it doesn't take a union to get a pay raise
Posted By: dnh on 2008-10-29
In Reply to: I'm beginning to believe it DOES take a rocket scientist - gourdpainter
puhleez lighten up. I do not and will not support unions. At first unions were good. then they got too large and too powerful, corrupt and greedy, and unions were no longer a good thing. They stopped working for the people they were supposed to represent and started working for the benefit of the union itself. My father worked for a company where he had to be in the union. That union wanted more and more of the company (as they always did). Even though many, many of the employees voted against strike, some people did, and the union declared the strike and people walked off their jobs. My dad wanted to work; he was physically assaulted and our car destroyed when he tried to work. Don't call my father a "scab." He was a fine man raising three kids and wanting to work at his own job, which he loved and was proud of. Period. The strike lasted a long time, and the company finally closed its doors when the union would not concede to anything. All of the employees lost their jobs whether they were union supporters or not because of the actions of that union. Now that's why I don't like unions and never will. There used to be a large manufacturing sector here in the midwest. Unions destroyed much of it. They just keep demanding more and more, and many companies simply closed, thus placing 1000s on unemployment. And do you honestly think corruption in the union is okay as long as "he also benefitted American workers?" I never belonged to a union as an MT for 30'some years, and do you think I never got a raise? The hospitals and companies I worked for always paid well and we didn't need a union to do it for us. Actually, I think fear of unions was one of the reasons why. But let's not forget this, union membership is often mandatory so people who work for the organization are forced to be members whether they want to or not. That right there is just wrong. People outside of the union are denied the right to work in many areas. So don't tell me what to "b**ch about." The two items are no mutually inclusive. One can say that their pay has fallen behind and still not want a union involved. Have a little respect for opinions other than yours.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Raise the cap for SS deductions.
.
He will raise taxes for us all.
No way to set up these government programs of his without taking money from all of us.
He HAS to raise taxes, no way around it
All those programs will not appear out of thin air. He will grow government bigger than ever...new departments, more employees for those departments, more of my tax money blown to heck and back. People actually believe ALL this can be done with TAX CUTS!! They are in total denial.
This man have voted REPEATEDLY to NOT NOT NOT cut taxes every darn time it has come up and has pushed for tax INCREASES. For those nonbelievers, all they gotta do is go look at his voting record. It's there for the scrutinizing.
Read his lips.....
He knows people are running scared and he can zoom in and steal their good sense with telling them he will cut taxes. BUT, as soon as he is in office, it won't happen and who will he blame then? Everybody but himself!!! He will not take any responsiblity for that either.
That is exactly what he said. He wants to raise taxes...
on those making $250,000 or more so he can give a check to lower income folks...and a modest tax cut (while letting the Bush tax cuts expire) to the middle class. Have you looked at what we are going to lose if he lets those tax cuts expire? A whole lot more than his little tax cut will make up. He also needs the added taxation to try to help pay for all he wants to do...
The checks he is going to dole out are NOT for everyone. And they will even go to people who pay NO taxes.
THAT is rewarding laziness. That is NOT trying to help people better themselves. Would it not be better to get them a JOB than a one-time gimme check??
because they did not raise him and shape him into what he is -
nm
Does this mean Sarah gets another raise?...LOL
*Unlike President George W. Bush, who threatened to veto the two bills when they came up in the last session of Congress, President-elect Barack Obama has embraced them.*
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_go_co/pay_equity
I can't wait to see who all opposes this bill. I hope they plaster them all over the news.
The UN is not trying to tell anyone how to raise their kids.
in the idea of addressing global poverty. BTW, you need to do a little boning up yourself on the purpose of the United Nations, what it is, how it works and who benefits before expecting anybody anywhere to engage you in any serious debate on this subject. You have been spending way too much time hanging with the fringe. Trust me on this. There is life after fringe.
Obama has said repeatedly he will RAISE
xx
F: Obama is going to raise MY taxes...
DH and I don't work hard to give to those who can't/don't/won't.
YES HE DID VOTE TO RAISE YOUR TAXES
@
Congress gets a raise - must be nice!
Kudos to Harry Mitchell and the other 34 who at least tried.
From TheHill.com
12/17/08
A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.
Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.
“As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain,” said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter.”
However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.
