I support Occupy Wall Street. Why Will doesn't support OWS? I'd say the obvious reason is because he's a corporatist. If you want the corporations to rule then the 99 percent movement isn't for you.
You said: "I support Occupy Wall Street. Why Will doesn't support OWS? I'd say the obvious reason is because he's a corporatist. If you want the corporations to rule then the 99 percent movement isn't for you."
Hmmm. So says w-dervish using everything in his house brought to him by corporate America, driving a corporate America car, and wearing corporate America clothing.
ecc102: So says w-dervish using everything in his house brought to him by corporate America...
How lame. The OWS protestors aren't Commies saying corporations should be abolished. Corporations need to be regulated so that they aren't able to crash the economy (again).
They also need to be regulated to stop them from skimming so much money off the top when it passes through the financial sector.
None of that has anything to do with not using products manufactured by people who work for corporations.
Although some protestors may believe we should be making more of those things here in America. Which begs the question... why do you refer to "corporate AMERICA" when a lot of these corporations manufacture their goods overseas and are headquartered (have mailboxes in) countries that shield them from US taxes?
Welcome to the crazy world of wd, ecc102. If you're unfamiliar with the fellow, this is how he runs. If you ever happen to disagree with him on a topic, he quickly foists some hackneyed and (in his mind anyway) pejorative label on you. A "corporatist" - that's evidently what I am now (this, because I advocate for an elimination of the corporate income tax, never mind the fact that I'm also in favor of a progressive rate for individuals, an elimination of the special consideration for capital gains, a reduction on the cap for mortgage interest deduction, and the fact that progressive economist, Robert Reich actually agrees with me!!). It'll be interesting to see what sort of label he comes up with for you.
As for the OWS movement, I'm still waiting for a coherent message from them (a little more media scrutiny wouldn't hurt, either; ie., who's funding them, the fact that it's costing the tax-payers money to oversee this little party of theirs, why are some of their messages so radical, etc. - you know, the type of scrutiny that the Tea Party received).
And, yes, I am part of the 99%, wd. You want to know what else that I'm a part of? I'm a part of the 53% that pays federal income tax, state income tax, and local property tax. I write two humongous checks to my town every year so that these poor huddled masses of yours can have a free education, heating assistance, food stamps, etc.. How about a movement for us?
According to a study cited by the March of Dimes, an unmarried mother under 20 who's also a high school dropout has a 64% chance of living in poverty, compared to a married mother over 20 with a high school diploma who only have a 7% chance (an 89% lesser chance). I would really love to hear how the OWS movement is going to tackle this rather debilitating syndrome.......http://www.marchofdimes.com/medicalresources_teenpregnancy.html
Will: I'm also in the 99.99%. The rest of us who are not the ruling elites in Washington.... not the folks who caused the economic disaster with the Fannie and Freddie.... not the folks who gave the bailouts to Wall Street.
Check out this statement from one of the groups supporting it:
"WHO holds the WEALTH and POWER in this country – the JUDEO-CAPITALISTS. WHO is therefore the #1 ENEMY who makes all this filth happen – the JUDEO-CAPITALISTS."
- from the American Nazi Party
"The movement is the newest wrinkle in the all-people’s upsurge against the banks and corporations and reflects a new level of class-consciousness."
- from the CPUSA, the remnant of the will of the Soviet Union in America.
Both these groups refrained from supporting the Tea Party. The endorsement of OWS by these murderous ultra-fascists is far more troubling than seeing a "Lyin' African" sign at a Tea Party rally.
I did a post a few weeks ago about wolves in sheep's clothing Dmarks.
The OWS crowd is being infiltrated by jive turkeys to discredit it.
I've even had my humble blog "followed" by sleazeballs who I figure either wanted to discredit me or were just goofballs thinking they'd attract followers from my site. Hopefully I got rid of most or all of them.
Now when are you going to make up another "friend", this time a nazi who joined OWS Dmarks?
Truth: I never made up any friends. The few I know who were bullied by unions are close friends, and I will not like to you as you want by denying my life and experiences. If you want more explanation, email me.
I know no-one who has been to anything in the OWS.
But I did witness leftists with "provocatuer" signs infiltrating a tea party rally.
And I know businesses that have bullied employess for trying to excersise their rights to organize Dmarks.
Ever heard of Walmart?
Ever heard of the great golfer Ben Hogan? He started his golf club company and when a union organizer came through he told the employees he would fire them all and start over.
You like doing the tit for tat which I find intellectually lazy. You ever want a real conversation about how unionizing can be fair to labor and management that would be wonderful. To date, not you or anyone else has ever tried to engage in that conversation.
To paraphrase your girlfriend Michelle Bachman Dmarks, then let them get a job that isn't union.
And the law also says the union has to represent freeloaders who don;t want to be members if their employer is union.
I thought yu were a capitalist and right winger who believed in personal responsibilty and paying your own way Dmarks. Apparently you are weasel who thinks weasels should benefit from the benefits of union membership without paying for them.
Your untruths about unions are what gets these responses Dmarks.
"To paraphrase your girlfriend Michelle Bachman Dmarks, then let them get a job that isn't union."
