Why does the Rightwing Conservatives Hate Unions?

[The Infidel]

OMG.... did I just agree with RW????



Twice..!

 

[Mustang]

Effective capitalism requires a careful balance between labor and management. There needs to be room for profit and there has to be the capability to make a living off the wage you are paid. If either side gets too much power then the country as a whole suffers

In good economic times, labor has the upper hand. In a poor economy, management holds all the cards. Unions have done a lot of good for the country...they have also held back a lot of progress. They are still a necessary evil. Collective bargaining keeps management from picking off workers. The whole is stronger than the sum of the parts.

Companies need to make a profit. Killing a company does neither side any good. But if a worker cannot earn enough to feed and house his family, you destroy the consumers in our economy

I can actually agree with most of this statement RW.... for the most part, ya nailed it.

Unions were a very good thing at one time, I just think they are killing the goose that lays golden eggs.

Nonsense. Unions once represented 35% of American workers. It's now down to about 7%.

 

[bucs90]

Hmmmm. Interesting post. I read it and took it seriously and tried to be unbias. But one thing stuck out.

So in the last 50 years, union presence went from 36% to 11%, over a 200% drop.

And in the last 50 years, United States GDP and wealth has exploded to unthinkable heights.


So, on a graph, the union membership line would be steadily dropping...........as US GDP and wealth steadily shot upwards?

I think I see the correlation. Less unions = More national wealth. Hooray!!!!

 

[Mini 14]

I think it has more to do with unions being a dinosaur from the past. While the rank and file still clings to the reason for their creation being the reason for their continued existence, the truth is that unions have become exactly what they were created to protect their membership from.

The history of unions in the US is a study in corruption and oligarchy. It hasn't been about the worker in over 30 years. They have become what they were created to prevent.

 

[editec]

Why the Republican Party wants to destroy the unions

Basically because unions are the only effective counterweight to corporations.

I don't agree that REPUBLICANS are entirely to blame for this, though.

While it is true that the Dems traditional base included unions, the Ds have done as much damage to unions (thanks to FREE TRADE) as the Republicans have done.

 

[California Girl]

Which part of 'we have no money' is over the intellectual paygrade of the OP? It's not an unreasonable demand... for public sector workers to meet some of their own benefits costs. You want a pension, great - contribute towards it. You want health coverage - great - contribute towards it. All the Gov is saying is that the public sector needs to operate like the private sector. It's not about unions - it's about money. We can't afford you, either go or take cuts. Either is fine.

 

[bucs90]

Which part of 'we have no money' is over the intellectual paygrade of the OP? It's not an unreasonable demand... for public sector workers to meet some of their own benefits costs. You want a pension, great - contribute towards it. You want health coverage - great - contribute towards it. All the Gov is saying is that the public sector needs to operate like the private sector. It's not about unions - it's about money. We can't afford you, either go or take cuts. Either is fine.

Remember, liberals are like spoiled children.

Remember as a kid, when we wanted that new video game, or new bike, or new toy, etc, and it was expensive, and mommy or daddy said "No, we can't afford it right now"? It was a foreign statement to us as a kid. We couldn't fathom how mommy and daddy could afford a big ole house and car, but couldn't buy us that toy. We heard "Money doesn't grow on trees".

That was a mommy and daddy with a balanced budget, before days of credit cards.

Well, liberals never really grew out of that mindset. Many of them grew up with parents that probably babied them, never made them do chores or work, and bought them all their wants on credit cards. They've never been told NO before.

And even today, they dont understand how mommy and daddy (The Government) can possibly be out of money!!!!!

The liberal mind is truly a wonder of delusional thought.

 

[California Girl]

Which part of 'we have no money' is over the intellectual paygrade of the OP? It's not an unreasonable demand... for public sector workers to meet some of their own benefits costs. You want a pension, great - contribute towards it. You want health coverage - great - contribute towards it. All the Gov is saying is that the public sector needs to operate like the private sector. It's not about unions - it's about money. We can't afford you, either go or take cuts. Either is fine.

Remember, liberals are like spoiled children.

Remember as a kid, when we wanted that new video game, or new bike, or new toy, etc, and it was expensive, and mommy or daddy said "No, we can't afford it right now"? It was a foreign statement to us as a kid. We couldn't fathom how mommy and daddy could afford a big ole house and car, but couldn't buy us that toy. We heard "Money doesn't grow on trees".

That was a mommy and daddy with a balanced budget, before days of credit cards.

