The ONLY way to bring jobs back to America is to lower the minimum wage to $2/hr.
This is the only way we can compete with China. Paul Ryan and my fellow republicans need to act on this now. Employers also should not have to carry the burdern of paying for health care either. Go get em Paul!
@GOPkicksbutt I have a better idea. Get rid of minimum wage entirely, as well as all labor and environmental laws and business regulations and taxes on business, social security, EPA, OSHA, the labor board, etc. Give business a blank check and watch our economy scream with growth, leaving China in the dust!
Trumka's a typical union thug. Card check is anti-American and any American worth their salt knows it stinks like shit on a stick. Unions have destroyed this country and this punk Trumka and is a power hungry commie hell bent on on destroying America. Drop dead Trumka!
@TuskAmerica If I was President, I would outlaw all unions and declare them to be terrorist organizations, then hammer them with both RICO and the Patriot Act, execute all their members and supporters or send them to Gitmo, freeze their bank accounts, and seize all their assets and property.
No, sell-out bitches like you who kiss the ass of the rich have destroyed America. How do you look at yourself in the mirror? You're disgusting. You're another retard successfully brainwashed by Fox News to sell his fellow workers down the river. Remember this: your boss has nothing but contempt for you. He thinks you're a useful idiot.
@profd65 Newsflash dumbass. The rich invested in themselves and got an education to make something of themselves while you and your fellow libs sat around smoking a fucking bong and drinking your 40 ounce bottles of malt liquor. They took all the risks starting their companies and worked 14 hours a day or more, 7 days a week, to make their businesses successful. Anyone with enough drive, ambition, moxie, hustle, and just plain "GO GO GO GO" can make it in this country.
@DarrelfromZeeland Wah wah wah wah wah I've heard the same bullshit about rich assholes for years. They didn't get rich all by themselves they had help from all their pion underlings. Just because they invested and worked hard does not give them a right to fuck over their help by not letting them unionize. If they want sympathy it's in the dictionary between shit and syphilis
@darkstar3x16 Finally someone who knows what's going on. My brother's construction company only hires Mexicans. They're perfectly happy working for $3 an hour and a free meal voucher at lunch. The whole entitlement mentality is killing America. About the only thing that Americans, especially younger ones is good for is killing muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gosh, I'd love to hire Americans but every time I do I have to pay them 5x as much and all they give me is a bag of excuses at the end of the week why they could not get the job done.
@RCSuperPowers You can thank the entitlement mentality taught them by the unions and public schools and everything liberalism has ever spawned for that.
because it hasnt, funny the banks were not union and the collapsed
a shop i worked for as a kid was not union and it collapsed,
a little math say a UAW employee working on a car is only 10% of the total price of the car so even if they work for free (with republicans would love i-e slavery) its only 10%
so u agree that unions should not be allowed? in 2010 or any year? were they ever good in your mind or was the time labor being untreated fairly just "capitalism" to u?
@yaroukh If I was President, I would outlaw all unions and declare them to be terrorist organizations, then hammer them with both RICO and the Patriot Act, execute all their members and supporters or send them to Gitmo, freeze their bank accounts, and seize all their assets and property.
What a complete bag of crap. It starts with the premise that corporations are bad. They are paper creations designed to run a business. Corporations are neither good or bad. Greed has nothing to do with corporations per say. Corporations that have happy employees and produce goods or services at the maximum profit possible. That means they must pay enough to not loose employees and they must not charge too much or they loose market share. Emotion is not part of the equation.
Hey, here's a thought, put a dancing black guy wearing a speedo while singing im a little teapot on your video, and you might just gain a little more interest from the American audience.
The EFCA is nothing more than a transparent attempt by union leadership to regain power in a workplace that finds them increasingly marginalized if not outright useless. Sooner or later they need to realize that they've been marginalized for the same reasons that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been marginalized on racial issues. The only greed here is coming from those union leaders who don't want to continue losing the money and power they've grown accustomed to.
Being a Union leader, I'd love to know what in the hell you're talking about! I LOSE money by needing to take off of work and go to Union-related meetings. Where can I get my hands on some of this money and power that you claim we get? Maybe I could quit busting my arse to feed my family. LOL
The company must have something to lose, whether in the form of the work of a contracted worker or whatever.
Compulsory unionism forces a company to unionize by taking away all other alternative. Nonunion companies can hire workers of either group; that is in their right. However, compulsory unionism takes away that choice. Is the auto industry allowed to hire non-unionized workers?
No thanks. Unions are becoming as greedy as the CEOs they are attacking, so what's the difference? I'd rather have 1 CEO that can be fired, rather than 30,000 workers with union-backed tenure that cannot. Unions have ruined our education system and our automobile industry. There is a system of checks & balances currently available in the marketplace with how unions are formed. If we swing that balance in favor of unions, it will only get worse.
Then wouldn't it make sense to get rid of the one employee who makes what the combined 30,000 make? Our union has no tenure. How long have the Big 3 been in business? (100 years to destroy a business???-lmao)
Which Big-3 CEO makes $1.5 billion dollars a year? 30,000 x 50,000 (income per year). I don't think you did your math, buddy.
I digress. With the woes of the American auto industry, you need to cut costs everywhere - CEOs, workers, and increase efficiency. Why are non-union companies coming out of this without issues while the Big-3 are imploding?
I was making a point Turd. Name ONE Union employee that gets a million dollar bonus or gets to fly around in a private jet. Do a little homework - those nonunion car companies' sales have slumped more than the Big 3. How long has Toyota or Honda been in business compared to them? The huge pay disparity sure isn't what Henry Ford had in mind.
Due to the union's collective bargaining agreement, union employees can't get bonuses. That's the unions fault, not the company. Furthermore, I am sure that the union heads get to fly around in jets and make all kinds of money from those union dues.
That's the problem with unions: The average worker gets screwed out of bonuses and has pay ceilings for the greater good of the communist collective.
Pick a contract and show me where it's listed in the Agreement that bonuses are not allowed. That's BS. As one of the "Union heads" - I can assure you that our Union wouldn't approve of maintaining a private jet. LOL Furthermore - any trip we take gets paid out of our own pockets and we get reimbursed when we return! Unions are for a liveable wage - not getting filthy rich(er) That's where we differ on mindset - YOU want it for YOU. I want it for US.
Been a busy week at Union headquarters... California teachers union bankrupts California because arnie couldn't stop them. GM/Chrysler now owned by the union that destroyed them. GM will pay out all the stupid lawsuits (even thought they don't have to) because the ambulance chaser billionaires stand shoulder to shoulder with union thugs working feverishly to destroy the american economy with their pretty-boy puppet Obama.
The only people that were rewarded for failure were the people that were given tax money by our government. In true capitalism, failure is failure. Case closed. If you don't think you make enough money in your job, go start your own company. That's what Henry Ford, Walter P. Chrysler did. But for you union supporters, it's just easier to extort from an existing business, eh? Remember, if your employer is greedy, you have a right to go someplace else to work, or start your own business.
Henry Ford took care of his workforce. If you check your history, you'll see that outrageous salaries paid to execs wasn't what he had intended. Our Union supplies trained craftsmen to businesses that need a job to be completed. They wouldn't keep calling the Union Hall if we weren't making money for them.
It's funny, that they would bring up these bailouts and how companies are so greedy that they are not paying the workers more. Perhaps the companies could raise wages if they weren't in debt because of the workers they hired don't make as much as they receive. Perhaps the companies could live without bailout had it not been for the unions that demanded exorbitant pensions and benefits.
Unions sap the life out of the very companies that keep them alive.
Union workers pay for their own pensions. Who pays for the company's private jets?What's the percentage difference in pay between a worker and an exec? Maybe if the leadership that is outrageously overpaid knew what in the hell is going on the company's wouldn't be in such bad shape. I mean, isn't that why they call it "leadership" and claim the huge wages and perks?
Being a business executive, contrary to popular belief, is not an easy job. Brain surgeons are paid many times more than nurses; the former's position is highly specialized. Similarly, few has the ability or the qualifications to be a business executive; hence the salary is (and should be) much higher than that of the common worker.
The companies are like their children; they hold the ultimate responsibility. As CEOs are reprimanded for failures they should be rewarded for success.
