A question for the Republican Conservatives

[Avatar4321]

First, no one attacks the union members. We attack the Unions, who rarely actually care about the Union member.

Second, Supply and demand works in salary as well as price. develop skills in high demand and you can negotiate more money.

If someone makes more money than you. Good for them. If they make less money than you. Good for them. Anyone working to provide for themselves and their family rather than mooching off of others in the system is in great shape. Maybe if you worry less about what others make and more about developing your own skills you wont have to worry about not being paid enough.

 

[Publius1787]

Dividing into groups is what the name of the "Union" game is to cons, and the point of this thread. Too complicated for you? The common Average worker or CEO DOES NOT INCLUDE THEIR BENEFITS either, so what is your point? We are talking wages here, not what time the sun came up this morning. Get on task dude, stop trying to make this thread a complex case. It is simple arithmetic of ABOUT AMERICAN WAGES>GOT IT???

I try to dumb it down to the common sense level so cons won't get lost, and they still need a road map.

So you intend to exclude the benefits of the union workers from their pay to make them look poorer than they actually are and to justify this you will do the same for the rich? VERY Misleading! It is dishonesty in its truest form! Especially since the average worker doesent have even half of the benefits of a union worker and all their insurance must come out of pocket along with their savings for retirement. There is no "work for 20-30 years and get a life long pension that you did not contribute to" for the average worker. Furthermore, I have every right to complain about public sector unions when I am taxed for their lavish benefits.

Yes, no ones benefits, other than wages are included. That tells you how much wages are, and that is what this thread is about. Nothing dishonest about it. It is dumbed down to it's lowest denominator, nothing to confuse the mind with, just honest average wages for 2009.

IF you want to discuss benefits, start a new thread. I would be interested to see how you figure out who has benefits, and who doesn't, what the benefits are, etc. Oh, and keep it simple, huh?

Is $3.13 an hour lavish to you? And do you also complain about the average CEOs $25,555. a hour wage you are taxed for?

When I was in the Marine Corps I was making $28,000 a year in wages after 8 years of service with a wife who could not work and a child. However, my medical was complealty free and I got many other tax free benefits. How did I survive? VERY COMFORTABLY!

You cannot discount benefits! Many public sector Union's have better benefits than I did in the Marines! You dont count that as income? You dont count that as a better standard of living? You dont count that as security? I dont complain about CEO's because lets face it. IT'S THEIR BUSINESS! I vote for them every time I make a purchase! Who am I to complain about someone who creats thousands of jobs and produces a good or service that people want? On the other hand, public service union workers leech off of the taxpayers until the day they die. And you want to make them look poor despite the OBVIOUS higher standard of living they enjoy with all of the benefits that you CONVENINNTLY exclude. Look at thoes poor union workers who get free medical, dental, paid sick days, paid vacations, tax payer funded pensions that they dont contribute to that lasts for the rest of their lives, and job security no matter how usless they are as workers. No Sir! You wont fool me. You see, unlike thoes union workers the average citizen must pay more for their healthcare or dental and they must contribute to their own retirement else they will be broke upon retirement age. And thoes are the people paying the public sector unions their benefits! They have EVERY right to complain about them because theyre paying for them!

Either subtract the amount the average person must pay for the benefits that union workers take for granted or add the value of benefits to the union workers salary. You cant have it both ways!

I am familure with public sector/federal Union workers through my experience in the Marines. It took 3 federal union employees to do the job of one Marine! They refused to clean their own offices and take out their own garbage thus we had to do it for them (It wasent in their contract). When they fail at their job they complain about the "hostile work enviroment" because the Marines were using profanity. AS IF THEY DID NOT KNOW THIS WOULD HAPPEN IN THE MARINES WHEN THEY ACCEPTED THE JOB! They skipped out of work during their lunch break and didnt come back until the next morning. We documented one employee for not showing up for work for 60 days though she didnt take a single day of sick leave or vaction and we still couldent get her fired because she used the excuse of (profanity "hostile work enviroment") though she had never complained about it before. They were also complaining about how hostile things were because of all the pro NRA and Republican bumper stickers that were on the cars in the parking lot (Of course were conservatives; were Marines; mostly in combat arms). Marines that depended on their training records, rifle scores, and physical fitness scores for promotion couldent get the union workers to enter them no matter how many times they called, costing Marinse and their families a pay raise! This never happened until we started hireing unionised employess to free a Marine to fight! They are WORTHLESS! Yet the union employees that worked for the Marines got better benefits and pay than the Mariens themselves despite the fact that they werent fighting for their country! What a great public SERVICE union huh? They wouldent know the first thing about SERVICE! Do I have the right to expect better performance from them? Your damn right I do! Because we pay for their lavish pay and benefits while they bitch about thoes who serve their country and screw up their promotions and training records!

