What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Labor’s Tent Is Shrinking For Some

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
7,628
Reaction score
744
Points
205
The following was inevitable the day private and public sector labor unions united under the same tent:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of union membership for public-sector workers last year was 35.7 percent, compared to just 6.6 percent for the private sector.

Of those working in the public sector, government had the highest union membership rate.

Union Membership Rate Falls to 100-Year Low
Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97 / January 23, 2015

Union Membership Rate Falls to 100-Year Low

Governments oppose private sector labor unions with a passion. The possibility that private sector organized labor may return to an adversarial relationship with management is the biggest economic fear Socialists live with. The risk of private sector unions returning to an adversarial relationship with management; thereby, offering opposition to the creation of tax dollar millionaires loyal to Socialism is a risk that is better eliminated.

Socialists must always leech off of the producers. In the case of labor unions Socialists are twice a leech. They donned a cloak of respectability by hiding in the ranks of unionized, necessary, civil servants, and at the same time they camped under the same tent as private sector unions; feeding on, while controlling, both as soon as they gained legal status.

Here is very brief history how government unions got to where they are at today. My highlights in the excerpt:


Change came in the 1950s. In 1958 New York mayor Robert Wagner, Jr. issued an executive order, called "the little Wagner Act," giving city employees certain bargaining rights, and gave their unions with exclusive representation (that is, the unions alone were legally authorized to speak for all city workers, regardless of whether or not some workers were members.) Management complained but the unions had power in city politics.

By the 1960s and 1970s public-sector unions expanded rapidly to cover teachers, clerks, firemen, police, prison guards and others. In 1962, President John Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, upgrading the status of unions of federal workers.

Recent years [edit]

After 1960 public sector unions grew rapidly and secured good wages and high pensions for their members. While manufacturing and farming steadily declined, state- and local-government employment quadrupled from 4 million workers in 1950 to 12 million in 1976 and 16.6 million in 2009.

In 2009 the U.S. membership of public sector unions surpassed membership of private sector unions for the first time, at 7.9m and 7.4m respectively.

In 2011 states faced a growing fiscal crisis and the Republicans had made major gains in the 2010 elections. Public sector unions came under heavy attack especially in Wisconsin, as well as Indiana, New Jersey and Ohio from conservative Republican legislatures. 2012 update. Conservative state legislatures tried to drastically reduce the abilities of unions to collectively bargain. Conservatives argued that public unions were too powerful since they helped elect their bosses, and that overly generous pension systems were too heavy a drain on state budgets


Legal government unions created two labor movements operating in the United States at the same time:

1. The private sector labor movement.

2. The government employee labor movement.

These two movements were always diametrically opposed to one another although private sector union members must be shielded from that truth at all costs. Government employee unions organized against the American people while the members of private sector unions are part of the American people. That was only possible with the full support of Congress, the courts, and the ruling class.

Once the government takes over any private sector business the government becomes management. The last thing the government wants to see is Americans defining the government as management. The government seen as management would lead to private sector labor unions picketing the government rather than striking against one corporation or another. A lot of non-union Americans would soon side with the strikers as they did in the early years of the American Labor Movement.

And here’s a kick in the ass for laughs. A ton of money in stimulus bills going to the UAW is designed to smooth troubled waters somewhere down the road. There is also a possibility that workers in private sector unions who actually produce something will demand the same unlimited access to tax dollars that the education and medical industries enjoy.

Parenthetically, many Americans who do pay dues to one or another labor union mistakenly believe they are trade unionists occupying the moral high ground against the evil robber barons. Few of today’s rank and file union members know that the altruism from an earlier age associated with labor unions is largely a myth. The early labor movement was about capitalism; it was about individuals getting a piece of the pie for themselves. It was never about collectivism in the minds of rank and file union men back in the beginning.

In truth, one must still be well-connected to get into a high-paying labor union. Most, if not all, of the high-paying union jobs always passed from father to son. That form of union nepotism was practiced by white Americans before federal and state intervention into the workplace, and is now used just as effectively by minorities against the majority. The government’s interference in this area of labor has changed two things. It reversed who got screwed, and it made every level of the workplace dependent upon government patronage. Any person who does NOT hold a well-paying union job has no reason to vote for candidates who support private sector, or civil service, labor unions.