The President of the US doesn't get paid what execs do. Execs pay has risen by an unGodly multiplier compared to what those who do the work have gotten.For all the money that execs demand,you'd think that they'd be qualified enough to not let their businesses go belly up.Unions NEGOTIATE their pay with Management.BOTH sides agree on a price.Sounds a lot fairer than how execs draw their pay.I didn't see any UAW members flying on a private jet to DC trying to get money from Uncle Sam.
Aha, but you see, the President manages a country, whose purpose is to secure the unalienable rights of its citizens. A CEO on the other hand manages a company, whose purpose is to make money. Therefore the President's salary is not an appropriate benchmark for a CEOs salary; while they both hold executive power, their positions exist for different purposes.
CEOs should be qualified, else, they should be fired for not doing their job. But not all "belly up"s are caused by management.
What then, is management's purpose?Name some "belly ups" where management is not responsible. Isn't the President a Chief Executive? Does he have any say in how the Treasury is run?You're claiming that the Presidnet of the US shouldn't make what top executives make?
A case in point is the forcing of a company to pay for workers it cannot afford--factor that led to the degeneration of the auto industry.
True, unions negotiate pay. But now, are you not trying to protect these negotiations by law, i.e. forcing a company to bend? Then the "agreement" drawn is no longer voluntary. With a government gun pressed to its back, businesses cannot refuse. Is extortion fair?
Bailouts filter through companies, eventually ending in the hands of union workers.
No the auto industry management WANTED to provide health care in place of a nationalized system.What management failed to take into account was what happened when pensioners outnumbered active members by a decisive multiplier. Again - union members' wages/benefit packages are NEGOTIATED with management. I'd love to make $100/hr but understand that I'd price myself right out of a job. Why make anyone break a contract? Isn't that illegal?
The executives purpose is simply to organize the business to maximize productivity and profits. Examples: Standard Oil, American Steel. The President is an executive but his purpose is to manage the government, to protect the people-not to make money. If a President were to be in the same position as a CEO, he would be able to sell his people, to lay them off, if you will. But he cannot: citizens hold priority over profits. The President does his job for the public good, not for the paycheck.
Not if that position is in the public sector. Remember, the President's job is to ensure the welfare of the nation that elected him: certainly the temptation to overstep the bounds of the presidency is tempting, but it is first and foremost a job of service.
Besides, as far as official power is concerned, the President doesn't have much compared to, say, the President of China or the Prime Minister of the UK.
I am unaware. However, I am not unaware of the number of executive orders his predecessors issued in their terms (see FDR), and therefore have pointed out the temptation to overstep presidential bounds (executive orders are not provided for in the constitution).
You appear to be unaware of how many times Tony Blair sent British troops into battle during his premiership (5 versus Bush's 2). A US President would never be able to get away with that.
Breaking a contract is illegal, I give you that; however, were not looking at how the contract is upheld but at how the contract is drawn. But lets return to the point: if you let me into your house, do I have the power to dictate what you give me? You can treat me however you like, as long as you dont infringe on my right to life. If I object to your treatment of me (e.g. you're not giving me enough tea, or so on), then I have every right to leave.
Visiting a house and providing for a family are two entirely different issues.If I agree to invite you and tell you I'm having steak for dinner, wouldn't you be a little disappointed when I pulled out bologna sandwiches?If I got you to enter under false pretense, I'd expect you to leave.Workers expect a liveable wage.
Your first sentence is irrelevant to the discussion. Please revise it before it can be addressed.
I would be disappointed, but I don't have the power to demand the steak if you don't wish to provide it. I'd leave if the sandwiches are not worth my time. I may beg for a steak, but I don't have a right to it; in other words, I cannot force you by any means to procure a steak. Nothing the workers expect has to be fulfilled (unless required by law). They may leave, but they may not impose.
The problem is discussing real world topics with someone who has no experience actually living through them. Without experience, you're stuck with theories. Ask any scientist/inventor how far they get without testing anything.
The first part of your comment is totally unsupported. I don't recall revealing any personal information here or on the other thread.
Perhaps, but the scientist/philosopher has to have an idea before it may be tested. One cannot start from nothing. Something has to be there to be elaborated, to be improved.
Ask philosophers. Ask economists. Ask mathematicians. The nature of their work does not always allow them to test everything. Yet their works are supported and believed to be accurate.
Without a market economists are useless. Philosophy is pretty abstract. Math can also be abstract, but, it still relies on experience. Belief is not proof.
My profile says I'm a student of philosophy and economics. By this you deduce that I've never lived in the real world? What is your major premise?
"Experience" is vague. I can "experience" a mathematical function by solving it, or simplifying it, but it does not mean I've applied it in the sense you mean. Of course belief is not proof. But a logical proof is.
It's easy to figure out that someone at your age doesn't have real world experience compared to....someone my age. I've experienced some of these ideas that sound great on paper, but, don't work when put into practice.
Thats rather pessimistic, that those ideas work only in theory as sound alternatives to what's implemented now. That which cannot work in theory cannot work applied (communism: failure magnified by application); a thing that works in theory may work in application: so why try that which doesn't in theory?
We can't say that they havent worked in real life—they have. We can't say that they can't do any more—they can. Their apparent failure is due to resorting to subjective interpretation.
Similarly, the owner of a company has the right to choose what he receives and what his employees receive (he owns the company as you own your house)--fully aware that his workers may leave if they choose. Note that if he cares for the well-being of his company he would not pay himself too much as to detract from its productivity. Note that he would not pay his employees so little that he cannot attract enough qualified employees.
No I didn't. But if you can make a reasonable case that I have, then by all means go ahead.
I don't think you know what happened to the examples I cited. Both companies were broken up--in essence, destroyed--in the government-waged war against monopolies. The managements consisted of some of the most talented entrepreneurs and businessmen to have ever lived.
The CEO acts in lieu of the owner: he is the owner's appointment. His actions should be consistent with the wishes of the owner.
That is beside the point, but to answer your question: Anti-trust laws are created to create competition yet they do not. They oppose the very capitalism that they purportedly support, and destroy the fruits of men's labor, claiming that in doing so stimulate progress. Unfortunately this is not the case. Antitrust laws suppress potential progress and punishes success.
Monopolies crush any chance of competition. Once they have the market cornered they can set (as history proves) any price however outrageous, and, make unreasonable demands.
Have you heard of creative destruction? It was first proposed by Joseph Schumpeter of the Austrian school of economics, that in a capitalistic society, older, less efficient ideas are killed and replaced by better ones. He also spoke of monopolies: that monopolies, while dominating the market in the short run, create incentives for innovation from the smaller companies that desire market power. Thus, monopolies, while seemingly counterproductive, may stimulate progress.
No, you misread: I said a monopoly induces progress, not necessarily helps smaller competitors.
Schumpeter cited the Aluminum Company of America, which improved in order to maintain market power. In 1929, its inflation-adjusted price has dropped to only 8.8 percent of what it was in 1890 and its production increased over 3400%.
That assumption is not relevant to the discussion.
However, I do think that workers are mostly, if not completely, responsible for making sure that they are not being exploited against their will (e.g. leaving a company or appealing to the court).
...or not. The workers' responsibility is to find an alternative, not to impose their will upon others--which leaves them to hold dangerous double standards.
It is because of this one-sided leaning that I oppose the EFCA, which brings me back to the point I made before: unions subtly uses force to get what they want from others--the equivalent of extortion--under the protection of law. A man deserves to keep that which he earns, and no one has the right to take them away.
Have you ever experienced this "force"? Is this "force" the same as the employer who has a not-so-subtle force called the threat of getting fired? (which our government has decided is illegal) Extortion is illegal - collectively bargaining is not. I'm surprised you are unable to tell the difference. Wages are negotiated with the employer - how is that extortion. The employer AGREES to the contract.
You yourself said that collective bargaining is one-sided. In this case, there is no reason for the unfavored party to participate in such a bargain, for the opposing side wins at their expense. Yet you contend that this is fair. There is a difference between someone agreeing to something by will and another who has a weapon pressed to his back.
Don't recall claiming that Cosgrove. Collective bargaining is a negotiated contract. Employees and employers both agree to a deal. How in the heck can you claim that one side is being threatened?
A strike (which is very often union-led) is a form of extortion. The workers drop whatever they are paid to do, and refuse to go to work and/or picket outside of the facilities. The company, who hired these people on legal contracts and expected them to work, must bend to their demands else lose valuable revenue. The union then manipulates the company's distress. This process is, in other words, a threat to stop production and consequently undermine the company.
