Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


kalikshama -> Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 7:26:14 AM)

[image]http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/2563/Romney_infographic.jpg[/image]

To amplify a bit:

1. Right to work No rights at work laws are terrible for workers.

2. Mitt Romney is angry at the National Labor Relations Board because, under President Obama, it has been fulfilling its mission of upholding labor law. Sometimes that means companies get in trouble for illegally firing workers or otherwise retaliating against them for exercising their rights. When George W. Bush's NLRB was routinely favoring business, Republicans were not so outraged.

3. Can you say "race to the bottom"?

4. The people of Ohio made clear how they felt about Senate Bill 5.

5. Union leaders get labeled as "having no interest in a constructive relationship with management" when they lead fights against wage and pension cuts, against making it easier to fire workers or cut their hours—in general, when they try to deny corporations the total control over workers' lives they want.





kalikshama -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 7:28:59 AM)

[image]http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/rtw-MAIN.jpg[/image]




Arturas -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 8:01:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

[image]http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/2563/Romney_infographic.jpg[/image]

To amplify a bit:

1. Right to work No rights at work laws are terrible for workers.

2. Mitt Romney is angry at the National Labor Relations Board because, under President Obama, it has been fulfilling its mission of upholding labor law. Sometimes that means companies get in trouble for illegally firing workers or otherwise retaliating against them for exercising their rights. When George W. Bush's NLRB was routinely favoring business, Republicans were not so outraged.

3. Can you say "race to the bottom"?

4. The people of Ohio made clear how they felt about Senate Bill 5.

5. Union leaders get labeled as "having no interest in a constructive relationship with management" when they lead fights against wage and pension cuts, against making it easier to fire workers or cut their hours—in general, when they try to deny corporations the total control over workers' lives they want.




1) right to work enables anyone to work without having to pay union dues and join the union. This is called Freedom.

2) Can you say government entitiy controlled by the unions?
"The AFL-CIO has named former National Labor Relations Board member Craig Becker as its co-general counsel."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/22/1093736/-Former-National-Labor-Relations-Board-member-Craig-Becker-going-to-AFL-CIO

3) Can you say "No We Can't"?

4) This action will emprove education by keeping bad teachers from being protected by the union.

5) He is correct. Ever been around union leaders?




Owner59 -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 8:18:45 AM)

 Without unions...........there never would have been a middle class orOSHA,child labor laws any checks against corporate America.....

We`d look pretty much like communist China.......corporate America`s main business partner.




kalikshama -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 8:38:01 AM)

quote:

5) He is correct. Ever been around union leaders?


My Dad was a labor mediator for the ILGWU for 30+ years.




subrob1967 -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 10:29:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
To amplify a bit:

1. Right to work No rights at work laws are terrible for workers.

2. Mitt Romney is angry at the National Labor Relations Board because, under President Obama, it has been fulfilling its mission of upholding labor law. Sometimes that means companies get in trouble for illegally firing workers or otherwise retaliating against them for exercising their rights. When George W. Bush's NLRB was routinely favoring business, Republicans were not so outraged.

3. Can you say "race to the bottom"?

4. The people of Ohio made clear how they felt about Senate Bill 5.

5. Union leaders get labeled as "having no interest in a constructive relationship with management" when they lead fights against wage and pension cuts, against making it easier to fire workers or cut their hours—in general, when they try to deny corporations the total control over workers' lives they want.




1) Good
2) Great, Obama stacked the NLRB with Union flunkies. Craig Becker, who had been a recess-appointee to the National Labor Relations Board, is returning to the AFL-CIO where he will be co-general counsel. Mark Gaston Pearce was a founding partner of the Buffalo, New York law firm of Creighton, Pearce, Johnsen & Giroux, where he practiced union and plaintiff side labor and employment law. Richard Griffin, the former general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers, will receive regular payments under two different IUOE pension plans. The payment amounts are not listed on the disclosure form. He will also receive a single lump sum payment equal to three weeks of salary (one week for each of the three years since he enrolled in the plan). Griffin’s annual salary as the IUOE’s general counsel was $376,778, according to the disclosure form. & Sharon Block
3) Can you say lie?
4) Seems like you guys are trying to lose Ohio for Obama
5) Wisconsin school districts prove that 5 is a lie... How many teachers have been fired in Wisconsin, and how many jobs have been saved?




