If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Mich. Democrats: If you pass this, you will not reason with us, you cannot control us. There shall be chaos in the streets. Cats and dogs living together. Muslims and Jews breaking bread. Chaos, utter chaos   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 526
    More: Amusing, Democrats, John Dingell, Muslims and Jews, Michigan Republicans, union shops  
•       •       •

4995 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2012 at 11:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



526 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-11 03:30:27 PM

jigger: amiable: Uh.. obama ran on implementing Obamacare

Uh.. no, he ran against the things that eventually became Obamacare. He didn't need any "Republican ideas" in it because not a single Republican voted for it.


Sense. Make some.
 
2012-12-11 03:34:18 PM
If the Democrats did this, I would be forced to listen how the Dems are "UnAmerican". When the party of whining does it, it's suddenly awesome that Union members are getting maced.

/The modern GOP is a disgrace to this country. Go to hell, Snyder.
 
2012-12-11 03:35:07 PM
people have been pepper sprayed and otherwise restrained on the Capitol ground today. reports indicated that the crowd outside the Romney building was tear gassed, but contemporaneous pictures lead me to believe maybe that did not happen. one way or another, they will need to clear a way for the Governor to get out of the building and over to the Capitol if he's going to sign these bills today.

Detroit Free Press
 
2012-12-11 03:36:09 PM

Leeds: Magorn: Job Creator: Weaver95: Leeds:
Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary./i>

so what happens when your boss decides that you cost too much? he fires you and then hires 4 or 5 H1B visa workers to do your job...but he keeps the union workers because he can't get rid of them without tanking the corporate profits for the quarter.

hey, the boss made money right? yay capitalism!

I have him on ignore, but he's typical of glib libertarians. He think his labor is so special and valued when the fact is that his boss (if he's in a large organization at least) doesn't even know he exists. If he does, he'll take the chance that some Russian or Mexican will be more desperate to produce the extra value and will riff Leeds without even a thought.

This what kills me about people like him. They truly believe the world works in a way it just doesn't and when that world screws them over they blame all the wrong people. Let's just suppose the best case scenario: that the work he does somehow manages to let him obviously differentiate his effort and productivity from that of his peers. And let's further even grant him the notion that a benevolent manager will identify his hard work and reward him for it with higher pay, benefits, whatever.

Even in that best case scenario, all he's managed to do is become a nail sticking out of the company org chart. Someone several level above the factory flaw will create a spreadsheet showing labor costs per unit of production and note this better-compensated employee is an anomaly that adds an average of 1/10th cent of extra labor cost to each unit shipped. He doesn't know about his man's sterling qualities, heroic productivity and incredible gumption and dedication, he just sees a generic unit of workforce that can be replaced with a cheaper one.

So a couple calls get made, hero-worker gets canned just before his retirement options vest and replaced with a kid jus ...


Why do you assume we are? Look around your cube farm. You may have a degree hanging on your "wall" but to the people at the top of your org, you are just as faceless and interchangeable as the factory worker. In your case it will be somebody from India with an H-1B visa rather than a machine, but I assure you, if there is a way they can get your job done cheaper, even if not as well, they are already working on it. Hell, I'm a lawyer, and I've even seen attempts (largely disastrous thank god) to Ship MY kind of Job to india where they can get an English-speaking "Lawyer" to work for $5/hr instead of (under) paying a New lawyer in the US $35/hr to do the same work (lowest rung of the legal ladder to be sure, but still something that requires a law degree, which in the US is a $100,000 investment)

Look at the mass layoffs Citigroup and Dell did recently. Do you suppose they individually evaluated all 11,000 people they fired and dropped the chaff and kept the good ones? Or do you think somebody drew a line on a salary chart and said "everybody making more than X doing job Y goes"?
 
2012-12-11 03:37:01 PM

Leeds: udhq: giftedmadness: I thought libs were all about choice. This law would give workers the option of turning down entry into a union. What is wrong with giving them a choice?

I know this lib is just fine with giving workers the choice of whether or not to join a union.

What I'm not fine with is forcing the union to provide their services to that person free of charge should they choose not to pay dues.

You and I both know that employers will offer people more money to join as a worker than as a union member. I have seen no evidence that the union contract has to serve as a cap for the benefits offered to someone who wants instead to be a good worker.


Once again, as with most of this thread, your gut feeling on this is not supported by reality. On average, employees are willing to pay $4.95 more per hour for a unionized worker than for a non-union worker.

