Another Very Sad Day for the USA

Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Classic Frank.



Several requests to discuss specific point, to rebut come unanswered.



I guess since all I get back are name calling and jabs that I can only take that to mean that my points, the article above cannot be refuted...at least not by Frank.



Maybe if he had someone to represent him in this discussion. ;-)



TJR
 
Frank, Caymen,



If you can please articulate unemotional responses to the following that we can discuss, it would be great:



1. Do you see an inherent difference in the private sector and the public (govt) sector with regards to consumer choice vs monopoly?



2. Do you see an inherent difference between a large private company and its ability to pay lobbyists in order to influence our government and its policies, and the influence that large union organizations and their lobbies have in doing the same?



3. Do agree or disagree with the assertion that many of the so-called rights and privileges that unions fought for some time ago have become common place, have become institutionalized both in union and non-union sectors, and many if not most have become protected by various labor laws and other govt organizations?



4. Do you agree or disagree that in the private sector, companies essentially live and die through a "survival of the fittest" model. If great, they are able to provide great benefits and attract great employees, pay them well, and all prosper. If not great, well, then they whither and die.



5. Do you agree that in the public (govt) sector there is no competition, therefore no real "survival of the fittest, and that without such a dynamic there is no innate incentive to excel, to be great, to attract and retain great employees and to pay them competitively to the market...because there is no open market? Do you agree such is the case in the public sector? [note: the word innate is key in the question above]



6. Do you support government instituted salary caps for the CEOs of the firms bailed-out by our government and if so, why?



7. What, exactly do you think will likely be lost by govt employees if they are stripped of their so-called right to unionize, and what is the liklihood that you think that will happen, and why?



With all of the above, if you choose to answer, please try not to simply reply YES, or NO, or with some self-authoritative answer that you dont back up with something. Ive respectfully given evidence and rational argument for everything I have asserted so far, and am willing to discuss further any point I have made.



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Daily Show's take...

:banana:

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:377103" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-10-2011/crisis-in-dairyland---apocalypse-cow">The Daily Show</a></b><br/>Tags: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>
 
Frank said:

Here ya go...some more facts for everyone to enjoy. (sorry TJR, and Les)



And then went on to present some alleged "facts" that supposedly show a correlation between teachers' unions (or lack thereof) and student achievement.



First of all, if you're going to present information that you claim to be "fact", cite a credible source for said information. Otherwise it has zero credibility and is nothing more than mindless dribble.



And regarding the stats that were posted: Simply citing a few states where teachers have right to work and then citing the some alleged test scores from the same states proves nothing. No additional information was given that can prove a direct correlation between teachers' unions (or lack thereof) and the test scores. And one set of "rankings" doesn't prove a thing. How about showing some of these stats over a longer period of time.



Additionally, if you're seeking to prove that student achievement has increased in states where teachers have no right to work without being forced to join a union and have dues ripped from their paycheck by force(law) without their consent, then find and post some statistics from these same states showing student test scores before their teachers were union, and then show test scores after the teachers' unions took over in those states.



That would lend more credence to your claim that students in states where teachers don't have a right to work without unions achieve higher test scores.



As for the "chicken little" claims that without unions, we'll go back to an 80-hour, eight day work week where women and children are chained to their work stations in a 187 degree shop for 16 hours a day; there's a perfect example that exists today that completely debunks such claims: Compare working conditions at a Ford or GM(Gov't/UAW-owned) where the UAW is entrenched with vehicle assembly plants in the US that are open(non-UAW) shops. Are the workers in the open-shop plants subject to such horrible conditions as claimed to return without "union protection"? Nope, didn't think so. As others have previously stated, nowadays we have a plethora of Fed/State/Local gov't agencies & regulations (far too many in my opinion) that oversee/micromanage such things that didn't exist way back in the day when unions first rose to power "fighting" for better working conditions, wages, etc. Which pretty much renders the unions obsolete in this regard. So then the question needs to be asked: What real purpose do unions serve in modern American society? Especially public sector unions...
 