Well, liberals never really grew out of that mindset. Many of them grew up with parents that probably babied them, never made them do chores or work, and bought them all their wants on credit cards. They've never been told NO before.

And even today, they dont understand how mommy and daddy (The Government) can possibly be out of money!!!!!

The liberal mind is truly a wonder of delusional thought.

I was taught the value of a dollar. Outside of birthdays, we earned what we wanted. Anytime any of us wanted something, we had to take on extra chores to get it. Worked for me.

 

[GopJack]

I used to live in the fine state of Ohio. I now live in Arizona. AZ is a right to work state and heavy union states will not ever be able to compete with the restrictions they have in a union regulated state. Yesterday, Intel announced right here in Chandler, AZ they are adding a 3rd plant here, a 5 Billion dollar plant that will employ better than 1000 people in 2013. Now of course the construction begins which also adds to the economy. Sorry, Michigan, Ohio, Ill, Pa and Wisconsin cannot compete until they get out from the union regulations in those states.

 

[Twin Fist]

Which part of 'we have no money' is over the intellectual paygrade of the OP? It's not an unreasonable demand... for public sector workers to meet some of their own benefits costs. You want a pension, great - contribute towards it. You want health coverage - great - contribute towards it. All the Gov is saying is that the public sector needs to operate like the private sector. It's not about unions - it's about money. We can't afford you, either go or take cuts. Either is fine.

*swoon*

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Absolutely.
The Govenor isn't doing this because he doesn't want Wisconsin to be like Illinois...virtually bankrupt...nah.

BTW - isn't it ironic that the state the the Dems ran too is Illinois? A state with gargantuan public costs and where Unions are the strongest...and the state is in financial meltdown?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Union motto

 

[rightwinger]

Hmmmm. Interesting post. I read it and took it seriously and tried to be unbias. But one thing stuck out.

So in the last 50 years, union presence went from 36% to 11%, over a 200% drop.

And in the last 50 years, United States GDP and wealth has exploded to unthinkable heights.


So, on a graph, the union membership line would be steadily dropping...........as US GDP and wealth steadily shot upwards?

I think I see the correlation. Less unions = More national wealth. Hooray!!!!

Yes it has. And the top 4% of Americans kept that wealth while worker salaries have been stagnant and standard of living has declined

 

[mdn2000]

One of the ironies of all this is that union pension funds lost heavily when the theives on Wall Street stole all our money. Now the states are going bust trying to pay back that money, and they want to bust the unions because of it. So the workers got robbed by the Republicans on Wall Street, and the Republicans in the statehouse are using that deficit which their buddies on Wall Street created as an excuse to bust the unions.

Meanwhile Wall Street got all their money back from the U.S. taxpayer, and the corporate media(FoxLies) and the Republicans are saying that the teachers(the teachers!) are our enemy.

Is this a great country or what?

Yea, this is a great country, except for you and your lies, is it only Republicans on Wall Street or are there Democrats, are the Democrats all good and Republicans all bad.

Of course Obama is giving Wall Street insiders jobs in the White House why.

How about naming people by name that way we can see if your telling the truth or a lie.

Obama Said to Consider William Daley for Top Post, Possibly Chief of Staff - Bloomberg

President Barack Obama is considering naming William Daley, a JPMorgan Chase & Co. executive and former U.S. Commerce secretary, to a high-level administration post, possibly White House chief of staff, people familiar with the matter said

How about the Treasure Secretary, Geithner, seems like that guy is married to Wall Street and the Rockefellers, he worked for Henry Kissinger, Kissinger is a Rockefeller man. Geithner's dad worked for the Ford Foundation, same foundation that funds PBS and NPR, which promotes Liberal Corporations like the Rockefellers.

Geithner even worked helping manage a economic crisis in South America for Clintion, that is all Rockefeller money, oil money, big banking Wall Street money.

Chris, you are here telling lies, its the Democrats, the Liberals, that are tied to Wall Street, the Democrats and Liberals are after Power and Money, its that simple, we can see that Liberals higher directly from the Federal Reserve and Wall Street.

10 Things You Didn

Timothy Geithner
Current Position: Treasury Secretary (since January 2009)

At the start of the Obama administration, Geithner tackled one of the most immense challenges ever to face an economic policymaker: pulling the U.S. economy out of the deepest recession in at least a generation and rescuing a financial system that was in utter disarray

As president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 2003 to 2009, Geithner was one of the lead architects of the government response to the 2008-2009 crisis. Timothy_Geithern_in_the_Oval_Office_c_WH.jpgIt was his decision, along with those of Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, to bail out Bear Stearns in March 2008, to let Lehman Brothers fail in September of that year,and for the government to take over insurance company American International Group

1. Timothy Franz Geithner was born Aug. 18, 1961.

2. As a result of his father's work with the government and the Ford Foundation, Geithner spent much of his childhood in Africa and East Asia.

