Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I wonder if you have ever looked into companies that cap executive compensation at some multiple of the lowest paid employee salary? They exist.
And that is the choice of the company it is not your choice to decide that is it?
We can discuss that. First, please look into a few of them. You may find that legislating such a thing could be good for the country. Maybe you won't. As it is now, you speak from a position of ignorance.
Once again a right to work law does NOT bust unions. It merely gives people the opportunity to get a job without being forced to join a union.
Of course it is.
And of course it does. In almost every state that has "right to work" laws..the power of Unions have been diminished. Other lovely things have happened as well. Like job losses, wage reductions and the elimination of benefits.
Oh..and the amount of millionaires becoming billionaires has skyrocketed.
Oh the poor unions can't force people to join so they lose money.
Tell me how many other groups do you think people should be forced to join and pay dues even if they would rather not?
When the rich use their money to push for Free Trade Treaties, "Right to WOrk" laws, union busting, "At Will Employment" - they are using their power to reduce what the rest of us make.
I'm always amazed that working class republicans go along with this shit. I'm amazed I went along with it as long as I did.
Once again a right to work law does NOT bust unions. It merely gives people the opportunity to get a job without being forced to join a union.
Right. Because, hey, an employer is always going to pick workers with higher pay and rights over ones with no rights and lower pay.
Thank you, Sir, may I have another.
And who has the most money for the campaign OBAMA . The left is richer then the right but its ok how they got their money right. Obama condemns wall street then ask for donations in the same sentence. He has ruined this country and we have lost so many rights since him being in office. Number one being anyone one can be held without any reason that they might suspect they might be terrorist . That is scary shit to me...So you aren't angry with the rich because they have more money than you? Isn't that the very definition of envy?
Nobody is angry at rich people because they have more money. Well, none that I know of. How SOME of them get that money, that is a different story....
Also, how they use that money to influence Washington....is another story, too..
Of course it is.
And of course it does. In almost every state that has "right to work" laws..the power of Unions have been diminished. Other lovely things have happened as well. Like job losses, wage reductions and the elimination of benefits.
Oh..and the amount of millionaires becoming billionaires has skyrocketed.
Oh the poor unions can't force people to join so they lose money.
Tell me how many other groups do you think people should be forced to join and pay dues even if they would rather not?
Skipped over the consequences, did ya?
Look..no unions and we are back to the mercy of what corporations did before the depression.
Like:
-No health care.
-Bottom of the barrel wages.
-Long hours.
-Dangerous work conditions.
Good on you to advocate for that shit.
That already happens now .. You may not want to join the union but you have to pay the dues anyway because you might benefit from them.. Unions are worthless now and just leeches and want way benefits for them..Once again a right to work law does NOT bust unions. It merely gives people the opportunity to get a job without being forced to join a union.
Right. Because, hey, an employer is always going to pick workers with higher pay and rights over ones with no rights and lower pay.
Thank you, Sir, may I have another.
So unions should be able to force people to join and pay dues?
Oh..and the amount of millionaires becoming billionaires has skyrocketed.
Once again a right to work law does NOT bust unions. It merely gives people the opportunity to get a job without being forced to join a union.
Right. Because, hey, an employer is always going to pick workers with higher pay and rights over ones with no rights and lower pay.
Thank you, Sir, may I have another.
So unions should be able to force people to join and pay dues?
Right. Because, hey, an employer is always going to pick workers with higher pay and rights over ones with no rights and lower pay.
Thank you, Sir, may I have another.
So unions should be able to force people to join and pay dues?
If it's a union shop, yeah. In fact, I think union shops should be mandetory for anyone who employs more than 50 people.
Frankly, I'd have no problem paying 10% in dues if I were making 30% more.
Unions created the middle class in this country. Not the beneficence of the Mitt Romneys of the world.
Now, I have my criticism of unions, and a lot of their misfortunes are of their own making. But in principle, it's a good idea for workers to have someone to bargain for them collectively.
Oh the poor unions can't force people to join so they lose money.
Tell me how many other groups do you think people should be forced to join and pay dues even if they would rather not?
Skipped over the consequences, did ya?
Look..no unions and we are back to the mercy of what corporations did before the depression.
Like:
-No health care.
-Bottom of the barrel wages.
-Long hours.
-Dangerous work conditions.
Good on you to advocate for that shit.
hyperbole.
Unions did some good work in the past and now the things you mentioned are more or less the standard in the country.
To think that overtime laws and workplace safety will all of a sudden disappear if people are not forced to join unions is stupid.
Maybe unions should market themselves like any other business or advocacy association rather than having the ability to force people to join.
Well shit Joe just what is their" fair share?"
The wealthy already pay the lions share of Fed taxes as it is.
How much more should they pay??
Personally I think they need to get rid of the tax loopholes, tax breaks and subsidies and that would provide more revenue that the wealthy can put out. There just aren't enough of em.
Please... I realize you buy into the Limbaugh propaganda about how the poor rich are just paying too much, but that isn't the case.
I'd have no problem if we went back to where we were pre-Bush-43.
Point is, I think there should be a combination of spending cuts AND tax increases, but the rich should pay the lion's share of them.
Skipped over the consequences, did ya?
Look..no unions and we are back to the mercy of what corporations did before the depression.
Like:
-No health care.
-Bottom of the barrel wages.
-Long hours.
-Dangerous work conditions.
Good on you to advocate for that shit.
hyperbole.
Unions did some good work in the past and now the things you mentioned are more or less the standard in the country.
To think that overtime laws and workplace safety will all of a sudden disappear if people are not forced to join unions is stupid.
Maybe unions should market themselves like any other business or advocacy association rather than having the ability to force people to join.
No it ain't. That's EXACTLY what's been happening. Wages have been flat, pensions are gone, benefits are reduced and the rich are getting richer.
And no one is forcing anyone to join. It's the same sort of "force" executives use in the first place.
Have you ever considered cause and effect? Before the infamous Bush tax cuts, we had a budget surplus. We fought two wars on the Chinese credit card and reduced revenue buy cutting taxes on those who could at least afford to pay taxes.Well shit Joe just what is their" fair share?"
The wealthy already pay the lions share of Fed taxes as it is.
How much more should they pay??
Personally I think they need to get rid of the tax loopholes, tax breaks and subsidies and that would provide more revenue that the wealthy can put out. There just aren't enough of em.
Please... I realize you buy into the Limbaugh propaganda about how the poor rich are just paying too much, but that isn't the case.
I'd have no problem if we went back to where we were pre-Bush-43.
Point is, I think there should be a combination of spending cuts AND tax increases, but the rich should pay the lion's share of them.
Sorry to disappoint but I don't listen to Limbaugh or watch Hannity.
Totally agree on the spending cuts as well.
If they raise taxes then they need to raise taxes on everyone. The middle class is where the revenue is. There just aren't enough rich out there.
Skipped over the consequences, did ya?
Look..no unions and we are back to the mercy of what corporations did before the depression.
Like:
-No health care.
-Bottom of the barrel wages.
-Long hours.
-Dangerous work conditions.
Good on you to advocate for that shit.
hyperbole.
Unions did some good work in the past and now the things you mentioned are more or less the standard in the country.
To think that overtime laws and workplace safety will all of a sudden disappear if people are not forced to join unions is stupid.
Maybe unions should market themselves like any other business or advocacy association rather than having the ability to force people to join.
No it ain't. That's EXACTLY what's been happening. Wages have been flat, pensions are gone, benefits are reduced and the rich are getting richer.
And no one is forcing anyone to join. It's the same sort of "force" executives use in the first place.
If a pensioner is promised that money after a lifetime of service to a company and then that company decides to take that cash and give it to stockholders who did not earn it after working for the company for twenty or thirty years, why on earth should anyone think of that as beneficial? Are pensioners supposed to rot after this Conservative onslaught? You would eliminate Social Security and eliminate pension plans. What's the future supposed look like for retirees? Color them Conservative bleak.hyperbole.
Unions did some good work in the past and now the things you mentioned are more or less the standard in the country.
To think that overtime laws and workplace safety will all of a sudden disappear if people are not forced to join unions is stupid.
Maybe unions should market themselves like any other business or advocacy association rather than having the ability to force people to join.
No it ain't. That's EXACTLY what's been happening. Wages have been flat, pensions are gone, benefits are reduced and the rich are getting richer.
And no one is forcing anyone to join. It's the same sort of "force" executives use in the first place.
Pensions should be gone.
Or would you want to pay more for everything than you do now?
To think a company has to guarantee the income of a retiree is ridiculous.
And I have been forced to join unions before so don't tell me a union can't force you to join. I had to join and pay dues just so I could get a job.
Right. Because, hey, an employer is always going to pick workers with higher pay and rights over ones with no rights and lower pay.
Thank you, Sir, may I have another.
So unions should be able to force people to join and pay dues?
If it's a union shop, yeah. In fact, I think union shops should be mandetory for anyone who employs more than 50 people.
Frankly, I'd have no problem paying 10% in dues if I were making 30% more.
Unions created the middle class in this country. Not the beneficence of the Mitt Romneys of the world.
Now, I have my criticism of unions, and a lot of their misfortunes are of their own making. But in principle, it's a good idea for workers to have someone to bargain for them collectively.
Have you ever considered cause and effect? Before the infamous Bush tax cuts, we had a budget surplus. We fought two wars on the Chinese credit card and reduced revenue buy cutting taxes on those who could at least afford to pay taxes.Please... I realize you buy into the Limbaugh propaganda about how the poor rich are just paying too much, but that isn't the case.
I'd have no problem if we went back to where we were pre-Bush-43.
Point is, I think there should be a combination of spending cuts AND tax increases, but the rich should pay the lion's share of them.
Sorry to disappoint but I don't listen to Limbaugh or watch Hannity.
Totally agree on the spending cuts as well.
If they raise taxes then they need to raise taxes on everyone. The middle class is where the revenue is. There just aren't enough rich out there.
Look at us now.
Everyone knows that there aren't enough rich people to reduce the deficit alone. But everyone also knows that raising taxes on those who can afford it coupled with spending cuts makes the most sense. Congressional Republicans claim that closing loop holes is, in effect, a tax increase. So, their solution is to cut from those who can least afford it while coddling those who are raking in the most cash.
That's the attitude most Americans find perplexing. Why should we continue to cut from the poor while the rich get all the gravy and feel that this will somehow result in a better country for all?
