Why the GOP Really Hates Unions

[auditor0007]

Look should unions be around? Of course. But should they have the power they currently do? Absolutely not! For example, the UAW have strong armed the Big 3 into benefit programs and wages that were unsustainable even in a good auto market! Unions have a place, but if they are built into a giant, the giant will eventually eat the children and bring down the house!

Union's should never be able to strong arm the employer to the point where their arms are tied in dealing with lazy, ineffective or inefficient workers. If an employer does have his hands tied then it will breed lazy, ineffective and inefficient workers.

Maybe the corporations gave the unions these things during good times when their ceo's were taking home $20 million a year. How do you say no to labor when they do all the work and management is paying themselves so handsomely?

Also keep in mind that American NON UNION corporations are starting to take back from us too. We aren't in unions. So stop letting them bash unions, when really what they are attacking is American labor.

Also, it was a lot easier for the Big 3 to promise pensions (future payments), than it was to give the unions what they originally asked for, and that was RAISES!

So the corporation fucked up. They promised too much, and now you want them to be able to renig? **** that!

I agree; **** that. Let the companies go bankrupt, then those workers won't have jobs or pensions. I'm with you all the way on that one.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealy, there are non-partisan sources of information, ones that show the stories from both sides and the facts of them as well. They can be hard to find buried under all the crap but they are there. I have found them at random, wish I would save the links more but once I read something I don't have to read it again so I don't think to save em. Just look for them, it gives more strength to your argument since it seems a habit of people to completely ignore anything that disagrees with their idea anyway. You may as well at least make it interesting enough for us with brains to read.

Rediculous. So now I have to toss out the facts because they aren't bipartisan? There are only three kinds of sources. Mainstream, conservative and liberal. Since corporations own the mainstream and conservative sources, I tend to believe the liberal sources, especially when it comes to mine owners taking advantage of their employees. There is a long history of this happening. And a lot of rights the unions got for mine workers, were done away with under bush.

Sometimes I get why conservatives play liberals for fools. Some of you actually are.

Sooo easily played/manipulated.

I don't need to do any more research on this. Why don't you show me one ******* article on why mine owners deregulated their mines.

I know why. It was to save money. Now, can you tell me why else they did it? And why did they hire illegals instead of union workers?

You know what? **** the scab non union minors that took those jobs in unsafe mines.

But just keep in mind, you have a safe work environment because unions and liberals insisted on it.

 

[sealybobo]

Look should unions be around? Of course. But should they have the power they currently do? Absolutely not! For example, the UAW have strong armed the Big 3 into benefit programs and wages that were unsustainable even in a good auto market! Unions have a place, but if they are built into a giant, the giant will eventually eat the children and bring down the house!

Union's should never be able to strong arm the employer to the point where their arms are tied in dealing with lazy, ineffective or inefficient workers. If an employer does have his hands tied then it will breed lazy, ineffective and inefficient workers.

Maybe the corporations gave the unions these things during good times when their ceo's were taking home $20 million a year. How do you say no to labor when they do all the work and management is paying themselves so handsomely?

Also keep in mind that American NON UNION corporations are starting to take back from us too. We aren't in unions. So stop letting them bash unions, when really what they are attacking is American labor.

Also, it was a lot easier for the Big 3 to promise pensions (future payments), than it was to give the unions what they originally asked for, and that was RAISES!

So the corporation fucked up. They promised too much, and now you want them to be able to renig? **** that!

I agree; **** that. Let the companies go bankrupt, then those workers won't have jobs or pensions. I'm with you all the way on that one.

Oh no stupid. If they go bankrupt, you will pick up the tab, because they are government backed.

 

[sealybobo]

Look should unions be around? Of course. But should they have the power they currently do? Absolutely not! For example, the UAW have strong armed the Big 3 into benefit programs and wages that were unsustainable even in a good auto market! Unions have a place, but if they are built into a giant, the giant will eventually eat the children and bring down the house!

Union's should never be able to strong arm the employer to the point where their arms are tied in dealing with lazy, ineffective or inefficient workers. If an employer does have his hands tied then it will breed lazy, ineffective and inefficient workers.

Maybe the corporations gave the unions these things during good times when their ceo's were taking home $20 million a year. How do you say no to labor when they do all the work and management is paying themselves so handsomely?

Also keep in mind that American NON UNION corporations are starting to take back from us too. We aren't in unions. So stop letting them bash unions, when really what they are attacking is American labor.