 

[saveliberty]

The National Average wage in America in 2009 was $40,711.61. How close were you to that "average" figure? (1)

The average Union Wage in 2009 was $47,216.00 (908. x 52 weeks). How close were you that figure? (2)

The Top 500 CEOs averaged a $11.4 million wage in 2009. How close were you to that figure? (3)


Knowing these figures for 2009, I must ask the right why they are attacking Union members who only make $6,505. a year ($3.13 hr. more) more than unskilled workers, and $10.992,784. less than CEOs?

Maybe they can explain this flaw in logic that even a common sense con might understand, in capitalist terms that we would all enjoy to hear. Cons claim capitalism is about making profits whenever they defend a CEO, but not when they attack a Union member. Why is that? And I would expect most of those posting here make over the average of a common worker and union member, but I am fairly sure none are making more than a CEO. Yet they attack the Union member when they make more average wages a year than they do.

So tell us all about it cons. How do you explain this illogical position you hold? Or support your imbeciles in congress who want to tear down the capitalist system, for the average American worker. The only object being is to pay American workers less, yet shield the CEOs who make more.


(1) National Average Wage Index
(2) The Union Advantage: Facts and Figures
(3) CEO Compensation - Forbes.com

Since you seem Hellbent on stupid comparisions...

Figure in a pro baseball player in there for me. Explain to me why he makes 10 times what the manager makes.

Union workers make less, because unions bargained away the new hires wage rate. That lowered the average pay rate. Of course, you completely ignored the excellent benefit package which increases the annual pay package dramatically. Convenient oversight on your part.

CEOs are answerable to their boards and to a degree shareholders. You might want to ask them, not the government or me.

I have made it so simple even a simpleton can understand it, and then answer the simple questions posed, rather than ramble off as you chose to do adding unneeded variables. Yes, I ignored tons of items that have no relevance to this thread.

You set up a soap box which you now have fallen from.

 

[uscitizen]

If you wish to make a CEO's pay get a MBA. If you wish to dig ditches don't.

wish in one hand and ......

Anyway an MBA is in no way a guarantee of getting a CEO's pay.

 

[uscitizen]

So you intend to exclude the benefits of the union workers from their pay to make them look poorer than they actually are and to justify this you will do the same for the rich? VERY Misleading! It is dishonesty in its truest form! Especially since the average worker doesent have even half of the benefits of a union worker and all their insurance must come out of pocket along with their savings for retirement. There is no "work for 20-30 years and get a life long pension that you did not contribute to" for the average worker. Furthermore, I have every right to complain about public sector unions when I am taxed for their lavish benefits.

Yes, no ones benefits, other than wages are included. That tells you how much wages are, and that is what this thread is about. Nothing dishonest about it. It is dumbed down to it's lowest denominator, nothing to confuse the mind with, just honest average wages for 2009.

IF you want to discuss benefits, start a new thread. I would be interested to see how you figure out who has benefits, and who doesn't, what the benefits are, etc. Oh, and keep it simple, huh?

Is $3.13 an hour lavish to you? And do you also complain about the average CEOs $25,555. a hour wage you are taxed for?

When I was in the Marine Corps I was making $28,000 a year in wages with a wife who could not work and a child. However, my medical was complealty free and I got many other tax free benefits. How did I survive? VERY COMFORTABLY!

