me wonder if those same Wisconsin residents were also against Wall Street and the government who robbed and wants to continue robbing the pension funds for these public sector employees like they robbed them for the private sector ones. Fair question. It's all in the presentation, isn't it, and what the easier target is, and it's easy to not think beyond the immediate pressing need (to balance a budget) and not care about why the people who made the bad decisions in government and on Wall Street that actually caused these crises aren't in jail or are still in office. And frankly, the narrow view here is beginning to not only frustrate but sicken me.


It seems an ages old process of dividing and conquering the citizens by in essence getting them to attack the little guys, usually over jealousies, that are meant to drag everyone down, and not elevate anyone up.

It would seem to me the progessive thing to do is for people to be protesting corporate employers that don't pay a similar wage and or benefits but rape record profits to pass along to stock holders who don't actually engage in the labor that makes the company money.

As usual as you point out the lower classes simply make the path to middle class and a quality life harder by acting out against one another, instead of the upper echelon crooks, politicians, and industrial titans and corporate moguls and bankers who play this system and the people laboring in it like a harp from hell.

We are routinely tricked and cajoled and manipulated into attacking high wage earners and as we have we have created more and more low wage earners.

How smart is that?

Not very, I have a funny feeling if the corporations and government had it's way we would all be working for minimum wage, wearing the same clothes, eating the same food, and watching the same entertainment and lapping it all up and thanking them for the opportunity.

People are angry at what the man, the big guy has done, so how to they do something about it? By going after the little guy.

What a world.

Great post Lucidity it's nice to see some people are capable of real thought.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   


The people protesting the cuts are mentally unstable. They have an abnormality of the brain that allows them to believe that a government can spend more than it takes in forever without any consequences. They are like children that want to eat nothing but candy all day. Eventually, the mature adult has to step in and say "No". Because of this mental imbalance, these protesters are a danger not only to themselves but also the decent and civilized people that go to work everyday and whose taxes pay their bloated salaries. The governor is doing his job, standing up for the taxpaying citizens of his state instead of the parasitic union special interests. Unions are parasitic scum that need to be broken up and dissolved.


I'm sorry, you seem to misunderstand how the world works so please let me correct you.


The people whom are for the dissolution of organized labor are the ones whom are mentally unstable. Yes, if the situation was black and white as you describe, and these people had overspent money they didn't have, and were personally responsible for this, then perhaps forcing "austerity" upon them is justified. Unfortunately, and I know this may upset some of the selfish people who look to displace their rage onto a certain population segment i.e. unions, teachers, govt. employees., etc. but these people are NOT responsible for this mess.

Here, let me try to make this more simple for those who may not comprehend this. Anyone who has EVER, at ANY time, paid attention or studied economics of "capitalism" at ALL realizes that in capitalism there are only 2 segments of the population. These two, are Capital and Labor.

Since the majority of the population has little to no capital or access to means of productions, they sell their "labor" at a price to be able to use said means of production. Thus, this segment of the population is able to survive.

Capital, the other faction in the equation, are those whom own the means of production and possess "capital" for which to invest. Thus, Capital, employs the use of labor so that it may continue to thrive.

Now, notice how each of those descriptions end. One ends to survive, and the other to thrive. Inherently, since profit (for those uneducated, true profit is an act of creation and addition of value, not a high-speed trading program) in this physical world is inarguably limited, when either side gains an advantage it comes at the disadvantage of the opposing class.

Now to the point. Economics is governed by another law known as 'supply and demand'. How S&D fit into the equation is where our story truly begins in terms of globalization. I'm sure anyone reading this forum has been paying attention for a decent period of time so it comes as no shock to hear "our" (see Their) media exclaim of the benefits of globalization.

And Yes, globalization does have benefits, but only for the capital class. Back to the concept of S&D. In a free market, prices and wages are set by the consumer and the market based on value, and this is where the agreed upon compensation between employee (Labor), and employer (Capital) is formed. As history as well as statistics has shown, wealth tends to aggregate toward a small percentage over time thus providing leverage for which capital may negotiate their prices.

Imagine a small city, and in this city are 100 people. Now out of these 100 people, only 5 belong the Capital class, and the other 95 belong to labor. Now what do you suppose happens, when all of the other 95 people, with no means of production (see manufacturing)are able to survive, eat, and afford shelter only by becoming employed through said Capital class. No problems yet right?

