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.

(The Detroit_News)   Union members in Michigan engage in polite discussion with those who have an opposing viewpoint. Just kidding, they beat a Fox News reporter, sucker punch him, then collapse a tent on top of women and old people   (detroitnews.com) divider line 430
    More: Asinine, sucker punches, Fox News  
•       •       •

7915 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Dec 2012 at 3:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-11 09:47:49 PM  
Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.
 
2012-12-11 09:49:18 PM  

video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.


I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.
 
2012-12-11 09:53:35 PM  
Some people don't want to participate in your little scam, you stupid unions.
 
2012-12-11 09:54:09 PM  

homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.


I agree. Beating people you disagree with is the best way to get the point across that you won't make a good employee. The arrest records should keep them out of the job pool long enough for more qualified people to join in.
 
2012-12-11 10:02:21 PM  
Workers had to die to get union protections to begin with. May as well return the favor.
 
2012-12-11 10:20:21 PM  
Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.
 
2012-12-11 10:25:18 PM  
Iron & coal police ring any bells?
 
2012-12-11 10:33:03 PM  
I'm of two minds on this:

You shouldn't hit people just for being annoying.

OTOH, I come from a long line of coal miners on both sides of the family and damn near lost a great uncle during the whole Matewan debacle. I know what happened in the mines pre-union. Unions can be irritating but I firmly believe that they are much better than the alternative.

OK, union guys, stop hitting people unless they hit you first.
 
2012-12-11 10:38:13 PM  

trivial use of my dark powers: OK, union guys, stop hitting people unless they hit you first.


Especially guys with cameras who are intentionally trolling you so you'll hit them.
 
2012-12-11 10:42:38 PM  

Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.


The problem is that back in the day the companies ultimately didn't have any options. The workers could pressure their local area with what video man calls old-school tactics and effectively shut down an entire industry on a grand scale. These days it's difficult, if not impossible, to get that kind of coordination. Retail and fast food is particularly difficult to coordinate because if one problem area refuses to settle, the company can just close off that small portion of the market. Industrial unions still have some clout because they can shut down an entire product line. Smaller retail/food stores? The company (nationwide) can just shut down the problem stores until the employees cry uncle. Moreover, you can't get nationwide coordination because employees in right to work states, if they actually went on strike to support employees in other states, would be summarily fired.

It COULD happen, but not like the old days. You'd need a nationwide, subversive campaign to have every worker at every store walk off the job at the same time and stay away for an extended period of time without pay or benefits and the possibility of a lost job. Given the "spreading out" of Americans over the last half-century you would also need a support network for those workers when push came to shove. Back in the early days of union building people had family to fall back on. That isn't the case anymore.

So I wouldn't call it impossible, but it's in the realm of extremely unlikely.
 
2012-12-11 11:04:59 PM  
Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.
 
2012-12-11 11:10:09 PM  

GAT_00: Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.


Technically in the slide show:

img651.imageshack.us

With the caption:

A man in an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union jacket punches Fox News reporter Steven Crowder in the face outside the pro-Right-to-Work tent of Americans for Prosperity, an organization funded by wealthy private donors.
 
2012-12-11 11:20:01 PM  

Lsherm: GAT_00: Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.

Technically in the slide show:

[img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

With the caption:

A man in an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union jacket punches Fox News reporter Steven Crowder in the face outside the pro-Right-to-Work tent of Americans for Prosperity, an organization funded by wealthy private donors.


Lsherm: GAT_00: Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.

Technically in the slide show:

[img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

With the caption:

A man in an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union jacket punches Fox News reporter Steven Crowder in the face outside the pro-Right-to-Work tent of Americans for Prosperity, an organization funded by wealthy private donors.


More likely to be true then, but until I see people vouching that this guy is a member of that union, I still refuse to completely believe it. I have no trouble believing that Fox would stage that to discredit the protesters.
 
2012-12-11 11:59:39 PM  
House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, has said the state police's constitutional autonomy prevents the Legislature from making financial support of the troopers' union optional.

That's... convenient.


"I'm going to jail today!"

It's good to have goals.
 
2012-12-12 12:03:27 AM  
People should punch Fox news reporters every single chance they get.
 
2012-12-12 12:05:20 AM  
I guess this proves that unions should be destroyed.
 
2012-12-12 12:08:04 AM  

HakunaMatata: People should punch Fox news reporters every single chance they get.


The second amendment specifies "arms"

Buckets of low temperature roofing tar and chicken feathers could easily fall under that category.

Ask a stupid question, get tarred and feathered.
 
2012-12-12 12:17:57 AM  
Video of the dude getting punched.

1. He was trolling the crowd.

2. another union member stopped the first guy.
 
2012-12-12 12:19:27 AM  
Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.
 
2012-12-12 12:35:35 AM  
When people's livelihoods are on the line, don't expect them to give up without a fight. Gun-waving Rascal-bound retarded Randroids should at the very least possess enough capacity for human empathy to understand that.

But they don't. Hence tardmitter, or more likely trollmitter.
 
2012-12-12 12:41:04 AM  
May the Walton children and their ilk eat ALL the cocks, and the tidal waves of cum wipe them from the pages of history.
 
2012-12-12 12:52:00 AM  

log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.


DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.



/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.
 
2012-12-12 01:09:03 AM  

Relatively Obscure: log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.

DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.

/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.


I can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy.
 
2012-12-12 01:18:26 AM  
Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

And I suppose they were literally hanging from the rafters too?
 
2012-12-12 01:18:49 AM  

GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.

DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.

/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.

I can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy.


I think you can and do sometimes.
 
2012-12-12 01:19:43 AM  

Relatively Obscure: DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.


yeah, you're completely right. I misread it .
 
2012-12-12 01:23:50 AM  

Relatively Obscure: GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.

DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.

/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.

I can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy.

I think you can and do sometimes.


Was it smart? Was it appropriate? Of course not. But fark it, those people need punched in the face for what they're doing to the country. I wouldn't hesitate to convict the guy for assault, but these people are the enemy of the country. They are a big force in driving all this shiat that is also driving this country straight into the gutter. A punch to the face is well deserved.
 
2012-12-12 01:28:12 AM  
Divide and conquer, always say.
 
2012-12-12 01:28:54 AM  

GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.

DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.

/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.

I can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy.

I think you can and do sometimes.

Was it smart? Was it appropriate? Of course not. But fark it, those people need punched in the face for what they're doing to the country. I wouldn't hesitate to convict the guy for assault, but these people are the enemy of the country. They are a big force in driving all this shiat that is also driving this country straight into the gutter. A punch to the face is well deserved.


You could have c/p'd that from a Freep post about a different article.
 
2012-12-12 01:29:22 AM  

GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.

DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.

/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.

I can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy.

I think you can and do sometimes.

Was it smart? Was it appropriate? Of course not. But fark it, those people need punched in the face for what they're doing to the country. I wouldn't hesitate to convict the guy for assault, but these people are the enemy of the country. They are a big force in driving all this shiat that is also driving this country straight into the gutter. A punch to the face is well deserved.


so what you are saying is, you can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy, so long as it's your enemy as well. which is all well and good, but be honest about it.
 
2012-12-12 01:37:35 AM  

Relatively Obscure: You could have c/p'd that from a Freep post about a different article.


No you couldn't have. No Freeper would have said that it wasn't appropriate or would consider it assault. I'm not demanding we round people up and put them into camps. Fox went there to gloat about taking people's rights away. You gloat in someone's face about how they just beat you, people tend to punch you in the face. That's a normal, though overly aggressive, response in dozens of scenarios.

log_jammin: so what you are saying is, you can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy, so long as it's your enemy as well. which is all well and good, but be honest about it.


See above. And yeah, if I went to an anti-gay marriage rally and gloated to someone's face about how gays were going to get married and they couldn't stop it, I'd expect to be punched in the face too.
 
2012-12-12 01:55:36 AM  

GAT_00: See above. And yeah, if I went to an anti-gay marriage rally and gloated to someone's face about how gays were going to get married and they couldn't stop it, I'd expect to be punched in the face too.


Oh the dude was without a doubt trolling the crowd, But I don't think "he had it coming". I don't make excuses for bad behavior.
 
2012-12-12 02:03:23 AM  

violentsalvation: Some people don't want to participate in your little scam, you stupid unions.


this has nothing to do with unions. want someone to blame? yell at the GOP. their dirty tricks created this mess. of COURSE it was gonna turn ugly. what did you expect would happen?

i'm not condoning violence but I am saying that this entire disaster was easily avoidable.
 
2012-12-12 02:18:46 AM  

GAT_00: No you couldn't have.


Yes I could have. Sure, many would be as you say, but there are always some who would sound exactly like you just had.
 
2012-12-12 02:25:06 AM  

Relatively Obscure: GAT_00: No you couldn't have.

Yes I could have. Sure, many would be as you say, but there are always some who would sound exactly like you just had.


except that GAT has a point - fox news went there and made an already difficult situation worse. the local MI Republicans already antagonized the unions and pissed off the local Democrats. then along comes fox news (and a few tea baggers) to jump in and gloat about how great it was that the lame duck session was used by their hero Republicans to ramrod some unpopular legislation through congress and hey, it's just wonderful to see such dirty tricks used to great effect.

i'm actually impressed the local unions showed as much restraint as they did.
 
2012-12-12 02:29:27 AM  

Weaver95: fox news went there and made an already difficult situation worse.


Not arguing that. It's still not okay to play punchadouche on some douche doing little more than being a douche. If you can't control yourself better than that, stay the fark home.
 
2012-12-12 02:31:17 AM  

Weaver95: except that GAT has a point - fox news went there and made an already difficult situation worse. the local MI Republicans already antagonized the unions and pissed off the local Democrats. then along comes fox news (and a few tea baggers) to jump in and gloat about how great it was that the lame duck session was used by their hero Republicans to ramrod some unpopular legislation through congress and hey, it's just wonderful to see such dirty tricks used to great effect.


which goes right back to " you can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy, so long as it's your enemy as well."
 
2012-12-12 02:35:36 AM  

Relatively Obscure: Weaver95: fox news went there and made an already difficult situation worse.

Not arguing that. It's still not okay to play punchadouche on some douche doing little more than being a douche. If you can't control yourself better than that, stay the fark home.


that's a nice theory...but here in the real world, when you piss all over people's rights, treat them unfairly and then come by and taunt 'em for trying to set things right...well, it's understandable when they lash out at the nearest target. the provocation from the GOP is/was/has been extreme. having fox news come by and piss all over the unions was only going to create even further tension.
 
2012-12-12 02:36:54 AM  

log_jammin: Weaver95: except that GAT has a point - fox news went there and made an already difficult situation worse. the local MI Republicans already antagonized the unions and pissed off the local Democrats. then along comes fox news (and a few tea baggers) to jump in and gloat about how great it was that the lame duck session was used by their hero Republicans to ramrod some unpopular legislation through congress and hey, it's just wonderful to see such dirty tricks used to great effect.

which goes right back to " you can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy, so long as it's your enemy as well."


no, i'm saying emotions were already running hot. Fox news only made it worse.
 
2012-12-12 02:39:38 AM  

Weaver95: that's a nice theory


It's not a theory.

Weaver95: but here in the real world, when you piss all over people's rights, treat them unfairly and then come by and taunt 'em for trying to set things right...well, it's understandable when they lash out at the nearest target.


In the real world, speech is a right and committing battery isn't.
 
2012-12-12 02:42:18 AM  

Weaver95: no, i'm saying emotions were already running hot. Fox news only made it worse.


Yes. of course they did. but that's not an excuse.
 
2012-12-12 02:43:21 AM  

Relatively Obscure:

In the real world, speech is a right and committing battery isn't.


tell ya what sparky - you get good and liquored up and go down to your local biker bar. while there, make sure you personally insult each and every biker in the bar. Because hey - why not right? first amendment! whoopee!

After the EMTs clean you up and remove that chrome handlebar someone stuffed up your nose, i'll come by the emergency room and pick you up. then we'll discuss the difference between 'theory' and 'practice'.
 
2012-12-12 02:46:05 AM  

log_jammin: Weaver95: no, i'm saying emotions were already running hot. Fox news only made it worse.

Yes. of course they did. but that's not an excuse.


it was an entirely expected response tho. one might even conclude that a new agency had a vested interest in creating a situation that would look good on camera for the 11 o'clock news.

Personally, I think Fox New walked dangerously close to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, then filmed the resulting chaos for the ratings boost.
 
2012-12-12 02:46:44 AM  

Weaver95: Relatively Obscure:

In the real world, speech is a right and committing battery isn't.

tell ya what sparky - you get good and liquored up and go down to your local biker bar. while there, make sure you personally insult each and every biker in the bar. Because hey - why not right? first amendment! whoopee!

After the EMTs clean you up and remove that chrome handlebar someone stuffed up your nose, i'll come by the emergency room and pick you up. then we'll discuss the difference between 'theory' and 'practice'.


What I said still wasn't a theory, your comparison is lame, and these hypothetical 'bikers' would still be wrong while I'd be a douche for randomly insulting people. 

But hey, good job with the "sparky" jab. I can feel the burn.
 
2012-12-12 02:48:33 AM  

Relatively Obscure:
After the EMTs clean you up and remove that chrome handlebar someone stuffed up your nose, i'll come by the emergency room and pick you up. then we'll discuss the difference between 'theory' and 'practice'.

What I said still wasn't a theory, your comparison is lame, and these hypothetical 'bikers' would still be wrong while I'd be a douche for randomly insulting people. 

But hey, good job with the "sparky" jab. I can feel the burn.


you really don't think Fox News might have ramped up the violence on purpose? because I certainly wouldn't put it past 'em to taunt a bunch of already pissed off union workers just so they'd have something to run in their next news segment.
 
2012-12-12 02:50:31 AM  

Weaver95: Relatively Obscure:
After the EMTs clean you up and remove that chrome handlebar someone stuffed up your nose, i'll come by the emergency room and pick you up. then we'll discuss the difference between 'theory' and 'practice'.

What I said still wasn't a theory, your comparison is lame, and these hypothetical 'bikers' would still be wrong while I'd be a douche for randomly insulting people. 

But hey, good job with the "sparky" jab. I can feel the burn.

you really don't think Fox News might have ramped up the violence on purpose? because I certainly wouldn't put it past 'em to taunt a bunch of already pissed off union workers just so they'd have something to run in their next news segment.


And again. If you're the sort of clown who reacts to hurt feelings with violence, stay home and don't get married.
 
2012-12-12 02:52:00 AM  

Relatively Obscure:
And again. If you're the sort of clown who reacts to hurt feelings with violence, stay home and don't get married.


And again, that's 99.99% of the human race. to include you, I might add.
 
2012-12-12 02:54:05 AM  

Weaver95: Relatively Obscure:
And again. If you're the sort of clown who reacts to hurt feelings with violence, stay home and don't get married.

And again, that's 99.99% of the human race. to include you, I might add.


Boy, I remember the last time I started a fight by taking a swing at someone who had not attacked me.

Grade school.
 
2012-12-12 02:55:34 AM  
Not even posted yet, and this thread already has the neighborhood fat kids and overnight IT guys acting pretend tough.

This will just be an epic goddamn cluster fark when all is said and done.
 
2012-12-12 02:57:47 AM  

Relatively Obscure: Weaver95: Relatively Obscure:
And again. If you're the sort of clown who reacts to hurt feelings with violence, stay home and don't get married.

And again, that's 99.99% of the human race. to include you, I might add.

Boy, I remember the last time I started a fight by taking a swing at someone who had not attacked me.

Grade school.


properly provoked, you'll take a swing at people too. and if you don't believe that, then you're lying to yourself. especially if everyone in the crowd around you is doing the same thing.

that said, we're moving away from the topic at hand. I think it's likely that Fox News went there to provoke the union workers in order to catch some footage for their evening news segments...then got more than they expected. now...you can yell at the union workers for that, but you'd damn well better slam fox news reporters for making a tense situation even worse. think you can do that?
 
2012-12-12 02:58:06 AM  

BSABSVR: Not even posted yet, and this thread already has the neighborhood fat kids and overnight IT guys acting pretend tough.


Heyyyyy, I'm neither of those, but I can pretend to be tough :'(

Though, I guess it's probably not my fault I'm not fat.
 
2012-12-12 02:59:19 AM  

Relatively Obscure: BSABSVR: Not even posted yet, and this thread already has the neighborhood fat kids and overnight IT guys acting pretend tough.

Heyyyyy, I'm neither of those, but I can pretend to be tough :'(

Though, I guess it's probably not my fault I'm not fat.


so you're saying that you're the fat IT guy pretending to be tough?
 
2012-12-12 02:59:37 AM  

Weaver95: you really don't think Fox News might have ramped up the violence on purpose?


dude. this is really simple. The guy who took a swing is a douch for taking a swing. It has nothing to do with fox news, unions, or whatever. The guy farked up, and now the submitter has a nice trolltastic headline that all the other trolls get to masturbate to once this goes green.

stop excusing douchy behavior.
 
2012-12-12 03:01:01 AM  

BSABSVR: this thread already has the neighborhood fat kids and overnight IT guys acting pretend tough.


shut up or I'll kick your ass.
 
2012-12-12 03:01:42 AM  

Weaver95: properly provoked, you'll take a swing at people too. and if you don't believe that, then you're lying to yourself. especially if everyone in the crowd around you is doing the same thing.


If by "properly provoked" you mean "threatened with imminent violence," then yeah.

Weaver95: but you'd damn well better slam fox news reporters for making a tense situation even worse. think you can do that?


Like I said, that dude was a Grade A douchebag.
 
2012-12-12 03:01:43 AM  

log_jammin: Weaver95: you really don't think Fox News might have ramped up the violence on purpose?

dude. this is really simple. The guy who took a swing is a douch for taking a swing. It has nothing to do with fox news, unions, or whatever. The guy farked up, and now the submitter has a nice trolltastic headline that all the other trolls get to masturbate to once this goes green.

stop excusing douchy behavior.


you really don't think Fox News might have pushed things even a little...?
 
2012-12-12 03:02:18 AM  

Relatively Obscure:
Like I said, that dude was a Grade A douchebag.


so is Fox News...
 
2012-12-12 03:03:06 AM  

Weaver95: so you're saying that you're the fat IT guy pretending to be tough?


No :( I'm neither IT nor fat. But I do have a vivid imagination. I'm picturing you with breasts right now.  It brightens the conversation.
 
2012-12-12 03:03:42 AM  

Weaver95: Relatively Obscure:
Like I said, that dude was a Grade A douchebag.

so is Fox News...


Fox news isn't a douchebag. It employs them.
 
2012-12-12 03:04:46 AM  

Weaver95: you really don't think Fox News might have pushed things even a little...?


I said he was trolling the crowd, but that's irrelevant.
 
2012-12-12 03:12:07 AM  

log_jammin: now the submitter has a nice trolltastic headline that all the other trolls get to masturbate to once this goes green.


It's a union thread, why should things be any different? 

Let's get things started in the other direction:

Overzealous staffer
Republican plant
 
2012-12-12 03:13:18 AM  
With alllll of that said, I would like to see a less edited down version of events. It's quite possible that something very significant got snipped out of the video log_jammin linked to.
 
2012-12-12 03:21:24 AM  

Relatively Obscure: With alllll of that said, I would like to see a less edited down version of events. It's quite possible that something very significant got snipped out of the video log_jammin linked to.


indeed.
 
2012-12-12 03:21:47 AM  

Weaver95: violentsalvation: Some people don't want to participate in your little scam, you stupid unions.

this has nothing to do with unions. want someone to blame? yell at the GOP. their dirty tricks created this mess. of COURSE it was gonna turn ugly. what did you expect would happen?

i'm not condoning violence but I am saying that this entire disaster was easily avoidable.


If it has nothing to do with unions then this whole thread is one big threadjack. I'm not opposed to unions, I think they can do and have done many great things for the working class. I'm against forced participation. If the union is so great then the people will surely join it. And if that union isn't worth joining then perhaps a stranglehold is alleviated.

I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union, all I hear is that the GOP is up to some dirty tricks and is lint-deep into someone's pocket. And this is a travesty sh*tting all over workers everywhere. So we all owe some coal miners from 100 years ago, lest they put us all back in the mines.
 
2012-12-12 03:27:52 AM  
We shouldn't be punching Fox News reporters.

We should be burning them alive in the public square - pour encourager les autres.
 
2012-12-12 03:31:08 AM  

violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,


part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.
 
2012-12-12 03:48:09 AM  
I thought poor uneducated whites were te fox news base?
 
2012-12-12 03:50:40 AM  

Lsherm: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

I agree. Beating people you disagree with is the best way to get the point across that you won't make a good employee. The arrest records should keep them out of the job pool long enough for more qualified people to join in.


If it prevents the kind of misery and death we saw until the 1920s and '30s in non-unionized labor, then it's well worth it. The Right wing idiots would do well to remember that people fought and died to get the union rights they have now, and would do it again.
 
2012-12-12 03:52:30 AM  

log_jammin: violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,

part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.


Arrrggghhhh!!!

"Right to Work" doesn't mean that. Jebus. LOOK IT UP
In a "Right to Work" state you may not be forced to join a union or forced to pay dues to a union in order to get a job. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'firing at anytime'
 
2012-12-12 03:55:19 AM  
If it was Hannity they'll never get a conviction.
 
2012-12-12 03:55:22 AM  
www.kansasheritage.org
Pleased
 
2012-12-12 03:57:07 AM  

NobleHam: "Lsherm: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

I agree. Beating people you disagree with is the best way to get the point across that you won't make a good employee. The arrest records should keep them out of the job pool long enough for more qualified people to join in.

If it prevents the kind of misery and death we saw until the 1920s and '30s in non-unionized labor, then it's well worth it."



Yeah - that's totally what workers are threatened with today.


NobleHam: "The Right wing idiots would do well to remember that people fought and died to get the union rights they have now..."


...which have since been permanently enshrined as law in the labor code and are guaranteed. So, what precious rights is the Proletariat violently fighting for now? (Note: being able to force people to join a union and pay dues before they can get a job is not a right.)
 
2012-12-12 03:57:12 AM  

CujoQuarrel: "Right to Work" doesn't mean that. Jebus. LOOK IT UP
In a "Right to Work" state you may not be forced to join a union or forced to pay dues to a union in order to get a job. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'firing at anytime'


And North Korea is a democracy. It says so right in the title. LOOK IT UP.
 
2012-12-12 03:57:35 AM  

CujoQuarrel: log_jammin: violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,

part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.

Arrrggghhhh!!!

"Right to Work" doesn't mean that. Jebus. LOOK IT UP
In a "Right to Work" state you may not be forced to join a union or forced to pay dues to a union in order to get a job. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'firing at anytime' enjoy the rights a union negotiates for, without any of the responsibility.


FTFY, leeches.

/Of course, that's just what the lazy right-to-work moochers think. If every worker in a shop isn't compelled to join the union, the union has almost no negotiating power.
//But hey, lazy right-to-work moochers, like most Republicans, have no foresight.
 
2012-12-12 03:59:26 AM  
so... the people protesting are simply protesting because they dont like their right to be able to force other people to join them being removed?

Are these people americans or communists?
 
2012-12-12 04:00:58 AM  

log_jammin: reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all,


You're thinking of an "at will" state.

The two tend to go together but they don't have to be mutually inclusive.
 
2012-12-12 04:01:00 AM  

Relatively Obscure: Weaver95: Relatively Obscure:
Like I said, that dude was a Grade A douchebag.

so is Fox News...

Fox news isn't a douchebag. It employs them.


Are you sure? Corporations are people too, after all.
 
2012-12-12 04:06:20 AM  

GAT_00: But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.


And don't forget: lame-duck session too. This was a brazen, deliberate fark-you to the people of Michigan.
 
2012-12-12 04:06:25 AM  
Put down your farking pearls, nancies. People get punched sometimes. It's not the end of the world.

You'd be pissed too if a group of shady politicians just gave you a $5,300 a year paycut AFTER they had been voted out of office. And then to be harassed by some corporate stooge from a propaganda arm that convinces millions of Americans that you're the reason for everything that's wrong with this country...let's just be thankful that no guns or knives were involved.
 
2012-12-12 04:07:43 AM  
"Right-to-work" is better than Unions anyway.
 
2012-12-12 04:07:59 AM  

Snapper Carr: You're thinking of an "at will" state.

The two tend to go together but they don't have to be mutually inclusive.


Snapper Carr: log_jammin: reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all,

You're thinking of an "at will" state.

The two tend to go together but they don't have to be mutually inclusive.


You're right, I am.

apologizes CujoQuarrel
 
2012-12-12 04:09:08 AM  

kvinesknows: so... the people protesting are simply protesting because they dont like their right to be able to force other people to join them being removed?

