Democrats react to PBA endorsement of Trump

[Grumblenuts]

That doesn’t make sense....Trump can manufacture where he wants.

Not if it puts him out of business. Gawd you’re an idiot.

The point goes to not being a hypocrite. If he really cared about (valued) "America" he'd pay Americans to make his shit. Sure he'd make less. That's not the point. Leaders lead by example.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Trumps policies have overwhelmingly helped unions, and union workers.

Unprecedented: The Trump NLRB’s attack on workers’ rights

Introduction Under the Trump administration, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has systematically rolled back workers’ rights to form unions and engage in collective bargaining with their employers, to the detriment of workers, their communities, and the economy. The Trump board{{1}} has...

www.epi.org

 

[fncceo]

Trump and the Republicans are all about Union busting (except for the police union). I don’t see much union support coming their way when Biden is vowing to strengthen unions and worker’s rights.

Don't be too sure. Millions of American Workers are out of jobs right now because of lock downs.

I can see how the party that promises more and longer lock downs is going to get the support of those workers.

President Trump has always been about getting Americans back to work as soon as possible.

 

[Grumblenuts]

President Trump has always been about getting Americans back to work as soon as possible.

Leaders of both major Parties always pay lip service to "Jobs, jobs, jobs" to appease their corporate sponsors. Not "Good jobs" or "Safe jobs" mind you. Any old job will do. Hell three or four? Even better. And they've both been doing a bang up job of it this year, fur shur!

 

[fncceo]

President Trump has always been about getting Americans back to work as soon as possible.

Leaders of both major Parties always pay lip service to "Jobs, jobs, jobs" to appease their corporate sponsors. Not "Good jobs" or "Safe jobs" mind you. Any old job will do. Hell three or four? Even better. And they've both been doing a bang up job of it this year, fur shur!

Both candidates will stress recovery and getting Americans back to work, that's true.

But one party is for extended lock down and the other is not. Any American who is out of work, or faces unemployment in an extended lock down, will not vote for that party.

I don't care what your union bosses tell you or how much you hate The President. If it means being able to feed your family, you will vote for him.

 

[fncceo]

Personally, I really hope the Democrats stress "green jobs" or "ethical jobs" in their campaign.

Everyone knows that this is code for fewer and lower paying jobs.

 

[Coyote]

Trump and the Republicans are all about Union busting (except for the police union). I don’t see much union support coming their way when Biden is vowing to strengthen unions and worker’s rights.

How is defunding the police, ending fracking and vilifying those with disparate political views strengthening anything?

The Democrats have gone insane.

What does that have to do with what I said? (p.s. everyone vilifies those with disparate political views, including your side, one look at this message board should tell you that)

Not quite. One can wear a Biden/Harris shirt freely. Not so with a Trump/Pence shirt. Different rules. Hypocrisy 101.

Come down to WV.

 

[Coyote]

One of my pet peeves with unions was that they protected poor workers. The good workers don't really need protection. They're a valued commodity. Once a union inserts itself into the process though...the poor workers can't be fired easily anymore which generally means their work becomes even more shoddy.

I disagree. It really depends on the industry. I read somewhere where there are calculations made on the monetary value of worker vs the cost of increased safety measures, the value of the “product”, the cost of bad publicity. It all went in to decision making ... and if the valuation went against the workers, it was easier just to quietly settle the lawsuits with non disclosure agreements, of course.

Not saying everyone is like that, but it is much more common in industries that tend to employ low skilled workers or in some, where the workers are paid such as mining.

As I've said before there are instances of companies treating employees badly. As a rule of thumb though good employees are a valued asset of any company...arguably their most valuable asset! One of the selling points of most unions when they are trying to unionize a workplace is that it will be much harder for management to fire you. That isn't an appeal to the good employees, Coyote...that is an appeal to the poor ones!

I disagree, because, again, it depends on the industry, even an entire sector. There are many companies who’s employees are valued and shown they are valued, they have no desire to unionize. And that is good. They do not need a union.

There are also sectors where employees are not so valued. They can be fired and replaced, and as a result, will often endure a lot of abuses because speaking up could result in loss of job...even just calling in sick. This is where a union is needed.

