Con_Alma;547141 wrote:You directed it's members how to vote?
Why would you not provide them information and allow them to choose for themselves how to vote?
There you go again...arguing facts and logic with liberals. Doing this with a union liberal might get your legs broken.Manhattan Buckeye;547268 wrote:"Yeah, hate to break it to you, but Government Motors didn't pay off their loans "in full". They, just like the government, used borrowed money to pay off borrowed money. "
Agreed, that people even believe this damns another public union, the teachers.
GM was a broke company, we pumped 10s of billions of dollars into a company that could have been bought for practically nothing, because of its liabilities. The U.S. is NOT going to get paid back in full by any means, we (the taxpayers) saved a company because it was deemed to big to fail. They are looking at about a $10B IPO, no way, no freaking way does the stock price get up to pay back all of the amount poured into it.
It was the definition of a bailout.
Depends, some sections of government are better than others. Just like some private sector jobs care more about worker’s safety than others.CenterBHSFan;546975 wrote:You don't think that our government doesn't focus on their workers' safety?
Or not enough?
Haha you realize you just described ALL unions, not just public ones right? Your story is exactly the same one a buddy told me about her private sector union. The worker would come in drunk, even crashed her car and got a DUI, still couldn’t be fired because of the union.Writerbuckeye;546986 wrote:The argument that unions are needed in the public sector is so bogus it's almost funny.
ALL government slots already have so many protections in place, anything a union provides is overkill to the point that you can't get a drunk fired, even if they show up drunk on the job multiple times.
I know, because I just tried to get some type of punishment against this worker, and was stalled and stonewalled at every turn. The union rep told me privately he knew this woman was nothing but a drunk and non-productive, but he didn't care. It was his job to protect her and keep her on the job.
Well, he succeeded. Long after I left that position -- she was still there, still drunk, and still on the job.
And if you think that was just one egregious example of how awful public sector unions are, think again. Crap like that happens everywhere, and supervisors in public sector jobs are powerless to get rid of them and replace them with productive people.
once again, you don’t think that happens in private sector unions?Writerbuckeye;547293 wrote:I dealt with union stewards while I worked with the state. They did NOTHING but work on union stuff all day. They are supposed to do their job, first, but that's not how it works. And yes, they tell the members how they should vote.
BGFalcons82;546997 wrote:In 1981 the air traffic controllers union tried on Ronald Reagan....and lost everything. Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)
I don't know how a huge union supporter such as yourself could have overlooked this one. It was a very significant story back in the day.
I'll let BG deal with this one....waaaaaaaayyy too easy.KnightRyder;548398 wrote:maybe because that was 30 years ago , and carries no weight today
I can't believe this but I agree with you!I Wear Pants;548436 wrote:Unions have their place but with the amount of regulations to protect workers (and OHSA, etc) I feel that many unions are past their useful period. Does that mean they all are? No. But I think that there are a lot of them that may be doing more harm than help these days .
KnightRyder;548398 wrote:maybe because that was 30 years ago , and carries no weight today
BG shoots, he SCORES!BGFalcons82;548443 wrote:When Reagan fired PATCO, it was seen as the largest union-busting move by anyone anywhere anytime. It also greatly affected the airline industry and he took a great chance taking his stance, but he felt they'd gotten too big for their britches and striking wasn't going to be tolerated. I write this because even though it was 29 years ago, it was a milepost event and you can't accept nor acknowledge it ever happened. Kind of sad, really.
No weight today, eh? How many federal public unions have gone on strike since then? I'll let you do the research, since your history skills need some polishing.
I Wear Pants;548436 wrote:Unions have their place but with the amount of regulations to protect workers (and OHSA, etc) I feel that many unions are past their useful period. Does that mean they all are? No. But I think that there are a lot of them that may be doing more harm than help these days .