Do you honestly want to try and make the argument that companies do this out of the goodness of their hearts? No, it's because union labor IS more valuable, higher-quality labor.
 
2012-12-11 03:39:44 PM
Who is demanding that employees pay for union membership in Michigan? If the government doesn't want to continue that requirement of its employees, fine. Why is it the government's business to tell GM that they cannot agree upon such an arrangement with the UAW though?
 
2012-12-11 03:40:48 PM

OgreMagi: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Make up a list of all businesses that closed because the union demands were to much and they went out of business. Going from $xx to zero is definitely a descrease in wages/bennies/conditions. I'm sure the unions don't count those businesses, though. It might make them look bad.


If a company closes because they can't afford to pay their employees what they're worth, then that responsibility falls squarely on poor management.
 
2012-12-11 03:42:03 PM

Magorn: Leeds: Magorn: Job Creator: Weaver95: Leeds:
Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary./i>

so what happens when your boss decides that you cost too much? he fires you and then hires 4 or 5 H1B visa workers to do your job...but he keeps the union workers because he can't get rid of them without tanking the corporate profits for the quarter.

hey, the boss made money right? yay capitalism!

I have him on ignore, but he's typical of glib libertarians. He think his labor is so special and valued when the fact is that his boss (if he's in a large organization at least) doesn't even know he exists. If he does, he'll take the chance that some Russian or Mexican will be more desperate to produce the extra value and will riff Leeds without even a thought.

This what kills me about people like him. They truly believe the world works in a way it just doesn't and when that world screws them over they blame all the wrong people. Let's just suppose the best case scenario: that the work he does somehow manages to let him obviously differentiate his effort and productivity from that of his peers. And let's further even grant him the notion that a benevolent manager will identify his hard work and reward him for it with higher pay, benefits, whatever.

Even in that best case scenario, all he's managed to do is become a nail sticking out of the company org chart. Someone several level above the factory flaw will create a spreadsheet showing labor costs per unit of production and note this better-compensated employee is an anomaly that adds an average of 1/10th cent of extra labor cost to each unit shipped. He doesn't know about his man's sterling qualities, heroic productivity and incredible gumption and dedication, he just sees a generic unit of workforce that can be replaced with a cheaper one.

So a couple calls get made, hero-worker gets canned just before his retirement options vest and replaced with a k ...


And the fact that he is "a nail sticking out of the company org chart" (though I think probably not so much) makes it more likely that he'll be the first to go- can't have someone making more than other people with the same job description.
 
2012-12-11 03:47:15 PM

lennavan: o5iiawah: Whether individual, single-family, or retiree your graph still doesn't adjust for cost of living.

A person making $40k in NY is for all intents and purposes poor but isn't labeled as such and (doesn't) enjoy(s) the same quality of life as someone in Alabama making $12k who is labeled as poor.

They are probably affording just enough to get by, or arent getting by. and probably need public assistance when it comes to transportation passes and energy credits.

You could have just asked jst3p to explain what the poverty line and poverty rate are since you are completely clueless about them. He seems like a decent guy, I'm sure he would have helped you out.


Eh, people that don't want to understand something rarely ever will.
 
2012-12-11 03:51:21 PM

amiable: jigger: amiable: Uh.. obama ran on implementing Obamacare

Uh.. no, he ran against the things that eventually became Obamacare. He didn't need any "Republican ideas" in it because not a single Republican voted for it.

Sense. Make some.


Well, at least you make it obvious you don't know WTF you're talking about.
 
2012-12-11 03:52:10 PM

Leeds: Mrtraveler01: Leeds: Are you saying that I couldn't make my case to my employer that I could create more wealth for the company than a lazy union member and thus I am worthy of a higher salary than the union members that they have a contract with?

Yes, I think it's hysterical that you think you can bargain for a wage higher than a union worker in the same occupation as you.

Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary.

Is capitalism entirely foreign to commies like you?


Is the concept of "leverage" entirely foreign to morons like you?
 
2012-12-11 03:54:24 PM

o5iiawah: A person making $40k in NY is for all intents and purposes poor but isn't labeled as such and (doesn't) enjoy(s) the same quality of life as someone in Alabama making $12k who is labeled as poor.

They are probably affording just enough to get by, or arent getting by. and probably need public assistance when it comes to transportation passes and energy credits.


