isadore;1329708 wrote:lol, the only way workers can hope for any fairness in dealing with large institutions is in collectively bargaining.
as people of ohio realized in their overwhelming rejection of sb5, a complete rejection of your views.

Really? I have worked for a number of large companies and never been represented by a union. I seem to have bargained for myself just fine.

I'm sorry, but reality doesn't back up your opinion that unions are "needed" to bargain for employees. Matter of fact that is blantantly false.

Should private company employees have the right to create a union? Absolutely, as long as the people and the company agree to that type of bargaining set up.

Should public employees have the right to create a union? That depends on a couple things.

1. As in the private sector it needs to be agreed apon by both the employer and employee. Neither side should be forced to "bargain" in a way they don't want to.
2. A public employee union should NOT be allowed to donate to political campaigns/funds as this creates a conflict of interest. In the end they would be bargaining with people they already gave money to in the campaign, creating a conflict of interest.

You have no idea how companies work if you believe that employees of large companies HAVE to join a union to get a fair shake.

isadore;1329708 wrote:lol, the only way workers can hope for any fairness in dealing with large institutions is in collectively bargaining.
as people of ohio realized in their overwhelming rejection of sb5, a complete rejection of your views.

It's working fine in Wisconsin. Maybe they just have smarter people there?

WebFire;1329745 wrote:It's working fine in Wisconsin. Maybe they just have smarter people there?

they voted for obama our first african american president by a larger percentage than the people in ohio did.

jmog;1329719 wrote:Really? I have worked for a number of large companies and never been represented by a union. I seem to have bargained for myself just fine.

I'm sorry, but reality doesn't back up your opinion that unions are "needed" to bargain for employees. Matter of fact that is blantantly false.

Should private company employees have the right to create a union? Absolutely, as long as the people and the company agree to that type of bargaining set up.

Should public employees have the right to create a union? That depends on a couple things.

1. As in the private sector it needs to be agreed apon by both the employer and employee. Neither side should be forced to "bargain" in a way they don't want to.
2. A public employee union should NOT be allowed to donate to political campaigns/funds as this creates a conflict of interest. In the end they would be bargaining with people they already gave money to in the campaign, creating a conflict of interest.

You have no idea how companies work if you believe that employees of large companies HAVE to join a union to get a fair shake.

i have a very good idea of how corporations work, i have seen the screw over enough folks. They are souless entities. We have seen how corporations act when there is no countervailing force. They are often driven by a desire for short range profit no matter what the cost to the worker or consumer. in dealing with these entitities the true hope for the worker is in the right to organize so labor in numbers for protection.
public workers have the same rights when dealing with governmental institutions. Gosh we have you who believes corporations should have political rights but not government employees. Well luckily ohio has rejected your philosophy convincingly.
heck republicans worked to make sure right to work was not on the 2012 ballot.

jmog;1329719 wrote:Really? I have worked for a number of large companies and never been represented by a union. I seem to have bargained for myself just fine.

I'm sorry, but reality doesn't back up your opinion that unions are "needed" to bargain for employees. Matter of fact that is blantantly false.

Should private company employees have the right to create a union? Absolutely, as long as the people and the company agree to that type of bargaining set up.

Should public employees have the right to create a union? That depends on a couple things.

1. As in the private sector it needs to be agreed apon by both the employer and employee. Neither side should be forced to "bargain" in a way they don't want to.
2. A public employee union should NOT be allowed to donate to political campaigns/funds as this creates a conflict of interest. In the end they would be bargaining with people they already gave money to in the campaign, creating a conflict of interest.

You have no idea how companies work if you believe that employees of large companies HAVE to join a union to get a fair shake.

