Why does the Rightwing Conservatives Hate Unions?

[boedicca]

Yes. And what happened to that New Civility that Obama lectured about after the AZ shootings?

 

[Harry Dresden]

If the Republicans can bust the government unions, they will control our elections forever.

well yes they would like to control things forever.....but yes or no here Chris......does not the Democratic Party hope to do the same thing?....you know....control us for ever?....

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes. And what happened to that New Civility that Obama lectured about after the AZ shootings?

It was for us to observe and for him to stand in judgment over us.

Just another example of his "Do as I say, not as I do" presidency.

 

[boedicca]

Indeed. "Sacrifice for thee but not for me."

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes. And what happened to that New Civility that Obama lectured about after the AZ shootings?

I was thinking the same thing...

Rush Limbaugh: “Liberalism Needs To Be Eradicated”; “Worker” Is “A Marxist Term”

Rush Limbaugh: “Liberalism Needs To Be Eradicated”; “Worker” Is “A Marxist Term”

 

[mudwhistle]

If the Republicans can bust the government unions, they will control our elections forever.

well yes they would like to control things forever.....but yes or no here Chris......does not the Democratic Party hope to do the same thing?....you know....control us for ever?....

Problem is nobody should be controlling elections.

They're supposed to be free, and open, and honest.

That's why the Dems refuse to allow a law that requires a photo I.D. to vote. It's harder to cheat that way.

 

[Stephanie]

When all else fails, break out the Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Bfgrn]

If the Republicans can bust the government unions, they will control our elections forever.

well yes they would like to control things forever.....but yes or no here Chris......does not the Democratic Party hope to do the same thing?....you know....control us for ever?....

Problem is nobody should be controlling elections.

They're supposed to be free, and open, and honest.

That's why the Dems refuse to allow a law that requires a photo I.D. to vote. It's harder to cheat that way.

A 'states' issue.

There is the Real ID act enacted May 11, 2005. Opponents of the Real ID Act include libertarian groups, in particular the Cato Institute; immigrant advocacy groups; human and civil rights organizations, including ACLU; privacy advocacy groups, including 511 campaign; good government and government accountability groups; labor groups such as AFL-CIO; People for the American Way; consumer and patient protection groups; some gun rights groups; many state lawmakers, state legislatures and governors; and others. Real ID is opposed by such groups as Gun Owners of America, by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal as well as the Obama administration. Along with the Bush administration, the Real ID Act is strongly supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation and by many anti-illegal immigration advocates.
Wiki

 

[Bfgrn]

When all else fails, break out the Rush Limbaugh.

Nothings failed yet, except your usual low IQ replies.

 

[Stephanie]

When all else fails, break out the Rush Limbaugh.

Nothings failed yet, except your usual low IQ replies.

When you have nothing else, resort to childish insults..

 

[mudwhistle]

well yes they would like to control things forever.....but yes or no here Chris......does not the Democratic Party hope to do the same thing?....you know....control us for ever?....

Problem is nobody should be controlling elections.

They're supposed to be free, and open, and honest.

That's why the Dems refuse to allow a law that requires a photo I.D. to vote. It's harder to cheat that way.

A 'states' issue.

There is the Real ID act enacted May 11, 2005. Opponents of the Real ID Act include libertarian groups, in particular the Cato Institute; immigrant advocacy groups; human and civil rights organizations, including ACLU; privacy advocacy groups, including 511 campaign; good government and government accountability groups; labor groups such as AFL-CIO; People for the American Way; consumer and patient protection groups; some gun rights groups; many state lawmakers, state legislatures and governors; and others. Real ID is opposed by such groups as Gun Owners of America, by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal as well as the Obama administration. Along with the Bush administration, the Real ID Act is strongly supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation and by many anti-illegal immigration advocates.
Wiki

This has to do with Driver's licenses, and political asylum, not a federal requirement for a photo I.D. to vote in elections, and somehow the Homeland Security Department keeps pushing back implementation, currently sometime this year.

 

[Big Fitz]

Problem is nobody should be controlling elections.

They're supposed to be free, and open, and honest.

That's why the Dems refuse to allow a law that requires a photo I.D. to vote. It's harder to cheat that way.

A 'states' issue.