And you are completely ignoring that the south is more red than other areas with comparably low costs of living, like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho. I understand that you don't want to believe that poverty isn't a bigger issue in the South than most other parts of the nation. I can only assume it is because you are from the south and take umbrage with my assertion that "Fat, dumb, and poor, seem to be Southern virtues." Unfortunately the facts don't care if you believe it. There is more obesity, illiteracy and poverty (given the fact that there is a correlation between poverty and obesity and one between poverty and illiteracy, this isn't at all surprising) in the south than in most other parts of the nation. There just is.
 
2012-12-11 03:55:09 PM

amiable: Leeds: qorkfiend: Maybe if they hadn't tried to ram it through in a lame-duck session, Michigan Democrats and the unions wouldn't be so upset.

Why is it that whenever the Republicans do stuff like this, they have to resort to legislative trickery, suppression of opposition, and lame-duck sessions to get it done?

And you think that this is a republican thing?

Obamacare for the win.

Uh.. obama ran on implementing Obamacare, there was absolutely zero surprises/chicanery here. he went out of his way to incorporate Republican ideas in his plan.


I forget is that the law that doesn't include a tax but is constitutional because the 'not a tax' is really tax?
 
2012-12-11 03:56:43 PM

Lt_Ryan: I forget is that the law that doesn't include a tax but is constitutional because the 'not a tax' is really tax?


It's a penaltax. Get it straight.
 
2012-12-11 03:59:22 PM

Reverend Monkeypants: Career Union Representatives are just as terrible people as Career Politicians

IMO


The real reason Bob King is pissed about this (President of the UAW) he was going to spend the week sucking management dick and making concessions, this whole thing means he won't get Ford's dick in his ass until post Xmas.

/the UAW has been toothless for awhile, the state house finally figured it out
 
2012-12-11 04:00:21 PM

Leeds: Mrtraveler01: Leeds: Are you saying that I couldn't make my case to my employer that I could create more wealth for the company than a lazy union member and thus I am worthy of a higher salary than the union members that they have a contract with?

Yes, I think it's hysterical that you think you can bargain for a wage higher than a union worker in the same occupation as you.

Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary.

Is capitalism entirely foreign to commies like you?


If a person has to state that they are not lazy, then it can be pretty much accepted they are.
 
2012-12-11 04:05:19 PM

spif: Unions work well in environments where the worker is little more than a machine doing a specific task.

There must be a reason that unions do poorly in service industries where job duties cannot be bullet-pointed and tasked out with a punch-card.


I'm not so sure. I'm in the film industry and unions and guilds have proven invaluable to us. Also, in an interesting comparison, some positions in the industry are non-union and I've seen some very sketchy treatment of those workers.
 
2012-12-11 04:06:13 PM

jst3p: o5iiawah: A person making $40k in NY is for all intents and purposes poor but isn't labeled as such and (doesn't) enjoy(s) the same quality of life as someone in Alabama making $12k who is labeled as poor.

They are probably affording just enough to get by, or arent getting by. and probably need public assistance when it comes to transportation passes and energy credits.

And you are completely ignoring that the south is more red than other areas with comparably low costs of living, like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho. I understand that you don't want to believe that poverty isn't a bigger issue in the South than most other parts of the nation. I can only assume it is because you are from the south and take umbrage with my assertion that "Fat, dumb, and poor, seem to be Southern virtues." Unfortunately the facts don't care if you believe it. There is more obesity, illiteracy and poverty (given the fact that there is a correlation between poverty and obesity and one between poverty and illiteracy, this isn't at all surprising) in the south than in most other parts of the nation. There just is.


Yes, but 99.6% of Southerners have refrigerators so ergo they aren't poor.

/brain on FoxNews
 
2012-12-11 04:11:28 PM
As someone who was just fired without warning or reason in California last Friday, I'm getting a real kick outta this...

/goes to fill out unemployment application
 
2012-12-11 04:13:03 PM

Job Creator: jst3p: o5iiawah: A person making $40k in NY is for all intents and purposes poor but isn't labeled as such and (doesn't) enjoy(s) the same quality of life as someone in Alabama making $12k who is labeled as poor.

They are probably affording just enough to get by, or arent getting by. and probably need public assistance when it comes to transportation passes and energy credits.