No, the workers should have their basic rights to work protected, without a requirement of having to join a political organization that has nothing to do with the job. You are quite hostile to workers rights as usual.
Non-union workers aren't freeloaders. They earn what they get by working. How contemptuous to call hard-working people who earn they pay by working for it "Freeloaders".
I am sticking to the facts about these anti-worker organizations, these unions.
Will: I write two humongous checks to my town every year so that these poor huddled masses of yours can have a free education, heating assistance, food stamps, etc.. How about a movement for us?
You don't want one. You've made that clear with the positions you've taken. If the corporations paid their fair share perhaps Will Hart could pay less. Instead he argues for them to pay absolutely nothing!
Also, again with you denigrating people who are less fortunate. Perhaps it's time for another post where you get really worried about the taxes on wealthy individuals going too high? How truly pathetic. And spoken like a true heartless Republican.
Will: ...the type of scrutiny that the Tea Party received... who's funding them
The Tea Party received a lackluster scrutiny. Some news organizations reported the truth, which is that people who identify with the Tea Party movement are dupes being played by wealthy Republicans (like the Kochs) who want their businesses deregulated and their taxes lowered. But that truth isn't widely accepted. Some still contend that the Tea Party is grassroots!
Nobody is funding OWS (except themselves). I've heard some wealthy Liberals may be contributing some money (Fox Nooz says George Soros), but this is after the fact. Wealthy Liberals didn't start the movement. The 99 percent movement, unlike the Tea Party movement, is a TRUE grassroots movement.
dmarks: A lot more of those companies would be here, hiring a lot more American workers if not for the overhigh taxation and regulation.
This is complete and utter nonsense. Taxation overall is at an all time low. Corporations are paying less then ever. We need more regulation, not less.
dmarks: I am sticking to the facts about these anti-worker organizations, these unions.
This is purely your opinion and ZERO fact. The only reason unions exist is because they are completely PRO-worker. That is the only reason there are unions. They exist solely to represent workers and make sure they get a fair shake (which most likely explains why you hate them so).
WD,your anti-corporation rants beg one question.In your mind what is an acceptable profit margin for a company? Is it 5%,10%,15%,higher? Let me put it another way.In your opinion,what would be an acceptable R.O.I? And lastly,what do you think would be an acceptable dividend to investors? Now please,if you choose to give answers be so kind to actually give some numbers.
Rusty's last comment shows that it is he who is clueless about business. His only tired mantra is "taxes and regulation bad"... as if not for those two things any business would be successful.
btw, I've never said "corporations bad". What I've been saying is that corporations need to be regulated and fairly taxed, but that doesn't equal "corporations bad". So... my views regarding corporations would be another thing Rusty is clueless about.
Rusty, Truth was talking about the institutional Right, not about workers foolishly voting Republican.
Truth: Unions are illegitimate organiations because they bully people into joining them. I'd respect them if they were like the NRA, ACLU, and Sierra Club. Like unions, they are political pressure groups. But they which force NO people join them.
Yes, unions exist because they are for the interest of workers... some workers. 10% of them, actually. 90% of us say "union no!"
They exist solely to represent workers and make sure they get a fair shake (which most likely explains why you hate them so)."
Actually, they bully workers and impoverish them. Visit Flint, Michigan to see all the auto industry related plants that the UAW forced GM to close.
And statewide, remember the home health worker scandal. Home care workers were forced into the union without a vote and then the union cut their pay.
If you really think unions are great, and that workers love them, why not trust the workers. Let each person choose whether or not to join.
Put workers first. An alien concept to the union mindset.
"Most workers now would like to have union protection and a contract."
How 'bout this, Mr 101. Unions served a great purpose, but they have over-stayed their welcome. In my job, I benefit from early union efforts to provide basic worker protections.
The many worker protections that unions fought for have now been enshrined in U.S. law. Good job, thanks a lot, you succeeded. Now what?
You are one ballsy son of a bitch, wd. Not only do I pay gobs and gobs of taxes every year, I've spent the last 30 years working in the trenches with these vulnerable populations that you consistently (not by doing anything yourself, mind you, but by lobbying for people other than yourself to pay significantly higher taxes) claim to support. And, yes, because of that, I know the difference between people who are poor not through any fault of their own and those who are poor because of idiotic choices, shameless attempts to game the system, etc.. You just might want to get out from behind the computer and those Hartman/Moulitsis/Olbermann bromides every once in a while.
And, just for the record, we have nearly half of the population of this country paying ZERO federal income taxes, ZERO, state income taxes, and ZERO local property taxes. And that's fine. That's fine. I don't want people to pay anything if they can't afford it. But it would be nice if occasionally the 53% of us who DO pay these taxes got a little appreciation for it.......Also, wd, there isn't enough money among the "wealthy" to do everything that you apparently want to do (if we taxed everything over $250,000 a year at ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, we still would have a deficit). It ALWAYS comes down to people like me to pick up the tab for your "it's no skin off me" brand of compassion.......And, what about it? What's YOUR solution to the fact that unmarried mothers under 20 who drop out of high school are NINE times more likely to live in poverty than those who graduate and defer having a baby? Tax the rich?
Government enforces these laws and the only purpose the union will have is to negotiate better wages and benefits Heathen.
