Thank Labor Unions.

[Al Azar]

Sheesh. What is it with the crude insults as soon as you realize you've painted yourself into a corner? Is it some kind of defensive reaction to being so wrong about so much for so long?

Take a hike. If you don't want to discuss a topic, stay out of the thread. Not every discussion is tailored down to your level.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Never said that. You seem to think that all it would take is for someone to come in and be willing to do it for less for them to be hired. That simply isn't true.

I know that it's possible, and I know that it's happened often enough to justify employees to seek union representation to keep it from happening to them.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

At a mom & pop operation or at even what's considered a small business, there's usually no need for employee unions. The boss knows his employees and his employees know him. It is, in a sense, a family, and they're all working together for their mutual benefit.

But at a large company, a business so large that an employee can pass his boss on the street and neither recognizes the other, that's when the employee better get together with other employees and form a group to protect their interests, because they are not considered family by their boss, they're considered human capital, a resource, a commodity. They're interchangeable and easily replaceable.

That's why there are unions. That's pretty much the only reason there are unions. They didn't fall out of the sky. They were created by big business through its treatment of those who provided the labor that made them big businesses. They are a response to a very real need, employee advocacy in the workplace.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

Maybe if this was the year 1920...


Unions destroy jobs and destroy wages now, what's so hard for you to figure out?

And if try to pull the trick wages are lower in the red states, you have no clues between wages and wealth. No clue about the cost of living..

The south exploded with manufacturing jobs because if RTW the north lost the jobs because of Unions

 

[Al Azar]

Never said that. You seem to think that all it would take is for someone to come in and be willing to do it for less for them to be hired. That simply isn't true.

I know that it's possible, and I know that it's happened often enough to justify employees to seek union representation to keep it from happening to them.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

At a mom & pop operation or at even what's considered a small business, there's usually no need for employee unions. The boss knows his employees and his employees know him. It is, in a sense, a family, and they're all working together for their mutual benefit.

But at a large company, a business so large that an employee can pass his boss on the street and neither recognizes the other, that's when the employee better get together with other employees and form a group to protect their interests, because they are not considered family by their boss, they're considered human capital, a resource, a commodity. They're interchangeable and easily replaceable.

That's why there are unions. That's pretty much the only reason there are unions. They didn't fall out of the sky. They were created by big business through its treatment of those who provided the labor that made them big businesses. They are a response to a very real need, employee advocacy in the workplace.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

Maybe if this was the year 1920...


Unions destroy jobs and destroy wages now, what's so hard for you to figure out?

And if try to pull the trick wages are lower in the red states, you have no clues between wages and wealth. No clue about the cost of living..

The south exploded with manufacturing jobs because if RTW the north lost the jobs because of Unions

We already know why the poorest counties and states are red. That's not helping your argument.

 

[bripat9643]

Toilets were left out, when the common workday was 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, employers provided no terlit for workers...

Right, because people just crapped on the floor.

 

[bripat9643]

Mismanagement by Big Auto destroyed Detroit. Focusing on the short term is no way to run a business.

Labor unions destroyed Detroit. They were making most of the management decisions.

 

[bripat9643]

Never said that. You seem to think that all it would take is for someone to come in and be willing to do it for less for them to be hired. That simply isn't true.

I know that it's possible, and I know that it's happened often enough to justify employees to seek union representation to keep it from happening to them.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

At a mom & pop operation or at even what's considered a small business, there's usually no need for employee unions. The boss knows his employees and his employees know him. It is, in a sense, a family, and they're all working together for their mutual benefit.

But at a large company, a business so large that an employee can pass his boss on the street and neither recognizes the other, that's when the employee better get together with other employees and form a group to protect their interests, because they are not considered family by their boss, they're considered human capital, a resource, a commodity. They're interchangeable and easily replaceable.

That's why there are unions. That's pretty much the only reason there are unions. They didn't fall out of the sky. They were created by big business through its treatment of those who provided the labor that made them big businesses. They are a response to a very real need, employee advocacy in the workplace.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

Maybe if this was the year 1920...