Actually (perhaps if you've had the experience) a strike is only called for when there is LACK of an agreed upon contract. The Union's job is to avoid any work stoppage. It is even illegal for the Union to tell it's members whether or not to cross a picket line. You're really showing an extreme lack of knowledge (experience?) on the subject. Being a Union Officer - I live this and know and follow the laws. Your perception is completely delusional - but they are common myths. I'm happy to explain
So when you say that companies agree to the terms you fail to mention that in the first levels of proposition, they did not - which instigated the workers to boycott the premises and play on the consequent desperation. (Peer pressure, anyone?)
The EFCA endorses card-check compulsory unionism; namely, forcing everyone in the company to be unionized. A labor monopoly is created - a company cannot hire other than union employees - and is destructive to the right of association and the free market.
Isn't a boycott simply a choice that anyone can decide for themselves what to do about ?
The EFCA doesn't take away any secret ballot as there is none currently in place.
Weren't you in favor of monopolies?! LMAO A Union is not a monopoly as they don't unilaterally demand a set price. Again-contracts are NEGOTIATED.Unions don't get anything that Management isn't willing to give them.
You're really slipping Cosgrove - especially after not having any clue what a strike is all about.
A boycott is a valid choice for consumers of goods and services but not for labor, because the workers are bound by contract and the buyers are not.
I never said it takes away the secret ballot; honestly I could care less. I was speaking of the compulsory unionism, which leaves the company no one but union workers.
Compulsory unionism strips away the right of association, that a worker cannot be separate with a compulsorily unionized company.
You really should check out definitions because you're interghanging terms and it further shows that you son't have any idea what you're talking about. Strikes do not take place when there is a contract in place. Boycotts are completely voluntary. (ie Wal-Mart)
You have committed the fallacy of equivocation; "monopoly" in the case of labor is not the same as those I defended earlier. So you LMAO is uncalled for.
I meant a monopoly in the case that a company has only unionized workers to hire - which does not stimulate progress because those who may be better qualified but do not want to associate with unions cannot work in said company.
I don't want to give you my boots, but after you neglect your contract, thereby cutting off my food supply, then I have to agree-in which case I am willing to give them to you to preserve myself.
The same it is with unions, which operate under a pretense of collaboration and just negotiation. Sorry, but keeping this fact veiled from others (or yourself) is an act of moral delusion or moral evasion.
As Andros Blaze so eloquently put, "you would have nothing without the corporations". If you find that you can without guilt defect from morality, you may try to strip the fundamental right to choose-and consequently, the right to life-away from the corporate executives, from the very people who keep you alive. I, on the other hand, will remain by morality and refuse to hold contradictions. I, on the other hand, want to live--sustained by my own life, and not by those of others.
I can solve this entire debate with one short phrase...."GO UNION OR GO HOME!" you scabs, union busting assholes...yea keep working for nothing, keep working with no pension, and ruin what our grandfathers worked so hard to accomplish.....i will not respond to any comments because this debate makes me sooo angry..I"m PROUD to be union and from a strict union family..IUOE Local 4...Teamsters Local 25..enough said
Seeing as Unions only make up 12% of the country's workforce, how can any rational person blame Unions for the predicament we're in? To me it says we need more organizing and to look after "We The People" - those who actually build the US. It's time to throw the moneychangers out of the temple.
40% of corporate profits are from the financial sector. Industrial companies are getting slaughtered because of the unions. No one in his right mind builds a factory up north where it is just a union thugocracy. All the foreign automakers are down south where they pay their workers a decent wage without unions terrorizing them and demanding to be paid $65/hour with full benefits to mow the lawn.
LMAO The financial sector is in such great shape! The largest road project in WI history just ended (under budget and ahead of schedule) and the State blew $80,000 thanking the UNION workers in an ad campaign. No nonunion contractor can do what we do.
Your price just got lower by $10 to mow a lawn. It's still inflated and that's further proof that you're full of crap.
Just out of curiosity... how much do your laborers get per hour?
In nearby Michigan they have 15% unemployment.. those boys would kill for a union job and jump at $12 an hour non-union. If you hired those people instead of overpaid union workers the cost would have been cut in half.
Capital intensive businesses like factories, airlines are at the mercy of the unions because the unions can bankrupt the company by going on strike. Unions are simply criminal extortion.
Ask the Air Traffic Controllers how their strike went under Reagan. LMAO When is the last time workers went on strike and put a company out of business as a result?
I'm an Ironworker, not a Laborer - couldn't tell you the scale.
Union ironworkers work an honest day, are skilled and don't cause problems (so far as I know) and Negotiate relatively fairly. The UAW are a bunch of evil scum, so are the gov't employee unions (teachers unions, etc).
UAW shut down GM in 1998, which cost them billions. UAW destroyed GM and now owns it and used their political connections to get $100 billion from their puppet Obama. UAW got $65/hour for guys to mow the lawn through extortion (pay us or you lose billions in shut down factories).
Unions are an evil thugocracy that play off of worker's insecurities. Unions WANT the economy to suck so that workers are dependent on them. Unions ran GM, Ford, Chrysler, US Steel, Eastern, Pan Am, Philadelphia, Detroit, California into the ground (AND THEY LOVE DESTORYING THINGS). As Lenin said "the worse the better".. Unions are evil marxist criminal organizations that want to destroy our once proud country and make workers dependent on them.
Can you tell me why any association with Communism is against our Union's Constitution? Car companies WANTED to pay for health care so that it wouldn't be nationalized. Because of that there are now too many retirees depending on the active workers putting into the Pension fund. People like you with NO CLUE about how Unions work crack me up.
Unions come from marxism. Unions are a marxist idea. Totally anti-american. Go to europe where lazy people belong.
GM's sales shrunk and they got hammered by the unions who refused to renegotiate. 1,000 per car was going to health care. They unions bankrupted the company and then took it over.
Well, the Union workers' wages are NEGOTIATED.(look that word up and stop looking silly) I'd love to make $100/hr, but realize that I'd price myself out of a job. Labor AND Management both AGREE on a wage.
Unions are a cancer that wants to spread itself as far as possible. Unions benefit union administrators first and foremost, union members second, and all at the expense of the general public being forced to pay more for their captive companies products.
unions have a place, but it should not be prominent. they should take care of workers in high risk jobs but unions have no lace outside of high risk employment. In my job, those of us who aren't unionized get paid more, get better bonuses, and we get fired if we do a shit job. Law of the jungle, the way of the world, and humans are no exception to that rule.
Unions need to be abolished. Kill the monster, burn it, pour acid on it and bury it. They have grown evil and too powerful. We can;t compete in a global economy with them. Unionized companies stand no chance. Workers need rights, but in the modern world unions get get them unemployed when their company goes bankrupt.
You will often hear people say that millionaires "worked hard for their money", but when you examine this closer,many of them simply inherited the money, so remember to say, "I didn't realize inheriting a fortune was such hard work". Thank God money can't buy everything, and that is a fact. Money never makes anyone correct - just rich.
Unions are simple extortion rackets. They do not make jobs, they destroy them like GM, Chrysler, Ford, US Steel, Pan Am, etc.. They are like racoons and destroy all they touch. Hard workers don't need unions. I'll hire a hard worker any day. Unions destroy everything and they've destroyed this country.
Unions have always fought for the rights of workers. Unions created the 8 hour work day, they're the reason you're required to get a break. Unions are the reasons you get overtime. the reason GM, Chrysler, Ford were destroyed was bad business practice, it had nothing to do with Unions.
Last time I checked lots of people get jobs and great pay without benefits WITHOUT A UNION!! The difference between a union and a non union job is that your union company will be bankrupt in 10 years. GM, Chrysler, Ford, Pan Am, Eastern, US Steel... all gone thanks to union thugs.
Funny how EVERY union industry has collapsed? Unions destroy all. GM was paying $1000 per car in union retiree health benefits. The unions strangled and destroy them. Unions need to be abolished to save our once great country. Let the american worker make an honest wage without extortion and bankrupting our country.
I'm a Union Ironworker and our industry keeps growing.The waiting list to get in is hundreds of names long.Unions didn't strangle the auto industry.Wages were NEGOTIATED with management.Look at what the car execs make compared to the workers and tell me who's to blame.
