RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events The History of Labor Day

That's a little like saying Sean Penn helped during Katrina when he loaded his entourage into the leaky boat: complete failure at fixing the problem, possible exacerbation of a situation but at least people noticed.

Since unions have been bleeding corporations for decades, how can you make THAT argument?

And what proof do you have that "They've been making the profits and just not doing what republicans say they would do with them"?
What I see is that business was increasing (and therefore wealthy tax savings were re-invested back into the economy, opposite what you say) all through the Bush years. And the mortgage crisis (easy loans for unqualified buyers that the Democrats pushed for since the Clinton years) is what finally brought it down.

Many companies have been forced to offshore jobs and manufacture in other countries because all their competitors have done the same, forcing them to finally similarly offshore production to lower costs, or be driven out of business.

And the expanded federal government has been an active part of the environment that has allowed corporations to move overseas without penalty. NAFTA and GATT were passed during the first two years of Clinton's presidency.
The answer is tariffs that balance the playing field, and make producing in the U.S. the more profitable option, instead of offshoring. Instead of short-sighted government policy that makes it more desireable to offshore.

Financial investment guru (and recent Connecticut Senate primary candidate) Peter Schiff said that it's actually easier and less regulated now to start a business in China than it is in the United States.
Before smothering union and environmental regulation, that used to be true of the United States. All regulation in the U.S. has resulted in is moving all that industry to a regulation-free China!

Regarding catering to corporations, as decades of corruption and declining U.S. industry show, corporate acquiescence is a bipartisan act, not a Republican act, as liberals like to scapegoat it as.

Unions make up something like 12.4% of the workforce these days. They've been in decline for decades. Most companies don't even have them. Tax cuts however have been steady for decades. Obama hasn't raised those taxes and even made additional tax cuts. The stimulus was 1/3rd tax cuts plus there were additional tax cuts after that targetted for new hiring. It's easy for me to make my argument. Now where was your argument that the tax cuts worked?

Unions hire hippies and the homeless to protest places that aren't unionized. I can't think of anything more evil.

Beyond any alleged tax cuts, Obama's various stimulus plans resulted in hundreds of trillions in borrowed foreign dollars, most of which has been hosed away wastefully, costing at best hundreds of thousands of dollars for every job "created".
Most of the stimulus money hasn't been spent, and much of it has been given to unions, SEUI, ACORN, and other hard-left Brownshirt grass-roots liberal groups that expand power of the Democrats. Against the will and national interests of voters. Which is why the Democrats are going to be pounded into the dirt in the coming mid-term elections.

It is about Obama and the Democrats doing what perserves their strong-arm political power, NOT what will benefit the people.
To the division and detriment of the nation.

Or collective extortion as the case may be. I still recall how grocery-baggers at Ralphs were striking outside the stores and and harassing anyone who tried to go shopping because they weren't being given health insurance by the company they already agreed to work for.



Where did I mention the democrats? Or "political parties" for that matter?

All I spoke of was how unions seek to set the terms of how the laborers' employers would be allowed to spend their own money.



Well that settles it. Corporations are all powerful and could never run out of money or be strained by an over-abundance of full-time personnel in the middle of a recession. Companies don't need to cut cost to survive nowadays because they're in no danger of shrinking and/or dying out. They could abide every single union demand without batting an eye because their resources are endless.

Thanks JLA! Now we know!

How were they harrassing customers? I shopped in stores that were being protested against years ago many times; the protestors never even said a word to me.

In your example, the protestors agreed to work for the company initially...that doesn't mean they have to agree to those terms for all of eternity.



You used the word "party". It appeared you were referring to the Dems, not the "party" unions represent.

Why would you call them alleged?

I... can't argue with this...

dammit pro!

carrot top.

Because it's a sleight-of-hand fake by Obama.

Obama authorizes 100 million in "offsetting" tax cuts, and then authorizes hundreds of billions in spending.

That still makes them tax cuts WB. Nor is it any different than Bush's tax cuts since he also defect spent too.

Your intelligence in inherently flawed. You really have no idea what you're actually talking about, do you? Unions, like corporations or political parties, aren't evil or greedy by design. It's how they're used that makes them evil or good. The big auto workers' union is corrupt and greedy now, yes. But that doesn't mean all unions are. My brother is in a union. They don't strike every couple of months for raises. But they do keep his boss from telling him to work a twelve hour shift on his day off with no overtime or lose his job. My cousin's husband is a firefighter in a union. Why? Because if a little kid runs out in front of his fire truck he's driving before he can stop it, the city is going to throw him under the bus instead of prolonging a PR nightmare. The union provides him with lawyers to defend him and show that he wasn't at fault and undeserving of termination.


Seriously, Pariah, I can't wait for the day that you'll actually have to start living in the real world.

