Sure. The Unions Represent YOU

[Meathead]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point.

Union bosses aren't supposed to represent everyone, they represent their members.

And if their members don't like what they're doing, they can vote for someone else as union boss.

Well, that blows the hell out of any CEO opposed to rank-and-file salary.

I don't understand what you're saying.

An abstraction, I'm sure. I still find it scary that you are a mod. This is only our second, maybe third exchange, but you seem to be challenged in the least of abstractions.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Fail

 

[zeke]

If so, why this: Low-wage workers stuck paying $155K salary of Wisconsin SEIU boss

And here is the first post I was responding too.
Are you figuring this out yet?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Fail

How embarrassing for you zeke

 

[zeke]

This is only our second, maybe third exchange, but you seem to be challenged in the least of abstractions.

Really dude. What the hell does that even mean?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point.

Union bosses aren't supposed to represent everyone, they represent their members.

And if their members don't like what they're doing, they can vote for someone else as union boss.

Well, that blows the hell out of any CEO opposed to rank-and-file salary.

I don't understand what you're saying.

An abstraction, I'm sure. I still find it scary that you are a mod. This is only our second, maybe third exchange, but you seem to be challenged in the least of abstractions.

No, it's not an "abstraction", it's a grammatically meaningless sentence.

"Well, that blows the hell out of any CEO opposed to rank-and-file salary."

How does it "blow the hell" out of any CEOs at all, let alone those opposed to "rank and file salary"?

 

[zeke]

Fail

How embarrassing for you zeke

Ah dude. You made yourself look ******* stupid. Give it up. It wasn't the first time for you and I am sure it won't be the last.

But really, accusing me of editing my posts. LMAO. I don't even know HOW to edit a post.

 

[zeke]

No, it's not an "abstraction", it's a grammatically meaningless sentence.

You mean there are two of us (besides the guy who wrote it) that didn't know what the hell that non sense sentence meant? LMAO.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Fail

How embarrassing for you zeke

Ah dude. You made yourself look ******* stupid. Give it up. It wasn't the first time for you and I am sure it won't be the last.

But really, accusing me of editing my posts. LMAO. I don't even know HOW to edit a post.

By leaving out 90% of the post you are quoting. But to be fair I don't expect honesty from most of you on the left anymore.

 

[Meathead]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point.

Union bosses aren't supposed to represent everyone, they represent their members.

And if their members don't like what they're doing, they can vote for someone else as union boss.

Well, that blows the hell out of any CEO opposed to rank-and-file salary.

I don't understand what you're saying.

An abstraction, I'm sure. I still find it scary that you are a mod. This is only our second, maybe third exchange, but you seem to be challenged in the least of abstractions.

No, it's not an "abstraction", it's a grammatically meaningless sentence.

"Well, that blows the hell out of any CEO opposed to rank-and-file salary."

How does it "blow the hell" out of any CEOs at all, let alone those opposed to "rank and file salary"?

FFS, figure it out. Do it step by step using "progressive talking points".

In a bygone age you would have been a doufas.

While I appreciate the ability of expression on this site, I still find the standard a bit disturbing. This is not Fermat's Last Theorem.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point.

Union bosses aren't supposed to represent everyone, they represent their members.

And if their members don't like what they're doing, they can vote for someone else as union boss.

Well, that blows the hell out of any CEO opposed to rank-and-file salary.

I don't understand what you're saying.

An abstraction, I'm sure. I still find it scary that you are a mod. This is only our second, maybe third exchange, but you seem to be challenged in the least of abstractions.

No, it's not an "abstraction", it's a grammatically meaningless sentence.

"Well, that blows the hell out of any CEO opposed to rank-and-file salary."

How does it "blow the hell" out of any CEOs at all, let alone those opposed to "rank and file salary"?

FFS, figure it out. Do it step by step using "progressive talking points".

In a bygone age you would have been a doufas.

While I appreciate the ability of expression on this site, I still find the standard a bit disturbing. This is not Fermat's Last Theorem for ffs.

Your inability to articulate your point within the confines of the rules of the English language your issue, not mine.

 

[Meathead]

Your inability to articulate your point within the confines of the rules of the English language your issue, not mine.

Yes, of course. I apologize. Language is obviously the problem. It is a pity we don't have one in common.

 

[longknife]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point.

Union bosses aren't supposed to represent everyone, they represent their members.

And if their members don't like what they're doing, they can vote for someone else as union boss.

I think his point is that those who belong to the union and are paying for the boss's wages may not approve of them spending their money for political causes with which they don't agree.

Right!

My point exactly.

I once made the mistake of joining a union. When it came time for the first vote and I learned my vote would not be private/secret, I understood why union bosses got pretty much what they wanted!

I'm not certain how the SEIU works. Maybe it's the same thing. Vote against the union's wishes and find yourself in deep doo-doo