Why you hate unions?

[auditor0007]

Because they have an unholy alliance with democrats laundering taxpayer money into their campaigns keeping them in power, not to mention they strangle businesses out of business and cost the government far too much money.

Any other questions... what did I have for breakfast? Scrambled eggs.

How is it any different from the unholy alliances between big business and Republicans that support all types of corporate welfare? Thought not.

 

[candycorn]

Why do people hate unions? Will corporations do right by the workers if not mandated to? I am still looking online and see no benefit to workers not being union.

The hysteria caused by unions are not consecutive with reality in many cases. In some cases it is but in many cases it is not.

Unions are anti-competitive and as a result, they are not built to last without artificial inducements.

All too often, the unions set themselves up as a third party in a transaction that is between two individuals.

Corporations will never do "right" by their workers if your definition of "right" is guaranteed lifelong employment with steady raises and full benefits. It is true that any corporation that offers these "right" qualities was coerced into doing it.

Wal Mart got rid of all of their in store meat cutters (one now works for me sorta and I am a logistics manager for a healthcare provider) because one chapter in one local area decided to unionize. So every meat cutter at its stores was sent packing (pun intended). That is just one of many ways a union can hurt employees.

 

[StevenC]

Because they have an unholy alliance with democrats laundering taxpayer money into their campaigns keeping them in power, not to mention they strangle businesses out of business and cost the government far too much money.

Any other questions... what did I have for breakfast? Scrambled eggs.

How is it any different from the unholy alliances between big business and Republicans that support all types of corporate welfare? Thought not.

So lets do away with both.
Oh and you do realize that democrats have also supported corporate welfare.
Hell isn't that what Obama is doing with green energy?

 

[Old_Liberal]

I hate these unions because they want a living wage for their members. NOW, how in the hell can the CEOs buy a 5 mil dollar home if they pay their workers higher wages? If they did that, the ceo would have to settle for a 3 mil dollar home and we sure as hell cannot tolerate that.

This is america damn it, and the owners should be free to pay whatever the hell that want to pay in wages. If the workers don't like it, let em go somewhere else! The nerve of these workers wanting a living wage! Entitled sons of bitches. If they want a living wage, they should have been born into wealth.

 

[Meister]

Because they have an unholy alliance with democrats laundering taxpayer money into their campaigns keeping them in power, not to mention they strangle businesses out of business and cost the government far too much money.

Any other questions... what did I have for breakfast? Scrambled eggs.

How is it any different from the unholy alliances between big business and Republicans that support all types of corporate welfare? Thought not.

You might also want to educate yourself on the alliance of big business and democrats.
just sayin...

 

[candycorn]

Unions are filled with corruption and thuggery.

Generalize much?

They buy politicians with members' money. They drive up the cost of goods so their big wigs can line their pockets with green. They don't care as much about their members as they lead you to believe, it's all about money, money and more money.

I know a lot of Teamsters that will tell anyone who will listen the exact same thing.

Just like the Dems want your vote, the union bosses need your money to buy those votes.

When it comes to working people of this nation, the Democratic party currently doesn't have any competitors for those votes so you're wrong on this count.

There was a time when Union workers were skilled workers, today they don't work as hard as they should because they don't have to.

Again, you speak rubbish.

Ride along with a UPS driver one day. You'll be begging for mercy by noon.

Unions are blackmailing members to believe they care about them. If unions cared Detroit wouldn't be in the shape it is today.

No labor unions in China:

Give 20 minutes of your life to listen to this:

Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory | This American Life

If you think that it can't happen here, you're believing your own rubbish. You are right about Unions not caring about their members individually though.

 

[candycorn]

Because they have an unholy alliance with democrats laundering taxpayer money into their campaigns keeping them in power, not to mention they strangle businesses out of business and cost the government far too much money.

Any other questions... what did I have for breakfast? Scrambled eggs.

How is it any different from the unholy alliances between big business and Republicans that support all types of corporate welfare? Thought not.

So lets do away with both.
Oh and you do realize that democrats have also supported corporate welfare.
Hell isn't that what Obama is doing with green energy?