Are these people americans or communists?


You can always work somewhere that doesn't have a union; as far as I know, there are no states where non-union shops are banned. Sure, the pay and benefits will suck, and you have no real protection from higher-ups shiatting on you, but you'll have stuck it to those darn unions!
 
2012-12-12 04:10:48 AM  

Lsherm: GAT_00: Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.

Technically in the slide show:

[img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

With the caption:

A man in an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union jacket punches Fox News reporter Steven Crowder in the face outside the pro-Right-to-Work tent of Americans for Prosperity, an organization funded by wealthy private donors.



Thank you.
 
2012-12-12 04:11:37 AM  

Weaver95: except that GAT has a point - fox news went there and made an already difficult situation worse. the local MI Republicans already antagonized the unions and pissed off the local Democrats. then along comes fox news (and a few tea baggers) to jump in and gloat about how great it was that the lame duck session was used by their hero Republicans to ramrod some unpopular legislation through congress and hey, it's just wonderful to see such dirty tricks used to great effect.

i'm actually impressed the local unions showed as much restraint as they did.


Agreed. The Fox News people are lucky they didn't get killed. I'm not even exaggerating. Killed. You have an angry mob that was just told to go fark itself and they go in there telling the country how great it is that the mob got farked over? They could have been torn limb from limb. And a less restrained group of people very probably would have done it, too.

The guy who got punched in the face is lucky to even be alive.
 
2012-12-12 04:14:42 AM  

BSABSVR: Not even posted yet, and this thread already has the neighborhood fat kids and overnight IT guys acting pretend tough.

This will just be an epic goddamn cluster fark when all is said and done.



It sucks to see people acting like animals, but somehow, I still just can't bring myself to feel sorry with anyone associated with fux news.

jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com
/oblig.
 
2012-12-12 04:15:51 AM  

Weaver95: violentsalvation: Some people don't want to participate in your little scam, you stupid unions.

this has nothing to do with unions. want someone to blame? yell at the GOP. their dirty tricks created this mess. of COURSE it was gonna turn ugly. what did you expect would happen?

i'm not condoning violence but I am saying that this entire disaster was easily avoidable.


How many times do i have to tell you i love you?

/And how many times are you and GAT on the same page, i wonder?
 
2012-12-12 04:20:17 AM  
the man in the union jacket deserves a medal
 
2012-12-12 04:20:57 AM  

spmkk: NobleHam: "Lsherm: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

I agree. Beating people you disagree with is the best way to get the point across that you won't make a good employee. The arrest records should keep them out of the job pool long enough for more qualified people to join in.

If it prevents the kind of misery and death we saw until the 1920s and '30s in non-unionized labor, then it's well worth it."


Yeah - that's totally what workers are threatened with today.


NobleHam: "The Right wing idiots would do well to remember that people fought and died to get the union rights they have now..."

...which have since been permanently enshrined as law in the labor code and are guaranteed. So, what precious rights is the Proletariat violently fighting for now? (Note: being able to force people to join a union and pay dues before they can get a job is not a right.)


Is this really what republicans now believe? That a massive, unelected regulatory apparatus is GOOD for the country? Anything for The Cause, I suppose.

What happens when a Republican gets back in the White House and starts dismantling protections and pro-labor enforcement? Hell, even under Democratic administrations, agencies like OSHA are woefully undermanned and under-funded to prosecute all violations nationwide. Are you comfortable with the idea that all of your contracted rights are subject to the whims of an opaque political process? I'm certainly not.
 
2012-12-12 04:25:29 AM  
Never mind punched, the Fox guy should be fired. Last I checked, being a "reporter" meant you were supposed to cover the news, not tell protesters to stop breaking stuff. When douches like him make it ok for reporters to be hit, it means stuff won't get covered and we as a people will be less informed.

Its Fox, I should know better than to have expectations...
 
2012-12-12 04:26:51 AM  
Also, let's stop pretending like this has anything to do with "right and wrong.". This was a political hit job and nothing more. Unions support The Enemy, and must be destroyed at all costs. Everything else is just marketing BS.

Or is someone here dumb enough to try to argue that if unions were strongly supportive of the GOP, they'd still be doing this because of "freedom"?
 
2012-12-12 04:27:18 AM  

fusillade762: log_jammin: now the submitter has a nice trolltastic headline that all the other trolls get to masturbate to once this goes green.

It's a union thread, why should things be any different? 

Let's get things started in the other direction:

Overzealous staffer
Republican plant


I was wondering if I was the only one reminded of the Parlock family shenanigans.
 
2012-12-12 04:31:19 AM  

log_jammin: Video of the dude getting punched.

1. He was trolling the crowd.

2. another union member stopped the first guy.


I do find it interesting (given the recent history of Republicans and strategically edited videos), that the video never reveals what Crowder said to set the crowd off.

/Not that mob violence needs a justification - it can just happen but I'm not totally trusting of a FNC employed journalist's side of the story
 
2012-12-12 04:33:05 AM  

spmkk: NobleHam: "Lsherm: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

I agree. Beating people you disagree with is the best way to get the point across that you won't make a good employee. The arrest records should keep them out of the job pool long enough for more qualified people to join in.

If it prevents the kind of misery and death we saw until the 1920s and '30s in non-unionized labor, then it's well worth it."


Yeah - that's totally what workers are threatened with today.


NobleHam: "The Right wing idiots would do well to remember that people fought and died to get the union rights they have now..."

...which have since been permanently enshrined as law in the labor code and are guaranteed. So, what precious rights is the Proletariat violently fighting for now? (Note: being able to force people to join a union and pay dues before they can get a job is not a right.)


Who knows what the plutocrats will try next. I'd like to have strong unions in place when the corporations come out with their next great idea to cut costs and increase profits at the expense of their workers' welfare. "Right-to-work" laws are intended to break unions. I hope they won't, I hope there won't be any scabs, that people will voluntarily join unions and pay dues, but their intent is to destroy worker's rights.
 
2012-12-12 04:36:55 AM  

spmkk: NobleHam: "Lsherm: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

I agree. Beating people you disagree with is the best way to get the point across that you won't make a good employee. The arrest records should keep them out of the job pool long enough for more qualified people to join in.

If it prevents the kind of misery and death we saw until the 1920s and '30s in non-unionized labor, then it's well worth it."


Yeah - that's totally what workers are threatened with today.


NobleHam: "The Right wing idiots would do well to remember that people fought and died to get the union rights they have now..."

...which have since been permanently enshrined as law in the labor code and are guaranteed. So, what precious rights is the Proletariat violently fighting for now? (Note: being able to force people to join a union and pay dues before they can get a job is not a right.)


After all, it's not like laws can be changed, or that there's a huge chunk of the working class willing to vote against their best interests, just to spite 'the libs', or that most of our government is in the pocket of big businesses....
 
2012-12-12 04:37:22 AM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Also, let's stop pretending like this has anything to do with "right and wrong.". This was a political hit job and nothing more. Unions support The Enemy, and must be destroyed at all costs. Everything else is just marketing BS.

Or is someone here dumb enough to try to argue that if unions were strongly supportive of the GOP, they'd still be doing this because of "freedom"?


Oh. Ok.

/-1 no trolltasticness there.
 
2012-12-12 04:38:50 AM  

Snapper Carr: but I'm not totally trusting of a FNC employed journalist's side of the story


If you look at the guys youtube channel, this seems to be his sort of thing.
 
2012-12-12 04:43:52 AM  
For some reason, I can't imagine any of the union defenders extending the same benefit of the doubt to TEA Party protesters had they been goaded by reporters and exchanged punches.

Maybe it's just me, but assaulting people for asking questions that annoy you is a douche thing to do and political affiliation should not influence that in any way.
 
2012-12-12 04:43:53 AM  

homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.


YEAH! screw those people who want a right to work without being forced to pay to be in your club!
 
2012-12-12 04:45:09 AM  

Relatively Obscure: 'm picturing you with breasts right now. It brightens


Don't do that, I've always had this idea that Weaver is kind of up there in years, and when I read that I had a flashing image of wrinkled hanging bags. eeww
/sorry weaver
 
2012-12-12 04:45:19 AM  

super_grass: to TEA Party protesters had they been goaded by reporters


do you have video of that?
 
2012-12-12 04:45:47 AM  

I sound fat: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

YEAH! screw those people who want a right to work decent wages and working conditions without being forced to pay to be in your club working for them!


FTFY
 
2012-12-12 04:46:54 AM  
What is this about?
/Sorry I am clueless
 
2012-12-12 04:46:55 AM  
Righties: Ya know how unfair it feels when the Lefties tell you that you are racist because they saw a picture of a Rightie being racist?

Well, saying :union members" punched a reporter because one did.....
 
2012-12-12 04:47:03 AM  

I sound fat: YEAH! screw those people who want a right to work without being forced to pay to be in your club!


odd how the only workers the GOP cares about are the ones who don't want to pay union dues.
 
2012-12-12 04:47:59 AM  

video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.


Just like Papa Joe used to use. Like in the good old days when it was acceptable to kill hundreds of millions because college professors agreed with you.
 
2012-12-12 04:48:05 AM  

log_jammin: I sound fat: YEAH! screw those people who want a right to work without being forced to pay to be in your club!

odd how the only workers the GOP cares about are the ones who don't want to pay union dues.


So, its okay to force people to be in your club?
 
2012-12-12 04:48:06 AM  

I sound fat: Righties: Ya know how unfair it feels when the Lefties tell you that you are racist because they saw a picture of a Rightie being racist?

Well, saying :union members" punched a reporter because one did.....


....and one broke it up. so I guess that means all union members break up fights.
 
2012-12-12 04:48:27 AM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: "What happens when a Republican gets back in the White House and starts dismantling protections and pro-labor enforcement?"



Tell me more about how Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. dismantled union protections (especially in Michigan) and sent the labor landscape back to 1920.
 
2012-12-12 04:49:43 AM  

Relatively Obscure: GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.

DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.

/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.

I can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy.

I think you can and do sometimes.


If you ever retort against GAT, he will cry to the fat mods and they will ban you. It's happened before.
 
2012-12-12 04:49:48 AM  

I sound fat: So, its okay to force people to be in your club?


So you think the GOP is upset that people are being "forced to join a club" and decided to put a stop to it?
 
2012-12-12 04:50:26 AM  

I sound fat: Righties: Ya know how unfair it feels when the Lefties tell you that you are racist because they saw a picture of a Rightie being racist?

Well, saying :union members" punched a reporter because one guy in a union jacket did.....


FTFY. In a world where Republicans champion scum like James O'Keefe, I'm taking this with several grains of salt. Seriously, someone seems to live up to the 'Union thug' stereotype in front of a Fox News camera? Not impossible, but definitely suspicious.
 
2012-12-12 04:50:42 AM  

log_jammin: super_grass: to TEA Party protesters had they been goaded by reporters

do you have video of that?


I think you're trying to not get the point and instead is trying to bring up a red herring.
 
2012-12-12 04:52:29 AM  

log_jammin: I sound fat: So, its okay to force people to be in your club?

So you think the GOP is upset that people are being "forced to join a club" and decided to put a stop to it?


Well, im not GOP, but I know I dont want to be in a union.

Why does everything have to be D v R?
 
2012-12-12 04:53:58 AM  

log_jammin: I sound fat: So, its okay to force people to be in your club?

So you think the GOP is upset that people are being "forced to join a club" and decided to put a stop to it?


Again, so its OKAY to require someone to think like you to work in your shop?
 
2012-12-12 04:54:29 AM  

LordJiro: I sound fat: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

YEAH! screw those people who want a right to work decent wages and working conditions without being forced to pay to be in your club working for them!

FTFY


If people are upset with lab or conditions, they can join a union, if not they can choose not to.

If you can't see how government mandated labor cartels can have unintended consequences, then there is no hope for you.
 
2012-12-12 04:55:18 AM  
Cause if its OKAY for someone to HAVE to join the union and most union members *ARE* Democrats, are you saying its OKAY to force someone to have the same political views as you to work with you?
 
2012-12-12 04:55:49 AM  

super_grass: I think you're trying to not get the point and instead is trying to bring up a red herring.


so that DIDN'T happen. Ok then. glad we cleared that up, and you recognize that you are comparing something that actually happened to a hypothetical that hasn't actually occurred outside of your own mind.
 
2012-12-12 04:58:54 AM  
So the argument here is anti-choice. Instead of punching people and reinforcing a stereotype, how about the unions do a better job of convincing workers to join? If giving people the choice to opt-out is a threat to their existence, then perhaps they don't deserve to survive.
 
2012-12-12 04:59:15 AM  

super_grass: LordJiro: I sound fat: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

YEAH! screw those people who want a right to work decent wages and working conditions without being forced to pay to be in your club working for them!

FTFY

If people are upset with lab or conditions, they can join a union, if not they can choose not to.

If you can't see how government mandated labor cartels can have unintended consequences, then there is no hope for you.


You aren't forced to work in a union shop; no state MANDATES unions. But if you CHOOSE to work in a union shop, there are certain responsibilities that come with the benefits.
 
2012-12-12 04:59:19 AM  

I sound fat: Well, im not GOP, but I know I dont want to be in a union.

Why does everything have to be D v R?


so don't join a union.

And because that's what the whole thing is about. R's doing what the can to squash unions. as they've done for decades. Yet they try to pass it off in this case that suddenly it's not about helping business, it's about protecting those poor exploited workers forced to join a union.


I sound fat: Again, so its OKAY to require someone to think like you to work in your shop?


to "think like you"? wtf are you talking about?
 
2012-12-12 04:59:56 AM  

I sound fat: Cause if its OKAY for someone to HAVE to join the union and most union members *ARE* Democrats, are you saying its OKAY to force someone to have the same political views as you to work with you?


LOL!
 
2012-12-12 05:02:59 AM  

I sound fat: Cause if its OKAY for someone to HAVE to join the union and most union members *ARE* Democrats, are you saying its OKAY to force someone to have the same political views as you to work with you?


I think it's OK for two private entities to make and keep a contract without the state interfering.
But then, I'm a REAL conservative, and not one of you fake ones.
 
2012-12-12 05:08:48 AM  
My job requires me to wear certain cloths on the job. Those items are only sold by business owners. Most business owners are republican. therefore, my job is forcing my to have the same political views as them and the republican party.

ta-da!
 
2012-12-12 05:11:15 AM  

log_jammin: super_grass: I think you're trying to not get the point and instead is trying to bring up a red herring.

so that DIDN'T happen. Ok then. glad we cleared that up, and you recognize that you are comparing something that actually happened to a hypothetical that hasn't actually occurred outside of your own mind.


You either have to be in denial or be partisan enough to lack any self awareness to seriously think that there isn't a double standard here.

The TP has been accused of being violent over people with legal firearms and musket replicas yet union members get a pass on assault. If you can't put two and two together than I recommend asking for a refund from your school.
 
2012-12-12 05:15:49 AM  
Freedom and democracy, the two things so called progressives fear the most.
 
2012-12-12 05:17:07 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Freedom and democracy, the two things so called progressives fear the most.


People who actually work for a living: One of many things Republicans can't stand.
 
2012-12-12 05:19:20 AM  

super_grass: You either have to be in denial or be partisan enough to lack any self awareness to seriously think that there isn't a double standard here.


I'm more than willing to consider if there is or isn't a double standard. That's why I asked if you had video of a reporter harassing tea party protesters, and getting punched over it. I mean, that was the example you gave.

super_grass: yet union members get a pass on assault.


1. It was one guy, not "members".
2. he was not given "a pass".
 
2012-12-12 05:19:57 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Freedom and democracy, the two things so called progressives fear the most.


weak.
 
2012-12-12 05:23:06 AM  

LordJiro: david_gaithersburg: Freedom and democracy, the two things so called progressives fear the most.

People who actually work for a living: One of many things Republicans can't stand.

.
.
blah, blah, blah The Republicans are the one's passing laws allowing people to work, the unions are fighting to prevent people from working unles they pay shake down money. I have many friends with small companies that have been kicked off of jobs because their 3-4 man company wasn't paying dues to union lawyers.

Fark you buddy.
 
2012-12-12 05:25:07 AM  

david_gaithersburg: the unions are fighting to prevent people from working unles they pay shake down money.


well aren't you stupid
 
2012-12-12 05:27:01 AM  
its not reporting when you go incite a riot and then make a video of it.


FOX has no shame and no sense and just panders to idiots who cant think for themselves.
 
2012-12-12 05:27:48 AM  

david_gaithersburg: LordJiro: david_gaithersburg: Freedom and democracy, the two things so called progressives fear the most.

People who actually work for a living: One of many things Republicans can't stand.
.
.
blah, blah, blah The Republicans are the one's passing laws allowing people to work, the unions are fighting to prevent people from working at workplaces that have a union unles they pay shake down money. I have many friends with small companies that have been kicked off of jobs because their 3-4 man company wasn't paying dues to union lawyers.

Fark you buddy.


FTFY. You're free to work a non-union job. But if your workplace has a union and you aren't a part of it, you're a parasite. Unless, of course, you sign a waiver preventing yourself from receiving the wages and benefits a union negotiates for.
 
2012-12-12 05:27:56 AM  

david_gaithersburg: I have many friends with small companies that have been kicked off of jobs because their 3-4 man company wasn't paying dues to union lawyersthey're scabs.

 
2012-12-12 05:27:57 AM  
Bbbbbut Gox News was trolling them!

Get real.

What if I decked somebody in real life for something he said on Fark? Do I get to use his trolling as an excuse?
 
2012-12-12 05:28:11 AM  

CujoQuarrel: log_jammin: violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,

part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.

Arrrggghhhh!!!

"Right to Work" doesn't mean that. Jebus. LOOK IT UP
In a "Right to Work" state you may not be forced to join a union or forced to pay dues to a union in order to get a job. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'firing at anytime'


I normally dont weigh in on the politics tab because its much more fun to read the threadshiatters insane comments and laugh at the childish trolling all over the spectrum, however having worked in a right to work state, and one that is fairly backwards even by that standard (Arizona) I feel I have a compelling reason to weigh in here.

Having worked in Arizona for 17 years I can say definitively that right to work means exactly what the gentlemen you quoted said it means, and the employees remind you of that both when you are first hired and if you ever get written up or disciplined on the job.

They have the right to:
A) fire you at any time
B) fire you for any reason
C) fire you for no reason what so ever

The employers remind you of these facts. What is happening in Michigan is a special case. In Arizona, a right to work state, union dues must be payed by people who are not part of the union regardless (see the teachers union, of who my mother was a teacher, not part of the union and still had to pay dues to). What the Michigan legislator did was strip the mandatory dues payments because it breaks the very structure that gives the unions so much leverage and power. And anyone who tells you this was for economical reasons is lying through their teeth. This was a simple power play for politics and nothing more. Unions overwhelmingly support democrats and fund democrats as one of if not the top donors in most local elections and national elections. Break up unions and you break their political power. The Michigan legislator simply wimped out and called it a "right to work" bill instead of calling what it really is "bust union power so we can win elections easier" bill.

I have no problem with republicans TRYING to put such measures to the public vote, assuming they are legitimately put to public vote. That is how democracy works. However, them ramming it through, on a lame duck session, after most of those guys have been voted out of office, in a closed door shady way, and also using loopholes that make it so that the public cant overturn it on a ballot referendum is just disgusting.

I try to see things from the republican perspective so that I can get a better rounded opinion and I would like to have a true center right and center left party divide but sadly all the republicans seem to be doing lately is going farther and farther out into the deep end of the pool and making me even more ardently democrat then I already was and stifling any real debate. Its very sad. I wonder how many life long democratic voters they are creating with all this nonsense behavior.

Also I fully expect that the next Michigan legislative session's first agenda goal will be to straight up repeal this, and I think that is great. A race to the bottom gets everyone to the bottom and then we all lose. Thank you republicans for once again proving that you are completely incapable of seeing the bigger longer term picture.
 
2012-12-12 05:29:22 AM  

Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.


Yeah, interestingly enough, the industrial revolution is probably too young for us to have observed any cyclical events yet, but yes we may be heading back to another violent conflict over workers rights.

Personally, I find it the logical and likely due to the fact that there is only so much stress you can apply to the middle and lower classes before their only recourse is violence. Even in primitive societies, worker uprisings were relatively common - the only difference is that today, it's unlikely that the military in a democracy could be leveraged to supress it and keep society in event.

Essentially we may be looking at another french revolution like event, except on a scale that would dwarf the original one.
 
2012-12-12 05:32:13 AM  

drjekel_mrhyde: What is this about?
/Sorry I am clueless


A guy got punched. If this was a bar at 2 am no one would care.
 
2012-12-12 05:34:19 AM  

Maximum Snark: the employees remind you of that


employees = employers

/sorry missed that one
//even proof read this TWICE before posting
///curse these fingers for not moving as fast as my brain!
 
2012-12-12 05:34:22 AM  

log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: I have many friends with small companies that have been kicked off of jobs because their 3-4 man company wasn't paying dues to union lawyersthey're scabs.


True story, idiot. Friend of mine was hired to paint doors at the Coke bottling plant. Kicked off the property because his two man operation was'nt paying dues to rich lawyers in NY. How the fark is painting a farking door at a farking bottling plant being a scab. We The People demand the basic human right to work. Fark you you piece of shiat.
 
2012-12-12 05:35:59 AM  
img651.imageshack.us

What a typical exchange between a person with a right-leaning opinion (guy on left) and a FarkLib (guy on right) probably would look like if they met in person. (Based on most Fark political "conversations")
 
2012-12-12 05:38:05 AM  

david_gaithersburg: was'nt paying dues to rich lawyers in NY.


LOL!
 
182
2012-12-12 05:38:09 AM  

log_jammin: Video of the dude getting punched.

1. He was trolling the crowd.

2. another union member stopped the first guy.


hahahahahahaha!
 
2012-12-12 05:38:59 AM  

GAT_00: Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.


assets.nydailynews.com

"We have to pass the bill so we can see what is in it"
 
2012-12-12 05:40:09 AM  

3StratMan: [img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

What a typical exchange between a person with a right-leaning opinion (guy on left) and a FarkLib (guy on right) probably would look like if they met in person. (Based on most Fark political "conversations")


comments like this do nothing to further this "typical exchange" you are talking about. If anything all these comments do is make incidents like this more common. But yes one's political leanings has a direct correlation to ones inclinations of punching someone in the face. I'd love to see a peer reviewed and published study proving such a link

/flame on threadshiatter
//grow up and join the rest of us educated civilized citizens you ape
 
2012-12-12 05:42:34 AM  

182: log_jammin: Video of the dude getting punched.

1. He was trolling the crowd.

2. another union member stopped the first guy.

hahahahahahaha!


feel free to point out what I said that was inaccurate.
 
2012-12-12 05:46:31 AM  

GAT_00: Lsherm: GAT_00: Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.

Technically in the slide show:

[img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

With the caption:

A man in an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union jacket punches Fox News reporter Steven Crowder in the face outside the pro-Right-to-Work tent of Americans for Prosperity, an organization funded by wealthy private donors.

Lsherm: GAT_00: Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.

Technically in the slide show:

[img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

With the caption:

A man in an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union jacket punches Fox News reporter Steven Crowder in the face outside the pro-Right-to-Work tent of Americans for Prosperity, an organization funded by wealthy private donors.

More likely to be true then, but until I see people vouching that this guy is a member of that union, I still refuse to completely believe it. I have no trouble believing that Fox would stage that to discredit the protesters.


Yeah, and the incident where Chrysler UNION workers got caught on camera toking and drinking on their lunch break, got fired, and 2 years later got their jobs back (with back pay, do doubt) was probably all staged by FOX2 as well.
 
2012-12-12 05:49:25 AM  
I live in Michigan and I work in an industry that is not union and I still think what Snyder did should be illegal. He has been a disaster for our economy and for our future. The good thing though is that if republicans continue to push these unpopular measures through without getting public opinion let alone a Vote they will not be in power for long. Poor people tend to care more about what their leadership is doing than the wealthy. If a governor believes that supporting owners and not workers is the best way to stay in power they will be swiftly and loudly reminded of how wrong they are. The owner will give you 1 vote to the workers 100.
 
2012-12-12 05:52:34 AM  

Maximum Snark: 3StratMan: [img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

What a typical exchange between a person with a right-leaning opinion (guy on left) and a FarkLib (guy on right) probably would look like if they met in person. (Based on most Fark political "conversations")

comments like this do nothing to further this "typical exchange" you are talking about. If anything all these comments do is make incidents like this more common. But yes one's political leanings has a direct correlation to ones inclinations of punching someone in the face. I'd love to see a peer reviewed and published study proving such a link

/flame on threadshiatter
//grow up and join the rest of us educated civilized citizens you ape


Good thing this exchange isn't happening in person. The "tolerance" shows up immediately, as usual. Don't really feel like getting injured today.
 