mnottertail -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 10:34:12 AM)

5 is true, the wisconsin teachers are retiring in droves. 




papassion -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 11:07:24 AM)


Grow up and face reality! Unions are a thing of the past. We are in a global market now. Most modern factories are using automation to produce goods. Machines don't ask for longer vacations, more pay, more benefits and pensions. Since the US has the highest manufacturing taxes in the world. (So Democrats can promise more welfare and food stamps to "buy" voters) New plants will go to tax friendly countries. Buggywhip makers, wagonwheel factories, etc are in the past. They will NOT come back! The future is modern foreign factories staffed with foreign workers earning much less in wages and benefits. And everytime they try to unionize, the factories will simply move to the next country. Our manufacturing base will return when EVERYONE only buys US MADE goods and cars. How much do you want to bet that will happen?

And to the people who have no clue about business. What business without a good PROFIT history could afford to pay the nice dividends your retirement account relies on? No good profit for companies, no good dividends for YOU and your retirement acount. Get it?




subrob1967 -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 11:23:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

5 is true, the wisconsin teachers are retiring in droves. 


So Walker is a job CREATOR after all... Excellent!




mnottertail -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 11:25:53 AM)

How? now they pay out the ass for no work, before they paid for work.  He is a job destroyer, and thats why republicans fail so badly at the economy.

Mitt is more of the same brand of cretinism.




subrob1967 -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 11:33:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

How? now they pay out the ass for no work, before they paid for work.  He is a job destroyer, and thats why republicans fail so badly at the economy.

Mitt is more of the same brand of cretinism.


Um, if there's now a teacher shortage in Wisconsin because the union parasites quit to retain their benefits, and Walker has to hire teachers, that makes him a job CREATOR...

And your lack of comprehension is why liberals fail so badly at economic matters. You just can't conjure up the funds to pay the union parasites the wages they feel they deserve.




mnottertail -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 11:36:40 AM)

So, now we have a shortage, and where then is the creation of jobs, so now he is paying twice for one, but he can't get them.

I see.  The big savings, teabagger style. 

He is creating some temporary jobs with all the recalls, more cost to the people of wisconsin.






Musicmystery -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 11:55:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

5 is true, the wisconsin teachers are retiring in droves. 


So Walker is a job CREATOR after all... Excellent!

I can't speak to Wisconsin's situation.

But here in NY, after the governor ravished retirement tiers, enrollment in the school of education is down. Way down.

You have to pay people to get quality people. Isn't this what the private sector has been arguing to justify high salaries? And they're right.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 12:18:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
To amplify a bit:
1. Right to work No rights at work laws are terrible for workers.


Nothing quite says freedom like forcing Americans to join Unions and pay dues to work.

quote:


2. Mitt Romney is angry at the National Labor Relations Board because, under President Obama, it has been fulfilling its mission of upholding labor law. Sometimes that means companies get in trouble for illegally firing workers or otherwise retaliating against them for exercising their rights. When George W. Bush's NLRB was routinely favoring business, Republicans were not so outraged.


Collective bargaining rights are not rights. They are privileges. Boeing did nothing wrong by building in SC. No jobs were lost in Washington. Jobs were expanded. No work was lost to SC. It was all new work. The NLRB is a Union tool.

quote:


3. Can you say "race to the bottom"?


Can you say, "Public Education?"

quote:

4. The people of Ohio made clear how they felt about Senate Bill 5.


Based on a campaign of distortion after distortion, yep, Ohio voters repealed SB 5. And, Union teacher jobs have been lost, where they wouldn't have had SB 5 been allowed to stand. If you argue against SB 5, you probably should have a clue what SB 5 really did.

quote:


5. Union leaders get labeled as "having no interest in a constructive relationship with management" when they lead fights against wage and pension cuts, against making it easier to fire workers or cut their hours—in general, when they try to deny corporations the total control over workers' lives they want.


