Union busting in Kansas (enemies, money, state, federal)
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.
You would like to believe so. Take NAFTA for example. Do you think it has hurt the middle class?
It is ridiculously stupid to blame unions for jobs going overseas. For that matter, virtually every country the jobs are being moved to have strong union presence. But I don't expect you to know that either.
How about non-union jobs moving overseas? Never happened, never would happen, right? Get a clue before you start pointing fingers shamelessly.
Get a mirror before you start attacking.
Of course NAFT has hurt us. However it is just flat out dishonest to not admit that unions play part of the equation in the off shoring of jobs where traditionally, in the manufacturing sector, unions have played a large role
I know it's rough just to type basic words into google, so here you go, took all of about 15 seconds
Republicans reject offer by unions to compromise on concessions - BizTimes (http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2011/2/18/republicans-reject-offer-by-unions-to-compromise-on-concessions - broken link)
""I have been informed that all state and local public employees – including teachers - have agreed to the financial aspects of Governor Walker's request"
What paycuts? They aren't taking ANY paycuts. Paycuts weren't even on the table.
Do you even know what you are talking about? All too often your posts are just full of garbage and gibberish that doesn't mean a damn thing. As far as CB goes in the public sector, the tax payers are NOT represented and have absolutely no say until they vote in a guy to take this problem on, which they did. How can you say CB is fair to the tax payer when they don't get to have any say whatsoever in the process? Yes, you are correct, public union members are tax payers too, but they don't pay enough taxes to cover their own slaries, so the public at large pays the bulk of their salary and their benefits. In a private sector union, the PRIVATE company pays all of that not the tax payer. It's a completely different thing.
The tax payers are represented through the people who manage the money. No? Do you propose an idea of any use of tax payer money be done through an agency other than the current money managers?
No, but unions stand for what benefits the middle class. It gives them the voice against the ruling elite (or as Adam Smith called... "the masters"). Without such support, the middle class wouldn't only shrink but will eventually disappear.
? Unions RAPE middle class through taxes. They take advantage of the middle class. Unions don't mean what they once did. The sole purpose of unions now is really to money launder and for power.
The unions have accepted everything Walker has proposed except for the union-crushing part of the bill trying to remove their collective bargaining rights.
While the right are getting bankrolled and raises, the unions are being the bigger people here. All walker has to do is say he'll bargain and let them keep their rights, and the democratic senators will come back and pass the bill.
NO!
Walker is right not to cave into this crap!!
They tie up all sorts of loop holes when they go to the table, if our new Gov here in Georgia does not stand up to the teachers union, he will be voted out real quick
I am sick of these leaches!!
I hope the democrats stay where they are and get recalled, the blazing sons of *******
let the vote be carried out with out them
this is bull holding a state hostage, Walker should have fired them all and send out the lay offs and let the chips fall where they may
this is not going to be over there, this is going all over our country, let the democrats show what bozos they are right along with the clown-in chief,
Obama
Fascism is not a synonym for dictatorship. Fascism is governance via/for corporate interests.
A union is a corporation, and while supposedly non-profit [501(c)5], one that exists to directly benefit its members.
Quote:
Dictators don't bargain.
And unions don't bargain with those who are forced to pay for their demands, the taxpayers. That is, unless the public employee unions have agreed to put all of their future demands to a vote in a general state election. Have they agreed to that?
The tax payers are represented through the people who manage the money. No? Do you propose an idea of any use of tax payer money be done through an agency other than the current money managers?
PS. I'm not surprised you don't get my posts.
You need to go research why even FDR was against public unions. There's this little part of truth that you defiantly want to ignore. Tax payers are the ones paying but they don't have a seat at the bargaining table. That is totally against the entire collective bargaining premise.
Get a mirror before you start attacking.
Of course NAFT has hurt us. However it is just flat out dishonest to not admit that unions play part of the equation in the off shoring of jobs where traditionally, in the manufacturing sector, unions have played a large role
It is dishonest to blame unions for jobs going to other countries. It won’t be, if the claim were made by someone who is ignorant of the fact that non-union jobs have been going overseas as well.
NAFTA may have hurt us, but there were a few standing between it and the governments (not only here, but also in Canada): The unions. I hope you’re aware that NAFTA was pretty much a done deal before Clinton took office. And it was Clinton who was asked to include at least a few provisions that were supposed to help reduce its negative effects. And that too was on demand from unions. What were corporations, those opposed to unions, thinking? That NAFTA was a bad idea? Looks like what you think was a bad idea, was an idea vehemently opposed by unions.
You need to go research why even FDR was against public unions. There's this little part of truth that you defiantly want to ignore. Tax payers are the ones paying but they don't have a seat at the bargaining table. That is totally against the entire collective bargaining premise.
I don't need to, on something I see shortsighted and discriminative. Just like Japanese concentration camps he devised.
A union is a corporation, and while supposedly non-profit [501(c)5], one that exists to directly benefit its members.
I thought that was clear when I brought up Citizen's United decision into play. No?
Quote:
And unions don't bargain with those who are forced to pay for their demands, the taxpayers. That is, unless the public employee unions have agreed to put all of their future demands to a vote in a general state election. Have they agreed to that?
Do tax payers directly control how their contributions flow and are managed? Do you propose creation of such agency to do that?
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.
