|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Five ways Mitt Romney is fighting against unions and America's middle class (5/29/2012 6:11:54 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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.
No one is forcing anyone to work in a Union, DS. If you wish to work at a company that has a Union, you are to join it. Just like working at McDonalds prevents you from wearing a "Megadeath' T-Shirt that is blood-stained, ripped, and fading while wearing just your underwear that is brown and green. If you joined a professional company, you would be expected to dress and behave in a professional manner. Companies have rules and regulations that require employees to do certain things (as long as it follows the current laws). If you are unwilling to follow those rules, perhaps that job isnt a good 'fit' for you.
So, in your lollipop and cotton candy world, I'd not be able to work for most manufacturers, or most parts of government. Nothing like discrimination, eh? You say if I choose to work at a Union shop, I am implicitly implying that I accept joining the Union. It's great that it's not a "company" rule to be a Union shop, but I can't work at that company if I don't follow the rules that weren't from the company.
What are Unions so afraid of? If someone can go into a Union shop and not join the Union, but still have to pay at least partial dues (because they are getting the benefits of Union negotiations), what's the harm?
Now, if you're going to continue that line of defense, why is it okay to ban smoking in all public places, such as restaurants, bowling alleys, etc.? One big reason for passing that in Ohio was that it was putting workers at risk for smoking related issues. Well, if you take a position at a bar, bowling alley, etc., does that line of reasoning no longer apply? Or, does it only apply when you want it to, depending on whether or not it supports your side? As a patron to a bar, restaurant, bowling alley, etc., do you not have the right to choose which restaurant to eat at? If you choose a place where smoking is allowed, is that not consent to breath in that air?
Pick a fucking side and be consistent.
quote:
If the NRB is such a 'Union' tool, why is President Obama using it to punish companies that both import and employ illegal immigrants? If its just a 'Union tool', why is it often used to help Americans that are preyed on by companies that believe they have the resources and lawyers to head off any legal problem that could arise if they behave like dicks? I knew one company that fired a women because she was in labor at the time. I knew another that did so because the guy was black when his form said white (turned out, it was a clerical error). Your an intelligent guy, DS, so I am surprised you have very little knowledge regarding the NLRB.
Collective Bargaining, DS, is set up to allow a company and its workers to contuine operating "...as if nothing was wrong..."; while company officals and Union members work out issues. Or would you rather there be more strikes that last longer (and neither side really talks to the other)? That is what happens when collective bargaining is not used to handle differences like adults. There are not many people that enjoy 'salary negoitations' when looking for a job. The collective bargaining process is the same way, but holds bigger issues and problems to overcome.
Yeah, that's what it's about. So, what you are saying is that teachers don't have collective bargaining. They go on strike. They don't teach. The bargaining starts before the current contract expires. If things aren't going the Union way, they strike. Remember the transit worker strikes in NY? How great was that collective bargaining working to maintain continued operation?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Can you say, "Public Education?"
Can you say "conservatives that dont know what the concept of 'comprise' means?" Oh sorry, my sentence is to long for 95% of conservatives to understand. Dont worry, FOX News will be along shortly to do your thinking for you. We wouldnt want you to hurt yourself in thinking on concepts bigger than 1+1=2. You would just add to our health care costs nationwide....
I'm going to assume you meant "compromise" instead of "comprise." And, well, guess what. You made no point at all. All you did was start bashing Conservatives, and lump them all as FOX News listeners. Guess what. I don't watch FOX News. Hell, I have CNN on more than any other news outlet, local or cable. Well, that's not true. Sorry. I do watch a news station more than CNN; actually a group of news stations. The group of news stations I have on most are all in the family of ESPN.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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.
I always find it amusing when conservatives bash President Obama and Democrats hourly over petty things. But write blank checks to the GOP and never hold them to an ounce of accountibility or responsibility. I'm STILL waiting for conservatives to justify the Iraq War. You know that war, right? That war that costed 4000 soldier lives, injured 30,000 soldiers, put around 100,000 civilians to the sword, forced us to spend $4 Trillion borrowed dollars, and NEVER FOUND THOSE WMDS we were told were in that country. If your going to argue 'the other side distorts things for political gain', make your your side isnt DEEPER is the B.S.!
