Unions or Un-Unions

• believer

  

  KnightRyder;550990 wrote:its not their difference of opinion , its their flat out ignorance on topic.

  Pot meet kettle.
• Con_Alma

  KnightRyder;550676 wrote:yea it greatly affected the airline industry , many of those airlines are now out of business. that was the beginning of the end for many of them

  
  The demand for airline service is filled in this country and across the world at a very reasonable price and in a a very safe manner.
  
  If some airline companies went out of business it's because they weren't able to deliver their service at a sustainable market price. The "airtraffic controllers" union being broken or staying in place wouldn't have changed the outcome of these failing companies at all.
• BGFalcons82

  

  KnightRyder;550985 wrote:i'll call bullshit

  
  Local 423, International Brotherhood of Laborers. Not bullshit. Look up their history, sparky. I was going to do it, but you need the practice of actually researching your facts. Have a nice day!
• KnightRyder

  

  Con_Alma;551270 wrote:The demand for airline service is filled in this country and across the world at a very reasonable price and in a a very safe manner.
  
  If some airline companies went out of business it's because they weren't able to deliver their service at a sustainable market price. The "airtraffic controllers" union being broken or staying in place wouldn't have changed the outcome of these failing companies at all.

  and this you know as fact? i highly doubt it. thats just your speculation.
• Belly35

  

  KnightRyder this is not suggested reading for you.... Please go gather another pallet for the 50 gallon drum and do not read this...
  
  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/time_to_tackle_right_to_work.html
• QuakerOats

  jhay78;545444 wrote:Put an end to public-sector/ government unions. Huge, parasitic conflict of interest.

  
  For the sake of the Republic, it must happen.
• jhay78

  

  Belly35;551395 wrote:KnightRyder this is not suggested reading for you.... Please go gather another pallet for the 50 gallon drum and do not read this...
  
  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/time_to_tackle_right_to_work.html

  Interesting article- Belly, you beat me to it.
  

  Almost one in five members of organized labor lives in the five rust belt states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Labor unions poured an enormous amount of money into the 2010 midterm elections, focusing almost exclusively on defeating Republicans. A poll conducted by Frank Luntz shows that individual union members overwhelmingly disapproved of this spending, and this same poll showed a strong unhappiness with current labor leadership. Enacting right to work laws in those five rust belt states would immediately deal a body blow to organized labor in America, reducing its power to influence elections in America dramatically. Republicans would be fools not to aggressively push this agenda against union bosses who are inextricably bound up with the corrupt leadership of the Left.
  
  But there is another vital reason why these five states should adopt right to work laws. States with right to work laws have lower unemployment rates than states without right to work. Unions are, in every sense of the word (except raw power for leftist bosses), an anachronism. Union dues come out of the income of union workers, reducing their real wages. Union contracts increase labor costs for employers and so induce businesses to leave for places which allow market forces to determine terms of employment. The cumulative effect for highly unionized states, like Michigan, is nothing short of calamitous. As unemployment rates rise and people leave for greener pastures, home values drop and companies forced to operate manacled by union contracts go belly-up.

  
  I would love to see more states enact right-to-work laws.
• Con_Alma

  KnightRyder;551379 wrote:and this you know as fact? i highly doubt it. thats just your speculation.

  
  Speculation?
  
  I am not speculating that anyone can get a flight to where they want to go. There is plenty of supply for the demand that's in place.
• Belly35

  

  jhay78;551502 wrote:Interesting article- Belly, you beat me to it.
  
  
  
  I would love to see more states enact right-to-work laws.

  Thank you JHay78 I may have poor grammar, spelling and writing skills but I'm informed, knowledgeable and coherent of the world around me.
• KnightRyder

  

  Belly35;551395 wrote:KnightRyder this is not suggested reading for you.... Please go gather another pallet for the 50 gallon drum and do not read this...
  
  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/time_to_tackle_right_to_work.html

  
  why would i want to read anything from some consevative rag.
  
  There is a movement in America by conservative groups to demonize unions as bad for the country because unions are bad for corporations. Anyone with a pulse knows Republicans are in opposition to anything that threatens the power of corporations, and conservatives protect corporate America at any cost.
  
