Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, they played a role in the history of our nation, but our nation has changed. Your claim about feudalistic servitude is pure hyperbole, most of the private work force is not unionized and yet we haven't found ourselves back to "feudalistic servitude".
...
Lastly, I don't know why you are posting an opinion piece as if it provides any sort of justification for your point of view, it just repeats it.
Ah, I see the master-debater is back ...
It is my observation that the evolution of this great democracy has shifted increasingly toward oligarchy -- especially since Ronald Reagan -- and the ultimate manifestation of oligarchy is tacit servitude by the majority. If I want to state that in a manner that you consider hyperbole, I may. If you wish to state your position counter to mine, help yourself.
This isn't your personal debate club ... this is an open forum in which people express points of view, exchange information (sometimes even helpful), blow off steam, rib each other and tell jokes, share news -- etc. ... anyone can post any piece they want (as long as it's not xxx-rated) ... they can repeat their point of view as much as they want. And you are just another schlep like the rest of us. Others here have observed in the past that you seem to insert yourself in threads merely for the love of argument and opportunity to demean. You have over 5,600 posts (with a very low percentage of rep points) in only a couple years, and have started but 44 threads. It is my opinion that you are a troll who thrives on trying to elevate your likely low self-esteem through your self-perceived ability to be a master-debater.
And yet more update on the true motivations behind the Wisc. upheaval ... in which it is clear that this isn't about balancing the budget. Unions out of control? ans: control them -- but do not destroy them ... they have played a critical role in the historical development of the quality of life in our society ... take them away, and we will find ourselves back in feudalistic servitude, quite literally. The health of a free society lies neither in fascism or communism -- but in the balancing act:
"[Walker] has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workers’ ability to bargain."
"What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy."
"In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
"... it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. ... You don’t have to love unions, ... to recognize that they’re among the few influential players ... representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.
"... There’s a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America’s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch.And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence."
Public employee unions are the cause of many problems in local and state governments. They are inherently a conflict of interest when they support politicians who in turn negotiate lucrative contracts with them using tax payer dollars. Public employee unions should be banned and must be banned. So you can call this union busting if you want because they are the problem. They must go away.
Public employee unions are the cause of many problems in local and state governments. They are inherently a conflict of interest when they support politicians who in turn negotiate lucrative contracts with them using tax payer dollars. Public employee unions should be banned and must be banned. So you can call this union busting if you want because they are the problem. They must go away.
Uh, unlike the super-wealthy who never "buy" sweetheart deals and lucrative contracts through supporting politicians? Who the hell do you think makes most of the campaign contributions these days? Who the hell gets away with not paying much (if anything) in taxes? Who gets away with raping and pillaging the entire world's economies and never has to answer for it -- and in fact continues to be rewarded for doing so, and in amounts sufficient to cure the budget and debt problems but will never contribute a penny back?
Unions represent but one way in which a struggle for a little balance can continue to take place against the overwhelming weight and power of the super-rich. I repeat the quote from the previous piece:
"In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
You have over 5,600 posts (with a very low percentage of rep points) in only a couple years...
Rep points can be an indication but not a very good one. (1) A forum isn't a popularity contest, or it is but only in some people's minds. Others think forums are debating clubs. A rare few enjoy putting down other people in what they think is proving they are better. (2) Even some people with high rep to post ratios are a-wholes, know it alls, jerks. Sometimes inflammatory posts get reputation points from other extremists who automatically vote for anybody who agrees with them. Sometimes being outrageous is rewarded for this reason.
I use the reputation system to give points when I see exceptionally good, clever or thoughtful posts, or when the member has obviously gone to a great deal of work (research, etc.) in their post. I sometimes give reputation to posts I disagree with and to members I dislike, as long as they meet the criteria I just stated.
So don't put too much credence in a member's rep to post ratio.
I like to just quit replying or otherwise acknowledging posts when any member exceeds my annoyance toleration threshold. I'm pretty sure C-D members in general don't want to see me attacking or ridiculing other members. I may put in a little snipe from time to time but I try to keep that to a minimum.
It's not productive to complain about a member's attitude. Sometimes the complaints actually encourage them. That's why I often just ignore them instead. Try it, maybe you'll like it!
It is my observation that the evolution of this great democracy has shifted increasingly toward oligarchy -- especially since Ronald Reagan -- and the ultimate manifestation of oligarchy is tacit servitude by the majority.
That's nice, but we were talking about unions. You claimed that taking away unions would return us to the conditions that existed in the past. As mentioned this claim is easily refuted by the present day.