Also, it was a lot easier for the Big 3 to promise pensions (future payments), than it was to give the unions what they originally asked for, and that was RAISES!

So the corporation fucked up. They promised too much, and now you want them to be able to renig? **** that!

I agree; **** that. Let the companies go bankrupt, then those workers won't have jobs or pensions. I'm with you all the way on that one.

Using bankruptcy laws to bust unions. The newest scheme is for unionized companies with pension liabilities to declare bankruptcy - during a boom time in the coal business, particularly given coal's attractiveness compared to $55/barrel oil - and then sell their operations to each other to re-open with non-union labor.

 

[Patriot2009]

By Art Levine, Huffington Post
Posted on February 23, 2009, Printed on February 24, 2009
Why the GOP Really Hates Unions | | AlterNet

The Hoover-like GOP has been working overtime to oppose President Obama's stimulus package while hoping he fails. Meanwhile, a report released yesterday by the Center for American Progress Action Fund essentially underscores the real reasons Republicans and the business community have taken another equally short-sighted economic stance: fighting workers' right to organize. As Unions Are Good For the American Economy points out with irrefutable statistics, unionization raises wages and boosts the economy because it puts more money in the pockets of American workers.

(The report itself, of course, doesn't directly accuse the GOP and corporate interests of opposing economic growth and recovery, but reading its measured analysis of the economic benefit of unions leads to the inescapable conclusion that anti-union business leaders have a misguided zeal for low wages at all cost -- regardless of the impact on their own workers, their firms' productivity, their own long-term profits or the broader economy.)

full story here; Why the GOP Really Hates Unions | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

unionization can also help send jobs overseas.

Please enlighten us as to where you got this wonderful piece of knowledge.

 

[Patriot2009]

Sealy, there are non-partisan sources of information, ones that show the stories from both sides and the facts of them as well. They can be hard to find buried under all the crap but they are there. I have found them at random, wish I would save the links more but once I read something I don't have to read it again so I don't think to save em. Just look for them, it gives more strength to your argument since it seems a habit of people to completely ignore anything that disagrees with their idea anyway. You may as well at least make it interesting enough for us with brains to read.

Why in the world would anybody who supports the workers want to repeat the excuses given by employers bent on killing those workers for a profit? If you're so big on getting thier story out, go ahead and make thier case for them, if you can...

 

[elvis]

By Art Levine, Huffington Post
Posted on February 23, 2009, Printed on February 24, 2009
Why the GOP Really Hates Unions | | AlterNet

The Hoover-like GOP has been working overtime to oppose President Obama's stimulus package while hoping he fails. Meanwhile, a report released yesterday by the Center for American Progress Action Fund essentially underscores the real reasons Republicans and the business community have taken another equally short-sighted economic stance: fighting workers' right to organize. As Unions Are Good For the American Economy points out with irrefutable statistics, unionization raises wages and boosts the economy because it puts more money in the pockets of American workers.

(The report itself, of course, doesn't directly accuse the GOP and corporate interests of opposing economic growth and recovery, but reading its measured analysis of the economic benefit of unions leads to the inescapable conclusion that anti-union business leaders have a misguided zeal for low wages at all cost -- regardless of the impact on their own workers, their firms' productivity, their own long-term profits or the broader economy.)

full story here; Why the GOP Really Hates Unions | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

unionization can also help send jobs overseas.

Please enlighten us as to where you got this wonderful piece of knowledge.

I live in Michigan. There was an auto supplier nearby where the union refused to accept a paycut from 70 grand a year. The company moved to Mexico. that's just one example.

 

[KittenKoder]

Sealy, there are non-partisan sources of information, ones that show the stories from both sides and the facts of them as well. They can be hard to find buried under all the crap but they are there. I have found them at random, wish I would save the links more but once I read something I don't have to read it again so I don't think to save em. Just look for them, it gives more strength to your argument since it seems a habit of people to completely ignore anything that disagrees with their idea anyway. You may as well at least make it interesting enough for us with brains to read.

Rediculous. So now I have to toss out the facts because they aren't bipartisan? There are only three kinds of sources. Mainstream, conservative and liberal. Since corporations own the mainstream and conservative sources, I tend to believe the liberal sources, especially when it comes to mine owners taking advantage of their employees. There is a long history of this happening. And a lot of rights the unions got for mine workers, were done away with under bush.

Sometimes I get why conservatives play liberals for fools. Some of you actually are.

Sooo easily played/manipulated.