Jackass... guys who mowed lawns at Delphi Electronics were being paid $75 dollars an hour. Unions DONT NEGOTIATE, they EXTORT. Don't give us what we want, F-U, we shut down your factories. Unions are just organized crime, which is why the mafia and unions are joined at the hip. Watch goodfellas.
Delphi is right down the street from me Archimedes. Nobody got paid $75/hr to mow lawns. FYI-Goodfellas was a fictional movie - not real life. You'd better stay away from Spongebob cartoons or you'll think the world is flooded. LMAO
I am a Union Rep. I will tell you that the good of our members comes before myself. As for the collective Agreement, we work with the company in hard times. My first goal is to make sure everyone still has a job. I HAVE DONE MY JOB!!! The plant next door well @ least someone turn out the light's. They work against the company. Now the wildlife has taken over.
Unions have historically been a leading force for Democracy and Human Rights. The History on that is clear. That's exactly why such enormous efforts have been undertaken in The United States in a relentless and a self-conscious Class War to undermine and destroy them. The basic method of this successful Anti- Union War, was illegally firing thousands of workers for exercising their rights to organize. Management tried to undermine our rights under The Wagner Act, or the 1935 Labor Relations Act.
The National Labor Relations Act, or (Wagner Act) is a 1935 U.S. Federal Law, that protects the rights of workers in the private sector to organize Labor Unions, and to engage in "collective bargaining." The Wagner Act drove business berserk, they thought they had the country by the throat; but, along comes The Great Depression, and old F.D.R. signing this legislation. So, the ink was barely dry from the President's pen, before the business community set about undermining the rights in this act.
The top 3% ultra rich Washington power base are trying to divide the work force and the middle class, right to work states and union busters are dragging down wages, benefits abd political power for all the middle class and they are brainwasheing people in to thinking its a good thing. The current Wal-Mart economic model is driving the middle class in to debt, and out of jobs. Yes we need to have reform across the board, and we will not get it if we let the 3% guys divide us.
Actually, the Wal-Mart economic model was shown, in a study by Global Insight, to save $287 billion for consumers in 2007 (or, in real terms, $2,500 per household). Also, they were one of the only companies to report positive growth during the recession, on top of an increase to bonuses for employees. If you'd ask me, I'd say we need more companies like Wal-Mart, who provide cheap commodities to the middle class, and profit without union pressures hamstringing them.
Wal-Mart might save consumers a few bucks, but, they make up for it in charging taxpayers to make up for lack of benefits that are offered to it's employees.The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion. [The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]
What the government does is beyond the management of a corporation; whether the government provides these services is not under Wal-Mart's jurisdiction. So in essence, spending tax money for Wal-Mart employees may have been instigated by the store, yes, but the decision to do so was entirely made by the government. If one has a problem with taxation, the government--as the ultimate decision maker--is at fault, even if a citizen or another entity provided the incentive to do so.
Once again - your lack of going beyond the hypothesis stage finds no answers. The problem is not with the government that tries to look after it's people. That is one of the government's jobs.
You say the government "looks after" its people by providing aid. What do you feel about a completely planned economy, then? Nobody starves in the ideal case. Nobody is poor (nobody is rich either). Is this the looking after you refer to?
The Declaration of Independence states that the purpose of a government is to secure the rights of its people. Is government aid a right?
I described a theory to which I do not subscribe. I was asking you if you believe in central planning, because your previous comment gave the impression of a collectivist. I'm describing it unrealistically because I don't believe it can exist realistically.
I assume you mean the right to food and water. No, the right to food and water does not exist. However, it is a right to pursue food and water.
What you're suggesting is a society in which reality is determined through majority rule. As The Onion pleasantly reported that people voted for "the right for chicken done right," what a majority wants does not necessarily conform to reality. No matter how many people refuse to believe in the existence of gravity, gravity isn't going away any time soon.
YES TO UNIONS!!!! JUST NOT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNIONS!
razoredge45 5 months ago
This ad makes no sense. Go after employers because wall street is greedy!
RAWR! BAD CAPITALISM, BAD!
wulfmanUNCP 7 months ago
The ONLY way to bring jobs back to America is to lower the minimum wage to $2/hr.
This is the only way we can compete with China. Paul Ryan and my fellow republicans need to act on this now. Employers also should not have to carry the burdern of paying for health care either. Go get em Paul!
GOPkicksbutt 9 months ago
@GOPkicksbutt , Great idea! As soon as all the CEOs agree to hold their total benefit packages to $50,000.00/year . It's the ONLY way...
goneatlast 6 months ago
@GOPkicksbutt try and live on $2.00 an hour. paul ryan is a douche and so are you
mrumsower 4 months ago
@GOPkicksbutt I have a better idea. Get rid of minimum wage entirely, as well as all labor and environmental laws and business regulations and taxes on business, social security, EPA, OSHA, the labor board, etc. Give business a blank check and watch our economy scream with growth, leaving China in the dust!
DarrelfromZeeland 4 months ago
@DarrelfromZeeland Problem is we would become China with the majority of our citizens living in abject poverty
1963danno 4 days ago
@nfwvideo1 Newsflash dumbass. The unions supported Hitler. Many of his stormtroopers were also union members.
DarrelfromZeeland 1 year ago
@DarrelfromZeeland
Yea, Hitler was also a vegetarian, retard. Does that make vegetarianism bad?
profd65 4 months ago
@nfwvideo1 Hitler was an ATHEIST LIBTURD. Libs are such a treacherous bunch.
DarrelfromZeeland 1 year ago
what
jayteezy69 1 year ago
Lame
scottcasper187 1 year ago
Trumka's a typical union thug. Card check is anti-American and any American worth their salt knows it stinks like shit on a stick. Unions have destroyed this country and this punk Trumka and is a power hungry commie hell bent on on destroying America. Drop dead Trumka!
TuskAmerica 1 year ago
@TuskAmerica Suck a dick
rickbar123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TuskAmerica If I was President, I would outlaw all unions and declare them to be terrorist organizations, then hammer them with both RICO and the Patriot Act, execute all their members and supporters or send them to Gitmo, freeze their bank accounts, and seize all their assets and property.
DarrelfromZeeland 1 year ago
@TuskAmerica
No, sell-out bitches like you who kiss the ass of the rich have destroyed America. How do you look at yourself in the mirror? You're disgusting. You're another retard successfully brainwashed by Fox News to sell his fellow workers down the river. Remember this: your boss has nothing but contempt for you. He thinks you're a useful idiot.
profd65 4 months ago
@profd65 Newsflash dumbass. The rich invested in themselves and got an education to make something of themselves while you and your fellow libs sat around smoking a fucking bong and drinking your 40 ounce bottles of malt liquor. They took all the risks starting their companies and worked 14 hours a day or more, 7 days a week, to make their businesses successful. Anyone with enough drive, ambition, moxie, hustle, and just plain "GO GO GO GO" can make it in this country.
DarrelfromZeeland 4 months ago
@DarrelfromZeeland Wah wah wah wah wah I've heard the same bullshit about rich assholes for years. They didn't get rich all by themselves they had help from all their pion underlings. Just because they invested and worked hard does not give them a right to fuck over their help by not letting them unionize. If they want sympathy it's in the dictionary between shit and syphilis
1963danno 4 days ago
Sounds like something a dictator or terrorist would do
rad77248 1 year ago
Immigrants work for lose and don't complain
I think we need to change and be grateful that we have a job.
darkstar3x16 1 year ago
@darkstar3x16 Finally someone who knows what's going on. My brother's construction company only hires Mexicans. They're perfectly happy working for $3 an hour and a free meal voucher at lunch. The whole entitlement mentality is killing America. About the only thing that Americans, especially younger ones is good for is killing muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
DarrelfromZeeland 1 year ago
@DarrelfromZeeland It's the same in western Europe all people care is which government will give them the biggest welfare check.
darkstar3x16 1 year ago
@DarrelfromZeeland How is that helping the rest of us??????????? Your brother is a criminal and a douche bag besides.
1963danno 4 days ago
Gosh, I'd love to hire Americans but every time I do I have to pay them 5x as much and all they give me is a bag of excuses at the end of the week why they could not get the job done.