Train Trac,



I tried several times to show the error in the logic of the chicken little belief. No you have presented another clear argument against it.



I'd love to see a reply and a discussion about that specific point that doesn't include rhetoric and unqualified assertions that cannot be backed up.



But the fact that none have come so far leads me to believe that we are onto something... (I won't be so arrogant as to say "we are right").



The only purpose that I can see that unions serve in the public sector is as a "big stick" and leverage that allows civil servants to negotiate/demand better benefits and higher salaries. That is really all that they provide, well that and a formal grievance process, and a few other things that are of lesser importance to the employee, I suspect. The unions are therefore self-serving, which in itself is not bad.



If civil servants lost that leverage due to unions going away, then the question is, would salaries decrease? Would benefits decline? Would jobs for good employees become more at risk for loss? Maybe. Heck, salaries and benefits decline all the time in different companies and sectors in the private sector. Good people get fired when a company can't support them. What were commonplace benefits one decade (full medical insurance) becomes less so, and then non-existent later on (now we have jointly-paid insurance, co-pays, premiums, etc). What was once a secure job or industry is not so anymore. Certain things will expand and contract based on the needs of the organization, and what it can afford and sustain...akin to survival of the fittest, evolution, organics.



Does this mean the 5 day work week, the 40 hour work week, vacation time, sick time, etc, etc, will go away in the sans-unions scenario? Such is VERY, VERY unlikely...for all the reasons you quoted.



Civil servants don't want the big stick to go away. I can appreciate that. Many of them took their jobs because of the better benefits, the better job security, and the less anxiety that their jobs would afford them versus private sector jobs. Losing those things no doubt is causing a lot of anxiety...one of the things they wanted to avoid.



So, yes, I will be the first to agree that for the civil servant, disbanding of the unions will not be comfortable, and not necessarily be the best for them, certainly not ALL of them.



But I think it will level the playing field on several fronts, the playing fields of the private and public sector. It will allow employees to move more freely from one sector to the other, and through that movement both sectors and their employees (and the organizations and companies) will be better served, and provide better, more cost effective services and products.



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's interesting to note the two biggest union supporters have never lived a day without a union being involved in their lives. Some of us come from union families and have been members of unions, so we have a better perspective of the impact, or lack thereof, a union membership may provide.



Les,



Please confirm, if you are refering to me regarding this comment.



I would hate to type some information in if you are not refering to me.





Tom
 
TJR,



I don't expect a rational, logical response to my comments. Haven't received one yet, so I doubt one will come now. That's OK, though. And I wouldn't consider it arrogance to say that we're right, but confidence supported by rational discussion and actual facts backed up by credible sources, statistics, etc.



As for public sector unions, I would submit that they are not necessary, nor were they ever necessary. Hell, even Democrat icon FDR and former AFL-CIO president George Meany were not in favor of public sector unions: <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions">F.D.R. Warned Us</A>



Were public-sector working conditions, wages, etc. so horrible back in the day that civil servants needed unions to "fight" for better conditions? Since public-sector collective bargaining first became allowed in 1959, I'm not old enough to know for certain if conditions were bad prior to that, but I seriously doubt it.



So why then did collective bargaining become allowed in the public sector? Simple: To grow union membership numbers, collect more dues, and increase union power and influence in politics.



Public sector unions are nothing more than a money-laundering operation for the Democrat party.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QyxuUjgHkgs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Do We Still Need Unions? No.



Lets end a privileged class.



by Mark McKinnon



April 1968: Sanitation workers strike in Memphis.



The manufactured Madison, Wis., mob is not the movement the White House was hoping for. Both may find themselves at the wrong end of the populist pitchfork. While I generally defend collective bargaining and private-sector unions (lots of airline pilots in my family), it is the abuse by public unions and their bosses that pushes centrists like me to the GOP. It is the right and duty of citizens to petition their government. The Tea Party and Republicans seek to limit government growth to protect their pocketbooks. Public-union bosses want to increase the cost of government to protect their racket.



