Les
Well-Known Member
Maybe he isn't "trying to destroy the greatness of the USA," but his inability to lead or balance a budget will.
No Frank, you need a union to hold your hand, tell you what to think, and how to behave. Unions are dying.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another Very Sad Day for the USA
- Thread starter Rodger Tellefson
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Maybe he isn't "trying to destroy the greatness of the USA," but his inability to lead or balance a budget will.
No Frank, you need a union to hold your hand, tell you what to think, and how to behave. Unions are dying.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Frank likes to pain things not necessarily as they are...
Wisconsin voters were split on this issue when polled the end of last month. Nationally, a USA Today poll showed polled Americans in favor of unionization in the public sector by about a 2:1 (~60% to ~30%). That is a substantial majority, but not an overwhelming majority, IMHO.
I'm not saying that unions aren't helpful. I'm just not inclined to continue the taxpayer double-dip that is going on. Disband OSHA, EPA, US Dept of Labor, etc, etc, and allow unions to be the safeguard OR, keep those taxpayer funded orgs and allow state/local govts to decide at their discretion whether or not to allow unionization of their employees.
Having both ways is just wasteful, IMHO.
TJR
Wisconsin voters were split on this issue when polled the end of last month. Nationally, a USA Today poll showed polled Americans in favor of unionization in the public sector by about a 2:1 (~60% to ~30%). That is a substantial majority, but not an overwhelming majority, IMHO.
I'm not saying that unions aren't helpful. I'm just not inclined to continue the taxpayer double-dip that is going on. Disband OSHA, EPA, US Dept of Labor, etc, etc, and allow unions to be the safeguard OR, keep those taxpayer funded orgs and allow state/local govts to decide at their discretion whether or not to allow unionization of their employees.
Having both ways is just wasteful, IMHO.
TJR
Maybe he isn't "trying to destroy the greatness of the USA," but his inability to lead or balance a budget will.
The previous regieme couldn't figure it out either and is the reason we are in the mess we are in.
You need Unions people, believe me. You all live under the blanket of freedom in which Unions provide.
Frank is correct. Without the threat of unions, businesses will go back to their old ways. They will fund Washington to look the other way.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen said:
Put simply, and "frankly", you cannot know that for a fact. You can assume that might happen, but largely that line of thinking is FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).
We are not the same country, nor are we the same workforce that we were during the rise of the unions.
To assume that things can and would go back to the way they were, prior to unions, is a defeatist, pessimestic, way of looking at things.
It doesn't take into account that by and large, people get what they want from employers (from their spouse, out of life, etc), and what they want is what they feel they should have and what they are accustomed to having.
People now feel that they they have good working conditions, fair wages, appropriate time off, a good wage, etc. That is their expectation, and not only that, but there are laws and govt organizations that safeguard these things.
So, YES, absolutely BECAUSE of UNIONS these things are now commonplace.
To assume that if unions went away these things that workers now enjoy would disappear, soon, or ever, is naive, IMHO. It simply is unrealistic.
Workers have come accustomed to these things, they have become commonplace. Thank you unions. You have done your job.
No reason to continue to fight for that which we already have and will not lose anytime soon.
Now, of course, there are those that will suggest I am wrong. And, I might very well be. But all I am saying is that one cannot PROVE the position that "IF unions go away then ALL that they have FOUGHT FOR will ALSO GO AWAY.". That is an assumption. The only way to PROVE IT is to take away unions, and then observe the outcome.
I PREDICT that all that unions have fought for would not go away. No more than after a divorce the lady married to the rich guy gets put out on the street. Nope, we humans have this innate need to keep the status quo. Unions fought hard to get us there. Human nature (and countless paid-for by tax dollars orgs, and laws) will keep us there.
TJR
Frank is correct. Without the threat of unions, businesses will go back to their old ways. They will fund Washington to look the other way.
Put simply, and "frankly", you cannot know that for a fact. You can assume that might happen, but largely that line of thinking is FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).
We are not the same country, nor are we the same workforce that we were during the rise of the unions.
To assume that things can and would go back to the way they were, prior to unions, is a defeatist, pessimestic, way of looking at things.
It doesn't take into account that by and large, people get what they want from employers (from their spouse, out of life, etc), and what they want is what they feel they should have and what they are accustomed to having.
People now feel that they they have good working conditions, fair wages, appropriate time off, a good wage, etc. That is their expectation, and not only that, but there are laws and govt organizations that safeguard these things.
So, YES, absolutely BECAUSE of UNIONS these things are now commonplace.
To assume that if unions went away these things that workers now enjoy would disappear, soon, or ever, is naive, IMHO. It simply is unrealistic.
Workers have come accustomed to these things, they have become commonplace. Thank you unions. You have done your job.
No reason to continue to fight for that which we already have and will not lose anytime soon.