RCSuperPowers 1 year ago
@RCSuperPowers You can thank the entitlement mentality taught them by the unions and public schools and everything liberalism has ever spawned for that.
DarrelfromZeeland 1 year ago
Class warfare.
Max20854 1 year ago
UAW is cancer and disgrace to all working people.
Spit on you, parasites!
yaroukh 2 years ago
brave behind a screen arnt we
nfwvideo 2 years ago
How does this change the fact that Unions cause companies to collapse in whole western world?
yaroukh 2 years ago
because it hasnt, funny the banks were not union and the collapsed
a shop i worked for as a kid was not union and it collapsed,
a little math say a UAW employee working on a car is only 10% of the total price of the car so even if they work for free (with republicans would love i-e slavery) its only 10%
nfwvideo 2 years ago
People die even when they don't have cancer. Does that mean cancer can't kill?
Your attemt to defend organised racketeering known as Unions was weak as they usually come...
yaroukh 2 years ago
yet u defend compaies that take away the right to unionize do u know back in the 20 and 30s companies killed people that tried to unionize
do u defend that?
nfwvideo 2 years ago 2
The problem with you is that you haven't accepted the year. It is not 20s nor 30s. It is 2010.
yaroukh 2 years ago
so u agree that unions should not be allowed? in 2010 or any year? were they ever good in your mind or was the time labor being untreated fairly just "capitalism" to u?
nfwvideo 2 years ago
There's no point in arguing with unionist, as there is no in arguing with someone defending ransom or theft.
yaroukh 2 years ago
well if u wont answer my questions than your right there us no point in arguing
later
nfwvideo 2 years ago
@yaroukh If I was President, I would outlaw all unions and declare them to be terrorist organizations, then hammer them with both RICO and the Patriot Act, execute all their members and supporters or send them to Gitmo, freeze their bank accounts, and seize all their assets and property.
DarrelfromZeeland 1 year ago
@DarrelfromZeeland I would just ass fuck your mom.
rickbar123 1 year ago
@yaroukh , get a clue!
piknfish 1 year ago
@piknfish STFU
yaroukh 1 year ago
What a complete bag of crap. It starts with the premise that corporations are bad. They are paper creations designed to run a business. Corporations are neither good or bad. Greed has nothing to do with corporations per say. Corporations that have happy employees and produce goods or services at the maximum profit possible. That means they must pay enough to not loose employees and they must not charge too much or they loose market share. Emotion is not part of the equation.
R2old 2 years ago
wow try living in reality
dhickoxiraq 2 years ago 2
Hey, here's a thought, put a dancing black guy wearing a speedo while singing im a little teapot on your video, and you might just gain a little more interest from the American audience.
chip345 2 years ago 2
The EFCA is nothing more than a transparent attempt by union leadership to regain power in a workplace that finds them increasingly marginalized if not outright useless. Sooner or later they need to realize that they've been marginalized for the same reasons that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been marginalized on racial issues. The only greed here is coming from those union leaders who don't want to continue losing the money and power they've grown accustomed to.
jdbolick 2 years ago
Being a Union leader, I'd love to know what in the hell you're talking about! I LOSE money by needing to take off of work and go to Union-related meetings. Where can I get my hands on some of this money and power that you claim we get? Maybe I could quit busting my arse to feed my family. LOL
IWLocal8 2 years ago 2
The company must have something to lose, whether in the form of the work of a contracted worker or whatever.
Compulsory unionism forces a company to unionize by taking away all other alternative. Nonunion companies can hire workers of either group; that is in their right. However, compulsory unionism takes away that choice. Is the auto industry allowed to hire non-unionized workers?
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
No thanks. Unions are becoming as greedy as the CEOs they are attacking, so what's the difference? I'd rather have 1 CEO that can be fired, rather than 30,000 workers with union-backed tenure that cannot. Unions have ruined our education system and our automobile industry. There is a system of checks & balances currently available in the marketplace with how unions are formed. If we swing that balance in favor of unions, it will only get worse.
MrTurdFurgeson 2 years ago
Then wouldn't it make sense to get rid of the one employee who makes what the combined 30,000 make? Our union has no tenure. How long have the Big 3 been in business? (100 years to destroy a business???-lmao)
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Which Big-3 CEO makes $1.5 billion dollars a year? 30,000 x 50,000 (income per year). I don't think you did your math, buddy.
I digress. With the woes of the American auto industry, you need to cut costs everywhere - CEOs, workers, and increase efficiency. Why are non-union companies coming out of this without issues while the Big-3 are imploding?
MrTurdFurgeson 2 years ago
I was making a point Turd. Name ONE Union employee that gets a million dollar bonus or gets to fly around in a private jet. Do a little homework - those nonunion car companies' sales have slumped more than the Big 3. How long has Toyota or Honda been in business compared to them? The huge pay disparity sure isn't what Henry Ford had in mind.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Due to the union's collective bargaining agreement, union employees can't get bonuses. That's the unions fault, not the company. Furthermore, I am sure that the union heads get to fly around in jets and make all kinds of money from those union dues.
That's the problem with unions: The average worker gets screwed out of bonuses and has pay ceilings for the greater good of the communist collective.
MrTurdFurgeson 2 years ago
Pick a contract and show me where it's listed in the Agreement that bonuses are not allowed. That's BS. As one of the "Union heads" - I can assure you that our Union wouldn't approve of maintaining a private jet. LOL Furthermore - any trip we take gets paid out of our own pockets and we get reimbursed when we return! Unions are for a liveable wage - not getting filthy rich(er) That's where we differ on mindset - YOU want it for YOU. I want it for US.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Been a busy week at Union headquarters... California teachers union bankrupts California because arnie couldn't stop them. GM/Chrysler now owned by the union that destroyed them. GM will pay out all the stupid lawsuits (even thought they don't have to) because the ambulance chaser billionaires stand shoulder to shoulder with union thugs working feverishly to destroy the american economy with their pretty-boy puppet Obama.
Ingenue001 2 years ago
The only people that were rewarded for failure were the people that were given tax money by our government. In true capitalism, failure is failure. Case closed. If you don't think you make enough money in your job, go start your own company. That's what Henry Ford, Walter P. Chrysler did. But for you union supporters, it's just easier to extort from an existing business, eh? Remember, if your employer is greedy, you have a right to go someplace else to work, or start your own business.
cpgne 2 years ago
Henry Ford took care of his workforce. If you check your history, you'll see that outrageous salaries paid to execs wasn't what he had intended. Our Union supplies trained craftsmen to businesses that need a job to be completed. They wouldn't keep calling the Union Hall if we weren't making money for them.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Only an ignoramous or an idiot would believe this video.
stick1to2the3issue 2 years ago
It's funny, that they would bring up these bailouts and how companies are so greedy that they are not paying the workers more. Perhaps the companies could raise wages if they weren't in debt because of the workers they hired don't make as much as they receive. Perhaps the companies could live without bailout had it not been for the unions that demanded exorbitant pensions and benefits.
Unions sap the life out of the very companies that keep them alive.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Union workers pay for their own pensions. Who pays for the company's private jets?What's the percentage difference in pay between a worker and an exec? Maybe if the leadership that is outrageously overpaid knew what in the hell is going on the company's wouldn't be in such bad shape. I mean, isn't that why they call it "leadership" and claim the huge wages and perks?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Being a business executive, contrary to popular belief, is not an easy job. Brain surgeons are paid many times more than nurses; the former's position is highly specialized. Similarly, few has the ability or the qualifications to be a business executive; hence the salary is (and should be) much higher than that of the common worker.
The companies are like their children; they hold the ultimate responsibility. As CEOs are reprimanded for failures they should be rewarded for success.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
The President of the US doesn't get paid what execs do. Execs pay has risen by an unGodly multiplier compared to what those who do the work have gotten.For all the money that execs demand,you'd think that they'd be qualified enough to not let their businesses go belly up.Unions NEGOTIATE their pay with Management.BOTH sides agree on a price.Sounds a lot fairer than how execs draw their pay.I didn't see any UAW members flying on a private jet to DC trying to get money from Uncle Sam.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Aha, but you see, the President manages a country, whose purpose is to secure the unalienable rights of its citizens. A CEO on the other hand manages a company, whose purpose is to make money. Therefore the President's salary is not an appropriate benchmark for a CEOs salary; while they both hold executive power, their positions exist for different purposes.
