61% of Americans favor collective bargaining rights

[Cuyo]

I will again state my disdain for polls, and how they can be manipulated.

Polls can change based on which answer is positive or negative
Polls can change on how the question is asked (live, phone, email)
Polls can change based on if the person asking asks for your name, or does it anonymous
Polls can change based on the wording of a question
Polls can change based on location/time of day/day of week
Polls can change based on questions asked before the main question

Finally all this can be changed based on sampling manipulation and data analysis.

The only poll that matters is in november.

I'm not big on posting or commenting on poll results either for a lot of the same reasons. But for God's sake, don't refute a legitimate poll with Rasmussen. That's a little pet peeve of mine and I can't just let it slide anymore.

Is your issue with Rasmussen with thier methodology or with your pereception of a right wing bias? To me both are not important, because polling to me is suspect in general.

There are probably some other polls with a bias in the opposite direction, but I have a feeling you wouldnt notice that, as it may agree with your politics.

It's right wing biased. My perception is unnecessary.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

When you have 5 other polls with a combined average of +5.6, then a lone holdout - Not at +1 or -2, but at -11, that should be suspicious.

Yes, as elections draw nigh (and the verdict is about to be rendered) Rasmussen has a tendency to drift closer to the other polls. But if you peruse all the polling on RCP you'll find they consistently have a Republican slanted result up until that point.

Of course Republicans, when confronted with this, quickly cast the accusation that ALL THE OTHER POLLS are slanted, and Rasmussen is the only legitimate one... Somewhat a la Fox News v All other outlets.

It's pretty childish, actually.

As I stated I'm not a fan of polls in general. But if we're going to discuss them, don't refute a legitimate one with a clearly slanted one.

 

[martybegan]

I'm not big on posting or commenting on poll results either for a lot of the same reasons. But for God's sake, don't refute a legitimate poll with Rasmussen. That's a little pet peeve of mine and I can't just let it slide anymore.

Is your issue with Rasmussen with thier methodology or with your pereception of a right wing bias? To me both are not important, because polling to me is suspect in general.

There are probably some other polls with a bias in the opposite direction, but I have a feeling you wouldnt notice that, as it may agree with your politics.

It's right wing biased. My perception is unnecessary.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

When you have 5 other polls with a combined average of +5.6, then a lone holdout - Not at +1 or -2, but at -11, that should be suspicious.

Yes, as elections draw nigh (and the verdict is about to be rendered) Rasmussen has a tendency to drift closer to the other polls. But if you peruse all the polling on RCP you'll find they consistently have a Republican slanted result up until that point.

Of course Republicans, when confronted with this, quickly cast the accusation that ALL THE OTHER POLLS are slanted, and Rasmussen is the only legitimate one... Somewhat a la Fox News v All other outlets.

It's pretty childish, actually.

As I stated I'm not a fan of polls in general. But if we're going to discuss them, don't refute a legitimate one with a clearly slanted one.

In the combined average of 5.6, is there another poll in that average that is slanted opposite of rasmussen? or do the other 5 hover around 3-7? The standard deviation would give you a better idea of the spread of the values.

Your last statement is very contradictory, you are not a fan of polls in general, yet you consider the ones that you agree with legitamate, but the one you do not agree with "slanted"

 

[Cuyo]

Is your issue with Rasmussen with thier methodology or with your pereception of a right wing bias? To me both are not important, because polling to me is suspect in general.

There are probably some other polls with a bias in the opposite direction, but I have a feeling you wouldnt notice that, as it may agree with your politics.

It's right wing biased. My perception is unnecessary.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

When you have 5 other polls with a combined average of +5.6, then a lone holdout - Not at +1 or -2, but at -11, that should be suspicious.

Yes, as elections draw nigh (and the verdict is about to be rendered) Rasmussen has a tendency to drift closer to the other polls. But if you peruse all the polling on RCP you'll find they consistently have a Republican slanted result up until that point.

Of course Republicans, when confronted with this, quickly cast the accusation that ALL THE OTHER POLLS are slanted, and Rasmussen is the only legitimate one... Somewhat a la Fox News v All other outlets.

It's pretty childish, actually.

As I stated I'm not a fan of polls in general. But if we're going to discuss them, don't refute a legitimate one with a clearly slanted one.

