I'm not saying its a contradiction necessarily, but interesting nonetheless.
Yeah because a job and a child are exactly the same thing.[/quote]
Whoa! Easy there tiger (bearcat, tiger...get it?). I was fairly explicit that this was an observation about the similar language used in both issues but how the people using it are probably on very different sides of each issue. I said nothing about them being "the exact same thing" (you did). Apparently, a light-hearted, non-substantive observation is lost on everyone out there in the trenches.
Sheesh.[/quote]
"not saying it's a contradiction necessarily" Why the necessarily? It certainly isn't a contradiction at all. That was my point. I guess I was too far buried in the trenches.
Detroit is a microcosm of what the country will look like if Unions have their way! We almost had the olympics in Detroit! Detroit used to be nice and vibrant, now look at it! WOW The evidence is clear and in everyones face! Cmon Democrats have run that city and many others like it for 40 years straight and big labor has cause jobs to be lost forever! Its simple....the costs are pushed on to the consumer and therefore the goods are more money. We cannot compete with other countries and we all like cheaper items and goods, so thats what most Americans purchase. Its common sense!
so unions ruined the auto industry, not japan building a better car? wonder when unions are going to ruin baseball, football, movies and television, hopefully soon.
You do not think unions played a significant role in detroit failing? I think you should read more. Not the only reason, but to dismiss it as a significant reason seems very short-sighted.
Just do some searching about pensions, worker's being paid to literally do nothing, etc.
Now you can;t just blame the union as management made the deals as well. But it was mentioned that it was because of Japan making better cars....with non-union labor. So even if that is the only reason....
"not saying it's a contradiction necessarily" Why the necessarily? It certainly isn't a contradiction at all. That was my point. I guess I was too far buried in the trenches.
I used the word so as to indicate to readers that I wasn't wading into this debate, but showing "it isn't one way or the other."
So I don't know...calm down?
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
this right to work legislation is not about choice ... indirectly it is but ultimately what it comes down to in michigan is ...
politically motivated union busting under the guise of labour force competitiveness ... in the short term - you might see a spike in jobs ... nothing significant ... but in the long run ... what you are going to have are corporations playing one state off another ... to the point that combined with state incentives and a cheaper labour force will drive corporate profits and shareholder value ...
so, who wins? executives and shareholders ... who loses? ... the people ...
you can pretty much sum up every major gov't policy decision to this formula ... verdict is out on obamacare tho ...
if corporations flood areas because of the right to work laws there will be less labor force available and thus, the salaries and wages will also have to rise.
Unions are not infallible. If unions provide a good and necessary product they will continue to see dues come in. If they continue to take dues from members and use 87 million dollars in political donations in an election year like AFSCME in 2010 they are going to continue to have members dissatisfied with their service. That is 87 million dollars in dues that could have gone back to members in the way of low interest bridge loans, better medical services, better union representation and worker support instead of playing politics.
What are they so worried about? This legislation doesn't make Unions illegal, if they provide a service that is useful and focuses on its members, workers will pay for it.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
if corporations flood areas because of the right to work laws there will be less labor force available and thus, the salaries and wages will also have to rise.
Unions are not infallible. If unions provide a good and necessary product they will continue to see dues come in. If they continue to take dues from members and use 87 million dollars in political donations in an election year like AFSCME in 2010 they are going to continue to have members dissatisfied with their service. That is 87 million dollars in dues that could have gone back to members in the way of low interest bridge loans, better medical services, better union representation and worker support instead of playing politics.
What are they so worried about? This legislation doesn't make Unions illegal, if they provide a service that is useful and focuses on its members, workers will pay for it.
my comment wasn't an endorsement of unions per se ... my comment was what is motivating the legislation ... i do also touch on how i see the long term situation ... i do not see a shortage of labour anytime soon to drive salaries and wages ...
what they are worried about tho is that this legislation is aimed at busting unions ... unions sole source of leverage is acting in a collective ... by preying on dollars - their goal is to weaken that collective ... ultimately with the same goal ... to limit workers rights and make more profits ...
having said all that - i am torn on unions in general ... in a perfect world we wouldn't need them but we don't and without an infrastructure that protects worker rights ... unionizing is the only option for some labour segments ...
if corporations flood areas because of the right to work laws there will be less labor force available and thus, the salaries and wages will also have to rise.