1. Public unions are big money.

Public unions are big money. Paul Krugman is correct: we do need some counterweight to the political power of big money. But in the Alice in Wonderland world where whats up is down and whats down is up, Krugman believes public unions do not represent big money. Of the top 20 biggest givers in federal-level politics over the past 20 years, 10 are unions; just four are corporations. The three biggest public unions gave $171.5 million for the 2010 elections alone, according to The Wall Street Journal. That's big money.



2. Public unions redistribute wealth.

Public employees contribute real value for the benefit of all citizens. Public-union bosses collect real money from all taxpayers for the benefit of a few. Unlike private-sector jobs, which are more than fully funded through revenues created in a voluntary exchange of money for goods or services, public-sector jobs are funded by taxpayer dollars, forcibly collected by the government (union dues are often deducted from public employees paychecks). In 28 states, state and local employees must pay full union dues or be fired. A sizable portion of those dues is then donated by the public unions almost exclusively to Democratic candidates. Michael Barone sums it up: public-employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.



3. Public unions silence the voters voice.

Big money from public unions, collected through mandatory dues, and funded entirely by the taxpayer, is then redistributed as campaign cash to help elect the politicians who are then supposed to represent taxpayers in negotiations with those same unions. In effect, the unions sit on both sides of the table and collectively bargain to raise taxes while the voters voice is silenced. But the noisy mob in Madison is amplified beyond its numbers. Wisconsin faces a $137 million deficit this year, and a $3.6 billion shortfall in the next two-year budget. The proposals offered by Gov. Scott Walker would avert 5,500 layoffs of public employees and save $300 million. The public unions, representing just 300,000 government employees in the Badger State, are trying to trump the will of the voters. Though voters dont get to sit at the bargaining table, they do speak collectively at the ballot box.



4. Public unions are unnecessary.

The primary purpose of private-sector unions today is to get workers a larger share of the profits they helped create. But with a power greater than their numbers, these unions have destroyed the manufacturing sector, forcing jobs overseas by driving labor costs above the price consumers here will pay. The government is a monopoly and it earns no profits to be shared. Public employees are already protected by statutes that preclude arbitrary hiring and firing decisions.



The primary purpose of public unions today, as ugly as it sounds, is to work against the financial interests of taxpayers: the more public employees are paid in wages and uncapped benefits, the less taxpayers keep of the money they earn. Its time to call an end to the privileged class. And the White House makes a mistake if it thinks it can grow a manufactured and uncivil unrest into a popular movement. Voters will not follow those who flee.



<A HREF="http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/27/do-we-still-need-unions-no.html">Do We Still Need Unions? No.</A>



Everything that Is Wrong with Public Sector Unions in Thirty Seconds



Posted By Mike Flynn On March 7, 2011



<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/avB_iFEURY4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/avB_iFEURY4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>



* We've allowed labor unions to become monopoly personnel providers for many state and local governments

* We force employees to make weekly payments to union leaders

* The union leaders use these payments to hire lobbyists to agitate for more government spending

* The union leaders use these payments to spend millions on campaigns to elect politicians

* The union leaders then negotiate with these politicians to set pay, benefits and work rules for their members

* The politicians know that if they cross the union leaders, their reelection plans are more complicated

* We fund the whole thing



This is an excerpt. Full article can be read here: <A HREF="http://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2011/03/07/everything-that-is-wrong-with-public-sector-unions-in-thirty-seconds/">Everything that Is Wrong with Public Sector Unions in Thirty Seconds</A>

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Les,



Good point about objectivity. I have worked in industries dominated by unions, been a union member, and worked in jobs and industries not dominated by unions. I have seen first hand both sides of the fence.



Maybe Caymen and Frank have too. I'm not sure. But it is a good point that one might be more objective if they haven't been exposed to only (or mostly) one side of the equation.