Yes he is. The reason is because energy dependence upon the Middle East is a very poor leg to stand on. Currently there isn't enough venture capital to fund unproven technologies. Once we get the manufacturing processes down, the subsidies should go away as he is trying to do to the Oil companies right now. The oil companies no longer need the subsidies because investors know that many of them are sure things. You couldn't say the same thing about Solyandra (sp?). There will be more failures than successes I'm afraid. And none of it is because these start-ups are unionized. If they were a lot more would fail; and that is just the truth.

 

[Meister]

How is it any different from the unholy alliances between big business and Republicans that support all types of corporate welfare? Thought not.

So lets do away with both.
Oh and you do realize that democrats have also supported corporate welfare.
Hell isn't that what Obama is doing with green energy?

Yes he is. The reason is because energy dependence upon the Middle East is a very poor leg to stand on. Currently there isn't enough venture capital to fund unproven technologies. Once we get the manufacturing processes down, the subsidies should go away as he is trying to do to the Oil companies right now. The oil companies no longer need the subsidies because investors know that many of them are sure things. You couldn't say the same thing about Solyandra (sp?).

You shouldn't have mentioned Solyndra....there was big time conflict of interests going on with it regarding our tax dollars funding this debacle. Not to mention it was poorly run and had red flags flying everywhere with the inevitable looming bankruptcy. It was a poor choice, but they needed to payback.

 

[candycorn]

So lets do away with both.
Oh and you do realize that democrats have also supported corporate welfare.
Hell isn't that what Obama is doing with green energy?

Yes he is. The reason is because energy dependence upon the Middle East is a very poor leg to stand on. Currently there isn't enough venture capital to fund unproven technologies. Once we get the manufacturing processes down, the subsidies should go away as he is trying to do to the Oil companies right now. The oil companies no longer need the subsidies because investors know that many of them are sure things. You couldn't say the same thing about Solyandra (sp?).

You shouldn't have mentioned Solyndra....there was big time conflict of interests going on with it regarding our tax dollars funding this debacle. Not to mention it was poorly run and had red flags flying everywhere with the inevitable looming bankruptcy. It was a poor choice, but they needed to payback.

Who funded Solndra? Well, it started under President Bush and was continued under Obama. Conflicts of interest? I'm sure there was.

I'm more concerned about the amounts than the COI's myself.

Still aside from the politics of it, the fact is that most start-ups fail whether it is a coffee shop, a grocery store or an energy company. Energy companies are going to have a larger wake of failure than the others.

I think we can all agree (getting back to the politics)that Solyndra would have failed with or without our investment.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why do people hate unions? Will corporations do right by the workers if not mandated to? I am still looking online and see no benefit to workers not being union.

1) I support private unions
2) Because of unions we now have laws on the books to protect workers
3) I do NOT support public sector unions, that is unionizing people who are paid with tax money.

 

[Meister]

Yes he is. The reason is because energy dependence upon the Middle East is a very poor leg to stand on. Currently there isn't enough venture capital to fund unproven technologies. Once we get the manufacturing processes down, the subsidies should go away as he is trying to do to the Oil companies right now. The oil companies no longer need the subsidies because investors know that many of them are sure things. You couldn't say the same thing about Solyandra (sp?).

You shouldn't have mentioned Solyndra....there was big time conflict of interests going on with it regarding our tax dollars funding this debacle. Not to mention it was poorly run and had red flags flying everywhere with the inevitable looming bankruptcy. It was a poor choice, but they needed to payback.

Who funded Solndra? Well, it started under President Bush and was continued under Obama. Conflicts of interest? I'm sure there was.

I'm more concerned about the amounts than the COI's myself.

Still aside from the politics of it, the fact is that most start-ups fail whether it is a coffee shop, a grocery store or an energy company. Energy companies are going to have a larger wake of failure than the others.

I think we can all agree (getting back to the politics)that Solyndra would have failed with or without our investment.

No, the company was researched under Bush and it was shelved because of the red flags, Candycorn. Yes, Solyndra was going to fail and we shouldn't have spent over 500 million of our tax dollars.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Yes he is. The reason is because energy dependence upon the Middle East is a very poor leg to stand on. Currently there isn't enough venture capital to fund unproven technologies. Once we get the manufacturing processes down, the subsidies should go away as he is trying to do to the Oil companies right now. The oil companies no longer need the subsidies because investors know that many of them are sure things. You couldn't say the same thing about Solyandra (sp?).