Your rebuttal consisted of nothing more than deflection. Nice try.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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.
Yes, thanks to those 'horrible' Unions, DS, we dont have the corporations calling all the shots over our lives (but the GOP is working hard to make that a reality). Yes, those evil Unions that give you time and half if you work over 40 hours in a week. Or that companies must make sure not to place your fingers, hands, arms, feet, legs, and body in hazardous or unsafe work conditions at will. Again, those vile Unions that make sure employees are not at the mercy of a company with more resources that could bury an employee complaint in endless legal problems. And those 'Diablo-like' Unions that fought to get health care, day care, time off, sick days, flex-time scheduling, fair wages, 'see one's family more often that once a millennium', and many other benefits. Yeap, those 'commie, mutant, socialistic, evil, Democratic, liberal' Unions are the ones at fault for the economy melting down in 2007. Had nothing to do with greedy corporations and companies.....
Um, did I or did I not state that Unions were necessary back then and played a very integral role in improving the safety of the workplace? Oh, yeah. I did. Huh. Who knew? Well, if you'd have read my whole response, you would have. See below, actually.
quote:
The 'Big Three' Automakers lose ground not due to Unions so much as competition and conditions in OTHER countries. Yes, China gain manufacturing ground largely due to its low wage workforce (and ignorance on how chemical spills effect the land, water and air). Would you live on $0.83/day in wages here in America during the 70s-90s, DS (that's 'alot of money' for workers during that time period in China)? Is that the Union's fault, or the situation of economical differences between the USA and China at the time? Companies wanted profits, so started moving operations over to countries with low wage workforces and no Unions to hold them accountbile and responsible to anything. Yeah, there's those words again.....'accountibility' and 'responsibility'. A pair of words that conservatives seem to hate....
Boo Hoo Hoo! Other countries don't force their companies to pay high wages! Waa! We can't compete because they don't pay wages as high as ours! Waa!
Go buy some big boy panties and face the facts that you can't blame employment cost differentials on lower paying companies without also placing blame on the higher paying companies. Can't have a differential with only one side.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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.
Back in 2003-2004, the GOP controlled Congressed removed a few 'regulations' that were causing Companies in America from gaining the full profit generation the GOP believed they were entitled too. These regulations were put in place to prevent stressing of equipment on oil rigs and other such structures. Since these regulations were not in place during the Gulf Horizon Oil Spill of 2010, BP was not charged anywhere in the neighborhood of what they WOULD'VE been charged in 2002. The manager on the rig stressed the systems to produce more oil and created the problems that led to the platform sinking in a firey display and the broken pipe spewing oil from Texas to Florida!
So, you're saying that the GOP reduced regulatory costs because they believed those costs were higher than they should have been? Um, okay. I see that as a damn good thing. How can you not? Wouldn't you want Democrats to do the same? Granted, the Democrats and GOP will have different beliefs, but they will still reduce regulatory costs if they believed them too high. Piss and moan about the GOP's level of profit they think is good, but don't complain when they make policy based on their beliefs. That's just stupid.
quote:
When mechanisms that are put in place to protect Americans (directly or indirectly) from corporate greed are removed; it doesnt take long before those same Americans are subjected to new and often deadly problems. Most conservatives in favor of removing regulations never bother to understand what the purpose of the regulation was put in place. In other words, they do not bother to obtain knowledge from the original creators of the law what sort of behavior they wish to minimalized or remove all together.
Any thinking conservative knows that regulations are necessary and will improve the Marketplace - and here is the important part of this story - up to a certain point. After that point, more regulations will reduce the efficiencies in the Marketplace. Guess what. Conservatives believe the regulation tipping point is lower than where we are today. Note that does not mean Conservatives are all about Zero regulations.
quote:
Unions, are a metaphoical version of legal regulations. So long as they are present and not undermined, can keep Americans from suffering untold stresses and loses in ways not limited to financial livability.
Horseshit. Go back to your argument about accepting a job being accepting the rules of the job. You don't want to join a Union? Don't work in a Union shop. You don't want to work in a smoky bar? Don't work in a bar that allows smoking. You don't want to work in a place that pays shit wages, go somewhere else. Know what happens when they can't hire enough workers or high enough quality of workers at a certain pay rate? Uh, they raise the offer. That is how business is done. If you won't work for less than a certain wage, but someone else will, guess who gets the job.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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.