There is the Real ID act enacted May 11, 2005. Opponents of the Real ID Act include libertarian groups, in particular the Cato Institute; immigrant advocacy groups; human and civil rights organizations, including ACLU; privacy advocacy groups, including 511 campaign; good government and government accountability groups; labor groups such as AFL-CIO; People for the American Way; consumer and patient protection groups; some gun rights groups; many state lawmakers, state legislatures and governors; and others. Real ID is opposed by such groups as Gun Owners of America, by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal as well as the Obama administration. Along with the Bush administration, the Real ID Act is strongly supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation and by many anti-illegal immigration advocates.
Wiki

This has to do with Driver's licenses, and political asylum, not a federal requirement for a photo I.D. to vote in elections, and somehow the Homeland Security Department keeps pushing back implementation, currently sometime this year.

MN is about to freak out too as the new GOP legislature is going to be shoving this through on Gov. Mark Dayton

To quote Bob Dylan (reluctantly) Things, they are a'changin'!

 

[boedicca]

It's a pretty safe bet that Obama is regretting his comments last week - and there isn't enough beer to "summit over" this faux pas.

 

[Toro]

There is nothing wrong with unions per se. A union is merely a legal entity to organize labor. Capital is organized as a corporation. Both labor and capital and necessary inputs into production. (Capital is just labor in another form.) To me it is a contradiction to always support corporations and always oppose unions, and vice-versa. There is nothing wrong with unions just like there is nothing wrong with corporations. Both serve a purpose. And just like there are good and bad corporations, there are good and bad unions.

Instead, what we must oppose are inherent trends in behavior of unions and corporations that are detrimental to everyone else. The problem with unions is that they often inhibit productivity by negotiating restrictive work rules and making it difficult to fire workers who need to go. They can also set wages about the market clearing rate if they exhibit market power.

Generally, I believe people don't want to be in unions. Instead, companies often get the unions they deserve. Treat your employees fairly, and they won't want to organize. Public sector unions are different because there is a different dynamic than in the market whereby a union can become a special interest group to exploit the public purse.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's a pretty safe bet that Obama is regretting his comments last week - and there isn't enough beer to "summit over" this faux pas.

We Wisconsinites know how to drink. That's for damn sure and getting angry is thirsty business.

 

[kaz]

I don't hate Unions, I hate government giving them artificial power over the economy. They have used that to destroy the State of Michigan. The worst are government unions. Government teacher unions, like the Union of Failed Teachers (UFT) are destroying education and they and other government unions are bankrupting us. No government employee should be allowed to unionize. They took easy, low responsibility jobs that contribute nothing to our economy. Private sector employees should be free to unionize, but with their market power, not government force behind them.

 

[Bfgrn]

There is nothing wrong with unions per se. A union is merely a legal entity to organize labor. Capital is organized as a corporation. Both labor and capital and necessary inputs into production. (Capital is just labor in another form.) To me it is a contradiction to always support corporations and always oppose unions, and vice-versa. There is nothing wrong with unions just like there is nothing wrong with corporations. Both serve a purpose. And just like there are good and bad corporations, there are good and bad unions.

Instead, what we must oppose are inherent trends in behavior of unions and corporations that are detrimental to everyone else. The problem with unions is that they often inhibit productivity by negotiating restrictive work rules and making it difficult to fire workers who need to go. They can also set wages about the market clearing rate if they exhibit market power.

Generally, I believe people don't want to be in unions. Instead, companies often get the unions they deserve. Treat your employees fairly, and they won't want to organize. Public sector unions are different because there is a different dynamic than in the market whereby a union can become a special interest group to exploit the public purse.

Good points Toro. I see unions as a necessary entity. We seem to forget the conditions that brought about the need for them. It is rooted in human foible. About half the states here are 'Right to Work' states...translation: NON union. Those states have lower wages and much higher workplace fatalities. I don't believe it is a coincidence that the decline of the middle class accelerated as unions were being busted. It certainly wasn't the only reason. America is no longer the leading manufacture of most goods sold in the world. We're too much of a consumer driven economy to get out of this mess without some bold initiatives. They won't happen in today's political stalemate. But the ideas that Republicans are pushing to drastically reduce the debt will cause a great deal of pain...as many as a million jobs would be eliminated if they get their way. Right now there aren't enough jobs for people currently unemployed...deliberately adding people to the roles of the unemployed is lunacy...