You shouldn't have mentioned Solyndra....there was big time conflict of interests going on with it regarding our tax dollars funding this debacle. Not to mention it was poorly run and had red flags flying everywhere with the inevitable looming bankruptcy. It was a poor choice, but they needed to payback.

Who funded Solndra? Well, it started under President Bush and was continued under Obama. Conflicts of interest? I'm sure there was.

I'm more concerned about the amounts than the COI's myself.

Still aside from the politics of it, the fact is that most start-ups fail whether it is a coffee shop, a grocery store or an energy company. Energy companies are going to have a larger wake of failure than the others.

I think we can all agree (getting back to the politics)that Solyndra would have failed with or without our investment.

Yes bush started LOOKING at solyndra but his administration decided not to invest in it due to potential issues/red flags.

But...lets say for the sake of argument...bush DID invest in it. How would that make Obama continuing a failed policy any better? That is like saying its ok that Obama added 4 trillion to the debt because "bush did it too"

I mean I thought we all didn't like bush? Why are we using him as the "Standard bearer" if he was such a bad pres?

 

[candycorn]

You shouldn't have mentioned Solyndra....there was big time conflict of interests going on with it regarding our tax dollars funding this debacle. Not to mention it was poorly run and had red flags flying everywhere with the inevitable looming bankruptcy. It was a poor choice, but they needed to payback.

Who funded Solndra? Well, it started under President Bush and was continued under Obama. Conflicts of interest? I'm sure there was.

I'm more concerned about the amounts than the COI's myself.

Still aside from the politics of it, the fact is that most start-ups fail whether it is a coffee shop, a grocery store or an energy company. Energy companies are going to have a larger wake of failure than the others.

I think we can all agree (getting back to the politics)that Solyndra would have failed with or without our investment.

Yes bush started LOOKING at solyndra but his administration decided not to invest in it due to potential issues/red flags.

But...lets say for the sake of argument...bush DID invest in it. How would that make Obama continuing a failed policy any better? That is like saying its ok that Obama added 4 trillion to the debt because "bush did it too"

I mean I thought we all didn't like bush? Why are we using him as the "Standard bearer" if he was such a bad pres?

Because of the above highlighted response I received.

The thread isn't about politics but since this is a political board, it was brought into the picture and hence the last few posts.

Can you give a link to the timeline? Wiki has a different take but I don't trust it in this case.

 

[candycorn]

You shouldn't have mentioned Solyndra....there was big time conflict of interests going on with it regarding our tax dollars funding this debacle. Not to mention it was poorly run and had red flags flying everywhere with the inevitable looming bankruptcy. It was a poor choice, but they needed to payback.

Who funded Solndra? Well, it started under President Bush and was continued under Obama. Conflicts of interest? I'm sure there was.

I'm more concerned about the amounts than the COI's myself.

Still aside from the politics of it, the fact is that most start-ups fail whether it is a coffee shop, a grocery store or an energy company. Energy companies are going to have a larger wake of failure than the others.

I think we can all agree (getting back to the politics)that Solyndra would have failed with or without our investment.

No, the company was researched under Bush and it was shelved because of the red flags, Candycorn. Yes, Solyndra was going to fail and we shouldn't have spent over 500 million of our tax dollars.

I guess the question is; should we have spent anything since the debate is being framed in the sense of Unions partnering with workers on the left and Government partnering with big business on the right?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Who funded Solndra? Well, it started under President Bush and was continued under Obama. Conflicts of interest? I'm sure there was.

I'm more concerned about the amounts than the COI's myself.

Still aside from the politics of it, the fact is that most start-ups fail whether it is a coffee shop, a grocery store or an energy company. Energy companies are going to have a larger wake of failure than the others.

I think we can all agree (getting back to the politics)that Solyndra would have failed with or without our investment.

Yes bush started LOOKING at solyndra but his administration decided not to invest in it due to potential issues/red flags.