CEOs should be qualified, else, they should be fired for not doing their job. But not all "belly up"s are caused by management.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
What then, is management's purpose?Name some "belly ups" where management is not responsible. Isn't the President a Chief Executive? Does he have any say in how the Treasury is run?You're claiming that the Presidnet of the US shouldn't make what top executives make?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
A case in point is the forcing of a company to pay for workers it cannot afford--factor that led to the degeneration of the auto industry.
True, unions negotiate pay. But now, are you not trying to protect these negotiations by law, i.e. forcing a company to bend? Then the "agreement" drawn is no longer voluntary. With a government gun pressed to its back, businesses cannot refuse. Is extortion fair?
Bailouts filter through companies, eventually ending in the hands of union workers.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
No the auto industry management WANTED to provide health care in place of a nationalized system.What management failed to take into account was what happened when pensioners outnumbered active members by a decisive multiplier. Again - union members' wages/benefit packages are NEGOTIATED with management. I'd love to make $100/hr but understand that I'd price myself right out of a job. Why make anyone break a contract? Isn't that illegal?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
The executives purpose is simply to organize the business to maximize productivity and profits. Examples: Standard Oil, American Steel. The President is an executive but his purpose is to manage the government, to protect the people-not to make money. If a President were to be in the same position as a CEO, he would be able to sell his people, to lay them off, if you will. But he cannot: citizens hold priority over profits. The President does his job for the public good, not for the paycheck.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Bush invaded Iraq and set his friends up with no-bid contracts. Being the most powerful person in the world isn't worthy of a top CEO paycheck?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Not if that position is in the public sector. Remember, the President's job is to ensure the welfare of the nation that elected him: certainly the temptation to overstep the bounds of the presidency is tempting, but it is first and foremost a job of service.
Besides, as far as official power is concerned, the President doesn't have much compared to, say, the President of China or the Prime Minister of the UK.
androsblaze 2 years ago
You're obviously unaware of the record number of "Executive Orders" that Bush II wrote.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
I am unaware. However, I am not unaware of the number of executive orders his predecessors issued in their terms (see FDR), and therefore have pointed out the temptation to overstep presidential bounds (executive orders are not provided for in the constitution).
You appear to be unaware of how many times Tony Blair sent British troops into battle during his premiership (5 versus Bush's 2). A US President would never be able to get away with that.
androsblaze 2 years ago
Bush lied both of our countries into a fullout invasion. It should be treated for what it is - a war crime.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Then by all means, prosecute.
androsblaze 2 years ago
First of all: who gets to decide who is "worthy"? You? Where does this money come from?
A CEO differs from the President is that the former earns his own money by producing that which is demanded and receiving his salary in exchange.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Breaking a contract is illegal, I give you that; however, were not looking at how the contract is upheld but at how the contract is drawn. But lets return to the point: if you let me into your house, do I have the power to dictate what you give me? You can treat me however you like, as long as you dont infringe on my right to life. If I object to your treatment of me (e.g. you're not giving me enough tea, or so on), then I have every right to leave.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Visiting a house and providing for a family are two entirely different issues.If I agree to invite you and tell you I'm having steak for dinner, wouldn't you be a little disappointed when I pulled out bologna sandwiches?If I got you to enter under false pretense, I'd expect you to leave.Workers expect a liveable wage.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Compounding the gaffe would be my INTENT to decieve you...
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Your first sentence is irrelevant to the discussion. Please revise it before it can be addressed.
I would be disappointed, but I don't have the power to demand the steak if you don't wish to provide it. I'd leave if the sandwiches are not worth my time. I may beg for a steak, but I don't have a right to it; in other words, I cannot force you by any means to procure a steak. Nothing the workers expect has to be fulfilled (unless required by law). They may leave, but they may not impose.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
If the entire purpose of the invitation is to eat steak and I have no intent of giving you any, what is that called?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Which sentence, or do I need to scroll back 12 pages. The comments are not yet sequenced.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
"Visiting a house and providing for a family are two entirely different issues."
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
The problem is discussing real world topics with someone who has no experience actually living through them. Without experience, you're stuck with theories. Ask any scientist/inventor how far they get without testing anything.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
The first part of your comment is totally unsupported. I don't recall revealing any personal information here or on the other thread.
Perhaps, but the scientist/philosopher has to have an idea before it may be tested. One cannot start from nothing. Something has to be there to be elaborated, to be improved.
Ask philosophers. Ask economists. Ask mathematicians. The nature of their work does not always allow them to test everything. Yet their works are supported and believed to be accurate.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
It's deduction based on perusal of your profile.
Without a market economists are useless. Philosophy is pretty abstract. Math can also be abstract, but, it still relies on experience. Belief is not proof.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
My profile says I'm a student of philosophy and economics. By this you deduce that I've never lived in the real world? What is your major premise?
"Experience" is vague. I can "experience" a mathematical function by solving it, or simplifying it, but it does not mean I've applied it in the sense you mean. Of course belief is not proof. But a logical proof is.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
21 years old says that there is a lack of experience.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
It's easy to figure out that someone at your age doesn't have real world experience compared to....someone my age. I've experienced some of these ideas that sound great on paper, but, don't work when put into practice.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Thats rather pessimistic, that those ideas work only in theory as sound alternatives to what's implemented now. That which cannot work in theory cannot work applied (communism: failure magnified by application); a thing that works in theory may work in application: so why try that which doesn't in theory?
We can't say that they havent worked in real life—they have. We can't say that they can't do any more—they can. Their apparent failure is due to resorting to subjective interpretation.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Can you get any more vague? LOL
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Forgive me; there's not much room to be specific in 500 characters.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Similarly, the owner of a company has the right to choose what he receives and what his employees receive (he owns the company as you own your house)--fully aware that his workers may leave if they choose. Note that if he cares for the well-being of his company he would not pay himself too much as to detract from its productivity. Note that he would not pay his employees so little that he cannot attract enough qualified employees.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Didn't you just help prove my point? Management is responsible for the corporate disasters. CEO does not always equate with owner.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
No I didn't. But if you can make a reasonable case that I have, then by all means go ahead.
I don't think you know what happened to the examples I cited. Both companies were broken up--in essence, destroyed--in the government-waged war against monopolies. The managements consisted of some of the most talented entrepreneurs and businessmen to have ever lived.
The CEO acts in lieu of the owner: he is the owner's appointment. His actions should be consistent with the wishes of the owner.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Monopolies should be allowed?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
That is beside the point, but to answer your question: Anti-trust laws are created to create competition yet they do not. They oppose the very capitalism that they purportedly support, and destroy the fruits of men's labor, claiming that in doing so stimulate progress. Unfortunately this is not the case. Antitrust laws suppress potential progress and punishes success.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Monopolies crush any chance of competition. Once they have the market cornered they can set (as history proves) any price however outrageous, and, make unreasonable demands.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Have you heard of creative destruction? It was first proposed by Joseph Schumpeter of the Austrian school of economics, that in a capitalistic society, older, less efficient ideas are killed and replaced by better ones. He also spoke of monopolies: that monopolies, while dominating the market in the short run, create incentives for innovation from the smaller companies that desire market power. Thus, monopolies, while seemingly counterproductive, may stimulate progress.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
What monopoly has helped a smaller competitor?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
No, you misread: I said a monopoly induces progress, not necessarily helps smaller competitors.
Schumpeter cited the Aluminum Company of America, which improved in order to maintain market power. In 1929, its inflation-adjusted price has dropped to only 8.8 percent of what it was in 1890 and its production increased over 3400%.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Can I assume that workers being exploited isn't a concern of yours?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
That assumption is not relevant to the discussion.
However, I do think that workers are mostly, if not completely, responsible for making sure that they are not being exploited against their will (e.g. leaving a company or appealing to the court).