2012-12-12 05:54:14 AM  

3StratMan: Maximum Snark: 3StratMan: [img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

What a typical exchange between a person with a right-leaning opinion (guy on left) and a FarkLib (guy on right) probably would look like if they met in person. (Based on most Fark political "conversations")

comments like this do nothing to further this "typical exchange" you are talking about. If anything all these comments do is make incidents like this more common. But yes one's political leanings has a direct correlation to ones inclinations of punching someone in the face. I'd love to see a peer reviewed and published study proving such a link

/flame on threadshiatter
//grow up and join the rest of us educated civilized citizens you ape

Good thing this exchange isn't happening in person. The "tolerance" shows up immediately, as usual. Don't really feel like getting injured today.


I'm sure you realize that the first bolded bit was obvious sarcasm. I mean, otherwise, you'd be a complete dipshiat!
 
2012-12-12 05:54:42 AM  
ah yes

3StratMan: Maximum Snark: 3StratMan: [img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

What a typical exchange between a person with a right-leaning opinion (guy on left) and a FarkLib (guy on right) probably would look like if they met in person. (Based on most Fark political "conversations")

comments like this do nothing to further this "typical exchange" you are talking about. If anything all these comments do is make incidents like this more common. But yes one's political leanings has a direct correlation to ones inclinations of punching someone in the face. I'd love to see a peer reviewed and published study proving such a link

/flame on threadshiatter
//grow up and join the rest of us educated civilized citizens you ape

Good thing this exchange isn't happening in person. The "tolerance" shows up immediately, as usual. Don't really feel like getting injured today.


ah yes, keep baiting. And nice bolding one your part and not actually address any of the things either in the comment or that you bolded. Pretty typical from a threadshiatter. Your troll-fu is weak young man. Needs more disiprin.
 
2012-12-12 05:56:51 AM  

LordJiro: 3StratMan: Maximum Snark: 3StratMan: [img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

What a typical exchange between a person with a right-leaning opinion (guy on left) and a FarkLib (guy on right) probably would look like if they met in person. (Based on most Fark political "conversations")

comments like this do nothing to further this "typical exchange" you are talking about. If anything all these comments do is make incidents like this more common. But yes one's political leanings has a direct correlation to ones inclinations of punching someone in the face. I'd love to see a peer reviewed and published study proving such a link

/flame on threadshiatter
//grow up and join the rest of us educated civilized citizens you ape

Good thing this exchange isn't happening in person. The "tolerance" shows up immediately, as usual. Don't really feel like getting injured today.

I'm sure you realize that the first bolded bit was obvious sarcasm. I mean, otherwise, you'd be a complete dipshiat!


nah man, im sure he isnt a dip shiat at all. I am sure he is a well educated, well rounded, and probably well spoken (in a real face to face conversation) individual who doesn't immediately jump to illogical and irrational conclusions without hearing any differing facts or opinions and taking them into consideration.
 
2012-12-12 05:59:05 AM  

cassapolis: I live in Michigan and I work in an industry that is not union and I still think what Snyder did should be illegal. He has been a disaster for our economy and for our future. The good thing though is that if republicans continue to push these unpopular measures through without getting public opinion let alone a Vote they will not be in power for long. Poor people tend to care more about what their leadership is doing than the wealthy. If a governor believes that supporting owners and not workers is the best way to stay in power they will be swiftly and loudly reminded of how wrong they are. The owner will give you 1 vote to the workers 100.


Except you probably don't want to have a vote on RTW either. The vote on the bridge proposal didn't work out so well for the unions either. Considering only about 18% of workers in Michigan are union, I'd bet that RTW would pass at the ballot boxes as well, especially after the way the union people conducted themselves in front of the whole nation yesterday.
 
2012-12-12 06:01:37 AM  

GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: You could have c/p'd that from a Freep post about a different article.

No you couldn't have. No Freeper would have said that it wasn't appropriate or would consider it assault. I'm not demanding we round people up and put them into camps. Fox went there to gloat about taking people's rights away. You gloat in someone's face about how they just beat you, people tend to punch you in the face. That's a normal, though overly aggressive, response in dozens of scenarios.

log_jammin: so what you are saying is, you can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy, so long as it's your enemy as well. which is all well and good, but be honest about it.

See above. And yeah, if I went to an anti-gay marriage rally and gloated to someone's face about how gays were going to get married and they couldn't stop it, I'd expect to be punched in the face too.


It's the same concept as Epic Beard Man/Amberlamps: regardless of who is less of a douchebag here, you have to exercise common sense. Antagonizing someone who's on the breaking point is a great way to have that person stomp a mudhole through you.
 
2012-12-12 06:01:50 AM  

3StratMan: cassapolis: I live in Michigan and I work in an industry that is not union and I still think what Snyder did should be illegal. He has been a disaster for our economy and for our future. The good thing though is that if republicans continue to push these unpopular measures through without getting public opinion let alone a Vote they will not be in power for long. Poor people tend to care more about what their leadership is doing than the wealthy. If a governor believes that supporting owners and not workers is the best way to stay in power they will be swiftly and loudly reminded of how wrong they are. The owner will give you 1 vote to the workers 100.

Except you probably don't want to have a vote on RTW either. The vote on the bridge proposal didn't work out so well for the unions either. Considering only about 18% of workers in Michigan are union, I'd bet that RTW would pass at the ballot boxes as well, especially after the way the union people conducted themselves in front of the whole nation yesterday.


Then why not put it up for a public vote then if you are SO SURE it would pass at the ballot level? Why ram it through on a lame duck session? Why use a provisional loop hole to prevent the voters from putting up a repeal ballot initiative? Why do all of this in a close door session and do it as fast as possible (the fastest a bill has ever been passed in Michigan history btw)? Why do all this if you are SO SURE that it would pass at the ballot?
 
2012-12-12 06:04:41 AM  
What a bunch of thugs. Good job beating up the fox guy.
 
2012-12-12 06:05:09 AM  

log_jammin: violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,

part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.


That's "at-will employment" that you are describing. Admittedly, most "right to work" states are also at-will, but it IS a different thing. One typically paves the way for the other.
 
2012-12-12 06:06:36 AM  

spmkk: NobleHam: "Lsherm: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

I agree. Beating people you disagree with is the best way to get the point across that you won't make a good employee. The arrest records should keep them out of the job pool long enough for more qualified people to join in.

If it prevents the kind of misery and death we saw until the 1920s and '30s in non-unionized labor, then it's well worth it."


Yeah - that's totally what workers are threatened with today.


Dude, people died in the non-union Massey coal mine disaster pretty farking recently.

You might also want to google modern slavery convictions in Florida.
 
2012-12-12 06:07:59 AM  

Relatively Obscure: GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.

DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.

/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.

I can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy.

I think you can and do sometimes.




Of course he does. He's the biggest hypocrite on here. He wines and cries when things don't go his way. He says he hates guns and violence, but it's ok when it's for things he supports.
 
2012-12-12 06:08:45 AM  
If only more trolls in life got punched. Helpful? No, but I'd imagine it feels really good.
 
2012-12-12 06:08:54 AM  
Huh, the Phelps clan seems to work at Fox News now.
Exploit terrible events by goading and gloating until the target's emotions override their logic.
Collect your reward.
 
2012-12-12 06:12:09 AM  
stay classy unions!
 
2012-12-12 06:14:46 AM  

3StratMan: [img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

What a typical exchange between a person with a right-leaning opinion (guy on left) and a FarkLib (guy on right) probably would look like if they met in person. (Based on most Fark political "conversations")


I like to think REAL right wingers aren't shallow, amoral, blow-dried pussies. Heck, there's a few on this site that are pretty smart.

I DO hope you're not confusing Fox-Republican with conservative...it's a common mistake.
 
2012-12-12 06:15:52 AM  
So where were the little old ladies and such?
 
2012-12-12 06:20:31 AM  

Fish_Fight!: stay classy unions Fox News plants!


FTFY. Fox News is not credible, and far right-wingers in general have a proven history of fabricating 'incidents' to make groups of political opponents look bad.

I'll need a lot more evidence than "He's wearing a jacket" before I think of this as anything but yet another O'Keefe/backwards B dumbshiat stunt by the right.
 
2012-12-12 06:20:53 AM  

KrmtDfrog: So where were the little old ladies and such?


They got crushed by the truck full of dead nuns and puppies that were tossed over them.
 
2012-12-12 06:21:06 AM  

Tigger: We shouldn't be punching Fox News MSNBC reporters.

We should be burning them alive in the public square - pour encourager les autres.


fun game is fun
 
2012-12-12 06:22:31 AM  
Union rant:

Look, there is a time and a place for unions. No one can look at the history of coal mining and not see that they've done a lot of good. BUT, unions get out of hand farking fast. You know what the east coast ILA is threatening to strike over, effectively shutting down the entire east and gulf coasts shipping? Labor guarantees. Union members literally get paid a minimum of 8 hours per company.
So if you show up to work, work 1 hour unloading 1 ship then work a full 8-hour shift on another ship in a day you get paid for 16 hours. Why? Because they keep shutting down the damn ports to get their way.

When unions are needed, they're great. Unfortunately, unions are rarely NEEDED.
/rant
 
2012-12-12 06:22:50 AM  

BSABSVR: trivial use of my dark powers: OK, union guys, stop hitting people unless they hit you first.

Especially guys with cameras who are intentionally trolling you so you'll hit them.


I didn't realize that Khalisah Bint Sinan al-Jilani had joined Fox News.
 
2012-12-12 06:23:51 AM  

3StratMan: GAT_00: Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.

[assets.nydailynews.com image 485x323]

"We have to pass the bill so we can see what is in it"


I still can't figure out how Skeletor got elected to Congress
 
2012-12-12 06:24:18 AM  

cassapolis: I live in Michigan and I work in an industry that is not union and I still think what Snyder did should be illegal. He has been a disaster for our economy and for our future.


^^^^^^^^
Now that is funny. Yeah, Michigan, especially Detroit, were booming so called progressive utopian paradises up till yesterday.
 
2012-12-12 06:27:12 AM  
2 scenarios:

1. Who wouldn't want to punch FOX news in the face?

2. Fox News would certainly pay for someone to punch them in the face for more derpitude......

3. Farkwads would actually like to work harder for less money so that CEO's and the like have a bigger christmas bonus.
 
2012-12-12 06:29:06 AM  

mike_d85: Union rant:

Look, there is a time and a place for unions. No one can look at the history of coal mining and not see that they've done a lot of good. BUT, unions get out of hand farking fast. You know what the east coast ILA is threatening to strike over, effectively shutting down the entire east and gulf coasts shipping? Labor guarantees. Union members literally get paid a minimum of 8 hours per company.
So if you show up to work, work 1 hour unloading 1 ship then work a full 8-hour shift on another ship in a day you get paid for 16 hours. Why? Because they keep shutting down the damn ports to get their way.

When unions are needed, they're great. Unfortunately, unions are rarely NEEDED.
/rant


Republicans are already trying to break unions so they can further skullfark the workers. If unions went away when they 'weren't needed', they would never be able to reform when they ARE needed.
 
2012-12-12 06:39:55 AM  
If you are a part of/acting for a funded and supported arm of ALEC (or one of their supporters), the last place you want to be is in the middle of the constituency that opposes your presence. They were setting themselves up to be an attractive nuisance by doing everything to invite a fight.

If anything, this should bring out required transparency for private organizations that deal with the government. In addition, it should invite a discussion on whether multi-state coalitions that exert control over individual states(ALEC/AFP) should be required to disclose everything they do to any interested party.

/States rights never was intended to support a multi-state coalition that acts like its own country
//it was meant for states to act individually
///states dont secede, they just get taken over by ALEC
 
2012-12-12 06:41:47 AM  
So... we're back to this weird argument where a bunch of people think the victim of a crime being a moron and the perpetrator of the crime being responsible for the crime are mutually exclusive when both are clearly simultaneously the case?
 
2012-12-12 06:46:31 AM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Put down your farking pearls, nancies. People get punched sometimes. It's not the end of the world.

You'd be pissed too if a group of shady politicians just gave you a $5,300 a year paycut AFTER they had been voted out of office. And then to be harassed by some corporate stooge from a propaganda arm that convinces millions of Americans that you're the reason for everything that's wrong with this country...let's just be thankful that no guns or knives were involved.


THIS.

Not something to advocate, but when the legislature is effectively an unaccountable high-speed vehicle for passing undesirable legislation, pissing off the governed is not the best thing to do.

Now how long until you start seeing firms like Strom Engineering expand into Michigan to Southernize the work force and labor relations firms like Jackson Lewis to ensure that unions die even when wanted?
 
2012-12-12 06:52:50 AM  

Jim_Callahan: So... we're back to this weird argument where a bunch of people think the victim of a crime being a moron and the perpetrator of the crime being responsible for the crime are mutually exclusive when both are clearly simultaneously the case?


Given Fox' track record, until they can prove otherwise, we may be justified in assuming their reporter hit the union guy first, and then they faked the footage.

We ARE talking about the network that was basically blaming the workers killed overseas in that recent garment factory fire.

Loss of credibility is a hard thing to overcome :)
 
2012-12-12 06:52:50 AM  

I sound fat: Cause if its OKAY for someone to HAVE to join the union and most union members *ARE* Democrats, are you saying its OKAY to force someone to have the same political views as you to work with you?


If you look at places like Free Republic, you'll find them advocating on how to not hire people aligned with the wrong party or union beliefs, even if both are protected activities.

Are you sure that you want to invite that kind of logic - where your livelihood depends on patronage?
 
2012-12-12 06:55:14 AM  
from another article "They were trying to tear down the tent and people were trying to pull them off. ... And as they did that, a few people tripped," he told the website. "This guy tripped over a tent peg and then got up and hit me."


some guy gets knocked over and comes up swinging
 
2012-12-12 06:58:47 AM  
Did you see how fat those asshole union douchebags were?
LOL Unions are slugs and thugs
 
2012-12-12 06:58:59 AM  

GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.

DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.

/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.

I can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy.


So then if I consider you my enemy, you can't blame me for attacking you. Good to know...
 
2012-12-12 06:59:42 AM  
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-12-12 07:00:31 AM  
Here's a truth for the union hacks: Right to Work laws give workers a choice between whether or not one joins a union. Many times the absence of such laws means workers are forced into unions and required to pay dues against their will, eliminating their choice. Since choice = freedom, then Right to Work laws are more American than forced coercion. No wonder why unions get the "commie" label......
 
2012-12-12 07:02:59 AM  

Weaver95: Relatively Obscure: GAT_00: No you couldn't have.

Yes I could have. Sure, many would be as you say, but there are always some who would sound exactly like you just had.

except that GAT has a point - fox news went there and made an already difficult situation worse. the local MI Republicans already antagonized the unions and pissed off the local Democrats. then along comes fox news (and a few tea baggers) to jump in and gloat about how great it was that the lame duck session was used by their hero Republicans to ramrod some unpopular legislation through congress and hey, it's just wonderful to see such dirty tricks used to great effect.

i'm actually impressed the local unions showed as much restraint as they did.


Just because legislation is unpopular to the unions doesn't make it unpopular in general.
 
2012-12-12 07:03:44 AM  
There is something that has been edited out of this video. Not a conspiracy theory or anything, BUT the guy who does the punching is seen coming up from a position that looks as if he has been pushed or tripped up. This is Fox's video, I'm guessing. Wonder where the rest of it is. Not saying throwing a punch is right -- just that I'm interested to know what immediately preceded it.

And previous posters are right -- something of this magnitude should be voted on by the public. Not ram-rodded through in a closed door session of lame-ducks. This just stinks to high heaven.
 
2012-12-12 07:04:52 AM  
look for the union label
 
2012-12-12 07:05:50 AM  

mwfark: Here's a truth for the union hacks: Right to Work laws give workers a choice between whether or not one joins a union. Many times the absence of such laws means workers are forced into unions and required to pay dues against their will, eliminating their choice. Since choice = freedom, then Right to Work laws are more American than forced coercion. No wonder why unions get the "commie" label......


Gotta love these people who call theselves "conservatives" these days - they claim to oppose government meddling in the private sector - until it's a matter of having the governemnt arbitrarily abrogate a contract between two private parties to obtain a result they deem desirable.
So much for "moral consistency" on the part of "conservatives".
 
2012-12-12 07:08:39 AM  
ok. now we just have actual trolling.

I'm out.
 
2012-12-12 07:09:16 AM  
img37.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-12 07:11:48 AM  
*sigh* Its ok when democrats use violence but when a republican does it is extremeism. The double standard continues.

/Stay strong Snyder. fark THE UNIONS!
//Keep it up Michigan. I may move back
 
2012-12-12 07:13:36 AM  
Interesting. Normally, when so-called "conservatives" hear anybody express dissatisfaction with the way their employer treats them, their response is "Go get a better job somewhere else!".
But in this instance they respond 'Go crying to nanny-government to make a special law forbidding two groups of adults from making a legal contract."
The many faces of the American right.
 
2012-12-12 07:16:17 AM  

LordJiro: mike_d85: Union rant:

Look, there is a time and a place for unions. No one can look at the history of coal mining and not see that they've done a lot of good. BUT, unions get out of hand farking fast. You know what the east coast ILA is threatening to strike over, effectively shutting down the entire east and gulf coasts shipping? Labor guarantees. Union members literally get paid a minimum of 8 hours per company.
So if you show up to work, work 1 hour unloading 1 ship then work a full 8-hour shift on another ship in a day you get paid for 16 hours. Why? Because they keep shutting down the damn ports to get their way.

When unions are needed, they're great. Unfortunately, unions are rarely NEEDED.
/rant

Republicans are already trying to break unions so they can further skullfark the workers. If unions went away when they 'weren't needed', they would never be able to reform when they ARE needed.


I never said anything about going away, I just want them to not be completely retarded, bloated, due gobblers. Stop making idiotic demands and just make sure everyone is safe and reasonably paid.

For example, last I heard you had to pay a union fine (bribe) if you wanted to install flushless urinals in a bathroom in Massachusetts. Why? Because a union plumber could have installed the running water and flush nozzle. That is idiotic. That is a minute portion of the labor involved in a functioning public bathroom and the 2 hours of so of labor they lost wouldn't have damaged the worker's pocketbook.
 
2012-12-12 07:16:57 AM  
Interesting thread. Seems the pro-union folks don't really know squat about the laws that were just signed but that doesn't prevent them from ranting on about them.

Neither of these laws; either the one focused on public sector unions or the one focused on private sector unions, prevents anyone from joining a union. Neither does anything to prevent unions from collective bargaining in any company where unions are present. Neither attempts to de-certify a single union. All these laws do is make union membership an option instead of a mandate.

Early in my working career, I was a member of two different labor unions. Even back in the 70s, it was painfully obvious to me that the union did not have my best interest nor the best interest of any worker in the shop at heart. When it was time for contract negotiations, the union reps spent scant time and effort on wages and benefits for workers while spending endless hours fighting for tweaks to contract language that would enhance the union's control over work rules and grievance processes. 40 years ago, it was obvious to me that unions had ceased to care about workers. They cared only about their own power and influence.

Over the years, I managed or consulted with several union shops. During that time I negotiated with locals of UAW, Teamsters, Foundry workers, Machinists' union, and a couple other unions. In every situation, it was abundantly clear to me that I was much more concerned about fair employee compensation and benefits than any union negotiator was. There were numerous instances where a change in work rules would have put more money in workers' pockets but eliminated the reason for grievance procedures that the company wasn't even going to try to challenge. The unions always opted to keep grievance procedures in place to justify the existence of more union stewards and other time and productivity wasting items rather than just agree to pay workers and eliminate the union from the process.

With unions, it's all about how much money they can extract from workers. When Obama came to Michigan, he claimed that these laws were all about a political agenda instead of economics. He's right. But it's about the liberal Democrat political agenda, in lockstep with unions. Unions have become little more than a vehicle for taking money out of the pockets of union members and funneling it to the DNC. In return, Democrats support union efforts to extract more money from the workers and the public.

These laws simply give workers a choice - to send their hard-earned wages to the DNC or not.  Of course, in union minds, that translates to justification to violent protest.
 
2012-12-12 07:17:32 AM  

video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.


I agree. What's your address? We need to have a chat.
 
2012-12-12 07:19:07 AM  
Union guy was assaulted and provoked, but the correction wont come out until all the idiots have secured their opinion on the matter.
 
2012-12-12 07:20:44 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Freedom and democracy, the two things so called progressives fear the most.


Really?

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

Seems that it's the extremist RW Repukes who are afraid of freedom & democracy.
 
2012-12-12 07:23:15 AM  
What do you expect from a coward? Here, have a Twinky...too soon?
 
2012-12-12 07:27:35 AM  

Fifi Le Pew: And previous posters are right -- something of this magnitude should be voted on by the public. Not ram-rodded through in a closed door session of lame-ducks. This just stinks to high heaven.


1. We elect Representatives to pass these laws. That's their job. Not throw everything to the public for a vote.

2. These two laws have well over 50% approval in the polls. There are even several union members who support these laws while stating that they will maintain their own union membership.

3. If these laws stink to high heaven, wouldn't anything done by a lame duck session? Would you advocate that lame duck sessions be eliminated completely? And wouldn't that suggest that anyone term-limited is, in effect, a lame duck and should not be allowed to legislate?
 
2012-12-12 07:33:08 AM  

festoon: Really?


That certainly raises the question of why this wasn't done 2 years ago? (Making an assumption on the length of State House terms.)
 
2012-12-12 07:33:54 AM  
There is a time and a place for violence. Here and now seems good.
 
2012-12-12 07:36:07 AM  
So, if some southern town said you had to join the KKK in order to work for the city, that would be OK, right?

There's really no difference. Well, except that unions are more prone to violence than the KKK.
 
2012-12-12 07:37:42 AM  

Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.


What about the rights of workers who choose not to be in a union? How is forcing people to join a union and pay union dues against their wishes supporting their rights?
 
2012-12-12 07:37:44 AM  
Had the reporter been a liberal who was attacked by a group of conservatives you farklibs would have cried foul.
 
2012-12-12 07:38:02 AM  
This is good news. The propagandists are generally the first to get pummeled. You choose to be the face and voice of the entity pushing to take away people's livelihoods and you might catch a fist. Consider yourself lucky too, it will be worse for the next guy.
 
2012-12-12 07:38:45 AM  
Oh my God, people will not be FORCED to pay union dues and fund Democrat's campaigns!!!!


Can't believe liberals agree with union thuggery. Thought you were about freedom of choice? Disgusting people, all of you.
 
2012-12-12 07:38:56 AM  

BillCo: So, if some southern town said you had to join the KKK in order to work for the city, that would be OK, right?

There's really no difference.


This is what teabaggers actually believe.
 
2012-12-12 07:40:48 AM  

log_jammin: Video of the dude getting punched.

1. He was trolling the crowd.

2. another union member stopped the first guy.




Is there another video of this that shows what happened right before the punch? Because this one has been conveniently edited to right before the protestor threw the punch, and the protestor seems to be picking himself up off the ground while Crowder is saying "you just assualted me" in an apparent explanation for why, I assume, Crowder pushed the proster or punched him.

Very suspicious. But it wouldn't be the first time guys like this have manufactured violence at protests.
 
2012-12-12 07:41:28 AM  

xmasbaby: Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.

What about the rights of workers who choose not to be in a union? How is forcing people to join a union and pay union dues against their wishes supporting their rights?


Easy. One guy can do nothing vs a billionaire or cartel of billionaires. Nothing, He's their biatch. A thousand or more guys have some power to negotiate. In order to make sure everyone has power you need to make sure as many people as possible join. If you don't like it, find another job without a union.
 
2012-12-12 07:41:57 AM  

log_jammin: violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,

part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.


I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.
 
2012-12-12 07:44:35 AM  

Thunderpipes: I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.


There's the nugget. You're jealous of their success. Your inability to negotiate shouldn't make you hate unions.
 
2012-12-12 07:46:01 AM  

Thunderpipes: log_jammin: violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,

part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.

I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.



why yes, our tax dollars do go to members of Congress
 
2012-12-12 07:47:23 AM  

swankywanky: Thunderpipes: log_jammin: violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,

part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.

I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.


why yes, our tax dollars do go to members of Congress


Whom we elected and continue to elect.

So who's more terrible? Them or us?
 
2012-12-12 07:47:56 AM  

Thunderpipes: I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.


You realize the union took deep pay cuts at Hostess while the management gave themselves huge raises? You know that is very, very typical in America today, right? It's time the top 1% learn to be afraid again. Fear is the mother of all morality.
 
2012-12-12 07:50:08 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.

