An America Without Unions

[Sallow]

So now we teach English as well?

Never heard of conversational parlance and style I see. And still running away from even the basis of this discussion. I've laid down my premise, unions are NOT required for social change in labor. Changes can come without them and have given a few examples also of how labor unions harm the public and workers they claim to protect.

All I've seen is you corking out juices and claim to be an authority without any proof, or backing up for your viewpoint. Must suck when people don't knuckle under with your claims of position or authority, plus show an inability to back up your claims. Can I recommend you put up or shut up? Can you say anything in your own words or do you have to plead to other authorities to save you

I'll be impressed if you can do any of that.

Plus, since your nationality is clearly in doubt, I'll give a miss on your authority on the English language, the ability to write it OR style and grammar on the Internet.

Find some plebe to worship you, I will only deride you till I see reason to change that view. I see MikeK is volunteering.

What sort of change of you referring too?

Social mobility? Then yeah..you probably see more of it going on in countries that have Unions. Countries without Unions? There's little or none.

read the rest of the thread. Should be clear after a little while.

What's clear?

Unions make life better for labor. Without Unions..labor suffers. Almost every time.

 

[Big Fitz]

if labor unions were so great they would start their own union run companies and not have to impose their fascist principles upon those who arent interested................

let them compete in the market and see how fast their backwards utopian fantasies get them....

Unions are not fascist. Quite the opposite. Corporations love fascist governments. They generally provide cheap labor with no power to them.

So do unions. Fascism is Corporatism. the collusion of business and government. Labor Unions can get involved with government with just the same level of fascism as a corporation.

do I think Unions are by default fascist? nope. Just bar them from government and politics just like corporations were before Citizens United which leveled the playing field as needed to be done since Unions weren't going to give up their unfair (and should be criminal) advantage.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What sort of change of you referring too?

Social mobility? Then yeah..you probably see more of it going on in countries that have Unions. Countries without Unions? There's little or none.

read the rest of the thread. Should be clear after a little while.

What's clear?
Unions make life better for labor. Without Unions..labor suffers. Almost every time.

American unions provide work and social mobility for Chinese laborers... so, I guess you're right.

 

[Big Fitz]

What sort of change of you referring too?

Social mobility? Then yeah..you probably see more of it going on in countries that have Unions. Countries without Unions? There's little or none.

read the rest of the thread. Should be clear after a little while.

What's clear?

Unions make life better for labor. Without Unions..labor suffers. Almost every time.

That's he OP's theory that Unions are essential and much labor reform could not have happened without it. This is not true, of course. Much like how slavery was abolished without bloodshed in the rest of the world, war is not required to end it either. Unions are a mixed bag of good and bad things. Of course it becomes almost completely bad when they get in bed or INTO government.

 

[Sallow]

Irrelevancy alert.

Irrelevant in what way?

Exactly.

Unions are not the bulwark against income equality and income equality is a non issue, just like Anthropogenic CO2 to climate change.

Of course, just like the Chicken Littles, the priests of economic 'justice' is a religion.

Bullshit.

Economic inequality in this country hit the stratosphere as Union membership went down.

 

[Big Fitz]

Irrelevant in what way?

Exactly.

Unions are not the bulwark against income equality and income equality is a non issue, just like Anthropogenic CO2 to climate change.

Of course, just like the Chicken Littles, the priests of economic 'justice' is a religion.

Bullshit.

Economic inequality in this country hit the stratosphere as Union membership went down.

Still a non-issue.

Economies are not a zero sum game.

 

[Sallow]

read the rest of the thread. Should be clear after a little while.

What's clear?

Unions make life better for labor. Without Unions..labor suffers. Almost every time.

That's he OP's theory that Unions are essential and much labor reform could not have happened without it. This is not true, of course. Much like how slavery was abolished without bloodshed in the rest of the world, war is not required to end it either. Unions are a mixed bag of good and bad things. Of course it becomes almost completely bad when they get in bed or INTO government.

You're kidding.

You really need to do a bit more research before you come out with this bullshit. Almost every society that has practiced slavery has had to deal with slave revolts. Which generally is the reason why they give it up.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

private businesses need union thugs to impose their clueless actions on labor...........

hoffa, a racketeering hero for the "working man" !!!!!!!! lol

 

[Big Fitz]

What's clear?

Unions make life better for labor. Without Unions..labor suffers. Almost every time.

That's he OP's theory that Unions are essential and much labor reform could not have happened without it. This is not true, of course. Much like how slavery was abolished without bloodshed in the rest of the world, war is not required to end it either. Unions are a mixed bag of good and bad things. Of course it becomes almost completely bad when they get in bed or INTO government.

You're kidding.

You really need to do a bit more research before you come out with this bullshit. Almost every society that has practiced slavery has had to deal with slave revolts. Which generally is the reason why they give it up.

compared to the Civil War, it was bloodless.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Bush, Bernanke and Paulson gave the failing banks nearly $800 billion of taxpayer's money to keep them solvent. Real Capitalism In Action. Fuck Them!!

