want to talk about unions?

• Palin is exhibit A of McCain's poor judgment - He is impulsive and angry...not pres material
  • I thought McCain was going to have a stroke. He was grimacing, rolling his eyes, showing extreme - pc
    • Gee, then I must be as bad as McCain for - Backwards typist
      • Sorry but, to get where you are now as a typist? - You make less than $250K
        • your arrogance is disgusting - WTH
    • Poise? You mean like O's arrogance, cockiness, - shifty, secretive mannerisms?
      • Nanau, what a dummy - You are
        • No, I just pay attention to character, not - eye blinking! MSMT
          • Palin is the winker, gun toting power abusing ho - Fox news is not the news
    • I agree and - Babs
      • want to talk about unions? - ?
        • sm - the problem with unions
          • Yes but s/m - gourdpainter
        • Yeah, I'll talk about unions s/m - gourdpainter
          • i believe the unions were meant to - support the hard workers
            • I weighed in with my radical retired Teamster husband - gourdpainter
              • I would love that - Yes my gourd,, you are right
      • Yeah, and she has the gall to . . . - lom
        • You don't get more elitist than Cindy McCain - making $100 mill a year

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Two husbands who were union workers.  One IBEW, one Teamster.  BOTH said there were workers who didn't carry their share of the work load...not much different than MTs who cherry pick for instance.

#1 IBEW husband said at the time or Reganomics, when Ronald Reagan, himself a card-carrying member of the actor's union, said he would break the unions, it would be the downfall of the American workers.. Regan succeeded in breaking the backs of the unions.   When union workers lost the ability to bargain, they had to start taking wage concessions......and guess what?  Union wages went down, so did non-union wages follow suit.  When union workers got better working conditions, better wages and better benefits, so did non-union workers.

#2 Teamster husband is a radical retired Teamster.  While he also complained that there were lazy workers who rode on the backs of the hard-workers, he also said that the union does not support such and more times than not the union would uphold the firing of such a person.  He has a Teamster retirement that is the envy of most people and he has retiree health care benefits even though we pay about $700 a month for that.  While he was working, his union dues were around $35 a month and that covered our insurance.   Teamster retirees today will not enjoy those benefits.

Do some research on the history of unions.  Might not hurt to watch the movie Norma Rae as well. 

is negotiate bloated hourly pay rates and pension plans.  The car manufacturers, of course, agreed.  Couple that with executive pay and bonuses, the effect has been to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. 

I believe it was a triad, the unions, executives, and government meddling that has killed the auto industry.

Let's not leave out the government's part in this - long before the bailouts, government mandates and standards for manufacturing cars other than what people wish to buy.  And since the government could not ban SUVs and trucks (apparently what many consumer wanted and still want) it attacks them in a different way. 

We've all read claims that SUVs are 'responsible for highway deaths.'  Why?  Because the SUV driver walked away and the family of four driving a roller skate did not? Look for gas prices to go back up to four bucks and stay there. That will be to force us to drive tiny death trap cars.  People were actually buying them when gas prices were high, but sales dropped when the per-gallon price got back down to two dollars. 

Maybe there will also be some kind of tax based on vehicle size or weight, either on purchase, or to scoop more of us into the governmentm maw, a federal surtax when we reregister our current cars. 

to be something we would do on a country wide basis.  I mean...what is the point if you can't leave your state because other states don't accept them.  I meant this as a country wide thing.  If the whole country recognized civil unions with the same benefits as marriage kind of thing.  I guess I wasn't specific enough. 

As it goes, same sex marriage is only accepted in the states that allow it.  I mean...you have to live in those states to have the rights of marriage...right?  Please correct me if I'm wrong on that one because I really don't know. 

At first we were told the outsourcing was to cut labor costs.  Only after this campaign rhetoric took hold did the issue of taxes come up.  Now I ask you, if the reason for outsourcing is taxes, what the heck?  Didn't Bush CUT taxes.

It seems that American people have lost the reasoning side of their collective brains.  When I quit working a few months ago I was making LESS than I made in the 80s.  How is that possible?  The cost of medical care has not gone down.  The cost of medical insurance has not gone down.  I posted some time ago about a local hospital that laid off their most experienced nurses, not a few of them, ALL of them, and hired new graduate nurses to replace them at lesser wages.  What was that about?  They got away with it though.  Anything to increase the bottom line profit.