Now, of course, there are those that will suggest I am wrong. And, I might very well be. But all I am saying is that one cannot PROVE the position that "IF unions go away then ALL that they have FOUGHT FOR will ALSO GO AWAY.". That is an assumption. The only way to PROVE IT is to take away unions, and then observe the outcome.
I PREDICT that all that unions have fought for would not go away. No more than after a divorce the lady married to the rich guy gets put out on the street. Nope, we humans have this innate need to keep the status quo. Unions fought hard to get us there. Human nature (and countless paid-for by tax dollars orgs, and laws) will keep us there.
TJR
Frank screwyourednecks
Well-Known Member
Hey Les are you serious..?? 100,000 people in Madison the other day. HHHMMMM sounds like a giant finally awakening. You fools better look at history. Its repeating itself. The middle class will be back. Work UNION live BETTER
Les
Well-Known Member
The previous regieme couldn't figure it out either and is the reason we are in the mess we are in.
No argument there, but it goes back to Clinton with the mortgage crisis.
Frank is correct. Without the threat of unions, businesses will go back to their old ways. They will fund Washington to look the other way.
The unions do exactly the same thing.
Hey Les are you serious..?? 100,000 people in Madison the other day. HHHMMMM sounds like a giant finally awakening.
Frank, unions for federal & state employees serve no purpose for the taxpayer, that pays their wage. I guarantee you if those people had a choice, and they don't, many wouldn't belong to a union. This is forced servitude by unions that extract money and spend it on political candidates, not the members. Have unions serve their membership, not the union.
You fools better look at history.
Frank, you need to "look at" and consider reality.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Les brings up a very good point.
The question was raised early about what is the "ethical" thing to do.
Is it really ethical that one of the largest special interest lobbyist groups out there also is on the dole of the govt and its employees? How can that NOT be conflict on interest?
Caymen says that without unions corporations would run our government. That argument holds more weight IF unions aren't, in themselves, a lobbying group that works to control our government. Clearly, they are...one of the larger, more well organized too.
I know when things don't "smell right."
For example, and another example of getting involved in politics... I recently lodged a formal complaint against our township and its board. It seems our township, in its infinite wisdom, felt it was a good thing to offer paid advertising in the quarterly newsletter that gets mailed to each home in the township. When I saw the last couple of newsletters filled with advertisments from local merchants, local building companies, etc, I thought to myself: Okay, how can our township supervisors claim that they are objective when it comes to dealing with these same businesses that are directly contributing to them via these advertisements.
Caesar's wife must be beyond reproach.
TJR
The question was raised early about what is the "ethical" thing to do.
Is it really ethical that one of the largest special interest lobbyist groups out there also is on the dole of the govt and its employees? How can that NOT be conflict on interest?
Caymen says that without unions corporations would run our government. That argument holds more weight IF unions aren't, in themselves, a lobbying group that works to control our government. Clearly, they are...one of the larger, more well organized too.
I know when things don't "smell right."
For example, and another example of getting involved in politics... I recently lodged a formal complaint against our township and its board. It seems our township, in its infinite wisdom, felt it was a good thing to offer paid advertising in the quarterly newsletter that gets mailed to each home in the township. When I saw the last couple of newsletters filled with advertisments from local merchants, local building companies, etc, I thought to myself: Okay, how can our township supervisors claim that they are objective when it comes to dealing with these same businesses that are directly contributing to them via these advertisements.
Caesar's wife must be beyond reproach.
TJR
We are not the same country, nor are we the same workforce that we were during the rise of the unions.
Yea, but we are still people and we will do what we have always done since the begining of time.
The unions do exactly the same thing.
So you admit, we have checks and balances with the unions?
Do you think without the unions businesses would stop ploitical contributions and everyone would be better off?
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen asked:
No, I am SURE that without unions businesses would NOT stop their political contributions. But I am sure that without unions then unions would stop THEIR political contributions, which would mean less lobbyists. Less lobbyists, like 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is a "good start."
To answer the second part of your question, do I think EVERYONE would be better off? No. I don't think union officials would be better off. I don't think all those that make their money off unions would be better off. I do think that, by and large, and on average the (previously)union employee would be no better, nor no worse off, when all things are considered.
The only way to know for sure is to watch Wisconsin. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Or, as someone else said, without change there can be no progress. Might there be a backslide or two, sure. As long as the overall stride is forward, for all.
TJR
Do you think without the unions businesses would stop ploitical contributions and everyone would be better off?
No, I am SURE that without unions businesses would NOT stop their political contributions. But I am sure that without unions then unions would stop THEIR political contributions, which would mean less lobbyists. Less lobbyists, like 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is a "good start."
