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.
He was obviously talking about private sector unions.
And he is obviously correct.
Oh, really? Frank was replying to Vegas Joe's post (both below) who clearly made a distinction between private and public unions. If he wasn't replying to the line about "restricting public unions from political activity" then Frank's post is poorly written and as clear as mud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Joe If the union and the company agreed to such an arrangement, why is that anybody else's business? In a free market, labor and management are free to enter into any agreement that they want. I do not have a problem with PRIVATE unions. Public unions however should be restricted from political activity of any kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest It's hardly a free market when the unionized workers have the brute force of the federal government to enforce their demands.
ETA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
I was speaking of private sector unions, but you knew that.
When unionized public sector workers negotiate, its against all of us taxpayers who aren't in the employ of the biggest bully on the block...the federal government.
Ya, sure you were. Tell me, where do these negotiations take place between public sector workers and we tax payers? Oh, wait! That would be a REPRESENTATIVE of our federal government that does the negotiations against the union side. A representative who represents us tax payers. The unions---public or private---do not have the "brute force of the federal government to enforce their demands."
Last edited by Wayland Woman; 12-25-2011 at 11:23 AM..
I was speaking of private sector unions, but you knew that.
When unionized public sector workers negotiate, its against all of us taxpayers who aren't in the employ of the biggest bully on the block...the federal government.
Let me ask you Frank....why do Republicans that wanna put the Kabosh on public sector unions always want to exempt cops and firefighters?
Unions started in the United States to keep blacks and Asians out of the workforce.
They have been tied to the Mafia since the beginning.
40 hour work week was started in non-union shops. (Endicott-Johnson and Ford in the 1890s and early 1900s)
Health insurance for employees was started in non-union shops. Endicott-Johnson and defense contractors. 1890s and WW2)
Wages were rising in non-union manufacturing shops at much higher rates from 1860-1914 than after the unions started gaining power in the 30s. (50% from 1860-1890 and another 34% 1890-1914, adjusted for inflation).
Child labor in manufacturing was virtually eradicated by capitalists by 1920. But unions claim credit for getting rid of it by getting laws passed in 1937.
Unions are nothing more than racist mafia types that will lie, scam and cheat about anything to get money and power.
That's why they get bonuses.
Wow, all lies. At least you have talent at that. Unions were the first to fight for equal rights for all, regardless of race or gender.
Oh, really? Frank was replying to Vegas Joe's post (both below) who clearly made a distinction between private and public unions. If he wasn't replying to the line about "restricting public unions from political activity" then Frank's post is poorly written and as clear as mud.
ETA:
Ya, sure you were. Tell me, where do these negotiations take place between public sector workers and we tax payers? Oh, wait! That would be a REPRESENTATIVE of our federal government that does the negotiations against the union side. A representative who represents us tax payers. The unions---public or private---do not have the "brute force of the federal government to enforce their demands."
Actually private sector unions do have laws that favor them.
If a non-union worker decides he is not going to work because an employer won't meet his demands tha employee will likely lose the job. A union guy can walk off the job and refuse to work and still have the job when he decides to work again.
If a non-union worker is replaced by someone else and he decides to commit violence against someone then he will go to jail. Courts have oftentimes overlooked violence by union members against non-union members.
Those are just a couple examples. There are dozens more.
That reminds me. If unions were really about workers then they wouldn't have a problem with strike-busters. (Or as union thugs call them, "scabs"). After all, the scab is a worker too. He came to a legal agreement to trade his labor for a paycheck. If the unions were really about workers then they wouldn't have a problem with a scab. And they certainly wouldn't commit physical violence against him as they so often do.
Let me ask you Frank....why do Republicans that wanna put the Kabosh on public sector unions always want to exempt cops and firefighters?
He knows, Detroiter, but he's just not willing to give away the Republican union busting playbook. Republicans know that taking rights away from cops and firefighters would sway public opinion against their master plan the way it's happening in WI and OH.
Why do corporate managers, CEOs your newspaper delivery person, hairdresser, etc., etc. get bonuses and tips around the holidays? Figure that one out and you might understand that getting bonuses is not exclusive to union members. But then we all know this is just another one of your union bashing threads and you could care less how and where the tradition started.
Answer the question.
You sound like some of my liberal/leftist friends and relatives....."but the republicans do it too!".
Wow, all lies. At least you have talent at that. Unions were the first to fight for equal rights for all, regardless of race or gender.
Lols.
Do unions fight for equal rights for a "scab"?
I think you need to stop rewriting history. Unions started to keep blacks and Asians out of the workforce.
All one has to do is look at the demographic makeup of non-union shops versus union shops. It becomes pretty obvious the capitalist doesn't care about race. The union does.
Plus, almost every powerful union boss has been tied to the mafia. Lots of them went to jail to because of it. But we know the mafia has been racist towards blacks. lols.
He knows, Detroiter, but he's just not willing to give away the Republican union busting playbook. Republicans know that taking rights away from cops and firefighters would sway public opinion against their master plan the way it's happening in WI and OH.
I can't speak to Wisconsin.
But no one in the Ohio government is triying to take away union members rights.
But no one in the Ohio government is triying to take away union members rights.
Really? Maybe i need to call John Kasich and ask him what all that hullaballoo was about.
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.