  Recently, a Fox News commentator blamed unions for the auto industry’s financial problems. They also blamed oil prices and Japanese imports as the reason GM and Chrysler were near bankruptcy. However, that argument falls way short of credibility when one considers that there are three major car makers in America and only two needed a bailout.
  
  Blaming unions, oil prices, and Japanese imports is invalid because Ford Motor Company survived the recession without a government bailout, and they use the exact same union as GM and Chrysler, pay the same oil prices, and have the same competition from Japanese auto-makers. Using unions as a scapegoat is a tired argument that is absurd.
  A conservative pundit commented on Meg Whitman’s current immigration controversy by claiming Whitman hired an undocumented housekeeper because union’s wages are too high. It’s typical of conservatives to lie and fabricate stories to cover their lies, but blaming unions for Whitman’s undocumented worker problem is going too far. For all the bad press unions receive these days, it is worth reminding people that most of the working conditions and benefits workers enjoy are a direct result of unions.
  
  One has to wonder if conservatives enjoy weekends off, lunch breaks, and safe working conditions. Without unions, corporations would force employees to work 20 hour days for whatever wage the corporations could get away with, and if workers lived in poverty, so be it. After WWII, the prosperity America enjoyed was because unions aided workers with living wages and bargaining power. With higher wages came more home ownership, tax revenue, and buying power. Union wages also helped build the middle class in America. When conservatives demonize unions, it is to protect corporations, and in effect, destroy the middle class.
  
  Conservatives have fought to prevent union organization at corporate giants like Wal-Mart to keep wages low so they can make more profits and abuse their workforce. Wal-Mart employees in Europe are represented by unions, and workers enjoy paid sick leave, living wages, 4-6 weeks of vacation, and retirement plans that make the golden years tolerable. European workers do not understand why their “brothers and sisters” in America cannot have union representation.
  
  Demonizing and breaking unions is not new, and Ronald Reagan was the worst offender. The mining industry’s deadly accidents occur at companies that are not represented by unions, and the West Virginia mine explosion is an example of Reagan’s union-busting results. The only benefactor of non-union sites are corporations; corporations do not share their obscene profits with employees, and they prevent employees from refusing to work in hazardous conditions. Corporate protection at the expense of worker safety is endemic of conservative’s ideology that corporations must be protected at any cost. Demonizing unions is just another way conservatives give corporations power to control America. Union representation is one of the last roadblocks to complete corporate takeover in America, and denying union representation is a conservative tactic to destroy the middle class in America. I
  
  t is not new for conservatives to protect corporations at the expense of workers, and propaganda that unions are evil is a weapon that Republicans are ramping up again because of the sluggish economy. People who do not enjoy union representation would not oppose unions if they didn’t fear losing their jobs, and given the choice with a secret ballot, most would choose to be in a union. But fear mongers and corporate shills (Republicans) know they can fool ignorant folks with lies and threats of losing their poverty-level jobs for attempting to join or organize a union. At some point, America will become a corporation, and 98% of Americans will live in poverty because Republicans are hell-bent on destroying the middle class.
  
  Tax breaks for moving jobs out of the country, no corporate taxes, and deregulation does nothing to benefit workers and only makes sure corporations continue raping America. America is becoming a second rate country now, and as we fall behind the rest of the industrialized world, corporations are thriving. There is no doubt that corporate control of the government is here now.
  
  Don’t believe it? The Supreme Court’s decision to give person status to corporations is one of the final nails in America’s coffin. Demonizing and disbanding unions may well be the final nail, and the blame lies with ignorant jealous people for believing lying Republican rapists. It is sad that the one means of building the middle class in America is being portrayed as evil and bad for America. Republicans and their conservative ideology dictates that corporations are America. Republicans wrap their corporatist mindset in the flag, demonize unions as communist, and keep the workforce in poverty to protect corporations. Unions are the last defense for American workers, and Republicans have mounted an all-out attack on unions, and subsequently, American workers
• Al Bundy

  Knight, unions may still have a place in certain industries to protect some rights, but I think you are going a little overboard. Unions were absolutely needed 100 years ago to protect employees against several of the abuses that you listed. I blame the executives at the auto industries for signing bad contracts as far as healthcare and pension plans, but unions were pushing for those contracts. As far as the workers at Walmart, no one is forcing them to work there. If they were to form a union, would their union dues be more than their increase in wages?
• ernest_t_bass

  

  KnightRyder;551631 wrote:why would i want to read anything from some consevative rag.
  