That in itself is a good reason to organize. Or at least keep the threat of organizing over their heads. Surprising what management will give up to keep the union out.
Scumbaggery is not the sole curse of any one economic class.
I do enjoy WD getting under your skin though Will. The Griper tries to get under mine but I know that the sword of truth I wield shatters the shield of lies and bullshit carried by any righty.
@Truth 101 "...the only purpose the union will have is to negotiate better wages and benefits Heathen."
Yeah, this is the point of disagreement. I think every profession and every job should be paid market wages. Unions don't fight for market wages; they fight for above market wages, more benefits, restrictive work rules, and fewer hours of work.
I think collective bargaining harms the workers who are represented. There is no incentive to excel because everyone gets the same wage. There is every incentive to do as little work as possible because everyone gets the same wage.
What restrictive work rules are you talking about Heathen?
Management has the sole right to establish work and safety rules limited only by what's in the contract. And if management does a lousy job negotiating then lousy rules are their fault.
@Truth 101 "What restrictive work rules are you talking about Heathen?"
A few examples for you:
1) On talk radio, the host can't turn on his own microphone. Union rules say the engineer turns it on.
2) Can't pick up trash on the factory floor, even if it's a hazard. Union rules say the floor sweeper picks up trash.
3) If your production line is down and another is short staffed, you can't help out the other line. Union rules.
4) Saw on TV the other night, one group of union workers can dig the hole, but not lift the casket. The other group can lift the casket, but not clear away more dirt. Union rules.
It's all about protecting jobs, like the floor sweeper's job if everyone else starts picking up trash (god forbid). It's not about efficiency; it's not about producing more stuff so the company earns more money and adds more jobs.
Fact is, as a former bargaining unit committeeman, it was me that negotiated job consolidation so my members would have more duties and responsibilities which made thwm worth more. As well as protecting them from outsourcing.
Course then again, maybe it's sensible stuff like this that got me run out of my positions as officer and committeeman.
let's get into this type of behaviour from union hierarchy. That is the real threat and ultimate demise of unions. Dmarks and you, by evidence of your last comment, simply parrot bullshit you heard on FOX News or other right wing propaganda outfits.
No doubt you will find a chart on a anti union site to give your comment some cred. Even if it's nonsense.
@Truth 101 "And why do you have a problem with protecting American jobs anyway?"
Nice try, cheap shot. You're better than that because you know that isn't what I said. But if the only way you can win an argument is to distort what someone says, I guess you use the gifts you've been given.
"Dmarks and you, by evidence of your last comment, simply parrot bullshit you heard on FOX News or other right wing propaganda outfits."
This is another attempt to simply shut me up without addressing my point. You and I have been having a civil discussion, and I haven't watched Fox News in a few days. To say that someone is spouting talking points is to try and undermine their credibility by ignoring what they say. Again nice try, but I'm calling bullshit.
I cited four specific examples of work rules. Your best response was are they still in effect. You acted as though you didn't know what kind of work rules I was talking about, and later admit you've personally negotiated these kind of work rules. You're being disingenuous, and you're hurting your own credibility without me having to call you any names or distoring your arguments.
Let's return to my original question to you, which you have ignored and still not answered:
"Unions served a great purpose, but they have over-stayed their welcome... The many worker protections that unions fought for have now been enshrined in U.S. law. Good job, thanks a lot, you succeeded. Now what?"
Why does anyone have to be pro-union or anti-union? What's with the labels? Why don't we have a civilized discussion? I've acknowledged the value of unions in the past, but I doubt their value now. Can you educate me on their modern day value?
I never negotiated work rules which limit employees to one task. Did you read my comments Heathen?
And please produce where these work rules still exsist for me.
And I stand by the "cheap shot" as you called it. it's nice to know at least one organization is sticking up for American Workers.
Workplace safety and training are areas where unions are effective and needed. Sorry Heathen but I don't have a whole lot of trust in someone who's priority is the bottom line and not a safe workplace.
I am proud that union workers make more than non union. Why wouldn't I be? I and my fellow workers are worth it. And getting paid a fair wage is far more likely through collective bargaining.
As I said before, management has the sole right to make and enforce work rules. That means they have the responsibility to make sure they are followed. If they don't and a slacker stays on the payroll, your problem is with management.
Your whole problem is with ineffective management Heathen. Don't blame me or my former fellow union bargaining committeemen for weak managers.
Truth said: ""Dmarks and you, by evidence of your last comment, simply parrot bullshit you heard on FOX News or other right wing propaganda outfits."
Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about, and are lashing out to cover up ignorance. Fox News? Come on. I hardly watch it. I listen to NPR 20 times as much as I watch Fox News.
My knowledge of the war of unions against workers comes from watching it close up.
Truth said: "And getting paid a fair wage is far more likely through collective bargaining."
Actually, it is much less likely. A fair wage is a wage that is for the real value of the work.
Situation in which workers are bullied into joining a "collective", which companies are then forced to obey regardless of economic realities, badly skews the situation.
The resulting wages way above the fair value might seem good in the short run, but it is not sustainable, especially when there is competition with companies that pay an actual fair wage. Then you get Flint, Michigan.
Want to balance the war between unions and workers and put power back in the hands of working people? Institute national right to work.