You cannot discount benefits! Many public sector Union's have better benefits than I did in the Marines! You dont count that as income? You dont count that as a better standard of living? You dont count that as security? I dont complain about CEO's because lets face it. IT'S THEIR BUSINESS! I vote for them every time I make a purchase! Who am I to complain about someone who creats thousands of jobs and produces a good or service that people want? On the other hand, public service union workers leech off of the taxpayers until the day they die. And you want to make them look poor despite the OBVIOUS higher standard of living they enjoy with all of the benefits that you CONVENINNTLY exclude. Look at thoes poor union workers who get free medical, dental, paid sick days, paid vacations, tax payer funded pensions that they dont contribute to that lasts for the rest of their lives, and job security no matter how usless they are as workers. No Sir! You wont fool me. You see, unlike thoes union workers the average citizen must pay more for their healthcare or dental and they must contribute to their own retirement else they will be broke upon retirement age. And thoes are the people paying the public sector unions their benefits! They have EVERY right to complain about them because theyre paying for them!

Either subtract the amount the average person must pay for the benefits that union workers take for granted or add the value of benefits to the union workers salary. You cant have it both ways!

I am familure with public sector Union workers through my experience in the Marines. It took 3 federal union employees to do the job of one Marine! They refused to clean their own offices and take out their own garbage thus we had to do it for them (It wasent in their contract). When they fail at their job they complain about the "hostile work enviroment" because the Marines were using profanity. AS IF THEY DID NOT KNOW THIS WOULD HAPPEN IN THE MARINES WHEN THEY ACCEPTED THE JOB! They skipped out of work during their lunch break and didnt come back until the next moarning. We documented one employee for not showing up for work for 60 days though she didnt take a single day of sick leave or vaction. They are WORTHLESS!

blame the ones who outsourc our military.

 

[Synthaholic]

Excellent thread.

From my observation, they have arrived to their logic from the constant demonization of The Union Worker simultaneously tempored with the constant glorification of the Rich, aka the job givers...aka The CEO.

it is a matter of rallying around things to be against instead of things to be for with right wingers.

Such as being against funding PBS/NPR when the funding is so small in relation to most other govt spending.

If the funding is small, they won't miss it.

Conservatives are petty.

 

[Publius1787]

Yes, no ones benefits, other than wages are included. That tells you how much wages are, and that is what this thread is about. Nothing dishonest about it. It is dumbed down to it's lowest denominator, nothing to confuse the mind with, just honest average wages for 2009.

IF you want to discuss benefits, start a new thread. I would be interested to see how you figure out who has benefits, and who doesn't, what the benefits are, etc. Oh, and keep it simple, huh?

Is $3.13 an hour lavish to you? And do you also complain about the average CEOs $25,555. a hour wage you are taxed for?

When I was in the Marine Corps I was making $28,000 a year in wages with a wife who could not work and a child. However, my medical was complealty free and I got many other tax free benefits. How did I survive? VERY COMFORTABLY!

You cannot discount benefits! Many public sector Union's have better benefits than I did in the Marines! You dont count that as income? You dont count that as a better standard of living? You dont count that as security? I dont complain about CEO's because lets face it. IT'S THEIR BUSINESS! I vote for them every time I make a purchase! Who am I to complain about someone who creats thousands of jobs and produces a good or service that people want? On the other hand, public service union workers leech off of the taxpayers until the day they die. And you want to make them look poor despite the OBVIOUS higher standard of living they enjoy with all of the benefits that you CONVENINNTLY exclude. Look at thoes poor union workers who get free medical, dental, paid sick days, paid vacations, tax payer funded pensions that they dont contribute to that lasts for the rest of their lives, and job security no matter how usless they are as workers. No Sir! You wont fool me. You see, unlike thoes union workers the average citizen must pay more for their healthcare or dental and they must contribute to their own retirement else they will be broke upon retirement age. And thoes are the people paying the public sector unions their benefits! They have EVERY right to complain about them because theyre paying for them!

Either subtract the amount the average person must pay for the benefits that union workers take for granted or add the value of benefits to the union workers salary. You cant have it both ways!

I am familure with public sector Union workers through my experience in the Marines. It took 3 federal union employees to do the job of one Marine! They refused to clean their own offices and take out their own garbage thus we had to do it for them (It wasent in their contract). When they fail at their job they complain about the "hostile work enviroment" because the Marines were using profanity. AS IF THEY DID NOT KNOW THIS WOULD HAPPEN IN THE MARINES WHEN THEY ACCEPTED THE JOB! They skipped out of work during their lunch break and didnt come back until the next moarning. We documented one employee for not showing up for work for 60 days though she didnt take a single day of sick leave or vaction. They are WORTHLESS!

blame the ones who outsourc our military.