Next we'll add an extra dose of reality to our example by saying that these 5 Capital owners only have a need for 85 employees and not 95. (See Unemployment rate of approx 10%)[Or if you really read between the lines, they do have a need for atleast 90, but will pronounce in various 'owned' media publications how times have been rough for them so they can only hire 85] Well the employees begin offering their services to Capital for lower and lower rates, because as we can see their is a heavy demand for such employment if it the only way to SURVIVE and eat. Now what happens one year later to our town? Well, Capital, has gone through the city and has searched the lowest bidders, and then proceeded to explain to the unemployed if they will not lower their bid (Wages) to meet the reductions of other citizens, than they will remain unemployed.

Now the whole town is awash with chaos as wages continue to decrease through demand, but prices remain the same and the people who now have employment, don't have enough resources. They must now choose, will they eat, or will they have a place to live... and thats just the beginning...




While I admit the above story could have been slightly more articulate, you'll have to forgive me as I incinerated a few plants prior to opening and reading this thread.

Now, the real question... How can this time tested fact/tragedy of the economics of capitalism in which Capital, using shortages (real or artificial) to take advantange of and exploit labor, be prevented.

Well for those of you who still haven't gotten it, its called COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. Now let me make this even more painfully clear. Here's how our example goes in our small town with COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (See unions). Well now, our 5 members of the Capital class have decided to go around town to find the lowest bidder so that their profit margins can be as high as physically attainable. Unfortunately, and to their suprise, Labor, as a society, rather than fighting amonst themselves, paid attention to what Capital did the last town they came through, and instead of fighting each other to see who can be paid the least, they decided to form a COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Agreement (See union).

All 95 of the towns people recognize the need to work and desire to do so. They also realize that capital maintains leverage while they are divided and competing amongst themselves, but should they be able to reconcile their (meaningless) differences with each other and if they ALL agree to REFUSE to work for any amount of $$ (money), less than said agreement, then the power of balance and leverage now swing in the opposite direction. Now Capital has two choices, let itself die (or as Gerald Celente likes to say, "take a hair cut" because production shuts down with out the needed labor input. Or Option 2, they agree to pay fair and reasonable wages. Now, while capital remains profitable(See Thriving), Labor, now has the resources it needs to not only afford shelter, food, and fuel, but now has capital of its own to use to invest in society, and perhaps escape the bondage known as wage- slavery. Now Labor AND Capital thrive!!

America, really the world, is like the above mentioned town. We have two choices, we can thrive together, or we can do as the poster I quoted and complain, blame, and displace our feelings of true cause of society's problems.

Sure its the "greedy teachers" or the "evil labor unions" or "those people who have a different skin tone or religion than 'us". Its all their fault.

Perhaps, rather than being critical of people whom have the spine and courage to stand up, shake off the chains of division and hatred, and truely fight for a better future, perhaps, you should rethink, whether or not you are the problem...NOT them.

One last point: The finances of all 50 states as well as the federal entity are beyond repair. Aside from a bankruptcy which clears the fiat debt heaped onto our society, there is little to nothing reduced benifits or spending cuts can do.

Yes, something must be done to fix our fiscal soundness. But, NO, IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT the correct solution to force "austerity" on ANY segment of the population. We may have run into fiscal trouble, but our solution to this problem needs to come from an entirely different archetype.

For centuries, organized capital has exploited the divided common people and aggregated as much power and wealth as it could, from whatever source was easiest to take it from. Do you understand why the elite are referred to as INTERNATIONAL Bankers? Because they have no allegiance to any country.

Would you like to know why they are so eager to set up a one world government? Because they are AFRAID of the Power of the state (please do not associate our current fascistic regime with the word state, I am referring to "the state" as any free government that understands quite well the laws of economics and employs safeguards(and regulations) to level the playing field between capital and labor. The state is one of the only vehicles with enough wealth, resources, and power that can prevent the "Giant Vampire Squid" from sucking the life out of humanity.

Now second only to the state in power to protect citizens of the Labor class, are the unions. So if you want to erase one of the last vestiges of power that the Labor class has to defend itself, please feel free. But perhaps history may not agree with your interpretation of the solution.

So I rebuke you, and say that those fighting against the people protesting the cuts, are the ones whom are mentally unfit. No, it is not possible for a government or entity to spend more than it has forever, but asking the citizens of state to pay for this fiat "debt" is akin to this example.

Imagine a family, a father, a mother, and two sons sitting together around a dinner table (yes in America, I know this is a shocking concept that may be hard to imagine) discussing their new budget. As it turns out one of the sons recently placed some huge bets on a new gambling attraction in New York called Toxic MBS. Unfortunately he leveraged himself to the hilt prior to going and after losing, he now owes millions. Well like good parents they say, our child is "too big to fail" so we'll bail him out. And so they do, thus liquidating their retirement, 401k, IRA, and all other investments including a beach house and all of their property other than the house they live in.