What sector are you referring to?

Meat/poultry processing, farm workers for example.

 

[Mac-7]

Unions are bad according to you anti worker anti americans.

Unions can be bad and frequently are

but they do exist

and if one of them wants protection from local democrats and turns to trump for help how can we refuse?

 

[Care4all]

Yes I do and you support unions when a specific offender is brought up that is corrupt and vilates it union members you make some mindless comment about not supporting them all, then when SPECIFICALLY ask about that union you refer to your previous post, which is your usual dodge to avoid admitting you are full of horseshit.

Oh brother, it is crap like this that makes me realize discussion with you is a complete waste brain cells.

you: I am going to ask a question and have pre-decided what you are going to say.

me: xyz

you: no, you said what I pre-decided you were to say and that was abc.

me: but I said xyz.

you: LIAR, you said abc and in addition you said lmno and efg! I DEMAND that you say abc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

me: umh but I only said abc...

You were specifically ask if you thought it was a good idea for Unions to openly support parties that then vote for the Union to get more power more authority and more rights. You did not answer. Government Unions should NOT be allowed to donate to politics at all.

I was asked specifically if I support specific Unions. I don’t Support any specific unions. Which is what I said.

In the above example, you are moving the goal posts and now making it about public sector unions. Which do you mean public or private or is there any difference?

I do not have an issue with unions using their political fund to support politics. It is up to the members to make sure is doing it in the way wish. Likewise, I do not have a problem with trade groups doing the same.

Now, this is the last response I am making to you because either you deliberately mistake what I say or really aren’t reading it.

Goodbye

The question still begs to be answered, Coyote. Do you support Public Sector unions giving millions of dollars to get politicians elected that then turn around and give them lavish deals that the City/County/State/Country can't afford?

Yes, I support unions. If the State pays them too much for a job, then that falls on the State not doing their job when negotiating with them.

All kinds of PACs are out there giving money to politicians to lobby them for what they want.... what's the difference?

 

[Care4all]

Unions are bad according to you anti worker anti americans.

Unions can be bad and frequently are

but they do exist

and if one of them wants protection from local democrats and turns to trump for help how can we refuse?

It's fine to support them.....!

Just don't be hypocrites about it by hating unions when they support Dems, and being fine with them, when they support Repubs.

 

[Pete7469]

Yes, I support unions. If the State pays them too much for a job, then that falls on the State not doing their job when negotiating with them.

All kinds of PACs are out there giving money to politicians to lobby them for what they want.... what's the difference?

When you have a media that will demonize the state officials, or company executives who are "negotiating" with a thuggish union that is demanding wages and benefits that would bankrupt the entity, what do you think happens? If it's a government, they capitulate and let the next set of officials take the heat for bankrupting the city or state. If it's a company, like Hostess for example, the company folds, and even if a new company takes their place, they're not bound by the union and can pay meager wages to whomever applies for a job after that. Now a Mexican company makes your Twinkies and the people who used to make much more are unemployed entirely or they went back to work for half of what they made before.

Unions had their place 120 years ago helping increase wages, getting holidays and weekends, making safer conditions and other improvements, but in modern times they've done more to destroy industries than benefit anyone. Union workers were once proud to build the best shit in the world, now many workers are lazy, have little if any work ethic or pride in their trades or product. I briefly worked in a couple union shops and most of the co-workers were parasites, not people who made the company or industry better.


.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes, I support unions. If the State pays them too much for a job, then that falls on the State not doing their job when negotiating with them.

All kinds of PACs are out there giving money to politicians to lobby them for what they want.... what's the difference?

When you have a media that will demonize the state officials, or company executives who are "negotiating" with a thuggish union that is demanding wages and benefits that would bankrupt the entity, what do you think happens? If it's a government, they capitulate and let the next set of officials take the heat for bankrupting the city or state. If it's a company, like Hostess for example, the company folds, and even if a new company takes their place, they're not bound by the union and can pay meager wages to whomever applies for a job after that. Now a Mexican company makes your Twinkies and the people who used to make much more are unemployed entirely or they went back to work for half of what they made before.