  There is a movement in America by conservative groups to demonize unions as bad for the country because unions are bad for corporations. Anyone with a pulse knows Republicans are in opposition to anything that threatens the power of corporations, and conservatives protect corporate America at any cost.
  
  Recently, a Fox News commentator blamed unions for the auto industry’s financial problems. They also blamed oil prices and Japanese imports as the reason GM and Chrysler were near bankruptcy. However, that argument falls way short of credibility when one considers that there are three major car makers in America and only two needed a bailout.
  
  Blaming unions, oil prices, and Japanese imports is invalid because Ford Motor Company survived the recession without a government bailout, and they use the exact same union as GM and Chrysler, pay the same oil prices, and have the same competition from Japanese auto-makers. Using unions as a scapegoat is a tired argument that is absurd.
  A conservative pundit commented on Meg Whitman’s current immigration controversy by claiming Whitman hired an undocumented housekeeper because union’s wages are too high. It’s typical of conservatives to lie and fabricate stories to cover their lies, but blaming unions for Whitman’s undocumented worker problem is going too far. For all the bad press unions receive these days, it is worth reminding people that most of the working conditions and benefits workers enjoy are a direct result of unions.
  
  One has to wonder if conservatives enjoy weekends off, lunch breaks, and safe working conditions. Without unions, corporations would force employees to work 20 hour days for whatever wage the corporations could get away with, and if workers lived in poverty, so be it. After WWII, the prosperity America enjoyed was because unions aided workers with living wages and bargaining power. With higher wages came more home ownership, tax revenue, and buying power. Union wages also helped build the middle class in America. When conservatives demonize unions, it is to protect corporations, and in effect, destroy the middle class.
  
  Conservatives have fought to prevent union organization at corporate giants like Wal-Mart to keep wages low so they can make more profits and abuse their workforce. Wal-Mart employees in Europe are represented by unions, and workers enjoy paid sick leave, living wages, 4-6 weeks of vacation, and retirement plans that make the golden years tolerable. European workers do not understand why their “brothers and sisters” in America cannot have union representation.
  
  Demonizing and breaking unions is not new, and Ronald Reagan was the worst offender. The mining industry’s deadly accidents occur at companies that are not represented by unions, and the West Virginia mine explosion is an example of Reagan’s union-busting results. The only benefactor of non-union sites are corporations; corporations do not share their obscene profits with employees, and they prevent employees from refusing to work in hazardous conditions. Corporate protection at the expense of worker safety is endemic of conservative’s ideology that corporations must be protected at any cost. Demonizing unions is just another way conservatives give corporations power to control America. Union representation is one of the last roadblocks to complete corporate takeover in America, and denying union representation is a conservative tactic to destroy the middle class in America. I
  
  t is not new for conservatives to protect corporations at the expense of workers, and propaganda that unions are evil is a weapon that Republicans are ramping up again because of the sluggish economy. People who do not enjoy union representation would not oppose unions if they didn’t fear losing their jobs, and given the choice with a secret ballot, most would choose to be in a union. But fear mongers and corporate shills (Republicans) know they can fool ignorant folks with lies and threats of losing their poverty-level jobs for attempting to join or organize a union. At some point, America will become a corporation, and 98% of Americans will live in poverty because Republicans are hell-bent on destroying the middle class.
  
  Tax breaks for moving jobs out of the country, no corporate taxes, and deregulation does nothing to benefit workers and only makes sure corporations continue raping America. America is becoming a second rate country now, and as we fall behind the rest of the industrialized world, corporations are thriving. There is no doubt that corporate control of the government is here now.
  