There's the nugget. You're jealous of their success. Your inability to negotiate shouldn't make you hate unions.


Who are the idiots who say individuals somehow can't negotiate with their employers? You never got a raise from asking?

You would not be so pleased if a company or a city forced workers to join a conservative club and pay $1,000 a year to fund George Bush's campaign, and you know it. You just want taxpayer funded election money for your homeys, nothing more, nothing less. It is time it stops, and the public is waking up.

Look at how union employees act. Oh, you are butthurt? Lets cancel school for 26,000 kids. Fark you, union members. It is a great day when those criminal bastards get beat down.
 
2012-12-12 07:50:35 AM  

hitlersbrain: Thunderpipes: I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.

You realize the union took deep pay cuts at Hostess while the management gave themselves huge raises? You know that is very, very typical in America today, right? It's time the top 1% learn to be afraid again. Fear is the mother of all morality.



They also raided peoples' pensions for operating costs while giving themselves raises.

But I'm sure business will regulate itself just fine if we just get out of the way!! I mean, there's nothing in history indicating that business runs amok and tramples peoples' rights and lives if left unchecked, is there? Only proven success stories where the "free market" = government!! Derp!!!
 
2012-12-12 07:51:42 AM  

hitlersbrain: Thunderpipes: I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.

You realize the union took deep pay cuts at Hostess while the management gave themselves huge raises? You know that is very, very typical in America today, right? It's time the top 1% learn to be afraid again. Fear is the mother of all morality.


The top 1% aren't the ones out on their ass without a job, now are they?

What is that, the sound of union membership declining? Oh, 40% of MI union members polled said they would leave the union if they could? Those 40% of rank and file workers = the 1%?

Moron.
 
2012-12-12 07:52:11 AM  
People who do not understand the reasons for unions and strikes should not talk about economics, at all.

Yes, unions get out of hand like all organizations, but you don't throw out innovations because they're misused in some cases. Let's stop practicing medicine completely because malpractice exists! Diggity derp!!
 
2012-12-12 07:52:29 AM  

BillCo: So, if some southern town said you had to join the KKK in order to work for the city, that would be OK, right?

There's really no difference. Well, except that unions are more prone to violence than the KKK.


This is what, the 10th time someone has come up with this retarded bs in the same thread???? THIS IS NOT HOW UNIONS WORK YOU DUMB SHIAT. Not now, not ever. You don't want to join a union? Don't get a job at a union company you ignorant dolt. Noone is forcing you to get a job at a union company. Oh, yeah, that's right, the union companies have better wages and benefits for some reason, and you want to leech off of that without having a part in negotiating. Fark off.
 
2012-12-12 07:52:39 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: BillCo: So, if some southern town said you had to join the KKK in order to work for the city, that would be OK, right?

There's really no difference.

This is what teabaggers actually believe.


Their forefathers fought a war to keep people in slavery. Of course they're scum. Sometimes genocide serves a noble purpose. The North should have cleaned up after themselves.
 
2012-12-12 07:52:50 AM  

Lsherm: GAT_00: Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.

Technically in the slide show:

[img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

With the caption:

A man in an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union jacket punches Fox News reporter Steven Crowder in the face outside the pro-Right-to-Work tent of Americans for Prosperity, an organization funded by wealthy private donors.


what was AFP doing there in the middle of the protest anyway? I smell an agent provocateur setup here. they are famous for this kind of shiat.
 
2012-12-12 07:54:27 AM  

video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.


Wow that is word for word what I was going to write
 
2012-12-12 07:54:31 AM  

log_jammin: super_grass: I think you're trying to not get the point and instead is trying to bring up a red herring.

so that DIDN'T happen. Ok then. glad we cleared that up, and you recognize that you are comparing something that actually happened to a hypothetical that hasn't actually occurred outside of your own mind.


Please tell me more about how this reporter "goaded" union members into punching him in the face. Is there a video of the "goading?"
 
2012-12-12 07:56:18 AM  
"He was a plant!"

"I mean, he was provoked and therefore justified!"

So which is it? Can't have it both ways.
 
2012-12-12 07:56:28 AM  

trivial use of my dark powers: I'm of two minds on this:

You shouldn't hit people just for being annoying.

OTOH, I come from a long line of coal miners on both sides of the family and damn near lost a great uncle during the whole Matewan debacle. I know what happened in the mines pre-union. Unions can be irritating but I firmly believe that they are much better than the alternative.

OK, union guys, stop hitting people unless they hit you first.


Only your government can do this.
 
2012-12-12 07:56:43 AM  
It just amazed me how many people are cheering on America's race to the bottom, blind to the fact that lower wages and benefits for their brother workers means less leverage for them too. a receding tide lowers all boats.
 
2012-12-12 07:57:04 AM  

hitlersbrain: HotWingConspiracy: BillCo: So, if some southern town said you had to join the KKK in order to work for the city, that would be OK, right?

There's really no difference.

This is what teabaggers actually believe.

Their forefathers fought a war to keep people in slavery. Of course they're scum. Sometimes genocide serves a noble purpose. The North should have cleaned up after themselves.


So if the South would have won the war, would the noble purpose be to kill off all the abolitionists?

Genocide is noble?

Go away you troll.
 
2012-12-12 07:57:45 AM  

Wise_Guy: "He was a plant!"

"I mean, he was provoked and therefore justified!"

So which is it? Can't have it both ways.


those are two of several possibilities.
 
2012-12-12 07:58:36 AM  

Thunderpipes: hitlersbrain: Thunderpipes: I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.

You realize the union took deep pay cuts at Hostess while the management gave themselves huge raises? You know that is very, very typical in America today, right? It's time the top 1% learn to be afraid again. Fear is the mother of all morality.

The top 1% aren't the ones out on their ass without a job, now are they?

What is that, the sound of union membership declining? Oh, 40% of MI union members polled said they would leave the union if they could? Those 40% of rank and file workers = the 1%?

Moron.


Calling what the 1% do a 'job' is hilarious! They're only 'job' is to make sure they use the massive wealth they stumbled upon to keep others employed.

See how those 40% feel when they're shopping at the company store again and making below poverty wages.

Most people could sit their fat arse on a plush office chair and NOT destroy a massive company. Most of the 1% in America right now should not have jobs.
 
2012-12-12 08:00:33 AM  

Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.

There's the nugget. You're jealous of their success. Your inability to negotiate shouldn't make you hate unions.

Who are the idiots who say individuals somehow can't negotiate with their employers? You never got a raise from asking?


Never said individuals couldn't, just pointing out that you're painfully jealous of their deal. It drives you insane, you think you should be getting that kind of money.

You would not be so pleased if a company or a city forced workers to join a conservative club and pay $1,000 a year to fund George Bush's campaign, and you know it.

This is why you're dumb. You actually, honestly believe that Unions are some hotbeds of liberal activity and have no republicans members. Conservatives made an enemy of unions, so they generally don't benefit from them come election time. You know, like how conservatives hate black people, tell them that all the time, but can't comprehend why they won't vote for their preferred candidates.

You just want taxpayer funded election money for your homeys, nothing more, nothing less. It is time it stops, and the public is waking up.

Herp.

Look at how union employees act. Oh, you are butthurt? Lets cancel school for 26,000 kids

That's how it works. It's kind of like looting a company, then trying to force the staff in to taking 30% pay cuts, then just shutting it down when they tell you to go screw.
 
2012-12-12 08:01:13 AM  

Sm3agol85: BillCo: So, if some southern town said you had to join the KKK in order to work for the city, that would be OK, right?

There's really no difference. Well, except that unions are more prone to violence than the KKK.

This is what, the 10th time someone has come up with this retarded bs in the same thread???? THIS IS NOT HOW UNIONS WORK YOU DUMB SHIAT. Not now, not ever. You don't want to join a union? Don't get a job at a union company you ignorant dolt. Noone is forcing you to get a job at a union company. Oh, yeah, that's right, the union companies have better wages and benefits for some reason, and you want to leech off of that without having a part in negotiating. Fark off.



www.majhost.com
 
2012-12-12 08:02:22 AM  

hitlersbrain: Thunderpipes: hitlersbrain: Thunderpipes: I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.

You realize the union took deep pay cuts at Hostess while the management gave themselves huge raises? You know that is very, very typical in America today, right? It's time the top 1% learn to be afraid again. Fear is the mother of all morality.

The top 1% aren't the ones out on their ass without a job, now are they?

What is that, the sound of union membership declining? Oh, 40% of MI union members polled said they would leave the union if they could? Those 40% of rank and file workers = the 1%?

Moron.

Calling what the 1% do a 'job' is hilarious! They're only 'job' is to make sure they use the massive wealth they stumbled upon to keep others employed.

See how those 40% feel when they're shopping at the company store again and making below poverty wages.

Most people could sit their fat arse on a plush office chair and NOT destroy a massive company. Most of the 1% in America right now should not have jobs.


Now this I actually agree with. Everyone but them pays for their lack of vision and creativity by losing their jobs to massive layoffs.
 
2012-12-12 08:02:48 AM  

Thunderpipes: Oh, 40% of MI union members polled said they would leave the union if they could?


They can at any time. Also, cite a source for that.
 
2012-12-12 08:05:21 AM  

Mr. Right: Interesting thread. Seems the pro-union folks don't really know squat about the laws that were just signed but that doesn't prevent them from ranting on about them.

Neither of these laws; either the one focused on public sector unions or the one focused on private sector unions, prevents anyone from joining a union. Neither does anything to prevent unions from collective bargaining in any company where unions are present. Neither attempts to de-certify a single union. All these laws do is make union membership an option instead of a mandate.

Early in my working career, I was a member of two different labor unions. Even back in the 70s, it was painfully obvious to me that the union did not have my best interest nor the best interest of any worker in the shop at heart. When it was time for contract negotiations, the union reps spent scant time and effort on wages and benefits for workers while spending endless hours fighting for tweaks to contract language that would enhance the union's control over work rules and grievance processes. 40 years ago, it was obvious to me that unions had ceased to care about workers. They cared only about their own power and influence.

Over the years, I managed or consulted with several union shops. During that time I negotiated with locals of UAW, Teamsters, Foundry workers, Machinists' union, and a couple other unions. In every situation, it was abundantly clear to me that I was much more concerned about fair employee compensation and benefits than any union negotiator was. There were numerous instances where a change in work rules would have put more money in workers' pockets but eliminated the reason for grievance procedures that the company wasn't even going to try to challenge. The unions always opted to keep grievance procedures in place to justify the existence of more union stewards and other time and productivity wasting items rather than just agree to pay workers and eliminate the union from the process.

With ...


That sounds to me more like the UAW of the mid-80's and not the mid-70's... My dad was a Union negotiator for UAW in the 70's and 80's. During that time GM was pushing for for changes that would halt wage increases for workers with seniority and lower the wages of starting workers.

Then, sometime in the mid-80's GM figured out that in order to get the contracts they wanted, they had to get a Union president that was on their side. GM financially backed a particular person, can't remember the guy's name off the top of my head, but my dad knew the writing was on the wall. With corporate campaign backing he knew the guy would win and things would change and he was right. After the elections, my dad went back to work in the factory. It wasn't long after that that starting wages at GM were cut in half.

They had a program where family or friends could put in a recommendation for someone to get hired on, and that's how they got a lot of their workforce back then. When i was old enough to get hired on, my dad put in a recommendation and within a couple of weeks i was called in for an interview. By the 90's the wages and benefits for new workers were SO bad, i actually turned down the job because they were starting me out at $9.00/hour at a plant that was over an hours drive away, and no benefits for the first 6 months. The pay cap was $20.00/hour after 10 years, just a couple of dollars an hour more than their starting wages of the 80's. I was making more money as a shift manager at Wendy's than i would have as a GM laborer...

It was just a matter of time before GM and others found a way of completely busting unions... It just got a lot easier when the people who benefited the most from Unions started voting for their Corporate Sponsored Bible, instead of for their own interests and protection...
 
2012-12-12 08:05:40 AM  
Police officers and firefighters are exempted from the right-to-work legislation because of their special collective bargaining rights to prevent strikes.

This is BS.



Weaver95: that said, we're moving away from the topic at hand. I think it's likely that Fox News went there to provoke the union workers in order to catch some footage for their evening news segments...then got more than they expected. now...you can yell at the union workers for that, but you'd damn well better slam fox news reporters for making a tense situation even worse. think you can do that?


I can't.

There are lots of "tense" situations that are made worse by what is protected speech.

I haven't seen the video, but I am guessing he is not in their face shouting "fighting words" and barring that the opinion of what he is doing being reporting, using his protected speech, or "stirring shiat up" is contingent on your point of view.
 
2012-12-12 08:06:44 AM  

Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.


The unions are so attractive, they have to force people to join them and pay dues as a condition of employment in states without right-to-work.

If the unions provide a valuable service, they will be utilized in right-to-work states. The right-to-work laws that allow people to opt out won't be a deterrent.
 
2012-12-12 08:06:49 AM  

Void_Beavis: Genocide is noble?


Do you feel bad about the millions of native Americans white Europeans slaughtered? I doubt it.

What do you do with someone who will fight for slavery? Let them commit even more horrible crimes for another hundred years? The south did terrible things to black people long after the war. Today, they still stand for the most horrid things, threatening to drag the country into the third world. One native American is worth 10 southerners IMO. I think, in a republican 'ends justify the means' kind of way, America would be a much better place if the North had cleaned up the south.
 
2012-12-12 08:08:42 AM  
Make the world a better place, punch a Fox News reporter in the face.
 
2012-12-12 08:09:48 AM  
Interesting thread so far. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that fark's violently rabidly pro-union gimme gimme crowd supports and condones this.  This is the side of liberalism that disgusts me and makes me ashamed to be liberal.
 
2012-12-12 08:11:23 AM  
Yesterday - Change, it's something Republicans can't and won't accept.

Today - Change, it's something Democrats can't and won't accept.
 
2012-12-12 08:11:24 AM  

liam76: Police officers and firefighters are exempted from the right-to-work legislation because of their special collective bargaining rights to prevent strikes.

This is BS.



Weaver95: that said, we're moving away from the topic at hand. I think it's likely that Fox News went there to provoke the union workers in order to catch some footage for their evening news segments...then got more than they expected. now...you can yell at the union workers for that, but you'd damn well better slam fox news reporters for making a tense situation even worse. think you can do that?

I can't.

There are lots of "tense" situations that are made worse by what is protected speech.

I haven't seen the video, but I am guessing he is not in their face shouting "fighting words" and barring that the opinion of what he is doing being reporting, using his protected speech, or "stirring shiat up" is contingent on your point of view.


Not to be nit picky but protected speech prevents the government from retaliating to your speech.

It doesn't neccesarily protect you from getting punched by a private citizen who disagrees with you.

I suggest watching the video. The reporter was definitely trolling the crowd.
 
2012-12-12 08:11:58 AM  

hitlersbrain: Thunderpipes: I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.

You realize the union took deep pay cuts at Hostess while the management gave themselves huge raises? You know that is very, very typical in America today, right? It's time the top 1% learn to be afraid again. Fear is the mother of all morality.


If that's true, the all those years on union dues didn't do those Hostess workers any good after all, did it? As for "fear being the mother of morality"... I gotta say, that doesn't make any sense at all, unless you are particularly religious.
 
2012-12-12 08:12:48 AM  

Thunderpipes: hitlersbrain: Thunderpipes: I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.

You realize the union took deep pay cuts at Hostess while the management gave themselves huge raises? You know that is very, very typical in America today, right? It's time the top 1% learn to be afraid again. Fear is the mother of all morality.

The top 1% aren't the ones out on their ass without a job, now are they?

What is that, the sound of union membership declining? Oh, 40% of MI union members polled said they would leave the union if they could? Those 40% of rank and file workers = the 1%?

Moron.


Why are you championing the supposed right of people making hundreds of times what you make, to enforce third world working conditions on workers, just because they have no other options elsewhere?
And yes, union membership is declining, mostly because the Republican party has made anti-union/anti-worker an actual platform, and their media company has force fed that so hard that being Republican is almost synonymous with anti-union, despite it actually being against the self-interest of most people.

Who are the idiots who say individuals somehow can't negotiate with their employers? You never got a raise from asking?

This is........amazing. You are employee 6572 to most huge companies, you have literally zero negotiating power. Most will tell you, "This is what you're getting; you don't like it, there are 50 people waiting in line." You have nothing else to say, there is nothing else you can do. They can make you work 12 hours a day with no OT, no vacation, no retirement, while feeding all of the profit from all that labor directly into their pocket, and there is nothing you can do but leave. In some places, you have other options, so you can't really get away with this as a company. But what tends to happen is companies that squeeze every last drop out of their employees tend to put companies that actually treat their employees well, out of business, like Walmart. And then they freely get away with treating their employees like crap, because they have the employees by the balls. There is nowhere for them to go, and they can't live without money. In situations like this, you have zero negotiating power, but together, as a whole, a "union" as it were, can get together and tell that company to go fark itself. In the Republican mind, this is a bad thing, because they are the party of the uninformed, voting on the behalf of the unethical, who feed off of the labor of the unfortunate.
 
2012-12-12 08:13:11 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Interesting thread so far. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that fark's violently rabidly pro-union gimme gimme crowd supports and condones this.  This is the side of liberalism that disgusts me and makes me ashamed to be liberal.


You've been conned in to conflating liberalism with unionism.
 
2012-12-12 08:13:29 AM  
I'm confused. I thought being pro choice was good
 
2012-12-12 08:14:32 AM  

xmasbaby: hitlersbrain: Thunderpipes: I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.

You realize the union took deep pay cuts at Hostess while the management gave themselves huge raises? You know that is very, very typical in America today, right? It's time the top 1% learn to be afraid again. Fear is the mother of all morality.

If that's true, the all those years on union dues didn't do those Hostess workers any good after all, did it? As for "fear being the mother of morality"... I gotta say, that doesn't make any sense at all, unless you are particularly religious.


Except for all those years that they enjoyed union wages and benefits you might have a point. IF you can prove that the union wages and benefits was the cause of the company's demise and not bad management.
 
2012-12-12 08:14:44 AM  
As the unionized troopers marched down Capitol Avenue in single file, some union members shouted "traitors" at the officers.

"They need them today - that's why they're being exempted," said Terry Jones, a UAW member who works in General Motors' Delta Township plant. "Those guys are next."


You know, this is exactly how military dictatorships get started. Incentivise the military/police forces to be loyal to the government by giving them special allowances or exemptions from the law. The police caste, now seeing themselves as a separate, higher class of society, then has no problems stomping the lower class peasants into the ground for daring to challenge the establishment. Meanwhile, the ruling class sits back and lights cigars with $100 bills.
 
2012-12-12 08:18:23 AM  
Why not do something else somewhere else? Buncha babies. Rarely have I seen so many people that I thought deserved to be put back through elementary school. Sad bunch but they hopefully will keep paying into the rest of Detrizzle's welfare coffers. There was one guy they kept showing on Channel 2 that literally looked like George Wendt as a superfan. Had a Ditka stache and late 70s era windbreaker that he stole from BB King's bass guitarist lol.
 
2012-12-12 08:18:25 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Oh, 40% of MI union members polled said they would leave the union if they could?

They can at any time. Also, cite a source for that.


ya, they can leave, but they still have to pay dues,.

once again, morons, would you be for unions if they forced employees to fund Republicans?

Nope.

CA alone is over 300 billion underfunded in their pension plans, because of unions. Nationwide that number dwarfs the deficit. How is that working for you? You want free stuff, government funded campaign money, and don't care how much you hurt the country.
 
2012-12-12 08:18:48 AM  

Joe Blowme: I'm confused. I thought being pro choice was good


Sure. As long as you choose what I want.

Hypocrisy is a biatch ain't it?
 
2012-12-12 08:19:57 AM  

Joe Blowme: I'm confused. I thought being pro choice was good


it's always been pro choice. no one is forced to take a union job. and they can quit their job when they please. you just can't obtain the benefits of a union job w/o paying your dues is all.

How well would a business work if paying for their goods/services were a choice? What if your health insurance company had a policy that covered you if you paid your premiums or not,how long would they stay in business?

get real.
 
2012-12-12 08:20:11 AM  

log_jammin: Video of the dude getting punched.

1. He was trolling the crowd.

2. another union member stopped the first guy.


At :35 you can clearly see him push his way into the middle of an article by two other guys. Then there is a cut to a guy pushing him. I wonder what happened in the missing footage? Probably the evidence that he deserved a beating.
 
2012-12-12 08:21:41 AM  

Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Oh, 40% of MI union members polled said they would leave the union if they could?

They can at any time. Also, cite a source for that.

ya, they can leave, but they still have to pay dues,.


No, they can quit whenever they like.

once again, morons, would you be for unions if they forced employees to fund Republicans?

Nobody is forced to fund Democrats. You don't get to torture the word "forced" to make your hack point.

CA alone is over 300 billion underfunded in their pension plans, because of unions. Nationwide that number dwarfs the deficit. How is that working for you? You want free stuff,

Free? They negotiated a contract and performed their end of the bargain. Again, your jealousy shines through.
 
2012-12-12 08:21:43 AM  

Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Oh, 40% of MI union members polled said they would leave the union if they could?

They can at any time. Also, cite a source for that.

ya, they can leave, but they still have to pay dues,.

once again, morons, would you be for unions if they forced employees to fund Republicans?

Nope.


CA alone is over 300 billion underfunded in their pension plans, because of unions. Nationwide that number dwarfs the deficit. How is that working for you? You want free stuff, government funded campaign money, and don't care how much you hurt the country.


bullshiat. you're lying because right now you're supporting the management that spends it's dough on Republicans. Unlimited amounts of untraceable money. And you're behind them 100% to the detriment of your fellow American workers.
 
2012-12-12 08:22:34 AM  
They Never Sleep.
 
2012-12-12 08:24:44 AM  

wombatsrus: [img37.imageshack.us image 640x438]


This made me giggle...



Mr. Right: Interesting thread. Seems the pro-union folks don't really know squat about the laws that were just signed but that doesn't prevent them from ranting on about them.

Neither of these laws; either the one focused on public sector unions or the one focused on private sector unions, prevents anyone from joining a union. Neither does anything to prevent unions from collective bargaining in any company where unions are present. Neither attempts to de-certify a single union. All these laws do is make union membership an option instead of a mandate.


You may or may not agree with the right of unions (a private organization) to come to an agreement with a company (a private organization) on people they employ being a member of the union.

Saying they no longer have that right means people who go to a union shop can get the benefit of unions without having to pay. If you don't see how that will hurt the number of union members and how that will affect their ability to collectively bargain, you are being dishonest or a moron.

I am not going to bother with the rest of your post because if you can't understand that very simple fact, or can't be honest about it there is no point reading what you have to say.
 
2012-12-12 08:25:21 AM  

SlothB77: If the unions provide a valuable service, they will be utilized in right-to-work states. The right-to-work laws that allow people to opt out won't be a deterrent.


Let's see, do I join the union shop, join the union and enjoy the benefits, or do I just skip the join the union part and continue to enjoy the benefits that I now no longer have to pay for, what to do, what to do...

That's how farking stupid you and your scenario are.
 
2012-12-12 08:25:45 AM  

log_jammin: ok. now we just have actual trolling.

I'm out.


I'm confused. Isn't the whole purpose of fark comment section to encourage trolling? If not, it sure seems like it lately.


/subtle jab at mods
 
2012-12-12 08:26:20 AM  

CeroX: It was just a matter of time before GM and others found a way of completely busting unions... It just got a lot easier when the people who benefited the most from Unions started voting for their Corporate Sponsored Bible, instead of for their own interests and protection...


GM busted the union? Is that why UAW got so much stock in GM during the bailout?

Union workers took it in the shorts during the bailout. Not the union. My point is that unions are entirely willing to throw their own members under the bus so long as the union bosses maintain their own power and political clout. I am entirely pro-worker but anti-union.
 
2012-12-12 08:27:15 AM  

Thunderpipes: once again, morons, would you be for unions if they forced employees to fund Republicans?


Show me a conservative group that is working for better wages and workers rights.

Oh wait, you can't, because you're a farking moron and they don't exist.
 
2012-12-12 08:30:15 AM  
By the way, one of the reasons Hostess failed?

Drivers were not allowed by the union to deliver bread products, and snack cakes in the same truck. Had to be two separate trucks. Perfect example of union asshattery.

Bottom line, you guys want free, taxpayer funded money to campaign, and you don't care about quality of work, efficiency, or the education of our children. You are against choice, want people forced to join your cause. That is as unamerican as you can get. MI voters decided this matter already, but you won't let it go, you bus in criminals from all over to whine and biatch.

Wah.
 
2012-12-12 08:31:45 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Oh, 40% of MI union members polled said they would leave the union if they could?