I don't need to do any more research on this. Why don't you show me one ******* article on why mine owners deregulated their mines.

I know why. It was to save money. Now, can you tell me why else they did it? And why did they hire illegals instead of union workers?

You know what? **** the scab non union minors that took those jobs in unsafe mines.

But just keep in mind, you have a safe work environment because unions and liberals insisted on it.

Not all websites are media based, nor are facts only found online, so sometimes you even have to find ones that quote offline sources. It is possible if you try. I am just lazy though so I don't bother with any.

As for the rest of your post ... bah! I am too tired now to rebuttal it, perhaps another time though ... all nighters with coding hopped up on coffee ... I hate those crashes ... I can't even form solid thoughts right now and barely understood half of what I just posts ...

 

[Patriot2009]

Sealy, there are non-partisan sources of information, ones that show the stories from both sides and the facts of them as well. They can be hard to find buried under all the crap but they are there. I have found them at random, wish I would save the links more but once I read something I don't have to read it again so I don't think to save em. Just look for them, it gives more strength to your argument since it seems a habit of people to completely ignore anything that disagrees with their idea anyway. You may as well at least make it interesting enough for us with brains to read.

Rediculous. So now I have to toss out the facts because they aren't bipartisan? There are only three kinds of sources. Mainstream, conservative and liberal. Since corporations own the mainstream and conservative sources, I tend to believe the liberal sources, especially when it comes to mine owners taking advantage of their employees. There is a long history of this happening. And a lot of rights the unions got for mine workers, were done away with under bush.

Sometimes I get why conservatives play liberals for fools. Some of you actually are.

Sooo easily played/manipulated.

I don't need to do any more research on this. Why don't you show me one ******* article on why mine owners deregulated their mines.

I know why. It was to save money. Now, can you tell me why else they did it? And why did they hire illegals instead of union workers?

You know what? **** the scab non union minors that took those jobs in unsafe mines.

But just keep in mind, you have a safe work environment because unions and liberals insisted on it.

Not all websites are media based, nor are facts only found online, so sometimes you even have to find ones that quote offline sources. It is possible if you try. I am just lazy though so I don't bother with any.

As for the rest of your post ... bah! I am too tired now to rebuttal it, perhaps another time though ... all nighters with coding hopped up on coffee ... I hate those crashes ... I can't even form solid thoughts right now and barely understood half of what I just posts ...

If you really did spend all night coding, these questions jump to mind.

Why would you spend such an excessive amount of time working?

Is it for your own company or somebody else’s?

And, if it is somebody else’s company, are you doing it because you are afraid that someone in China or India will do it cheaper, so you have to work excessively long hours?

 

[Patriot2009]

unionization can also help send jobs overseas.

Please enlighten us as to where you got this wonderful piece of knowledge.

I live in Michigan. There was an auto supplier nearby where the union refused to accept a paycut from 70 grand a year. The company moved to Mexico. that's just one example.

So, you think that one example, with no specificity BTW, proves the rule, eh? It's still a load of crap.

There was also a cordless phone maker in Chicago that closed it's plant and moved to Mexico, only to be forced to return to the U.S. because it discovered that paying pennies on the dollar in labor costs resulted in deep losses from poor workmanship.

Now, since we’ve traded single offsetting examples, perhaps you’re prepared to show us some real evidence that proves your hypothesis.

 

[elvis]

Please enlighten us as to where you got this wonderful piece of knowledge.

I live in Michigan. There was an auto supplier nearby where the union refused to accept a paycut from 70 grand a year. The company moved to Mexico. that's just one example.

So, you think that one example, with no specificity BTW, proves the rule, eh? It's still a load of crap.

There was also a cordless phone maker in Chicago that closed it's plant and moved to Mexico, only to be forced to return to the U.S. because it discovered that paying pennies on the dollar in labor costs resulted in deep losses from poor workmanship.

Now, since we’ve traded single offsetting examples, perhaps you’re prepared to show us some real evidence that proves your hypothesis.

OK, you're right, I apologize. Demanding that workers be paid 70 grand a year for a job that is worth half that has nothing to do with a company moving somewhere where they can pay workers a dollar an hour or less. My apologies.

 

[KittenKoder]

Rediculous. So now I have to toss out the facts because they aren't bipartisan? There are only three kinds of sources. Mainstream, conservative and liberal. Since corporations own the mainstream and conservative sources, I tend to believe the liberal sources, especially when it comes to mine owners taking advantage of their employees. There is a long history of this happening. And a lot of rights the unions got for mine workers, were done away with under bush.