And you are completely ignoring that the south is more red than other areas with comparably low costs of living, like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho. I understand that you don't want to believe that poverty isn't a bigger issue in the South than most other parts of the nation. I can only assume it is because you are from the south and take umbrage with my assertion that "Fat, dumb, and poor, seem to be Southern virtues." Unfortunately the facts don't care if you believe it. There is more obesity, illiteracy and poverty (given the fact that there is a correlation between poverty and obesity and one between poverty and illiteracy, this isn't at all surprising) in the south than in most other parts of the nation. There just is.

Yes, but 99.6% of Southerners have refrigerators so ergo they aren't poor.

/brain on FoxNews


I think poverty is a serious problem and as I indicated it leads to many other issues. The frustration I have is that the south votes for the party who's economic policies have been systematically eliminating the middle class and driving up poverty rates for the last 30 years. And they vote for them "because Jesus".

This is what tax cuts, unpaid for wars and expanding social programs leads to:

i2.cdn.turner.com

I find it hilarious that "tax and spend liberal" is used as an insult when the alternative is "borrow and spend".

/I will note that I am aware that Obama has been very much "borrow and spend". So long as we don't have another recession I am willing to give him 4more years before judging him
 
2012-12-11 04:13:23 PM

Leeds: Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.


I think we can all agree that a poorly run union is bad for everyone. Unfortunately the arguments of the anti-union crowd are based on the idea that unions are predominantly badly run. This is not as common an occurrence as you think. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of locals in North America that work with management to balance the needs of the company with the needs of the workers. Those negotiations, however, never make the news.
 
2012-12-11 04:13:49 PM

skullkrusher: Who is demanding that employees pay for union membership in Michigan? If the government doesn't want to continue that requirement of its employees, fine. Why is it the government's business to tell GM that they cannot agree upon such an arrangement with the UAW though?


That's a ridiculous statement that has no basis in reality.

The UAW won't for a second entertain a CBA proposal that allows for open shop Union rules...they never have and they never will.
 
2012-12-11 04:14:52 PM

Mercutio74: spif: Unions work well in environments where the worker is little more than a machine doing a specific task.

There must be a reason that unions do poorly in service industries where job duties cannot be bullet-pointed and tasked out with a punch-card.

I'm not so sure. I'm in the film industry and unions and guilds have proven invaluable to us. Also, in an interesting comparison, some positions in the industry are non-union and I've seen some very sketchy treatment of those workers.


There's a few high personal expertise segments where unionization makes inroads. Could it be a holdout from the old days, when the personal expertise of guys like DPs and key grips was not as valuable as it is now?
 
2012-12-11 04:15:34 PM

Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.


Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?
 
2012-12-11 04:15:55 PM

Dwight_Yeast: mrshowrules: Education has a sharp negative correlation with States with right-to-work laws and a clear positive correlation to States who support union rights.

Which is interesting, as outside of tenured academics, very few educated people are in unions in this country.

/college grad
//pro union


I say correlated because the main issue is investment in education. States that pay less for workers in public institutions frequently propose things like right-to-work legislation. Poorly paid teachers. That causes (IMHO) poorly educated students.

Less investment in public services causes less pay for public workers and in parallel less support for union labour (e.g., right to work legislation).

Poorly paid public workers means poorly compensated police, teachers, bus drivers which results in shiatty police services, teaching and bus driving.
 
2012-12-11 04:16:57 PM

qorkfiend: Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?


In before "TWINKIES!!!! HERP DERP"
 
2012-12-11 04:17:28 PM

Coach_J: skullkrusher: Who is demanding that employees pay for union membership in Michigan? If the government doesn't want to continue that requirement of its employees, fine. Why is it the government's business to tell GM that they cannot agree upon such an arrangement with the UAW though?

That's a ridiculous statement that has no basis in reality.

The UAW won't for a second entertain a CBA proposal that allows for open shop Union rules...they never have and they never will.


so you're saying that the private auto manufacturer entered into a private agreement with a private union yet you want the government to intervene?
 
2012-12-11 04:18:31 PM

Mercutio74: Leeds: Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

I think we can all agree that a poorly run union is bad for everyone. Unfortunately the arguments of the anti-union crowd are based on the idea that unions are predominantly badly run. This is not as common an occurrence as you think. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of locals in North America that work with management to balance the needs of the company with the needs of the workers. Those negotiations, however, never make the news.


My father retired as management for a large unionized company and made the point that the union makes labor management easier- they provide a grievance procedure and often a roster of qualified employees when hires need to be made. It makes getting rid of employees because they fark the boss' daughter or because they don't go to the boss' church harder though.
 