In the combined average of 5.6, is there another poll in that average that is slanted opposite of rasmussen? or do the other 5 hover around 3-7? The standard deviation would give you a better idea of the spread of the values.

Your last statement is very contradictory, you are not a fan of polls in general, yet you consider the ones that you agree with legitamate, but the one you do not agree with "slanted"

The numbers are: +1, +7, +7, +8, +5. Then Rasmussen -11.

This is just a snapshot in time. Results are similar throughout the spectrum. I don't have to 'Consider' anything. It's obvious, and doesn't consume a great deal of mental capacity to see it.

 

[DiamondDave]

It's right wing biased. My perception is unnecessary.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

When you have 5 other polls with a combined average of +5.6, then a lone holdout - Not at +1 or -2, but at -11, that should be suspicious.

Yes, as elections draw nigh (and the verdict is about to be rendered) Rasmussen has a tendency to drift closer to the other polls. But if you peruse all the polling on RCP you'll find they consistently have a Republican slanted result up until that point.

Of course Republicans, when confronted with this, quickly cast the accusation that ALL THE OTHER POLLS are slanted, and Rasmussen is the only legitimate one... Somewhat a la Fox News v All other outlets.

It's pretty childish, actually.

As I stated I'm not a fan of polls in general. But if we're going to discuss them, don't refute a legitimate one with a clearly slanted one.

In the combined average of 5.6, is there another poll in that average that is slanted opposite of rasmussen? or do the other 5 hover around 3-7? The standard deviation would give you a better idea of the spread of the values.

Your last statement is very contradictory, you are not a fan of polls in general, yet you consider the ones that you agree with legitamate, but the one you do not agree with "slanted"

The numbers are: +1, +7, +7, +8, +5. Then Rasmussen -11.

This is just a snapshot in time. Results are similar throughout the spectrum. I don't have to 'Consider' anything. It's obvious, and doesn't consume a great deal of mental capacity to see it.

Does not take a great deal of mental capacity to see the difference between likely voters and a random bag of 400 people... also does not take a great deal of mental capacity to see weighing a strong agree or a strong disagree in to the mix can give results.... Rasmussen does not steer toward any right or conservative outcome

 

[Cuyo]

In the combined average of 5.6, is there another poll in that average that is slanted opposite of rasmussen? or do the other 5 hover around 3-7? The standard deviation would give you a better idea of the spread of the values.

Your last statement is very contradictory, you are not a fan of polls in general, yet you consider the ones that you agree with legitamate, but the one you do not agree with "slanted"

The numbers are: +1, +7, +7, +8, +5. Then Rasmussen -11.

This is just a snapshot in time. Results are similar throughout the spectrum. I don't have to 'Consider' anything. It's obvious, and doesn't consume a great deal of mental capacity to see it.

Does not take a great deal of mental capacity to see the difference between likely voters and a random bag of 400 people... also does not take a great deal of mental capacity to see weighing a strong agree or a strong disagree in to the mix can give results.... Rasmussen does not steer toward any right or conservative outcome

No, of course not. All the others are slanted. Part of the left wing conspiracy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

it's till hard for me to picture NORMA RAE as a tenured schoolteacher with a 90 thousand dollar salery and summers off.

Teachers don't make 90,000 a year and Norma Rae didn't have a master's degree in education.

what's the salary range including package for the wisconsin teachers?

You post the numbers, in DETAIL, you made the claim. Line by line. I know how they come with these sorts of figures.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh....and just for the record for the curious looking in on this thread............

Regarding Rasmussen...........back in 2008, EVERY SINGLE LEFTY fringe asshole couldnt post up the Rasmussen polls fast enough when their guy Obama took the lead in October. Back then..........for the USMESSAGE BOARD left, Rasmussen was THE MAN.

Now, of course, liberal ideology is getting kicked in the balls in every poll, thus, suddenly, anything with "Rasmussen" is fake.

I already proved you're lying about that. Do you want that beatdown again, grandpa?

 

[washamericom]

i herd someone on fox say the average salary with bennys is 90 k. someone on fox is good enough for me, because fox is fair and balanced.
foxnews.com

 

[DiamondDave]

The numbers are: +1, +7, +7, +8, +5. Then Rasmussen -11.