To answer the second part of your question, do I think EVERYONE would be better off? No. I don't think union officials would be better off. I don't think all those that make their money off unions would be better off. I do think that, by and large, and on average the (previously)union employee would be no better, nor no worse off, when all things are considered.
The only way to know for sure is to watch Wisconsin. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Or, as someone else said, without change there can be no progress. Might there be a backslide or two, sure. As long as the overall stride is forward, for all.
TJR
Less lobbyists, like 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is a "good start."
While I agree with this statement, just because the number of lobbyists could be cut in half, this means 100% of lobbyists remaining will be for the same thing. This would be a bad thing.
I believe in the good of man, but I know man can only be good if there is repercusions for doing bad.
Employers will turn their backs against employees. If they have the lobbyists to help push laws to assist business, at the expense of the good of man, then they will do what they can do to make this happen.
This is not Fear Uncertainty, or Doubt, as you like to dismis everything. This is the nature of man when it comes to money and power.
Tom
Les
Well-Known Member
So you admit, we have checks and balances with the unions?
Two wrongs, don't make a right...
gary s
Well-Known Member
"Work UNION live BETTER" :bwahaha:
"I know when things don't "smell right.""
[Broken External Image]:
"I know when things don't "smell right.""
[Broken External Image]:
"I know when things don't "smell right.""
You do take advantage of being a union household. You have admited that here before. Your wife works union.
Tom
gary s
Well-Known Member
correct. she is a union employee.
advantage ??????
advantage ??????
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
I think Gary was quoting me above...maybe agreeing in the process, maybe not.
As for MY WIFE, she went back to school to get her teaching degree, and got it. Degreed in elementary education. She can't find a job to save her life. The main reason that I blaim is the tenure tracks that most teachers are on. Is tenure in place because of unions? I don't know. But I do know there are a lot of bad teachers in public schools that still have jobs, and they are making good money, when there are a lot of new blood out there that would love to have those jobs, and aren't burned out and bitter like many of those bad, tenured teachers are.
So, you tell me, is THAT FAIR?
TJR
I think Gary was quoting me above...maybe agreeing in the process, maybe not.
As for MY WIFE, she went back to school to get her teaching degree, and got it. Degreed in elementary education. She can't find a job to save her life. The main reason that I blaim is the tenure tracks that most teachers are on. Is tenure in place because of unions? I don't know. But I do know there are a lot of bad teachers in public schools that still have jobs, and they are making good money, when there are a lot of new blood out there that would love to have those jobs, and aren't burned out and bitter like many of those bad, tenured teachers are.
So, you tell me, is THAT FAIR?
TJR
So, you tell me, is THAT FAIR?
As fair as getting lunch under the bosses desk to get a promotion.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen said:
So, what you are saying is that if someone does the employer a favor, or gives the employer something for special treatment in return, that is a bad thing? I would agree. I guess you see that unions keep that from happening?
M'kay.
You might want to google the words: Union Pay-For-Play
Unions seem to be the epitome of pay-for-play at arguably the highest levels. So, Tammy the secretary giving her boss some relief for an extra vacation day is bad, but unions filling coffers and buy jobs, etc, well that's okay?
Sorry, not buying it.
Wrong is wrong.
How about the individuals take care of themselves?
TJR
As fair as getting lunch under the bosses desk to get a promotion.
So, what you are saying is that if someone does the employer a favor, or gives the employer something for special treatment in return, that is a bad thing? I would agree. I guess you see that unions keep that from happening?
M'kay.
You might want to google the words: Union Pay-For-Play
Unions seem to be the epitome of pay-for-play at arguably the highest levels. So, Tammy the secretary giving her boss some relief for an extra vacation day is bad, but unions filling coffers and buy jobs, etc, well that's okay?
Sorry, not buying it.
Wrong is wrong.
How about the individuals take care of themselves?
TJR
gary s
Well-Known Member
"As fair as getting lunch under the bosses desk to get a promotion"
i guess that's how you got your job !!! :bwahaha:
i guess that's how you got your job !!! :bwahaha:
No, I got my job because I know the difference between residule and residual. I know that a sentence starts with a CAPITAL letter and ends with some type of punctuation mark.
I know the difference between a picture and a pitcher. Most of all, I know the difference between two, too, and to.
That is how I got my job.
Tom
I know the difference between a picture and a pitcher. Most of all, I know the difference between two, too, and to.
That is how I got my job.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Gary S,
I guess that's what unions are good for. They spread out the days between when it is your time to "be in the barrel."
Why should ONE guy have to bend over when EVERYONE gets to bend over. Strength in numbers!
(just playing with you, Caymen).
TJR
I guess that's what unions are good for. They spread out the days between when it is your time to "be in the barrel."
Why should ONE guy have to bend over when EVERYONE gets to bend over. Strength in numbers!
(just playing with you, Caymen).
TJR