At the same time, to play devil's advocate, I've seen a lot of examples of guys in police or firefighter unions who were at fault in similar situations and the union protected them when they were deserving of termination.

I've personally witnessed cases of cops who stole property from the evidence warehouse, stalked their exes, tipped off their relatives to raids and committed various other breaches of the peace and the union fought tooth and nail to keep them on the job. And all the while the cops were drawing full pay for light duty, or even sitting home, for a year or more while the case wound its way through the administrative process and, in same cases, courts.

It's one thing to protect a guy like your cousin in the situation you describe. It's another to protect the guy who is deserving of termination, and I think a lot of the animosity towards civil service employee unions stems from stuff like that.

That's America. It's like Freedom of Speech, sometimes you have to accept something someone says that you don't agree with. And, as Doc said, not all Unions are the same. So your point merely agrees with his.

In your case, I don't see where it was the Unions at fault, but the legal system that allowed them such freedoms. The failure of the legal system to be able to moderate lawyers and technical legal minutia is what has allowed this country to become so absurdly litigious and cowardly. We cannot fathom offending anyone for fear of a lawyer and court saying they have to pay them money. So, if these dirty cops (and I have never, ever heard of a "dirty firefighter", btw) deserve justice, then make a law that punishes them. But, no, that wouldn't do for attorneys and the corrupt legal system would it? There's no money in punishing the guilty...

Methinks you have a long wait...

That's why I said that I couldn't wait. That day will never come.

Touche.

Okay. They said plenty to me. They certainly made plenty of other peoples' shopping experience miserable.



Certainly. As such, it's reasonable for them to leave and pursue other interests when the job's salary and benefits no longer suit their living conditions.



Ah. I see.

To clarify, I meant party as applied to the employer or the employees.





How do you think companies exercise fiscal responsibility in the first place? By handing out raises to every single employee in the middle of a recession? Corporate America has to cut costs so its businesses can survive and have a chance to grow in the future. Trying to pin them up as financial criminals just because they decide to make their own employment policies that aren't subject to union approval is the epitome of retardation.

Yeah, I know that corporate executives can be unethical and corrupt, but that doesn't mean I choose to view every personnel cut as greedy.

I'll not bother arguing the value you see in unions and simply ask how these examples would help me. All these resources you point out are provided by unions. But what if I'm more squared away than my co-workers and I get my own lawyers and contracts that cover my ass in the event that my employer makes what I find to be an unreasonable demand? Why should I not be allowed to use these resources I've amassed rather than be forced to pool my resources into a collective mass amidst my workplace that pressures me to be apart of their hivemind?

I still remember when I was 17 and I wanted to get a job bagging groceries. Unfortunately, I was too young for a union sponsored workman's license (even though federal law said I was of age) and chances are I wouldn't get one even when I was old enough since I didn't have a family. And this isn't mentioning the fact that if I were to get the job, I'd be forced to work under the union contract and put money towards it.

Move to a non-Union state. Done.

Just of out curiosity, what state is a non-union state?

If you can hire a team of lawyers to defend you in a situation like that, you most likely wouldn't likely be working in those fields. You also aren't very bright as I'm not condoning the forcing of people to join unions but rather showing that unions can and do have positive affects for people. I've said it here before that I don't believe that unions should be too powerful just as I've said the same about politicians.



Boo hoo. You had a bad experience with a union, so now all of them are bad.

In all honesty, a union for people who bag groceries is fucking retarded. That isn't skilled labor. But that's what you get for living in a socialist state.

Many southeastern states, like Mississippi, are 'right to work' states. Essentially, killing unions for anything other than highly skilled workers.

I didn't say a team. To clarify: I would make sure to obtain legal consultation on all things business.

Anywho, I acknowledge your point even though its rather naive. The point of having collective bargaining is to absorb every laborer and put them behind a combined force. There's no other way a union could effectively work in getting employers to adhere to demands unless people are forced.



My past situation wasn't, and isn't fringe. Unions generally keep those kind of policies--which are what's bad.

Again, if you can hire even a single lawyer to consult on all things business, you probably aren't on a firefighter or pipefitter's salaries.

Yeah, but that's not, by it's terms a "non-union" state since, as you point out, there are unions there. And, of course, those states don't ban unions. They just allow employees to opt out of joining or paying dues.

I would also note that it appears that "right to work" states have higher per capita incomes, better unemployment rates and, as a result, more favorable population shifts.

Toyota and Nissan have both opened (or are opening, in Toyota's case) plants in Mississippi because of the 'right to work' status.

SC is another right to work state. If you can land a gig at BMW, then you are set. They let you lease and insure a Beamer through the company for cheap. Pay is good and the Germans seemingly have no problem with offering them good perks to boot.

All of which seems to confirm that unions served a valid purpose but rarely do in the modern era.