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
...or forming a Union.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
...or not. The workers' responsibility is to find an alternative, not to impose their will upon others--which leaves them to hold dangerous double standards.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Are you aware of how a Union gets a contract?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
By a process called collective bargaining. But recently this process has been rather one-sided.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
It's been one-sided in favor of the nonunion sector - which is why I support the EFCA.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
It is because of this one-sided leaning that I oppose the EFCA, which brings me back to the point I made before: unions subtly uses force to get what they want from others--the equivalent of extortion--under the protection of law. A man deserves to keep that which he earns, and no one has the right to take them away.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Have you ever experienced this "force"? Is this "force" the same as the employer who has a not-so-subtle force called the threat of getting fired? (which our government has decided is illegal) Extortion is illegal - collectively bargaining is not. I'm surprised you are unable to tell the difference. Wages are negotiated with the employer - how is that extortion. The employer AGREES to the contract.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
You yourself said that collective bargaining is one-sided. In this case, there is no reason for the unfavored party to participate in such a bargain, for the opposing side wins at their expense. Yet you contend that this is fair. There is a difference between someone agreeing to something by will and another who has a weapon pressed to his back.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Don't recall claiming that Cosgrove. Collective bargaining is a negotiated contract. Employees and employers both agree to a deal. How in the heck can you claim that one side is being threatened?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Excuse me, I misread. But anyway:
A strike (which is very often union-led) is a form of extortion. The workers drop whatever they are paid to do, and refuse to go to work and/or picket outside of the facilities. The company, who hired these people on legal contracts and expected them to work, must bend to their demands else lose valuable revenue. The union then manipulates the company's distress. This process is, in other words, a threat to stop production and consequently undermine the company.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Actually (perhaps if you've had the experience) a strike is only called for when there is LACK of an agreed upon contract. The Union's job is to avoid any work stoppage. It is even illegal for the Union to tell it's members whether or not to cross a picket line. You're really showing an extreme lack of knowledge (experience?) on the subject. Being a Union Officer - I live this and know and follow the laws. Your perception is completely delusional - but they are common myths. I'm happy to explain
IWLocal8 2 years ago
So when you say that companies agree to the terms you fail to mention that in the first levels of proposition, they did not - which instigated the workers to boycott the premises and play on the consequent desperation. (Peer pressure, anyone?)
The EFCA endorses card-check compulsory unionism; namely, forcing everyone in the company to be unionized. A labor monopoly is created - a company cannot hire other than union employees - and is destructive to the right of association and the free market.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Isn't a boycott simply a choice that anyone can decide for themselves what to do about ?
The EFCA doesn't take away any secret ballot as there is none currently in place.
Weren't you in favor of monopolies?! LMAO A Union is not a monopoly as they don't unilaterally demand a set price. Again-contracts are NEGOTIATED.Unions don't get anything that Management isn't willing to give them.
You're really slipping Cosgrove - especially after not having any clue what a strike is all about.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
A boycott is a valid choice for consumers of goods and services but not for labor, because the workers are bound by contract and the buyers are not.
I never said it takes away the secret ballot; honestly I could care less. I was speaking of the compulsory unionism, which leaves the company no one but union workers.
Compulsory unionism strips away the right of association, that a worker cannot be separate with a compulsorily unionized company.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
You really should check out definitions because you're interghanging terms and it further shows that you son't have any idea what you're talking about. Strikes do not take place when there is a contract in place. Boycotts are completely voluntary. (ie Wal-Mart)
IWLocal8 2 years ago
You have committed the fallacy of equivocation; "monopoly" in the case of labor is not the same as those I defended earlier. So you LMAO is uncalled for.
I meant a monopoly in the case that a company has only unionized workers to hire - which does not stimulate progress because those who may be better qualified but do not want to associate with unions cannot work in said company.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Nonunion companies only hire nonunion workers. Does that mean that they have a monopoly as well?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
I don't want to give you my boots, but after you neglect your contract, thereby cutting off my food supply, then I have to agree-in which case I am willing to give them to you to preserve myself.
The same it is with unions, which operate under a pretense of collaboration and just negotiation. Sorry, but keeping this fact veiled from others (or yourself) is an act of moral delusion or moral evasion.
Are you sure? Even after your grievous fallacies?
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
What in the world are you talking about? Strikes don't take place while under a Contract. What neglect are you talking about?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Of course they don't. That is the point.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
You claimed that strikes occurred while the workers were under contract.That's completely false.
Are you claiming that nonUnion companies hire Union workers?
Not clear on which subject your reply was referring to.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
As Andros Blaze so eloquently put, "you would have nothing without the corporations". If you find that you can without guilt defect from morality, you may try to strip the fundamental right to choose-and consequently, the right to life-away from the corporate executives, from the very people who keep you alive. I, on the other hand, will remain by morality and refuse to hold contradictions. I, on the other hand, want to live--sustained by my own life, and not by those of others.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
I can solve this entire debate with one short phrase...."GO UNION OR GO HOME!" you scabs, union busting assholes...yea keep working for nothing, keep working with no pension, and ruin what our grandfathers worked so hard to accomplish.....i will not respond to any comments because this debate makes me sooo angry..I"m PROUD to be union and from a strict union family..IUOE Local 4...Teamsters Local 25..enough said
fuddmethen 2 years ago
Sorry, you can't send Tony and Vinny after me. I'm on the internet, so I can say what I think about union thugs running this company to hell.
Ingenue001 2 years ago
Seeing as Unions only make up 12% of the country's workforce, how can any rational person blame Unions for the predicament we're in? To me it says we need more organizing and to look after "We The People" - those who actually build the US. It's time to throw the moneychangers out of the temple.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
40% of corporate profits are from the financial sector. Industrial companies are getting slaughtered because of the unions. No one in his right mind builds a factory up north where it is just a union thugocracy. All the foreign automakers are down south where they pay their workers a decent wage without unions terrorizing them and demanding to be paid $65/hour with full benefits to mow the lawn.
Ingenue001 2 years ago
LMAO The financial sector is in such great shape! The largest road project in WI history just ended (under budget and ahead of schedule) and the State blew $80,000 thanking the UNION workers in an ad campaign. No nonunion contractor can do what we do.
Your price just got lower by $10 to mow a lawn. It's still inflated and that's further proof that you're full of crap.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Just out of curiosity... how much do your laborers get per hour?
In nearby Michigan they have 15% unemployment.. those boys would kill for a union job and jump at $12 an hour non-union. If you hired those people instead of overpaid union workers the cost would have been cut in half.
Capital intensive businesses like factories, airlines are at the mercy of the unions because the unions can bankrupt the company by going on strike. Unions are simply criminal extortion.
Ingenue001 2 years ago
Ask the Air Traffic Controllers how their strike went under Reagan. LMAO When is the last time workers went on strike and put a company out of business as a result?
I'm an Ironworker, not a Laborer - couldn't tell you the scale.
Again, look up the word "NEGOTIATE"
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Union ironworkers work an honest day, are skilled and don't cause problems (so far as I know) and Negotiate relatively fairly. The UAW are a bunch of evil scum, so are the gov't employee unions (teachers unions, etc).
UAW shut down GM in 1998, which cost them billions. UAW destroyed GM and now owns it and used their political connections to get $100 billion from their puppet Obama. UAW got $65/hour for guys to mow the lawn through extortion (pay us or you lose billions in shut down factories).
Ingenue001 2 years ago
I think teachers are the most underpaid profession there is. (my sister is a teacher)
How much did Dubya give GM?
Where did you get your $65/hr number? If all the person did was mow the lawn, I'd be tempted to apply myself. I think your number is off.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Unions are an evil thugocracy that play off of worker's insecurities. Unions WANT the economy to suck so that workers are dependent on them. Unions ran GM, Ford, Chrysler, US Steel, Eastern, Pan Am, Philadelphia, Detroit, California into the ground (AND THEY LOVE DESTORYING THINGS). As Lenin said "the worse the better".. Unions are evil marxist criminal organizations that want to destroy our once proud country and make workers dependent on them.
Ingenue001 2 years ago
Can you tell me why any association with Communism is against our Union's Constitution? Car companies WANTED to pay for health care so that it wouldn't be nationalized. Because of that there are now too many retirees depending on the active workers putting into the Pension fund. People like you with NO CLUE about how Unions work crack me up.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Unions come from marxism. Unions are a marxist idea. Totally anti-american. Go to europe where lazy people belong.
GM's sales shrunk and they got hammered by the unions who refused to renegotiate. 1,000 per car was going to health care. They unions bankrupted the company and then took it over.
Ingenue001 2 years ago
LMAO If there was any chance you could understand basic concepts, I'd explain them.