I think it would be easyer to recruit and train another Marine than to hire 3 worthless unionised civilians to take his place. But nevertheless, that is besides the point. Union employees are worthless because it is so hard to fire them and they know it! I'm not blameing the war for the worthless status of union workers. That cat is awesome!

 

[daveman]

Excellent thread.

From my observation, they have arrived to their logic from the constant demonization of The Union Worker simultaneously tempored with the constant glorification of the Rich, aka the job givers...aka The CEO.

How many people does the average union member employ?

 

[daveman]

If you wish to make a CEO's pay get a MBA. If you wish to dig ditches don't.

wish in one hand and ......

Anyway an MBA is in no way a guarantee of getting a CEO's pay.

It gets you a lot closer than impotent bitching on the internet.

 

[daveman]

it is a matter of rallying around things to be against instead of things to be for with right wingers.

Such as being against funding PBS/NPR when the funding is so small in relation to most other govt spending.

If the funding is small, they won't miss it.

Conservatives are petty.

You watch and listen to PBS/NPR, you pay for it. Why should you expect anyone else to pay for your ticket?

Oh, yeah. Because you're a leftist.

 

[liebuster]

The National Average wage in America in 2009 was $40,711.61. How close were you to that "average" figure? (1)

The average Union Wage in 2009 was $47,216.00 (908. x 52 weeks). How close were you that figure? (2)

The Top 500 CEOs averaged a $11.4 million wage in 2009. How close were you to that figure? (3)


Knowing these figures for 2009, I must ask the right why they are attacking Union members who only make $6,505. a year ($3.13 hr. more) more than unskilled workers, and $10.992,784. less than CEOs?

Maybe they can explain this flaw in logic that even a common sense con might understand, in capitalist terms that we would all enjoy to hear. Cons claim capitalism is about making profits whenever they defend a CEO, but not when they attack a Union member. Why is that? And I would expect most of those posting here make over the average of a common worker and union member, but I am fairly sure none are making more than a CEO. Yet they attack the Union member when they make more average wages a year than they do.

So tell us all about it cons. How do you explain this illogical position you hold? Or support your imbeciles in congress who want to tear down the capitalist system, for the average American worker. The only object being is to pay American workers less, yet shield the CEOs who make more.


(1) National Average Wage Index
(2) The Union Advantage: Facts and Figures
(3) CEO Compensation - Forbes.com

Once again you are operating on an ASSUMPTION. A flawed one at that.

We do not hate union members. We do not like the union leadership using them as political pawns to advocate for socialist policies for the sole purpose of the union leadership being able to pass their promises that they made to the government.

Perfect example of this was a Pro Illegal immigration rally held in Denver. The footage I saw on the local NBC station showed hispanics carrying signs printed by local unions. Someone needs to tell Nancy Pelosi that THIS is astroturf, not Tea Partiers carying signs made in the kitchen

So your question of "why do we not defend them when we defend CEOs" is not a valid question

Its like asking you, "why do you beat your cat when you don't beat your dog?" and you saying "I don't beat any of them."

 

[whitehall]

The National Average wage in America in 2009 was $40,711.61. How close were you to that "average" figure? (1)

The average Union Wage in 2009 was $47,216.00 (908. x 52 weeks). How close were you that figure? (2)

The Top 500 CEOs averaged a $11.4 million wage in 2009. How close were you to that figure? (3)


Knowing these figures for 2009, I must ask the right why they are attacking Union members who only make $6,505. a year ($3.13 hr. more) more than unskilled workers, and $10.992,784. less than CEOs?

Maybe they can explain this flaw in logic that even a common sense con might understand, in capitalist terms that we would all enjoy to hear. Cons claim capitalism is about making profits whenever they defend a CEO, but not when they attack a Union member. Why is that? And I would expect most of those posting here make over the average of a common worker and union member, but I am fairly sure none are making more than a CEO. Yet they attack the Union member when they make more average wages a year than they do.