Unions are not infallible. If unions provide a good and necessary product they will continue to see dues come in. If they continue to take dues from members and use 87 million dollars in political donations in an election year like AFSCME in 2010 they are going to continue to have members dissatisfied with their service. That is 87 million dollars in dues that could have gone back to members in the way of low interest bridge loans, better medical services, better union representation and worker support instead of playing politics.
What are they so worried about? This legislation doesn't make Unions illegal, if they provide a service that is useful and focuses on its members, workers will pay for it.
my comment wasn't an endorsement of unions per se ... my comment was what is motivating the legislation ... i do also touch on how i see the long term situation ... i do not see a shortage of labour anytime soon to drive salaries and wages ...
what they are worried about tho is that this legislation is aimed at busting unions ... unions sole source of leverage is acting in a collective ... by preying on dollars - their goal is to weaken that collective ... ultimately with the same goal ... to limit workers rights and make more profits ...
having said all that - i am torn on unions in general ... in a perfect world we wouldn't need them but we don't and without an infrastructure that protects worker rights ... unionizing is the only option for some labour segments ...
money doesn't make the union strong, and neither does the 87 million afscme (a large public union) spent on one election cycle. Like I said, they provide a good product people will buy it. This legislation is about people who don't want to be in a union, who don't support unions not having to but still can work certain jobs. This will help contractors bidding for jobs in certain towns almost immediately.
The next thing to go should be the silly prevailing wage laws that cost our governments boatloads in unnecessary costs on infrastructure repair and creation.
Unions serve a purpose, they just may not be able to make rich men out of their administrators anymore.
Unions make up like 6 to 7% of the private sector work force, many people get paid fairly with out them all over the country every day.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
money doesn't make the union strong, and neither does the 87 million afscme (a large public union) spent on one election cycle. Like I said, they provide a good product people will buy it. This legislation is about people who don't want to be in a union, who don't support unions not having to but still can work certain jobs. This will help contractors bidding for jobs in certain towns almost immediately.
The next thing to go should be the silly prevailing wage laws that cost our governments boatloads in unnecessary costs on infrastructure repair and creation.
Unions serve a purpose, they just may not be able to make rich men out of their administrators anymore.
Unions make up like 6 to 7% of the private sector work force, many people get paid fairly with out them all over the country every day.
but it takes money to operate a union does it not? ... without getting into the should they or shouldn't they be spending on election cycles ... i think we have to understand that corporations are currently the biggest influence on elections ... so, is it at the very least understandable why unions would spend?
again - in a perfect world we wouldn't need unions and their level of effectiveness in the grand scheme of things is debatable ... but to believe that this piece of legislation is anything but politically motivated partisanship is being disingenuous ... point me to a rally of union workers looking to avoid paying dues ... it's absurd to think politicians would give a rats ass about that ... this is about union busting ...
From what I'm reading, it looks like this push was payback from the GOP because the Dems tried to pass a proposition in the last election that would have changed the state constitution and made it impossible for Michigan to become right-to-work.
It will be interesting to see what the response is in the next election cycle.
money doesn't make the union strong, and neither does the 87 million afscme (a large public union) spent on one election cycle. Like I said, they provide a good product people will buy it. This legislation is about people who don't want to be in a union, who don't support unions not having to but still can work certain jobs. This will help contractors bidding for jobs in certain towns almost immediately.
The next thing to go should be the silly prevailing wage laws that cost our governments boatloads in unnecessary costs on infrastructure repair and creation.
Unions serve a purpose, they just may not be able to make rich men out of their administrators anymore.
Unions make up like 6 to 7% of the private sector work force, many people get paid fairly with out them all over the country every day.
but it takes money to operate a union does it not? ... without getting into the should they or shouldn't they be spending on election cycles ... i think we have to understand that corporations are currently the biggest influence on elections ... so, is it at the very least understandable why unions would spend?
again - in a perfect world we wouldn't need unions and their level of effectiveness in the grand scheme of things is debatable ... but to believe that this piece of legislation is anything but politically motivated partisanship is being disingenuous ... point me to a rally of union workers looking to avoid paying dues ... it's absurd to think politicians would give a rats ass about that ... this is about union busting ...
how does this bust unions? they still exist, they still have collective bargaining rights, they still will be able to operate, they still will have power if their members continue to believe in them.