As far as lazy, there's no way you could do what I do for a living.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Was it the Union reps who flew on a private jet to DC for a bailout? What's the percentage differential between a UAW worker and an exec? Get a clue,
IWLocal8 2 years ago
They are all overpaid. The execs and the auto workers.
Ingenue001 2 years ago
Well, the Union workers' wages are NEGOTIATED.(look that word up and stop looking silly) I'd love to make $100/hr, but realize that I'd price myself out of a job. Labor AND Management both AGREE on a wage.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Unions are a cancer that wants to spread itself as far as possible. Unions benefit union administrators first and foremost, union members second, and all at the expense of the general public being forced to pay more for their captive companies products.
Unions are leeches on society's ass.
lowkeyg17 2 years ago
now that UAW took over chrysler... won't be wasting money buying a chrysler. i want a VEHICLE not a chip in on a health fund.
neoinarien 2 years ago
unions have a place, but it should not be prominent. they should take care of workers in high risk jobs but unions have no lace outside of high risk employment. In my job, those of us who aren't unionized get paid more, get better bonuses, and we get fired if we do a shit job. Law of the jungle, the way of the world, and humans are no exception to that rule.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
Unions need to be abolished. Kill the monster, burn it, pour acid on it and bury it. They have grown evil and too powerful. We can;t compete in a global economy with them. Unionized companies stand no chance. Workers need rights, but in the modern world unions get get them unemployed when their company goes bankrupt.
Ingenue001 2 years ago
Haven't ever heard that one before ;)
kipptumor 2 years ago
watch john stossels 'greed' to find out all about how evil it is
collapseofthedollar 2 years ago
Comment removed
collapseofthedollar 2 years ago
You will often hear people say that millionaires "worked hard for their money", but when you examine this closer,many of them simply inherited the money, so remember to say, "I didn't realize inheriting a fortune was such hard work". Thank God money can't buy everything, and that is a fact. Money never makes anyone correct - just rich.
kipptumor 2 years ago
you've got a quite warped view of the world
collapseofthedollar 2 years ago
Unions are simple extortion rackets. They do not make jobs, they destroy them like GM, Chrysler, Ford, US Steel, Pan Am, etc.. They are like racoons and destroy all they touch. Hard workers don't need unions. I'll hire a hard worker any day. Unions destroy everything and they've destroyed this country.
Ingenue001 2 years ago
I agree completely
reesinator 2 years ago
Unions have always fought for the rights of workers. Unions created the 8 hour work day, they're the reason you're required to get a break. Unions are the reasons you get overtime. the reason GM, Chrysler, Ford were destroyed was bad business practice, it had nothing to do with Unions.
tim12crl 2 years ago 5
Last time I checked lots of people get jobs and great pay without benefits WITHOUT A UNION!! The difference between a union and a non union job is that your union company will be bankrupt in 10 years. GM, Chrysler, Ford, Pan Am, Eastern, US Steel... all gone thanks to union thugs.
Ingenue001 2 years ago
10 years? The Big 3 have been around for 100 years - thanks to Unions.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Funny how EVERY union industry has collapsed? Unions destroy all. GM was paying $1000 per car in union retiree health benefits. The unions strangled and destroy them. Unions need to be abolished to save our once great country. Let the american worker make an honest wage without extortion and bankrupting our country.
Ingenue001 2 years ago
I'm a Union Ironworker and our industry keeps growing.The waiting list to get in is hundreds of names long.Unions didn't strangle the auto industry.Wages were NEGOTIATED with management.Look at what the car execs make compared to the workers and tell me who's to blame.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Jackass... guys who mowed lawns at Delphi Electronics were being paid $75 dollars an hour. Unions DONT NEGOTIATE, they EXTORT. Don't give us what we want, F-U, we shut down your factories. Unions are just organized crime, which is why the mafia and unions are joined at the hip. Watch goodfellas.
Ingenue001 2 years ago
Delphi is right down the street from me Archimedes. Nobody got paid $75/hr to mow lawns. FYI-Goodfellas was a fictional movie - not real life. You'd better stay away from Spongebob cartoons or you'll think the world is flooded. LMAO
IWLocal8 2 years ago
I am a Union Rep. I will tell you that the good of our members comes before myself. As for the collective Agreement, we work with the company in hard times. My first goal is to make sure everyone still has a job. I HAVE DONE MY JOB!!! The plant next door well @ least someone turn out the light's. They work against the company. Now the wildlife has taken over.
iwzindarkness 2 years ago 4
Unions have historically been a leading force for Democracy and Human Rights. The History on that is clear. That's exactly why such enormous efforts have been undertaken in The United States in a relentless and a self-conscious Class War to undermine and destroy them. The basic method of this successful Anti- Union War, was illegally firing thousands of workers for exercising their rights to organize. Management tried to undermine our rights under The Wagner Act, or the 1935 Labor Relations Act.
CosmicFork 2 years ago
The National Labor Relations Act, or (Wagner Act) is a 1935 U.S. Federal Law, that protects the rights of workers in the private sector to organize Labor Unions, and to engage in "collective bargaining." The Wagner Act drove business berserk, they thought they had the country by the throat; but, along comes The Great Depression, and old F.D.R. signing this legislation. So, the ink was barely dry from the President's pen, before the business community set about undermining the rights in this act.
CosmicFork 2 years ago
The top 3% ultra rich Washington power base are trying to divide the work force and the middle class, right to work states and union busters are dragging down wages, benefits abd political power for all the middle class and they are brainwasheing people in to thinking its a good thing. The current Wal-Mart economic model is driving the middle class in to debt, and out of jobs. Yes we need to have reform across the board, and we will not get it if we let the 3% guys divide us.
FluxCapacitor2008 2 years ago
Actually, the Wal-Mart economic model was shown, in a study by Global Insight, to save $287 billion for consumers in 2007 (or, in real terms, $2,500 per household). Also, they were one of the only companies to report positive growth during the recession, on top of an increase to bonuses for employees. If you'd ask me, I'd say we need more companies like Wal-Mart, who provide cheap commodities to the middle class, and profit without union pressures hamstringing them.
androsblaze 2 years ago
Wal-Mart is the biggest importer of Chinese goods. You don't think they also accelerate jobs leaving the US?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Wal-Mart might save consumers a few bucks, but, they make up for it in charging taxpayers to make up for lack of benefits that are offered to it's employees.The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion. [The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]
IWLocal8 2 years ago
What the government does is beyond the management of a corporation; whether the government provides these services is not under Wal-Mart's jurisdiction. So in essence, spending tax money for Wal-Mart employees may have been instigated by the store, yes, but the decision to do so was entirely made by the government. If one has a problem with taxation, the government--as the ultimate decision maker--is at fault, even if a citizen or another entity provided the incentive to do so.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Once again - your lack of going beyond the hypothesis stage finds no answers. The problem is not with the government that tries to look after it's people. That is one of the government's jobs.
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Once again: Check your premises.
What is the purpose of the government?
You say the government "looks after" its people by providing aid. What do you feel about a completely planned economy, then? Nobody starves in the ideal case. Nobody is poor (nobody is rich either). Is this the looking after you refer to?
The Declaration of Independence states that the purpose of a government is to secure the rights of its people. Is government aid a right?
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
That's my entire point that is being missed. Ideal does not exist. You're describing events as if they all take place inside a bubble.
Is it a right to eat?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
I described a theory to which I do not subscribe. I was asking you if you believe in central planning, because your previous comment gave the impression of a collectivist. I'm describing it unrealistically because I don't believe it can exist realistically.
I assume you mean the right to food and water. No, the right to food and water does not exist. However, it is a right to pursue food and water.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
What do you think a government's job is?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
I think I've said this before: securing the rights of the people.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Who determines the rights?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
Rather, not who, but what determines the rights?
Reason. Rights are not assigned arbitrarily by people onto others, but can be determined logically though objective reality.
The basic right to life is the right from which all others are derived. One example is property rights.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago
Rights are determined logically through objective reality? LOL
Within a Democracy, doesn't the majority have a say in what their rights are?
IWLocal8 2 years ago
So I take it, you're a non-absolute?
What you're suggesting is a society in which reality is determined through majority rule. As The Onion pleasantly reported that people voted for "the right for chicken done right," what a majority wants does not necessarily conform to reality. No matter how many people refuse to believe in the existence of gravity, gravity isn't going away any time soon.
CosgroveAlexander 2 years ago