Still, Steve Ellis, vice president of the budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Congress should have taken the rare step of freezing its pay, as lawmakers did in 2000.
“Look at the way the economy is and how most people aren’t counting on a holiday bonus or a pay raise — they’re just happy to have gainful employment,” said Ellis. “But you have the lawmakers who are set up and ready to get their next installment of a pay raise and go happily along their way.”
Member raises are often characterized as examples of wasteful spending, especially when many constituents and businesses in members’ districts are in financial despair.
Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona, sponsored legislation earlier this year that would have prevented the automatic pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year. But the bill, which attracted 34 cosponsors, failed to make it out of committee.
“They don’t even go through the front door. They have it set up so that it’s wired so that you actually have to undo the pay raise rather than vote for a pay raise,” Ellis said.
Freezing congressional salaries is hardly a new idea on Capitol Hill.
Lawmakers have floated similar proposals in every year dating back to 1995, and long before that. Though the concept of forgoing a raise has attracted some support from more senior members, it is most popular with freshman lawmakers, who are often most vulnerable.
In 2006, after the Republican-led Senate rejected an increase to the minimum wage, Democrats, who had just come to power in the House with a slew of freshmen, vowed to block their own pay raise until the wage increase was passed. The minimum wage was eventually increased and lawmakers received their automatic pay hike.
In the beginning days of 1789, Congress was paid only $6 a day, which would be about $75 daily by modern standards. But by 1965 members were receiving $30,000 a year, which is the modern equivalent of about $195,000.
Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100.
Ellis said that while freezing the pay increase would be a step in the right direction, it would be better to have it set up so that members would have to take action, and vote, for a pay raise and deal with the consequences, rather than get one automatically.
“It is probably never going to be politically popular to raise Congress’s salary,” he said. “I don’t think you’re going to find taxpayers saying, ‘Yeah I think I should pay my congressman more’.”
if you had a union....
you would have no job at all because they would have convinced you all to strike, MQ would have said "too bad for you," and you would now be unemployed. that is what unions do.
Problem is, the taxes Obama does raise
nm
Yeah, and now put Obama in there to raise taxes
nm
Bottom line....O will raise DH and my taxes, sorry, it's not for
those who are lazy. Try working hard for a change and not expecting the gov't to give you a handout for once. WAAAH, please pay for my healthcare, pay for my kid's college, help me out because I don't want to take responibility for myself, I would rather let the gov't do it all and then when it doesn;t work out, I can blame them too. When O wins I can't wait to see this board in a year with all the people complaining about the broken promises, higher taxes, etc. It will be worth the wait.
Why do you think that Hillary and McCain did not raise the B/C issue?
Do you think maybe it is because there was no merit to it and everyone knew it? The people who were most directly affected by it are not saying anything about it - the other presidential candidates...
So, honest opinion, why are they not whooping and hollering?
Yes, I would. These union members...
need to realize that the free ride and good ol' days are over. The days of high wages, job banks, and guaranteed employment have ended. No wonder Toyota, Honda and the like do so well as compared to their American counterparts.
What about the union busters?
We all know who they are. This was totally predictable. Start at the bottom when assigning blame and put the onus on the ones who turn the wheels of the factories and earn the LEAST, then expect them to sacrifice the most and carry the weight of the management and CEOs who earn anywhere from 10 to 100 times more than they do.
Watch them start whining if they decide to use TARP funds, thus depriving the banks of all those funds they have been hoarding, forcing workers to stage round-the-clock sit-ins just to get paid.
My husband is union....
He works for a trucking firm and told me this morning the union was talking about them taking a 10% cut in pay. The difference between him (or maybe his company?) is that he thinks no problem- his pay is good as it is and if it keeps the company going, why not? I think the car industry might think the same. Did they not say no cuts in pay??
Union Workers
How does your husband feel about voting out in the open; no more secret ballots? That's quite audacious!
Todd Palin is a card-carrying union guy, too.
And why did the union workers
walk off the job? That's right. For better benefits, health care, retirement and working conditions which ALSO benefited non-union workers, even those scabs who went in and did the jobs. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, the Great (NOT!) the unions have lost their teeth in the ability to even strike and thus to bargain. Ole Ronnie got employers the "right to permanently replace workers." Read up on the history of unions. Ever watch the movie "Jimmy Hoffa?" Yes he made deals with criminals i.e. the mafia but he did much to help workers too. Ultimately he paid with his life. Union/non-union is sort of like arguing democrat/republican. Those for/against don't want to hear any side other than their own.