Also never mentioned is that the unions are indeed mainly political organizations. Workers are forced against their will to political causes and campaigns which half or more of them oppose.
It makes as much sense to force people to join unions as a condition of employment as it does to force them to join the Baptist Curch as a condition of employment. Both of these have absolutely nothing to do with anyone's ability to do the job. And both of these organizations stand for beliefs that go against the interests of a huge proportion of workers.
Truth said; "Why are you against faor remuneration for workers as well as workplace safety Dmarks? That's what unions are for.
(1) I am for fair enumeration. This rarely happens when unions are involved.
(2) Any argument for workplace safety goes out the window when you look at all the incidents on the picket line or related activities where union 'workers' assault and harass a company's workers. How was worker safety served when union leader Jimmy Hoffa ordered nonworking Teamsters members to fire upon working truck drivers? Or the factory my wife worked at where the union prevented the company from firing a worker who liked to beat up people in the workplace. When companies try to fire dangerous workers, if there is a union around, they will try to keep that worker in the workplace.
(3) Most workers disagree with you that this is what unions are for.
"... parrot right wing, anti Working American talking points."
All of my points are well-considered. This is a classic example of when you don't like the facts, you use insults like "parrot' and 'talking points'. You have no evidence that what you claim is the case.
"And to date, you still refuse an actual discussion on how to make unions better. You are only capable of of lies and bullshit."
1) Name one lie. 2) "Bullshit" is a perfect hollow insult, as you blow your stack rather than learn any facts.
OK. actual discussion. Moving up from your lies and lowbrow accusations you make. Here we go.
Make unions better by making them accountable to workers. By making it so no worker is forced to join against his/her will. Then the unions would have to be accountable in order to attract workers. Right now they aren't. Consider the old factories in Detroit, where you will hardly even find a worker who ever even voted to have the union in the factory. Most of union members are in unions due to force.
"You're a dime a dozen [lame insult] Dmarks."
Sorry. I refuse to lie. I refuse to accept injustice and crushing workers rights. If I have to lie and start to oppose workers' rights in order to gain your favor so you say I have "promise", I won't do it.
Your nonsense about workers being forced to join is a bullshit argument though. The fact is workers that refuse to join still, by law, get union representation and benefits even though they don't pay for them through dues.
These people are freeloaders. Unions are correct to negotiate closed shop agreements. States that have thes eso called right to work laws do so to financially break unions.
The union is required to represent workers regardless. It is the company's responsibilty to build the case for firing. In every contract I've ever seen fighting is one of the acts considered so egregious it is cause for immediate suspension or termination.
Your company in question must have a pretty lame human resource director if your story is true and the employee truly was a scumbag.
If the employer lost why weren't charges pressed and restraining orders put on the guy?
More here than meets the eye Dmarks. As full disclosure I admit to getting guys who deserved far worsed punishments than they got as a committeeman. It was my job to get them the best deal I could. And if you suggest the employer and union need to work together more to either correct or get rid of dead weight or troublemakers, I would agree. You gotta document everything though. And that is the best benefit union labor has. Job security. It's work to fire the bums and the bosses are just as lazy as anyone I agree that bad employees are bad for the company as a whole. But as I pointed out many times, the company has the sole right to fire and discipline. They're willing to share that, I'd be willing to work on it.
That's a hell of an insult to use for people who earn what they get by working for it.
"Your nonsense about workers being forced to join is a bullshit argument though."
It's extremely factual, in any closed-shop state such as Michigan, which I am most familiar with. You have to pay to this political organization, or you won't be hired. People are routinely bullied.
Thankfully, workers rights are getting the upper hand in Michigan, and there is a strong push for 'right to work' now.
"The fact is workers that refuse to join still, by law, get union representation and benefits even though they don't pay for them through dues."
"Benefits" such as the pay cuts and closed factories?
They get the benefit of the higher wages and benefits negotiated by the union Dmarks. To deny that is a lie on your part.
Union workers get far better benefits than non union. If you pals want lower wages and less benefits, let them go work someplace that is non union and get them. maye Michelle Bachman's husband will hire them.
45 comments:
Yeah, I'm with you. The wife and I seriously considered driving 20 minutes to a Tea Party rally in late 2009, but we found other stuff to do.
I support Occupy Wall Street. Why Will doesn't support OWS? I'd say the obvious reason is because he's a corporatist. If you want the corporations to rule then the 99 percent movement isn't for you.
@W-dervish,
You said:
"I support Occupy Wall Street. Why Will doesn't support OWS? I'd say the obvious reason is because he's a corporatist. If you want the corporations to rule then the 99 percent movement isn't for you."
Hmmm. So says w-dervish using everything in his house brought to him by corporate America, driving a corporate America car, and wearing corporate America clothing.
*yawn*
ecc102: So says w-dervish using everything in his house brought to him by corporate America...
How lame. The OWS protestors aren't Commies saying corporations should be abolished. Corporations need to be regulated so that they aren't able to crash the economy (again).
They also need to be regulated to stop them from skimming so much money off the top when it passes through the financial sector.
None of that has anything to do with not using products manufactured by people who work for corporations.