TrainTrac,



Great last post. I especially like that you countered the notion of the "union busting GOP". I know it comforts some to blame the "other side" for all the ills in the nation, and when they fear change, and I will admit a general allegiance between democrats and unions has always, historically existed. But, the lines are not so clear, and the issue not so black and white along political boundaries. That is probably why, though I am a registered Republican, I am essentially a moderate when it comes to rights, views, and voting.



The greatest motivator I have in most all my political views is the constant wish for smaller federal government, and more individual rights and freedoms in general. That might be considered a stark contrast to the seeming right of civil servants to unionize. But I submit that to me, I feel there is no such right, not really, for civil servants, and largely because granting so would give TOO MUCH POWER to the govt. The civil servants become the government, or at least a cost center for the government. If they have too much power in defining their own benefits, salaries, directions, etc, then that leads to more costly, if not bigger government. Those things run against my ideology.



I think the regretable period was when we introduced (allowed) unions into the public sector. We should have kept that from happening, for the very sake of limiting, not expanding government.



Now, this is where some might point out that the GOP-led Whitehouse of late have run up the defecit, and how GOP and small government has become an oxymoron. I won't disagree, but that to me would be a deflection. At a certain point one has to "stop spilling milk", and "start righting wrongs", regardless of how far back the wrong was introduced.



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HAAA.--Good jokes all have a one thing in common. There is a stinging truth that hits home for us all.



A CEO, a tea party republican, and a union worker are all sitting at a table when a plate with a dozen cookies arrives. Before anyone else can make a move, the CEO reaches out and grabs eleven of the cookies. When the other two look at him in surprise, the CEO locks eyes with the tea party republican. "You better watch him," the executive says with a nod toward the union worker. "He wants a piece of your cookie."



Divide and conquer is the game here TJR. The Union men (or women) will stick together and FIGHT for a FAIR SHARE of the last cookie. The mindless sheep will fall for the trick and give it away. Now Les TJR and Bud- don't think I'm singling you out...for all I know you may be fabulously wealthy. hahahah WAKE UP BOYS !



Ill keep em comin'

Frank
 
Frank,



True to form with your deflections, your avoidance of serious questions and your use of divisive rhetoric in order to camouflage your inability to discuss this important issue in any meaningful manner.



I think I now better understand the true reasons for your disdain for executives/CEOs and your reliance on the crutch that is union representation in the workplace. Those that "can't" often dislike and don't trust those that "can" and tend to endear those that take care of them. Essentially, it's class envy and the antithesis of "rugged individualism" in action. It is also one of the reasons that I think unions can be harmful... because they further an adversarial dynamic in the workplace, and they tend to act as a disincentive for workers.



Care to answer my questions above? If not, then I guess you are admitting that there really is no credible, logical rationale for keeping unions in the public sector that you can actually back up. Your avoidance so far is saying that very thing...loudly.



No matter how much you dodge the questions and the points that Les and TrainTrac have posted with responses filled with rhetoric and laced by you with the words "truth" and "fact" there is one thing you can't avoid. What proponents can't avoid is that no one seems able to present any compelling reasons for retaining unions in the public sector. Go ahead... find or author something that gives a well articulated, credible set of reasons for retaining unions in the public sector... Or at least answer the questions above.



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's interesting to note the two biggest union supporters have never lived a day without a union being involved in their lives. Some of us come from union families and have been members of unions, so we have a better perspective of the impact, or lack thereof, a union membership may provide.



Les, to answer your question.



From 1992 to 1995, I worked for a company that busted concrete and sawed and bored concrete for the construction industry. Many weeks, I worked over 40 hours, but was paid straight rate for all of the hours I worked. I did not get ANY OT pay for hours worked over 40 hours. I complained to the labor board and it went nowhere. This was a non-union job.



From 1995 to 2004, I worked in the NDT industry and worked in many states. I worked many very long shifts, including a shift with travel of 3 hours each way for a total of 40 hours straight. In 2001, I spent over 260 days away from home working on the road. During that time, I got the title of Senior NDE Specialist with Level II qualifications in MT, PT, RT, VT, UT, and ET. I was also certified as an FAA Repairman specializing in NDE. I wanted to get my CWI really bad to round out my certifications. Who got the opportunity to get a CWI? The bosses hunting/fishing buddy. I missed a couple friends funerals because I was out of town and the other boss's buddy couldn't go because "he had church". This was also a non-union job.