Right and we don't have a union to stand up for us either. n/m
x
Are you SERIOUS? Here's what the European Union
The EU is a political and economic union of 27 members states, located primarily in Europe, composed of almost 500 million citizens (as compared to 710 million on the total continent of Europe), or 7.3% of the world's total population. The EU generates 30% of the wold's nominal gross domestic product ($16.8 trillion in 2007). There are 23 official and working languages. It is 100% SECULAR in nature
Criteria for membership:
1. Stable democracy which respects human rights and rule of law.
2. Functioning market economy capable of competition within the EU.
3. Acceptance of obligations of membership (EU law).
EU member countries:
1. Austria
2. Belguim
3. Bulgaria
4. Cyprus
5. Czech Rebpulic
6. Denmark
7. Estonia
8. Finland
9. France
10. Germany
11. Greece
12. Hungary
13. Republic of Ireland
14. Italy
15. Latvia
16. Lithuania
17. Luxembourg
18. Malta
19. Netherlands
20. Poland
21. Portugal
22. Romania
23. Slovakia
24. Slovenia
25. Spain
26. Sweden
27. United Kingdom
Three official candidate countries are Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia and Turkey. Western Balkan countries of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia are officially recognized potential candidates. Kosovo has been granted similar status.
Areas of common shared interests:
1. Governance of institutions, legal system and fundamental rights.
2. Foreign relations including humanitarian aid, military and defense.
3. Justice and home affairs.
4. Economy, consisting of single market, monetary union, competition and budget.
5. Development of agriculture, energy, infrastructure, regional development, environment, education and research.
For more information on its history and details of the above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
The union was also very strong until
the economy started really going under after 9/11. At GM, if you were "laid off" you still received 95% of your pay. They would get the regular unemployment benefits and GM would supplement the rest. This was in their contract, which to me is GMs fault, not the employee.
If it was a permanent layoff, then you went to the job banks, where you would sit for 40 hours a week, receive full pay and schooling if you wanted it. They only allowed so many people in the job banks, but it was numbering in the thousands at one point. These people also had the option of volunteering in the community instead of just sitting there. I know 3 that went on to get their degrees in other lines of work and about 10 that waited there until retirement.
This was set up in the 70s when the first massive layoff hit. This guaranteed that GM would hire back the employees that were laid off instead of hiring people off the streets. Another union thing.
I think Amanda is right from below. They made a lot of money over time and now that things are bad again, they didn't plan ahead and budget their money. No one is going to bail me out, pay my mortgage, feed my family, electric bill, etc. I know that having them go down is going to hurt many people and that is not what I want, but the bailouts that have already happened have not shown the execs to be responsible in any way. My father will be one of those losing their health benefits as well and he has medical conditions too as well as my mom. My husband works for one of their suppliers so we are affected as well. My husband busts his rear day in and day out for $17 an hour with no benefits. Overtime is not allowed. I guess I just want them to show responsibility.
No. I just wish we could get some union control
nm
She cannot possibly raise that child and utilize her master's, though,
Certainly you'd never encourage your daughter to spend time working on a MASTER'S while trying to also raise a child!! You've just bashed another mother for doing something similar, so I don't get it. Or is okay if you only have ONE child or what? Please fill me in on the double standard you uphold.
AAMT is not a workers' union.
x
The Real State of the Union sm
http://www.rstu.org/index.php/about/
union people will still get paid for doing nothing.
NORTH AMERICAN UNION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
marriage vs civil union
As a nation, we did not used to spend so much time splitting hairs over words.
What if back when the 19th amendment was enacted, they had said: Women having the right to 'vote' would upset men. So instead of 'voting' we're going to call it 'ballot casting.' That way, women can have the same rights as men, but only men can be 'voters' and won't feel they're losing their special status.
How about if during the civil rights movement, when segregation was eliminated, instead of integration they had called it: 'The right to attend the same schools and go to the same restaurants and ride in the front of the bus'? Calling institutions 'integrated' would upset the southern states.