They can at any time. Also, cite a source for that.

ya, they can leave, but they still have to pay dues,.

No, they can quit whenever they like.

once again, morons, would you be for unions if they forced employees to fund Republicans?

Nobody is forced to fund Democrats. You don't get to torture the word "forced" to make your hack point.

CA alone is over 300 billion underfunded in their pension plans, because of unions. Nationwide that number dwarfs the deficit. How is that working for you? You want free stuff,

Free? They negotiated a contract and performed their end of the bargain. Again, your jealousy shines through.


Jealous, of what? 20 years of wasted union dues and an unfunded pension?
 
2012-12-12 08:32:20 AM  

Elandriel: We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.


Yeah.... the a group of the highest paid blue collar workers on the planet is just a kettle about to boil over.

Makes me wonder what is really going on that has them so violent... I always come back to "the mob doesn't want their revenue stream drying up." Rational people don't resort to assault because of some esoteric discussion about labor rights that would not affect them one way or another, and they are already making $30/hour for on a menial job, and there is a payment for their $50k Harley Davidson due next week.

Then again, my wife is a collections officer at a bank and they are constantly foreclosing on people in the "boiler maker" union because they can't like on $80k a year in their welding job, because they keep writing checks at the local internet gambling cafe.... so maybe these people aren't rational. By all means, give them what they want before they kill us all.
 
2012-12-12 08:33:30 AM  

Mr. Right: CeroX: It was just a matter of time before GM and others found a way of completely busting unions... It just got a lot easier when the people who benefited the most from Unions started voting for their Corporate Sponsored Bible, instead of for their own interests and protection...

GM busted the union? Is that why UAW got so much stock in GM during the bailout?

Union workers took it in the shorts during the bailout. Not the union. My point is that unions are entirely willing to throw their own members under the bus so long as the union bosses maintain their own power and political clout. I am entirely pro-worker but anti-union.


No not saying they were busted, i probably could have worded that better... and i for the most part i agree with you about the corruption and being pro-worker... I was just sharing personal experience... and how that experience seemed to line up chronologically to the mid-80's rather than in the 70's as you described it...
 
2012-12-12 08:33:42 AM  

StrangeQ: Thunderpipes: once again, morons, would you be for unions if they forced employees to fund Republicans?

Show me a conservative group that is working for better wages and workers rights.

Oh wait, you can't, because you're a farking moron and they don't exist.


I think you missed his point. While forced union members may be all about workers rights, they may also have a stronger moral stance for being anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage.

So their moral dilemma here is to have their pay and benifits held hostage for funding a social liberal agenda.

I'm not saying I'm pro or anti abortion or gay here. All I'm saying is that the OP makes a valid point.
 
2012-12-12 08:33:48 AM  

Thunderpipes: By the way, one of the reasons Hostess failed?

Drivers were not allowed by the union to deliver bread products, and snack cakes in the same truck. Had to be two separate trucks. Perfect example of union asshattery.

Bottom line, you guys want free, taxpayer funded money to campaign, and you don't care about quality of work, efficiency, or the education of our children. You are against choice, want people forced to join your cause. That is as unamerican as you can get. MI voters decided this matter already, but you won't let it go, you bus in criminals from all over to whine and biatch.

Wah.


Holy shiat you are farking dumb. As in, not a single rational or intelligent thought even once passes through your mind before you decide to spew out your opinion for all the world to see. Why don't you go sit in the farking corner and really think about what you're saying.

/so many ignorant trolls to add to the ignore list from this thread
 
2012-12-12 08:34:09 AM  
unions relevant as buggy whips
 
2012-12-12 08:34:29 AM  
What do you think is going to happen when you take what little security working people and their families have so that you can give a little more comfort to those who have all the comfort in the world already?
 
2012-12-12 08:35:14 AM  
Interesting thing that is being missed here is that it looks like Fox News has just basically hired themselves a Fred Phelps.

Google Steven Crowder and you can see some of his other "journalism" in action. A whole lot of cherry picking and editing (a la the rest of Fox News) but now they are working the "I'm just using my First Amendment rights and I am being persecuted for it" angle.

Fox News fans should not be upset that you are watching edited propaganda trying to pass off as journalism. You should be upset you are supporting a bunch of hypocritical pussies.
 
2012-12-12 08:35:32 AM  

Thunderpipes: By the way, one of the reasons Hostess failed?

Drivers were not allowed by the union to deliver bread products, and snack cakes in the same truck.


Yeah, that's it. Go with that.
 
2012-12-12 08:35:38 AM  
Union members in Michigan engage in polite discussion with those who have an opposing viewpoint. Just kidding, they beat a Fox News reporter, sucker punch him, then collapse a tent on top of women and old people


According to TFA, basically none of that happened in the way idiotmitter presents it. Basically, a couple of protestors among thousands knocked over a tent and pulled an officer into the crowd before being pepper sprayed.

StrangeQ: That's how farking stupid you and your scenario are.


He's not stupid. He's a viciously dishonest liar. He, and all the other supporters of these union-busting measures, no damn well what's going to happen. That's the point. The unions will continue to exist briefly while a bunch of freeloaders enjoy the benefits without paying the costs until eventually the benefits can no longer be provided because there isn't funding and the union collapses.

These bills exist exclusively to collapse unions so that wealthy owners are better able to abuse and exploit their workers for even more personal gain. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's like having a store where you only have to pay if you want to. It will work until the novelty wears off and then people will overwhelm it taking free food until it collapses.

To call Sloth stupid misses the point. He's not stupid. He just hates anybody who isn't wealthy and feels its entirely unfair . Displaced by about 150 years and he'd be screaming his fool head off about how unfair to the plantation owner it is that slavery was abolished.
 
2012-12-12 08:36:55 AM  

xmasbaby: Jealous, of what? 20 years of wasted union dues and an unfunded pension?


You keep repeating this because you need it to be true. It's not, and you're jealous of their success. Don't worry about other people's money unless they have less than you.
 
2012-12-12 08:37:12 AM  
I disagree with this law, and how it was passed, however unions shouldn't be able to require people who work in a union shop to pay for their "political" actions, and you shoudl never be forced to join a union on a public job.
 
2012-12-12 08:37:51 AM  

Void_Beavis: StrangeQ: Thunderpipes: once again, morons, would you be for unions if they forced employees to fund Republicans?

Show me a conservative group that is working for better wages and workers rights.

Oh wait, you can't, because you're a farking moron and they don't exist.

I think you missed his point. While forced union members may be all about workers rights, they may also have a stronger moral stance for being anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage.

So their moral dilemma here is to have their pay and benifits held hostage for funding a social liberal agenda.

I'm not saying I'm pro or anti abortion or gay here. All I'm saying is that the OP makes a valid point.


No, he wasn't thinking that far into it. I really don't think he is capable. His point was the simple and laughable "LAWL LIBRULS WULDN"T GIVE MONIES TO A REPUBLICAN WULD THEY??" To which to answer is a simple yes, they would, if the republican was taking a stance supporting their rights for once instead of feeding the 1%.
 
2012-12-12 08:41:45 AM  

StrangeQ: Void_Beavis: StrangeQ: Thunderpipes: once again, morons, would you be for unions if they forced employees to fund Republicans?

Show me a conservative group that is working for better wages and workers rights.

Oh wait, you can't, because you're a farking moron and they don't exist.

I think you missed his point. While forced union members may be all about workers rights, they may also have a stronger moral stance for being anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage.

So their moral dilemma here is to have their pay and benifits held hostage for funding a social liberal agenda.

I'm not saying I'm pro or anti abortion or gay here. All I'm saying is that the OP makes a valid point.

No, he wasn't thinking that far into it. I really don't think he is capable. His point was the simple and laughable "LAWL LIBRULS WULDN"T GIVE MONIES TO A REPUBLICAN WULD THEY??" To which to answer is a simple yes, they would, if the republican was taking a stance supporting their rights for once instead of feeding the 1%.


Which is why I hate our two party system.

You can't actually vote for the person who best represents your interests.
 
2012-12-12 08:44:44 AM  
[Dynamite Monkey.jpg]

When you run with the bulls, don't be surprised if you get gored.

/Or Gored, if this were some kind of climate change protest.
 
2012-12-12 08:45:04 AM  

Thunderpipes: By the way, one of the reasons Hostess failed?

Drivers were not allowed by the union to deliver bread products, and snack cakes in the same truck. Had to be two separate trucks. Perfect example of union asshattery.

Bottom line, you guys want free, taxpayer funded money to campaign, and you don't care about quality of work, efficiency, or the education of our children. You are against choice, want people forced to join your cause. That is as unamerican as you can get. MI voters decided this matter already, but you won't let it go, you bus in criminals from all over to whine and biatch.

Wah.


Yeah.......that's the reason they had to raid pension funds of millions of dollars to keep the company going while giving their management millions of dollars in bonuses. Holy fark you are stupid.
 
2012-12-12 08:46:07 AM  

Mr. Right: All these laws do is make union membership an option instead of a mandate.


As usual, the conservative spin is the exact opposite of reality. No one is ever legally mandated to join a union. However, RTW does initiate government force to legally dictate that the union shop employer-employee contractual relationship is off limits.
 
2012-12-12 08:46:44 AM  

liam76: You may or may not agree with the right of unions (a private organization) to come to an agreement with a company (a private organization) on people they employ being a member of the union.

Saying they no longer have that right means people who go to a union shop can get the benefit of unions without having to pay. If you don't see how that will hurt the number of union members and how that will affect their ability to collectively bargain, you are being dishonest or a moron.


Why don't you point out to me exactly how sending a couple hours' wages per month to a national union that spends a majority of that dues money on political activities that have absolutely no bearing on negotiations with the company that employs me benefits me? And then point out how not sending in that money would hinder a collective bargaining process that is going to end up being mostly local?

I have been involved in too many non-union companies that actually have employee committees that negotiate with management for wages and benefits and which, effectively, perform all the activities of collective bargaining without a dollar of union dues to believe that unions are needed by anyone in this country except the DNC.

If unions are really that valuable, have them negotiate a contract that only covers union members and allow companies to pay non-union workers whatever they want. Once companies realize that, they can force employees to work for minimum wage unless they join the union. Or unless companies realize the value of the employee without a collective bargaining agreement and pay them accordingly with or without union membership.

When I was a member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, the union stood in the way of advancement and raises for me because seniority dictated that employees less skillful and less productive be paid more. The union actually refused to negotiate for higher wages for employees because the bargaining unit members were afraid it would jeopardize their ability to negotiate contract language requiring more company-paid time for union stewards to do nothing. I remain unimpressed with unions' idea of collective bargaining.
 
2012-12-12 08:47:44 AM  

Void_Beavis: StrangeQ: Void_Beavis: StrangeQ: Thunderpipes: once again, morons, would you be for unions if they forced employees to fund Republicans?

Show me a conservative group that is working for better wages and workers rights.

Oh wait, you can't, because you're a farking moron and they don't exist.

I think you missed his point. While forced union members may be all about workers rights, they may also have a stronger moral stance for being anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage.

So their moral dilemma here is to have their pay and benifits held hostage for funding a social liberal agenda.

I'm not saying I'm pro or anti abortion or gay here. All I'm saying is that the OP makes a valid point.

No, he wasn't thinking that far into it. I really don't think he is capable. His point was the simple and laughable "LAWL LIBRULS WULDN"T GIVE MONIES TO A REPUBLICAN WULD THEY??" To which to answer is a simple yes, they would, if the republican was taking a stance supporting their rights for once instead of feeding the 1%.

Which is why I hate our two party system.

You can't actually vote for the person who best represents your interests.


Sadly, yes. Even if I agreed with a lot of Republican principles (I do) I could never in good conscious vote for one because the rest of their positions are so batshiat insane that you have to have the mentality of some of the trolls in this thread to make yourself believe that there is some sort of redeeming logic to them.
 
2012-12-12 08:49:50 AM  

CeroX: I was just sharing personal experience... and how that experience seemed to line up chronologically to the mid-80's rather than in the 70's as you described it...


I was a union member in the 70s and that's when I developed a distaste. But you're correct in the problems that developed in the 80s in the UAW. That's when the Japanese first entered the U.S. auto market in force and destroyed the unsustainable business model that the Big Three and the UAW had jointly forged since WW II.
 
2012-12-12 08:50:50 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: xmasbaby: Jealous, of what? 20 years of wasted union dues and an unfunded pension?

You keep repeating this because you need it to be true. It's not, and you're jealous of their success. Don't worry about other people's money unless they have less than you.


I don't view public and government unions as huge success that you do. They get promised a bunch of money that is not actually there, and devise all sorts of silly requirements ensuring that they are "needed" when they aren't needed at all. They protect the wort employees and stifle the best.

I think you should be able to teach school or drive a bus without having to join a union if you don't want to. I think if unions actually do offer employees a benefit, then you shouldn't have to be forced to join one and that membership should be optional.
 
2012-12-12 08:50:54 AM  

liam76: wombatsrus: [img37.imageshack.us image 640x438]

This made me giggle...



Mr. Right: Interesting thread. Seems the pro-union folks don't really know squat about the laws that were just signed but that doesn't prevent them from ranting on about them.

Neither of these laws; either the one focused on public sector unions or the one focused on private sector unions, prevents anyone from joining a union. Neither does anything to prevent unions from collective bargaining in any company where unions are present. Neither attempts to de-certify a single union. All these laws do is make union membership an option instead of a mandate.

You may or may not agree with the right of unions (a private organization) to come to an agreement with a company (a private organization) on people they employ being a member of the union.

Saying they no longer have that right means people who go to a union shop can get the benefit of unions without having to pay. If you don't see how that will hurt the number of union members and how that will affect their ability to collectively bargain, you are being dishonest or a moron.

I am not going to bother with the rest of your post because if you can't understand that very simple fact, or can't be honest about it there is no point reading what you have to say.


This sums up the major problem with discussing unions. So few critics are arguing in good faith about unions, it's damn hard to rationally discuss where unions fall short, and how to improve that. If they're ideologically positioned against unions in the first place, we get stuck in the same discussion over and over.
 
2012-12-12 08:52:57 AM  

LordJiro: david_gaithersburg: LordJiro: david_gaithersburg: Freedom and democracy, the two things so called progressives fear the most.

People who actually work for a living: One of many things Republicans can't stand.
.
.
blah, blah, blah The Republicans are the one's passing laws allowing people to work, the unions are fighting to prevent people from working at workplaces that have a union unles they pay shake down money. I have many friends with small companies that have been kicked off of jobs because their 3-4 man company wasn't paying dues to union lawyers.

Fark you buddy.

FTFY. You're free to work a non-union job. But if your workplace has a union and you aren't a part of it, you're a parasite. Unless, of course, you sign a waiver preventing yourself from receiving the wages and benefits a union negotiates for.


No Waiver needed. I've worked all my life in non union jobs. I've never been privy to what the other workers around me make. That's between them and the employer. The point being - this idea that you will get paid the union rates when you are non-union, IS THE BIGGEST RED HERRING BULLSHIAT in the whole debate. If they can differentiate between me and the next guy, they can differentiate between the union and the rest of us. Seen it happen. Memo's about benefits, etc would come out and all were clearly labeled that they only applied to those not represented by contracts.

The idea that everyone in the same shop, or at the same level is automatically gonna get the union rates is monkey-brained imagination. There is no guarantee of that, whatsoever. What I get paid is between me and the company, and not determined by what others, or another group negotiates. Happens all the time.

This is the story that unions tell members in order to hold power over them. I support union's legitimate rights, the right to assemble, and compare notes on their conditions, and to collectively bargain. This is not one of those rights.

Unions represent workers like politicians represent people. And the centralizing of power has the same corrupting effect on either.
 
2012-12-12 08:53:41 AM  
I'm completely OK with punching Fox News reporters.
 
2012-12-12 08:54:35 AM  

mittromneysdog: As usual, the conservative spin is the exact opposite of reality. No one is ever legally mandated to join a union.


In a closed shop - which is the norm for union shops in Michigan up to this point - you either join the union or you are no longer employed there. So yes, one can be legally mandated to join a union if you work in a union shop. You don't have to join a union if you don't work in a union shop.
 
2012-12-12 09:00:41 AM  
Organizing Workers = Terrorism

/ Just a matter of time
 
2012-12-12 09:05:26 AM  
Solution:

Review Citizens United case and strike down unlimited corporate "free speech" at the same time expand the definition of corporation to include labor unions (labor union being an organization that utilizes organized labor as a product in the free market)

Trade unions rock, I would never want my house worked on by an electrician that is not a member of their union, but striking union workers should not be shocked when they are fired and replaced.

Finally the "wealthy" bosses for a lot of smaller manufacturing companies (think Jayco, Dexter Axle etc) in general put a lot on the line to start their company. I started a medical device business that failed and I lost everything and currently rebuilding. Now, large corporations? don't care, unions do what you want. The workers get screwed either way by their union or their company.

Finally, public employee unions should be outlawed. The negotiations regarding salary and contract are taking place between two parties who have zero fiduciary or budgetary obligation and no implied risk of market correction. There is also a hefty bit of extortion and racketeering involved in the process. My father served many years on the local school board and the chief negotiator for the school corporation was the principal who, by being an administrator in education, was also a member of the union and would garner whatever benefits he gave up to the teachers union. Public employee unions and their negotations with government officials are like two pigs arguing over who gets to spend the most time at an ever refilling trough (trough being the taxpayers)
 
2012-12-12 09:09:32 AM  
i45.tinypic.com

Q&D...

/Damn commie-libtard Republican icons...
 
2012-12-12 09:10:18 AM  

manimal2878: log_jammin: Video of the dude getting punched.

1. He was trolling the crowd.

2. another union member stopped the first guy.

At :35 you can clearly see him push his way into the middle of an article by two other guys. Then there is a cut to a guy pushing him. I wonder what happened in the missing footage? Probably the evidence that he deserved a beating.



It seems like you and I are the only ones noticing this very important detail that likely changes the entire story 180 degrees??
 
2012-12-12 09:11:29 AM  
Violence is never the answer in situations like this, but its not like Fox is some innocent 'fair and balanced' news agency just reporting the facts. You know that they're their to catch your people making dumb quotes that they'll creatively snip to put on the air. You know that Fox is actively trying to destroy you and your way of life, so while its never the answer in situations like this.. I can understand and somewhat support it.

Also, secretly plotting the demise of unions, for the soul purpose of hurting the Democratic party and their fundraising efforts going forward is the sort of 'war' that needs to be addressed and not glossed over as 'politics'. It seems like a majority of the Republican party is trying to turn us into a one-party country via gerrymandering, voter id laws, voter intimidation and long voting lines. Fox is lucky they're only throwing punches so far.

It amazes me how quickly we've forgotten what it was like in pre-union America, and I generally don't support unions.
 
2012-12-12 09:14:59 AM  
Can we just make attacking someone at a political rally a federal hate crime, with the associated sentencing and just put an end to this madness?
 
2012-12-12 09:15:42 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-12 09:15:51 AM  
****NEWSFLASH****

People get upset when you attack their livelihood and how they provide for their families. More at 11!
 
2012-12-12 09:20:29 AM  

s1ugg0: ****NEWSFLASH****

People get upset when you attack their livelihood and how they provide for their families. More at 11!


By giving them more choices? How is that? All dues are is kick back for having a job, like a protection racket or something. Like a job tax, how quaint.
 
2012-12-12 09:25:17 AM  

Joe Blowme: s1ugg0: ****NEWSFLASH****

People get upset when you attack their livelihood and how they provide for their families. More at 11!

By giving them more choices? How is that? All dues are is kick back for having a job, like a protection racket or something. Like a job tax, how quaint.


www.themistermen.co.uk
"The Story of Joe Blowme"
 
2012-12-12 09:29:42 AM  

newsjunkie: Can we just make attacking someone at a political rally a federal hate crime


No.
 
2012-12-12 09:30:09 AM  
Ahh, standard liberal hypocrisy.

The same people who fight for "hate crime" legislation to prevent/punish violence against any particular group they embrace are more than happy to support/encourage/participate in violence against those groups they disagree with.
 
2012-12-12 09:33:22 AM  

Joe Blowme: s1ugg0: ****NEWSFLASH****

People get upset when you attack their livelihood and how they provide for their families. More at 11!

By giving them more choices? How is that? All dues are is kick back for having a job, like a protection racket or something. Like a job tax, how quaint.


Don't play dumb. Everyone knows what this is about. Go check the average salary in a state with a "right to work" law and then one without. Spoiler alert. The states with "choices" have much lower salaries and people with health insurance.

You right wingers are not fooling anyone but yourselves.
 
2012-12-12 09:34:27 AM  
Hate to say it, union or not, but the giant sucking noise is our jobs going overseas for cheaper labor due to corporate greed.

Both union and non union are powerless if there are no jobs.
 
2012-12-12 09:35:51 AM  

SubBass49: Joe Blowme: s1ugg0: ****NEWSFLASH****

People get upset when you attack their livelihood and how they provide for their families. More at 11!

By giving them more choices? How is that? All dues are is kick back for having a job, like a protection racket or something. Like a job tax, how quaint.

[www.themistermen.co.uk image 300x273]
"The Story of Joe Blowme"


Ahhh, when your position is too weak to withstand debate, counter with inane cartoons.
Whats next? I know you are but what am i?
 
2012-12-12 09:36:14 AM  
Late to the thread, but it's unusual that the punch happens right after cut footage, and the union guy is picking himself up beforehand. Seems almost as if there was some other form of altercation right beforehand, but it wasn't as easy to spin as "LOOK AT THE UNIONS ATTACKING ME!"

My guess? This prick was trolling people, got into a close shouting match, and pushed the union dude backwards. Then got punched in the jaw. Seems fitting.
 
2012-12-12 09:36:49 AM  

kvinesknows: so... the people protesting are simply protesting because they dont like their right to be able to force other people to join them being removed?

Are these people americans or communists?


I sound fat: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

YEAH! screw those people who want a right to work without being forced to pay to be in your club!


Yeah, except no.
Here's the thing: Unions generally argue and negotiate with companies for better working conditions and salaries. Most likely, companies will roll out changes to all workers, not just union ones, because it would be a bigger hassle to ID and make changes only to union workers, while leaving non-union workers behind.
Now, hiring people to run the union, such as professionals in negotiation, employment law, and the like, costs money. This is paid for by union dues. Without them, the union is starved, and eventually can end up with not enough power to negotiate, leading to stagnant working conditions or salaries across the board. Some people may be able to negotiate on their own for better pay, but most people won't be able to on their own.
By having non-union workers receive the same benefits from the efforts of the union without paying, it's eventually going to cause them to be unable to do their jobs, which is negotiate for better pay, working conditions, and the like for workers.
By removing the requirement for people to pay into the union, it slowly starves it, until the workers cannot mass negotiate due to lack of funds and professional talent.
 
2012-12-12 09:41:12 AM  

Maximum Snark: Why do all of this in a close door session and do it as fast as possible (the fastest a bill has ever been passed in Michigan history btw)?


Huh? It was read into the record in January 2011.

23 months to pass isn't fast.
 
2012-12-12 09:43:20 AM  
Simple:

A.)
You choose to have fewer workers who enjoy higher, inflated, uncompetitive wages. More unemployment, more government dependence = More Democratic Voters

B.) You choose to have competitive wages and more people employed, more people with the dignity of a job. Less unemployment, less government dependence = Fewer Democratic Voters

Which is why President Obama said on Monday. "These so-called right-to-work laws don't have anything to do with economics - they have everything to do with politics".

Yes they do Sir, yes they do.
 
2012-12-12 09:44:36 AM  

Pichu0102: kvinesknows: so... the people protesting are simply protesting because they dont like their right to be able to force other people to join them being removed?

Are these people americans or communists?

I sound fat: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

YEAH! screw those people who want a right to work without being forced to pay to be in your club!

Yeah, except no.
Here's the thing: Unions generally argue and negotiate with companies for better working conditions and salaries. Most likely, companies will roll out changes to all workers, not just union ones, because it would be a bigger hassle to ID and make changes only to union workers, while leaving non-union workers behind.
Now, hiring people to run the union, such as professionals in negotiation, employment law, and the like, costs money. This is paid for by union dues. Without them, the union is starved, and eventually can end up with not enough power to negotiate, leading to stagnant working conditions or salaries across the board. Some people may be able to negotiate on their own for better pay, but most people won't be able to on their own.
By having non-union workers receive the same benefits from the efforts of the union without paying, it's eventually going to cause them to be unable to do their jobs, which is negotiate for better pay, working conditions, and the like for workers.
By removing the requirement for people to pay into the union, it slowly starves it, until the workers cannot mass negotiate due to lack of funds and professional talent.