[h=1]Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.[/h]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States

isadore;1329778 wrote:i have a very good idea of how corporations work, i have seen the screw over enough folks. They are souless entities. We have seen how corporations act when there is no countervailing force. They are often driven by a desire for short range profit no matter what the cost to the worker or consumer. in dealing with these entitities the true hope for the worker is in the right to organize so labor in numbers for protection.
public workers have the same rights when dealing with governmental institutions. Gosh we have you who believes corporations should have political rights but not government employees. Well luckily ohio has rejected your philosophy convincingly.
heck republicans worked to make sure right to work was not on the 2012 ballot.

Isadore, what you've just typed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

jmog;1331066 wrote:Isadore, what you've just typed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

gosh a ruddies jmog, you can not spend your life ripping off billy madison. it would be impossible to make most people on this forum dumber, they actually thought Americans and especially Ohioans were selfish, greedy and bigoted enough to elect Romney.

jmog;1331066 wrote:Isadore, what you've just typed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I wonder if the hardest, most efficient worker at the Bangladesh clothing factory that just burned down would agree that you really don't need a union to protect you from your employer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-wal-marts-strategy-of-deniability-for-workers-safety/2012/11/27/8e59f88c-38c6-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html?hpid=z2

Bigdogg;1331140 wrote:I wonder if the hardest, most efficient worker at the Bangladesh clothing factory that just burned down would agree that you really don't need a union to protect you from your employer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-wal-marts-strategy-of-deniability-for-workers-safety/2012/11/27/8e59f88c-38c6-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html?hpid=z2

They may still need unions in Bangladesh. They don't have the laws we do here.

WebFire;1331186 wrote:They may still need unions in Bangladesh. They don't have the laws we do here.

Very true. But laws can be changed here and with the last election you have seen that corporations have lots of cash to throw away to get the tables turned to more "friendly" was for them to do business.

Bigdogg;1331140 wrote:I wonder if the hardest, most efficient worker at the Bangladesh clothing factory that just burned down would agree that you really don't need a union to protect you from your employer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-wal-marts-strategy-of-deniability-for-workers-safety/2012/11/27/8e59f88c-38c6-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html?hpid=z2

Do you really want to compare Bangladesh labor laws to that in the US?

There is no doubt that decades ago unions in the US were needed. Now they are not a NEED, they are a want and and option.

Please, you honestly can't be serious with that comparison, ruins all credibility.

isadore;1331070 wrote:gosh a ruddies jmog, you can not spend your life ripping off billy madison. it would be impossible to make most people on this forum dumber, they actually thought Americans and especially Ohioans were selfish, greedy and bigoted enough to elect Romney.

The quote fit perfectly, your post rambled on in an incoherent diatribe that made absolutely no sense at all.

jmog;1331217 wrote:The quote fit perfectly, your post rambled on in an incoherent diatribe that made absolutely no sense at all.

I am sorry if it went over your head, I will try to dumb it down for you. Obama=good, Unions=good, Kasich=bad.

isadore;1331230 wrote:I am sorry if it went over your head, I will try to dumb it down for you. Obama=good, Unions=good, Kasich=bad.

Like I said, rambling.

Oh, and after reading the crap you portray as English in your posts, I wouldn't be so passive agressive calling others not quite on your level.

jmog;1331214 wrote:Do you really want to compare Bangladesh labor laws to that in the US?

There is no doubt that decades ago unions in the US were needed. Now they are not a NEED, they are a want and and option.

Please, you honestly can't be serious with that comparison, ruins all credibility.

No I do not want to compare laws but evidently you just did on your own. What I wiil note is that their are no laws or unions to protect workers in countrys like Bangladesh. US companies go in and exploit the workers for the bottom dime. Without labor unions or the threat of unionization, there is very little to stop companys from getting present laws changed here. You understand now or you just being obtuse?

Bigdogg;1331434 wrote:No I do not want to compare laws but evidently you just did on your own. What I wiil note is that their are no laws or unions to protect workers in countrys like Bangladesh. US companies go in and exploit the workers for the bottom dime. Without labor unions or the threat of unionization, there is very little to stop companys from getting present laws changed here. You understand now or you just being obtuse?

So you believe that without unions that companies can get the laws changed?