2012-12-11 04:21:21 PM

qorkfiend: Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?


If a company can't provide a competitive product or service while at the same time providing fair wages and benefits the market will put that company out of business while giving more competitive businesses more market share.
 
2012-12-11 04:22:06 PM

Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.


Unions don't close plants, management does.

Business continuity is solely the responsibilities of management. If your plant closes because you are unable to meet your employees demands and you are unable to find replacement workers who will work for cheap enough, then that %100 falls under bad management.
 
2012-12-11 04:25:16 PM

skullkrusher: Coach_J: skullkrusher: Who is demanding that employees pay for union membership in Michigan? If the government doesn't want to continue that requirement of its employees, fine. Why is it the government's business to tell GM that they cannot agree upon such an arrangement with the UAW though?

That's a ridiculous statement that has no basis in reality.

The UAW won't for a second entertain a CBA proposal that allows for open shop Union rules...they never have and they never will.

so you're saying that the private auto manufacturer entered into a private agreement with a private union yet you want the government to intervene?


Uh, no...I said nothing remotely close to that.

What I did say is that the scenario outlined above has no basis in reality and can't be used as some sort of "rationale" one way or another.

I've been part of LR agreements with the UAW for years (from the sidelines, I've never chaired a UAW agreement) and have worked side-by-side with people who have worked on UAW and CAW CBAs for decades and open shop CBAs are a non-starter with ANY UAW or CAW this isn't a debatable point.
 
2012-12-11 04:26:29 PM

Coach_J: I've been part of LR agreements with the UAW for years (from the sidelines, I've never chaired a UAW agreement) and have worked side-by-side with people who have worked on UAW and CAW CBAs for decades and open shop CBAs are a non-starter with ANY UAW or CAW this isn't a debatable point.


so? The employer agrees to only hire union workers. Period. Why is this an issue that you think government should prevent?
 
2012-12-11 04:27:22 PM
IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!
 
2012-12-11 04:28:40 PM

Leeds: bikerific: Leeds: Right to work legislation makes it illegal for an outside group to block you from working if you and your employer have come to an employment agreement.


While still allowing you the reap the benefits that unions have obtained.

For a little while, anyway.

I never understood the line you have just parroted.

What does a union member's benefits have to do with a worker's benefits if the worker doesn't join the union but instead signs a contract with the employer?



Are you seriously claiming that you don't understand that a union of many people acting together may have stronger negotiating power than if they each negotiated individually?

Putting aside a theoretical discussion, are you aware at all of the last century so of history?

Maybe read the Grapes of Wrath?

/I have not read the Grapes of Wrath.
 
2012-12-11 04:29:44 PM

qorkfiend: There's a few high personal expertise segments where unionization makes inroads. Could it be a holdout from the old days, when the personal expertise of guys like DPs and key grips was not as valuable as it is now?


Actually, at least in Canada, it seems to be the opposite. Talented employees realized that they were being played against each other to the detriment of pay and working conditions, so they decided that since their knowledge and skills allowed the industry to operate, collective bargaining would create a situation where the workers would be compensated fairly for their performance.

Union participation is growing still. For example, in Toronto, production office staff has been unionized with IATSE for less than 20 years (that being said, there were theatre related unions in the city dating back to the 1800s).

The fact of the matter is, unions are developing more of a presence in the industry here rather than less, which suggests that the need is growing and it's not a vestigial organ left from more exploitative days. No one wants to unionize if they don't have to. And, god bless the producers, they do pinch pennies. We just want to make sure that the pinching is done somewhere other than our families' dinner tables.
 
2012-12-11 04:32:50 PM

Leeds: qorkfiend: Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?

The year: 1998
The Company: Caterpillar
The City: York PA
The Union: United Auto Workers


The pattern is familiar: Even after an 18-month strike by 8,000 workers that ended three months ago, Caterpillar reported record profits last year -- $1.14 billion -- then boosted the base pay of CEO Donald V. Fites by 20 percent, to $1 million -- plus about $1.5 million in bonuses and other compensation.

Totally unions fault, can't be greed.
 
2012-12-11 04:34:19 PM

Mercutio74: qorkfiend: There's a few high personal expertise segments where unionization makes inroads. Could it be a holdout from the old days, when the personal expertise of guys like DPs and key grips was not as valuable as it is now?