So tell us all about it cons. How do you explain this illogical position you hold? Or support your imbeciles in congress who want to tear down the capitalist system, for the average American worker. The only object being is to pay American workers less, yet shield the CEOs who make more.


(1) National Average Wage Index
(2) The Union Advantage: Facts and Figures
(3) CEO Compensation - Forbes.com

Conservatives aren't attacking union members. The left is attacking conservatives with the same incindiary language that B. Hussein Obama and radical left said caused the Tuscon shooter to act out. Look at the posts on the forum, of the top ten about 80% consist of hate speech against republicans and conservatives. The ironic thing is that the new republican majority has yet to propose a single bill. George Soros must be desperate.

 

[Publius1787]

The National Average wage in America in 2009 was $40,711.61. How close were you to that "average" figure? (1)

The average Union Wage in 2009 was $47,216.00 (908. x 52 weeks). How close were you that figure? (2)

The Top 500 CEOs averaged a $11.4 million wage in 2009. How close were you to that figure? (3)


Knowing these figures for 2009, I must ask the right why they are attacking Union members who only make $6,505. a year ($3.13 hr. more) more than unskilled workers, and $10.992,784. less than CEOs?

Maybe they can explain this flaw in logic that even a common sense con might understand, in capitalist terms that we would all enjoy to hear. Cons claim capitalism is about making profits whenever they defend a CEO, but not when they attack a Union member. Why is that? And I would expect most of those posting here make over the average of a common worker and union member, but I am fairly sure none are making more than a CEO. Yet they attack the Union member when they make more average wages a year than they do.

So tell us all about it cons. How do you explain this illogical position you hold? Or support your imbeciles in congress who want to tear down the capitalist system, for the average American worker. The only object being is to pay American workers less, yet shield the CEOs who make more.


(1) National Average Wage Index
(2) The Union Advantage: Facts and Figures
(3) CEO Compensation - Forbes.com

Once again you are operating and an ASSUMPTION. A flawed one at that.

We do not hate union members. We do not like the union leadership using them as political pawns to advocate for socialist policies for the sole purpose of the union leadership being able to pass their promises that they made to the government.

Perfect example of this was a Pro Illegal immigration rally held in Denver. The footage I saw on the local NBC station showed hispanics carrying signs printed by local unions. Someone needs to tell Nancy Pelosi that THIS is astroturf not Tea Partiers carying signs made in the kitchen

So your question of "why do we not defend them when we defend CEOs" is not a valid question

Its like asking you, "why do you beat your cat when you don't beat your dog?" and you saying "I don't beat any of them."

No, I hate union workers. Their sense of entitlement is beyond beleif! The following is something I posted to someone else in this thread.

I am familure with public sector/federal Union workers through my experience in the Marines. It took 3 federal union employees to do the job of one Marine! They refused to clean their own offices and take out their own garbage thus we had to do it for them (It wasent in their contract). When they fail at their job they complain about the "hostile work enviroment" because the Marines were using profanity. AS IF THEY DID NOT KNOW THIS WOULD HAPPEN IN THE MARINES WHEN THEY ACCEPTED THE JOB! They skipped out of work during their lunch break and didnt come back until the next morning. We documented one employee for not showing up for work for 60 days though she didnt take a single day of sick leave or vaction and we still couldent get her fired because she used the excuse of (profanity "hostile work enviroment") though she had never complained about it before. They were also complaining about how hostile things were because of all the pro NRA and Republican bumper stickers that were on the cars in the parking lot (Of course were conservatives; were Marines; mostly in combat arms). Marines that depended on their training records, rifle scores, and physical fitness scores for promotion couldent get the union workers to enter them no matter how many times they called, costing Marinse and their families a pay raise! This never happened until we started hireing unionised employess to free a Marine to fight! They are WORTHLESS! Yet the union employees that worked for the Marines got better benefits and pay than the Mariens themselves despite the fact that they werent fighting for their country! What a great public SERVICE union huh? They wouldent know the first thing about SERVICE! Do I have the right to expect better performance from them? Your damn right I do! Because we pay for their lavish pay and benefits while they bitch about thoes who serve their country and screw up their promotions and training records!