Although some protestors may believe we should be making more of those things here in America. Which begs the question... why do you refer to "corporate AMERICA" when a lot of these corporations manufacture their goods overseas and are headquartered (have mailboxes in) countries that shield them from US taxes?
A lot more of those companies would be here, hiring a lot more American workers if not for the overhigh taxation and regulation.
Welcome to the crazy world of wd, ecc102. If you're unfamiliar with the fellow, this is how he runs. If you ever happen to disagree with him on a topic, he quickly foists some hackneyed and (in his mind anyway) pejorative label on you. A "corporatist" - that's evidently what I am now (this, because I advocate for an elimination of the corporate income tax, never mind the fact that I'm also in favor of a progressive rate for individuals, an elimination of the special consideration for capital gains, a reduction on the cap for mortgage interest deduction, and the fact that progressive economist, Robert Reich actually agrees with me!!). It'll be interesting to see what sort of label he comes up with for you.
As for the OWS movement, I'm still waiting for a coherent message from them (a little more media scrutiny wouldn't hurt, either; ie., who's funding them, the fact that it's costing the tax-payers money to oversee this little party of theirs, why are some of their messages so radical, etc. - you know, the type of scrutiny that the Tea Party received).
And, yes, I am part of the 99%, wd. You want to know what else that I'm a part of? I'm a part of the 53% that pays federal income tax, state income tax, and local property tax. I write two humongous checks to my town every year so that these poor huddled masses of yours can have a free education, heating assistance, food stamps, etc.. How about a movement for us?
According to a study cited by the March of Dimes, an unmarried mother under 20 who's also a high school dropout has a 64% chance of living in poverty, compared to a married mother over 20 with a high school diploma who only have a 7% chance (an 89% lesser chance). I would really love to hear how the OWS movement is going to tackle this rather debilitating syndrome.......http://www.marchofdimes.com/medicalresources_teenpregnancy.html
Will: I'm also in the 99.99%. The rest of us who are not the ruling elites in Washington.... not the folks who caused the economic disaster with the Fannie and Freddie.... not the folks who gave the bailouts to Wall Street.
Who else supports Occupy Wall Street?
Check out this statement from one of the groups supporting it:
"WHO holds the WEALTH and POWER in this country – the JUDEO-CAPITALISTS. WHO is therefore the #1 ENEMY who makes all this filth happen – the JUDEO-CAPITALISTS."
- from the American Nazi Party
"The movement is the newest wrinkle in the all-people’s upsurge against the banks and corporations and reflects a new level of class-consciousness."
- from the CPUSA, the remnant of the will of the Soviet Union in America.
Both these groups refrained from supporting the Tea Party. The endorsement of OWS by these murderous ultra-fascists is far more troubling than seeing a "Lyin' African" sign at a Tea Party rally.
I did a post a few weeks ago about wolves in sheep's clothing Dmarks.
The OWS crowd is being infiltrated by jive turkeys to discredit it.
I've even had my humble blog "followed" by sleazeballs who I figure either wanted to discredit me or were just goofballs thinking they'd attract followers from my site. Hopefully I got rid of most or all of them.
Now when are you going to make up another "friend", this time a nazi who joined OWS Dmarks?
Truth: I never made up any friends. The few I know who were bullied by unions are close friends, and I will not like to you as you want by denying my life and experiences. If you want more explanation, email me.
I know no-one who has been to anything in the OWS.
But I did witness leftists with "provocatuer" signs infiltrating a tea party rally.
And I know businesses that have bullied employess for trying to excersise their rights to organize Dmarks.
Ever heard of Walmart?
Ever heard of the great golfer Ben Hogan? He started his golf club company and when a union organizer came through he told the employees he would fire them all and start over.
You like doing the tit for tat which I find intellectually lazy. You ever want a real conversation about how unionizing can be fair to labor and management that would be wonderful. To date, not you or anyone else has ever tried to engage in that conversation.
The law simply states "negotiate in good faith."
Truth: The right to NOT organize is as important as the right to organize.
"You like doing the tit for tat which I find intellectually lazy. "
No, I point out the facts. Which makes you get into personal insults.
"You ever want a real conversation about how unionizing can be fair to labor and management that would be wonderful."
Forced unionizing is NEVER fair to workers. Let each worker choose.
Its ridiculous to force people to join political organizations that have nothing to do with a person's ability to do the work.
There is absolutely no good in that.
To paraphrase your girlfriend Michelle Bachman Dmarks, then let them get a job that isn't union.
And the law also says the union has to represent freeloaders who don;t want to be members if their employer is union.
I thought yu were a capitalist and right winger who believed in personal responsibilty and paying your own way Dmarks. Apparently you are weasel who thinks weasels should benefit from the benefits of union membership without paying for them.
Your untruths about unions are what gets these responses Dmarks.
"To paraphrase your girlfriend Michelle Bachman Dmarks, then let them get a job that isn't union."
No, the workers should have their basic rights to work protected, without a requirement of having to join a political organization that has nothing to do with the job. You are quite hostile to workers rights as usual.
Non-union workers aren't freeloaders. They earn what they get by working. How contemptuous to call hard-working people who earn they pay by working for it "Freeloaders".
I am sticking to the facts about these anti-worker organizations, these unions.