 

[mudwhistle]

There is nothing wrong with unions per se. A union is merely a legal entity to organize labor. Capital is organized as a corporation. Both labor and capital and necessary inputs into production. (Capital is just labor in another form.) To me it is a contradiction to always support corporations and always oppose unions, and vice-versa. There is nothing wrong with unions just like there is nothing wrong with corporations. Both serve a purpose. And just like there are good and bad corporations, there are good and bad unions.

Instead, what we must oppose are inherent trends in behavior of unions and corporations that are detrimental to everyone else. The problem with unions is that they often inhibit productivity by negotiating restrictive work rules and making it difficult to fire workers who need to go. They can also set wages about the market clearing rate if they exhibit market power.

Generally, I believe people don't want to be in unions. Instead, companies often get the unions they deserve. Treat your employees fairly, and they won't want to organize. Public sector unions are different because there is a different dynamic than in the market whereby a union can become a special interest group to exploit the public purse.

Good points Toro. I see unions as a necessary entity. We seem to forget the conditions that brought about the need for them. It is rooted in human foible. About half the states here are 'Right to Work' states...translation: NON union. Those states have lower wages and much higher workplace fatalities. I don't believe it is a coincidence that the decline of the middle class accelerated as unions were being busted. It certainly wasn't the only reason. America is no longer the leading manufacture of most goods sold in the world. We're too much of a consumer driven economy to get out of this mess without some bold initiatives. They won't happen in today's political stalemate. But the ideas that Republicans are pushing to drastically reduce the debt will cause a great deal of pain...as many as a million jobs would be eliminated if they get their way. Right now there aren't enough jobs for people currently unemployed...deliberately adding people to the roles of the unemployed is lunacy...

The upper leadership in unions have been co-opted by communists and by Democrats. They're not working to help workers now. They're trying to cause a revolution. They don't care about the people they're screwing with their demands. They sit on their fat asses and take bribes. Anything to not have to work for a living.

 

[Bfgrn]

There is nothing wrong with unions per se. A union is merely a legal entity to organize labor. Capital is organized as a corporation. Both labor and capital and necessary inputs into production. (Capital is just labor in another form.) To me it is a contradiction to always support corporations and always oppose unions, and vice-versa. There is nothing wrong with unions just like there is nothing wrong with corporations. Both serve a purpose. And just like there are good and bad corporations, there are good and bad unions.

Instead, what we must oppose are inherent trends in behavior of unions and corporations that are detrimental to everyone else. The problem with unions is that they often inhibit productivity by negotiating restrictive work rules and making it difficult to fire workers who need to go. They can also set wages about the market clearing rate if they exhibit market power.

Generally, I believe people don't want to be in unions. Instead, companies often get the unions they deserve. Treat your employees fairly, and they won't want to organize. Public sector unions are different because there is a different dynamic than in the market whereby a union can become a special interest group to exploit the public purse.

Good points Toro. I see unions as a necessary entity. We seem to forget the conditions that brought about the need for them. It is rooted in human foible. About half the states here are 'Right to Work' states...translation: NON union. Those states have lower wages and much higher workplace fatalities. I don't believe it is a coincidence that the decline of the middle class accelerated as unions were being busted. It certainly wasn't the only reason. America is no longer the leading manufacture of most goods sold in the world. We're too much of a consumer driven economy to get out of this mess without some bold initiatives. They won't happen in today's political stalemate. But the ideas that Republicans are pushing to drastically reduce the debt will cause a great deal of pain...as many as a million jobs would be eliminated if they get their way. Right now there aren't enough jobs for people currently unemployed...deliberately adding people to the roles of the unemployed is lunacy...

The upper leadership in unions have been co-opted by communists and by Democrats. They're not working to help workers now. They're trying to cause a revolution. They don't care about the people they're screwing with their demands.

Go start a thread with the Conspiracy nuts...

 

[Chris]

The Republican Party wants to destroy the middle class and busting the unions is one part of that process.

Their ideal is Dickensian England with sweatshops and workers poisoned by mercury and thamaldihide.