Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
Because unions get out the vote for the Democratic Party.
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.
That's not what they are seeking. The always want MORE and expect everyone else to sacrifice to give it to them.
The Employer wants MORE too...he wants more labor for lesser compensation
In the last 30 years, the employers have gotten MORE than the employees
Again, we get back to my lynching example of how this just isn't true. just because 100 people assemble and agree that lynching a minority is a good idea does not grant their act or topic of conversation protection under the law.Freedom of assembly.
When these free people assemble they can talk about what they want.
If they talk about acting together to acheive their goals you can not make it illegal for them to act as a group.
You dont get to shut down their efforts to act in unison.
Then you would have to agree the first amendment makes unions unbannable
Freedom of assembly is not the right to force another into a group contract.
When the people who do this assembling deside to act in unison you have no right to force them to not act as a group.
All your hate for unions is a hate for freedom
Wow. that was intellectually dishonest.When a governor strips tries to strip SOME of his people of their rights then it seems to me Unions are needed very badly in this country.
Because unions get out the vote for the Democratic Party.
That's not what they are seeking. The always want MORE and expect everyone else to sacrifice to give it to them.
The Employer wants MORE too...he wants more labor for lesser compensation
In the last 30 years, the employers have gotten MORE than the employees
The 'employer' assumes the majority of the risk, and therefore is entitled to 'more' than the employees. Hell, w/o the 'employer,' the employee wouldn't exist.
Unions were set up to provide standard working conditions for employees; well, the gov't does that now, so why do we still need unions?
No... Truthiepoo is unfortunately an adult. a very... SPECIAL adult... but an adult.Freedom of assembly is not the right to force another into a group contract.
When the people who do this assembling deside to act in unison you have no right to force them to not act as a group.
All your hate for unions is a hate for freedom
Wow. Seriously what are you, 12? 13? 15 tops...
In the past 30 years, employers have been demanding more and more while workers have made more and more concessions.
Workers are working more hours and receiving fewer benefits. In tough economic times, workers are told to make do with less or risk losing their jobs.
While workers are accepting concessions, they are witnessing their top executives take more compensation.
That is why unions are needed
Really? Then why is Obama funneling so much money to big companies if they favor the right?
Personally i don't want some idiot union rep looking out for me.
I was forced to join a union once and all it did was cost me money. Union reps spent more time defending the fuck ups who should have been fired than anything else.
I was told I couldn't work through my lunch break and that I couldn't skip my 15 minute breaks. Really what the fuck does the union care if I work through lunch so I can leave 30 minutes earlier? The owner didn't care the idiot union rep gave me all kinds of shit about it.
Unions are for sheep.
The Employer wants MORE too...he wants more labor for lesser compensation
In the last 30 years, the employers have gotten MORE than the employees
The 'employer' assumes the majority of the risk, and therefore is entitled to 'more' than the employees. Hell, w/o the 'employer,' the employee wouldn't exist.
Unions were set up to provide standard working conditions for employees; well, the gov't does that now, so why do we still need unions?
It is a two sided coin
The employer "gives" nothing. He receives labor for which he makes a profit. Risk is spread around. If management takes a risk and fails....it is the employee who is first in line to pay the price
In the past 30 years, employers have been demanding more and more while workers have made more and more concessions.
Workers are working more hours and receiving fewer benefits. In tough economic times, workers are told to make do with less or risk losing their jobs.
While workers are accepting concessions, they are witnessing their top executives take more compensation.
That is why unions are needed
Huh? What was the minimum wage 30 years ago....?
No... Truthiepoo is unfortunately an adult. a very... SPECIAL adult... but an adult.When the people who do this assembling deside to act in unison you have no right to force them to not act as a group.
All your hate for unions is a hate for freedom
Wow. Seriously what are you, 12? 13? 15 tops...
Nice avatar BTW. Left, Back, Right, Right, Sword, Right, Up!
LOL
In the past 30 years, employers have been demanding more and more while workers have made more and more concessions.
Workers are working more hours and receiving fewer benefits. In tough economic times, workers are told to make do with less or risk losing their jobs.
While workers are accepting concessions, they are witnessing their top executives take more compensation.
That is why unions are needed
Huh? What was the minimum wage 30 years ago....?
30 years ago, a CEO would make about 20 times the average worker in that company. Now they make 300 to 400 times as much. Look at the CEO of Cigna. They produce nothing. They are merely middle men for hospitals, doctors and nurses. The CEO received a paycheck of $120,000,000.00. Is this what you are defending?
Question, how many insurance policies do you have to "skim" to make a single salary of $120,000,000.00? I wonder what the other executives from that company make? Don't you? What about all the other companies?