Another lie from you Dmarks. The freeloaders enjoy benefits of union membership without paying for them.
Will: I write two humongous checks to my town every year so that these poor huddled masses of yours can have a free education, heating assistance, food stamps, etc.. How about a movement for us?
You don't want one. You've made that clear with the positions you've taken. If the corporations paid their fair share perhaps Will Hart could pay less. Instead he argues for them to pay absolutely nothing!
Also, again with you denigrating people who are less fortunate. Perhaps it's time for another post where you get really worried about the taxes on wealthy individuals going too high? How truly pathetic. And spoken like a true heartless Republican.
Will: ...the type of scrutiny that the Tea Party received... who's funding them
The Tea Party received a lackluster scrutiny. Some news organizations reported the truth, which is that people who identify with the Tea Party movement are dupes being played by wealthy Republicans (like the Kochs) who want their businesses deregulated and their taxes lowered. But that truth isn't widely accepted. Some still contend that the Tea Party is grassroots!
Nobody is funding OWS (except themselves). I've heard some wealthy Liberals may be contributing some money (Fox Nooz says George Soros), but this is after the fact. Wealthy Liberals didn't start the movement. The 99 percent movement, unlike the Tea Party movement, is a TRUE grassroots movement.
dmarks: A lot more of those companies would be here, hiring a lot more American workers if not for the overhigh taxation and regulation.
This is complete and utter nonsense. Taxation overall is at an all time low. Corporations are paying less then ever. We need more regulation, not less.
dmarks: I am sticking to the facts about these anti-worker organizations, these unions.
This is purely your opinion and ZERO fact. The only reason unions exist is because they are completely PRO-worker. That is the only reason there are unions. They exist solely to represent workers and make sure they get a fair shake (which most likely explains why you hate them so).
WD,your anti-corporation rants beg one question.In your mind what is an acceptable profit margin for a company? Is it 5%,10%,15%,higher? Let me put it another way.In your opinion,what would be an acceptable R.O.I? And lastly,what do you think would be an acceptable dividend to investors?
Now please,if you choose to give answers be so kind to actually give some numbers.
A corporation is entitled to make however much it can legally and ethically.
Ethics mean zilch to the right. Concern for the working people of America is a nonfactor to the right.
Another country heard from....FYI Truth,the vast majority of the "right" are working americans.
Yet another vague answer from the left...you and WD are clueless about business....your only tired mantra is....corporation bad.
Rusty's last comment shows that it is he who is clueless about business. His only tired mantra is "taxes and regulation bad"... as if not for those two things any business would be successful.
btw, I've never said "corporations bad". What I've been saying is that corporations need to be regulated and fairly taxed, but that doesn't equal "corporations bad". So... my views regarding corporations would be another thing Rusty is clueless about.
Rusty, Truth was talking about the institutional Right, not about workers foolishly voting Republican.
Truth: Unions are illegitimate organiations because they bully people into joining them. I'd respect them if they were like the NRA, ACLU, and Sierra Club. Like unions, they are political pressure groups. But they which force NO people join them.
Yes, unions exist because they are for the interest of workers... some workers. 10% of them, actually. 90% of us say "union no!"
They exist solely to represent workers and make sure they get a fair shake (which most likely explains why you hate them so)."
Actually, they bully workers and impoverish them. Visit Flint, Michigan to see all the auto industry related plants that the UAW forced GM to close.
And statewide, remember the home health worker scandal. Home care workers were forced into the union without a vote and then the union cut their pay.
If you really think unions are great, and that workers love them, why not trust the workers. Let each person choose whether or not to join.
Put workers first. An alien concept to the union mindset.
Once again you lie Dmarks. Most workers now would like to have union protection and a contract.
Rusty is so duped by the right wing propagandists that arguing with him is futile. You can't argue with sheep like Dmarks and Rusty WD.
But exposing Dmarks' lies is pretty fun.
Where'd you get that 90% bullshit number from anyway Dmarks? One of you imaginary friends give it to you?
"Most workers now would like to have union protection and a contract."
How 'bout this, Mr 101. Unions served a great purpose, but they have over-stayed their welcome. In my job, I benefit from early union efforts to provide basic worker protections.
The many worker protections that unions fought for have now been enshrined in U.S. law. Good job, thanks a lot, you succeeded. Now what?
You are one ballsy son of a bitch, wd. Not only do I pay gobs and gobs of taxes every year, I've spent the last 30 years working in the trenches with these vulnerable populations that you consistently (not by doing anything yourself, mind you, but by lobbying for people other than yourself to pay significantly higher taxes) claim to support. And, yes, because of that, I know the difference between people who are poor not through any fault of their own and those who are poor because of idiotic choices, shameless attempts to game the system, etc.. You just might want to get out from behind the computer and those Hartman/Moulitsis/Olbermann bromides every once in a while.
And, just for the record, we have nearly half of the population of this country paying ZERO federal income taxes, ZERO, state income taxes, and ZERO local property taxes. And that's fine. That's fine. I don't want people to pay anything if they can't afford it. But it would be nice if occasionally the 53% of us who DO pay these taxes got a little appreciation for it.......Also, wd, there isn't enough money among the "wealthy" to do everything that you apparently want to do (if we taxed everything over $250,000 a year at ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, we still would have a deficit). It ALWAYS comes down to people like me to pick up the tab for your "it's no skin off me" brand of compassion.......And, what about it? What's YOUR solution to the fact that unmarried mothers under 20 who drop out of high school are NINE times more likely to live in poverty than those who graduate and defer having a baby? Tax the rich?