This is true in every industry.  They like to blame labor for everything.  Well, how the heck can you buy a $2+ loaf of bread and $5 gallon of milk on minimum wage, ya know?  Take gasoline for example.  Sure it has gone down the last days but is it back where it was when oil was what?  $86 a barrel or whatever?  No and it never will be.

So that car you drive.........how much do you think of the price tag is labor? 

These things are what really aggravates me.  People just can't seem to use reasoning power any more.  I'll give you an example:  After my husband lost his job in the CF fiasco, he drove for awhile for a friend who owns a trucking company.  I went with him on a trip.  He picked up a load of beef in Boonesville, AR, hauled it to Chicago, no problem.  Then they sent him somewhere in Ohio to pick up a load of vinegar to take to Florida.  Got to Ohio and I forget the reason but he couldn't pick up the vinegar. Then he was sent (empty) to Logan (?), Kentucky where he picked up 40,000 pounds of chocolate covered doughnuts which he delivered to Phoenix.  In Phoenix they told him that most of that load would be routed back to Atlanta.  Now what kind of sense does that make?  Taxes the problem?  I would say poor management is a bigger problem than taxes OR labor.

I'm sorry about your dad's experience.  People used to do things like that.  I recall my late father-in-law, worked for the fire department in Fort Worth and he said during the depression they did the same thing, worked less so the ones with less seniority could keep a job.  They all suffered but they suffered together and somehow they all made it as did your parents.

I am just horrified at the apparent digress of intelligence in this country.  It seems people believe anything the news media or anyone else tells them.  Seems they have totally lost the ability to reason and God forbid that anyone should think of anyone other than themself.

All that said, feel free to go ahead and believe that companies are outsourcing jobs because of labor costs or taxes.  The unionized workers, under Reagan, started taking wage concessions, that is taking a DECREASE in pay to keep jobs.  How did that work?  Don't believe I've heard of any of the victims of outsourcing even being offered a pay cut to keep the jobs in this country.  Certainly not the Rheem plant in Fort Smith that the other day laid off the last 600 workers.  They sent most of their production to Mexico a few years ago.  Fort Smith they say is dying because of outsourcing.  Their reason?  They say, it's "labor costs."  Well, then, how is it that people can't afford to pay their bills with all the excessive wages they're supposedly receiving. Obviously the next in vogue EXCUSE will be that taxes are lower in other countries.  B.S.!!!!!!!

Some union members are afraid to vote for better benefits or strike because management threatens to move, like the other posters stated.

Case in point: A small manufacturing shop. Union wanted higher wages or strike, and health care benefits to stay the same, both in cost and care. The union wanted a $.25 an hour raise. Owner said No. Union asked for $.15. Owner said no. Union said strike. Workers said no. They were afraid the owner would shut down and they had their jobs for 30 years.

The union steward fought for better benefits but when the workers voted against the better benefits, the company won. Two weeks later, the steward was laid off, along with a member of my family just because he was friends with the union steward. That was 3 years ago. The workers are still working for the same hourly rate this year. How's that for being fair?

I was a member of the Teamster's. When we went on strike for better wages back in the ྂs, he company threatened to move out.. We also wanted (women) equal pay for equal work because we did the same work the men did, but got paid $.25 an hour less.  They moved and 100 jobs were lost. So, you see, companies still have the upper hand, not unions. They only want your money anymore. They really don't care about the workers.

socially acceptable behavior without looking at the influences that set those standards.  Christianity is what determined homosexuality to be unacceptable.  It is the dominant factor in this debate as far as the US goes.  The US generally accepted christianity as the norm some time ago in this country.  In doing so it automatically put people in the sinner and non-sinner brackets.  Homosexuals were obviously put into the sinning bracket.  That is why they have been put in the closet.  Not because "it's just not natural," but because it's a sin. 

And that's where I have a problem with the whole thing.  Since we are not a theocracy, religious concepts have no place in determining something as personal as marriage.  For that matter, I also think it's absolutely absurd that govt weighs in on this issue.  I think it's a personal choice, not for the church and not for the govt.

I do not get.

Me need new insult, yes.

It was simply an exaggerated example to make a point about the subjectiveness of deciding what constitutes an observation versus an insult.  I think that was obvious to most people.  Regarding your snide observation, no I do not talk like that.  As I said it was an example.

Perhaps your other boards do not have such a marked slant.  And shall I make an observation on the tedious repetition that is found in your milieu's absolutely ENDLESS recitation of the evils of liberals, just to mention a few?  ONe doesn't even need to read the content of the posts, merely scan the subject lines and the repetition is obvious.