This is just a snapshot in time. Results are similar throughout the spectrum. I don't have to 'Consider' anything. It's obvious, and doesn't consume a great deal of mental capacity to see it.

Does not take a great deal of mental capacity to see the difference between likely voters and a random bag of 400 people... also does not take a great deal of mental capacity to see weighing a strong agree or a strong disagree in to the mix can give results.... Rasmussen does not steer toward any right or conservative outcome

No, of course not. All the others are slanted. Part of the left wing conspiracy.

Idiot... do you have a problem with reading comprehension?? Or are you that mentally deficient to not realize that differing options to answer, and differing persons asked, can lead to differing results that are not in themselves inaccurate??

You are indeed a partisan sheep... your criteria is simple, anything that supports your agenda is inherently fair, and anything that does not support you agenda is inherently biased...

Hell... I am not one that accepts any popularity or partial poll as any concrete proof, and I fully understand that there can be a difference in approach that is not inherently injecting bias...

 

[Nosmo King]

A state's budget gap cannot be closed by taking away rights. And yet, true to form, Republuicans are working to take away rights. Odd that they NEVER EVER work to expand rights, just erode them.

It all comes down to the fundamentals of American politics. Which is more important: civil rights or property rights? The common dignity and freedoms of mankind or the preservation of wealth.

Conservatives are firmly in the property rights camp, evidenced by their utter indifference to personal freedoms.

Civil rights are betwen a government and its citizens. What is at odds in this case is between a government and its employees, which is not the same thing.

And your case of republicans never working to expand rights is wrong, look at the debate on college campuses and freedom of speech and find the side that seems to have a hankerin for squashing rights, one hint, it usually isnt the young conservatives club.

To conservatives property rights ARE personal freedom. the two are not exclusive.

Should American workers have the right to strike? Or should labor be a commodity whose value is determined strictly by the employer? Should American workers have the right to negociate a contract as a group of employees or should all employee/employer relations be determined on an indiviual basis.

It's down to these basic freedoms currnetly enjoyed by workers. Do workers have the right to these basic freedoms? And why are Conservatives consistently against these basic human rights?

 

[DiamondDave]

A state's budget gap cannot be closed by taking away rights. And yet, true to form, Republuicans are working to take away rights. Odd that they NEVER EVER work to expand rights, just erode them.

It all comes down to the fundamentals of American politics. Which is more important: civil rights or property rights? The common dignity and freedoms of mankind or the preservation of wealth.

Conservatives are firmly in the property rights camp, evidenced by their utter indifference to personal freedoms.

Civil rights are betwen a government and its citizens. What is at odds in this case is between a government and its employees, which is not the same thing.

And your case of republicans never working to expand rights is wrong, look at the debate on college campuses and freedom of speech and find the side that seems to have a hankerin for squashing rights, one hint, it usually isnt the young conservatives club.

To conservatives property rights ARE personal freedom. the two are not exclusive.

Should American workers have the right to strike? Or should labor be a commodity whose value is determined strictly by the employer? Should American workers have the right to negociate a contract as a group of employees or should all employee/employer relations be determined on an indiviual basis.

It's down to these basic freedoms currnetly enjoyed by workers. Do workers have the right to these basic freedoms? And why are Conservatives consistently against these basic human rights?

Should groups of companies then have the right to gather together and use their collective power to set standard wages for types of jobs??

No... of course not....

Unions are nothing more than gang thug tactics.... there was a time for them, but that time is LONG gone

Just as you are only negotiating your hiring and compensation with one company, they should only be negotiating with you for your skills, your compensation, your schedule, etc.... you are not Joe BoxStuffer, Nutty McShithead, or Jane ButtonPusher and should not be determining any part of their compensation thru negotiation nor assumption of their skills or retention nor anything else

 

[Missourian]

I'd like to see the poll of Americans who believe government unionization is a good idea.

That will tell the tale...how they feel when THEY are the boss paying the wages and benefits.

 

[Nosmo King]

Civil rights are betwen a government and its citizens. What is at odds in this case is between a government and its employees, which is not the same thing.

And your case of republicans never working to expand rights is wrong, look at the debate on college campuses and freedom of speech and find the side that seems to have a hankerin for squashing rights, one hint, it usually isnt the young conservatives club.