In 2004, I left that company to work for my current employer. The hourly employees are represented by the Boilermakers union. While I worked there, I had an 8 hour day with optional over time. If I worked sunday, I was paid double my hourly rate. This made up for the missed time I would spend with my family and friends.



In 2008, I got laid off by that employer due to a reduction in workforce. Shortly after I was laid off, I was offered a salary position supervising the guys I used to work with. I accepted that position. The guys were very happy to hear that I took the position. They knew my work habits, my work ethics, and I understood what their job was like and what they have to deal with on a daily basis. Since then, I have recieved a promotion (50% more responsibility with 1% less pay...Yay Me!) and rumors have it that I will be getting another soon. This is a non-union job in a union shop.



On the other hand, my father worked for Ford motor Company for 43.5 years. he was a member of the UAW. He gave his sweat and blood to the company. he has almost been killed a couple of times while at work and his body is physically beat up. He suffers from Asbestos from the asbestos in the plant.



In exchange for time served, he has recieved a fair retirement along with health care until he and my mother reached the age to get on Medicare.



So, you accused me of not living one day without a union being in my life. I have worked since I was 14 years old. I don't count any of my jobs before 1992, because I entered the "full time" workforce after I graduated High School in 1991 and I worked my high school job thinking I had a future in it. As you can see, since 1992 to 2011 (19 years) I have worked union for 4 of those years.



I also have come from a union family, so I do have the perspective of the good unions do.



Does that clear some of your misconceptions about me and my experience up, or are you going to "pretend you didn't see it" and drop the subject?





Tom
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey TJR I bet you never got dirty in your life. (worked like a Union man) You have all day to post these elaborate rants on this silly board. You sit in front of a computer screen I bet, and sip tea. Watching some lying freak who never served in our armed forces break down the Union man for the network Billionaires. Why dont you grab a shovel, better yet...go on top of a steel-framed hi-rise and throw Ibeams into place for 12 hours a day then talk to me. Cause until you do that- I GOT NOTHIN FOR YA!



I dont feel you warrant any explanations from me about how I feel about my Union. Because, frankly, you havent walked an inch in my shoes. Or any working mans shoes. Im sure you can concoct some story about when you were in college you dug a trench or something..but I know FOR A FACT that you are just stirring up dissent because you are jealous that there are still some men who work REAL working mens jobs and have the B*lls to stand up for themselves.



I put myself through college son. I worked in the Laborers Union the entire time also. I worked 40+ hours and took classes and as you right-leaning losers say..."pulled myself up by my bootstraps" I can work and think circles around any of you, and I venture to say could sit down and polish off a fifth for dessert. Laughing at your weakness.



Im not going away. I RELISH debating the likes of you and Les and Bud etc.. It sharpens my skills for the real fights I endure with lawyers and industry fat cats. To me, dealing with second rate scabs like you is like watching an episode of the 3 stooges. Ya know whats comin' and it is always fun to watch. "The Three Blind Mice".



Anyway, I know that the American dream is having the OPPORTUNITY to maybe do what I was lucky enough to do, and provide a better life for my family. I WILL not let that dissappear like you and the other short sighted seem to be wanting. The OPPORTUNITY MUST be there for the strong to take. If it is gone, so is the dream.



Truth=Frank
 
Frank said:
Hey TJR I bet you never got dirty in your life. (worked like a Union man



You would be wrong. Local 157 Laborers Union. Paid dues in '84, '85, '86 while working highway construction. Almost joined the local teamsters union too, but left that job before I made that commitment.



BTW, the reason I was working that job was to put myself through college.



Oh, and I am NOT your son. My dad was a lifelong member of that same union.