 

[liebuster]

The National Average wage in America in 2009 was $40,711.61. How close were you to that "average" figure? (1)

The average Union Wage in 2009 was $47,216.00 (908. x 52 weeks). How close were you that figure? (2)

The Top 500 CEOs averaged a $11.4 million wage in 2009. How close were you to that figure? (3)


Knowing these figures for 2009, I must ask the right why they are attacking Union members who only make $6,505. a year ($3.13 hr. more) more than unskilled workers, and $10.992,784. less than CEOs?

Maybe they can explain this flaw in logic that even a common sense con might understand, in capitalist terms that we would all enjoy to hear. Cons claim capitalism is about making profits whenever they defend a CEO, but not when they attack a Union member. Why is that? And I would expect most of those posting here make over the average of a common worker and union member, but I am fairly sure none are making more than a CEO. Yet they attack the Union member when they make more average wages a year than they do.

So tell us all about it cons. How do you explain this illogical position you hold? Or support your imbeciles in congress who want to tear down the capitalist system, for the average American worker. The only object being is to pay American workers less, yet shield the CEOs who make more.


(1) National Average Wage Index
(2) The Union Advantage: Facts and Figures
(3) CEO Compensation - Forbes.com

Once again you are operating and an ASSUMPTION. A flawed one at that.

We do not hate union members. We do not like the union leadership using them as political pawns to advocate for socialist policies for the sole purpose of the union leadership being able to pass their promises that they made to the government.

Perfect example of this was a Pro Illegal immigration rally held in Denver. The footage I saw on the local NBC station showed hispanics carrying signs printed by local unions. Someone needs to tell Nancy Pelosi that THIS is astroturf not Tea Partiers carying signs made in the kitchen

So your question of "why do we not defend them when we defend CEOs" is not a valid question

Its like asking you, "why do you beat your cat when you don't beat your dog?" and you saying "I don't beat any of them."

No, I hate union workers. Their sense of entilement is beyond beleif! The following is something I posted to someone else in this thread.

I am familure with public sector/federal Union workers through my experience in the Marines. It took 3 federal union employees to do the job of one Marine! They refused to clean their own offices and take out their own garbage thus we had to do it for them (It wasent in their contract). When they fail at their job they complain about the "hostile work enviroment" because the Marines were using profanity. AS IF THEY DID NOT KNOW THIS WOULD HAPPEN IN THE MARINES WHEN THEY ACCEPTED THE JOB! They skipped out of work during their lunch break and didnt come back until the next morning. We documented one employee for not showing up for work for 60 days though she didnt take a single day of sick leave or vaction and we still couldent get her fired because she used the excuse of (profanity "hostile work enviroment") though she had never complained about it before. They were also complaining about how hostile things were because of all the pro NRA and Republican bumper stickers that were on the cars in the parking lot. Marines that depended on their training records, rifle scores, and physical fitness scores for promotion couldent get the union workers to enter them no matter how many times they called, costing Marinse and their families a pay raise! This never happened until we started hireing unionised employess to free a Marine to fight! They are WORTHLESS! Yet the union employees that worked for the Marines got better benefits and pay than the Mariens themselves despite the fact that they werent fighting for their country! What a great public SERVICE union huh? They wouldent know the first thing about SERVICE! Do I have the right to expect better performance from them? Your damn right I do! Because we pay for their lavish pay and benefits while they bitch about thoes who serve their country and screw up their promotions and training records!

Well, you speak for yourself then. I don't hate many people and that includes most progressives.

I understand that when you are a union member you sometimes get spoiles rotten but I have worked with union pipefitters out of Chicago and they don't complain about hostile work enviroments. They bust their asses and make sure the job is done right.


I guess it depends on the union

 

[Publius1787]

Once again you are operating and an ASSUMPTION. A flawed one at that.

We do not hate union members. We do not like the union leadership using them as political pawns to advocate for socialist policies for the sole purpose of the union leadership being able to pass their promises that they made to the government.

Perfect example of this was a Pro Illegal immigration rally held in Denver. The footage I saw on the local NBC station showed hispanics carrying signs printed by local unions. Someone needs to tell Nancy Pelosi that THIS is astroturf not Tea Partiers carying signs made in the kitchen

So your question of "why do we not defend them when we defend CEOs" is not a valid question

Its like asking you, "why do you beat your cat when you don't beat your dog?" and you saying "I don't beat any of them."