Actually, at least in Canada, it seems to be the opposite. Talented employees realized that they were being played against each other to the detriment of pay and working conditions, so they decided that since their knowledge and skills allowed the industry to operate, collective bargaining would create a situation where the workers would be compensated fairly for their performance.

Union participation is growing still. For example, in Toronto, production office staff has been unionized with IATSE for less than 20 years (that being said, there were theatre related unions in the city dating back to the 1800s).

The fact of the matter is, unions are developing more of a presence in the industry here rather than less, which suggests that the need is growing and it's not a vestigial organ left from more exploitative days. No one wants to unionize if they don't have to. And, god bless the producers, they do pinch pennies. We just want to make sure that the pinching is done somewhere other than our families' dinner tables.


Good for them! The reality is that the jobs of most "knowledge workers" has been as standardized and commoditized as the stereotypical assembly line worker. We tell working drones at Initech that they are "white collar" employees so that they will work long hours on salary but the fact us they (we) need union protections too.
 
2012-12-11 04:37:43 PM

jst3p: Leeds: qorkfiend: Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?

The year: 1998
The Company: Caterpillar
The City: York PA
The Union: United Auto Workers

The pattern is familiar: Even after an 18-month strike by 8,000 workers that ended three months ago, Caterpillar reported record profits last year -- $1.14 billion -- then boosted the base pay of CEO Donald V. Fites by 20 percent, to $1 million -- plus about $1.5 million in bonuses and other compensation.

Totally unions fault, can't be greed.



Also, seems to me that Caterpillar is still in business- they closed down one plant but opened another somewhere else. No jobs lost, just displaced with scabs, probably from down South or outside the country. But unions are destroying American business donchano.
 
2012-12-11 04:38:18 PM

skullkrusher: Coach_J: I've been part of LR agreements with the UAW for years (from the sidelines, I've never chaired a UAW agreement) and have worked side-by-side with people who have worked on UAW and CAW CBAs for decades and open shop CBAs are a non-starter with ANY UAW or CAW this isn't a debatable point.

so? The employer agrees to only hire union workers. Period. Why is this an issue that you think government should prevent?


I don't. I'm not for RTW, just like I'm not for people using creative fiction to try to make their POV.

If you want to talk about the merits for or against RTW, that's fine...but inventing some Union negotiation freedom when CBAing with the UAW that doesn't exist, I have a problem with.
 
2012-12-11 04:41:58 PM

Coach_J: skullkrusher: Coach_J: I've been part of LR agreements with the UAW for years (from the sidelines, I've never chaired a UAW agreement) and have worked side-by-side with people who have worked on UAW and CAW CBAs for decades and open shop CBAs are a non-starter with ANY UAW or CAW this isn't a debatable point.

so? The employer agrees to only hire union workers. Period. Why is this an issue that you think government should prevent?

I don't. I'm not for RTW, just like I'm not for people using creative fiction to try to make their POV.

If you want to talk about the merits for or against RTW, that's fine...but inventing some Union negotiation freedom when CBAing with the UAW that doesn't exist, I have a problem with.


I have no idea wtf you're talking about.
What "creative fiction" are you referring to?
 
2012-12-11 04:42:23 PM

beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!


Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.
 
2012-12-11 04:49:05 PM

udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.


Yea, but the more they cheer destruction of worker protections, the more chance the Koch' will let them in the big house.

/not likely
//maybe if they do a little softshoe when massa comes by
 
2012-12-11 04:53:36 PM

udhq: beta_plus: IT PASSED!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! !

SWEET DELICIOUS TEARS OF IMPOTENT LIBERAL RAGE!!!!!! THEY FEED ME!

Once again, this is why the GOP may never win another national election; you're willing to gut the middle class simply out of partisan spite. You'll cut the baby in half if it means sticking to the black guy.

What an ugly, disgusting little person you are.


I love how he, once more, treats it like his team is winning. This is why most "conservatives" are ridiculed outside their own little bubble. They come across as know-nothing little play ground bullies who run to nanny government the minute their bootstraps break.

Small Government Conservationism, what's that?


/Goldwater rolls in his grave.
 
2012-12-11 04:53:55 PM
Right-to-workers are lazy parasites who want the benefits the union negotiates, without the responsibilities.
 
2012-12-11 04:55:19 PM

Leeds: jst3p: Leeds: qorkfiend: Leeds: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept that when they force the plant to close down, wages decrease to $0.00/hour?

If you can't grasp that, please keep holding your breath.