Gimme a break. Union leaders are labeled thus when they fight tooth and nail against anything that might resemble good for the company. The Union is all about the Union and nothing else. When times were good, the Big 3 negotiated great benefits and raises. When times turned sour, the Unions fought tooth and nail against every giveback.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Without unions...........there never would have been a middle class orOSHA,child labor laws any checks against corporate America.....


While this is true, it's not a true impact of Unions today. The Unions were absolutely necessary when they were spawned. Of that, there is no doubt. But, just because something was absolutely necessary and integral then, doesn't make it necessary and integral now. If the CRA of 1964 was repealed, would we devolve back into the discriminatory practices of yore? Only in some places. But not everywhere, and not to the extent it was back then. The speed of information is such that any business that practices racial discrimination will eventually fail because there are enough of each race now that discriminating against one or more would doom you, but there are also enough people in the majority who would also stop doing business with that company.

If we did away with Unions now (and I'm not making a blanket statement advocating for this), we would not devolve back into child labor, horrible work conditions, etc. Those are no longer allowed, not because Unions still exist, but because they have been codified. Federal laws now prevent, or illegalize the conditions that spawned Unions.

Does the Union work in the interest of the taxpayer when garbage collectors are paid for 8 hours even if it takes them 2 to run their route? Does it help or hinder workers by forcing layoffs by tenure rather than productivity?

Unions are dinosaurs of the past that need to go the way of the dinosaur. As far as public unions go, for what reasons were they created? What was the deplorable work conditions that required Union representation and collective bargaining to fix?

Are there any economists out there that want to talk about sticky wages, or sticky costs, as it pertains to economic downturns?




joether -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 1:04:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
1) right to work enables anyone to work without having to pay union dues and join the union. This is called Freedom.


Actually, the 'right to work' allows for the employee to terminate their work with an employer at any time for any reason. It has NOTHING to do with the Unions. In fact, it was the very Unions you bash, that created this concept in legal terms to come about. The Unions of the 19th-20th centuries did not like the idea that Americans could be 'indentured servants' (aka contracted slaves) to whom anything can be done to them by their master's wishs. I would how many conservatives would be 'ok', with a harsh master that forces you to work on four hours of sleep, in unsafe work conditions, doing eight hour work weeks, with a pitance of wages that go right back to the company store to by food and clothing? Would you wish to quit for such a company?

Go ahead Arturas, tell all of us here that you would be 'ok' to do that job for the rest of your life....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
2) Can you say government entitiy controlled by the unions?
"The AFL-CIO has named former National Labor Relations Board member Craig Becker as its co-general counsel."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/22/1093736/-Former-National-Labor-Relations-Board-member-Craig-Becker-going-to-AFL-CIO


And those Unions are headed up by.....AMERICANS....whom feel workers should get a fair deal. Your silly attempt to label Unions as non-American is amusing. Who should the US Goverment be controlled by, Arturas? The American People! Not some multi-national, foreign owned, corporation that has profits in the tens of billions! Unions are set up to function like mini-USA's. They have representatives who act in favor of the members as a whole. Is it a perfect system? Course not; but far better than leaving each employee at the mercy of the employeer. Would you enjoy playing Blackjack against The House, when they can deal out either a face or '10' card, but draw a random care for the second? And that both of your cards can NEVER be a face or '10' card? Would you enjoy betting your hard earn money in this fashion, Arturas?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
3) Can you say "No We Can't"?


So, I guess you enjoy picking berries in the hot Arizonian sun in the middle of summer, right? That *IS* what your advocating. Since all the illegal immigrants cant do those jobs, that leaves Americans. Unless your willing to 'put your money where your mouth is' and do that job for five years solid WITHOUT complaint; but all means, force other Americans to be paid pennies on the dollar.