How about when women began to demand 'equal pay for equal work'? What if they had said: Okay, you can have the money and the responsibility, maybe even the corner office, but only a man can be called VP of Sales. Instead, your title will have to be something else, maybe Sales Coordinator, othewise the men who are VPs will get angry.
I suppose a fair number of women or blacks would have considered this a win, because they were gaining the benefit, if not the exact status of the changes. But a fair number of folks rightly would have said: Huh? Aren't these silly distinctions? A lot of people would have wondered why they didn't just shut up and 'settle.'
If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?
Civil union rights.
"If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?"
I understand your point.
But why, then, is so important for same-sex couples to use the word "marriage" if - as you pointed out - it's just a word.
Why aren't people fighting to have all the rights of marriage applied to civil unions? Seems to me that, while most Americans are against gay marriage, most Americans are actually FOR civil unions.
What the chart shows is that Obama is going to raise taxes on the people....
who employ the people in the other brackets. Trickle down will not be beneficial. What is wrong with giving the middle class a break? They are already supporting most of the lower class anyway. THe lower class already pay next to nothing in taxes. Oh I forgot...economic parity, redistribution of wealth....good old Marxist values.
Roland Burris aknowledes trying to raise money for Blago
He claimed there was nothing going on but he just dropped the bombshell as O was speaking stating he can recall 6 different contacts and is now under investigation.
Guess he's gonna be gone. He may have committed perjury.
Marriage is supposed to be a sacred union
but unfortunately many see it as a temporary situation. Some people honestly cannot help their marriages dissolve, however, even if you throw the religion aspect out of it homosexuality doesn't even make sense in Darwin's theory. Homosexuals would naturally die out, because they aren't procreating.
I've not had children either, but just because I haven't and you haven't doesn't make a case for homosexual marriages.
Misstatement of the Union - Fact Check
The President burnishes the State of the Union through selective facts and strategic omissions.
February 1, 2006
Modified: February 1, 2006
The President left out a few things when surveying the State of the Union:
He proudly spoke of writing a new chapter in the story of self-government in Iraq and Afghanistan and said the number of democracies in the world is growing. He failed to mention that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan yet qualify as democracies according to the very group whose statistics he cited.
Bush called for Congress to pass a line-item veto, failing to mention that the Supreme Court struck down a line-item veto as unconstitutional in 1998. Bills now in Congress would propose a Constitutional amendment, but none have shown signs of life.
The President said the economy gained 4.6 million jobs in the past two-and-a-half years, failing to note that it had lost 2.6 million jobs in his first two-and-a-half years in office. The net gain since Bush took office is just a little more than 2 million.
He talked of cutting spending, but only non-security discretionary spending. Actually, total federal spending has increased 42 percent since Bush took office.
He spoke of being on track to cut the federal deficit in half by 2009. But the deficit is increasing this year, and according to the Congressional Budget Office it will decline by considerably less than half even if Bush's tax cuts are allowed to lapse.
Bush spoke of a goal of cutting dependence on Middle Eastern oil, failing to mention that US dependence on imported oil and petroleum products increased substantially during his first five years in office, reaching 60 per cent of consumption last year.
Analysis
We found nothing that was factually incorrect in the President's Jan. 31 State of the Union address to Congress and the nation. However, we did note some selective use of statistics. We also found that Bush omitted some relevant facts that tended to make the state of the union look less rosy than he presented.
it was 1973, Union Square Park in NYC..
as were all these Pro-Lifers kept back behind Bob's Barricade wooden horses....I was there, hundreds were there on 14th Street that day prior to Roe vs Wade being passed....
I was very young....and I remember having this thought....If they are SOOOO interested in what is going on in my and other's uteruses/uteri....why do they NOT take some responsibility for the orphaned/fostered/forgotten children left in this country? Again, I had that thought in 1973....and 35 years have passed and I STILL have the same thought.......my politics never changed......I am that same person I was then, only more mature, somewhat wiser, and very thankful....and I HAVE taken responsibility for MANY children in this country as I adore children....always have...
wonder just how many prolifers have adopted or fostered children left in fostercare/orphanages in this country.....over the same 35-40 year time frame......
that's not to them, they are entitled to feel what they feel...even though I just reread my post and it could be interpreted that way (and sorry for that) -
just get out of our bodies......our bodies, ourselves....(and Our Bodies, Ourselves is a book read way back then too)...and try to think about kids already here, abandoned or given up with no mentoring.....there are thousands of them in the USA.