You make a very good case and you seem to be one of the more reasonable posters in this thread.

The only thing I might add here is the small but relevant fact that union dues are also factored into compensation negotiations. Therefore, technically, the employees aren't paying to be a member of the union. The company is.
 
2012-12-12 09:50:58 AM  

s1ugg0: Joe Blowme: s1ugg0: ****NEWSFLASH****

People get upset when you attack their livelihood and how they provide for their families. More at 11!

By giving them more choices? How is that? All dues are is kick back for having a job, like a protection racket or something. Like a job tax, how quaint.

Don't play dumb. Everyone knows what this is about. Go check the average salary in a state with a "right to work" law and then one without. Spoiler alert. The states with "choices" have much lower salariesunemployment and people with Obamacare health insurance


You right wingers are not fooling anyone but yourselves.

FTFY
 
2012-12-12 09:52:16 AM  

Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.


Are you too lazy to negotiate for yourself? Can't you just get mommy to do it?

No law went up banning the right to organize. A law went up stating workers don't have to associate with others unless they want to. Unions exist in right to work states.

No rights have been removed. Only the truly ignorant believe that.
 
2012-12-12 09:54:54 AM  

MilesTeg: Ahh, standard liberal hypocrisy.

The same people who fight for "hate crime" legislation to prevent/punish violence against any particular group they embrace are more than happy to support/encourage/participate in violence against those groups they disagree with.



Ah, standard foxnut false equivalency.
 
2012-12-12 09:55:13 AM  
We are on our way to slavery. If you dont like that, remove the ones who are about to own you. Or be ready to work for walmart for less than it cost to live.
 
2012-12-12 09:58:41 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: When people's livelihoods are on the line, don't expect them to give up without a fight. Gun-waving Rascal-bound retarded Randroids should at the very least possess enough capacity for human empathy to understand that.

But they don't. Hence tardmitter, or more likely trollmitter.


Everybody who is not unionized is destitute. Ignorance abounds.
 
2012-12-12 10:00:23 AM  

MyRandomName: Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.

Are you too lazy to negotiate for yourself? Can't you just get mommy to do it?

No law went up banning the right to organize. A law went up stating workers don't have to associate with others unless they want to. Unions exist in right to work states.

No rights have been removed. Only the truly ignorant believe that.

As evidenced in this thread
 
2012-12-12 10:01:05 AM  

Pichu0102: kvinesknows: so... the people protesting are simply protesting because they dont like their right to be able to force other people to join them being removed?

Are these people americans or communists?

I sound fat: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

YEAH! screw those people who want a right to work without being forced to pay to be in your club!

Yeah, except no.
Here's the thing: Unions generally argue and negotiate with companies for better working conditions and salaries. Most likely, companies will roll out changes to all workers, not just union ones, because it would be a bigger hassle to ID and make changes only to union workers, while leaving non-union workers behind.
Now, hiring people to run the union, such as professionals in negotiation, employment law, and the like, costs money. This is paid for by union dues. Without them, the union is starved, and eventually can end up with not enough power to negotiate, leading to stagnant working conditions or salaries across the board. Some people may be able to negotiate on their own for better pay, but most people won't be able to on their own.
By having non-union workers receive the same benefits from the efforts of the union without paying, it's eventually going to cause them to be unable to do their jobs, which is negotiate for better pay, working conditions, and the like for workers.
By removing the requirement for people to pay into the union, it slowly starves it, until the workers cannot mass negotiate due to lack of funds and professional talent.


wrong. the workers can ALWAYS mass negotiate, even without a union

but.. who the fark wants to mass negotiate? I actually want to be rewarded for the fact that I work harder then my fellow employee. why would I want a 2% raise, if I can bust my ass and get a 8%?
 
2012-12-12 10:04:26 AM  
In no way, shape or form, is this hurting the workers of a union...I really don't see what all the fuss is about. If anything they should be happy about this.

If they are good workers in a good union that provides the way they should, then great!

If they are good workers in a bad union who do not provide for the workers, then great!

Personally it's time to move on....Michigan as a state needs to move on, obviously the way things were are not working.
 
2012-12-12 10:07:13 AM  
Because I guess people should meekly acquiesce to having their jobs taken away, subby?



"Villeins ye are, and villeins ye shall remain."


"As far as I'm concerned, happy campers you are, and happy campers you always shall be."
 
2012-12-12 10:07:33 AM  
Between 1977-08, employment grew 100% in right-to-work states vs. the national average of 71% and 56.5% in non-right-to-work states. That's according to a January study that Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder did for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

In this period, real per capita income in the right-to-work states grew 62.3% vs. the national average of 54.7% and 52.8% for non-right-to-work states.

the bottom 14 states for personal income growth (between 1999 and 2009) are all non-right-to- work states

Link
 
2012-12-12 10:09:00 AM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: Because I guess people should meekly acquiesce to having their jobs taken away, subby?



"Villeins ye are, and villeins ye shall remain."


"As far as I'm concerned, happy campers you are, and happy campers you always shall be."


You really don't know what's going on do you...
 
2012-12-12 10:09:53 AM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: Because I guess people should meekly acquiesce to having TO PAY FOR A JOB IN KICK BACKS TO THE UNION their jobs taken away, subby?



"Villeins ye are, and villeins ye shall remain."


"As far as I'm concerned, happy campers you are, and happy campers you always shall be."


FTFY
 
2012-12-12 10:10:41 AM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: Because I guess people should meekly acquiesce to having their jobs taken away, subby?


Should people meekly acquiesce to having their money taken away?

You know, what the Racket calls "taxation"?
 
2012-12-12 10:11:33 AM  

Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.


Labor organizers are being murdered and disappeared in Colombia, Honduras and Guatemala today, with US corporate connivance.
 
2012-12-12 10:13:42 AM  

Weaver95: violentsalvation: Some people don't want to participate in your little scam, you stupid unions.

this has nothing to do with unions. want someone to blame? yell at the GOP. their dirty tricks created this mess. of COURSE it was gonna turn ugly. what did you expect would happen?

i'm not condoning violence but I am saying that this entire disaster was easily avoidable.


The legislative process is a dirty trick when we lose!

The people voted. Unions lost 58 to 42 on the union bills. Elections have consequences. This was a larger margin than Obama, yet you claim he won the powers of a dictator.

Not shocking you are wrong yet again.
 
2012-12-12 10:15:36 AM  

papatex: In no way, shape or form, is this hurting the workers of a union...I really don't see what all the fuss is about. If anything they should be happy about this.

If they are good workers in a good union that provides the way they should, then great!

If they are good workers in a bad union who do not provide for the workers, then great!

Personally it's time to move on....Michigan as a state needs to move on, obviously the way things were are not working.


They're not working, but not for the reasons you're inferring.

Look I'm no socialist. I'm as free market as they come. However we have a situation where corporate profit is at an all time high, workers are hundreds of times more productive than they were 50 years ago, but wages have stagnated at 1970s levels.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's something wrong with that equation. And it starts by looking at who we have elected and the policies they've promoted.
 
2012-12-12 10:17:27 AM  

log_jammin: violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,

part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.


Nothing you said is right. A worker in an open shop can choose the union pay package or negotiate on their own. I have worked in open shops. Union workers can make more or less than other workers who are not union. Employees have a choice.

If the shop distributes union pay to non union workers, the costs unions use to negotiate is taken from the non union, but all other union costs such as politic budgets are not.
 
2012-12-12 10:20:52 AM  

Void_Beavis: papatex: In no way, shape or form, is this hurting the workers of a union...I really don't see what all the fuss is about. If anything they should be happy about this.

If they are good workers in a good union that provides the way they should, then great!

If they are good workers in a bad union who do not provide for the workers, then great!

Personally it's time to move on....Michigan as a state needs to move on, obviously the way things were are not working.

They're not working, but not for the reasons you're inferring.

Look I'm no socialist. I'm as free market as they come (im not racist, i have a black friend). However we have a situation where corporate profit is at an all time high, workers are hundreds of times more productive than they were 50 years ago, but wages have stagnated at 1970s levels.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's something wrong with that equation. And it starts by looking at who we have elected and the policies they've promoted.


Or start your own business and pay your employees what you want.
 
2012-12-12 10:20:53 AM  

Joe Blowme: Between 1977-08, employment grew 100% in right-to-work states vs. the national average of 71% and 56.5% in non-right-to-work states. That's according to a January study that Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder did for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

In this period, real per capita income in the right-to-work states grew 62.3% vs. the national average of 54.7% and 52.8% for non-right-to-work states.

the bottom 14 states for personal income growth (between 1999 and 2009) are all non-right-to- work states

Link


Income growth is not the same as income level. If I make $0, then I make $.01, that's a growth of 100%.

Working at Walmart is hardly a "liveable" income. However when we gut social services and extend benifits to corporations that ship jobs elsewhere, people have little choice but to work at Walmart.
 
2012-12-12 10:26:39 AM  
Not reading the whole thread but has anyone pointed out that he deserves to be punched over shiat like this?

staying-celibate-before-marriage-was-best-thing-ive-ever-done

In the article he sits there and blasts anyone that has sex before marriage. Seriously this dude is a judgmental asshole.
 
2012-12-12 10:27:03 AM  

HakunaMatata: People should punch Fox news reporters every single chance they get.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-12 10:27:15 AM  

kimmygibblershomework: Why not do something else somewhere else? Buncha babies. Rarely have I seen so many people that I thought deserved to be put back through elementary school. Sad bunch but they hopefully will keep paying into the rest of Detrizzle's welfare coffers. There was one guy they kept showing on Channel 2 that literally looked like George Wendt as a superfan. Had a Ditka stache and late 70s era windbreaker that he stole from BB King's bass guitarist lol.


why do you hate bass guitarists? 

bass face ftw
 
2012-12-12 10:28:42 AM  

Void_Beavis: Joe Blowme: Between 1977-08, employment grew 100% in right-to-work states vs. the national average of 71% and 56.5% in non-right-to-work states. That's according to a January study that Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder did for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

In this period, real per capita income in the right-to-work states grew 62.3% vs. the national average of 54.7% and 52.8% for non-right-to-work states.

the bottom 14 states for personal income growth (between 1999 and 2009) are all non-right-to- work states

Link

Income growth is not the same as income level. If I make $0, then I make $.01, that's a growth of 100%.

Working at Walmart is hardly a "liveable" income. However when we gut social services and extend benifits to corporations that ship jobs elsewhere, people have little choice but to work at Walmart.


So if you can do better, start your own "wallmart" business and pay employees all you want... or just sit their and arm chair quarterback those who actualy are runing businesses. Or are you just too selfish to share you business genius with the world?
 
2012-12-12 10:33:10 AM  
That's some civility there, Democrats.
 
2012-12-12 10:33:55 AM  

Joe Blowme: Void_Beavis: papatex: In no way, shape or form, is this hurting the workers of a union...I really don't see what all the fuss is about. If anything they should be happy about this.

If they are good workers in a good union that provides the way they should, then great!

If they are good workers in a bad union who do not provide for the workers, then great!

Personally it's time to move on....Michigan as a state needs to move on, obviously the way things were are not working.

They're not working, but not for the reasons you're inferring.

Look I'm no socialist. I'm as free market as they come (im not racist, i have a black friend). However we have a situation where corporate profit is at an all time high, workers are hundreds of times more productive than they were 50 years ago, but wages have stagnated at 1970s levels.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's something wrong with that equation. And it starts by looking at who we have elected and the policies they've promoted.

Or start your own business and pay your employees what you want.


That's true but that has nothing to do with the point I've just made.

I'm not sure you're logically thinking about this.

Let me try another way. I'll quote Bank of America CEO, Brian Moynihan if it helps:

"We need regulation. Good regulation helps to ensure a free market by making sure everyone is playing by the same rules."

Now I want you to stop and think about that statement. Basically without rules, we wouldn't have a free market or competition. Here we have the CEO of one of the largest banks on earth promoting "good" regulation.

So what happened to the regulation that protected the relationship of the company to its workers to ensure proper work / compensation / security?

I can tell you what happened to it. Although something tells me you might cover your ears and sing loudly when I do.
 
2012-12-12 10:37:14 AM  
if you make union membership voluntary rather then forced, it makes the union responsible to the workers, not the workers responsible to the union

the union HAS to listen to all the workers and has to come to some accommodation with them if it wants their money
 
2012-12-12 10:38:57 AM  

Void_Beavis: Joe Blowme: Between 1977-08, employment grew 100% in right-to-work states vs. the national average of 71% and 56.5% in non-right-to-work states. That's according to a January study that Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder did for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

In this period, real per capita income in the right-to-work states grew 62.3% vs. the national average of 54.7% and 52.8% for non-right-to-work states.

the bottom 14 states for personal income growth (between 1999 and 2009) are all non-right-to- work states

Link

Income growth is not the same as income level. If I make $0, then I make $.01, that's a growth of 100%.

Working at Walmart is hardly a "liveable" income. However when we gut social services and extend benifits to corporations that ship jobs elsewhere, people have little choice but to work at Walmart.


You're not a mathematician, are you...

/percentages, how do they work??
 
2012-12-12 10:42:19 AM  

Joe Blowme: SubBass49: Joe Blowme: s1ugg0: ****NEWSFLASH****

People get upset when you attack their livelihood and how they provide for their families. More at 11!

By giving them more choices? How is that? All dues are is kick back for having a job, like a protection racket or something. Like a job tax, how quaint.

[www.themistermen.co.uk image 300x273]
"The Story of Joe Blowme"

Ahhh, when your position is too weak to withstand debate, counter with inane cartoons.
Whats next? I know you are but what am i?


It would still be less ridiculous than your statement...so maybe.

Do people really protest against more choices? When is the last time you saw thousands turn out to protest the latest fattening garbage that Pizza Hut decided to stuff into the crust of their "pizza?"

More choices isn't the problem. Moronic talking points that sell us slavery, with freedom written on the packaging is.
 
2012-12-12 10:47:12 AM  

Joe Blowme: Between 1977-08, employment grew 100% in right-to-work states vs. the national average of 71% and 56.5% in non-right-to-work states. That's according to a January study that Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder did for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

In this period, real per capita income in the right-to-work states grew 62.3% vs. the national average of 54.7% and 52.8% for non-right-to-work states.

the bottom 14 states for personal income growth (between 1999 and 2009) are all non-right-to- work states

Link


You forgot the next part:

That's according to a January study that Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder did for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

I'm not saying this study is biased...but this study is biased.
 
2012-12-12 10:47:19 AM  
Hey, I can google shiat, too..

Link

The clip below full of jump-cuts shows angry Union members telling Crowder repeatedly to get "out of their face" before the altercation begins and even commenters on the right-wing sites are wondering what came before the edits.

Crowder, a Detroit-born, Quebec-raise conservative comedian, who was hired by FOX News and is banned from coming returning to Canada because of his past behavior set this up purposely and himself should eb arrested for inciting a riot. Note the self-satisfied smirk as the clip ends.)

Also many witnesses state that the right-wing tea party organization Americans for Prosperity were provoking union members to violence, and witnesses reportedly saw AFP people loosening the ropes on the tents so they would come down. And in spite of the fact the place was crawling with cops (shipped in from around the state) who didn't do see anything amiss."
 


Is this Crowder guy really banned from Canada?

There has to be more evidence beyond the edited video from his own film crew...
 
2012-12-12 10:48:49 AM  
CHECKS AND BALANCES:

I believe Unions are a good check against corporate greed and abuse. But when unions get too powerful, they can become the monster. I will never forgive them for taking away my twinkies (okay ... I haven't had a twinkie in years, but I watched Zombieland last night, and am now rage fueled).

Seriously though, a balance should exist between corporations and unions. When corporations were too powerful, something had to be done. It was a very tough fight, but the war was won and Unions formed, and legislation was passed to ensure their strength. But now corporations are mostly behaving, and 50+ year old policies are outdated. Defending those policies with violence and intimidation will continue to drive Unions into the ground, so don't do it. Why?

Unions will be needed again in 30 years, and those who kept the flame alive will be the heroes. It's all about checks and balances. We're still in our infancy of finding a balance between workers and employers, and it may take a few centuries and/or a room full of visionaries to set up a system like our government uses between its three branches.
 
2012-12-12 10:48:54 AM  

log_jammin: Video of the dude getting punched.

1. He was trolling the crowd.

2. another union member stopped the first guy.


I'm sure it's been pointed out before, but just in case y'all missed it:
Gee, I wonder what happened during that convenient Fox jump-cut.

/Because it looks to me like the union guy was recovering his balance before he took a swing.
 
2012-12-12 10:51:45 AM  

aungen: I believe Unions are a good check against corporate greed and abuse. But when unions get too powerful, they can become the monster. I will never forgive them for taking away my twinkies (okay ... I haven't had a twinkie in years, but I watched Zombieland last night, and am now rage fueled).


Don't get me wrong, there are unions out there that are pretty bad. But the Twinkie one is a stupid example.

Twinkies went under because of inept management. When I come from, giving yourself a bonus while your company is bleeding money is a phenomenally stupid idea, and yet the executives at Hostess did just that.
 
2012-12-12 10:52:00 AM  
This blog claims the person yelling about the gun and shooting everyone was the Fox cameraman, which makes more sense given that the voice was talking about shooting 20 people or something like that.

Link
 
2012-12-12 10:57:34 AM  

newsjunkie: if you make union membership voluntary rather then forced, it makes the union responsible to the workers, not the workers responsible to the union

the union HAS to listen to all the workers and has to come to some accommodation with them if it wants their money


That's true. Which is why unions typically elect those who represent them.

And I've made this point before, and I'll keep saying it:

Typically unions factor in dues to compensation negotiations. Therefore technically it's not the members who pay for membership, it's the company.

Look I'm not pro or anti union. However people don't seem to be grasping a relatively simple concept here. Nobody is being "forced" into paying dues to a union. A union pays its own dues and if its not corrupt is generally making the relationship between worker and company more healthy.

Honestly, I think companies of a certain size should be forced to share ownership with the workers by a certain percentage of common stock and representation on the board of directors. It encourages efficiency by the workers because they share in the dividends. It's also fair compensation for the workers who made the company profitable to begin with.
 
2012-12-12 10:58:14 AM  

Void_Beavis: Joe Blowme: Void_Beavis: papatex: In no way, shape or form, is this hurting the workers of a union...I really don't see what all the fuss is about. If anything they should be happy about this.

If they are good workers in a good union that provides the way they should, then great!

If they are good workers in a bad union who do not provide for the workers, then great!

Personally it's time to move on....Michigan as a state needs to move on, obviously the way things were are not working.

They're not working, but not for the reasons you're inferring.

Look I'm no socialist. I'm as free market as they come (im not racist, i have a black friend). However we have a situation where corporate profit is at an all time high, workers are hundreds of times more productive than they were 50 years ago, but wages have stagnated at 1970s levels.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's something wrong with that equation. And it starts by looking at who we have elected and the policies they've promoted.

Or start your own business and pay your employees what you want.

That's true but that has nothing to do with the point I've just made.

I'm not sure you're logically thinking about this.

Let me try another way. I'll quote Bank of America CEO, Brian Moynihan if it helps:

"We need regulation. Good regulation helps to ensure a free market by making sure everyone is playing by the same rules."

Now I want you to stop and think about that statement. Basically without rules, we wouldn't have a free market or competition. Here we have the CEO of one of the largest banks on earth promoting "good" regulation.

So what happened to the regulation that protected the relationship of the company to its workers to ensure proper work / compensation / security?

I can tell you what happened to it. Although something tells me you might cover your ears and sing loudly when I do.


So forcing people to join a union is a good thing and promotes government regulations? And using BoA to justify regulations?? After the bail out mess? I still see no value in forcing someone to join a union just to have a job, its a kick back racket. Pay to work = pay to play.
 
2012-12-12 10:59:06 AM  

Mr. Right: liam76: You may or may not agree with the right of unions (a private organization) to come to an agreement with a company (a private organization) on people they employ being a member of the union.

Saying they no longer have that right means people who go to a union shop can get the benefit of unions without having to pay. If you don't see how that will hurt the number of union members and how that will affect their ability to collectively bargain, you are being dishonest or a moron.

Why don't you point out to me exactly how sending a couple hours' wages per month to a national union that spends a majority of that dues money on political activities that have absolutely no bearing on negotiations with the company that employs me benefits me?


Why don't I? Because it has nothing to do with my point and until you can concede you were flat out wrong in stating this doesn't do "anything to prevent unions from collective bargaining in any company where unions are present" is flat out wrong you are too dishonest or too stupid to entartain a conversation with.

That is like saying cutting off your source of food does nothing to prevent you from working.

There are a lot of problesm with unions from valuing seniority over skill, to not seeing the forest for the trees when deciding who can do what and how to help their peopl. I am against them taking required dues and using them for political actions on a national level, etc. But there is no point in getting into any of this with someoen who is ignoring or is too stupid to ignore basic realities of this law.
 
2012-12-12 11:00:52 AM  

Void_Beavis: newsjunkie: if you make union membership voluntary rather then forced, it makes the union responsible to the workers, not the workers responsible to the union

the union HAS to listen to all the workers and has to come to some accommodation with them if it wants their money

That's true. Which is why unions typically elect those who represent them.

And I've made this point before, and I'll keep saying it:

Typically unions factor in dues to compensation negotiations. Therefore technically it's not the members who pay for membership, it's the company.

Look I'm not pro or anti union. However people don't seem to be grasping a relatively simple concept here. Nobody is being "forced" into paying dues to a union. A union pays its own dues and if its not corrupt is generally making the relationship between worker and company more healthy.

Honestly, I think companies of a certain size should be forced to share ownership with the workers by a certain percentage of common stock and representation on the board of directors. It encourages efficiency by the workers because they share in the dividends. It's also fair compensation for the workers who made the company profitable to begin with.


t0.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-12 11:04:32 AM  

jso2897: mwfark: Here's a truth for the union hacks: Right to Work laws give workers a choice between whether or not one joins a union. Many times the absence of such laws means workers are forced into unions and required to pay dues against their will, eliminating their choice. Since choice = freedom, then Right to Work laws are more American than forced coercion. No wonder why unions get the "commie" label......

Gotta love these people who call theselves "conservatives" these days - they claim to oppose government meddling in the private sector - until it's a matter of having the governemnt arbitrarily abrogate a contract between two private parties to obtain a result they deem desirable.
So much for "moral consistency" on the part of "conservatives".


First, I'm not a conservative... I'm libertarian. Secondly, while there may exist a contract between a union and an employer, an individual employee who wishes not to be roped into a union should not be forced to do so, simply because we live in friggin' free country. I realize this notion is difficult for some people to understand, but even if you think that union membership is in the "best interest" for someone, that is not a determination for you or the union to make for that person. Believe it or not, some people still value freedom and pride themselves on individuality and independent thought and do not ascribe to your herd mentality. In fact, I'll go so far as to say:
I support VOLUNTARY participation in unions but do not support COMPULSORY participation. Vive la liberté!
 
2012-12-12 11:07:24 AM  

Joe Blowme: Void_Beavis: Joe Blowme: Void_Beavis: papatex: In no way, shape or form, is this hurting the workers of a union...I really don't see what all the fuss is about. If anything they should be happy about this.

If they are good workers in a good union that provides the way they should, then great!

If they are good workers in a bad union who do not provide for the workers, then great!

Personally it's time to move on....Michigan as a state needs to move on, obviously the way things were are not working.

They're not working, but not for the reasons you're inferring.

Look I'm no socialist. I'm as free market as they come (im not racist, i have a black friend). However we have a situation where corporate profit is at an all time high, workers are hundreds of times more productive than they were 50 years ago, but wages have stagnated at 1970s levels.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's something wrong with that equation. And it starts by looking at who we have elected and the policies they've promoted.

Or start your own business and pay your employees what you want.

That's true but that has nothing to do with the point I've just made.

I'm not sure you're logically thinking about this.

Let me try another way. I'll quote Bank of America CEO, Brian Moynihan if it helps:

"We need regulation. Good regulation helps to ensure a free market by making sure everyone is playing by the same rules."

Now I want you to stop and think about that statement. Basically without rules, we wouldn't have a free market or competition. Here we have the CEO of one of the largest banks on earth promoting "good" regulation.

So what happened to the regulation that protected the relationship of the company to its workers to ensure proper work / compensation / security?

I can tell you what happened to it. Although something tells me you might cover your ears and sing loudly when I do.

So forcing people to join a union is a good thing and promotes government regulations? And using BoA to justify regulations?? After the bail out mess? I still see no value in forcing someone to join a union just to have a job, its a kick back racket. Pay to work = pay to play.


How is it "being forced" if unions consider membership dues into all compensation negotiations?