The parents now have tough choices, as the amount they raised to cover the bad bets still was short of the figure necessary to clear the debt. They decide to take on emergency loans with astronomical interest, as there is no other way to raise capital, but they have no choice since those are all they are approved for. Now looking at their income statement and balance sheet, the family realizes they now have to cut back on their lifestyle drastically since the interest is so high on all of their loans.

Ok so what gets cut from the budget? Does dad cut his Martial arts classes? He swears they are for self-defense but the majority of the classes are really about aggressive and confrontational "interventionalism"?

Does mom cut her HomeYard Security Budget, which she swears prevents terrorists from destroying the garden, but she has no actual proof?

Ok well surely they wouldn't cut funding to little Johnny's music class would they? And they definitely wouldn't cut back on how much they pay for food for their children, not when they could cut back on just those two and have more than enough to at least temporarily alleviate the fiscal burdens, right?

Unfortunately though, The Answer, if you live anywhere in the western world is YES. The only items on the budget that are cut are ones whom affect the children. But hey who cares, we don't have to acknowledge their input, their just children, useless eaters really...


And that is what you are asking. You are asking the children of the American family (and please do not interpret that condescendingly, it is used only in relation to above story), to stop their education, and deal with "eating a little less", because they don't want candy, they just want to achieve atleast slightly above sustenance.


Conclusion: Read the REAL history of labor day. And since certain people seem to be incapable of understanding, I'll use your own example. Guess what? If you want to sacrifice your own and others well being and dissolve society's protection against exploitation, then please, LET ME BE THE MATURE ADULT and step in and say:

"NO"



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 

Thanks. I had about two more pages, speaking directly to the divide-and-conquer implications here, but decided to save it for where it might matter more. Almost every thread about Wisconsin situation has turned into nothing more than a shouting match about teachers' worth or unions, as designed, rather than grasping for an understanding of the far more devastating and wider implications. That saddens me to no end.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 

I have seen a few different polls now relating to this situation and every single one of them have the majority favoring the proposed bill. I am a resident myself and everyone that I have talked to, outside of my brother who is a city of Madison employee, favors the cuts proposed by Walker. I think the people who know all sides of the story would have a hard time not agreeing to most of the cuts proposed. Even the unions have now agreed to the increase in benefit contributions. So now it comes down to the collective bargaining rights for everything outside of salary, which they will still be able to do. If you listen to the actual reason Walker is trying to go after this, you will see it is not just about busting up the unions. He is trying to give the individual municipalities the tools to get their budgets under control as well, which is a noble effort. Most states have done away with the collective bargaining rights along time ago, so it is not some radical idea that was just thought of.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Dwigt
 


I live in Vernon Hills, just south of the Il/Wi border, and I am hearing the same thing from friends and family in Wisconsin. They are tired of subsidizing salaries and benefits that aren’t offered anywhere else in the private sector for comparable jobs.

I really thought there would be less hostility here at ATS about this issue, but I guess too many posters here are just as reliant on large heapings of gub’mint cheese as these Wisconsin state workers.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mwfinad1211
Hey, I liked your summary of economics.

To add, I read the Communist Manifesto some years ago, circa 1998, and the only thing I remember is how against Labor Unions the Communists really are.

Under Communism, the State acts as the agent of every part, Capital, Labor, Production, Regulation, Education, Defense. The idea that Labor(people) can organize outside of the direct unitary state control is abhorrent to Totalitarian Communism. Labor Unions offer the people a means to achieve the dignity of rising above serfdom without becoming serfs of the state.

When the people are left without the means to organize for collective bargaining revolution becomes necessary.

Purpose of Public Sector:

In a well ordered society, some things must be done, even if no one gets mega-rich thereby. Regulations are necessary to put a check on Capital's drive for profits so that the general population is not damaged. After all, mugging people on the street can be profitable, should that be deregulated? Making toothpaste out of anti-freeze can increase profit margins. Should that be deregulated? Whoops, got off on another topic.

Republican Agenda: Privative everything, Deregulate everything, Kill collective bargaining by workers aka people. Maximize profits for Capital. Reduce the people to serfdom. Result: Totalitarian Capitalist Regime, State exists to keep the top .5% on top. They call it Freedom. It's the freedom of Capital to maximize itself, at the expense of humanity.


edit on 21-2-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by Dwigt
 


I live in Vernon Hills, just south of the Il/Wi border, and I am hearing the same thing from friends and family in Wisconsin. They are tired of subsidizing salaries and benefits that aren’t offered anywhere else in the private sector for comparable jobs.

I really thought there would be less hostility here at ATS about this issue, but I guess too many posters here are just as reliant on large heapings of gub’mint cheese as these Wisconsin state workers.