It seems like people have very little faith in union members remaining in the union if they don't have to.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
how does this bust unions? they still exist, they still have collective bargaining rights, they still will be able to operate, they still will have power if their members continue to believe in them.
It seems like people have very little faith in union members remaining in the union if they don't have to.
if you take dollars from unions - you inherently weaken their position ... it's pretty straightforward ...
Detroit is a microcosm of what the country will look like if Unions have their way! We almost had the olympics in Detroit! Detroit used to be nice and vibrant, now look at it! WOW The evidence is clear and in everyones face! Cmon Democrats have run that city and many others like it for 40 years straight and big labor has cause jobs to be lost forever! Its simple....the costs are pushed on to the consumer and therefore the goods are more money. We cannot compete with other countries and we all like cheaper items and goods, so thats what most Americans purchase. Its common sense!
I would say Detroit went the way it did for 3 reasons...
1. Corrupt politics
2. Crime
3. The Suburbs
I would say crime drove people to the suburbs...
The unions aren't the problem with Detroit...the problem is nobody wants to live there because of crime. They need to fix the crime problem and then who knows maybe people will want to live there. But it took 40-50 years to get to the way it is...it will decades to get it back to the way it should be.
If unions make autos to expensive then how come Toyota, Honda, etc are on par or in many cases more expensive than their Detroit 3 competitors? As far as I'm concerned its not unions that put the auto industry in trouble, it's the engineering and design. The Detroit 3 are miles behind Toyota and Honda in appearance and engineering, IMO. I look at a Toyota or Honda or some of the other imports and they are just aesthecally pleasing. The responsibility for design and engineering are likely non union management jobs.
With that being said I've owned Detroit 3 cars, and currently have 2 made in Canada/US and am proud they are union made...1 I bought new, 3 very small warranty issues in 3 years, the 2nd nothing other than standard wear and tear 41/2 years old.
With amount of money that the Chinese worker gets paid your TV/Computer should cost a fraction of what it does. The companies are not overseas to save the consumer any money, they are overseas to make the companies much more money.
Union membership continues to drop year after year and so does our standard of living...I wonder if this is just a...might be related.
I do work in a union environment...sometimes they frustrate me...but most times I'm glad they represent me, it's nice to have a united voice.
But it absurd to think unions are the problem...the president of my union local makes less than me and now works longer hours making the same money, they are not all in it for the money.
Those right to work states are just union busting.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Detroit is a microcosm of what the country will look like if Unions have their way! We almost had the olympics in Detroit! Detroit used to be nice and vibrant, now look at it! WOW The evidence is clear and in everyones face! Cmon Democrats have run that city and many others like it for 40 years straight and big labor has cause jobs to be lost forever! Its simple....the costs are pushed on to the consumer and therefore the goods are more money. We cannot compete with other countries and we all like cheaper items and goods, so thats what most Americans purchase. Its common sense!
I would say Detroit went the way it did for 3 reasons...
1. Corrupt politics
2. Crime
3. The Suburbs
I would say crime drove people to the suburbs...
The unions aren't the problem with Detroit...the problem is nobody wants to live there because of crime. They need to fix the crime problem and then who knows maybe people will want to live there. But it took 40-50 years to get to the way it is...it will decades to get it back to the way it should be.
If unions make autos to expensive then how come Toyota, Honda, etc are on par or in many cases more expensive than their Detroit 3 competitors? As far as I'm concerned its not unions that put the auto industry in trouble, it's the engineering and design. The Detroit 3 are miles behind Toyota and Honda in appearance and engineering, IMO. I look at a Toyota or Honda or some of the other imports and they are just aesthecally pleasing. The responsibility for design and engineering are likely non union management jobs.
With that being said I've owned Detroit 3 cars, and currently have 2 made in Canada/US and am proud they are union made...1 I bought new, 3 very small warranty issues in 3 years, the 2nd nothing other than standard wear and tear 41/2 years old.
With amount of money that the Chinese worker gets paid your TV/Computer should cost a fraction of what it does. The companies are not overseas to save the consumer any money, they are overseas to make the companies much more money.