Recently I received a check from some lawyer for $18. Appearantly there was some class-action lawsuit against Symantec for renewing everyone's subscription one month early so they could report a revenue bump for that quarter. Since I kept my credit card on file with them, I was charged.

I didn't care, because it wasn't that much and I needed to update my antivirus subscription eventually anyway.

Did I ask that lawyer to represent me? No. Did he force me into his services? No. Did he pay his own fees from the lawsuit? You bet your ass. Did I cash that check? You bet your ass.
 
2012-12-12 11:08:25 AM  
there's a difference between "at will" employment and "right to work" people...
 
2012-12-12 11:08:33 AM  

papatex: BolshyGreatYarblocks: Because I guess people should meekly acquiesce to having their jobs taken away, subby?



"Villeins ye are, and villeins ye shall remain."


"As far as I'm concerned, happy campers you are, and happy campers you always shall be."

You really don't know what's going on do you...


Anti-union Koch shills online? Better union dues and a job than no job.
 
2012-12-12 11:10:06 AM  

jbuist: Maximum Snark: Why do all of this in a close door session and do it as fast as possible (the fastest a bill has ever been passed in Michigan history btw)?

Huh? It was read into the record in January 2011.

23 months to pass isn't fast.


I didnt know you had access to ALEC's internal records beyond what has been exposed. That still doesnt explain how fast it was passed or why they cannot let the people vote on a referendum(which if there's any comparison to Ohio, it would die quickly).


Their "Prohibition of Negative Checkoff" text were developed and debated within ALEC, then rocketed through the ALEC-controlled legislature.

But dont let facts get in the way of your narrative.
 
2012-12-12 11:14:13 AM  
Maybe someone should mention there is a BIG difference between public sector and private sector unions. They should not even be mentioned in the same breath.
 
2012-12-12 11:18:27 AM  

liam76: Why don't I? Because it has nothing to do with my point and until you can concede you were flat out wrong in stating this doesn't do "anything to prevent unions from collective bargaining in any company where unions are present" is flat out wrong you are too dishonest or too stupid to entartain a conversation with.


The two laws signed by Snyder do not in any way prevent, halt, or limit collective bargaining by unions. If the employees in a company are currently represented by a union, they may continue to be represented by that union and the union can collectively bargain with the company. If there is a non-union company, the union may organize that company, if the workers desire union representation, and the union may bargain with the company. The only change these laws make is that, if a worker chooses not to be a member of the union, he has that choice. That in no way diminishes the rights of unions to bargain. There is nothing dishonest or stupid about stating facts. Your juvenile outbursts won't change that.
 
2012-12-12 11:19:14 AM  

mwfark: First, I'm not a conservative... I'm libertarian. Secondly, while there may exist a contract between a union and an employer, an individual employee who wishes not to be roped into a union should not be forced to do so, simply because we live in friggin' free country. I realize this notion is difficult for some people to understand, but even if you think that union membership is in the "best interest" for someone, that is not a determination for you or the union to make for that person. Believe it or not, some people still value freedom and pride themselves on individuality and independent thought and do not ascribe to your herd mentality. In fact, I'll go so far as to say:
I support VOLUNTARY participation in unions but do not support COMPULSORY participation. Vive la liberté!


Lets say you have a temp agency and you have a contract to do all the cleaning at an auto factory for x years. Do you think it is fair that the state comes in and says that contract is voluntary only on the part of the auto factory and if someone comes in and says that they can do some of the cleaing for less thent he auto factory is free to break that part of the contract?

Because this is what the state is doing. They are getting between two parties who have an agreement (the union and the employees) . Being for this law is against libertarian principles.
 
2012-12-12 11:20:53 AM  
Whatever happened to working within the system to change it?

Or are union apologists basically saying they condone violence because they're too stupid to effect change by changing people's hearts and minds?

Since it's open season to force change through violence, would it be OK to beat the living hell out of teachers who have Obama bumper stickers or Democratic legislators?

Violence only works in the short run, then the union mafia either ends up dead or in prison. So good plan you got there--way to prove the integrity of the Hostess unions by supporting the thuggery here we all know is right below the surface in most unions.
 
2012-12-12 11:23:22 AM  

Mr. Right: liam76: Why don't I? Because it has nothing to do with my point and until you can concede you were flat out wrong in stating this doesn't do "anything to prevent unions from collective bargaining in any company where unions are present" is flat out wrong you are too dishonest or too stupid to entartain a conversation with.

The two laws signed by Snyder do not in any way prevent, halt, or limit collective bargaining by unions.


You are going to triple down on this flavor of stupid?

What part are you too stupid or too dishonest to get?

This law will make it so peopel can get the benefit of unions without paying.

That will drive down union membership.

When union membership is too low collective bargaining won't work.

What part don't you get? Is that too many steps ahead for you to figure out?


Mr. Right: There is nothing dishonest or stupid about stating facts.


No but there is something dishonest and stupid about cramming your head up your ass and ignoring the consequences of this law because the law doesn't directly spell them out.
 
2012-12-12 11:23:42 AM  

mwfark: jso2897: mwfark: Here's a truth for the union hacks: Right to Work laws give workers a choice between whether or not one joins a union. Many times the absence of such laws means workers are forced into unions and required to pay dues against their will, eliminating their choice. Since choice = freedom, then Right to Work laws are more American than forced coercion. No wonder why unions get the "commie" label......

Gotta love these people who call theselves "conservatives" these days - they claim to oppose government meddling in the private sector - until it's a matter of having the governemnt arbitrarily abrogate a contract between two private parties to obtain a result they deem desirable.
So much for "moral consistency" on the part of "conservatives".

First, I'm not a conservative... I'm libertarian. Secondly, while there may exist a contract between a union and an employer, an individual employee who wishes not to be roped into a union should not be forced to do so, simply because we live in friggin' free country. I realize this notion is difficult for some people to understand, but even if you think that union membership is in the "best interest" for someone, that is not a determination for you or the union to make for that person. Believe it or not, some people still value freedom and pride themselves on individuality and independent thought and do not ascribe to your herd mentality. In fact, I'll go so far as to say:
I support VOLUNTARY participation in unions but do not support COMPULSORY participation. Vive la liberté!


Sigh... Again... THIS IS AN INVALID ARGUMENT.

Since unions factor in dues to ALL compensation negotiations, the only thing that constitutes as "voluntary" is your decision to work there to begin with. Which is based on, in part, the level of compensation you receive. Which would be significantly lower without the union representation. Not to mention the working conditions.

Again, I'm not pro-union. I hate how they tow the line for the Democrats. However given the fact that the Republicans are so far into the pocket of large corporations, it's hard to see how they could support any other candidate in a two party system.

It's strange to see so many people who are so intellectually dishonest about very simple facts on this topic, who when presented with the truth, simply refuse to allow their preconceptions to be altered in any way.
 
2012-12-12 11:39:54 AM  
"Which would be significantly lower without the union representation."

hyperbole
 
2012-12-12 11:42:25 AM  

liam76:

This law will make it so peopel can get the benefit of unions without paying.

That will drive down union membership.

When union membership is too low collective bargaining won't work.

What part don't you get? Is that too many steps ahead for you to figure out?


Mr. Right: There is nothing dishonest or stupid about stating facts.

No but there is something dishonest and stupid about cramming your head up your ass and ignoring the consequences of this law because the law doesn't directly spell them out.


Will some people get to enjoy benefits of unions without joining a union in the short term? Quite likely.
In the long term though, if union members get too low to collectively bargain, workers would realize and join the union again... it's just a big cycle.
If something works, you won't have to force people to join.

Personally, I don't really want to work in a place where I work my rear off and get paid the same as the person beside me who does less.

Believe it or not, there are people who refuse to work at a place where they feel the unions are unreasonable even if the wages/benefits are (significantly) high.
 
2012-12-12 11:46:56 AM  
liam76,
this law will only force union membership down if people were unhappy with the union and unable to change it or the union didn't listen to them

Unions should take this on as a challenge to be more proactive to their members need so they don't lose them...
 
2012-12-12 11:50:27 AM  

kvinesknows: "Which would be significantly lower without the union representation."

hyperbole


Congressional Research Service: Workers In Right-To-Work States Make An Average Of $7,000 Less Than Those In Non-Right-To-Work States. Citing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Congressional Research Service reported that the average wage in a right-to-work state was $42,465, compared with $49,495 in "labor security" states. [Congressional Research Service, 6/20/12]

/Reality has a well-known "liberal" bias.
 
2012-12-12 11:55:21 AM  

Lsherm: GAT_00: Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.

Technically in the slide show:



With the caption:

A man in an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union jacket punches Fox News reporter Steven Crowder in the face outside the pro-Right-to-Work tent of Americans for Prosperity, an organization funded by wealthy private donors.


Weird. Notice it doesn't say that he was union, just that he was wearing a union jacket.
 
2012-12-12 11:57:29 AM  
if unions spent the time money and energy on figuring out why their "forced" members were unhappy and try to resolve the issue as they do protesting laws that prevent them from taking dues from people who don't want to be members, this whole argument would be moot...
 
2012-12-12 11:58:08 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: kvinesknows: "Which would be significantly lower without the union representation."

hyperbole

Congressional Research Service: Workers In Right-To-Work States Make An Average Of $7,000 Less Than Those In Non-Right-To-Work States. Citing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Congressional Research Service reported that the average wage in a right-to-work state was $42,465, compared with $49,495 in "labor security" states. [Congressional Research Service, 6/20/12]

/Reality has a well-known "liberal" bias.


state to state comparisons of one section of financial data are useless.

You need to compare total cost of living.
 
2012-12-12 11:58:55 AM  
You know what? I'm done here. Onto more important stuff.

People are going to think whatever they want to think, even if the truth is otherwise.

Union membership is NEVER compulsory. Since unions factor in dues to ALL compensation negotiations, the workers aren't paying a dime for membership. The company pays for it as part of the compensation package and it works like a free benefit that everyone gets. Unions hold elections for their leaders, so they are actually democratic in nature. Unions hold regular meetings so the representatives can hear and collect the opinions of its members. They are held accountable to whom they represent. And if they are not corrupt, they work to improve the relationship between company and employee to be more profitable for both parties.

I don't like how unions tow the line for the Democrat party. Democrats may have labor friendly policies, but also have extremely skewed policies on fiscal responsibility for the country as a whole. Additionally, they tow the line for a liberal social agenda that does not match what most union members hold as core values.

Unions do not support Republicans because they are so far into the pockets of large corporations who value profit over people. At the same time, Republicans support a socially conservative position which actually favors most union rank-and-file core principles. However, this just seems to be a convenient catalyst for Republicans to get elected by the general public, since their position on profits puts them at odds with most of middle class.

I hate our two party system for this reason. It forced its members to take unreasonable stances which don't reflect the needs of those it represents. Democrats who support more social conservative positions are silenced and removed from power. Republicans who want better wages and jobs for their constituents are summarily tossed from power.

All the while, we see ever increasing "religious wars of ideals" being waged between the two, while middle class slowly shrinks to obscurity, along with the American dream.

It's not right. We still live in a free country. And we have to change the course here. We can't continue to value profit over people.

I used to be as conservative as they come. However I also have a mind to consider these things. Gradually I came to alter my preconceptions about the world based on my real-life learning experiences. Socially I'm conservative, however, that does not give me the right to deny a gay couple the same benefits afforded to a married couple. I'm against abortion, however that does not give me the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. Fiscally, I'm conservative, but that does not give me the right to refuse a social safety net for those less fortunate than I nor o refuse a quality education for everyone. I'm patriotic, but that does not give me the right to encourage wars with other countries over oil profits nor to refuse legal immigration for those seeking a better life here. I'm free market, but that does not give me the right to destroy companies and communities by cheating and tossing workers who made me wealthy into the streets over profit or bonus.

In closing, I don't like propaganda or being told how to think. Especially when that propaganda encourages a lack of compassion to my fellow man or woman. You don't know what someone has gone through until you go through it yourself. And a lack of respect for that makes you one of the kind of people that I frankly don't want to become.
 
2012-12-12 12:04:39 PM  

kvinesknows: cost of living


Right. Congress built regional COLA adjustments into minimum wage.
Because the United States doesn't have a national economy.
 
2012-12-12 12:07:01 PM  

mike_d85:

When unions are needed, they're great. Unfortunately, unions are rarely NEEDED.
/rant


I'm in this camp. If there was a way to limit unions' ability to abuse their power, I'd be all for them. But too often once they've gotten what the need, they just keep pushing beyond all reason. Plus, with rigidly defined work roles, rules, more rules and top-notch pay, efficiency falls whimpering to the bottom of a deep well.

I've worked for a custom machine supplier to many manufacturing plants, both union and non. At a plant in Illinois that makes large off-road machinery, the union(s) pretty much had guys (pipe-fitters, electricians, etc) standing around doing nothing for hours and over days, just to make sure we didn't turn a bolt or flip a switch that wasn't on their side of the fence. When it did come time for them to do their jobs (say, connecting cooling water to our machine), it always took at least 3 times as long, sometimes days longer, for them to complete their work than it has taken other non-union plants to do the same. They had a man assigned to operate the machine who's real job appeared to be to stand and distract me from my own work by talking random bullshiat. Every bit of work he actually did was done glacially. If he made a mess in his area (oil drips, shop rags) he wouldn't clean it up because that wasn't his job. I can't remember what he said his wage was, but it calculated to more than my salary at the time.

I'm pretty confident that that employer "earned" the union some time in the past by trying to assrape the workers... is it fair, just and American that the unions turn around and assrape the employer in perpetuity in return? Before you say turnabout is fair play, let me say that, while that plant is still in operation, the employer is now making the same equipment in China (my old employer still supplying) and the workers there *get shiat done*.

There's got to be a balance where no party gets assraped and we (Americans) maintain a proper work ethic *and* remain competitive in the global manufacturing market.
 
2012-12-12 12:07:44 PM  

Void_Beavis: ... WALL OF TEXT ...


0.25/10 tl;dr trollage
/The misspellings and crap grammar were well done; the logic errors were classics. Then I got bored.
 
2012-12-12 12:10:55 PM  
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
Samuel Adams "The Father of the American Revolution"
 
2012-12-12 12:14:44 PM  

Void_Beavis: You know what? I'm done here. Onto more important stuff.

People are going to think whatever they want to think, even if the truth is otherwise.

Union membership is NEVER compulsory. Since unions factor in dues to ALL compensation negotiations, the workers aren't paying a dime for membership. The company pays for it as part of the compensation package and it works like a free benefit that everyone gets. Unions hold elections for their leaders, so they are actually democratic in nature. Unions hold regular meetings so the representatives can hear and collect the opinions of its members. They are held accountable to whom they represent. And if they are not corrupt, they work to improve the relationship between company and employee to be more profitable for both parties.

I don't like how unions tow the line for the Democrat party. Democrats may have labor friendly policies, but also have extremely skewed policies on fiscal responsibility for the country as a whole. Additionally, they tow the line for a liberal social agenda that does not match what most union members hold as core values.

Unions do not support Republicans because they are so far into the pockets of large corporations who value profit over people. At the same time, Republicans support a socially conservative position which actually favors most union rank-and-file core principles. However, this just seems to be a convenient catalyst for Republicans to get elected by the general public, since their position on profits puts them at odds with most of middle class.

I hate our two party system for this reason. It forced its members to take unreasonable stances which don't reflect the needs of those it represents. Democrats who support more social conservative positions are silenced and removed from power. Republicans who want better wages and jobs for their constituents are summarily tossed from power.

All the while, we see ever increasing "religious wars of ideals" being waged between the two, while mid ...


Guess you won't mind of a red state signs a bill into law requiring employers to withhold $900 a year from all employees, to be used to fund Republican campaigns.

I mean, your freakin argument is "wah, people should NEVER have a choice, they HAVE to join a union and pay dues!". What kind of BS Nazi Hitler stuff is that?
 
2012-12-12 12:22:15 PM  
Want to work? Pay your dues.
 
2012-12-12 12:23:59 PM  
I saw the video, and I was sad. At what point did it become acceptable for reporters to verbally abuse people and provoke confrontations?
 
2012-12-12 12:25:22 PM  

Thunderpipes: Guess you won't mind of a red state signs a bill into law requiring employers to withhold $900 a year from all employees, to be used to fund Republican campaigns.


Like a Police Officers Union does?
 
2012-12-12 12:26:08 PM  

Void_Beavis: mwfark: jso2897: mwfark: Here's a truth for the union hacks: Right to Work laws give workers a choice between whether or not one joins a union. Many times the absence of such laws means workers are forced into unions and required to pay dues against their will, eliminating their choice. Since choice = freedom, then Right to Work laws are more American than forced coercion. No wonder why unions get the "commie" label......

Gotta love these people who call theselves "conservatives" these days - they claim to oppose government meddling in the private sector - until it's a matter of having the governemnt arbitrarily abrogate a contract between two private parties to obtain a result they deem desirable.
So much for "moral consistency" on the part of "conservatives".

First, I'm not a conservative... I'm libertarian. Secondly, while there may exist a contract between a union and an employer, an individual employee who wishes not to be roped into a union should not be forced to do so, simply because we live in friggin' free country. I realize this notion is difficult for some people to understand, but even if you think that union membership is in the "best interest" for someone, that is not a determination for you or the union to make for that person. Believe it or not, some people still value freedom and pride themselves on individuality and independent thought and do not ascribe to your herd mentality. In fact, I'll go so far as to say:
I support VOLUNTARY participation in unions but do not support COMPULSORY participation. Vive la liberté!

Sigh... Again... THIS IS AN INVALID ARGUMENT.

Since unions factor in dues to ALL compensation negotiations, the only thing that constitutes as "voluntary" is your decision to work there to begin with. Which is based on, in part, the level of compensation you receive. Which would be significantly lower without the union representation. Not to mention the working conditions.

Again, I'm not pro-union. I hate how they tow the line f ...



Wrong. The decision to accept employment is an agreement between the employee and employer. The union is a third party that wants desperately to be involved in this voluntary contract but can only do so with the acquiescence of the employee. And if the employee does not want to acquiesce... well, that's the prerogative of a free man. Sorry if freedom makes you angry.
 
2012-12-12 12:27:55 PM  
Legalize extortion now!
 
2012-12-12 12:48:41 PM  
Oh, yeah, Crowder was the Virtuous Man of the Year earlier this fall for posting about his wedding where he and his wife both kept their virginity until married. He then went on to pretty much troll all people who engaged in premarital sex as immoral sluts, and made it seem like his was the Best Wedding Sex Ever. Even reading the article made everyone I know want to throttle him.

Let's say this bottle of Massengil spring scent represents the normal amount of douchiness in an individual. Taking a sample after strolling through his online articles, Tweets and YouTube videos, it would be a bottle 32 feet high weighing approximately 5 tons.
 
2012-12-12 12:52:18 PM  
To be fair Crowder deserves a punch in the face for calling himself a comedian.
 
2012-12-12 01:11:09 PM  
That's about what I'd expect from fascists. Look for the union label.

thegraph.com

focusgear.com
 
2012-12-12 01:15:51 PM  

th0th: Oh, yeah, Crowder was the Virtuous Man of the Year earlier this fall for posting about his wedding where he and his wife both kept their virginity until married. He then went on to pretty much troll all people who engaged in premarital sex as immoral sluts, and made it seem like his was the Best Wedding Sex Ever. Even reading the article made everyone I know want to throttle him.

Let's say this bottle of Massengil spring scent represents the normal amount of douchiness in an individual. Taking a sample after strolling through his online articles, Tweets and YouTube videos, it would be a bottle 32 feet high weighing approximately 5 tons.


I agree with your assessment, good Farker. And to those who say it's wrong that Crowder got punched I say: It had to be "God's will" that Crowder got punched in the noggin.

No? Hypocrite much?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-12 01:16:28 PM  

Prince George: That's about what I'd expect from fascists. Look for the union label.

[thegraph.com image 500x300]

[focusgear.com image 300x175]


HA HA I out Godwin'ed you.
 
2012-12-12 01:18:05 PM  
The union guys tore down this guy's hot dog stand. He has worked that corner with his stand for YEARS. Help him get a new one please:

new hot dog stand
 
2012-12-12 01:18:38 PM  
Too bad that got exposed as a hoax and witnesses say they destroyed the tent themselves. Bunch of assclowns.
 
2012-12-12 01:24:02 PM  

Joec_95123: Too bad that got exposed as a hoax and witnesses say they destroyed the tent themselves. Bunch of assclowns.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
epicratrdednessrighttherepeople.jpg
 
2012-12-12 01:24:16 PM  
Good. An enemy is an enemy.
They're fascists trying to take away people's rights. Fox News is complicit in spreading lies for a fascist movement on air. And it doesn't matter whether a Nazi is a woman or 70 years old if they're still trying to fark you over and install a fascist regime.
Consider it a taste of your own medicine for the stunt you pulled with the reporter in Alaska, the girl Rand Paul's bodyguard assaulted, the people assaulted in the healthcare bill town hall debates, and other incidents of fascist terrorism (like cutting Congressman's gas lines, or shooting up churches and murdering doctors).
 
2012-12-12 01:25:30 PM  

Saruman_W: Union asshats! People shouldn't have to be forced to give money to those bastards if they wish to seek employment and want no part if their little gang. That's goddamn mafia mentality right there!

Nothing about that law from what I can tell actually prevents people from joining their little gangs. If you're a sheep and wan to frolic with the rest of the herd then by all means!


The 96% success rate of intimidation by firms like Jackson Lewis combined with supplicants from firms like Strom Engineering will.

If it is so good, how about making it apply to contract/part time labor - where you dont have to go through an agency or as a temp as a condition of accepting work? Same concept, applied to the employer.

That and it is very telling that the legislature does not trust its own people enough to let them raise a referendum. Does Snyder and his ALEC compatriots think they are above Michiganders?

Given that, I guess that us Ohioans made a very huge, painful, and bloody mark by smiting down SB5(a stricter version of Wisconsin's bill) via the very thing Michigan's legislature blocked - referendum. Perhaps Snyder might want to revisit French history if he wants to find out how much more pain visits him if he and his legislature continues down the path.
 
2012-12-12 01:26:03 PM  

special20: Prince George: That's about what I'd expect from fascists. Look for the union label.

[thegraph.com image 500x300]

[focusgear.com image 300x175]

HA HA I out Godwin'ed you.


Yeah I know I Godwin-ed myself but I couldn't resist. seriously though, the Nazi party was pretty much born of Union thuggery. Mussolini was no different. Forced union membership is basically fascist. Not to mention if you don't want to be compared to brown shirted baboons you probably shouldn't act like one.
 
2012-12-12 01:34:25 PM  

liam76: Mr. Right: liam76: Why don't I? Because it has nothing to do with my point and until you can concede you were flat out wrong in stating this doesn't do "anything to prevent unions from collective bargaining in any company where unions are present" is flat out wrong you are too dishonest or too stupid to entartain a conversation with.

The two laws signed by Snyder do not in any way prevent, halt, or limit collective bargaining by unions.

You are going to triple down on this flavor of stupid?

What part are you too stupid or too dishonest to get?

This law will make it so peopel can get the benefit of unions without paying.

That will drive down union membership.

When union membership is too low collective bargaining won't work.

What part don't you get? Is that too many steps ahead for you to figure out?


Mr. Right: There is nothing dishonest or stupid about stating facts.

No but there is something dishonest and stupid about cramming your head up your ass and ignoring the consequences of this law because the law doesn't directly spell them out.


There is absolutely nothing in the law the limits collective bargaining. If unions do such a lousy job of convincing people that their efforts are worth a couple hours of their wages per month, then unions' effectiveness has gone too far down for these laws to have any effect on union membership.

As to your "steps," you need to check union membership around the country - even in states that are not RTW. Private sector union membership is at an all-time low. Precisely because union members have figured out that unions are simply not worth the cost. Public sector unions thrive because the Democrat Party has, over the years, negotiated outrageous compensation packages for government workers in order that the unions will back Democrats who will negotiate more outrageous compensation packages. And, of course, dues go right back to Democrat-backed political causes.

Unions have apparently convinced their devotees that, without the union, workers are worthless. That may well be true in your case but any company whose management is intelligent enough to actually run a business well values their employees enough to treat them fairly without a union. Check out the Forbes list of "best places to work" and compare it to any union's list of "best companies for union contracts." You're not going to find a lot of crossover.
 
2012-12-12 01:36:54 PM  

CujoQuarrel: In a "Right to Work" state you may not be forced to join a union or forced to pay dues to a union in order to get a job. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'firing at anytime'


Actually, that's exactly what it's for.
I've spent most of my life in a RTW state, and spend my fair share working there.
You can feel free to quit lying at anytime, or maybe you're just ignorant and need an education.
 
2012-12-12 01:41:54 PM  

super_grass: TEA Party protesters had they been goaded by reporters and exchanged punches.