  Don’t believe it? The Supreme Court’s decision to give person status to corporations is one of the final nails in America’s coffin. Demonizing and disbanding unions may well be the final nail, and the blame lies with ignorant jealous people for believing lying Republican rapists. It is sad that the one means of building the middle class in America is being portrayed as evil and bad for America. Republicans and their conservative ideology dictates that corporations are America. Republicans wrap their corporatist mindset in the flag, demonize unions as communist, and keep the workforce in poverty to protect corporations. Unions are the last defense for American workers, and Republicans have mounted an all-out attack on unions, and subsequently, American workers

  
  tl;dr
  
  I'm in a teacher's union. While it is comfortable to have the protection, I know damn well that I'm not getting my $700 worth of protection. I'd rather have that $700 in my pocket and just be a good teacher.
• Belly35

  

  KnightRyder you mindless individual .... you have no original thought of your own nor anything that you can claim to be a cohesive thought process…..
  So you take others copy and think we are going to believe this your work…. Typical Union Worker
  
  
  
  http://www.madville.com/out/news/327612_republicans_destroy_middle_class_dreams_one_union_bust_at_a_time
  
  Let me help everyone:
  
  Republicans Destroy Middle Class Dreams One Union Bust at a Time
  
  There is a movement in America by conservative groups to demonize unions as bad for the country because unions are bad for corporations. Anyone with a pulse knows Republicans are in opposition to anything that threatens the power of corporations, and conservatives protect corporate America at any cost.
  
  Recently, a Fox News commentator blamed unions for the auto industry’s financial problems. They also blamed oil prices and Japanese imports as the reason GM and Chrysler were near bankruptcy. However, that argument falls way short of credibility when one considers that there are three major car makers in America and only two needed a bailout.
  
  Blaming unions, oil prices, and Japanese imports is invalid because Ford Motor Company survived the recession without a government bailout, and they use the exact same union as GM and Chrysler, pay the same oil prices, and have the same competition from Japanese auto-makers. Using unions as a scapegoat is a tired argument that is absurd.
  A conservative pundit commented on Meg Whitman’s current immigration controversy by claiming Whitman hired an undocumented housekeeper because union’s wages are too high. It’s typical of conservatives to lie and fabricate stories to cover their lies, but blaming unions for Whitman’s undocumented worker problem is going too far. For all the bad press unions receive these days, it is worth reminding people that most of the working conditions and benefits workers enjoy are a direct result of unions.
  One has to wonder if conservatives enjoy weekends off, lunch breaks, and safe working conditions. Without unions, corporations would force employees to work 20 hour days for whatever wage the corporations could get away with, and if workers lived in poverty, so be it. After WWII, the prosperity America enjoyed was because unions aided workers with living wages and bargaining power. With higher wages came more home ownership, tax revenue, and buying power. Union wages also helped build the middle class in America. When conservatives demonize unions, it is to protect corporations, and in effect, destroy the middle class.
  Conservatives have fought to prevent union organization at corporate giants like Wal-Mart to keep wages low so they can make more profits and abuse their workforce. Wal-Mart employees in Europe are represented by unions, and workers enjoy paid sick leave, living wages, 4-6 weeks of vacation, and retirement plans that make the golden years tolerable. European workers do not understand why their “brothers and sisters” in America cannot have union representation.
  Demonizing and breaking unions is not new, and Ronald Reagan was the worst offender. The mining industry’s deadly accidents occur at companies that are not represented by unions, and the West Virginia mine explosion is an example of Reagan’s union-busting results. The only benefactor of non-union sites are corporations; corporations do not share their obscene profits with employees, and they prevent employees from refusing to work in hazardous conditions. Corporate protection at the expense of worker safety is endemic of conservative’s ideology that corporations must be protected at any cost. Demonizing unions is just another way conservatives give corporations power to control America. Union representation is one of the last roadblocks to complete corporate takeover in America, and denying union representation is a conservative tactic to destroy the middle class in America. I
  t is not new for conservatives to protect corporations at the expense of workers, and propaganda that unions are evil is a weapon that Republicans are ramping up again because of the sluggish economy. People who do not enjoy union representation would not oppose unions if they didn’t fear losing their jobs, and given the choice with a secret ballot, most would choose to be in a union. But fear mongers and corporate shills (Republicans) know they can fool ignorant folks with lies and threats of losing their poverty-level jobs for attempting to join or organize a union. At some point, America will become a corporation, and 98% of Americans will live in poverty because Republicans are hell-bent on destroying the middle class.
  Tax breaks for moving jobs out of the country, no corporate taxes, and deregulation does nothing to benefit workers and only makes sure corporations continue raping America. America is becoming a second rate country now, and as we fall behind the rest of the industrialized world, corporations are thriving. There is no doubt that corporate control of the government is here now.
  Don’t believe it? The Supreme Court’s decision to give person status to corporations is one of the final nails in America’s coffin. Demonizing and disbanding unions may well be the final nail, and the blame lies with ignorant jealous people for believing lying Republican rapists. It is sad that the one means of building the middle class in America is being portrayed as evil and bad for America. Republicans and their conservative ideology dictates that corporations are America. Republicans wrap their corporatist mindset in the flag, demonize unions as communist, and keep the workforce in poverty to protect corporations. Unions are the last defense for American workers, and Republicans have mounted an all-out attack on unions, and subsequently, American workers.
• BoatShoes