Can you provide any examples of a union being solely responsible for a plant closing down?

The year: 1998
The Company: Caterpillar
The City: York PA
The Union: United Auto Workers

The pattern is familiar: Even after an 18-month strike by 8,000 workers that ended three months ago, Caterpillar reported record profits last year -- $1.14 billion -- then boosted the base pay of CEO Donald V. Fites by 20 percent, to $1 million -- plus about $1.5 million in bonuses and other compensation.

Totally unions fault, can't be greed.

That's a great article you linked. I appreciate you digging it up.

From your article:

And in the process, 1,100 workers who earn an average of about $17 an hour will become economic fatalities in a war of wills between management and union, a five-year dispute bogged down in accusations, fear and fury.

But the company insists that the plant would have stayed open, at least through September 2001[ the article was from 1996], if only the union had accepted its offer, including wages averaging $16.89 per hour and full health care coverage.

So they wanted bigger raises that the plant could support and instead of keeping their $16.89 per hour jobs, they forced Caterpillar to shutter the plant and open a new one where the workers weren't greedy communists.

I think th ...



Assumes facts not in evidence.
 
2012-12-11 04:56:12 PM

OgreMagi: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Make up a list of all businesses that closed because the union demands were to much and they went out of business. Going from $xx to zero is definitely a descrease in wages/bennies/conditions. I'm sure the unions don't count those businesses, though. It might make them look bad.


Remember kids: unions killed the twinkie
 
2012-12-11 04:56:34 PM

skullkrusher: Coach_J: skullkrusher: Coach_J: I've been part of LR agreements with the UAW for years (from the sidelines, I've never chaired a UAW agreement) and have worked side-by-side with people who have worked on UAW and CAW CBAs for decades and open shop CBAs are a non-starter with ANY UAW or CAW this isn't a debatable point.

so? The employer agrees to only hire union workers. Period. Why is this an issue that you think government should prevent?

I don't. I'm not for RTW, just like I'm not for people using creative fiction to try to make their POV.

If you want to talk about the merits for or against RTW, that's fine...but inventing some Union negotiation freedom when CBAing with the UAW that doesn't exist, I have a problem with.

I have no idea wtf you're talking about.
What "creative fiction" are you referring to?


When you reference a company's ability to enter into an Open Shop CBA agreement with the UAW when we all KNOW that has NEVER been possible...that's creative fiction.

It has no basis in reality and should not be taken as such.
 
2012-12-11 04:57:22 PM

jst3p: So they wanted bigger raises that the plant could support and instead of keeping their $16.89 per hour jobs, they forced Caterpillar to shutter the plant and open a new one where the workers weren't greedy communists.

I think th ...


Assumes facts not in evidence.


Nah, I think it's clear the billion-dollar multinational can't afford higher wages at a single factory.
 
2012-12-11 04:59:50 PM

Coach_J: skullkrusher: Coach_J: skullkrusher: Coach_J: I've been part of LR agreements with the UAW for years (from the sidelines, I've never chaired a UAW agreement) and have worked side-by-side with people who have worked on UAW and CAW CBAs for decades and open shop CBAs are a non-starter with ANY UAW or CAW this isn't a debatable point.

so? The employer agrees to only hire union workers. Period. Why is this an issue that you think government should prevent?

I don't. I'm not for RTW, just like I'm not for people using creative fiction to try to make their POV.

If you want to talk about the merits for or against RTW, that's fine...but inventing some Union negotiation freedom when CBAing with the UAW that doesn't exist, I have a problem with.

I have no idea wtf you're talking about.
What "creative fiction" are you referring to?

When you reference a company's ability to enter into an Open Shop CBA agreement with the UAW when we all KNOW that has NEVER been possible...that's creative fiction.

It has no basis in reality and should not be taken as such.


whether GM has the ability to convince the union of it or not has nothing to do with anything. I just used GM as an example of a large union employer in MI. Whether the union used its collective power to pressure GM to concede union shop status in their plants via negotiations has farkall to do with the point.
 
2012-12-11 05:00:29 PM

Leeds: LordJiro: Right-to-workers are lazy parasites who want the benefits the union negotiates, without the responsibilities.

No, we want to be able to work our jobs without having to pay the mafia for the privilege of going to work every day.

You union scum really make me sick.


yay! Let's dehumanize each other!

Farking idiots.

/plural
 
Displayed 50 of 526 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report