Its entirely unclear how unions prevent a shift to an oligarchic system, the unions themselves are largely oligarchic and they are able to get politicians in their pockets just as well as any corporation. The incentives of unions leaders are often not even aligned with union members.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
This isn't your personal debate club ... this is an open forum in which people express points of view, exchange information (sometimes even helpful), blow off steam, rib each other and tell jokes, share news -- etc. ... anyone can post any piece they want (as long as it's not xxx-rated) ...
Right anybody can post what they want, for example I can post about the hyperbole and inaccuracies in your posts.
Please keep the personal commentary to yourself, I'm not concerned with what you think of me.
Rep points can be an indication but not a very good one. (1) A forum isn't a popularity contest, or it is but only in some people's minds. Others think forums are debating clubs. A rare few enjoy putting down other people in what they think is proving they are better. (2) Even some people with high rep to post ratios are a-wholes, know it alls, jerks. Sometimes inflammatory posts get reputation points from other extremists who automatically vote for anybody who agrees with them. Sometimes being outrageous is rewarded for this reason.
I use the reputation system to give points when I see exceptionally good, clever or thoughtful posts, or when the member has obviously gone to a great deal of work (research, etc.) in their post. I sometimes give reputation to posts I disagree with and to members I dislike, as long as they meet the criteria I just stated.
So don't put too much credence in a member's rep to post ratio.
I like to just quit replying or otherwise acknowledging posts when any member exceeds my annoyance toleration threshold. I'm pretty sure C-D members in general don't want to see me attacking or ridiculing other members. I may put in a little snipe from time to time but I try to keep that to a minimum.
It's not productive to complain about a member's attitude. Sometimes the complaints actually encourage them. That's why I often just ignore them instead. Try it, maybe you'll like it!
Rep points were not my point (hence the parenthesis), they are merely an incidental observation that, taken with other observations, tell a bit of a story. You and I are a good example in this: we are miles apart on a number of issues, but have also noted common ground on others and traded rep points. Here's an interesting thing you don't know: I have also rep'd user_id in the past ... and complimented him publicly on several occasions as well, for making good and accurate observations, which he does at times. That he has never reciprocated is not important to me ... that he has taken several occasions to attack me and my posts in very negative language that some would consider extreme, before I ever pushed back, is of relevance, however. And subsequently I have received DM's from people remarking on his negative and argumentative habits as being argument for its own sake (in some cases, these remarks were from persons like yourself who are not always in agreement with my positions). He is not a contributor ... he is a nit-picker for his own pleasure. He has openly stated in posts that he feels no connection to his community and feels no motivation to contribute back. Compare that to the many here, however misguided some may seem to others, who are actually expressing opinions and sharing information out of their concern for what they feel is "right".
As for people being annoying and aggressive -- I don't much care ... it's all part of the entertainment ... I enjoy a good measure of combat. I just rarely start it. But when directed at me, I will almost certainly find strategic occasion to respond.
Unions are the concentration of power by workers banding together. Corporate America and Wall Street are the concentration of power by collecting large amounts of money. In either case the end result is the same: those who aren't part of either are the ones who suffer. We ordinary citizens suffer from both moneyed interests and unionized interests overpowering us.
Please keep the personal commentary to yourself, I'm not concerned with what you think of me.
Written by the person who launched considerable personal commentary about me, unsolicited, in the past. Your attempts to define what others write are pretty transparent to a number of readers.
Uh, unlike the super-wealthy who never "buy" sweetheart deals and lucrative contracts through supporting politicians? Who the hell do you think makes most of the campaign contributions these days? Who the hell gets away with not paying much (if anything) in taxes? Who gets away with raping and pillaging the entire world's economies and never has to answer for it -- and in fact continues to be rewarded for doing so, and in amounts sufficient to cure the budget and debt problems but will never contribute a penny back?
Unions represent but one way in which a struggle for a little balance can continue to take place against the overwhelming weight and power of the super-rich. I repeat the quote from the previous piece:
"In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
Were talking public employee unions here ...
Start another thread if you want to complain about rich bankers and wall street.
Were talking public employee unions here ...
Start another thread if you want to complain about rich bankers and wall street.
Its merely a scapegoat to avoid the real issues. I've noticed it popping up in many places, the budget problems are all "wall streets" fault because we had a financial crisis. Don't punish the common folk because those big bad guys on wall-street.
Its all done to hide the fact that many states, cities, etc have been running structural deficits for years before the financial crisis. That is especially true in California, now the dirty laundry can't be hidden.
Anyhow, in terms of unions its not just ripping off tax payers that is at issue. Public pay in California is detached from market rates and this distorts the labor markets, in particular it will increase the supply of people seeking government employment. If public pay was market based an increase of supply would lower wages and people would start to look else where. So for example, now we have tons of kids that went to college for teaching and are without employment. Distorting the labor markets can result in a good deal of human suffering, wages signal important information to the work force, kids in school, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