It just blows my mind knowing that rank & file private sector union members vote for the very Democrats who have been screwing them in incremental steps for more than 60 years. It is global village Democrats who are most responsible for sending jobs overseas, yet trade agreements alone are blamed for the loss of union jobs. Conservatives are not lily-white in this area to be sure, but they are less to blame for loss jobs than are the global villagers.

1947

The fact is that there has not been a private sector labor movement in this country since the National Labor Relations Act amended Taft-Hartley in 1947. The “Labor Movement” in the U.S. was only effective from about 1934 until Taft-Hartley became law over President Truman’s veto; a period of thirteen or so years.

Unions were established in this country way back in the nineteenth century, but they were powerless for the most part until the Great Depression. Many of the Johnny-come-lately unions that were founded in the middle and late thirties were organizations designed to prevent “Guild Socialism” type unions from flourishing. American working men and women were attracted to unions, but not to unions that fill the air with the overpowering stench of Guild Socialism.

Labor unions, during their brief period of some political influence, contributed much to creating a secure private sector middle class. Taqiyya the Liar talks about increasing taxation in order to help the middle class, and all the while he continues the Democrat party’s destruction of America’s private sector middle class in order to enrich the public sector.

Except for a very few private sector unions whose members are still well-paid, they were given the dirty end of the stick after Taft-Hartley, while civil service unions took off down the road to Socialism. When the A. F. of L. merged with the CIO in 1955, the heart and soul of the private sector Labor Movement was finally laid to rest. Taft-Hartley, combined with the merger, gave big government Socialists absolute control over the entire Labor Movement simply by controlling a few labor leaders.

Most importantly, Taft-Hartley took away a union’s power that is inherent in secondary boycotts. For example: If union members working in an oil refinery go out on strike at the refinery, union members cannot picket gas stations selling that company’s product. That’s a secondary boycott. Organized labor’s awesome power was effectively placed in the hands of a few union officials who play golf at the same country clubs with executives of major corporations and high-ranking government officials.

Interestingly, the A. F. of L. was basically made up of skilled workers while the CIO was made up of semi-skilled and unskilled workers. I always found it humorous in the beginning when robber barons and their stooges hated unions while unionized workers hated either the A. F. of L. or the CIO depending upon where their loyalties resided.

NOTE: America’s part in WWII was fought from Dec. 1941 to Aug. 1945; towards the end of the Labor Movement’s most influential years. I don’t know just what affect that war had on union membership, but I do know that the men and women who fought that war did not flock to the union banner when they came home. Had they done so Taft-Hartley would never have become law.

Outsourcing

One way the government eliminated private sector labor unions was to transfer as many jobs as possible to foreign countries. Once those industries that lend themselves to organized labor here in the United States are spread thin in dozens of Third World countries, America’s private sector labor unions will disappear entirely. Laborers in every country can then be enslaved by the UNIC (United Nations/International Community) in order to establish and preserve a universal wage scale at the lowest possible level. This must take place before absentee ownership can be advanced and protected on a global scale. Notice that I said “absentee ownership” rather than ownership.

Before voting for big-government labor candidates private sector union members should ask themselves the following:

1: How many unionized teaching jobs went overseas because of trade agreements?

2: How many teaching jobs of any kind went overseas?

3: How many administrative jobs in the entire field of education went overseas?

4: What is the number of government jobs lost to foreign trade agreements?

5: Do private sector unions have as much influence in Washington, or in state capitals, as do civil service unions or the teachers’ unions? (Teachers claim they are a professional association, but they really belong to government unions when you get right down to it.)

6: Do I actually believe that civil service unions controlled by Socialists are rowing the boat in the same direction as me?

7: Is there one private sector union whose members, while on strike, receive full pay from the company for not showing up for work?

Could the answers to the above questions be the reason why so many Americans have turned against all unions? (There was a time in this country when many non-union Americans would honor a picket line. Not so anymore.)

FDR

FDR, among many others, opposed government unions. Their reasons are still valid.

The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions
James Sherk is the Bradley fellow in labor policy at the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation.
Updated July 23, 2014, 4:19 PM

F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions - NYTimes.com

It is not possible to discuss the American Labor Movement without talking about Socialists.

In short: A private sector middle class is a cancer on society when viewed from a Communist perspective. To Socialists/Communists, every society should be structured with them at the top, government employees and business managers in the middle class, and every private sector employee at the bottom; earning less than the lowest paid government employee earns. That is the natural order of things in a totalitarian society. Anything less than that is not pure Communism/Socialism.

