No food stamps for any family of a striking worker

[Soggy in NOLA]

Even if you quit your job, your family still qualifies for food stamps. We do not allow families to starve in this country

How would I be allowing someone who quit their job to starve?

Sounds like they are allowing themselves to starve. And that my friend, is their ******* problem.

 

[Jarhead]

Even if you quit your job, your family still qualifies for food stamps. We do not allow families to starve in this country

How would I be allowing someone who quit their job to starve?

Sounds like they are allowing themselves to starve. And that my friend, is their ******* problem.

Better yet....

I bet they wouldnt quit without another job if there was no such thing as food stamps and welfare.

Ya think?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If the unions care so much about their dues payers then they can feed the people who refuse to work.

Why should the 88% of workers who aren't in a union foot the grocery bill for the 12% who choose to go on strike?

Yeah.....DAMN those 12%ers (who actually have the balls to Question Authority.....and, expose the 88% for the gutless-weenies/lemmings they are)!!!!​

Union people are sheep. They want to not work and expect me to support them.
I have absolutely no obligation to support someone who refuses to work.

I get up every day and work to support myself I would never ask another man to support me and I would never support another man who refused to work.

....And, if you're gettin' screwed-over (pay-wise), you're gonna roll-over (for management), 'cause you wanna keep your job.....even though it's more-than-obvious that upper-management is only worried about their next-fuckin'-bonu$ (and, could almost give-a-**** about the company's....or, your....long-term financial-stability/plans).​

 

[JBeukema]

To all those who say people get paid what they're worth...

how do you explain the CEOs at Enron?

 

[Truthmatters]

The right on here so partisan they cant even see their own partisanship.

If you take away someones right to a service anyone who qualifies can have then you are punishing them.

It is a political punishment set down by the government for legal ativity.


The only reason they are being denied the service is for partaking in a legal ativity.

 

[Jarhead]

The right on here so partisan they cant even see their own partisanship.

If you take away someones right to a service anyone who qualifies can have then you are punishing them.

It is a political punishment set down by the government for legal ativity.


The only reason they are being denied the service is for partaking in a legal ativity.

Actually...that is where YOU are blinded by your partisanship.

Food Stamps are for 2 groups of people:

1) Those who can not fend for themselves
2) those that do all they can to fend for themsleves, but are still not able to do it completely

Now, it is very difficult to determine who is truly trying and who is not trying to get by on their own....so all get it if their income level warrants it....even if they are not trying hard.

However.....when there is PROOF that you are not doing all you can do to meet your needs...such as striking without pay...then you are proving that you are not doing what you need to do to feed your family.

SO there is logic behind the legislation.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ho hum.

I know I am so frustrating. I mean wouldn't be just easier if I would just agree with you?

I don't see that happening anytime soon. But why should you not stand up for what you think is right? Thats what you say when you limit the bility for people to strike. And thats exactly what this bill will do.

People can stand up for what they think is right without unions. They have and they do.

Yeah......all-the-way to the next-day's Employment-ads, in the local-paper!!!!​

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The right on here so partisan they cant even see their own partisanship.

If you take away someones right to a service anyone who qualifies can have then you are punishing them.

It is a political punishment set down by the government for legal ativity.


The only reason they are being denied the service is for partaking in a legal ativity.

ok I am going on strike you are going to keep me up for as long as my demands are not met.

 

[JBeukema]

It got buried in TMs BS, but I think it was Willow who raised a good question: why aren't the unions saving dues and/or calling on other unions to support the workers during strikes? Just from a pragmatic standpoint, it would strengthen them for times of strike and ensure they could care for their members and their families even if the politicians were to prevent them from collecting State benefits.

Shouldn't the spirit of the union include using dues collected to ensure your people can pay their rent/mortgage and feed their children when you turn to such tactics as the general strike?

Morally, ethically, and pragmatically, Willow's question is a good one.

I think the answer is once again that the union leadership cares more about their own power and satiating their own greed than the good of their members of the proletariat as a whole.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/142896-unions-in-the-us.html

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So now you are making excuses for the punishment of these workers for perfectly legal activities?

You are going to keep me up I am going on strike.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

ThinkProgress » Buried Provision In House GOP Bill Would Cut Off Food Stamps To Entire Families If One Member Strikes


Want to talk about class warfare?

The republicans in congress have written into a bill a provision that anyone related to a striking worker will have their food stamps taken away.

So a single Mom can have her food stamps taken away for trying to strike for enough pay to get off of food stamps.


The right is full on against ANY workers rights.

Why do they hate the vast majority of Americans?

Why should they get food stamps. It's their own fault for not working and producing a means for making money.

Besides isn't that what their union dues are for to give union members a sources of money to be able to live while on strike? Oh thats right most of their union dues are going to fill the pockets of the union bosses.

MY HEART BLEEDS PISS FOR'EM

Truth I want you to address this.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

ThinkProgress » Buried Provision In House GOP Bill Would Cut Off Food Stamps To Entire Families If One Member Strikes


Want to talk about class warfare?

The republicans in congress have written into a bill a provision that anyone related to a striking worker will have their food stamps taken away.

So a single Mom can have her food stamps taken away for trying to strike for enough pay to get off of food stamps.


The right is full on against ANY workers rights.

Why do they hate the vast majority of Americans?

Why should they get food stamps. It's their own fault for not working and producing a means for making money.

Besides isn't that what their union dues are for to give union members a sources of money to be able to live while on strike? Oh thats right most of their union dues are going to fill the pockets of the union bosses.

MY HEART BLEEDS PISS FOR'EM

Truth I want you to address this.

TM is a goofy Brit hellbent on picking your pockets.

Ignore it.

 

[JBeukema]

If workers can collect such benefits while on strike, doesn't that encourage abuse of the strike, since it's no longer a measure of last resort?

On the other hand: What about the man's children? At what point must we step in and say 'if you're not going to work and provide for you're children, we'll put them with someone who will'?- but is that punishing the man and his child for striving for better conditions?

And then there's the matter of whether a given strike/set of demands is justifiable in itself. It's one thing to demand the gears be covered and you be given a respirator in the mind. It's another thing to demand more money 'just because' when you can't demonstrate that you need/deserve it, especially if it's not clear the company can really afford to meet your demands without harming the company and.or the working class as a whole.

There has to be a point where we tell the union bosses we can no longer tell them apart from the company bosses.

 

[signelect]

Did you know that when the union leaders urge the workers to strike that they do not forgo their wages during the strike. They are not able to demonstrate the courage of their convictions. If you don't want to work quit. but don't turn to me to feed you. I do not and will not belong to a union and I do my own negotiations. One thing is clear, union leaders are smarter than the people who join the union that is why they are paid so well. I had a little run in with a pretty big union about 30 years ago where 50/% of the dues were paid out to 20 union officials. Sounds good to me.

 

[JBeukema]

It got buried in TMs BS, but I think it was Willow who raised a good question: why aren't the unions saving dues and/or calling on other unions to support the workers during strikes? Just from a pragmatic standpoint, it would strengthen them for times of strike and ensure they could care for their members and their families even if the politicians were to prevent them from collecting State benefits.

Shouldn't the spirit of the union include using dues collected to ensure your people can pay their rent/mortgage and feed their children when you turn to such tactics as the general strike?

Morally, ethically, and pragmatically, Willow's question is a good one.

I think the answer is once again that the union leadership cares more about their own power and satiating their own greed than the good of their members of the proletariat as a whole.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/142896-unions-in-the-us.html

Hi, you have received -79 reputation points from bigrebnc1775.
Reputation was given for this post.

I guess he's throwing his hat in with TM

 

[Truthmatters]

I already did numberous times.

You are taking away a benifit that other Americans have access to because these peoples perfectly legal activity.


Why does that fact not permeate your brain case?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You have no idea about the histroy of unions do you?


What unions do is perfectly legal and the entire western world recognises the value of unions

Would you please explain to me why I should buy food for a union worker and their family who stops working by their own choice?

Don't waste your time, TM is about as ******* stupid as they come.. a typical societal parasite that demands everything for nothing.

And I suspect a cheesy Brit at that.. probably one of the ones responsible for the shithole that is now Great Britain.

How comical....and, a little-bit obnoxious....the way you 'Baggers speak with such certainty.....when you have no-fuckin'-IDEA what the Reality is.



@ 20.36

(....And, still you wonder why everyone considers you <Teabaggers> know-nothing ASSHOLES.

)​

 

[boedicca]

I already did numberous times.

You are taking away a benifit that other Americans have access to because these peoples perfectly legal activity.


Why does that fact not permeate your brain case?

Numerous, not Numberous.

Benefit, not Benifit.

Proper spelling is a sign of a cultivated mind.

Just because somebody WANTS a benefit does not mean said person deserves it. A person with a job who quits that job is not eligible for unemployment insurance. A person with a job who decides to go on strike and forgo income should not be bailed out by the taxpayers.

As many of us have noted, union dues should be used for strike funds. Instead, that money has been siphoned off for the benefit of the DNC. This fact continues to elude your two active brain synapses.

 

[Jarhead]

I already did numberous times.

You are taking away a benifit that other Americans have access to because these peoples perfectly legal activity.


Why does that fact not permeate your brain case?

What part of the fact that it is a benefit afforded ALL AMERICANS that prove that they can not fend for themselves do you not get?

Isnt one who walks off the job, regardless of reason why, one that can fend for him/herself, but opted not to?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I love it, tough love.

Wouldn't it be tough love if a worker strikes because the company etc tries to screw them? I guess it isnt tough love then, and we should feel bad for the company trying to screw the worker, but god forbid we stand up for the worker.

YOu ever wonder why the middle class has been on the decline since you guys started going after unions?

no---a striking worker is taking the risk that he or she is indispensable. Sorta silly with the job market the way it is.

So workers shouldn't stand up for a clean working environment and livable wages because of a poor job market? So businesses should be allowed to lower wages and get rid of benefits?

These rich people got rich on the backs of American workers. So the American workers ask for a fair cut for their work, and you say NO WAY!!!! ALL THE MONEY IS MINE MINE MINE.

And you are okay with that? Thats ridiculous.

Why not simply call OSHA? Or the local health inspector or code enforcement office? I had a problem with a boss who refused to repair a leaking toilet, which caused a slipping hazard, health hazard, and a few other things, and I called them all. He fixed the toilet within a week, and had to pay for other problems they found that I did not care about. If he had simply spent 5 bucks for the new valve he would have saved himself some hassle, and a lot of money. Why should I go on strike, and miss pay, for what the government is completely willing to do themselves?