To conservatives property rights ARE personal freedom. the two are not exclusive.

Should American workers have the right to strike? Or should labor be a commodity whose value is determined strictly by the employer? Should American workers have the right to negociate a contract as a group of employees or should all employee/employer relations be determined on an indiviual basis.

It's down to these basic freedoms currnetly enjoyed by workers. Do workers have the right to these basic freedoms? And why are Conservatives consistently against these basic human rights?

Should groups of companies then have the right to gather together and use their collective power to set standard wages for types of jobs??

No... of course not....

Unions are nothing more than gang thug tactics.... there was a time for them, but that time is LONG gone

Just as you are only negotiating your hiring and compensation with one company, they should only be negotiating with you for your skills, your compensation, your schedule, etc.... you are not Joe BoxStuffer, Nutty McShithead, or Jane ButtonPusher and should not be determining any part of their compensation thru negotiation nor assumption of their skills or retention nor anything else

I hear this argument all the time and yet I haven't heard it expressed so that it reveals any truth. "there was a time for them, but that time is LONG gone" Why is that time long gone? Are employers now so sensitive to understand what labor is really worth? Are they so sensitive to workplace conditions and environmental considerations that they simply will never provide unsafe conditions? Really? There is absolutely no need for unions to provide apprentice programs or help ensure the proper safety equipment?

 

[whitehall]

Even a pseudo right winger or sewer worker should know that USA today didn't poll "all" Americans. Chances are they polled a strong union area to get the answer they wanted.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'd like to see the poll of Americans who believe government unionization is a good idea.

That will tell the tale...how they feel when THEY are the boss paying the wages and benefits.

This fight is purely political. There was no budget crisis when the Republican governor of Wisconsin was county administrator in Milwaukee. He just ran through the anti-union crap as a matter of politics.

He did not run on a platform of abolishing rights. And yet here he is abolishing rights. Typical for a Conservative. As there is no record of Conservatives fighting for individual rights, only rights to property, why should anyone expect a Conservative to suddenly become aware of the basic human condition and the rights of man?

 

[DiamondDave]

Should American workers have the right to strike? Or should labor be a commodity whose value is determined strictly by the employer? Should American workers have the right to negociate a contract as a group of employees or should all employee/employer relations be determined on an indiviual basis.

It's down to these basic freedoms currnetly enjoyed by workers. Do workers have the right to these basic freedoms? And why are Conservatives consistently against these basic human rights?

Should groups of companies then have the right to gather together and use their collective power to set standard wages for types of jobs??

No... of course not....

Unions are nothing more than gang thug tactics.... there was a time for them, but that time is LONG gone

Just as you are only negotiating your hiring and compensation with one company, they should only be negotiating with you for your skills, your compensation, your schedule, etc.... you are not Joe BoxStuffer, Nutty McShithead, or Jane ButtonPusher and should not be determining any part of their compensation thru negotiation nor assumption of their skills or retention nor anything else

I hear this argument all the time and yet I haven't heard it expressed so that it reveals any truth. "there was a time for them, but that time is LONG gone" Why is that time long gone? Are employers now so sensitive to understand what labor is really worth? Are they so sensitive to workplace conditions and environmental considerations that they simply will never provide unsafe conditions? Really? There is absolutely no need for unions to provide apprentice programs or help ensure the proper safety equipment?

Why is it long gone.... quite frankly, LABOR LAWS... a legal system that is easier to bring cases to for discrimination, workman's comp, etc...

This is not dealing with Monopoly controlling JP Morgan or whatever other name you wish to bring from the past in business

 

[Missourian]

I'd like to see the poll of Americans who believe government unionization is a good idea.

That will tell the tale...how they feel when THEY are the boss paying the wages and benefits.

Didn't take long to find out...http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...voters-oppose-government-employee-unions.html

 

[Nosmo King]

Should groups of companies then have the right to gather together and use their collective power to set standard wages for types of jobs??

No... of course not....