I extend my sympathy to anti-fascists, but not to fascist brownshirts trying to enslave the people.
 
2012-12-12 01:43:00 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: Guess you won't mind of a red state signs a bill into law requiring employers to withhold $900 a year from all employees, to be used to fund Republican campaigns.

Like a Police Officers Union does?


That's why they're exempt. It's the only reason they're exempt.
 
2012-12-12 01:45:25 PM  

super_grass: The TP has been accused of being violent


The Tea Party is violent because they have actually committed acts of violence. It looks like the Tea Party opponents have finally decided to escalate up to their tactics.
 
2012-12-12 01:45:46 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: The union guys tore down this guy's hot dog stand. He has worked that corner with his stand for YEARS. Help him get a new one please:

new hot dog stand


Damn. People can be such assholes sometimes.
 
2012-12-12 01:55:04 PM  

mike_d85: When unions are needed, they're great. Unfortunately, unions are rarely NEEDED.


Unions are needed so workers can negotiate with the management who has the state backing of terrorists/gangs like the police and military should it come to it. Union negotiations is like throwing scraps to the beggars at the bottom of an aristocrat's table. It's considered amazing they even let the beggars in to beg.
What really isn't needed, never was, and never will be is management. The worst type of parasite. But I'll agree that we don't need worthless union bureaucrats who act as a mouthpiece/liason for the company and stifle direct action/wildcat strikes.
 
2012-12-12 02:02:22 PM  

Mr. Right: But it's about the liberal Democrat political agenda


And that's where you stopped being credible.
This is about a weak centre-right/mostly right wing neoliberal defense of basic working conditions against an outright fascist attempt to stifle worker's rights.
Earlier someone mentioned how Republicans were called extremists. That's because you're just bigots attacking and crushing people's rights for the sake of fascist domination of America. As much as the Democrats have been reluctant to show spine, it's nice to see an occasional tit-for-tat or pushback in defense against the fascist takeover.
 
2012-12-12 02:04:23 PM  

Prince George: special20: Prince George: That's about what I'd expect from fascists. Look for the union label.

[thegraph.com image 500x300]

[focusgear.com image 300x175]

HA HA I out Godwin'ed you.

Yeah I know I Godwin-ed myself but I couldn't resist. seriously though, the Nazi party was pretty much born of Union thuggery. Mussolini was no different. Forced union membership is basically fascist. Not to mention if you don't want to be compared to brown shirted baboons you probably shouldn't act like one.


WTF retarded history did you study? Fascism, and especially the National Socialists were not born out of unionism. In their determination to remove all sources of opposition, the NSDAP leaders turned their attention to the trade unions, the churches and the Jews.

Oh, and double-fark you for ostensibly comparing anyone like me to a brown shirt. You stinking shill.
 
2012-12-12 02:05:58 PM  

hitlersbrain: One guy can do nothing vs a billionaire or cartel of billionaires.


Propaganda of the deed and specific incidents in European/American labor struggle history says otherwise, but there's nothing like the solidarity of a union.
 
2012-12-12 02:07:17 PM  

Thunderpipes: It is a great day when those criminal bastards get beat down.


I was pleased to hear about the Fox News reporter getting his as well.
 
2012-12-12 02:21:39 PM  

liam76: Mr. Right: liam76: Why don't I? Because it has nothing to do with my point and until you can concede you were flat out wrong in stating this doesn't do "anything to prevent unions from collective bargaining in any company where unions are present" is flat out wrong you are too dishonest or too stupid to entartain a conversation with.

The two laws signed by Snyder do not in any way prevent, halt, or limit collective bargaining by unions.

You are going to triple down on this flavor of stupid?

What part are you too stupid or too dishonest to get?

This law will make it so peopel can get the benefit of unions without paying.
That will drive down union membership.

When union membership is too low collective bargaining won't work.

What part don't you get? Is that too many steps ahead for you to figure out?


Mr. Right: There is nothing dishonest or stupid about stating facts.

No but there is something dishonest and stupid about cramming your head up your ass and ignoring the consequences of this law because the law doesn't directly spell them out.


So maybe someone can explain the bolded portion to me. Regarding workplace safety/working conditions, I can understand how something the union negotiated would affect all employees. But in the era of OSHA and all corporations fearing some kind of lawsuit because of injury or neglect, those bases are pretty well covered already. For all the other stuff (pay, overtime, holidays, pension, etc.) why would a company pay non-union Jimmy an extra $2.00 an hour because the union negotiated it for Joe? Because it's too difficult to distinguish between the two?
 
2012-12-12 02:22:27 PM  

Mr. Right: There is absolutely nothing in the law the limits collective bargaining.


I have spelled it out to you before, now I will just repeat this tidbit until you get it.


There is something dishonest and stupid about cramming your head up your ass and ignoring the consequences of this law because the law doesn't directly spell them out.

woodstock827:
Will some people get to enjoy benefits of unions without joining a union in the short term? Quite likely.
In the long term though, if union members get too low to collectively bargain, workers would realize and join the union again... it's just a big cycle.


It is a mistake to think that unorganized employees are going to act 1 as a group, and 2with the forethought needed to do that "in time".


If something works, you won't have to force people to join.

Come on, nobody is forced to join. If I have a contract to do all the cleaning at an auto plant through my company, and they hire some other guy to do some of it, they have broken the contract. Same with unions and an employee.

Personally, I don't really want to work in a place where I work my rear off and get paid the same as the person beside me who does less.

I agree. And it is one of my biggest problems with unions, and why you can never say a group like the teachers union puts kids first (as they like to claim).



newsjunkie: this law will only force union membership down if people were unhappy with the union and unable to change it or the union didn't listen to them or they are thinking long term and want the union benefits but don;t want to shell out the extra cash to support it


FTFY.
 
2012-12-12 02:24:45 PM  

m2313: Mr. Right: But it's about the liberal Democrat political agenda

And that's where you stopped being credible.
This is about a weak centre-right/mostly right wing neoliberal defense of basic working conditions against an outright fascist attempt to stifle worker's rights.
Earlier someone mentioned how Republicans were called extremists. That's because you're just bigots attacking and crushing people's rights for the sake of fascist domination of America. As much as the Democrats have been reluctant to show spine, it's nice to see an occasional tit-for-tat or pushback in defense against the fascist takeover.


In looking over a few of your posts, it's obvious that you are far too left-wing-crazy to have any kind of discussion with so I'll just point out that you're a radical, left-wing, Kool-aid drinker whose grasp of reality has apparently been gone for some time. But you better be careful. If you're correct that this is an outright fascist attempt to stifle worker's (can you point out which one?) rights, then those same fascists that are apparently dominating America can find you and stifle you as well. Your little tit-for-tat pushback could get you permanently stifled when the fascists grow weary of it!
 
2012-12-12 02:33:46 PM  

TheStag: So maybe someone can explain the bolded portion to me. Regarding workplace safety/working conditions, I can understand how something the union negotiated would affect all employees. But in the era of OSHA and all corporations fearing some kind of lawsuit because of injury or neglect, those bases are pretty well covered already.


The bar is pretty high to prove some sort of workplace negligience caused injury unless you have a team of lawyers ready to go. I worked in a glass factory for abotu 6 month before I got a scholarship, and people got hurt regularly because of shiatty conditions. Was rarely antyhing that serious, btu when you are talking about big pieces of glass it is only a matter of time before something really bad goes down.

You might also want to read up on recent mine accidents.

TheStag: For all the other stuff (pay, overtime, holidays, pension, etc.) why would a company pay non-union Jimmy an extra $2.00 an hour because the union negotiated it for Joe? Because it's too difficult to distinguish between the two?


I am pretty sure the NLRA says you have to give them the same benefits. Even if they don't having a two teired pay system is going to opent hem up to lawsuits.
 
2012-12-12 02:34:16 PM  

liam76: Mr. Right: There is absolutely nothing in the law the limits collective bargaining.

I have spelled it out to you before, now I will just repeat this tidbit until you get it.


There is something dishonest and stupid about cramming your head up your ass and ignoring the consequences of this law because the law doesn't directly spell them out.


Allow me to respond to your inane little tidbit with another re-statement of fact: there is nothing in this law that limits collective bargaining. And, just in case you missed it, the burden will now be on unions to demonstrate their value. Consumers don't mind paying for value - even perceived value. Look how many people willingly buy Starbucks coffee. If unions can't make the case that their efforts are worth a couple hours' wages per month, then they deserve to fail.

The only unstated consequences of this law will be drying up a large portion of the Democrat National Committee's fundraising.
 
2012-12-12 02:34:18 PM  

Lsherm: It COULD happen, but not like the old days. You'd need a nationwide, subversive campaign to have every worker at every store walk off the job at the same time and stay away for an extended period of time without pay or benefits and the possibility of a lost job. Given the "spreading out" of Americans over the last half-century you would also need a support network for those workers when push came to shove. Back in the early days of union building people had family to fall back on. That isn't the case anymore.

So I wouldn't call it impossible, but it's in the realm of extremely unlikely.


The fizzling of the Black Friday Walkout was the end of retail unionization attempts in America, mark my words. There will still be rabble rousing, but it will be meaningless; the confirmation is in that most people would rather be exploited than risk angering their managers, thanks to fear of going hungry. That's the way things are.
 
2012-12-12 02:39:00 PM  

muck4doo: Legalize extortion now!


Taxes and profit already exist.
 
2012-12-12 02:41:21 PM  

Prince George: Yeah I know I Godwin-ed myself but I couldn't resist. seriously though, the Nazi party was pretty much born of Union thuggery. Mussolini was no different. Forced union membership is basically fascist. Not to mention if you don't want to be compared to brown shirted baboons you probably shouldn't act like one.


Fascists were anti-union and pro-corporate.
History: not your strong suit.
 
2012-12-12 02:43:21 PM  

Mr. Right: there is nothing in this law that limits collective bargaining


And there was nothing in Plessy v. Ferguson that limited the rights of black people to get good education, but peopel without their head up their ass could see what it did.
 
2012-12-12 02:44:05 PM  

m2313: Taxes and profit already exist.


I should probably add rent and interest too that too.
 
2012-12-12 02:45:29 PM  

m2313: m2313: Taxes and profit already exist.

I should probably add rent and interest too that too.


Rent and profit are extortion?
 
2012-12-12 03:15:57 PM  
Lets not forget the unions started this fight by going after parents taking care of disabled kids money.

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17006

the "unionized" parents taking care of their disabled kids and wanted the state to take money from their disability checks..
 
2012-12-12 04:32:08 PM  

Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.


So other people don't have a "Right" to not participate? Funny it seems to me that there is a clause in the Constitution that gives people the right to association. Which should extend to an employer and and employee without the need for the interference from a Union.
 
2012-12-12 05:07:05 PM  

Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.


What "rights" are being fought for here? No one's life's are being threatened, only the political contributions that unions can extort from it's forced memberships. Unions used to work for the working man, and now it's the other way around. Unions will fight like slave owners.
 
2012-12-12 05:14:53 PM  

liam76: Mr. Right: there is nothing in this law that limits collective bargaining

And there was nothing in Plessy v. Ferguson that limited the rights of black people to get good education, but peopel without their head up their ass could see what it did.


1. You need to learn how to spell people. Once is a mistake. Twice is a pattern.

2. You keep referring to shoving one's head up his ass like it's a new phrase you've learned or you finally moved out of you mom's basement so you can use naughty words now or you actually believe you're clever. But I can't shove my head up my ass. Your wife is too busy rimming me.
 
2012-12-12 06:02:26 PM  

log_jammin: GAT_00: See above. And yeah, if I went to an anti-gay marriage rally and gloated to someone's face about how gays were going to get married and they couldn't stop it, I'd expect to be punched in the face too.

Oh the dude was without a doubt trolling the crowd, But I don't think "he had it coming". I don't make excuses for bad behavior.


Well, you can certainly say that the guy had it coming AND the other guy didn't have to punch him. Human reactions are nuanced, and there's no shame in recognizing that, while the protester should not have thrown a punch, the Fox dumbass should have learned basic manners before graduating elementary school.
 
2012-12-12 06:51:02 PM  
At least Hitler put people out of their misery. As opposed to a life under the Union heel.
 
2012-12-12 07:01:48 PM  
First it was all the violence we saw at those Tea Party protests, now we see the left doing it too. Stupid. Come on Libtards, don't stoop to the level of those Righties.
 
2012-12-12 11:21:57 PM  
Union dude had enough of that guys shiat.

Reporter has a right to free speech; but not a right from consequences of that speech.
 
2012-12-12 11:33:25 PM  
Just one? That's too bad. Should've been all Fox "reporters".
 
2012-12-13 12:07:12 AM  

m2313: Mr. Right: But it's about the liberal Democrat political agenda

And that's where you stopped being credible.
This is about a weak centre-right/mostly right wing neoliberal defense of basic working conditions against an outright fascist attempt to stifle worker's rights.
Earlier someone mentioned how Republicans were called extremists. That's because you're just bigots attacking and crushing people's rights for the sake of fascist domination of America. As much as the Democrats have been reluctant to show spine, it's nice to see an occasional tit-for-tat or pushback in defense against the fascist takeover.


youkeepusingthatword.jpeg

The word you're looking for is Authoritarian... not Fascist. While Fascism itself is Authoritarian, not all Authoritarianism is Fascist. Additionally, Fascism pulls from both left-wing and right-wing ideals, it is more of a centrist philosophy, or a 'third-branch' as it were. Though really if you were to draw things correctly on a political spectrum, it would be impossible to do in 2 dimensions. 3 dimensions would be tricky, but it might work. Nazism is also on that 'third-branch' as well, so comparing either Left or left leaning parties or right or right leaning parties to Fascism or Nazism is a fallacy. Yes, they share traits, but I share traits with a chimpanzee, that doesn't make me one.

Of course, the real problem is, as Void_Beavis stated:

"All the while, we see ever increasing "religious wars of ideals" being waged between the two, while middle class slowly shrinks to obscurity, along with the American dream."

the ever increasing view of politics being a 'team sport' or a 'holy crusade', where the other 'side' is wrong simply because they are the other 'side'. Until we can correct this, we will continue to be on a path to destruction of the country. The fiscal crisis and job crisis are just the beginning.
 
2012-12-13 01:22:44 AM  

Frederick: Union dude had enough of that guys shiat.

Reporter has a right to free speech; but not a right from consequences of that speech.


Illegal activity is not a protected response to free speech, dumbass.
 
2012-12-13 02:37:26 AM  

Lsherm: Frederick: Union dude had enough of that guys shiat.

Reporter has a right to free speech; but not a right from consequences of that speech.

Illegal activity is not a protected response to free speech, dumbass.


Says the guy anonymously on the internet where consequence has no meaning. Really well supported.
 
2012-12-13 04:43:58 AM  
MSU students love any excuse for a good riot.
 
2012-12-13 07:47:57 AM  

Mr. Right: liam76: Mr. Right: there is nothing in this law that limits collective bargaining

And there was nothing in Plessy v. Ferguson that limited the rights of black people to get good education, but peopel without their head up their ass could see what it did.

1. You need to learn how to spell people. Once is a mistake. Twice is a pattern.


I think faster than I type, I am not going to bother checking for mistakes with someone as simple or as deliberately obtuse as yourself.

2. You keep referring to shoving one's head up his ass like it's a new phrase you've learned or you finally moved out of you mom's basement so you can use naughty words now or you actually believe you're clever. But I can't shove my head up my ass. Your wife is too busy rimming me.

Nothing clever about it. I fear anything clever would go above your head seeing as you are too dim to understand the implications of this law.

I am guessing you are going on to "wife bashing" because you realize that your stupid reition of "there is nothing in this law that limits collective bargaining" is as dumb as arguing that "there was nothing in Plessy v. Ferguson that limited the rights of black people to get good education".
 
2012-12-13 10:05:20 AM  

liam76: Mr. Right: liam76: Mr. Right: there is nothing in this law that limits collective bargaining

And there was nothing in Plessy v. Ferguson that limited the rights of black people to get good education, but peopel without their head up their ass could see what it did.

1. You need to learn how to spell people. Once is a mistake. Twice is a pattern.

I think faster than I type, I am not going to bother checking for mistakes with someone as simple or as deliberately obtuse as yourself.

2. You keep referring to shoving one's head up his ass like it's a new phrase you've learned or you finally moved out of you mom's basement so you can use naughty words now or you actually believe you're clever. But I can't shove my head up my ass. Your wife is too busy rimming me.

Nothing clever about it. I fear anything clever would go above your head seeing as you are too dim to understand the implications of this law.

I am guessing you are going on to "wife bashing" because you realize that your stupid reition of "there is nothing in this law that limits collective bargaining" is as dumb as arguing that "there was nothing in Plessy v. Ferguson that limited the rights of black people to get good education".


Here's what you're too stupid to understand. The only thing that will limit a union's ability or effectiveness in collective bargaining is their own performance. Unions have long since ceased to care about the workers. They have focused on political activities instead. Rather than find ways to be cost effective so that union labor can be competitive, they keep layering on costs. It isn't the hourly wage or even the benefits that make unions non-competitive. It's the layers of work rules that add cost without value, the time wasted by stewards and grievance procedures. Then, when you factor in unions' reluctance to go with defined contribution instead of defined benefit pensions, you end up with any other labor being more competitive. Any diminution of union membership or influence is a direct result of the union management itself, not any RTW law. 

You bring up Plessy v. Ferguson twice. That's kind of amazing. I figured you'd realize how irrelevant it was to any union discussion and be embarrassed at trying to make a connection. You are obviously too stupid to be embarrassed. Plessy v. Ferguson destroyed the consumer's right to choose by enforcing segregation. RTW creates the consumer's right to choose by allowing free association.

Maybe if you didn't have your head so far up some union boss' ass, you'd get enough oxygen to understand that.
 
2012-12-13 10:28:04 AM  

tgambitg: Though really if you were to draw things correctly on a political spectrum, it would be impossible to do in 2 dimensions. 3 dimensions would be tricky, but it might work. Nazism is also on that 'third-branch' as well, so comparing either Left or left leaning parties or right or right leaning parties to Fascism or Nazism is a fallacy. Yes, they share traits, but I share traits with a chimpanzee, that doesn't make me one.


draw a political spectrum with authoritarianism on the left, anarchy on the right.
 
2012-12-13 10:59:45 AM  

Mr. Right: The only thing that will limit a union's ability or effectiveness in collective bargaining is their own performance.


If someone gets the benefit of a union without the having to be a member will membership drop, yes or no?

If membership drops too low does that make collective bargaining impossible/more difficult, yes or no?

These are really basic questions you have been unable to answer because you are too stupid or too dishoenst to have a grown up conversation on this topic.

You bring up some valid points abotu real problesm with unions that I have pointed out in this and many other threads bnut that is lost in your derp if you are too stupid/dishonest to understand the above implications of the law.


Mr. Right: You bring up Plessy v. Ferguson twice. That's kind of amazing. I figured you'd realize how irrelevant it was to any union discussion and be embarrassed at trying to make a connection.


Irrelevant to unions in general, yes. Irrelevant to people who are too dense to understand implications of laws or legal rulings that aren't clearly spelled out, no.

Mr. Right: Maybe if you didn't have your head so far up some union boss' ass.


Why don't you try reading my posts again, I have lots of problems with unions, however that doesn't mean I have to lie abotut he implications of anti-union laws.
 
2012-12-13 11:59:16 AM  
US companies can only win with innovation. Not exactly in the union wheelhouse.

Fox news guy was "asking for it", you know like a cute girl in a miniskirt...
 
2012-12-13 12:20:39 PM  

liam76: If someone gets the benefit of a union without the having to be a member will membership drop, yes or no?


That depends on how well the union represents its workers. There have been several interviews with union members who are in favor of the RTW laws but will continue membership in their union because they think they're getting value. It may be a bit of projection on your part to assume everyone is going to try to get something for nothing.

liam76: If membership drops too low does that make collective bargaining impossible/more difficult, yes or no?


If a union is certified as the bargaining unit at a company, they are the only unit that may collectively bargain. There have been plenty of examples of membership falling too low even without RTW. It's called de-certification. It's when union members decide that the union is not operating in their best interest and they agree to do without a union. It's happened a lot. RTW has had no effect on that.

liam76: You bring up some valid points abotu real problesm with unions that I have pointed out in this and many other threads bnut that is lost in your derp if you are too stupid/dishonest to understand the above implications of the law.


The unstated implications of this law have nothing to do with a union's ability to collectively bargain and everything to do with the fact that Democrats hate RTW laws because it cuts out huge amounts of money that was never intended to help union members in any way but to influence elections. That is the sum total of opposition to RTW by Democrats - it's going to dry up campaign funds.

Rather than limit a union's ability to collectively bargain, RTW is going to allow union members to decide if they are getting value for their dues dollar. If they don't think they are, they will flee the unions as they already have been in the private sector. If the ability of unions to collectively bargain is diminished, it will be because of the union's own ineptitude or tone-deafness to the needs and desires of its members. Unions' ability to collectively bargain has been diminished over the years for exactly that reason. RTW might change the trajectory of unions' demise, it's not going to be the cause of it.

None of which changes the fact that the law does not anywhere limit a union's ability to collectively bargain. There is nothing sinister in this law against unions. It does force unions to be responsive to their members and any diminution of unions' effectiveness in the labor market is on their own heads.

You will, of course, feel the need to respond to this because you probably are incapable of being wrong. But I'm done with this. None is so blind as he who will not see.
 
2012-12-13 12:31:49 PM  

Mr. Right: liam76: If someone gets the benefit of a union without the having to be a member will membership drop, yes or no?

That depends on how well the union represents its workers. There have been several interviews with union members who are in favor of the RTW laws but will continue membership in their union because they think they're getting value. It may be a bit of projection on your part to assume everyone is going to try to get something for nothing.



Who is projecting here?

You can't get through one response honestly.


Mr. Right: liam76: If membership drops too low does that make collective bargaining impossible/more difficult, yes or no?

If a union is certified as the bargaining unit at a company, they are the only unit that may collectively bargain. There have been plenty of examples of membership falling too low even without RTW. It's called de-certification. It's when union members decide that the union is not operating in their best interest and they agree to do without a union. It's happened a lot. RTW has had no effect on that


So if it drops to low they are decertified, which makes it hard to collectively bargain, right? So that would be a yes.

The fact that it has happened without RTW in no way implies RTW laws have an impact.

Mr. Right: You will, of course, feel the need to respond to this because you probably are incapable of being wrong.


I feel the need to respond because you are a dishonest piece of shiat who can't get throught he Weeners without moving goal posts.

I have been wrong plenty of times on this site and I am fine admitting that. You on the other hand are digging in with your derp, and in order to defend it have repeatedly pretended I am completely pro-union. Have fun with that.

When you can grow up and actually answer the above questions, we can have a talk, until then I will continue to mock you for being the moron you are.
 
2012-12-13 03:15:31 PM  
meanwhile in Canada.. they just passed a law FORCING the unions to publicly declare where every single dime is spent.

The unions are going apeshiat over it. Apparently transparency is a bad thing in a union.
 
2012-12-13 04:09:40 PM  

kvinesknows: meanwhile in Canada.. they just passed a law FORCING the unions to publicly declare where every single dime is spent.

The unions are going apeshiat over it. Apparently transparency is a bad thing in a union.


I like that one. Good unions have their place--I'm not rabidly against them. But all too often they fight for really inefficient things and wreck what should be a good situation.
 
2012-12-13 07:24:05 PM  
I still don't know what Democrats have against freedom of choice. Choice seems to be what they want in other issues. Consistency, how does it work?
 
2012-12-13 11:29:57 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: I still don't know what Democrats have against freedom of choice.


Leftists are filled with rage and hate, coupled with a pathological aversion to observing and comprehending economic reality.

It's pretty simple, really.
 
2012-12-14 03:39:37 AM  

Fifi Le Pew:
And previous posters are right -- something of this magnitude should be voted on by the public. Not ram-rodded through in a closed door session of lame-ducks. This just stinks to high heaven.


There was more debate in the 'ramrodded' "we have to pass it to see what's in it" PPACA bill than any of the ALEC bills since 2010 combined. Was sort of pleased to see them painfully recognize the referendum power in Ohio through them putting a measure in to prevent it in Michigan - showing contempt for the constituents in a manner reserved for monarchies. 

/ALEC can be stopped in that state
//and the referendum block is proof of it
 
2012-12-14 03:43:44 AM  

rwdflynavy: US companies can only win with innovation. Not exactly in the union wheelhouse.


Perhaps it would be time for unionbusting firms (by function) to go out of existence. Legislative innovation through required disclosure of any relationship between them and anyone would go a long way.
 
Displayed 430 of 430 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report