You said:

There are things that the poster felt needed to be said, and you see, this is a liberal board. 

As it has been said ad nauseam, anyone can post on this board.  Liberals post on the conservative board as well.  I must have been absent the day you were named moderator.

You said: 

You have a habit of mis-representing the facts, of twisting them to fit your agenda and your conscience. 

 On the basis of what, three posts, you say I have a habit of misrepresenting the facts and twisting them to fit my agenda and m conscience.  Pot calling the kettle black, I would say.  You posted erroneous information, represented it as fact, and I called you on it.  If anyone's conscience should be bothering them, that would be you.

You say most of the people of the U.S. were against slavery.  At different points in history that may or may not have been true, there weren't a lot of nationwide polls back then.  Could you share your facts?  Just the facts, ma'am. 

I again refer you to history.  History is full of the people who opposed slavery.  We are at war right now as a country but as it is perfectly clear, is it not, that the whole country is not behind the war. 

The fact is though that slavery was perfectly legal for 100 years in this country.  Try twisting that one.  That's what I mean when I say this country condoned slavery.  But I think that was obvious to most folks.

Because it is legal does not mean all the people in the country condone it.  Abortion is legal in this country but I sure as heck do not condone it.  That doesn't mean I bomb abortion clinics or stand outside them and ridicule the people using them.  But I do not condone it, nor do many others.  I follow the laws of the land but I do make sure with my vote and in other ways to work to see that law gone.  And I think that is obvious to most folks as well. 

Secondly, you say this was Congress's war just as much as Bush's.  Well, we know that is not true either.  It was Bush and his cronies that planned this war, probably even before 9/11.  There was erroneous evidence presented to Congress that led them to okay military action.

I really am incredulous that there are still people who buy that nonsense.  Erroneous evidence presented to Congress?  The Senate Intelligence Committee had the very same information the Bush administration had.  And if all those congresspeople are so ignorant they could be *fooled* into buying into lies (if there were any, which there is no proof there were) that led the country into war, then I would think, for the love of pete, that you would be equally as incensed at them.   What proof do you have that Bush and his cronies planned anything?  None, because there is none.  As you said, just the FACTS, ma'am.  

  If your daughter came home from school and stated that the neighbor girl beat her up you would might believe the evidence.  However, do you not change your course of action if it turns out the neighbor girl didn't do the actual damage? 

I believe you twist and arrange the evidence so you don't feel guilty about this utter madness and endless slaughter we know as Iraq as you similarly defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples.

There you go again.  First, my friend, I do not feel guilty.  I have nothing to feel guilty about.  I support the American military and I certainly support the war on terrorism.  I do not readily forget 3000 people dying.  I will never forget watching those people jump out of that building to avoid being incinerated and for what?  Simply because they were Americans.  How easily you seem to blow that off.

And I did not defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples.  I did not defend slavery.  Both were wrong.  Abortion is wrong, but they happen every day, and they happen NOW.  There is no longer slavery and there is no longer the slaugher of indigenous peoples.   Why does it not bother you that it is legal to slaughter upwards or over a million babies unborn babies every year?  Why don't you get involved to stop that?

My whole point is that the US is indeed a great and often noble and generous country.  I really want it to stay that way though and powerful people have a way of corrupting the moral values that have sustained this country for so long. 

Excuse me yet again...but that is exactly what I said.  The moral values that the country was founded upon and have sustained and how far we have gotten from that.  But I guess we are talking about two different sets of moral values.  What set are you talking about?

 The US has taken some pretty bad detours along the way but fortunately common sense and good character have generally won out in the long run.  Complacency and acceptance of corrupt power is always a threat though and that's why we need to QUESTION always those that are in near-absolute power.  I firmly believe that those who question are the MOST patriotic.

I never said questioning was unpatriotic.  What is unpatriotic in my view and always will be is suggesting that any American soldier died in vain.  What I think is unpatriotic is while we have men and women dying in combat, no matter who sent them there or for what reason, we owe them the respect to, if we cannot support their mission, to not go public with rampant criticism and for the love of everything Holy not to suggest publically that they are fighting and dying for nothing.  Not only do I think that is unpatriotic, I think it is selfish and mean.  Doesn't mean you or anyone else can't grouse about it friends in the privacy of a home, but to go public with it where friends, family and loved ones of soldiers who have died there, were injured there and continue to fight there can read it.  I don't know why some people (not naming anyone in particular) cannot just hold all that in until the troops come home.  Then if they want to dissect it, take it apart, malign it or whatever, our troops are home and no longer in harm's way.