Finally, considering the way rank & file union members vote for Democrats, I have to conclude that those voters think they have it as good as it can get. My view is that things would be a hell of a lot better with a much smaller government controlling less of everything. Jobs will never come back to this country as long as the political power is committed to a global village. And it would certainly be much better if every tax dollar parasite is driven away from the public trough —— domestic parasites, and Third World parasites who get theirs from United Nations dues and assessments.

If you ain’t a necessary civil servant maintaining limited government, you ain’t getting your hands on tax dollars says it all for me.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,608
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
The following was inevitable the day private and public sector labor unions united under the same tent:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of union membership for public-sector workers last year was 35.7 percent, compared to just 6.6 percent for the private sector.

Of those working in the public sector, government had the highest union membership rate.

Union Membership Rate Falls to 100-Year Low
Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97 / January 23, 2015

Union Membership Rate Falls to 100-Year Low

Governments oppose private sector labor unions with a passion. The possibility that private sector organized labor may return to an adversarial relationship with management is the biggest economic fear Socialists live with. The risk of private sector unions returning to an adversarial relationship with management; thereby, offering opposition to the creation of tax dollar millionaires loyal to Socialism is a risk that is better eliminated.

Socialists must always leech off of the producers. In the case of labor unions Socialists are twice a leech. They donned a cloak of respectability by hiding in the ranks of unionized, necessary, civil servants, and at the same time they camped under the same tent as private sector unions; feeding on, while controlling, both as soon as they gained legal status.

Here is very brief history how government unions got to where they are at today. My highlights in the excerpt:


Change came in the 1950s. In 1958 New York mayor Robert Wagner, Jr. issued an executive order, called "the little Wagner Act," giving city employees certain bargaining rights, and gave their unions with exclusive representation (that is, the unions alone were legally authorized to speak for all city workers, regardless of whether or not some workers were members.) Management complained but the unions had power in city politics.

By the 1960s and 1970s public-sector unions expanded rapidly to cover teachers, clerks, firemen, police, prison guards and others. In 1962, President John Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, upgrading the status of unions of federal workers.

Recent years [edit]

After 1960 public sector unions grew rapidly and secured good wages and high pensions for their members. While manufacturing and farming steadily declined, state- and local-government employment quadrupled from 4 million workers in 1950 to 12 million in 1976 and 16.6 million in 2009.

In 2009 the U.S. membership of public sector unions surpassed membership of private sector unions for the first time, at 7.9m and 7.4m respectively.

In 2011 states faced a growing fiscal crisis and the Republicans had made major gains in the 2010 elections. Public sector unions came under heavy attack especially in Wisconsin, as well as Indiana, New Jersey and Ohio from conservative Republican legislatures. 2012 update. Conservative state legislatures tried to drastically reduce the abilities of unions to collectively bargain. Conservatives argued that public unions were too powerful since they helped elect their bosses, and that overly generous pension systems were too heavy a drain on state budgets


Legal government unions created two labor movements operating in the United States at the same time:

1. The private sector labor movement.

2. The government employee labor movement.

These two movements were always diametrically opposed to one another although private sector union members must be shielded from that truth at all costs. Government employee unions organized against the American people while the members of private sector unions are part of the American people. That was only possible with the full support of Congress, the courts, and the ruling class.

Once the government takes over any private sector business the government becomes management. The last thing the government wants to see is Americans defining the government as management. The government seen as management would lead to private sector labor unions picketing the government rather than striking against one corporation or another. A lot of non-union Americans would soon side with the strikers as they did in the early years of the American Labor Movement.

And here’s a kick in the ass for laughs. A ton of money in stimulus bills going to the UAW is designed to smooth troubled waters somewhere down the road. There is also a possibility that workers in private sector unions who actually produce something will demand the same unlimited access to tax dollars that the education and medical industries enjoy.

Parenthetically, many Americans who do pay dues to one or another labor union mistakenly believe they are trade unionists occupying the moral high ground against the evil robber barons. Few of today’s rank and file union members know that the altruism from an earlier age associated with labor unions is largely a myth. The early labor movement was about capitalism; it was about individuals getting a piece of the pie for themselves. It was never about collectivism in the minds of rank and file union men back in the beginning.

