Supporters of Wisconsin anti-union bill hold rally, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 6-3-2011 @ 10:40 PM by Janky Red

reply to post by stephinrazin

Great post!

I definitely think that is a very accurate portrayal of the entire issue...

However, if this is just a manifestation of the same hand guiding everything to same place, why are some of the most powerful American Industrialists attempting to instill an anti union result? It seems to me that we should
give this debate some respect and not mystify it by writing it off. I think America is sincerely divided and in THIS CASE the anti labor position is hiding subsequent strategy, this is the first stop on a long journey to "freedom". The pro union side seems to be hanging on for survival...

It is very symbolic...

reply posted on 6-3-2011 @ 10:56 PM by Misoir

Originally posted by Janky Red
So when the hammer falls what are you thinking Misoir? I reckon this is a battle in a larger campaign, do you agree with my analysis?

Before I agree or disagree with you please elaborate more.

Are avenues of redress bestowed upon employees dangerous to the prosperity of quasi capitalism and America at large?

Absolutely not, I strongly support unions, although I prefer guilds. Before unions became a tool, at the top, for political gain people from all across the political spectrum supported unions and wanted to be a member of a union. I am not arguing against unionization at all, what I would encourage is that every union member watch their union leaders like a hawk because they could be using you for a larger political game.

Private workers, those employed in manufacturing, farmers, coal miners, etc… all have the right to collective bargain, I believe this was laid out in the first amendment of the Constitution as well. I just believe it is a serious conflict of interest when you have unions representing public sector employees whose income comes from tax payers and who elect their bosses (politicians), it is a serious conflict of interest and even Franklin D. Roosevelt acknowledged that fact.

My opinion shifted drastically on this matter recently due to some wise words, what is your opinion?

I think I just gave my opinion above.

reply posted on 6-3-2011 @ 11:59 PM by Daughter2

They showed the group on the news. The had one guy up there who seemed to be "dressed" as a working class guy but then the camera showed the crowd. It seemed like it was 90% retired rich white people.

The news interviewed one little old lady (I assumed at her age she didn't work), talking about how "those people" don't know what they are talking about.

I felt like she didn't know what she was talking about - her experience was from the 1950's where almost everyone could find a job and communism was still a threat. She should educate herself and go out and try to find a job in todays market. See if she could support a family on that.

Someone should tell those retired people that their Medicare is next on the chopping block. I don't care how wealthy you are, if you are over 65, you aren't going to get health insurance on your own. Don't believe it's next? Those working class people who went after those welfare people didn't think their benefits were next either.

As for the fake working class guy (I bet he look a lot different in his usual gig), he talked about how they are having a hard time but "we" had it harder? "We"? Teacher, firefighters, police are the average person!

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 12:20 AM by centurion1211

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by centurion1211

These people aren't protesting for George Soros...you know that. They are protesting for their standard of living...something every single one of us would do in the same situation.

Yeah, they selfishly want to keep all the perks the unions got them while the rest of us have to give up a lot due to the economy - and you also know that.

Aren't libs always about sharing the wealth through "income redistribution? You know, creating class warfare by demonizing "the rich" and wanting to take what they earn and give it to people just wanting to live off the government dole?

How about also being for sharing the pain when the economy isn't doing so well? You know, give up some of the expensive union perks and benefits that send jobs overseas and help create budget deficits at home?

For example, so what exactly is wrong with ditching the union requirement on teachers that they be retained or not based on seniority rather than merit? Sounds like the unions are trying to protect expensive" dead wood" over less expensive quality teachers. This is but one example of how unions help price their own workers out of jobs when they claim to be helping their members.

Pro-union people are ending up being kind of like pro-Qadaffi supporters. Supporting a dinosaur that's on its way out. Just look at all the data showing that union membership is falling like a rock. The interesting thing is that union membership started its real nosedive in 2008, the year dems took over all branches of government. Now what does that tell you?

To help save money, would the last union member/supporter please remember to turn out the lights?

Thanks. (signed) your fellow Americans.

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 12:40 AM by Oaktree

Wait. Wait.
Hold on here!

Are you telling me that money finances elections?
When did this start?

Surely this must only be one side of the spectrum.

Please don't tell me that both sides are financed by somebody other than the electorate!

Sarcasm end.

Did you ever stop to think who the other side of this issue is financed by?

David, you were once, a long time ago, a well thought out contributor member, and I had friended you.

Somewhere, all that changed, don't know what happened, but your bias now-a-days is pathetic.

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 01:15 AM by Janky Red

reply to post by Misoir

thanks, I think I get your position

This will be interesting

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 02:08 AM by Janky Red

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by centurion1211

These people aren't protesting for George Soros...you know that. They are protesting for their standard of living...something every single one of us would do in the same situation.

Yeah, they selfishly want to keep all the perks the unions got them while the rest of us have to give up a lot due to the economy - and you also know that.

Aren't libs always about sharing the wealth through "income redistribution? You know, creating class warfare by demonizing "the rich" and wanting to take what they earn and give it to people just wanting to live off the government dole?

How about also being for sharing the pain when the economy isn't doing so well? You know, give up some of the expensive union perks and benefits that send jobs overseas and help create budget deficits at home?

For example, so what exactly is wrong with ditching the union requirement on teachers that they be retained or not based on seniority rather than merit? Sounds like the unions are trying to protect expensive" dead wood" over less expensive quality teachers. This is but one example of how unions help price their own workers out of jobs when they claim to be helping their members.

Pro-union people are ending up being kind of like pro-Qadaffi supporters. Supporting a dinosaur that's on its way out. Just look at all the data showing that union membership is falling like a rock. The interesting thing is that union membership started its real nosedive in 2008, the year dems took over all branches of government. Now what does that tell you?

To help save money, would the last union member/supporter please remember to turn out the lights?

Thanks. (signed) your fellow Americans.

You know whats funny with you?

You defend the wealth of rich people and chastise anyone questioning such wealth, but in this case you
want to alter their current contracts, which is akin to redistributing wealth all the same.

Aren't Cons always moaning about people working for their money?

You wanna turn out folks so they are screwed too??? So they can be on the dole?

I think mediation is needed, seems like you feel the same, you just don't realize it

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 03:23 AM by links234

Originally posted by centurion1211
Yeah, they selfishly want to keep all the perks the unions got them while the rest of us have to give up a lot due to the economy - and you also know that.

You know...if you were union you'd have those same perks to fight for too. Or bargain on, whatever your union decides to do.

Aren't libs always about sharing the wealth through "income redistribution? You know, creating class warfare by demonizing "the rich" and wanting to take what they earn and give it to people just wanting to live off the government dole?

Well, when all the wealth has already been redistributed upward...maybe it's time to scale it back a bit. Don't you think?

How about also being for sharing the pain when the economy isn't doing so well? You know, give up some of the expensive union perks and benefits that send jobs overseas and help create budget deficits at home?

Can you compare the pain of a lower-middle class family not paying a utility bill to feed themselves to a upper class family not flying across the country to stay in a resort hotel for a few weeks?

For example, so what exactly is wrong with ditching the union requirement on teachers that they be retained or not based on seniority rather than merit? Sounds like the unions are trying to protect expensive" dead wood" over less expensive quality teachers. This is but one example of how unions help price their own workers out of jobs when they claim to be helping their members.

1) Quality teachers should be more expensive.
2) Unions of teachers set the standards, not just individual teachers. A union can be a micro-cosm of democracy. I don't know what you envision a union to be or represent, but it's certainly not the idea that a few control the many...at least not all unions work in that manner. That's the concept behind collective bargaining, everyone agrees to a set of terms for everyones employment.

Pro-union people are ending up being kind of like pro-Qadaffi supporters. Supporting a dinosaur that's on its way out. Just look at all the data showing that union membership is falling like a rock. The interesting thing is that union membership started its real nosedive in 2008, the year dems took over all branches of government. Now what does that tell you?

Is it any coincidence that when the folks talk about the good ol' days of the nuclear family in the 1950's when the richest people in the country were taxed up to 90% of their income and the post-war economy was so great was also when union membership was at it's highest? How about the great chasm of wealth disparity in this country began right about the same time as union membership began to fall? I'm talking the Reagan '80s.

To help save money, would the last union member/supporter please remember to turn out the lights?

Thanks. (signed) your fellow Americans.

Stop using that damned incandescent bulb already, it's too expensive.

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 05:39 AM by David9176

reply to post by centurion1211

How about also being for sharing the pain when the economy isn't doing so well? You know, give up some of the expensive union perks and benefits that send jobs overseas and help create budget deficits at home?

Right...why aren't billionaires sharing the pain? Tell me what pain they are sharing besides getting the extension on tax cuts they wanted...the bailouts they wanted....YOU TELL ME???? Why aren't they giving up the billions they don't need...where's the sacrifice? Can't they bring some jobs back to the country? You'd think with all the jobs they said they'd create with that extra money would be flowing in right now wouldn't you?

Again...since we are all about sacrificing...especially you Centurion....why aren't you demanding your favorite corporations and billionaires to sacrifice as well???

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 08:04 AM by centurion1211

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by centurion1211

How about also being for sharing the pain when the economy isn't doing so well? You know, give up some of the expensive union perks and benefits that send jobs overseas and help create budget deficits at home?

Right...why aren't billionaires sharing the pain? Tell me what pain they are sharing besides getting the extension on tax cuts they wanted...the bailouts they wanted....YOU TELL ME???? Why aren't they giving up the billions they don't need...where's the sacrifice? Can't they bring some jobs back to the country? You'd think with all the jobs they said they'd create with that extra money would be flowing in right now wouldn't you?

Again...since we are all about sacrificing...especially you Centurion....why aren't you demanding your favorite corporations and billionaires to sacrifice as well???

just

When the stock market dives and "all those billionaires"

you love to demonize as part of your class warfare take million and even hundred million dollar hits, I think that qualifies as "sharing the pain". But if you had a clue about how business works, you also understand that any person or business can only absorb so much in losses before they have to pass it on - if they want to stay in business. If you're still in school, stop skipping the econ 101 class. If you are out in the real world, try doing a little research on economic issues. And by that, I mean do more than memorizing pro-union talking points. If you're really interested - as you seem to be - in all this, I'd think you'd also want to try and really understand it from all sides.

I have, and so I understand that business runs in short and long cycles - like pendulum swings. And I understand that there was a time in the late 1800's and early 1900's when working conditions were terrible and business could and did basically say "f--- you" to their workers. Unions did provide many positive changes back then to help raise safety issues and increase the standard of living for their members. But then the pendulum started to swing back the other way with unions getting too powerful and demanding too much, which ended up sending jobs overseas where the labor costs were lower. Stop and think about this for a few minutes. Labor costs got so high here in the U.S. that it became actually cheaper to ship raw materials half way around the world, make some product there and then ship it back here for sale than it was to just make it here. That's profound! Plus, unions became political machines to the point that you have a hard time telling the difference between unions and the democrat party.

So, now the pendulum is swinging back the other way with unions losing many members and having some of their political power curtailed. The goal would be to have the pendulum stop in the middle - with unions helping rather than hurting the economy - and their members.

edit on 3/7/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 11:26 AM by maybereal11

reply to post by David9176

Koch brothers quietly open lobbying office in downtown Madison

www.forwardlookout.com...

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 12:38 PM by centurion1211

A union showing their worst side and why the tide is turning against them. Bet this kind of union attitude are hardly uncommon.

Power lines are down? Screw the customers, we're going on strike because we might have to give up some perks.

source

Hawaiian Electric Co. used managers and outside contractors to repair storm-damaged power lines yesterday after its unionized work force walked off the job over a contract dispute.

HECO executives said the strike would slow efforts to restore service to about 8,000 Oahu homes and businesses, mostly in the Ewa Beach area, that were without power last night.

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 01:15 PM by Daughter2

Originally posted by centurion1211
But if you had a clue about how business works, you also understand that any person or business can only absorb so much in losses before they have to pass it on - if they want to stay in business. If you're still in school, stop skipping the econ 101 class.

Gee, I think most 101 classes also teach if you lower wages there will be less to spend and this will hurt business.

There's two sides both important - you just want one side to take the hit. Right now corporations are reporting record profits and they ARE NOT hiring.

History has shown adding profits to corporations will not increase jobs but raising wages will add jobs.

The solution is not making the US workers as underpaid as India where little girls work as slaves.

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 02:36 PM by maybereal11

Originally posted by centurion1211
But if you had a clue about how business works, you also understand that any person or business can only absorb so much in losses before they have to pass it on - if they want to stay in business. If you're still in school, stop skipping the econ 101 class.