Hard-core unionists would say "job security." But fighting for fair wages and workplace safety are tangible. Job security in today's global economy is a myth unless Big Labor can figure out a way to make a toe-hold in Communist China.BGFalcons82;548453 wrote:Looks to me like the issues that created them have been addressed and solved. What is out there today that requires unions to protect their members?
That is exactly where the unions and statists should be focusing their attention. Why do they look away at the Chinese, Indonesians, Vietnamese, and Pakistanis that indeed pay $3/day? Why do they look the other way when it comes to the environmental conditions in China and other expanding countries (India for example)? Why won't they rail against the oppression against the Chinese people from their government? Why not spend time, effort, and money to raise our global competition to OUR level, rather than back them because WE are doing something wrong? If they would attack the real oppressors and go after the real reasons companies leave the states, I would be 100% behind them. Unfortunately, it's too damn difficult to bite the hand that feeds them.believer;548478 wrote:Hard-core unionists would say "job security." But fighting for fair wages and workplace safety are tangible. Job security in today's global economy is a myth unless Big Labor can figure out a way to make a toe-hold in Communist China.
It's tough to compete when you can pay the average Chinese laborer $3 a day to make shoes, but the average American unionized laborer earns $18 per hour not-to-mention generous benefits packages.
Exactly. I marvel at the leftists in the United States (in particular Big Labor liberals) when they set-up roadblock after roadblock making doing business in the United States too costly (IE: overreaching environmental laws, wage laws, etc.) and then BITCH when companies send their business to global locations that make their products far more inexpensively because these countries DO NOT have crippling environmental and labor laws and, of course, Big Labor breathing down their necks.BGFalcons82;548498 wrote:That is exactly where the unions and statists should be focusing their attention. Why do they look away at the Chinese, Indonesians, Vietnamese, and Pakistanis that indeed pay $3/day? Why do they look the other way when it comes to the environmental conditions in China and other expanding countries (India for example)? Why won't they rail against the oppression against the Chinese people from their government? Why not spend time, effort, and money to raise our global competition to OUR level, rather than back them because WE are doing something wrong? If they would attack the real oppressors and go after the real reasons companies leave the states, I would be 100% behind them. Unfortunately, it's too damn difficult to bite the hand that feeds them.
Because posting was to much like work?BGFalcons82;550441 wrote:I see Knightyider is posting elsewhere, but not on here. I wonder why he won't come back and play?
Because you guys are big meanies. Duh.BGFalcons82;550441 wrote:I see Knightyider is posting elsewhere, but not on here. I wonder why he won't come back and play?
haha!I Wear Pants;550518 wrote:Because you guys are big meanies. Duh.
BGFalcons82;548443 wrote:Here's what you wrote originally. Interestingly, I tried to find the original post you made and couldn't. Did you delete it?
Originally Posted by KnightRyder
how many times have i read about unions striking themselves out of a job? actually never.
When Reagan fired PATCO, it was seen as the largest union-busting move by anyone anywhere anytime. It also greatly affected the airline industry and he took a great chance taking his stance, but he felt they'd gotten too big for their britches and striking wasn't going to be tolerated. I write this because even though it was 29 years ago, it was a milepost event and you can't accept nor acknowledge it ever happened. Kind of sad, really.
No weight today, eh? How many federal public unions have gone on strike since then? I'll let you do the research, since your history skills need some polishing.
Writerbuckeye;549726 wrote:This is a great thread.
KnightRyder;550679 wrote:yea it is . its always fun discussing unions with people that know little or nothing about them
KnightRyder;550679 wrote:yea it is . its always fun discussing unions with people that know little or nothing about them
BGFalcons82;550731 wrote:Since you DON'T know...here is some knowledge: I was in a labor union for close to 10 years, so I'm a little knowledgeable about them. The union I belonged to was in fact put into receivership because the leaders were theives, con-artists, and corrupt. Gee...there's a first for everything, eh?
queencitybuckeye;550705 wrote:There's no reason to believe that the people who have a different opinion of a subject know less than you. It's a cheap tactic for someone who can't defend their stance.