Peace to all.....
the folly is in giving all the power to a union...
The union may not be a thing of the past but their concern for the average worker is and their usefulness is. Now they are greedy and selfish entities in and of themselves.
By all means give the union workers a pay cut S/M
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ocwage_05092008.htm
Going way down the page you will find the median pay for medical transcriptionists is approximately $15.02 per hour. This being the case, if you are one of those fortunate enough to be making $20 or more per hour, I assume you will be recommending a pay cut for yourself and all others who are making more than the median in order to bring pay more in line with other workers. Translated that means leaving more in the coffers for the big CEOs. I don't know whether some of you are BDD or what.
Right. A friend of mine belonged to a union recently.
nm
Think gain.... Soviet Union went waaaay past
--
GOP alert memo states intent to bust the union
With 3 million jobs hanging in the balance.
Countdown has obtained a memo entitled "Action Alert - Auto Bailout," and sent Wednesday at 9:12am, to Senate Republicans. The names of the sender(s) and recipient(s) have been redacted in the copy Countdown obtained. The Los Angeles Times reported that it was circulated among Senate Republicans. The brief memo outlines internal political strategy on the bailout, including the view that defeating the bailout represents a "first shot against organized labor." Senate Republicans blocked passage of the bailout late Thursday night, over its insistence on an immediate union pay cut. See the entire memo after the jump.
Subject: Action Alert -- Auto Bailout
Today at noon, Senators Ensign, Shelby, Coburn and DeMint will hold a press conference in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery. They would appreciate our support through messaging and attending the press conference, if possible. The message they want us to deliver is:
1. This is the democrats first opportunity to payoff organized labor after the election. This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it.
2. This rush to judgment is the same thing that happened with the TARP. Members did not have an opportunity to read or digest the legislation and therefore could not understand the consequences of it. We should not rush to pass this because Detroit says the sky is falling.
The sooner you can have press releases and documents like this in the hands of members and the press, the better. Please contact me if you need additional information. Again, the hardest thing for the democrats to do is get 60 votes. If we can hold the Republicans, we can beat this.
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/12/1713569.aspx
Ayers doesn't regret the bombings, doesn't feel like they did enough sm
In a story that appeared in the Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers told a reporter while promoting his memoir "Fugitive Days": "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
Mr. Ayers, now a professor of education in Chicago, was a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed government buildings in the early 1970s. He was indicted on conspiracy charges that were thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct.
He served with Mr. Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a charitable organization, and, along with his wife, the former Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, hosted Mr. Obama at his home in 1995 when he was running for state office.
Mr. Obama has called Mr. Ayers "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old."...so because it was 40 years ago, and Ayers is still proud of what he did, how is it justifiable for a US presidential candidate to now be friends with this man? Unless he has the same view of America.
Let me rephrase that. It doesn't *seem like* my vote doesn't count...sm
It does not count because its in the bag that our 3 electoral votes will go to the republican party.
I'll double that 'amen', and I'll raise you one!
amen
It doesn't appear they are.
It doesn't take all that...sm
If you disagree just state your points. Leave the stupid and fool name calling off. It only degrades the entire conversation and will start a whole new mess. That you may or may not want to be in. I don't know you may want that but since you are on the liberal board don't bash the posts here.
No he doesn't. sm
Rush and David Liimbaugh, along with their mother, are staunch conservatives. If you are a conservative, a true conservative, Rush espouses a true conservative viewpoint. He doesn't hate liberals. He loathes me. There is a difference. Rush is a big target for liberal talking heads. His brother is more low key but just as staunchly conservative. Yes, he makes money with his talk show. Can you tell me someone who is business to NOT make money. I can't seem to think of anyone. As much as I love Rush, he sometimes does get a little out there, but he has never changed his basic conservative principles from his early days in Missouri and I respect him.
He doesn't have to say it...they already are...
worshipping him.
It can mean to you whatever!!! It doesn't
mean you have to say it over and over! You're right, it IS a free country, and I will read AND complain about your posts as much as I like, just like YOU are complaining about everyone else!
Because she doesn't seem to believe it's a
|