Unions are nothing more than gang thug tactics.... there was a time for them, but that time is LONG gone

Just as you are only negotiating your hiring and compensation with one company, they should only be negotiating with you for your skills, your compensation, your schedule, etc.... you are not Joe BoxStuffer, Nutty McShithead, or Jane ButtonPusher and should not be determining any part of their compensation thru negotiation nor assumption of their skills or retention nor anything else

I hear this argument all the time and yet I haven't heard it expressed so that it reveals any truth. "there was a time for them, but that time is LONG gone" Why is that time long gone? Are employers now so sensitive to understand what labor is really worth? Are they so sensitive to workplace conditions and environmental considerations that they simply will never provide unsafe conditions? Really? There is absolutely no need for unions to provide apprentice programs or help ensure the proper safety equipment?

Why is it long gone.... quite frankly, LABOR LAWS... a legal system that is easier to bring cases to for discrimination, workman's comp, etc...

This is not dealing with Monopoly controlling JP Morgan or whatever other name you wish to bring from the past in business

So you believe that it's easier for an individual coal miner to sue over safety violations? Easier than a union of coal miners to do so?

I'm only using miners as an example, but the point is made. Individuals do not have the means to press law suits like a group. Erasing basic human rights like collective bargaining and the protections afforded by an organized group is just handing more power to employers. And employers do not have a sterling record of safeguarding workers rights. The courts are an expensive process that the employer can afford, but an indiviual cannot.

 

[martybegan]

It's right wing biased. My perception is unnecessary.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

When you have 5 other polls with a combined average of +5.6, then a lone holdout - Not at +1 or -2, but at -11, that should be suspicious.

Yes, as elections draw nigh (and the verdict is about to be rendered) Rasmussen has a tendency to drift closer to the other polls. But if you peruse all the polling on RCP you'll find they consistently have a Republican slanted result up until that point.

Of course Republicans, when confronted with this, quickly cast the accusation that ALL THE OTHER POLLS are slanted, and Rasmussen is the only legitimate one... Somewhat a la Fox News v All other outlets.

It's pretty childish, actually.

As I stated I'm not a fan of polls in general. But if we're going to discuss them, don't refute a legitimate one with a clearly slanted one.

In the combined average of 5.6, is there another poll in that average that is slanted opposite of rasmussen? or do the other 5 hover around 3-7? The standard deviation would give you a better idea of the spread of the values.

Your last statement is very contradictory, you are not a fan of polls in general, yet you consider the ones that you agree with legitamate, but the one you do not agree with "slanted"

The numbers are: +1, +7, +7, +8, +5. Then Rasmussen -11.

This is just a snapshot in time. Results are similar throughout the spectrum. I don't have to 'Consider' anything. It's obvious, and doesn't consume a great deal of mental capacity to see it.

Using the MOE the +7's and +8's are just as bad as the -11.

And nice ad hominem attack on me with the backhanded comment on mental capacity. So much for keeping this civil.

 

[DiamondDave]

I hear this argument all the time and yet I haven't heard it expressed so that it reveals any truth. "there was a time for them, but that time is LONG gone" Why is that time long gone? Are employers now so sensitive to understand what labor is really worth? Are they so sensitive to workplace conditions and environmental considerations that they simply will never provide unsafe conditions? Really? There is absolutely no need for unions to provide apprentice programs or help ensure the proper safety equipment?

Why is it long gone.... quite frankly, LABOR LAWS... a legal system that is easier to bring cases to for discrimination, workman's comp, etc...

This is not dealing with Monopoly controlling JP Morgan or whatever other name you wish to bring from the past in business

So you believe that it's easier for an individual coal miner to sue over safety violations? Easier than a union of coal miners to do so?

I'm only using miners as an example, but the point is made. Individuals do not have the means to press law suits like a group. Erasing basic human rights like collective bargaining and the protections afforded by an organized group is just handing more power to employers. And employers do not have a sterling record of safeguarding workers rights. The courts are an expensive process that the employer can afford, but an indiviual cannot.

Can a group of individuals still file a class action law suit, if they CHOOSE to do so? Does an individual have the right to sue if another group does not or to pursue the quest him or herself??

Labor laws are there... lawyers are there... even ones that only charge only if they win... we have minimum wages, government safety standards, discrimination laws, wrongful termination laws, and the motherfucking list goes on

The time for unions is gone... unions are for the lazy, the power hungry, and the duped imbeciles....