Did you copy/paste that right off the UAW's website, pamphlet, or talking points?

So if unions disappeared you truly believe that OSHA regulations for employee safety, in the US, will disappear?

Come on, lay off the kool aid.

jmog;1331455 wrote:So you believe that without unions that companies can get the laws changed?

Did you copy/paste that right off the UAW's website, pamphlet, or talking points?

So if unions disappeared you truly believe that OSHA regulations for employee safety, in the US, will disappear?

Come on, lay off the kool aid.

As long as corporations are considered people and they can pump massive amounts of dollars into political campaigns, they can pretty much do as they please. Have you not been paying attention to Wall street these last few years or do you want to keep your head buried in the sand?

For years now, every monthly operating review I've been in at a number of companies sets time aside to address lost-time injuries and hazards and corrective actions.

Smart companies have realized that unsafe work places are costly...higher workers comp, training and OT costs, and it's bad for morale. So, no, if unions go away these laws are not going away. And if corporations are so powerful, then why don't non-union shops lobby for waivers? Truthfully companies now recognize the value in safety.

Just more leftist/union bullshit because most of their demographic doesn't have a fucking clue how businesses actually operate. Their arguments don't need merit or to be based on fact - hating the man has always been popular. Tell their constituents what they want to hear and they just eat it up.

Sad part is most are unwilling to listen and learn how things really work. Well, perhaps that's not really true as workers, especially in the south, are increasingly rejecting the union.

Bigdogg;1331466 wrote:As long as corporations are considered people and they can pump massive amounts of dollars into political campaigns, they can pretty much do as they please. Have you not been paying attention to Wall street these last few years or do you want to keep your head buried in the sand?

Last I checked the recession was majorly caused by the housing bubble that didn't just pop but blew up like an atomic bomb. We can discuss the causes of this ad nauseum, but what has Wall Street done that would cause unsafe working conditions?

Bigdogg;1331466 wrote:As long as corporations are considered people and they can pump massive amounts of dollars into political campaigns, they can pretty much do as they please.

When you stop unions from doing the same, I'd go along with that. If you support the voting lobby of unions, then corporate PACs are absolutely entitled to represent the interests of those owners and shareholders.

gut;1331512 wrote:When you stop unions from doing the same, I'd go along with that. If you support the voting lobby of unions, then corporate PACs are absolutely entitled to represent the interests of those owners and shareholders.

Exactly, cut unions off from donating to candidates and I'm all for corporations being cut off from being allowed to donate.

Bigdogg;1331434 wrote:US companies go in and exploit the workers for the bottom dime.

Where do you buy your clothes?

jmog;1331214 wrote:Do you really want to compare Bangladesh labor laws to that in the US?

There is no doubt that decades ago unions in the US were needed. Now they are not a NEED, they are a want and and option.

Please, you honestly can't be serious with that comparison, ruins all credibility.

gosh as guys like you try to break the influence of union. and groups like alec, the agent of corporations try to return our workers to the bangladesh level.

112 die in fire in factory in bangladesh. wow a tragedy that cann't happen here. and gosh we need to protect the rights of the rich and the corporations against all those rules and regulations that protect those pampered workers.
well it can happen here, 101 years ago, the triangle shirtwaist factory fire, 146 killed mostly young women because businesses were not tied down by regulations.
Who put those regulations to prevent a repeat of that fire, union pressure on government, not corporations, not the rich but the representatives of the workers there to prevent young.

isadore;1331792 wrote:112 die in fire in factory in bangladesh. wow a tragedy that cann't happen here. and gosh we need to protect the rights of the rich and the corporations against all those rules and regulations that protect those pampered workers.
well it can happen here, 101 years ago, the triangle shirtwaist factory fire, 146 killed mostly young women because businesses were not tied down by regulations.
Who put those regulations to prevent a repeat of that fire, union pressure on government, not corporations, not the rich but the representatives of the workers there to prevent young.

Really?