  I'm not a union man personally; but, is there any concern that a "right to work Act" allows legislatures to contravene private agreements entered into by private parties? I'm not here to defend unions; I repeat...I don't feel like arguing with the entire chatter...but I do find it interesting that, as a general rule, it is the conservative position that we will not bail private parties out of bad bargains they made on their own free will. Why should we bail private employers out of the "bad bargain" they made when they agreed to allow their workers to unionize?
  
  The idea is, "why should I have to join a union if I work X job?" Well, why not take your talent and human capital to a profession that isn't unionized? Why should your desire to be non-union undermine prior agreements freely entered into?
• fan_from_texas

  KnightRyder;551631 wrote:Recently, a Fox News commentator blamed unions for the auto industry’s financial problems. They also blamed oil prices and Japanese imports as the reason GM and Chrysler were near bankruptcy. However, that argument falls way short of credibility when one considers that there are three major car makers in America and only two needed a bailout.
  
  Blaming unions, oil prices, and Japanese imports is invalid because Ford Motor Company survived the recession without a government bailout, and they use the exact same union as GM and Chrysler, pay the same oil prices, and have the same competition from Japanese auto-makers. Using unions as a scapegoat is a tired argument that is absurd.

  Your argument doesn't work. Do you see the flaw in your reasoning here?
  

  One has to wonder if conservatives enjoy weekends off, lunch breaks, and safe working conditions. Without unions, corporations would force employees to work 20 hour days for whatever wage the corporations could get away with, and if workers lived in poverty, so be it.

  This is a bit of a tired argument, so I'm not sure it's worth discussing. My field isn't unionized, but we're paid pretty well. It isn't because we have a union backing us; it's because any employer that tries to screw over its employees loses them and takes a massive financial hit. Our bosses pay us and treat us well because they want to keep us--it maximizes their profits to pay us more money. A union doesn't have anything to do with it.
  

  After WWII, the prosperity America enjoyed was because unions aided workers with living wages and bargaining power. With higher wages came more home ownership, tax revenue, and buying power.

  The post-WWII prosperity America enjoyed was largely a result of our competitive advantage with the rest of the world. We industrialized and scaled up fairly quickly while the rest of the world saw much of its infrastructure and industry destroyed. We were able to essentially "overpay" people because the rest of the developed world had experienced widespread destruction. The rest of the world has caught up to us now.
  

  People who do not enjoy union representation would not oppose unions if they didn’t fear losing their jobs, and given the choice with a secret ballot, most would choose to be in a union.

  What is your basis for asserting that most people would choose to be in unions? Outside of the public sector and some older industries, unions aren't very common in the US. The Rust Belt is heavily unionized, but the rest of the country really isn't.
  

  Tax breaks for moving jobs out of the country, no corporate taxes, and deregulation does nothing to benefit workers and only makes sure corporations continue raping America.