No, I hate union workers. Their sense of entilement is beyond beleif! The following is something I posted to someone else in this thread.

I am familure with public sector/federal Union workers through my experience in the Marines. It took 3 federal union employees to do the job of one Marine! They refused to clean their own offices and take out their own garbage thus we had to do it for them (It wasent in their contract). When they fail at their job they complain about the "hostile work enviroment" because the Marines were using profanity. AS IF THEY DID NOT KNOW THIS WOULD HAPPEN IN THE MARINES WHEN THEY ACCEPTED THE JOB! They skipped out of work during their lunch break and didnt come back until the next morning. We documented one employee for not showing up for work for 60 days though she didnt take a single day of sick leave or vaction and we still couldent get her fired because she used the excuse of (profanity "hostile work enviroment") though she had never complained about it before. They were also complaining about how hostile things were because of all the pro NRA and Republican bumper stickers that were on the cars in the parking lot. Marines that depended on their training records, rifle scores, and physical fitness scores for promotion couldent get the union workers to enter them no matter how many times they called, costing Marinse and their families a pay raise! This never happened until we started hireing unionised employess to free a Marine to fight! They are WORTHLESS! Yet the union employees that worked for the Marines got better benefits and pay than the Mariens themselves despite the fact that they werent fighting for their country! What a great public SERVICE union huh? They wouldent know the first thing about SERVICE! Do I have the right to expect better performance from them? Your damn right I do! Because we pay for their lavish pay and benefits while they bitch about thoes who serve their country and screw up their promotions and training records!

Well, you speak for yourself then. I don't hate many people and that includes most progressives.

I understand that when you are a union member you sometimes get spoiles rotten but I have worked with union pipefitters out of Chicago and they don't complain about hostile work enviroments. They bust their asses and make sure the job is done right.


I guess it depends on the union

In my case it was every single one of them. After we refused to clean up their offices for them and take out their trash they threw their garbage away in the female head (restroom) and we ended up taking it out anyway as the rotting food smell permiated throughtout the Bn HQ. Then they complained about a "hostile work enviroment" and the fact that we werent throwing away their garbage for them that was overflowing in their (not ours) offices. Because "it wasent in their contract to maintain a clean work enviroment" and that was the resposability of thoes who are training to fight for their country. Worthless!

 

[Alpha1]

Chris Christie is Awesome! [/QUOTE]

Maybe Shit4brains needs to watch this a few more times and ponder the message some.....being an envious ass about what others earn won't feed his family or get his kids through college...

 

[MarcATL]

Excellent thread.

From my observation, they have arrived to their logic from the constant demonization of The Union Worker simultaneously tempored with the constant glorification of the Rich, aka the job givers...aka The CEO.

How many people does the average union member employ?

I don't know and frankly I don't care.

How many people do YOU employ?

 

[uscitizen]

If you wish to make a CEO's pay get a MBA. If you wish to dig ditches don't.

wish in one hand and ......

Anyway an MBA is in no way a guarantee of getting a CEO's pay.

It gets you a lot closer than impotent bitching on the internet.

this is true, you are more likely to become a hit musician if you learn to play an instrument as well. The odds are about the same as becoming a CEO though.


The overlying fact of all this is the inescapable result of globalization.
Rich nations get poorer and poor nations get richer.

 

[uscitizen]

Excellent thread.

From my observation, they have arrived to their logic from the constant demonization of The Union Worker simultaneously tempored with the constant glorification of the Rich, aka the job givers...aka The CEO.

How many people does the average union member employ?

I don't know and frankly I don't care.

How many people do YOU employ?

Just a tidbit. I employ 3 full time employees.

 

[daveman]

Excellent thread.

From my observation, they have arrived to their logic from the constant demonization of The Union Worker simultaneously tempored with the constant glorification of the Rich, aka the job givers...aka The CEO.

How many people does the average union member employ?

I don't know and frankly I don't care.

Hint: Zero.

How many people do YOU employ?

None. How many people do you employ?



So. It looks like rich people employ more people than union members.