Union membership continues to drop year after year and so does our standard of living...I wonder if this is just a...might be related.
I do work in a union environment...sometimes they frustrate me...but most times I'm glad they represent me, it's nice to have a united voice.
But it absurd to think unions are the problem...the president of my union local makes less than me and now works longer hours making the same money, they are not all in it for the money.
Those right to work states are just union busting.
Dude noone is taking the union away from you, its just a simple right to have the choice to NOT be in a union! Dont you see the hypocrisy of the left here?
Theres no time like the present
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
Obama calls up Sandra Fluk, has a beer summit at white house, he always acts early on things in his favor, BUT not a peep out of Obama about the violence in Michigan with the Union thugs yesterday. No condemnation from our leader huh? Hmmmmm ok there Mr. President. Good job of leading your country!
I'm sure he did not even know about it :roll: and if he did he will say it's under investigation.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Detroit is a microcosm of what the country will look like if Unions have their way! We almost had the olympics in Detroit! Detroit used to be nice and vibrant, now look at it! WOW The evidence is clear and in everyones face! Cmon Democrats have run that city and many others like it for 40 years straight and big labor has cause jobs to be lost forever! Its simple....the costs are pushed on to the consumer and therefore the goods are more money. We cannot compete with other countries and we all like cheaper items and goods, so thats what most Americans purchase. Its common sense!
I would say Detroit went the way it did for 3 reasons...
1. Corrupt politics
2. Crime
3. The Suburbs
I would say crime drove people to the suburbs...
The unions aren't the problem with Detroit...the problem is nobody wants to live there because of crime. They need to fix the crime problem and then who knows maybe people will want to live there. But it took 40-50 years to get to the way it is...it will decades to get it back to the way it should be.
If unions make autos to expensive then how come Toyota, Honda, etc are on par or in many cases more expensive than their Detroit 3 competitors? As far as I'm concerned its not unions that put the auto industry in trouble, it's the engineering and design. The Detroit 3 are miles behind Toyota and Honda in appearance and engineering, IMO. I look at a Toyota or Honda or some of the other imports and they are just aesthecally pleasing. The responsibility for design and engineering are likely non union management jobs.
With that being said I've owned Detroit 3 cars, and currently have 2 made in Canada/US and am proud they are union made...1 I bought new, 3 very small warranty issues in 3 years, the 2nd nothing other than standard wear and tear 41/2 years old.
With amount of money that the Chinese worker gets paid your TV/Computer should cost a fraction of what it does. The companies are not overseas to save the consumer any money, they are overseas to make the companies much more money.
Union membership continues to drop year after year and so does our standard of living...I wonder if this is just a...might be related.
I do work in a union environment...sometimes they frustrate me...but most times I'm glad they represent me, it's nice to have a united voice.
But it absurd to think unions are the problem...the president of my union local makes less than me and now works longer hours making the same money, they are not all in it for the money.
Those right to work states are just union busting.
Dude noone is taking the union away from you, its just a simple right to have the choice to NOT be in a union! Dont you see the hypocrisy of the left here?
Unions need $$$$ to operate...I also don't think it's fair that if a union negotiates better wages and benefits for members that those who opt out of paying dues benefit...thats just ridiculous...but for those that opt out ultimately have to live with themselves...I hope those that due opt out are ignored at work by due paying members.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I would say Detroit went the way it did for 3 reasons...
1. Corrupt politics
2. Crime
3. The Suburbs
I would say crime drove people to the suburbs...
The unions aren't the problem with Detroit...the problem is nobody wants to live there because of crime. They need to fix the crime problem and then who knows maybe people will want to live there. But it took 40-50 years to get to the way it is...it will decades to get it back to the way it should be.
If unions make autos to expensive then how come Toyota, Honda, etc are on par or in many cases more expensive than their Detroit 3 competitors? As far as I'm concerned its not unions that put the auto industry in trouble, it's the engineering and design. The Detroit 3 are miles behind Toyota and Honda in appearance and engineering, IMO. I look at a Toyota or Honda or some of the other imports and they are just aesthecally pleasing. The responsibility for design and engineering are likely non union management jobs.
With that being said I've owned Detroit 3 cars, and currently have 2 made in Canada/US and am proud they are union made...1 I bought new, 3 very small warranty issues in 3 years, the 2nd nothing other than standard wear and tear 41/2 years old.
