Why does the Rightwing Conservatives Hate Unions?

[driveby]

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.

Posts like this, one more reason you have ZERO credibilty......

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Posts like this, one more reason you have ZERO credibilty......

The truth has no credibility with the right. If facts get in the way of your pre scripted talking points......ignore the facts

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

It is not about pay, health care, or pension. It is about the attempt to bust the union. I fully support what the people that are protesting this travesty that Governor Walker is trying to foist onto the working people of Wisconsin are doing. I hope that more and more workers, union and non-union join the protests, and effectively shut down Wisconsin.

 

[Contumacious]

The governor of Wisconsin doesn't want to negotiate cuts with the union. He wants to destroy the union.

Why? .

UNION TACTICS

Trade unions in the early Republic sought monopoly control over the local supply of labor with the “closed shop,” an arrangement requiring employers to hire union members only. Selective admission to apprenticeships restricted membership, thereby artificially limiting the supply of skilled labor for hire and placing upward pressure on wage rates.

As in England, threats and violence accompanied strikes. The typical strike aimed to force employers to pay more than necessary for labor available on the open market while the silent corollary was that everyone – union member or not – must “strike” too, that is, withhold his or her labor, willing or not, and refuse employment at pay less than that demanded by strikers. Alternatively, the employer must be intimidated and decisively discouraged from hiring replacement workers (“strikebreakers”). A union warning from the 1830s suggests how unions discouraged interlopers: “We would caution all strangers and others who profess the art of horseshoeing, that if they go work for any employer under the above prices, they must abide by the consequences.” [4]

The stronger a union is, the more it acts like a private state, secure in its power with little overt need to use violence. Local culture and ideology play a large role because the response of local police, courts and politicians to union aggression is pivotal. By 1810 union tactics were fully formed: bargain “collectively,” demand fixed minimum pay rates, closed shops, strikes, picket lines, scab lists, strike funds, travelling cards, unity among skilled and unskilled workers, and solidarity among locals of the same trade.

But how could threatened collective violence and actual violence by adversarial-style unions square with the right of each person to seek his or her best opportunity, free of interference, to strike a bargain for lawful employment, a right firmly entrenched in custom and law? It cannot be. Union coercion is incompatible with individual freedom of contract, an ugly truth ignored by most labor writers, but as Ludwig von Mises wrote, “Actually labor union violence is tolerated within broad limits…the authorities, with the approval of public opinion, condone such acts.” [5]

.

 

[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!!!!

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.

And some are too stupid to recognize the Reagan Revolution was an anti-democratic movement, focused by the oligarchs on fundamentally changing our nation into a plutocracy.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The governor of Wisconsin doesn't want to negotiate cuts with the union. He wants to destroy the union.

Why?

In 1954, 36% of the workers in the U.S were unionized. Today that number is 11.9%. Of that 11.9% most are government workers. So what little strength the unions have left is in the government workers. But here is the nut. The Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court allows corporations and unions unlimited spending on political campaigns. Of the ten biggest spenders in the 2010 campaign, 7 were right wing corporate groups and 3 were unions. If the Republicans can bust the government unions, they will control our elections forever.

That is why they are fighting so hard to bust the unions. They want nothing less than absolute control over our electoral process.

As bad as I feel for the government workers who are affected, I must say that the people are reaping what they sowed this past November election when they voted more Republitards, who are historically anti-union, into office. Now they're going to have to live with the consequences, if they're smart, they'll remember this in 2012.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

This is how you break down a CaliGurl post...

Which part of 'we have no money' is over the intellectual paygrade of the OP?

This is known as the insult. You start your post with an insult so that your target is informed that they are not on par with you intellectually. This way they can't really argue with what follows

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

This is where she parrots a right wing talking point and passes it off as her own. The fact that workers have already conceded these issues is of no bearing....she has a point to make

 

[driveby]

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.

Posts like this, one more reason you have ZERO credibilty......

The truth has no credibility with the right. If facts get in the way of your pre scripted talking points......ignore the facts

The Republican party is pure evil is a fact ?

No wonder lefties version of the truth makes no sense......

 

[percysunshine]

Have the unions found Jimmy Hoffa yet?

It is not like they don't know where he is buried

 

[Bass v 2.0]

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.

This is how you break down a CaliGurl post...

Which part of 'we have no money' is over the intellectual paygrade of the OP?

This is known as the insult. You start your post with an insult so that your target is informed that they are not on par with you intellectually. This way they can't really argue with what follows

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

This is where she parrots a right wing talking point and passes it off as her own. The fact that workers have already conceded these issues is of no bearing....she has a point to make

CG is an idiot that knows nothing about government workers. I myself am a federal government worker and we do pay and contribute to our own health care and pension, CG obviously hasn't heard of TSP-Thrift Savings Plan.