You should pick up a history book on the concept of 'Company Towns' of the 19th-20th Century (which is how the Unions got their start). Is that what you desire across America? Company towns that control....EVERYTHING....EVERYONE...and.....EVERY PENNY?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
4) This action will emprove education by keeping bad teachers from being protected by the union.


And how do we determine who is a bad teacher? Perhaps there are many good teachers that have bad students whom arent taught well by the very parents whom point fingers else where but themselves? We 'tried' this under the 'NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND' act under the Bush Administration. It failed in a number of ways. Did you actually read that document? Or were you told how to think on that law because you were to lazy to be an actual US Citizen? The founding fathers believed this nation would not survive long if its citizens did not take an active role in its health.

The problem with 'No Child Left Behind' is that if a school can not bring 100% of its students to a 'proficient' level by 2014, they lose all federal aid. What most conservatives fail to realize is that the 'proficient' level is '....70% correct....' on the exams. Most exams are based on a 'bell-shaped curve', in that the majority of students will succeed at a 75-85% correct scores. And that there will be students that fail such an exam. Under No Child Left Behind, the school would lose financial aid. So what does the school do? They have to follow the federal law, NOT, dumb down the test questions (which is to say, ask...HARDER...questions). What do you think will happen when the harder questions are asked (cus education takes place in a vaccum according to conservative Republicans)? More students will fail, not less.

How about those special needs students? They are counted for No Child Left Behind. The school by federal law must accept them into public schools; but yet, expect them to over come impossible levels on the exam. Private schools get away with this, as they can simply discriminate against which students they take. Public schools, not so lucky. So tell me, Arturas, what do those public schools do? A) Throw the handicape students out (and be inviolation of the ADA of 1992) or keep them but lose federal funding under NCLB?

Yes, the 'conservative' answer to handling bad teachers and schools is to create a law that is so moronic that it doesnt work in most circumstances!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
5) He is correct. Ever been around union leaders?


Would you create a 'happy and fuzzy warm' relationship with a person that doesnt like you? You would? Oh, ok, go to Afghanistan and hug those Taliban folks that have been killing our soldiers for the last few years. Put your money where your mouth is....

Many employers fail at 'treating others like human beings', and create a huge amount of bad karma as a result. Unfortunately, being in 'karma debt' has many problems that most employers do not figure into their business papers. I've been around plenty of union leaders (just as I have through the SBA with company owners), and found them to have the same trait as many company owners: They Are American! You must be one of 'those' types whom see the whole 'Management vs Unions' as some sort of football game? A zero-sum affair in which one side has to lose for the other to win. But, the problem is not so easily 'black and white'; in fact, that is a rarity. The wisest position on 'Management vs Union' fights is to start of neutral and allow the arguements to be made. During which, one must 'factcheck' what is being said, and see if one side really has a decent arguement. If neither do, can a comproise be reached?

And as we have learned in Congress, conservative Republicans dont know what the word 'comprise' means, nor why its so important to use in our country's form of goverment.




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 1:45:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Without unions...........there never would have been a middle class...



While this is true...



Actually, it's only PARTIALLY true.  While PART of the impetus for Unions was to protect workers, the OTHER PART was to DISCRIMINATE and BLOCK MINORITIES from taking jobs from WHITES!!!  The Left conveniently forget to mention this nasty little tid-bit while hailing the virtues of Unions -- thus, the sentence above should more accurately read, "there never would have been a WHITE middle class".

RACIST HISTORY OF UNIONS: http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_2_bern.pdf

[8|]






mnottertail -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 2:04:53 PM)

I suppose that was the Arizonans in the unions that spearheaded that move.




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 2:30:50 PM)

 
More likely the SAME RACIST DEMS/LIBS that rounded up German-Americans, Japanese-Americans, and murdered African-Americans








mnottertail -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 2:33:07 PM)

David Duke was a democrat?  That is a history rewrite.




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 2:44:08 PM)

 
History of The Democrats and The KKK... (Why the Democrats started the KKK)
 
The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.
 
An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.
 
The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.
 
"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."
 
Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.
 
"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.
 
"The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death," he said. "Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included."
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2309727/posts





Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625