With amount of money that the Chinese worker gets paid your TV/Computer should cost a fraction of what it does. The companies are not overseas to save the consumer any money, they are overseas to make the companies much more money.
Union membership continues to drop year after year and so does our standard of living...I wonder if this is just a...might be related.
I do work in a union environment...sometimes they frustrate me...but most times I'm glad they represent me, it's nice to have a united voice.
But it absurd to think unions are the problem...the president of my union local makes less than me and now works longer hours making the same money, they are not all in it for the money.
Those right to work states are just union busting.
Dude noone is taking the union away from you, its just a simple right to have the choice to NOT be in a union! Dont you see the hypocrisy of the left here?
Unions need $$$$ to operate...I also don't think it's fair that if a union negotiates better wages and benefits for members that those who opt out of paying dues benefit...thats just ridiculous...but for those that opt out ultimately have to live with themselves...I hope those that due opt out are ignored at work by due paying members.
People in my union can opt out but they still receive the same wages and benefits that I do. Would those of you that say we should have choice be willing to negtotiate with your employer, on your own, for the same wages, benefits, and protections that I get from the union?
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Dude noone is taking the union away from you, its just a simple right to have the choice to NOT be in a union! Dont you see the hypocrisy of the left here?
hahahaha ... lukin2006 associated with the LEFT! ... never thought this day would happen ...
how does this bust unions? they still exist, they still have collective bargaining rights, they still will be able to operate, they still will have power if their members continue to believe in them.
It seems like people have very little faith in union members remaining in the union if they don't have to.
if you take dollars from unions - you inherently weaken their position ... it's pretty straightforward ...
I think it is a pretty pessimistic view of union members to believe that tons of money to contribute to the political system is necessary to keep unions strong.
This isn't union busting, that is pretty much hyperbole in my opinion...The legislation doesn't take money from unions. I think it is pretty interesting that people think unions cannot exist in the same fashion without forced participation from employees. Very interesting indeed.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think it is a pretty pessimistic view of union members to believe that tons of money to contribute to the political system is necessary to keep unions strong.
This isn't union busting, that is pretty much hyperbole in my opinion...The legislation doesn't take money from unions. I think it is pretty interesting that people think unions cannot exist in the same fashion without forced participation from employees. Very interesting indeed.
what are you arguing here? ... the political contributions of unions or the mandatory fees associated with unions ...
in the end - i don't see how you can't say it's about union busting ... if union membership stays exactly the same and no one opts out ... what you have is basically the status quo ... why impose a piece of contentious legislation for the status quo!? ... the goal is obvious to have people opt out ... and thus reducing the capacity for unions to influence ... ie union busting ...
Dude noone is taking the union away from you, its just a simple right to have the choice to NOT be in a union! Dont you see the hypocrisy of the left here?
hahahaha ... lukin2006 associated with the LEFT! ... never thought this day would happen ...
Well I really don't like to label myself. But when it comes to people just trying to make a living and needing a union to get better wages and benefits and if that's considered left I have no problem with that.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I think it is a pretty pessimistic view of union members to believe that tons of money to contribute to the political system is necessary to keep unions strong.
This isn't union busting, that is pretty much hyperbole in my opinion...The legislation doesn't take money from unions. I think it is pretty interesting that people think unions cannot exist in the same fashion without forced participation from employees. Very interesting indeed.
what are you arguing here? ... the political contributions of unions or the mandatory fees associated with unions ...
in the end - i don't see how you can't say it's about union busting ... if union membership stays exactly the same and no one opts out ... what you have is basically the status quo ... why impose a piece of contentious legislation for the status quo!? ... the goal is obvious to have people opt out ... and thus reducing the capacity for unions to influence ... ie union busting ...