It is rhetoric like you are repeating that Al Qaeda loves to hear, and their greatest propaganda tool.  Playing right into their hands.  And yes, giving that upper hand to the enemy is to me, yes, unpatriotic.

proves my point.  To believe that all media except Fox is biased and that they were forced to chose the LEAST biased is franky cult-talk  He did not try to trick her.  he asked her straight out "what do you thank about the Bush Doctrine?" This is the definine doctrine of the Bush years that will be remembered in history.  She did not know it.  If she where honest, she would have said "I am not familar with it." Instead, she squirmed in her seat, thrust out her chin and tried to bluff him into giving her a hint. 

He had his glasses on the end of his nose because he is over 40 and wears reading glasses like most older men.  You knew that.  You are trying to distract from the point again. 

You never have anything good to say about McCain.  You are focused on your hatred for Obama and frankly, it is creepy.

9/11/2001:  We all talk about 9/11.  How Pres. Bush should have known.  We did lose a lot of lives that day.  It was truly a sad day.  However, what about the World Trade Center bombing back in ྙ when Clinton was the pres.  That was by Islamic extremists.  Or about the US Embassy bombings in ྞ....also while Bill was in office suspect to have been coordinated by Osama Bin Laden.  Or the USS Cole incident in 2000 and once again Bill was in the White House and once again Osama was the suspect in the planning.  All these terrorists acts but the one people shout out about the most in 9/11 and how Bush is to blame.  Why?  Because more lives were lost in this one than with the other ones.  Weren't they all still terrorist attacks?  If Clinton had stood up and done something during his term....maybe 9/11 would not have happened at all but yet the blame all falls upon Bush.

Katrina:  Once again all Bush's faults and therefore all republicans faults.  Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was the "federal official with the power to mobilize a massive federal response to Hurricane Katrina, [and] could have ordered federal agencies into action without any request from state or local officials."  "If you go back to August 27th," President Bush had already "declared a state of emergency in the state of Louisiana under Title V of the Stafford Act, ... Ergo, Katrina became an Incident of National Significance on August 27th -- two days before the storm. But Chertoff apparently didn't realize this and waited till a day after [on August 30th] to make the determination on his own, one that according to the flow chart had already been made."  Honestly though, if you live in a place that is well below sea level and you hear a really bit storm is coming your way.....common sense.....you get the heck out of dodge.

Iraq war:  The reason for the war was this:  The military objectives of the invasion were; end the Hussein regime; eliminate weapons of mass destruction; eliminate Islamic terrorists; obtain intelligence on terrorist networks; distribute humanitarian aid; secure Iraq’s oil infrastructure; and assist in creating a representative government as a model for other Middle East nations

As for Wall Street:  Firms such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman not only made billions of dollars packaging and selling these toxic loans, they also wagered with their own capital that the values of these investments would decline, further raising their profits. If any other industries engaged in such knowingly unscrupulous activities, there would be an immediate federal investigation.

At the same time, federal regulatory agencies such as the SEC stood idly by as Wall Street took advantage of the investment public during both the Internet and the housing bubbles. The SEC took almost no action against Wall Street after the dot-com implosion. And in the midst of the housing bubble, in 2006, only the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency pushed for any level of regulation to address subprime lending.

One has to wonder why Treasury secretaries under Presidents Clinton and Bush -- Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson, respectively -- took no action to curb these abuses. It certainly was not because they did not understand Wall Street's practices -- both are former chief executives of Goldman Sachs. And why has Congress been so silent? The Wall Street investment banking firms, their executives, their families and their political action committees contribute more to U.S. Senate and House campaigns than any other industry in America. By sprinkling some of its massive gains into the pockets of our elected officials, Wall Street bought itself protection from any tough government enforcement.

This is no doubt the same reason why so many members of Congress were consistently blocking attempts to reform and downsize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are essentially giant, undercapitalized hedge funds. These two entities have been huge money machines for Democrats in both the House and the Senate, many of whom recently had the gall to ask why these companies hadn't been reformed in the past. Nor should several Republican congressmen and Senators who likewise contributed to watering down legislation aimed at reforming these institutions be let off the hook.

nm

don't read em