In truth, one must still be well-connected to get into a high-paying labor union. Most, if not all, of the high-paying union jobs always passed from father to son. That form of union nepotism was practiced by white Americans before federal and state intervention into the workplace, and is now used just as effectively by minorities against the majority. The government’s interference in this area of labor has changed two things. It reversed who got screwed, and it made every level of the workplace dependent upon government patronage. Any person who does NOT hold a well-paying union job has no reason to vote for candidates who support private sector, or civil service, labor unions.

It just blows my mind knowing that rank & file private sector union members vote for the very Democrats who have been screwing them in incremental steps for more than 60 years. It is global village Democrats who are most responsible for sending jobs overseas, yet trade agreements alone are blamed for the loss of union jobs. Conservatives are not lily-white in this area to be sure, but they are less to blame for loss jobs than are the global villagers.

1947

The fact is that there has not been a private sector labor movement in this country since the National Labor Relations Act amended Taft-Hartley in 1947. The “Labor Movement” in the U.S. was only effective from about 1934 until Taft-Hartley became law over President Truman’s veto; a period of thirteen or so years.

Unions were established in this country way back in the nineteenth century, but they were powerless for the most part until the Great Depression. Many of the Johnny-come-lately unions that were founded in the middle and late thirties were organizations designed to prevent “Guild Socialism” type unions from flourishing. American working men and women were attracted to unions, but not to unions that fill the air with the overpowering stench of Guild Socialism.

Labor unions, during their brief period of some political influence, contributed much to creating a secure private sector middle class. Taqiyya the Liar talks about increasing taxation in order to help the middle class, and all the while he continues the Democrat party’s destruction of America’s private sector middle class in order to enrich the public sector.

Except for a very few private sector unions whose members are still well-paid, they were given the dirty end of the stick after Taft-Hartley, while civil service unions took off down the road to Socialism. When the A. F. of L. merged with the CIO in 1955, the heart and soul of the private sector Labor Movement was finally laid to rest. Taft-Hartley, combined with the merger, gave big government Socialists absolute control over the entire Labor Movement simply by controlling a few labor leaders.

Most importantly, Taft-Hartley took away a union’s power that is inherent in secondary boycotts. For example: If union members working in an oil refinery go out on strike at the refinery, union members cannot picket gas stations selling that company’s product. That’s a secondary boycott. Organized labor’s awesome power was effectively placed in the hands of a few union officials who play golf at the same country clubs with executives of major corporations and high-ranking government officials.

Interestingly, the A. F. of L. was basically made up of skilled workers while the CIO was made up of semi-skilled and unskilled workers. I always found it humorous in the beginning when robber barons and their stooges hated unions while unionized workers hated either the A. F. of L. or the CIO depending upon where their loyalties resided.

NOTE: America’s part in WWII was fought from Dec. 1941 to Aug. 1945; towards the end of the Labor Movement’s most influential years. I don’t know just what affect that war had on union membership, but I do know that the men and women who fought that war did not flock to the union banner when they came home. Had they done so Taft-Hartley would never have become law.

Outsourcing

One way the government eliminated private sector labor unions was to transfer as many jobs as possible to foreign countries. Once those industries that lend themselves to organized labor here in the United States are spread thin in dozens of Third World countries, America’s private sector labor unions will disappear entirely. Laborers in every country can then be enslaved by the UNIC (United Nations/International Community) in order to establish and preserve a universal wage scale at the lowest possible level. This must take place before absentee ownership can be advanced and protected on a global scale. Notice that I said “absentee ownership” rather than ownership.

Before voting for big-government labor candidates private sector union members should ask themselves the following:

1: How many unionized teaching jobs went overseas because of trade agreements?

2: How many teaching jobs of any kind went overseas?

3: How many administrative jobs in the entire field of education went overseas?

4: What is the number of government jobs lost to foreign trade agreements?

5: Do private sector unions have as much influence in Washington, or in state capitals, as do civil service unions or the teachers’ unions? (Teachers claim they are a professional association, but they really belong to government unions when you get right down to it.)

6: Do I actually believe that civil service unions controlled by Socialists are rowing the boat in the same direction as me?

7: Is there one private sector union whose members, while on strike, receive full pay from the company for not showing up for work?

Could the answers to the above questions be the reason why so many Americans have turned against all unions? (There was a time in this country when many non-union Americans would honor a picket line. Not so anymore.)