It is about choice. You can think it is about union busting, but in the end if the union puts out a good product they won't be any weaker and people will be able to choose whether or not to support them. I don't really understand the dislike of this legislation. thinking that unions will be busted by this legislation presumes that people who are in unions aren't happy...well isn't it a little shitty of a union to provide a product that their members aren't happy with and then forces them to stay?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It is about choice. You can think it is about union busting, but in the end if the union puts out a good product they won't be any weaker and people will be able to choose whether or not to support them. I don't really understand the dislike of this legislation. thinking that unions will be busted by this legislation presumes that people who are in unions aren't happy...well isn't it a little shitty of a union to provide a product that their members aren't happy with and then forces them to stay?
good product!? ... this is the land of supersized combos is it not and the capital of processed food!?? ...
if i say to you that you can get a car wash for free but you have a choice of paying ... would you pay? ... and what percentage of people would pay? ... let's go with the car wash costs $10 and is good value ...
I am a member of a labor union in Boston. I don't understand why the majority of this country is so anti-union. I make a good wage, pay taxes, and work hard for my pay. No one put a gun to my head and forced me to join the union. If I get laid off, when I do get back to work I don't have to take a pay cut. I don't have to go back to school and pay more money to learn a new skill. I don't have to type resumes and go to job interviews to get hired. There is a lot to back me up as a worker. If I am not perfroming up to the standards of the union and the company I work for, I will be laid off. Believe me, word gets around fast who does shitty work and doesn't show up on time etc. It is hard to stay working if you have a bad name in the union. Yes, I pay dues to my local union, but it's like buying an insurance policy. No one boss is going to cut my pay because the company is in the red for the year, or gotta cut back on your days cause there isn't enough work.
There is still a need for unions in this country. Fire Depts, police, athletes, actors, writers, mostly all of them belong to a union. It's not really a bad thing. People get all hung up on paying union dues. If you saw what I made per week after my dues were taken out, you'd be surprised. The dues are almost inconsequential.
This is actually everything that is wrong with Unions. As you said yourself - you have no motivation to improve your skills or seek other employment while out of work. Mommy and Da...I mean the Union will give you a job.
Personally, I prefer to excel on my own. If I'm the best worker, my pay should reflect that. If I'm not good at what I do, I should find a new line of work and not cost other people jobs b/c I've been there longer.
Obviously, not everyone acts in such a way. But, it's the basic premise that is destructive to society. There are plenty of teachers that should be out of jobs while more educated, younger, potentially more talented recent college graduates are shut out by the Union system.
I'm fine if unions exist. But, I also thinks folks should have a right to choose. Don't tell men and women what to do with their bodies...errr... I mean money. You should be free to do as you please. How can anyone not be for that? :?
I think that's kind of off base. I mean, if I get laid off, why should I just go back to school, become more in debt paying for tuition, and improve my education so I can get an entry level position somewhere else for 1/3 of the pay? I get better and learn to do more different jobs, so I have a broad range of skills. There is no tenure or anything with the labor unions like the teachers have. We have a constitution and bylaws we have to abide by. We have a "3 strikes" policy. If you get brought up on charges 3 times in your career, you get kicked out. It's not like you are set for life by being in our union. There are consequences and a code of conduct we have to follow. And I am by no means telling other people what to do. I am simply stating what works for me. I chose union and I am happy with that.
It is about choice. You can think it is about union busting, but in the end if the union puts out a good product they won't be any weaker and people will be able to choose whether or not to support them. I don't really understand the dislike of this legislation. thinking that unions will be busted by this legislation presumes that people who are in unions aren't happy...well isn't it a little shitty of a union to provide a product that their members aren't happy with and then forces them to stay?
good product!? ... this is the land of supersized combos is it not and the capital of processed food!?? ...
if i say to you that you can get a car wash for free but you have a choice of paying ... would you pay? ... and what percentage of people would pay? ... let's go with the car wash costs $10 and is good value ...
so it is ok to force people to pay for something they don't want? oh wait, you supported the individual mandate didn't you? (just a joke)
well, agree to disagree I guess. My hope is that unions re-think the benefits they think they give to their employees. Is last in first out a good policy? Unions are not going away because of this law. They will maybe have to change their focus from being a player on a national stage in every single election, to focusing on protecting their individual members. I think it will be a good thing in the long run.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
Yeah because a job and a child are exactly the same thing.[/quote]
Whoa! Easy there tiger (bearcat, tiger...get it?). I was fairly explicit that this was an observation about the similar language used in both issues but how the people using it are probably on very different sides of each issue. I said nothing about them being "the exact same thing" (you did). Apparently, a light-hearted, non-substantive observation is lost on everyone out there in the trenches.