Anyways, CG parrots rightwing babble as long as it doesn't affect her in a negative way, when it does thats when she starts playing the unbiased citizen with no preference for either party.


As for this:


All the Gov is saying is that the public sector needs to operate like the private sector.

Rephrase:

All the Republicans is saying is that the public sector needs to operate like the private sector.

 

[Big Fitz]

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

DAMMIT! I had to agree!

Stop being so sensible RW! Makes it hard to get mad at you later!

Aw hell... have rep (positive even) for this one.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Posts like this, one more reason you have ZERO credibilty......

The truth has no credibility with the right. If facts get in the way of your pre scripted talking points......ignore the facts

The Republican party is pure evil is a fact ?

No wonder lefties version of the truth makes no sense......

This coming from the same hankerchief head Tom who said real racism comes from left wingers, as if the racism on the right is fake racism or nonexistent.

 

[Bfgrn]

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!!!!

Not for everybody...

 

[Stephanie]

All the Unions are today is a arm of the Democrat-Progressive-Commie party. They suck off dues from their members to pay for their Candidate of choice, which today it is Obama. He is bought and paid for by the Unions.

I say Bust the hell out the Unions. They have sucked our country dry and driven jobs out of the country with their OUTRAGAES demands.

And I say this from experience. I worked out of a couple of Unions and what they do to the Employer if they can get away it isn't Pretty.

 

[Ragnar]

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.

Bargaining with who?

 

[Intense]

Merged

 

[Big Fitz]

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

One thing we must all remember in this hyperbole is that even if WEAC gets busted, another will show up. Probably more amenible to making good choices for their employees. It won't be as powerful as WEAC was, but it will protect the workers from abuses of management.

Of course, if they ban public sector unions outright in WI they've really only themselves to blame for killing themselves and not working to stay in balance with the rest of the state's needs.

 

[Big Fitz]

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!!!!

Not for everybody...

Oh look! Tardtard has more pointless pretty graphs that aren't relevant to the conversation!

 

[uscitizen]

Right wingers hate unions because they serve the corporations not the workers?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The governor of Wisconsin doesn't want to negotiate cuts with the union. He wants to destroy the union.

Why? .

UNION TACTICS

Trade unions in the early Republic sought monopoly control over the local supply of labor with the “closed shop,” an arrangement requiring employers to hire union members only. Selective admission to apprenticeships restricted membership, thereby artificially limiting the supply of skilled labor for hire and placing upward pressure on wage rates.

As in England, threats and violence accompanied strikes. The typical strike aimed to force employers to pay more than necessary for labor available on the open market while the silent corollary was that everyone – union member or not – must “strike” too, that is, withhold his or her labor, willing or not, and refuse employment at pay less than that demanded by strikers. Alternatively, the employer must be intimidated and decisively discouraged from hiring replacement workers (“strikebreakers&#8221. A union warning from the 1830s suggests how unions discouraged interlopers: “We would caution all strangers and others who profess the art of horseshoeing, that if they go work for any employer under the above prices, they must abide by the consequences.” [4]

The stronger a union is, the more it acts like a private state, secure in its power with little overt need to use violence. Local culture and ideology play a large role because the response of local police, courts and politicians to union aggression is pivotal. By 1810 union tactics were fully formed: bargain “collectively,” demand fixed minimum pay rates, closed shops, strikes, picket lines, scab lists, strike funds, travelling cards, unity among skilled and unskilled workers, and solidarity among locals of the same trade.

But how could threatened collective violence and actual violence by adversarial-style unions square with the right of each person to seek his or her best opportunity, free of interference, to strike a bargain for lawful employment, a right firmly entrenched in custom and law? It cannot be. Union coercion is incompatible with individual freedom of contract, an ugly truth ignored by most labor writers, but as Ludwig von Mises wrote, “Actually labor union violence is tolerated within broad limits…the authorities, with the approval of public opinion, condone such acts.” [5]

.

Interesting. I have added the link to be read a bit later.

Labor and laborers united for a reason. The reason was their labor was historically exploited, their working conditions deplorable and their beneftis non existent.

By organizing and demanding safer working conditions, care and compensation if injured on the job, and a higher share of the profits (created in part by their labor) a middleclass thrived.

Destroying labor unions and depressing wages and benefits is tantamount to putting the breaks on the economy, for an ebb tide lowers everyone. The extreme positon taken by the Governor of WI, and other Republican Governors around the nation, is foolish.

If we are to get the economy moving again, concessions must be made by everyone. Firing the employed is stupid, and will harm small business around the nation, reduce taxes to local and federal coffers and increase our national debt.