  What tax breaks exist for moving jobs out of the country? You do realize that we pay the highest corporate taxes in the world, right? And what specific types of deregulation do you oppose? The types that give you low-cost electricity? Or cheap air fare? Or something else?
  

  America is becoming a second rate country now

  Joking or serious?
  http://thisisindexed.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/card2732.jpg
  

  The Supreme Court’s decision to give person status to corporations is one of the final nails in America’s coffin.

  You realize that SCOTUS' decision gave unions the same rights as it gave corporations, right? And, despite your hateful rhetoric, it was a fairly reasonable decision that enjoys broad historical and constitutional support.
• believer

  

  ^^^Great post FFT. Be prepared now to be labeled stupid.
• KnightRyder

  

  Al Bundy;551648 wrote:Knight, unions may still have a place in certain industries to protect some rights, but I think you are going a little overboard. Unions were absolutely needed 100 years ago to protect employees against several of the abuses that you listed. I blame the executives at the auto industries for signing bad contracts as far as healthcare and pension plans, but unions were pushing for those contracts. As far as the workers at Walmart, no one is forcing them to work there. If they were to form a union, would their union dues be more than their increase in wages?

  
  because unions were pushing those contracts, that meant they had to sign them? i dont think so. and as far as your question about walmart, i highly doubt it. you want to complain about how your tax dollar works well most walmart employees use state funded healthcare.
• KnightRyder

  

  fan_from_texas;551742 wrote:Your argument doesn't work. Do you see the flaw in your reasoning here?
  
  This is a bit of a tired argument, so I'm not sure it's worth discussing. My field isn't unionized, but we're paid pretty well. It isn't because we have a union backing us; it's because any employer that tries to screw over its employees loses them and takes a massive financial hit. Our bosses pay us and treat us well because they want to keep us--it maximizes their profits to pay us more money. A union doesn't have anything to do with it.
  
  The post-WWII prosperity America enjoyed was largely a result of our competitive advantage with the rest of the world. We industrialized and scaled up fairly quickly while the rest of the world saw much of its infrastructure and industry destroyed. We were able to essentially "overpay" people because the rest of the developed world had experienced widespread destruction. The rest of the world has caught up to us now.
  
  What is your basis for asserting that most people would choose to be in unions? Outside of the public sector and some older industries, unions aren't very common in the US. The Rust Belt is heavily unionized, but the rest of the country really isn't.
  
  What tax breaks exist for moving jobs out of the country? You do realize that we pay the highest corporate taxes in the world, right? And what specific types of deregulation do you oppose? The types that give you low-cost electricity? Or cheap air fare? Or something else?
  
  Joking or serious?
  http://thisisindexed.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/card2732.jpg
  
  You realize that SCOTUS' decision gave unions the same rights as it gave corporations, right? And, despite your hateful rhetoric, it was a fairly reasonable decision that enjoys broad historical and constitutional support.

  
  now that is total nonsense. did you forget GWB's tax break. oh thats right i forgot you feel the top 2% shouldnt have to pay their fair share.
• Al Bundy

  KnightRyder;551861 wrote:because unions were pushing those contracts, that meant they had to sign them? i dont think so. and as far as your question about walmart, i highly doubt it. you want to complain about how your tax dollar works well most walmart employees use state funded healthcare.

  
  I said that the executives were to blame. I was just pointing out that the union had no interest in putting the company in a position to help the workers long term. I live in an area where unions have done more damage than good. The unions chased the steel industry away from the Mahoning Valley, and other companies are reluctant to come here because they fear the union influence. Is the steel worker who lost his job or the Walmart employee in better position today?
• believer

  

  KnightRyder;551866 wrote:now that is total nonsense. did you forget GWB's tax break. oh thats right i forgot you feel the top 2% shouldnt have to pay their fair share.

  In the mix of your incredibly disjointed nonsensical psycho-babble, I actually find myself almost understanding the bass ackwards illogic in your warped train of thought. Care to share some of that Kool Aid with the rest of us? Stupid is as stupid does.
  