Unions had their place 120 years ago helping increase wages, getting holidays and weekends, making safer conditions and other improvements, but in modern times they've done more to destroy industries than benefit anyone. Union workers were once proud to build the best shit in the world, now many workers are lazy, have little if any work ethic or pride in their trades or product. I briefly worked in a couple union shops and most of the co-workers were parasites, not people who made the company or industry better.


.

Ah, Pete! Those Hostess Twinkies are to die for! Let's all fall on our swords why don't we. It's always them damned shiftless workers.. Never mind that "Twinkie sales for the year, as of December 25, 2011, were 36 million packages, down almost 20% from a year earlier" nor that "Hostess said customers had migrated to healthier foods." It also simply couldn't matter that "Before Hostess Brands filed for bankruptcy, Twinkies were reduced in size." Nor that they magically now had " a longer shelf life of 45 days, which was also a change made before bankruptcy, compared to the 26 days of the original Twinkies." No, absolutely nothing one could blame on the company owners or managers. Spotless.

On March 18, 2013, it was reported that Twinkies would return to store shelves in May of that year. Twinkies, along with other Hostess Brands, were purchased out of bankruptcy by Apollo Global Management and Metropoulos & Co for $410 million. Twinkies returned to U.S. shelves on July 15, 2013. Apollo subsequently sold Hostess for $2.3 billion.

Ding Dong! Ho Ho! None too shabby for only 3 months "work," huh?! Yeah, screw the American Worker!

 

[Oldestyle]

Yes I do and you support unions when a specific offender is brought up that is corrupt and vilates it union members you make some mindless comment about not supporting them all, then when SPECIFICALLY ask about that union you refer to your previous post, which is your usual dodge to avoid admitting you are full of horseshit.

Oh brother, it is crap like this that makes me realize discussion with you is a complete waste brain cells.

you: I am going to ask a question and have pre-decided what you are going to say.

me: xyz

you: no, you said what I pre-decided you were to say and that was abc.

me: but I said xyz.

you: LIAR, you said abc and in addition you said lmno and efg! I DEMAND that you say abc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

me: umh but I only said abc...

You were specifically ask if you thought it was a good idea for Unions to openly support parties that then vote for the Union to get more power more authority and more rights. You did not answer. Government Unions should NOT be allowed to donate to politics at all.

I was asked specifically if I support specific Unions. I don’t Support any specific unions. Which is what I said.

In the above example, you are moving the goal posts and now making it about public sector unions. Which do you mean public or private or is there any difference?

I do not have an issue with unions using their political fund to support politics. It is up to the members to make sure is doing it in the way wish. Likewise, I do not have a problem with trade groups doing the same.

Now, this is the last response I am making to you because either you deliberately mistake what I say or really aren’t reading it.

Goodbye

The question still begs to be answered, Coyote. Do you support Public Sector unions giving millions of dollars to get politicians elected that then turn around and give them lavish deals that the City/County/State/Country can't afford?

Yes, I support unions. If the State pays them too much for a job, then that falls on the State not doing their job when negotiating with them.

All kinds of PACs are out there giving money to politicians to lobby them for what they want.... what's the difference?

The difference is that Public Sector unions are using taxpayer money that they've gotten from the politicians in sweetheart deals to support the very same politicians! Even someone as liberal as FDR grasped that having Public Sector employees unionize would be a bad thing!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes I do and you support unions when a specific offender is brought up that is corrupt and vilates it union members you make some mindless comment about not supporting them all, then when SPECIFICALLY ask about that union you refer to your previous post, which is your usual dodge to avoid admitting you are full of horseshit.

Oh brother, it is crap like this that makes me realize discussion with you is a complete waste brain cells.

you: I am going to ask a question and have pre-decided what you are going to say.

me: xyz

you: no, you said what I pre-decided you were to say and that was abc.

me: but I said xyz.

you: LIAR, you said abc and in addition you said lmno and efg! I DEMAND that you say abc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

me: umh but I only said abc...

You were specifically ask if you thought it was a good idea for Unions to openly support parties that then vote for the Union to get more power more authority and more rights. You did not answer. Government Unions should NOT be allowed to donate to politics at all.