As someone in business for himself, because I won't work for the wages available in the Private sector, I think it's absolutely critical that those who do redouble their efforts to secure better wages and benefits from the Private Sector.

Corporations posting record profits can easily afford it.

Of course if you work for the private sector there is a real risk to your job if you try to organize collective bargaining.

There is of course no risk to your job in demanding people who do get paid a living wage, get paid a non-living wage so they can be as poor and angry as the people making that demand.

The smart thing is to focus on raising private sector compensation to keep pace with Government compensation.

Since it's wage earners who pump most of the money into the economy that makes the economy healthy when it is, reducing the wages of yet another segment of the population is just another knee jerk self defeating reaction by people thinking emotionally instead of responding intellectually.

Millions of people working for the private sector for companies that make billions in profits can't even afford to pay their rent or mortgage.

Changing that would be noble and smart.

Conspiring to make more people poor(er) is just petty and dumb.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by mwfinad1211
Under Communism, the State acts as the agent of every part, Capital, Labor, Production, Regulation, Education, Defense. The idea that Labor(people) can organize outside of the direct unitary state control is abhorrent to Totalitarian Communism. Labor Unions offer the people a means to achieve the dignity of rising above serfdom without becoming serfs of the state.
...
Republican Agenda: Privative everything, Deregulate everything, Kill collective bargaining by workers aka people. Maximize profits for Capital. Reduce the people to serfdom. Result: Totalitarian Capitalist Regime, State exists to keep the top .5% on top. They call it Freedom. It's the freedom of Capital to maximize itself, at the expense of humanity.


Well said, and quoted for truth. I believe the Republican agenda is closer to communism than anything the liberals do, the GOP wants a corporate/government entity that controls all capital, with everyone not directly in charge serving as little more than serfs. I'm not absolving Dems of any of this, but it's apparent the direction the GOP has been taking for the last couple decades.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer


I'm not absolving Dems of any of this, but it's apparent the direction the GOP has been taking for the last couple decades.

The Democratic party was supposed to be Progressive, but they really haven't done much to deserve the label. Look at Obama; all his advisors seem to be intimately involved with Goldman-Sachs. I think the only distinction between Rep and Dem is:

Rep - Defence/Security/Mercenary Corp.
Dem - Banking Corporations

The actual majority of human type people aren't being represented at all in the two-party system.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Update:

NYT calls out Rasmussen for conservative bias in Wisconsin poll



The New York Times accused Rasmussen Reports of lacing a recent survey on the Wisconsin protests with conservative bias, elevating longstanding critiques about the polling firm's credibility.

The survey, released Monday, asked four questions about the Wisconsin clash over Republican Gov. Scott Walker's budget plan, which would strip the collective bargaining rights of public employees and force them to pay more for benefits. It found that 48 percent of "likely voters" agreed with Walker, while 38 percent supported his opponents.

Nate Silver of the Times' FiveThirtyEight blog is a trusted polling expert who came to fame after correctly predicting the outcomes of 49 of 50 states in the 2008 election. In a Monday evening posting, he took issue with the manner in which several of Rasmussen's questions were asked, decreeing that they were designed to engender a pro-Walker bias.

Two of the questions, Silver wrote, misrepresented the nature of the opposition in a "blatant" attempt to diminish sympathy for them before asking the respondent whose side they were on. The penultimate question was "a talking point posed as a question," he declared.

The questions were about whether the respondent thinks public or private sector employees make more money, and whether "teachers, firemen and policemen" should be allowed to go on strike -- which is illegal in most places for uniformed services.

"Because of the problems with question design, my advice would be simply to disregard the Rasmussen Reports poll, and to view their work with extreme skepticism going forward," Silver concluded.

Rasmussen, fending off years of criticisms of harboring a Republican-leaning bias, is taken very seriously by the mainstream press. Its founder and president, Scott Rasmussen, has openly supported conservative causes and is a former writer for the conspiracy-minded website World Net Daily.

www.rawstory.com...
edit on 2/22/2011 by clay2 baraka because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


from across the pond it pains me to see it too and it is something I see creeping into British society. Somehow shifting the blame for the financial crisis away from Bankers and Corporations onto the little man, the trade unionist or benefit claimant. When Union rights evaporate, there will be a race to the bottom with regards to wages and working conditions.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I've no sympathy for the unions.

I work at many different facilities around the US on industrial piping. Paper mills, oil refineries, power plants etc. Our company is non-union.

I have been asked more times than I can count by union sub-contractors (not even the plant that hired us!) what we were doing on site, and how they 'Take pride in being union."

I've generally ignored them in the past, but I think I am going to start telling them to mind their own *ucking business and go back to smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee every ten minutes, because it's what they do best.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join