Sheesh.[/quote]
"not saying it's a contradiction necessarily" Why the necessarily? It certainly isn't a contradiction at all. That was my point. I guess I was too far buried in the trenches.
You do not think unions played a significant role in detroit failing? I think you should read more. Not the only reason, but to dismiss it as a significant reason seems very short-sighted.
You have google on your computer?
Just do some searching about pensions, worker's being paid to literally do nothing, etc.
Now you can;t just blame the union as management made the deals as well. But it was mentioned that it was because of Japan making better cars....with non-union labor. So even if that is the only reason....
I used the word so as to indicate to readers that I wasn't wading into this debate, but showing "it isn't one way or the other."
So I don't know...calm down?
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
if corporations flood areas because of the right to work laws there will be less labor force available and thus, the salaries and wages will also have to rise.
Unions are not infallible. If unions provide a good and necessary product they will continue to see dues come in. If they continue to take dues from members and use 87 million dollars in political donations in an election year like AFSCME in 2010 they are going to continue to have members dissatisfied with their service. That is 87 million dollars in dues that could have gone back to members in the way of low interest bridge loans, better medical services, better union representation and worker support instead of playing politics.
What are they so worried about? This legislation doesn't make Unions illegal, if they provide a service that is useful and focuses on its members, workers will pay for it.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
my comment wasn't an endorsement of unions per se ... my comment was what is motivating the legislation ... i do also touch on how i see the long term situation ... i do not see a shortage of labour anytime soon to drive salaries and wages ...
what they are worried about tho is that this legislation is aimed at busting unions ... unions sole source of leverage is acting in a collective ... by preying on dollars - their goal is to weaken that collective ... ultimately with the same goal ... to limit workers rights and make more profits ...
having said all that - i am torn on unions in general ... in a perfect world we wouldn't need them but we don't and without an infrastructure that protects worker rights ... unionizing is the only option for some labour segments ...
money doesn't make the union strong, and neither does the 87 million afscme (a large public union) spent on one election cycle. Like I said, they provide a good product people will buy it. This legislation is about people who don't want to be in a union, who don't support unions not having to but still can work certain jobs. This will help contractors bidding for jobs in certain towns almost immediately.
The next thing to go should be the silly prevailing wage laws that cost our governments boatloads in unnecessary costs on infrastructure repair and creation.
Unions serve a purpose, they just may not be able to make rich men out of their administrators anymore.
Unions make up like 6 to 7% of the private sector work force, many people get paid fairly with out them all over the country every day.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
but it takes money to operate a union does it not? ... without getting into the should they or shouldn't they be spending on election cycles ... i think we have to understand that corporations are currently the biggest influence on elections ... so, is it at the very least understandable why unions would spend?
again - in a perfect world we wouldn't need unions and their level of effectiveness in the grand scheme of things is debatable ... but to believe that this piece of legislation is anything but politically motivated partisanship is being disingenuous ... point me to a rally of union workers looking to avoid paying dues ... it's absurd to think politicians would give a rats ass about that ... this is about union busting ...
It will be interesting to see what the response is in the next election cycle.
how does this bust unions? they still exist, they still have collective bargaining rights, they still will be able to operate, they still will have power if their members continue to believe in them.
It seems like people have very little faith in union members remaining in the union if they don't have to.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
if you take dollars from unions - you inherently weaken their position ... it's pretty straightforward ...
I would say Detroit went the way it did for 3 reasons...
1. Corrupt politics
2. Crime
3. The Suburbs
I would say crime drove people to the suburbs...
The unions aren't the problem with Detroit...the problem is nobody wants to live there because of crime. They need to fix the crime problem and then who knows maybe people will want to live there. But it took 40-50 years to get to the way it is...it will decades to get it back to the way it should be.
If unions make autos to expensive then how come Toyota, Honda, etc are on par or in many cases more expensive than their Detroit 3 competitors? As far as I'm concerned its not unions that put the auto industry in trouble, it's the engineering and design. The Detroit 3 are miles behind Toyota and Honda in appearance and engineering, IMO. I look at a Toyota or Honda or some of the other imports and they are just aesthecally pleasing. The responsibility for design and engineering are likely non union management jobs.