Government enforces these laws and the only purpose the union will have is to negotiate better wages and benefits Heathen.
That in itself is a good reason to organize. Or at least keep the threat of organizing over their heads. Surprising what management will give up to keep the union out.
Scumbaggery is not the sole curse of any one economic class.
I do enjoy WD getting under your skin though Will. The Griper tries to get under mine but I know that the sword of truth I wield shatters the shield of lies and bullshit carried by any righty.
@Truth 101
"...the only purpose the union will have is to negotiate better wages and benefits Heathen."
Yeah, this is the point of disagreement. I think every profession and every job should be paid market wages. Unions don't fight for market wages; they fight for above market wages, more benefits, restrictive work rules, and fewer hours of work.
I think collective bargaining harms the workers who are represented. There is no incentive to excel because everyone gets the same wage. There is every incentive to do as little work as possible because everyone gets the same wage.
What restrictive work rules are you talking about Heathen?
Management has the sole right to establish work and safety rules limited only by what's in the contract. And if management does a lousy job negotiating then lousy rules are their fault.
The advantage is with management.
@Truth 101
"What restrictive work rules are you talking about Heathen?"
A few examples for you:
1) On talk radio, the host can't turn on his own microphone. Union rules say the engineer turns it on.
2) Can't pick up trash on the factory floor, even if it's a hazard. Union rules say the floor sweeper picks up trash.
3) If your production line is down and another is short staffed, you can't help out the other line. Union rules.
4) Saw on TV the other night, one group of union workers can dig the hole, but not lift the casket. The other group can lift the casket, but not clear away more dirt. Union rules.
It's all about protecting jobs, like the floor sweeper's job if everyone else starts picking up trash (god forbid). It's not about efficiency; it's not about producing more stuff so the company earns more money and adds more jobs.
Mnagement agreed to these rules Heathen.
And where are they still in effect. McCormack Place in Chicago had this setup years ago but it was stopped.
And why do you have a problem with protecting American jobs anyway?
Fact is, as a former bargaining unit committeeman, it was me that negotiated job consolidation so my members would have more duties and responsibilities which made thwm worth more. As well as protecting them from outsourcing.
Course then again, maybe it's sensible stuff like this that got me run out of my positions as officer and committeeman.
let's get into this type of behaviour from union hierarchy. That is the real threat and ultimate demise of unions. Dmarks and you, by evidence of your last comment, simply parrot bullshit you heard on FOX News or other right wing propaganda outfits.
No doubt you will find a chart on a anti union site to give your comment some cred. Even if it's nonsense.
@Truth 101
"And why do you have a problem with protecting American jobs anyway?"
Nice try, cheap shot. You're better than that because you know that isn't what I said. But if the only way you can win an argument is to distort what someone says, I guess you use the gifts you've been given.
"Dmarks and you, by evidence of your last comment, simply parrot bullshit you heard on FOX News or other right wing propaganda outfits."
This is another attempt to simply shut me up without addressing my point. You and I have been having a civil discussion, and I haven't watched Fox News in a few days. To say that someone is spouting talking points is to try and undermine their credibility by ignoring what they say. Again nice try, but I'm calling bullshit.
I cited four specific examples of work rules. Your best response was are they still in effect. You acted as though you didn't know what kind of work rules I was talking about, and later admit you've personally negotiated these kind of work rules. You're being disingenuous, and you're hurting your own credibility without me having to call you any names or distoring your arguments.
Let's return to my original question to you, which you have ignored and still not answered:
"Unions served a great purpose, but they have over-stayed their welcome... The many worker protections that unions fought for have now been enshrined in U.S. law. Good job, thanks a lot, you succeeded. Now what?"
Why does anyone have to be pro-union or anti-union? What's with the labels? Why don't we have a civilized discussion? I've acknowledged the value of unions in the past, but I doubt their value now. Can you educate me on their modern day value?
I never negotiated work rules which limit employees to one task. Did you read my comments Heathen?
And please produce where these work rules still exsist for me.
And I stand by the "cheap shot" as you called it. it's nice to know at least one organization is sticking up for American Workers.
Workplace safety and training are areas where unions are effective and needed. Sorry Heathen but I don't have a whole lot of trust in someone who's priority is the bottom line and not a safe workplace.
I am proud that union workers make more than non union. Why wouldn't I be? I and my fellow workers are worth it. And getting paid a fair wage is far more likely through collective bargaining.
As I said before, management has the sole right to make and enforce work rules. That means they have the responsibility to make sure they are followed. If they don't and a slacker stays on the payroll, your problem is with management.
Your whole problem is with ineffective management Heathen. Don't blame me or my former fellow union bargaining committeemen for weak managers.
Truth said: ""Dmarks and you, by evidence of your last comment, simply parrot bullshit you heard on FOX News or other right wing propaganda outfits."
Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about, and are lashing out to cover up ignorance. Fox News? Come on. I hardly watch it. I listen to NPR 20 times as much as I watch Fox News.
My knowledge of the war of unions against workers comes from watching it close up.
Truth said: "And getting paid a fair wage is far more likely through collective bargaining."
Actually, it is much less likely. A fair wage is a wage that is for the real value of the work.
Situation in which workers are bullied into joining a "collective", which companies are then forced to obey regardless of economic realities, badly skews the situation.
The resulting wages way above the fair value might seem good in the short run, but it is not sustainable, especially when there is competition with companies that pay an actual fair wage. Then you get Flint, Michigan.
Want to balance the war between unions and workers and put power back in the hands of working people? Institute national right to work.
Also never mentioned is that the unions are indeed mainly political organizations. Workers are forced against their will to political causes and campaigns which half or more of them oppose.
It makes as much sense to force people to join unions as a condition of employment as it does to force them to join the Baptist Curch as a condition of employment. Both of these have absolutely nothing to do with anyone's ability to do the job. And both of these organizations stand for beliefs that go against the interests of a huge proportion of workers.
Why are you against faor remuneration for workers as well as workplace safety Dmarks? That's what unions are for.
The real war on the American worker is from dupes like you who parrot right wing, anti Working American talking points.
And to date, you still refuse an actual discussion on how to make unions better. You are only capable of of lies and bullshit.
I used to think you had promise. You're a dime a dozen right wing parrot Dmarks.
Truth said; "Why are you against faor remuneration for workers as well as workplace safety Dmarks?
That's what unions are for.
(1) I am for fair enumeration. This rarely happens when unions are involved.
(2) Any argument for workplace safety goes out the window when you look at all the incidents on the picket line or related activities where union 'workers' assault and harass a company's workers. How was worker safety served when union leader Jimmy Hoffa ordered nonworking Teamsters members to fire upon working truck drivers? Or the factory my wife worked at where the union prevented the company from firing a worker who liked to beat up people in the workplace. When companies try to fire dangerous workers, if there is a union around, they will try to keep that worker in the workplace.
(3) Most workers disagree with you that this is what unions are for.
"... parrot right wing, anti Working American talking points."
All of my points are well-considered. This is a classic example of when you don't like the facts, you use insults like "parrot' and 'talking points'. You have no evidence that what you claim is the case.
"And to date, you still refuse an actual discussion on how to make unions better. You are only capable of of lies and bullshit."
1) Name one lie.
2) "Bullshit" is a perfect hollow insult, as you blow your stack rather than learn any facts.
OK. actual discussion. Moving up from your lies and lowbrow accusations you make. Here we go.
Make unions better by making them accountable to workers. By making it so no worker is forced to join against his/her will. Then the unions would have to be accountable in order to attract workers. Right now they aren't. Consider the old factories in Detroit, where you will hardly even find a worker who ever even voted to have the union in the factory. Most of union members are in unions due to force.
"You're a dime a dozen [lame insult] Dmarks."
Sorry. I refuse to lie. I refuse to accept injustice and crushing workers rights. If I have to lie and start to oppose workers' rights in order to gain your favor so you say I have "promise", I won't do it.
Now you're getting somewhere Dmarks.
Your nonsense about workers being forced to join is a bullshit argument though. The fact is workers that refuse to join still, by law, get union representation and benefits even though they don't pay for them through dues.
These people are freeloaders. Unions are correct to negotiate closed shop agreements. States that have thes eso called right to work laws do so to financially break unions.
The union is required to represent workers regardless. It is the company's responsibilty to build the case for firing. In every contract I've ever seen fighting is one of the acts considered so egregious it is cause for immediate suspension or termination.
Your company in question must have a pretty lame human resource director if your story is true and the employee truly was a scumbag.
If the employer lost why weren't charges pressed and restraining orders put on the guy?
More here than meets the eye Dmarks. As full disclosure I admit to getting guys who deserved far worsed punishments than they got as a committeeman. It was my job to get them the best deal I could. And if you suggest the employer and union need to work together more to either correct or get rid of dead weight or troublemakers, I would agree. You gotta document everything though. And that is the best benefit union labor has. Job security. It's work to fire the bums and the bosses are just as lazy as anyone I agree that bad employees are bad for the company as a whole. But as I pointed out many times, the company has the sole right to fire and discipline. They're willing to share that, I'd be willing to work on it.
"These people are freeloaders."
That's a hell of an insult to use for people who earn what they get by working for it.
"Your nonsense about workers being forced to join is a bullshit argument though."
It's extremely factual, in any closed-shop state such as Michigan, which I am most familiar with. You have to pay to this political organization, or you won't be hired. People are routinely bullied.
Thankfully, workers rights are getting the upper hand in Michigan, and there is a strong push for 'right to work' now.
"The fact is workers that refuse to join still, by law, get union representation and benefits even though they don't pay for them through dues."
"Benefits" such as the pay cuts and closed factories?
They get the benefit of the higher wages and benefits negotiated by the union Dmarks. To deny that is a lie on your part.
Union workers get far better benefits than non union. If you pals want lower wages and less benefits, let them go work someplace that is non union and get them. maye Michelle Bachman's husband will hire them.
Post a Comment