Ever steam a Maine Lobster, DS? If you throw the lobster in a pot of boiling water, what happens? It claws its way out (not to mention screaming). But if you place them in the freezer, it numbs their ability to resist or know its being boiled to death when placed in the pot.
The metaphor here, is that if some organization were to out right ban the 2nd Amendment, there would be untold public unrest all over the place! But if you chip away at it slowly, over years if not decades, you could effectively undermine the whole thing....AND....have the majority of people in support of it. The reverse of the same amendment is true: If you slowly tell people it means 'lunatics should have firearms' so that they can have firearms; how many people resist gun control laws from remaining in effect? Believing the only way to protect themselves from lunatics is to have guns; rather than remove the ability of those lunatics to get guns in the first place!
Are there any laws on the books that have been put there to prevent lunatics from having guns? Interesting you'd try that line of reasoning. Are you going to tell me that everyone who has a gun, or, better yet, commits a gun crime, owns that gun legally?
quote:
If we 'did away with Unions' we would not feel the negative effects immidately. Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt it wont happen over time? By all means, DS, present your evidence....
LMAO!! Seriously? Dude, you don't even have a fucking clue any more. Unions don't do shit for workplace safety. We have OSHA now. We have all this shit codified. What the fuck are Unions doing now? It's all about the benjamins. What horrible working conditions are Public Unions working against?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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?
Does the GOP work in the interest of the taxpayer when they push hundreds of bills through the US House of Representatives on their way to the US Senate, when they KNOW they will fail in the Democratic-controlled Senate? Do conservatives know that the GOP does this on a daily basis, and thus, wasting everyone's tax dollars on stupid crap that goes no where? Unions, work in the interest of its members (thats why its called a 'union' of people).
So, you are placing sole blame on the Republicans in the House because the Democrats in the Senate won't pass any of their bills. But, the Democrats in the Senate not passing any bills from the Republicans in the House merits haloes and wings, right? Oh, wait. I forgot the harps.
quote:
Did the Goldman Sach management work in the interest of thusands of American home owners and investors whom lost considerable money when Goldman Sachs lied on the housing market? Yeah, GS created two groups of future markets for its housing contracts. The first group (whom they gave to their preferred customers) were those houses owned by people in good standing paying the mortages. The second group were 'the dead beat' group; those that were likely to lose their house within six months. The second group GS gave to investors in general to 'invest for six months and reap the profit', but stating they were investing into the first group, NOT, the second group. So, GS knew that the second group, six months down the road would be worth considerably LESS than it did at the starting time frame. So they 'sold short' on the investments of the second group, bought the investment at the tail end of the period and reaped an even HIGHER profit. Not to mention, GS claimed afew hundred million dollars worth of real estate properties.
And it was all done because there was no groups or regulations protecting Americans (either home owners or investors).
Do you not know what the SEC is? Do you not know that the regulators who should have caught and stopped this didn't catch it or stop it because they were too busy looking up porn on the computers paid for by the people who they were supposed to be protecting? Don't forget, we have this little organization, called the Federal Reserve, that is tasked to prevent this sort of stuff from happening, too. The Congressional Report lists all this stuff out, but hey, maybe the sentences weren't long enough for you to understand?
And, how about the Dodd-Frank Bill that was to change the way the financial district operates so as to prevent future recessions? How about the CBO coming out and stating that had that financial overhaul bill been in place prior to the Recession, it still wouldn't have prevented it?
We had regulations in place. We had regulators in place. The regulators were looking at boobies instead of the market functions.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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?
This right here displays how little you understand Unions. The past, present and future of Unions. If you can not understand this concept, you WILL get mocked, laughed at, and made the butt of jokes. Maybe you should join a Union an get an education (not to mention perspective) that seems entirely alien to you! Unions are not the evil beings the GOP has made them out to be. Just like most companies dont run to undermine the American people.
Get an education? You mean, get taught a lesson, I'm figuring.
Oh, and yet another deflection instead of an answer.
At least you're more consistent with that.
|
|
|
|