  Al Bundy;551927 wrote:I said that the executives were to blame. I was just pointing out that the union had no interest in putting the company in a position to help the workers long term. I live in an area where unions have done more damage than good. The unions chased the steel industry away from the Mahoning Valley, and other companies are reluctant to come here because they fear the union influence.

  I feel your pain. I was born and raised in Coshocton, Ohio and held different jobs in 2 unionized factories in town. Both companies had been around for decades. Both are now closed due to general mismanagement, cheap offshore labor, and massive union ignorance. In fact Coshocton is the home of William Green who was President of the AFL (American Federation of Labor) for 28 years. Road signs coming into Coshocton tout with misplaced pride that little factoid. But in today's economic climate it actually screams, "just shoot me now" with regard to attracting any business to town.
• KnightRyder

  

  believer;551935 wrote:In the mix of your incredibly disjointed nonsensical psycho-babble, I actually find myself almost understanding the bass ackwards illogic in your warped train of thought. Care to share some of that Kool Aid with the rest of us? Stupid is as stupid does.
  
  
  
  I feel your pain. I was born and raised in Coshocton, Ohio and held different jobs in 2 unionized factories in town. Both companies had been around for decades. Both are now closed due to general mismanagement, cheap offshore labor, and massive union ignorance. In fact Coshocton is the home of William Green who was President of the AFL (American Federation of Labor) for 28 years. Road signs coming into Coshocton tout with misplaced pride that little factoid. But in today's economic climate it actually screams, "just shoot me now" with regard to attracting any business to town.

  
  you will never understand , well maybe when your asleep. because your conscious mind isnt capable of such superior intellect
• fan_from_texas

  KnightRyder;551866 wrote:now that is total nonsense. did you forget GWB's tax break. oh thats right i forgot you feel the top 2% shouldnt have to pay their fair share.

  
  Objection, non-responsive?
  
  You didn't respond to a single one of the points I made. Instead, you cited some random crap about (1) GWB's tax break (which, by the way, benefited everyone--the "top 2% issue" is with regard to the extension of the tax cuts, not the tax cuts themselves), and (2) that I don't think the "top 2%" should have to pay their fair share. It's not worth getting into what their "fair share" is, as I somehow don't think we'll see eye-to-eye on it.
  
  Regardless, though, do you care to respond to the substance of my post? Or are you going to continue to post this mindless drivel? It's folks like you who give unions a bad name--if you want to argue your point, fine, but when you repeat talking points with no substance and then attack people who disagree with you, you make it easy for the rest of us to paint all union guys with the same brush.
  
  If you'd prefer just to scream and shout, and then pout when someone demonstrates the inanity of your position, I'm sure there are plenty of middle schools around where you can contest the intellectual high ground.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Wow, FFT, that's the most "aggresive" post of yours that I believe I've ever read.
  
  I like it.
• fan_from_texas

  CenterBHSFan;552173 wrote:Wow, FFT, that's the most "aggresive" post of yours that I believe I've ever read.
  
  I like it.

  
  
  Well, this sort of low-brow talking-point no-substance nonsense brings down the level of political discourse and makes it impossible for there to be any real exchange of ideas. Reading his posts makes me feel like I'm stuck in a Bing commercial, where everything someone says gets filtered through a search engine and random, non-responsive crap comes out the other end. He doesn't even bother responding to direct questions or points--he just reiterates an unrelated talking point that appears to have one of the same words in his mantra.
  
  People can make good points on both sides of this, and we've had other posters (e.g., Rob_Branyan) make a worthwhile defense of the union position. But the stuff KR is spewing here doesn't make the cut.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  The problem with the defenders of unions, especially at the level of folks like KR, is that it is so ingrained into every fiber of their being that they don't know or want to know anything else. It's also disappointing and sad in a very real way because those same people are the ones that the world is leaving behind. I've experienced this myself and see it all the time in the news.
  
  I'm not totally anti-union. I still think that there's levels where it's necessary for ensuring safety. Such as mines, mills and such. It's just that when alot of the unions start talking about money, the workers collectively lose their minds, IMO.