Sometimes I get why conservatives play liberals for fools. Some of you actually are.

Sooo easily played/manipulated.

I don't need to do any more research on this. Why don't you show me one ******* article on why mine owners deregulated their mines.

I know why. It was to save money. Now, can you tell me why else they did it? And why did they hire illegals instead of union workers?

You know what? **** the scab non union minors that took those jobs in unsafe mines.

But just keep in mind, you have a safe work environment because unions and liberals insisted on it.

Not all websites are media based, nor are facts only found online, so sometimes you even have to find ones that quote offline sources. It is possible if you try. I am just lazy though so I don't bother with any.

As for the rest of your post ... bah! I am too tired now to rebuttal it, perhaps another time though ... all nighters with coding hopped up on coffee ... I hate those crashes ... I can't even form solid thoughts right now and barely understood half of what I just posts ...

If you really did spend all night coding, these questions jump to mind.

Why would you spend such an excessive amount of time working?

Is it for your own company or somebody else’s?

And, if it is somebody else’s company, are you doing it because you are afraid that someone in China or India will do it cheaper, so you have to work excessively long hours?

1. It's freelance, so no bosses, no companies, just individual contracts between me and another business.

2. I love programming and games, and started a personal project, when I get brainstorms I can't even try to sleep until it ends.

3. My work allows me to make my own schedule and often my own demands, mostly because I charge less and wind up saving them a LOT more money once I am done than anyone else could.

4. No one could do my work better, perhaps cheaper in another country, but never better. If they could I wouldn't be making any money on return contracts.

 

[editec]

I know Unions well, worked within, and against, them for a number of years.

Unions are BIG BUSINESS - and have been so for decades. Anyone who supports Unions out of a need to fight corporations is cutting off one hand to appease the other.

The AFL has over 9 million members, (down by several million in recent years) with annual revenues that approach $160 million dollars. It budgets millions in political lobbying efforts each year.

The American Federation of Teachers has about 830,000 members, with assets of $100 million dollars. It also spends several million per year in lobbying efforts - and its president earns several times more than the highest paid teacher ever will.

The AFT's big brother, the National Education Association, boasts over 2.5 million members, with yearly revenues of about $350 million dollars, and a yearly lobbying budget of over $30 million dollars as well as another $50 million or so for "representative" activities. It's president's yearly compensation is now well over $500,000 per year.

The Machinists Union has over 650,000 members, with assets of about $230 million, and millions spent each year in lobbying efforts.

The Teamsters have roughly 1.5 million members, and take in about $180 million per year.

Unions are by their very nature, opportunists of discontent. (Which is the common link they have with the Democrat Party) Its leadership enjoys salaries far greater than their membership, to say nothing of the perks that they enjoy just as any member of corporate leadership would. In that regard, they are one and the same.

So I will say it again - Unions are BIG BUSINESS.

Of course they are.

The proof of the pudding is what they do for the workers.

When they do good things for their workers, they're good unions.

 

[sealybobo]

unionization can also help send jobs overseas.

Please enlighten us as to where you got this wonderful piece of knowledge.

I live in Michigan. There was an auto supplier nearby where the union refused to accept a paycut from 70 grand a year. The company moved to Mexico. that's just one example.

I live in Michigan too. I remember jobs moving from Michigan to the South because they wanted to get away from the union.

Then I remember that very same company going to Mexico next because even the people down south make too much.

And then I remember that company outsourcing its customer service call center jobs to India.

And they bought all their office supplies from China.

Copiers from Japan.

And the owner of the company lives in Texas. He hires illegal aliens to cut his grass and clean his house.

So of the entire corporation, only one American is making money. That's the owner. Everything else is done by non Americans.

 

[KittenKoder]

Please enlighten us as to where you got this wonderful piece of knowledge.

I live in Michigan. There was an auto supplier nearby where the union refused to accept a paycut from 70 grand a year. The company moved to Mexico. that's just one example.

I live in Michigan too. I remember jobs moving from Michigan to the South because they wanted to get away from the union.

Then I remember that very same company going to Mexico next because even the people down south make too much.

And then I remember that company outsourcing its customer service call center jobs to India.

And they bought all their office supplies from China.

Copiers from Japan.

And the owner of the company lives in Texas. He hires illegal aliens to cut his grass and clean his house.