As for relishing debating Les, Bud, TrainTrac and I, I wish you actually would. You haven't even come close to articulating any truly meaningful point that makes your case in any credible way...YET. NOT ONE!



As for TRUTH = FRANK... whiskey, tango, foxtrot. Funny stuff. You talk a good game, but so far you and the other proponents have done NOTHING except spread a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and claim all this chicken little crap and talk of the value of unions of 1950...but you have said NOTHING to make your case as to why we need, really need unions in the public sector today. Not one shread. Heck, you can't even find meaningful, thoughtful articles that make that case. Nothing. Yet TrainTrac, Les and I have presented articles, and made points that you simply cannot seem to refute.



I've even tried to make it easy for you by posting some open questions for you to answer so that you could begin to better articulate your case, and your position. But, you wouldn't have it. Instead, you went off on a tangent like some ADHD kid that has had his Ritalin (tm) replaced with crack.



What are you afraid of, Frank? Seriously. Stop the attacks, and the rhetoric and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS...



So, once again, answer my questions, or consider enjoying a steaming hot cup of...



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, and Frank...



When you say things like:
I dont feel you warrant any explanations from me about how I feel about my Union. Because, frankly, you havent walked an inch in my shoes. Or any working mans shoes. Im sure you can concoct some story about when you were in college you dug a trench or something..but I know FOR A FACT that you are just stirring up dissent because you are jealous that there are still some men who work REAL working mens jobs and have the B*lls to stand up for themselves.



You really, really, really make a complete and utter (censored) out of yourself with statements like the above. You are wrong about what you claim to know above FOR A FACT. Talk about balls, or lack thereof...I make it my personal creedo to NEVER say something to someone online that I wouldn't say to their face.



I kind of doubt you would say the above to my face. And, if you would, then once again, it shows why YOU NEED someone speaking for you.



Please be quiet Frank, or not...if you can't be quiet, at least try to be less of a distraction. There are adults trying to run the country for you, and to preserve your right to act and speak as a childish little (censored).



You don't know me, other than what I tell you. Believe what you want. But through your words, you speak VOLUMES about yourself. It must be really, really sad and frustrating in your world.



If you meant to push my button, well, you did.



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You said "I almost joined the local Teamsters" My dupa you did. You dont just knock on the door of a local and tell them you wanna join. FABRICATION.



I know a FABRICATION when I see it. Face it TJR... If you had anyone to vouch for you, (especially in New York) you would still be IN that Union making some mans money. Nah... we don't believe you.



Yes it is a sad day in the U.S.A. when being a good Union man is somehow a bad thing.



I hope someday you are outsourced TJR and have to work some crummy rat-construction for a tightwad cracker who pays you 10 bucks an hour to shuck drywall in an alley. Then we will talk. And talk about The Union, we will.







 
Frank,



No fabrications here...no lies. I was a local laborer. I considered becoming a teamster, but to be fair never really got that far down that road, so my use of the term "almost" was probably not the best. Still, not a lie.



I never said being a union man is a bad thing. Heck, I never even said unions are a bad thing. I simply am one that is critical of them, and very critical of those who sing their praises but can't really articulate the current value of unions for them and for others. So far, that includes you.



I'm no longer in that union, or in New York state because I got a degree in computer engineering then a masters in computer science, worked for several world class companies since, and never looked back. I have no reason to tell you how much I make, but I an assure you it is real money.



Yeah, I could have my job outsourced tomorrow, and if that happens I will only have myself to blame and only have myself to fix that problem... And, to me, that is the ultimate definition of a man. Someone who takes care of themselves, charts their own course, steers clear of the problems, and when things do get rough he solves his own problems.



I have no malice for people that want unions to help them with those things, for whatever reason. That's fine for them and fine for unions. I just don't want any part of it, and I don't want my tax dollars to subsidize workfare, etc.



Lastly, if you or Caymen wish to continue to call me a liar, by all means, please make the trip and say so to my face. Again, it seems to me that is what a man would do. If you feel so inclined, send a union rep. ;-)



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Top