But...lets say for the sake of argument...bush DID invest in it. How would that make Obama continuing a failed policy any better? That is like saying its ok that Obama added 4 trillion to the debt because "bush did it too"

I mean I thought we all didn't like bush? Why are we using him as the "Standard bearer" if he was such a bad pres?

Because of the above highlighted response I received.

The thread isn't about politics but since this is a political board, it was brought into the picture and hence the last few posts.

Can you give a link to the timeline? Wiki has a different take but I don't trust it in this case.

Unions are all about politics! C'mon where have you been hiding?


Obama was inagurated in january of 09, wikipedia has the first govt support showing in march of 09. You misread the timeline....here

Solyndra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inauguration of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Meister]

Who funded Solndra? Well, it started under President Bush and was continued under Obama. Conflicts of interest? I'm sure there was.

I'm more concerned about the amounts than the COI's myself.

Still aside from the politics of it, the fact is that most start-ups fail whether it is a coffee shop, a grocery store or an energy company. Energy companies are going to have a larger wake of failure than the others.

I think we can all agree (getting back to the politics)that Solyndra would have failed with or without our investment.

No, the company was researched under Bush and it was shelved because of the red flags, Candycorn. Yes, Solyndra was going to fail and we shouldn't have spent over 500 million of our tax dollars.

I guess the question is; should we have spent anything since the debate is being framed in the sense of Unions partnering with workers on the left and Government partnering with big business on the right?

When it comes to parties and their affiliations with big business, I don't think there is much difference. That's why I feel that lobbyists are way too powerful in this country.

 

[PredFan]

Why do people hate unions?

For myself, I hate unions because of the blackmail tactics they use routinely, because they are greedy and will strangle a company to get pay that they do not earn, and because they would seel the whole country or their state down the river so long as they get theirs.

Will corporations do right by the workers if not mandated to?

Yes.

I am still looking online and see no benefit to workers not being union.

Why are you looking on line? Just ask someone who is non-union. The benefit for me is that I don't have to pay union dues, and that I can go anywhere and get any job (except for government jobs which are union), and that the company that I work for is healthy and not likely to go away.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why do unions exist?

Did labor/trade unions exist in Communist Nations, such as Russia, China or Vietnam? Do they exist in Saudia Arabia and other Kingdoms?

Isn't liberty and freedom the greatest concern of conservatives? Isn't the right to organize an exercise of freedom and liberty?

Or is lassivez fair a foreign word which means only those who own the means of production should be free to exercise their rights under the principle of Freedom ane Liberty for some?

 

[kaz]

Or is lassivez fair a foreign word which means only those who own the means of production should be free to exercise their rights...

This...is the lie of the left. Rights are determined by market power. Workers are free to join and bargain. The issue is about artificial power provided to unions by government guns. That artificial power is even worse when government negotiates with government unions and sends the bill to taxpayers who had no say.

I think exercising rights is the right to act freely and fail if you act wrong.

You think exercising rights is the right to have government guns shut down your employer if they don't give you what you want. You're wrong, that's not a right. That's a crime.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes he is. The reason is because energy dependence upon the Middle East is a very poor leg to stand on. Currently there isn't enough venture capital to fund unproven technologies. Once we get the manufacturing processes down, the subsidies should go away as he is trying to do to the Oil companies right now. The oil companies no longer need the subsidies because investors know that many of them are sure things. You couldn't say the same thing about Solyandra (sp?).

You shouldn't have mentioned Solyndra....there was big time conflict of interests going on with it regarding our tax dollars funding this debacle. Not to mention it was poorly run and had red flags flying everywhere with the inevitable looming bankruptcy. It was a poor choice, but they needed to payback.

Who funded Solndra? Well, it started under President Bush and was continued under Obama. Conflicts of interest? I'm sure there was.

I'm more concerned about the amounts than the COI's myself.

Still aside from the politics of it, the fact is that most start-ups fail whether it is a coffee shop, a grocery store or an energy company. Energy companies are going to have a larger wake of failure than the others.

I think we can all agree (getting back to the politics)that Solyndra would have failed with or without our investment.

No one died as a result of Solyndra's failure; how many GI's died while taking a shower in Iraq? See the connection between Haliburton (KBR) and the Bush Administration.