I was asked specifically if I support specific Unions. I don’t Support any specific unions. Which is what I said.

In the above example, you are moving the goal posts and now making it about public sector unions. Which do you mean public or private or is there any difference?

I do not have an issue with unions using their political fund to support politics. It is up to the members to make sure is doing it in the way wish. Likewise, I do not have a problem with trade groups doing the same.

Now, this is the last response I am making to you because either you deliberately mistake what I say or really aren’t reading it.

Goodbye

The question still begs to be answered, Coyote. Do you support Public Sector unions giving millions of dollars to get politicians elected that then turn around and give them lavish deals that the City/County/State/Country can't afford?

Yes, I support unions. If the State pays them too much for a job, then that falls on the State not doing their job when negotiating with them.

All kinds of PACs are out there giving money to politicians to lobby them for what they want.... what's the difference?

The difference is that Public Sector unions are using taxpayer money that they've gotten from the politicians in sweetheart deals to support the very same politicians! Even someone as liberal as FDR grasped that having Public Sector employees unionize would be a bad thing!

There are "Public Sector unions" and then there are "Public Sector unions." FDR argued against government (perhaps only federal) employees collectively bargaining. He mentioned the Navy, for example, whose wages are set by Congress.

To appreciate the stark difference, determine what payer name appears on the paychecks. Public schools are mainly funded through real estate taxes where I live. We have local school boards for negotiating local contracts based upon local concerns. The teachers' checks have the name of the local school district listed as the payee. Public union "sweetheart deals" become a significant political concern only when you get to the big city level. Republicans are (hypocritically) all about greasing palms otherwise.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Trump and the Republicans are all about Union busting (except for the police union). I don’t see much union support coming their way when Biden is vowing to strengthen unions and worker’s rights.

How is defunding the police, ending fracking and vilifying those with disparate political views strengthening anything?

The Democrats have gone insane.

What does that have to do with what I said? (p.s. everyone vilifies those with disparate political views, including your side, one look at this message board should tell you that)

Not quite. One can wear a Biden/Harris shirt freely. Not so with a Trump/Pence shirt. Different rules. Hypocrisy 101.

Come down to WV.

Come up to anywhere in MA, NY, NJ, CT....it’s not cool.

 

[Care4all]

Yes I do and you support unions when a specific offender is brought up that is corrupt and vilates it union members you make some mindless comment about not supporting them all, then when SPECIFICALLY ask about that union you refer to your previous post, which is your usual dodge to avoid admitting you are full of horseshit.

Oh brother, it is crap like this that makes me realize discussion with you is a complete waste brain cells.

you: I am going to ask a question and have pre-decided what you are going to say.

me: xyz

you: no, you said what I pre-decided you were to say and that was abc.

me: but I said xyz.

you: LIAR, you said abc and in addition you said lmno and efg! I DEMAND that you say abc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

me: umh but I only said abc...

You were specifically ask if you thought it was a good idea for Unions to openly support parties that then vote for the Union to get more power more authority and more rights. You did not answer. Government Unions should NOT be allowed to donate to politics at all.

I was asked specifically if I support specific Unions. I don’t Support any specific unions. Which is what I said.

In the above example, you are moving the goal posts and now making it about public sector unions. Which do you mean public or private or is there any difference?

I do not have an issue with unions using their political fund to support politics. It is up to the members to make sure is doing it in the way wish. Likewise, I do not have a problem with trade groups doing the same.

Now, this is the last response I am making to you because either you deliberately mistake what I say or really aren’t reading it.

Goodbye

The question still begs to be answered, Coyote. Do you support Public Sector unions giving millions of dollars to get politicians elected that then turn around and give them lavish deals that the City/County/State/Country can't afford?

Yes, I support unions. If the State pays them too much for a job, then that falls on the State not doing their job when negotiating with them.

All kinds of PACs are out there giving money to politicians to lobby them for what they want.... what's the difference?

The difference is that Public Sector unions are using taxpayer money that they've gotten from the politicians in sweetheart deals to support the very same politicians! Even someone as liberal as FDR grasped that having Public Sector employees unionize would be a bad thing!

Sounds horrible, but please give me an example of what you mean?