FDR

FDR, among many others, opposed government unions. Their reasons are still valid.

The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions
James Sherk is the Bradley fellow in labor policy at the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation.
Updated July 23, 2014, 4:19 PM

F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions - NYTimes.com

It is not possible to discuss the American Labor Movement without talking about Socialists.

In short: A private sector middle class is a cancer on society when viewed from a Communist perspective. To Socialists/Communists, every society should be structured with them at the top, government employees and business managers in the middle class, and every private sector employee at the bottom; earning less than the lowest paid government employee earns. That is the natural order of things in a totalitarian society. Anything less than that is not pure Communism/Socialism.

Finally, considering the way rank & file union members vote for Democrats, I have to conclude that those voters think they have it as good as it can get. My view is that things would be a hell of a lot better with a much smaller government controlling less of everything. Jobs will never come back to this country as long as the political power is committed to a global village. And it would certainly be much better if every tax dollar parasite is driven away from the public trough —— domestic parasites, and Third World parasites who get theirs from United Nations dues and assessments.

If you ain’t a necessary civil servant maintaining limited government, you ain’t getting your hands on tax dollars says it all for me.

agreed, and , some studies show that govt workers get double what their private sector counterparts get. Unions are needed only to keep the union thug bosses on the welfare gravy train.
 

Tom Sweetnam

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
3,780
Reaction score
984
Points
955
Location
8000' up in the san juan mountain foothills
Private sector unions were responsible for the closure of 33,000 Rust Belt factories in the 70's, and the loss of 32 million American jobs to Mexico and Asia. Public sector unions are bankrupting many American cities and the piggies don't care. Should a cop with a GED certificate really be making the same income as dermatologists and heart surgeons?

Their was once an important place for unions, especially in their natural antagonism toward totalitarianism, left or right, and as a safeguard for democracy. In fact they were considered important step #1 in the postwar Marshall Plan. Labor unions were quickly reestablished in Europe and Japan as a hedge against any further fascist ambitions. Admittedly, there have been times in Western history when labor unions served a far nobler purpose than they do today.

Today, this week, Greece could serve as paradigm for what unions stand for in the 21st century: marxism, greed, intransigence, and gross irresponsibility.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,608
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
Private sector unions were responsible for the closure of 33,000 Rust Belt factories in the 70's, and the loss of 32 million American jobs to Mexico and Asia. Public sector unions are bankrupting many American cities and the piggies don't care. Should a cop with a GED certificate really be making the same income as dermatologists and heart surgeons?

Their was once an important place for unions, especially in their natural antagonism toward totalitarianism, left or right, and as a safeguard for democracy. In fact they were considered important step #1 in the postwar Marshall Plan. Labor unions were quickly reestablished in Europe and Japan as a hedge against any further fascist ambitions. Admittedly, there have been times in Western history when labor unions served a far nobler purpose than they do today.

Today, this week, Greece could serve as paradigm for what unions stand for in the 21st century: marxism, greed, intransigence, and gross irresponsibility.

mostly agree but marx was the original unions boss so I cant say that unions were ever anything but marxist dupes. At best they extorted money from the American people in the form of higher wages.
 

Mr Clean

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
17,675
Reaction score
5,657
Points
360
Private sector unions were responsible for the closure of 33,000 Rust Belt factories in the 70's, and the loss of 32 million American jobs to Mexico and Asia. Public sector unions are bankrupting many American cities and the piggies don't care. Should a cop with a GED certificate really be making the same income as dermatologists and heart surgeons?

Their was once an important place for unions, especially in their natural antagonism toward totalitarianism, left or right, and as a safeguard for democracy. In fact they were considered important step #1 in the postwar Marshall Plan. Labor unions were quickly reestablished in Europe and Japan as a hedge against any further fascist ambitions. Admittedly, there have been times in Western history when labor unions served a far nobler purpose than they do today.

Today, this week, Greece could serve as paradigm for what unions stand for in the 21st century: marxism, greed, intransigence, and gross irresponsibility.

mostly agree but marx was the original unions boss so I cant say that unions were ever anything but marxist dupes. At best they extorted money from the American people in the form of higher wages.


Because lower wages are always best for working people and America.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,608
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
Private sector unions were responsible for the closure of 33,000 Rust Belt factories in the 70's, and the loss of 32 million American jobs to Mexico and Asia. Public sector unions are bankrupting many American cities and the piggies don't care. Should a cop with a GED certificate really be making the same income as dermatologists and heart surgeons?

Their was once an important place for unions, especially in their natural antagonism toward totalitarianism, left or right, and as a safeguard for democracy. In fact they were considered important step #1 in the postwar Marshall Plan. Labor unions were quickly reestablished in Europe and Japan as a hedge against any further fascist ambitions. Admittedly, there have been times in Western history when labor unions served a far nobler purpose than they do today.

Today, this week, Greece could serve as paradigm for what unions stand for in the 21st century: marxism, greed, intransigence, and gross irresponsibility.

mostly agree but marx was the original unions boss so I cant say that unions were ever anything but marxist dupes. At best they extorted money from the American people in the form of higher wages.


Because lower wages are always best for working people and America.

dear lower wages mean lower prices so low wages do not hurt if they are accompanied by low prices. Over your head? Of course it is, you're a liberal!
 

initforme

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
16,576
Reaction score
2,562
Points
265
If one works full time for low wages that's fine..but I do believe they SHOULD receive some gov't assistance then as well. The anti worker stance by some is unfathomable. Low wage employers actually believe that people should actually be very productive. If that is your idea then I strongly adicse you to take your business overseas. I have no problem with that.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,608
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
If one works full time for low wages that's fine..but I do believe they SHOULD receive some gov't assistance then as well.

why ???that just encourages employers to pay even less and libturd govt to pay even more. Think!!
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,608
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
The anti worker stance by some is unfathomable.

too stupid!! there is no anti worker or anti consumer stance. If workers get less consumers get more. Since workers are consumers it does not matter. A liberal will just lack the IQ for critical thinking. Its a fact
 

initforme

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
16,576
Reaction score
2,562
Points
265
"too stupid!! there is no anti worker or anti consumer stance. If workers get less consumers get more. Since workers are consumers it does not matter."

Yes its good to stick it to your workers. A true conservative mindset.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,608
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
"too stupid!! there is no anti worker or anti consumer stance. If workers get less consumers get more. Since workers are consumers it does not matter."

Yes its good to stick it to your workers. A true conservative mindset.

too stupid if workers get low pay then customers get low prices. Workers are consumers.

As a liberal you lack the IQ to understand don't you?
 

Freemason9

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
280
Points
130
“Fear the time when the strikes stop while the great owners live - for every little beaten strike is proof that the step is being taken … fear the time when Manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of Manself, and this one quality is man, distinctive in the universe.”
John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath
 

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
11,034
Reaction score
6,012
Points
1,065
Location
Pittsburgh
A few thoughts:

Private sector unions were not responsible for the loss of jobs. They were doing no more collectively than any non-union person does individually - getting as much money and the best benefits possible for the work they were doing. But the unions were blindsided by competition from overseas, and frankly, automation has killed a big proportion of the production jobs that have been lost. Look at the big producers' stats on, for example, man-hours per ton of coal, or man-hours per ton of steel, or man-hours per auto. They are all WAY down due to automation and other technical advancements.

The idea that public sector unions are antagonistic to private sector unions is ridiculous and totally unsupported. The success of public-sector unions is independent of the problems with private sector unions, not cause and effect. Public sector unions are successful because politicians love to buy votes of government workers by giving them money and benefits.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,608
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
A few thoughts: Public sector unions are successful because politicians love to buy votes of government workers by giving them money and benefits.

very true and also because public sector union workers have a monopoly so don't have to worry about competition with lower wages the way the auto workers did.
 
OP
F

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
7,628
Reaction score
744
Points
205
“Fear the time when the strikes stop while the great owners live - for every little beaten strike is proof that the step is being taken … fear the time when Manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of Manself, and this one quality is man, distinctive in the universe.”
John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath

To Freemason9: Steinbeck’s fiction was always entertaining. His political philosophy is best summed up by this observation attributed to numerous authors:

If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.​
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,608
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
“Fear the time when the strikes stop while the great owners live - for every little beaten strike is proof that the step is being taken … fear the time when Manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of Manself, and this one quality is man, distinctive in the universe.”
John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath

To Freemason9: Steinbeck’s fiction was always entertaining. His political philosophy is best summed up by this observation attributed to numerous authors:

If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.​

yes Steinbeck did not know word one about economics.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$191.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top