Unions destroy jobs and destroy wages now, what's so hard for you to figure out?

And if try to pull the trick wages are lower in the red states, you have no clues between wages and wealth. No clue about the cost of living..

The south exploded with manufacturing jobs because if RTW the north lost the jobs because of Unions

We already know why the poorest counties and states are red. That's not helping your argument.

They are poor because the Lincoln, Grant and Sherman destroyed them during the Civil War and then raped them economically for the next 30 years. That's why they hate Northeastern Yankee scum like you to this very day.

 

[Al Azar]

Mismanagement by Big Auto destroyed Detroit. Focusing on the short term is no way to run a business.

Labor unions destroyed Detroit. They were making most of the management decisions.

It's got to be one of the other. If unions were making management decisions, it was inept, incompetent, impotent company management that destroyed Detroit, not those who picked up their slack.

 

[bripat9643]

Mismanagement by Big Auto destroyed Detroit. Focusing on the short term is no way to run a business.

Labor unions destroyed Detroit. They were making most of the management decisions.

It's got to be one of the other. If unions were making management decisions, it was inept, incompetent, impotent company management that destroyed Detroit, not those who picked up their slack.

Unions don't pick up slack. They ride in the hammock.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Mismanagement by Big Auto destroyed Detroit. Focusing on the short term is no way to run a business.

Labor unions destroyed Detroit. They were making most of the management decisions.

It's got to be one of the other. If unions were making management decisions, it was inept, incompetent, impotent company management that destroyed Detroit, not those who picked up their slack.

Its not one or the other...it was both

 

[Wyatt earp]

Never said that. You seem to think that all it would take is for someone to come in and be willing to do it for less for them to be hired. That simply isn't true.

I know that it's possible, and I know that it's happened often enough to justify employees to seek union representation to keep it from happening to them.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

At a mom & pop operation or at even what's considered a small business, there's usually no need for employee unions. The boss knows his employees and his employees know him. It is, in a sense, a family, and they're all working together for their mutual benefit.

But at a large company, a business so large that an employee can pass his boss on the street and neither recognizes the other, that's when the employee better get together with other employees and form a group to protect their interests, because they are not considered family by their boss, they're considered human capital, a resource, a commodity. They're interchangeable and easily replaceable.

That's why there are unions. That's pretty much the only reason there are unions. They didn't fall out of the sky. They were created by big business through its treatment of those who provided the labor that made them big businesses. They are a response to a very real need, employee advocacy in the workplace.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

Maybe if this was the year 1920...


Unions destroy jobs and destroy wages now, what's so hard for you to figure out?

And if try to pull the trick wages are lower in the red states, you have no clues between wages and wealth. No clue about the cost of living..

The south exploded with manufacturing jobs because if RTW the north lost the jobs because of Unions

We already know why the poorest counties and states are red. That's not helping your argument.

Says the guy who don't know the south like I do and watched it explod since the 1980s when I used to come down here all the time on business and latter moved down here.

 

[Al Azar]

Mismanagement by Big Auto destroyed Detroit. Focusing on the short term is no way to run a business.

Labor unions destroyed Detroit. They were making most of the management decisions.

It's got to be one of the other. If unions were making management decisions, it was inept, incompetent, impotent company management that destroyed Detroit, not those who picked up their slack.

Its not one or the other...it was both

Well, if unions both represented the workers and managed the companies, what were the owners paying company managers for?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Mismanagement by Big Auto destroyed Detroit. Focusing on the short term is no way to run a business.

Labor unions destroyed Detroit. They were making most of the management decisions.

It's got to be one of the other. If unions were making management decisions, it was inept, incompetent, impotent company management that destroyed Detroit, not those who picked up their slack.

Its not one or the other...it was both

Well, if unions both represented the workers and managed the companies, what were the owners paying company managers for?

I never realized that either till today that according to that one link, Unions have salaried workers...

I thought it was just hourly..you might have a case to prove that link wrong.


Because it sure don't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Conservative65]

Never said that. You seem to think that all it would take is for someone to come in and be willing to do it for less for them to be hired. That simply isn't true.

I know that it's possible, and I know that it's happened often enough to justify employees to seek union representation to keep it from happening to them.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

At a mom & pop operation or at even what's considered a small business, there's usually no need for employee unions. The boss knows his employees and his employees know him. It is, in a sense, a family, and they're all working together for their mutual benefit.

But at a large company, a business so large that an employee can pass his boss on the street and neither recognizes the other, that's when the employee better get together with other employees and form a group to protect their interests, because they are not considered family by their boss, they're considered human capital, a resource, a commodity. They're interchangeable and easily replaceable.

That's why there are unions. That's pretty much the only reason there are unions. They didn't fall out of the sky. They were created by big business through its treatment of those who provided the labor that made them big businesses. They are a response to a very real need, employee advocacy in the workplace.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

Maybe if this was the year 1920...


Unions destroy jobs and destroy wages now, what's so hard for you to figure out?

And if try to pull the trick wages are lower in the red states, you have no clues between wages and wealth. No clue about the cost of living..

The south exploded with manufacturing jobs because if RTW the north lost the jobs because of Unions

We already know why the poorest counties and states are red. That's not helping your argument.

"We already know why the poorest counties and states are red."

Not in my State. I know that the poorest by far is the ONLY blue area. I just invalidated your argument.

 

[Mac1958]

Unions could come back strong without causing too much damage to business with just a couple of tweaks.

But both ends of the spectrum would have to communicate and bend a bit, so that's off the table.
.

 

[Al Azar]

Unions could come back strong without causing too much damage to business with just a couple of tweaks.

But both ends of the spectrum would have to communicate and bend a bit, so that's off the table.
.

That's right. The US Chamber of Commerce is the largest and wealthiest lobby in the country, and there's no restriction on how it spends its dues. As you might imagine, it's in the Republican Party's pocket.

Here are some of the Chamber's efforts:

Actively lobbies against anti-tobacco policies implemented in other countries.

Support for business globalization, free trade and offshoring

Opposes Frank-Dodd regulation

Opposes the DISCLOSE Act, which aims to limit foreign influence on U.S. elections

Opposes action on climate change

Argued against mandatory immigration status checks by employers in Arizona in the Supreme Court


This is the sort of mindset that workers are facing every day on the job. If they think they are on an equal footing with their employer all on their own, more power to them. But I, for one, don't want to hear any grousing about how unfair it all is, and how their grievances are the government's fault. It's their own damned fault for not doing anything about it themselves.

 

[JoeNormal]

Never said that. You seem to think that all it would take is for someone to come in and be willing to do it for less for them to be hired. That simply isn't true.

I know that it's possible, and I know that it's happened often enough to justify employees to seek union representation to keep it from happening to them.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

At a mom & pop operation or at even what's considered a small business, there's usually no need for employee unions. The boss knows his employees and his employees know him. It is, in a sense, a family, and they're all working together for their mutual benefit.

But at a large company, a business so large that an employee can pass his boss on the street and neither recognizes the other, that's when the employee better get together with other employees and form a group to protect their interests, because they are not considered family by their boss, they're considered human capital, a resource, a commodity. They're interchangeable and easily replaceable.

That's why there are unions. That's pretty much the only reason there are unions. They didn't fall out of the sky. They were created by big business through its treatment of those who provided the labor that made them big businesses. They are a response to a very real need, employee advocacy in the workplace.

Like I said, if you have to have a union to do for you, you're not worth hiring.

Bullshit. Plenty of extremely valuable workers are just not very good at negotiation. Scumbag employers count on that.

 

[Conservative65]

Never said that. You seem to think that all it would take is for someone to come in and be willing to do it for less for them to be hired. That simply isn't true.

I know that it's possible, and I know that it's happened often enough to justify employees to seek union representation to keep it from happening to them.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

At a mom & pop operation or at even what's considered a small business, there's usually no need for employee unions. The boss knows his employees and his employees know him. It is, in a sense, a family, and they're all working together for their mutual benefit.

But at a large company, a business so large that an employee can pass his boss on the street and neither recognizes the other, that's when the employee better get together with other employees and form a group to protect their interests, because they are not considered family by their boss, they're considered human capital, a resource, a commodity. They're interchangeable and easily replaceable.

That's why there are unions. That's pretty much the only reason there are unions. They didn't fall out of the sky. They were created by big business through its treatment of those who provided the labor that made them big businesses. They are a response to a very real need, employee advocacy in the workplace.

Like I said, if you have to have a union to do for you, you're not worth hiring.

Bullshit. Plenty of extremely valuable workers are just not very good at negotiation. Scumbag employers count on that.

More excuses from the lefties.

 

[JoeNormal]

Never said that. You seem to think that all it would take is for someone to come in and be willing to do it for less for them to be hired. That simply isn't true.

I know that it's possible, and I know that it's happened often enough to justify employees to seek union representation to keep it from happening to them.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

At a mom & pop operation or at even what's considered a small business, there's usually no need for employee unions. The boss knows his employees and his employees know him. It is, in a sense, a family, and they're all working together for their mutual benefit.

But at a large company, a business so large that an employee can pass his boss on the street and neither recognizes the other, that's when the employee better get together with other employees and form a group to protect their interests, because they are not considered family by their boss, they're considered human capital, a resource, a commodity. They're interchangeable and easily replaceable.

That's why there are unions. That's pretty much the only reason there are unions. They didn't fall out of the sky. They were created by big business through its treatment of those who provided the labor that made them big businesses. They are a response to a very real need, employee advocacy in the workplace.

Like I said, if you have to have a union to do for you, you're not worth hiring.

Bullshit. Plenty of extremely valuable workers are just not very good at negotiation. Scumbag employers count on that.

More excuses from the lefties.

Truth hurts doesn't it.

 

[Conservative65]

Never said that. You seem to think that all it would take is for someone to come in and be willing to do it for less for them to be hired. That simply isn't true.

I know that it's possible, and I know that it's happened often enough to justify employees to seek union representation to keep it from happening to them.

Either workers stick together to keep employment standards up, or it's a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom of the wage scale.

At a mom & pop operation or at even what's considered a small business, there's usually no need for employee unions. The boss knows his employees and his employees know him. It is, in a sense, a family, and they're all working together for their mutual benefit.

But at a large company, a business so large that an employee can pass his boss on the street and neither recognizes the other, that's when the employee better get together with other employees and form a group to protect their interests, because they are not considered family by their boss, they're considered human capital, a resource, a commodity. They're interchangeable and easily replaceable.

That's why there are unions. That's pretty much the only reason there are unions. They didn't fall out of the sky. They were created by big business through its treatment of those who provided the labor that made them big businesses. They are a response to a very real need, employee advocacy in the workplace.

Like I said, if you have to have a union to do for you, you're not worth hiring.

Bullshit. Plenty of extremely valuable workers are just not very good at negotiation. Scumbag employers count on that.

More excuses from the lefties.

Truth hurts doesn't it.

The truth that you lefties make excuses should hurt. It's the only thing you're good at.

 

[SAYIT]

The US Chamber of Commerce is the largest and wealthiest lobby in the country, and there's no restriction on how it spends its dues. As you might imagine, it's in the Republican Party's pocket...
This is the sort of mindset that workers are facing every day on the job. If they think they are on an equal footing with their employer all on their own, more power to them. But I, for one, don't want to hear any grousing about how unfair it all is, and how their grievances are the government's fault. It's their own damned fault for not doing anything about it themselves.

The Chamber is not "in the Republican Party's pocket" but rather represents the interests of its members. There are many powerful and well funded groups who lobby for their member's interests, including union PACs.

Workers don't have to be or consider themselves "on an equal footing with their employer" to be satisfied with their situation. Everyone would like to earn more money or have better benefits but rational people understand that it's their marketable skills and education that determine their place on the pay scale.

Those who can do better in another job tend to take that job. Those who can't, don't.

Those who don't understand this dynamic tend to whine about it.