3. He went to junior high in India and completed his high school education at the International School of Bangkok in Thailand.
Click here to find out more!

4. Following in his father's footsteps, Geithner graduated from Dartmouth and then received his master's degree in 1985 from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

7. His first job out of college was with Kissinger Associates, helping Henry Kissinger research a book. He left there and joined the Treasury Department in 1988.

8. Geithner earned his spurs at Treasury in the 1990s, helping manage international economic crises in Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Hmmmm. Interesting post. I read it and took it seriously and tried to be unbias. But one thing stuck out.

So in the last 50 years, union presence went from 36% to 11%, over a 200% drop.

And in the last 50 years, United States GDP and wealth has exploded to unthinkable heights.


So, on a graph, the union membership line would be steadily dropping...........as US GDP and wealth steadily shot upwards?

I think I see the correlation. Less unions = More national wealth. Hooray!!!!

Are you really as dumb as this post suggests?

 

[California Girl]

Which part of 'we have no money' is over the intellectual paygrade of the OP? It's not an unreasonable demand... for public sector workers to meet some of their own benefits costs. You want a pension, great - contribute towards it. You want health coverage - great - contribute towards it. All the Gov is saying is that the public sector needs to operate like the private sector. It's not about unions - it's about money. We can't afford you, either go or take cuts. Either is fine.

*swoon*

Are you my twin?

 

[rightwinger]

Effective capitalism requires a careful balance between labor and management. There needs to be room for profit and there has to be the capability to make a living off the wage you are paid. If either side gets too much power then the country as a whole suffers

In good economic times, labor has the upper hand. In a poor economy, management holds all the cards. Unions have done a lot of good for the country...they have also held back a lot of progress. They are still a necessary evil. Collective bargaining keeps management from picking off workers. The whole is stronger than the sum of the parts.

Companies need to make a profit. Killing a company does neither side any good. But if a worker cannot earn enough to feed and house his family, you destroy the consumers in our economy

I can actually agree with most of this statement RW.... for the most part, ya nailed it.

Unions were a very good thing at one time, I just think they are killing the goose that lays golden eggs.

Right now, management holds all the cards. "if you don't like it....find another job". When there are no jobs, workers must give everything up just to keep employed.
Killing unions now would be the final blow to organized labor

 

[Wry Catcher]

Which part of 'we have no money' is over the intellectual paygrade of the OP? It's not an unreasonable demand... for public sector workers to meet some of their own benefits costs. You want a pension, great - contribute towards it. You want health coverage - great - contribute towards it. All the Gov is saying is that the public sector needs to operate like the private sector. It's not about unions - it's about money. We can't afford you, either go or take cuts. Either is fine.

I can't speak for all employer-employee contracts, but as a government employee in California I contributed to both my retirement and healthcare benefits every month. My family and I also paid co-payments for medical appointments and for prescription medicine.

Suggesting as she does that government employees do not contribute to both their retirement and healthcare is a lie.

The OP is spot on in his remarks; efforts to spin the economic crisis and blame working people is dishonest and without merit. It is also stupid. Working people spend the money they earn for rent, food, clothing and entertainment; they purchase cars and insurance and invest in the economy (stocks, bonds, etc.). In fact by their labor they create wealth, a fact disputed by RW propaganda and repeated by the mentally challenged echo chamber daily.

 

[Chris]

Just to review, the union will give in to the financial demands.

This is about destroying collective bargaining, pure and simple.

This is one more reason the Republican Party is pure evil.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmmm. Interesting post. I read it and took it seriously and tried to be unbias. But one thing stuck out.

So in the last 50 years, union presence went from 36% to 11%, over a 200% drop.

And in the last 50 years, United States GDP and wealth has exploded to unthinkable heights.


So, on a graph, the union membership line would be steadily dropping...........as US GDP and wealth steadily shot upwards?

I think I see the correlation. Less unions = More national wealth. Hooray!!!!

Yep. For the wealthy, the last 50 years have been great. For the working American, 30 of those years have seen no real increases in wages.

So you are hooraying for an ever increasing portion of the nations wealth going to and being controled by the very wealthy. I guess some assholes just love oligarchy.