Strange the Republicans call the president a socialist. They jump in and spend a hundred times what a year's welfare costs and give it to the banks with no strings attached. They weren't even told they had to loan the money. I guess socialism is OK as long as the give-a-way is going to companies or the wealthy:

Irrelevancy alert.

Irrelevant in what way?

Exactly.

He obviously doesn't know the definition of the word. If he did he would know that the Reagan union busting, the tax cuts, the debt increase were the beginning of that redistribution of wealth. When the top get breaks and money is borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall the results are inevitable.

 

[Big Fitz]

Irrelevancy alert.

Irrelevant in what way?

Exactly.

He obviously doesn't know the definition of the word. If he did he would know that the Reagan union busting, the tax cuts, the debt increase were the beginning of that redistribution of wealth. When the top get breaks and money is borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall the results are inevitable.

Ahhh the call of Thom Hartmann... it's all Reagan's fault.

Again. Economies are not zero sum games. Also, who are the major winners of redistributed wealth if you want to define it that way? Corporations in bed with government for legislative protectionism. Who's the biggest proponent of that lately? The Obama Admin through Jeffry Immelt.

 

[Sallow]

Unions are not the bulwark against income equality and income equality is a non issue, just like Anthropogenic CO2 to climate change.

Of course, just like the Chicken Littles, the priests of economic 'justice' is a religion.

Bullshit.

Economic inequality in this country hit the stratosphere as Union membership went down.

Still a non-issue.

Economies are not a zero sum game.

What the hell are you talking about?

Wealth has a way of skewing upward if there is nothing in place to protect against that.

People are greedy. It's as simple as that.

 

[Big Fitz]

Bullshit.

Economic inequality in this country hit the stratosphere as Union membership went down.

Still a non-issue.

Economies are not a zero sum game.

What the hell are you talking about?

Wealth has a way of skewing upward if there is nothing in place to protect against that.

People are greedy. It's as simple as that.

And who is more greedy than those who are poor and/or indigent? How many times have we heard from the poverty pimps that they are entitled to get but not required to work for wealth in this nation?

 

[Sallow]

Irrelevant in what way?

Exactly.

He obviously doesn't know the definition of the word. If he did he would know that the Reagan union busting, the tax cuts, the debt increase were the beginning of that redistribution of wealth. When the top get breaks and money is borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall the results are inevitable.

Ahhh the call of Thom Hartmann... it's all Reagan's fault.

Again. Economies are not zero sum games. Also, who are the major winners of redistributed wealth if you want to define it that way? Corporations in bed with government for legislative protectionism. Who's the biggest proponent of that lately? The Obama Admin through Jeffry Immelt.

Again, part and parcel with the social compact is that the participants in each society are going to get a share of the resources. It doesn't necessarily have to be equal..but the parties do have to consider it fair. When that breaks..so does society.

 

[Sallow]

Still a non-issue.

Economies are not a zero sum game.

What the hell are you talking about?

Wealth has a way of skewing upward if there is nothing in place to protect against that.

People are greedy. It's as simple as that.

And who is more greedy than those who are poor and/or indigent? How many times have we heard from the poverty pimps that they are entitled to get but not required to work for wealth in this nation?

The wealthy. Which is why they are wealthy.

 

[Claudette]

One things for sure.

Cars would be a hell of a lot cheaper if there were no Unions.

 

[Sallow]

That's he OP's theory that Unions are essential and much labor reform could not have happened without it. This is not true, of course. Much like how slavery was abolished without bloodshed in the rest of the world, war is not required to end it either. Unions are a mixed bag of good and bad things. Of course it becomes almost completely bad when they get in bed or INTO government.

You're kidding.

You really need to do a bit more research before you come out with this bullshit. Almost every society that has practiced slavery has had to deal with slave revolts. Which generally is the reason why they give it up.

compared to the Civil War, it was bloodless.

Changing goalposts?

Most slave revolts were pretty bloody..given the proportional populations at the time. The Civil War was bloody because the US was a big nation.

Most cultures didn't suddenly one day decide slavery was bad. It was an evolution. Part of which involved the realization that the enslaved were ready to cut the throats of those doing the enslaving.

 

[Sallow]

One things for sure.

Cars would be a hell of a lot cheaper if there were no Unions.

Why would you think that?

Wall street got rid of Unions..and did not cut prices..in fact they raised them. They also cut workforce, benefits and salaries.

What happens to all that extra dough?

Check the bonuses and salaries of CEOs on the street. 20 million a year..is not unusual.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Irrelevant in what way?

Exactly.

He obviously doesn't know the definition of the word. If he did he would know that the Reagan union busting, the tax cuts, the debt increase were the beginning of that redistribution of wealth. When the top get breaks and money is borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall the results are inevitable.

Ahhh the call of Thom Hartmann... it's all Reagan's fault.

Again. Economies are not zero sum games. Also, who are the major winners of redistributed wealth if you want to define it that way? Corporations in bed with government for legislative protectionism. Who's the biggest proponent of that lately? The Obama Admin through Jeffry Immelt.

No..........it's Reagan and the Bushes fault:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86 (Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43 (First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[M14 Shooter]

No..........it's Reagan and the Bushes fault:

You're funny.

What was the debt 1-20-2009?
What is it now?