With that being said I've owned Detroit 3 cars, and currently have 2 made in Canada/US and am proud they are union made...1 I bought new, 3 very small warranty issues in 3 years, the 2nd nothing other than standard wear and tear 41/2 years old.
With amount of money that the Chinese worker gets paid your TV/Computer should cost a fraction of what it does. The companies are not overseas to save the consumer any money, they are overseas to make the companies much more money.
Union membership continues to drop year after year and so does our standard of living...I wonder if this is just a...might be related.
I do work in a union environment...sometimes they frustrate me...but most times I'm glad they represent me, it's nice to have a united voice.
But it absurd to think unions are the problem...the president of my union local makes less than me and now works longer hours making the same money, they are not all in it for the money.
Those right to work states are just union busting.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Dude noone is taking the union away from you, its just a simple right to have the choice to NOT be in a union! Dont you see the hypocrisy of the left here?
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
I'm sure he did not even know about it :roll: and if he did he will say it's under investigation.
Unions need $$$$ to operate...I also don't think it's fair that if a union negotiates better wages and benefits for members that those who opt out of paying dues benefit...thats just ridiculous...but for those that opt out ultimately have to live with themselves...I hope those that due opt out are ignored at work by due paying members.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
People in my union can opt out but they still receive the same wages and benefits that I do. Would those of you that say we should have choice be willing to negtotiate with your employer, on your own, for the same wages, benefits, and protections that I get from the union?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
hahahaha ... lukin2006 associated with the LEFT! ... never thought this day would happen ...
I think it is a pretty pessimistic view of union members to believe that tons of money to contribute to the political system is necessary to keep unions strong.
This isn't union busting, that is pretty much hyperbole in my opinion...The legislation doesn't take money from unions. I think it is pretty interesting that people think unions cannot exist in the same fashion without forced participation from employees. Very interesting indeed.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
what are you arguing here? ... the political contributions of unions or the mandatory fees associated with unions ...
in the end - i don't see how you can't say it's about union busting ... if union membership stays exactly the same and no one opts out ... what you have is basically the status quo ... why impose a piece of contentious legislation for the status quo!? ... the goal is obvious to have people opt out ... and thus reducing the capacity for unions to influence ... ie union busting ...
Well I really don't like to label myself. But when it comes to people just trying to make a living and needing a union to get better wages and benefits and if that's considered left I have no problem with that.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
It is about choice. You can think it is about union busting, but in the end if the union puts out a good product they won't be any weaker and people will be able to choose whether or not to support them. I don't really understand the dislike of this legislation. thinking that unions will be busted by this legislation presumes that people who are in unions aren't happy...well isn't it a little shitty of a union to provide a product that their members aren't happy with and then forces them to stay?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
good product!? ... this is the land of supersized combos is it not and the capital of processed food!?? ...
if i say to you that you can get a car wash for free but you have a choice of paying ... would you pay? ... and what percentage of people would pay? ... let's go with the car wash costs $10 and is good value ...
I think that's kind of off base. I mean, if I get laid off, why should I just go back to school, become more in debt paying for tuition, and improve my education so I can get an entry level position somewhere else for 1/3 of the pay? I get better and learn to do more different jobs, so I have a broad range of skills. There is no tenure or anything with the labor unions like the teachers have. We have a constitution and bylaws we have to abide by. We have a "3 strikes" policy. If you get brought up on charges 3 times in your career, you get kicked out. It's not like you are set for life by being in our union. There are consequences and a code of conduct we have to follow. And I am by no means telling other people what to do. I am simply stating what works for me. I chose union and I am happy with that.
9/29/04 Boston, 6/28/08 Mansfield, 8/23/09 Chicago, 5/15/10 Hartford
5/17/10 Boston, 10/15/13 Worcester, 10/16/13 Worcester, 10/25/13 Hartford
8/5/16 Fenway, 8/7/16 Fenway
EV Solo: 6/16/11 Boston, 6/18/11 Hartford,
so it is ok to force people to pay for something they don't want? oh wait, you supported the individual mandate didn't you?
well, agree to disagree I guess. My hope is that unions re-think the benefits they think they give to their employees. Is last in first out a good policy? Unions are not going away because of this law. They will maybe have to change their focus from being a player on a national stage in every single election, to focusing on protecting their individual members. I think it will be a good thing in the long run.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan