User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 6:22:16 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reading through this thread I agree with the idea that people have the right to choose whether or not to work a union job or not. For those that choose a job in a 'union shop', I also think that the issue of whether dues should be mandatory, and/or how those dues should be spent should be decided by the members in their contract, not by the government. I think the whole issue here is the "union shop" thing you speak of. If certain workers desire to belong to a union, that's their business, go ahead and join if you think it's advantageous to do so. But if others don't want to join, that should be their choice, and not a condition of employment at a "union shop". No one should be coerced or forced to join just because a majority of others do join. It should not be an "all or nothing" proposition. Whether or not dues should be mandatory for those who agree to join, should be up to THEM by vote, not any government mandate, one way or the other. If there are dues for those who choose to join, then that's a condition of membership they must accept. It should go without saying that how dues money is spent absolutely should be decided by a membership vote. But that's not an issue for govt to meddle in. I watched as the largest employer in Oneida County voted to become a "union shop" a few years back. That company was a good customer of my locksmith business. As soon as they become a "union shop", I started to get shit about not being a "union member" who was working on their building (there's no such thing as a locksmith union, as most locksmiths are sole proprietors like myself). Other similar non-union trades people got the same crap from the union "bosses" there, and I finally told them to shove their work where the sun don't shine, when someone "deflated" two tires on my truck while I was there repairing a door lock. 
Their union shop lasted about a year and a half, after being there for 20+ years prior, before the corporate office in ILL closed up that location and moved the entire operation to S. Carolina (a RTW State). Over 500 "union members" lost their jobs, including 3 very good friends of mine... one had been there from day 1 and had voted against the union coming in and "taking over". |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:29:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good to see some Koch Sheeple noticed. Why don't the Koch brothers set up shop in Mexico? They wouldn't have to change much down there, things are already set up for them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Oh, look... The troll thread is still alive.  Good to see some Koch Sheeple noticed. Why don't the Koch brothers set up shop in Mexico? They wouldn't have to change much down there, things are already set up for them. Funny you should mention Mexico. I just returned from yet another work trip to that festering shit hole. You need to get your UAW brothers down there and organize the shit out of them. Low pay, dangerous working conditions and low education work force should be a match made in heaven. Really, Mexico is where UAW should concentrate efforts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 6:44:05 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Funny you should mention Mexico. I just returned from yet another work trip to that festering shit hole. You need to get your UAW brothers down there and organize the shit out of them. Low pay, dangerous working conditions and low education work force should be a match made in heaven. Really, Mexico is where UAW should concentrate efforts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, look... The troll thread is still alive. Good to see some Koch Sheeple noticed. Why don't the Koch brothers set up shop in Mexico? They wouldn't have to change much down there, things are already set up for them. Funny you should mention Mexico. I just returned from yet another work trip to that festering shit hole. You need to get your UAW brothers down there and organize the shit out of them. Low pay, dangerous working conditions and low education work force should be a match made in heaven. Really, Mexico is where UAW should concentrate efforts. In Mexico a Union Organizer would just "disappear". That is how it used to be in America, in Milwaukee. There is a lot of Union hate still coming out of Milwaukee. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 6:53:22 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the whole issue here is the "union shop" thing you speak of. If certain workers desire to belong to a union, that's their business, go ahead and join if you think it's advantageous to do so. But if others don't want to join, that should be their choice, and not a condition of employment at a "union shop". No one should be coerced or forced to join just because a majority of others do join. It should not be an "all or nothing" proposition. Whether or not dues should be mandatory for those who agree to join, should be up to THEM by vote, not any government mandate, one way or the other. If there are dues for those who choose to join, then that's a condition of membership they must accept. It should go without saying that how dues money is spent absolutely should be decided by a membership vote. But that's not an issue for govt to meddle in. I watched as the largest employer in Oneida County voted to become a "union shop" a few years back. That company was a good customer of my locksmith business. As soon as they become a "union shop", I started to get shit about not being a "union member" who was working on their building (there's no such thing as a locksmith union, as most locksmiths are sole proprietors like myself). Other similar non-union trades people got the same crap from the union "bosses" there, and I finally told them to shove their work where the sun don't shine, when someone "deflated" two tires on my truck while I was there repairing a door lock.
Their union shop lasted about a year and a half, after being there for 20+ years prior, before the corporate office in ILL closed up that location and moved the entire operation to S. Carolina (a RTW State). Over 500 "union members" lost their jobs, including 3 very good friends of mine... one had been there from day 1 and had voted against the union coming in and "taking over". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Reading through this thread I agree with the idea that people have the right to choose whether or not to work a union job or not. For those that choose a job in a 'union shop', I also think that the issue of whether dues should be mandatory, and/or how those dues should be spent should be decided by the members in their contract, not by the government. I think the whole issue here is the "union shop" thing you speak of. If certain workers desire to belong to a union, that's their business, go ahead and join if you think it's advantageous to do so. But if others don't want to join, that should be their choice, and not a condition of employment at a "union shop". No one should be coerced or forced to join just because a majority of others do join. It should not be an "all or nothing" proposition. Whether or not dues should be mandatory for those who agree to join, should be up to THEM by vote, not any government mandate, one way or the other. If there are dues for those who choose to join, then that's a condition of membership they must accept. It should go without saying that how dues money is spent absolutely should be decided by a membership vote. But that's not an issue for govt to meddle in. I watched as the largest employer in Oneida County voted to become a "union shop" a few years back. That company was a good customer of my locksmith business. As soon as they become a "union shop", I started to get shit about not being a "union member" who was working on their building (there's no such thing as a locksmith union, as most locksmiths are sole proprietors like myself). Other similar non-union trades people got the same crap from the union "bosses" there, and I finally told them to shove their work where the sun don't shine, when someone "deflated" two tires on my truck while I was there repairing a door lock.
Their union shop lasted about a year and a half, after being there for 20+ years prior, before the corporate office in ILL closed up that location and moved the entire operation to S. Carolina (a RTW State). Over 500 "union members" lost their jobs, including 3 very good friends of mine... one had been there from day 1 and had voted against the union coming in and "taking over". The free market has to work both ways. If ENOUGH workers are disgruntled with their Union, they can bust it. What you are describing is known as 'Union Busting', now with the power of "RTW" behnd it. I look at that job getting scenario the same as I would where one shareholder in a corporation did not like the way the corporation was doing business. They don't have to buy the stock, get out. If there is no collective bargaining then what is the point of a Union? Rhetorically speaking, to the man... Call RTW 'Union Busting' and I will have a more respect for your position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 10:09:15 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The free market has to work both ways. If ENOUGH workers are disgruntled with their Union, they can bust it. What you are describing is known as 'Union Busting', now with the power of "RTW" behnd it. I look at that job getting scenario the same as I would where one shareholder in a corporation did not like the way the corporation was doing business. They don't have to buy the stock, get out. If there is no collective bargaining then what is the point of a Union? Rhetorically speaking, to the man... Call RTW 'Union Busting' and I will have a more respect for your position. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Reading through this thread I agree with the idea that people have the right to choose whether or not to work a union job or not. For those that choose a job in a 'union shop', I also think that the issue of whether dues should be mandatory, and/or how those dues should be spent should be decided by the members in their contract, not by the government. I think the whole issue here is the "union shop" thing you speak of. If certain workers desire to belong to a union, that's their business, go ahead and join if you think it's advantageous to do so. But if others don't want to join, that should be their choice, and not a condition of employment at a "union shop". No one should be coerced or forced to join just because a majority of others do join. It should not be an "all or nothing" proposition. Whether or not dues should be mandatory for those who agree to join, should be up to THEM by vote, not any government mandate, one way or the other. If there are dues for those who choose to join, then that's a condition of membership they must accept. It should go without saying that how dues money is spent absolutely should be decided by a membership vote. But that's not an issue for govt to meddle in. I watched as the largest employer in Oneida County voted to become a "union shop" a few years back. That company was a good customer of my locksmith business. As soon as they become a "union shop", I started to get shit about not being a "union member" who was working on their building (there's no such thing as a locksmith union, as most locksmiths are sole proprietors like myself). Other similar non-union trades people got the same crap from the union "bosses" there, and I finally told them to shove their work where the sun don't shine, when someone "deflated" two tires on my truck while I was there repairing a door lock.
Their union shop lasted about a year and a half, after being there for 20+ years prior, before the corporate office in ILL closed up that location and moved the entire operation to S. Carolina (a RTW State). Over 500 "union members" lost their jobs, including 3 very good friends of mine... one had been there from day 1 and had voted against the union coming in and "taking over". The free market has to work both ways. If ENOUGH workers are disgruntled with their Union, they can bust it. What you are describing is known as 'Union Busting', now with the power of "RTW" behnd it. I look at that job getting scenario the same as I would where one shareholder in a corporation did not like the way the corporation was doing business. They don't have to buy the stock, get out. If there is no collective bargaining then what is the point of a Union? Rhetorically speaking, to the man... Call RTW 'Union Busting' and I will have a more respect for your position. So it can only be a legitimate union if people are forced to join it? hmm |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 11:15:12 AM EDT
[#6]
RTW just passed. 62 to 35.
Just needs Scott Walkers signature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 11:34:12 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
RTW just passed. 62 to 35. Just needs Scott Walkers signature. Walker will sign 9am Monday morning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 11:38:08 AM EDT
[#8]
The problem with busting a union from within is that it has to come to a vote. What do you think union thugs will do to anyone who proposes or supports such an idea?
Remember in the last couple of years of doyles term? The unions were pushing to remove the secrecy from union votes. In other words, if you voted against forming a union, your name would be available for all to see, and set you up for revenge or intimidation by the union thugs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 11:43:44 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If there is no collective bargaining then what is the point of a Union? Exactly. What gives you the right to "bargain" with an employer anyway? If you don't like the working conditions, the pay, whatever... then go work somewhere else. If the employer cannot get qualified people to work for X amount of dollars, then the employer lives with what he pays for, or he pays more. That's how the rest of the non-union world works. If my employees came to me with a list of "bargaining" demands, I'd point them to the door. This is the job, this is what it pays, take it or leave it. Sayonara, adios, aloha, goodbye. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 8:36:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So it can only be a legitimate union if people are forced to join it? hmm Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Reading through this thread I agree with the idea that people have the right to choose whether or not to work a union job or not. For those that choose a job in a 'union shop', I also think that the issue of whether dues should be mandatory, and/or how those dues should be spent should be decided by the members in their contract, not by the government. I think the whole issue here is the "union shop" thing you speak of. If certain workers desire to belong to a union, that's their business, go ahead and join if you think it's advantageous to do so. But if others don't want to join, that should be their choice, and not a condition of employment at a "union shop". No one should be coerced or forced to join just because a majority of others do join. It should not be an "all or nothing" proposition. Whether or not dues should be mandatory for those who agree to join, should be up to THEM by vote, not any government mandate, one way or the other. If there are dues for those who choose to join, then that's a condition of membership they must accept. It should go without saying that how dues money is spent absolutely should be decided by a membership vote. But that's not an issue for govt to meddle in. I watched as the largest employer in Oneida County voted to become a "union shop" a few years back. That company was a good customer of my locksmith business. As soon as they become a "union shop", I started to get shit about not being a "union member" who was working on their building (there's no such thing as a locksmith union, as most locksmiths are sole proprietors like myself). Other similar non-union trades people got the same crap from the union "bosses" there, and I finally told them to shove their work where the sun don't shine, when someone "deflated" two tires on my truck while I was there repairing a door lock.
Their union shop lasted about a year and a half, after being there for 20+ years prior, before the corporate office in ILL closed up that location and moved the entire operation to S. Carolina (a RTW State). Over 500 "union members" lost their jobs, including 3 very good friends of mine... one had been there from day 1 and had voted against the union coming in and "taking over". The free market has to work both ways. If ENOUGH workers are disgruntled with their Union, they can bust it. What you are describing is known as 'Union Busting', now with the power of "RTW" behnd it. I look at that job getting scenario the same as I would where one shareholder in a corporation did not like the way the corporation was doing business. They don't have to buy the stock, get out. If there is no collective bargaining then what is the point of a Union? Rhetorically speaking, to the man... Call RTW 'Union Busting' and I will have a more respect for your position. So it can only be a legitimate union if people are forced to join it? hmm I don't exactly know what makes a union legitimate, or am familiar with the laws they operate under. The point I was trying to get across is if a person is applying for a job that's under a (union) collective bargaining agreement, and doesn't believe in unions for whatever reason, go for a different, non-union job. We'll see how many jobs this will create... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 8:48:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. What gives you the right to "bargain" with an employer anyway? If you don't like the working conditions, the pay, whatever... then go work somewhere else. If the employer cannot get qualified people to work for X amount of dollars, then the employer lives with what he pays for, or he pays more. That's how the rest of the non-union world works. If my employees came to me with a list of "bargaining" demands, I'd point them to the door. This is the job, this is what it pays, take it or leave it. Sayonara, adios, aloha, goodbye. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If there is no collective bargaining then what is the point of a Union? Exactly. What gives you the right to "bargain" with an employer anyway? If you don't like the working conditions, the pay, whatever... then go work somewhere else. If the employer cannot get qualified people to work for X amount of dollars, then the employer lives with what he pays for, or he pays more. That's how the rest of the non-union world works. If my employees came to me with a list of "bargaining" demands, I'd point them to the door. This is the job, this is what it pays, take it or leave it. Sayonara, adios, aloha, goodbye. Not me, and the way I read the history nof unions, no one gave Americans workers those 'rights', people fought bled and died for them, but... that would be the Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley Act. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 8:49:22 PM EDT
[#12]
having worked in a union shop and been screwed over by said union when they (without even asking what I wanted to do) closed my grievance over being fired because I was injured and couldn't work for a while RTW is definitely a step in right direction.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 8:53:31 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not me, and the way I read the history nof unions, no one gave Americans workers those 'rights', people fought bled and died for them, but... that would be the Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley Act. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If there is no collective bargaining then what is the point of a Union? Exactly. What gives you the right to "bargain" with an employer anyway? If you don't like the working conditions, the pay, whatever... then go work somewhere else. If the employer cannot get qualified people to work for X amount of dollars, then the employer lives with what he pays for, or he pays more. That's how the rest of the non-union world works. If my employees came to me with a list of "bargaining" demands, I'd point them to the door. This is the job, this is what it pays, take it or leave it. Sayonara, adios, aloha, goodbye. Not me, and the way I read the history nof unions, no one gave Americans workers those 'rights', people fought bled and died for them, but... that would be the Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley Act. I agree that there was a time and place for unions, but does the need still really exist? We have plenty of government oversight to protect workers that didn't exist back in the day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 10:08:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Funny.. I've worked for the same company for 25 years now... Never had a union... I wonder how I survived all those years...
Ask Boeing how that union has been working... or Mercury Marine...Of General Motors?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 11:22:04 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We'll see how many jobs this will create... Quite a lot, according to many articles out there reporting on other RTW states. I can't find it now, but there was recently an article about one company that was going to add 50 jobs when RTW passed here in WI (National Meter? Where walker was going to sign the bill on Monday). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2015 11:55:58 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quite a lot, according to many articles out there reporting on other RTW states. I can't find it now, but there was recently an article about one company that was going to add 50 jobs when RTW passed here in WI (National Meter? Where walker was going to sign the bill on Monday). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We'll see how many jobs this will create... Quite a lot, according to many articles out there reporting on other RTW states. I can't find it now, but there was recently an article about one company that was going to add 50 jobs when RTW passed here in WI (National Meter? Where walker was going to sign the bill on Monday). Yup, Badger Meter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2015 12:27:48 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't exactly know what makes a union legitimate, or am familiar with the laws they operate under. The point I was trying to get across is if a person is applying for a job that's under a (union) collective bargaining agreement, and doesn't believe in unions for whatever reason, go for a different, non-union job. We'll see how many jobs this will create... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:So it can only be a legitimate union if people are forced to join it? hmm
I don't exactly know what makes a union legitimate, or am familiar with the laws they operate under. The point I was trying to get across is if a person is applying for a job that's under a (union) collective bargaining agreement, and doesn't believe in unions for whatever reason, go for a different, non-union job. We'll see how many jobs this will create... Why stop there? Why not go all the way? "If you apply for a job (or have a job) where there is a union, and you don't believe in unions for whatever reason, then don't join the union. Go for a different, non-union arrangement for your job." There. Fixed it for you. What's not to love? ...and what business is it of yours if I want to pay into a union or not? Maybe I can pull up my big-boy pants and negotiate my own deal with a company. Maybe I would rather not send money to communists. I am not stopping you from doing so, why stop me from choosing not to? Again, if East Berlin was so flippin' outstanding, why did they need the wall to keep people in? The ONLY thing this law does is give individual people the liberty to choose if they want to join a union. That's it. You say the union is important and offers value. NOTHING is stopping people from pursuing that awesome deal. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2015 1:00:35 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The free market has to work both ways. If ENOUGH workers are disgruntled with their Union, they can bust it. What you are describing is known as 'Union Busting', now with the power of "RTW" behnd it. I look at that job getting scenario the same as I would where one shareholder in a corporation did not like the way the corporation was doing business. They don't have to buy the stock, get out. If there is no collective bargaining then what is the point of a Union? Rhetorically speaking, to the man... Call RTW 'Union Busting' and I will have a more respect for your position. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Reading through this thread I agree with the idea that people have the right to choose whether or not to work a union job or not. For those that choose a job in a 'union shop', I also think that the issue of whether dues should be mandatory, and/or how those dues should be spent should be decided by the members in their contract, not by the government. I think the whole issue here is the "union shop" thing you speak of. If certain workers desire to belong to a union, that's their business, go ahead and join if you think it's advantageous to do so. But if others don't want to join, that should be their choice, and not a condition of employment at a "union shop". No one should be coerced or forced to join just because a majority of others do join. It should not be an "all or nothing" proposition. Whether or not dues should be mandatory for those who agree to join, should be up to THEM by vote, not any government mandate, one way or the other. If there are dues for those who choose to join, then that's a condition of membership they must accept. It should go without saying that how dues money is spent absolutely should be decided by a membership vote. But that's not an issue for govt to meddle in. I watched as the largest employer in Oneida County voted to become a "union shop" a few years back. That company was a good customer of my locksmith business. As soon as they become a "union shop", I started to get shit about not being a "union member" who was working on their building (there's no such thing as a locksmith union, as most locksmiths are sole proprietors like myself). Other similar non-union trades people got the same crap from the union "bosses" there, and I finally told them to shove their work where the sun don't shine, when someone "deflated" two tires on my truck while I was there repairing a door lock.
Their union shop lasted about a year and a half, after being there for 20+ years prior, before the corporate office in ILL closed up that location and moved the entire operation to S. Carolina (a RTW State). Over 500 "union members" lost their jobs, including 3 very good friends of mine... one had been there from day 1 and had voted against the union coming in and "taking over". The free market has to work both ways. If ENOUGH workers are disgruntled with their Union, they can bust it. What you are describing is known as 'Union Busting', now with the power of "RTW" behnd it. I look at that job getting scenario the same as I would where one shareholder in a corporation did not like the way the corporation was doing business. They don't have to buy the stock, get out. If there is no collective bargaining then what is the point of a Union? Rhetorically speaking, to the man... Call RTW 'Union Busting' and I will have a more respect for your position. excepttttttttttt right to work does absolutely nothing to the union. it does not disolve any unions it does not remove collective bargaining in private unions. all right to work does is give each employee the choice to pay union dues or not. another union propogated myth is right to work forces unions to represent non union employees. this is a blatant lie of the highest order. federal law dictates that a union has to agree to represent non union employees by contract by opting to do so. in other words for a non union employee to be represented by the union, the union has to intentionally write that into the contract. if the union does not write in coverage for non union employees they will not be covered by union contract. it is totally up to the union whether non union employees are covered or not. if you want proof, the milwaukee journal sentinal union does not cover non union empoyees as their union chose not to do so. the milwaukee journal sentinal is a right to work company... go figure, they are the biggest liars next to the union goons on what right to work really is. if you like your union fine continue to pay dues to a completely useless organization. right to work is not going to stop you from giving money to a union that then uses 100% to support political hacks who are trying to turn america into north korea. its your right to support that if you wish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2015 2:21:34 AM EDT
[#19]
But da Union sez it's bad!
I work at a union shop. I've been putting bugs in people's ear that RTW can give them leverage with the union. They don't like the union's new contract? Well, pull your membership and more importantly you monthly dues. I can see the little light go on in their heads. I think there is more support for this in Union shops and especially Union households than one would be led to believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 10:13:22 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reagan=Puppet I can do that.... Slvrtman = Moronic Troll See! It's easy!! Edit: Oh... You must really like saying "Koch". Look up Thomas Steyer. If you're anything other than a Moron, you'll never say "Koch" again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 2:30:27 PM EDT
[#21]
Here's a good reason why unions are misrepresenting the "unions represent non-union members by law" stuff:
linky |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 4:48:09 PM EDT
[#22]
Anyone who throws the Koch brothers out as the intro to an argument but ignores the heavy hitter$ present on the (D) side is one of two things:
a) not aware of the facts or b) less than truthful |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 3:20:35 PM EDT
[#23]
Congrats on becoming a RTW State! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 4:02:08 PM EDT
[#24]
I like the arguments regarding the 'need' for a union.
What both sides need to remember is that back when unions were formed, back when the WERE needed, every state in the union was a right to work state. There were no laws about union shops and such. The employers were so bad, all the employees banded together and fought for what we have today. Over the years the unions would donate to a candidate and that candidate would in turn, get some sort of legislation passed to benefit the union....closed shop law is one of them (this is what RTW voids, if you are not familiar with closed shop). So, if employers become dicks again, guess what, Unions will form, and things will change. There is no law saying unions can't form, or function, or do anything a union normally does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 6:23:18 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like the arguments regarding the 'need' for a union. What both sides need to remember is that back when unions were formed, back when the WERE needed, every state in the union was a right to work state. There were no laws about union shops and such. The employers were so bad, all the employees banded together and fought for what we have today. Over the years the unions would donate to a candidate and that candidate would in turn, get some sort of legislation passed to benefit the union....closed shop law is one of them (this is what RTW voids, if you are not familiar with closed shop). So, if employers become dicks again, guess what, Unions will form, and things will change. There is no law saying unions can form, or function, or do anything a union normally does. Back when unions were formed, there was no OSHA or anything else in place to insure worker safety. There were no laws such as we have now, like minimum wage, overtime pay for over 40 hours, maximum number of hours you can work without a lunch or break, etc. The unions were very instrumental in getting the changes needed in the laws to protect the workers. That is why unions thrived at one time. Then politics took over, as did the "entitlement mentality", and ruined what was once a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 10:07:00 PM EDT
[#26]
I hate to say it, but if there is a third world shithole denizen willing and able to do your job for less pay and under worse conditions, then the lower pay and worse conditions are allowable in the marketplace. Anything else is artificial and unsustainable. So long as coercion is not present then the government has no rights to protect, and therefore no business getting involved.
That is just how the universe works. *shrug* |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:13:24 AM EDT
[#27]
Walker had to sign RTWFL. How else would a small time charley like him get big business to fund his presidential campaign?
This country has the best politicians money can buy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:25:09 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Walker had to sign RTWFL. How else would a small time charley like him get big business to fund his presidential campaign? This country has the best politicians money can buy. I really thought you would just slither away after the top 100 political contributors was posted. Now I see that you are back, with more hyperbole that you can't back up with fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 6:23:11 AM EDT
[#29]
Well, he's having difficulty defending unions, or getting people to agree that Unions are the best, or even getting people to pity union members now that RTW is in effect.....so the only thing left is to attack.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 8:02:51 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Walker had to sign RTWFL. How else would a small time charley like him get big business to fund his presidential campaign? This country has the best politicians money can buy. Because unions have a reputation of only electing choirboys as leaders.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 10:36:26 AM EDT
[#31]
I was just reading some information on a website called.....American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and I thought I would share.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:18:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Then I found this website.....might as well share this too.
Kochexposed.net I advise Sheeple to NOT to go there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:35:52 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then I found this website.....might as well share this too. Kochexposed.net I advise Sheeple to NOT to go there. I can listen to the evil Koch fan club on WPR every day bro, did you actually go to the link provided above and see how little the Kochs spend towards conservatives VS Union spending to progressives? I was blown away by it, and unlike the evil Koch fanboys it's been tracking accurate spending for a loooong time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 1:10:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Unions represent millions of middle-class workers.....the other side represents corporate America.....the little guy is just trying to hold ground. Divide the middle-class, and conquer. Half of the middle-class will be at the mercy of the ruling class. I can see both sides of most issues, but don't understand the push to make the U. S. A a mirror image of the cluster F country to our south .....MEXICO? Poor under paid workers, no schools, super corrupt government. Our inner cities are pretty much like Mexico already.....and from what I see, that group is expanding fast.
Mark my word, this will happen .....close down public schools, fund charter schools, then, at some point do to financial problems, cut charter school funding. Badger Meter should have moved to Mexico, and take it's CEO along. But, I bet he would have stayed HERE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 1:48:51 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unions represent millions of middle-class workers.....the other side represents corporate America.....the little guy is just trying to hold ground. Divide the middle-class, and conquer. Half of the middle-class will be at the mercy of the ruling class. I can see both sides of most issues, but don't understand the push to make the U. S. A a mirror image of the cluster F country to our south .....MEXICO? Poor under paid workers, no schools, super corrupt government. Our inner cities are pretty much like Mexico already.....and from what I see, that group is expanding fast. Mark my word, this will happen .....close down public schools, fund charter schools, then, at some point do to financial problems, cut charter school funding. Badger Meter should have moved to Mexico, and take it's CEO along. But, I bet he would have stayed HERE. Unions won't fix that buddy. Act ten only hurt shitty lazy teachers that had no business teaching. Shitty Public schools in their current incarnation can't fix stupid poor kids, and neither can charter schools. Charter schools are cheaper for the taxpayers, for something we legally have to provide (school to everybody) even the people who will waste that opportunity (parental/environment failures) The problem with unions is the same problem with America. People have given away every single peice of personal responsibility for their lives, families, jobs and futures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 2:24:29 PM EDT
[#36]
"Legally have to provide".......good thing they will never change that...... OR..... how long will it take for them to change that.
I think you have that slightly wrong Bud.....you should have said shitty, lazy, parent......most of the time NOT parentS..... The local P.T.A. could take care of the bad teachers, if the dumb parents got off their lazy asses and actually started a functioning P.T.A. In the problem areas.....but that would require them to do something for themselves. That lack of non- action leaves the door open for all sorts of other things, like private schools that do not have to operate under the same government rules as the public ones do. The private schools just send back all the problem students back to the public schools......how long will that set up work? Will our F'ed up government fix the public schools then, or will they just shut them down. At some point, they will probably run out of teachers to work in those hell hole schools......and the next step will be cutting back or ending public funding of private schools. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 2:28:36 PM EDT
[#37]
Does the new RTW law also include public unions?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 2:31:43 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Legally have to provide".......good thing they will never change that...... OR..... how long will it take for them to change that. its part of the "new deal" and drives the industry of government dependance. It will be a law until the collapse of our current government, along with all forms of national welfare. States can't fight the law because the national government forces all other 49 states to pay for their poor people through national welfare. Get it? Broken systems built on top of broken systems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 2:47:32 PM EDT
[#39]
New World Order
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 2:51:56 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the new RTW law also include public unions? Probably, their wages and benefits are way too high and need to get inline with the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 3:15:59 PM EDT
[#41]
This is going to get interesting now. I have watched dues go up and up when PACE merged with the USW. USW is greedy. They want a percentage of every cent I earn including retirement benefits, not just a flat monthly extortion rate. People have been getting more and more pissed and rumblings of decertification have been growing since this USW takeover. My company has been hiring contract labor for the lesser skilled positions such as lift truck drivers and grounds maintenance for the past 10+ years. We will have new contract negotiations beginning near the first of the year. This will definitely play into the company's favor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 3:23:45 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably, their wages and benefits are way too high and need to get inline with the rest of the world. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does the new RTW law also include public unions? Probably, their wages and benefits are way too high and need to get inline with the rest of the world. LOL so unions and higher than normal wages are a good thing for you in your union but if another union is making more than you it's wrong? Typical liberal thinking! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:00:49 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL so unions and higher than normal wages are a good thing for you in your union but if another union is making more than you it's wrong? Typical liberal thinking! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does the new RTW law also include public unions? Probably, their wages and benefits are way too high and need to get inline with the rest of the world. LOL so unions and higher than normal wages are a good thing for you in your union but if another union is making more than you it's wrong? Typical liberal thinking! Actually I took the liberty to talk from the Corporate America point of view.....probably from your point of view too, and your race to the bottom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:10:27 PM EDT
[#44]
Just for laughs, go to Utube and punch in "Gov Scott Walker of Wisconsin-Divide and conquer".... The 33 sec version, as it explains the title of this thread.
You gotta do what ya gotta do, on the journey to the top. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 6:23:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Dude - answer one question for me, or shut the fuck up:
Whence comes wealth? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 8:07:38 PM EDT
[#46]
I love how the Koch bros are reviled But Soros who spends Millions more then the Koch Bros (44.3 vs 28.1)is left out of the conversion. Oh that's right he buys the left and that Ok apparently
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 9:52:39 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love how the Koch bros are reviled But Soros who spends Millions more then the Koch Bros (44.3 vs 28.1)is left out of the conversion. Oh that's right he buys the left and that Ok apparently Ok....apparently you have left Soros out of the conversation. What, is he against RTWFL? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 11:52:13 PM EDT
[#48]
Coming soon to a theater near you: an end to "prevailing wage" laws!
    . Eat it, trolls.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2015 8:00:37 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
New World Order  
Yes, this will help your cause. But please, continue. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2015 1:38:12 PM EDT
[#50]
New world order.....when oil isn't traded with ^^^
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