So of the entire corporation, only one American is making money. That's the owner. Everything else is done by non Americans.

Um ... if you can find any, especially good quality and affordable, versions of these same products actually made in the US ... sure.

 

[Patriot2009]

I live in Michigan. There was an auto supplier nearby where the union refused to accept a paycut from 70 grand a year. The company moved to Mexico. that's just one example.

So, you think that one example, with no specificity BTW, proves the rule, eh? It's still a load of crap.

There was also a cordless phone maker in Chicago that closed it's plant and moved to Mexico, only to be forced to return to the U.S. because it discovered that paying pennies on the dollar in labor costs resulted in deep losses from poor workmanship.

Now, since we’ve traded single offsetting examples, perhaps you’re prepared to show us some real evidence that proves your hypothesis.

OK, you're right, I apologize. Demanding that workers be paid 70 grand a year for a job that is worth half that has nothing to do with a company moving somewhere where they can pay workers a dollar an hour or less. My apologies.

Elvis,

The fact that there are examples of companies that have moved operations out of the country when confronted with union demands simply doesn’t mean that unions are inherently bad, or even that the union in a case such as yours was bad.

Let’s take your example in further detail. It may be your opinion that the workers weren’t worth 70 thousand dollars a year. It could be that others may disagree. And, what the media reported was the average wage for the workers may not have been accurate or honest.

I’ve seen cases where the media is provided wage averages by employers that are artificially inflated. For example, an employer, or a reporter sympathetic to the employer, may take an average of all employees including management rather than an average of only the workers represented by the union involved. That happened years ago when Iacocca was at Chrysler and concessions were being demanded of the union workers. News reports of their average wages included all of management, even Iacocca’s millions in salary and perks!

Lately, when the big 3 went to Congress, the public was led to believe that the workers at the big 3 were significantly above those at the imports such as Toyota. But, that wasn’t true.

And, there is no way to know if the wage level dispute was all there was to the decision to move to Mexico. For, example, a common sticking point in recent years has been health care. It could well be that the union was refusing to settle because the employer was also demanding deep cuts in employee health care, or that the workers take on more than a fair share of their health insurance.

And, then there’s the question of productivity. It’s quite possible that the workers in question were more productive than their peers at other companies. In such a case, the union would be justified in negotiating for higher wages for their members.

Another question is how these workers compared to their peers in regard to their wages overall. In other words, were their wages on par with other similar plants making similar parts?

Finally, it could be that this company was one that received federal money to relocate its plant to Mexico. As I posted earlier, this has been a huge problem.

These are details that your example leaves out and which would have a real impact on how the actions of the union should be judged.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealy, there are non-partisan sources of information, ones that show the stories from both sides and the facts of them as well. They can be hard to find buried under all the crap but they are there. I have found them at random, wish I would save the links more but once I read something I don't have to read it again so I don't think to save em. Just look for them, it gives more strength to your argument since it seems a habit of people to completely ignore anything that disagrees with their idea anyway. You may as well at least make it interesting enough for us with brains to read.

Do you deny that coal companies are using bankruptcy laws to bust unions? The newest scheme is for unionized companies with pension liabilities to declare bankruptcy - during a boom time in the coal business, particularly given coal's attractiveness compared to $55/barrel oil - and then sell their operations to each other to re-open with non-union labor.

Or do you approve of them doing this?

See, there is no bi-partisan position on this.

None of this could have been possible without generous corporate "reforms" to bankruptcy laws pushed through Congress in the last few years by conservatives.

Do you deny that the GOP between 2000-2006 pushed through the bankruptsy reforms that made it harder for you and me to file bankruptsy but made it easier for corporations to do it?

Why don't you give me the corporate response to my theories.

This is just like when Bush politicized the justice department, or when big oil was gouging us through speculation or before we knew Chaney/Libby outted valerie plames.

You need proof that shady shit is going on when it is obvious what is going on. And I already know the other sides position on this. They are innocent. I just don't buy it.

 

[KittenKoder]

Sealy, there are non-partisan sources of information, ones that show the stories from both sides and the facts of them as well. They can be hard to find buried under all the crap but they are there. I have found them at random, wish I would save the links more but once I read something I don't have to read it again so I don't think to save em. Just look for them, it gives more strength to your argument since it seems a habit of people to completely ignore anything that disagrees with their idea anyway. You may as well at least make it interesting enough for us with brains to read.

Do you deny that coal companies are using bankruptcy laws to bust unions? The newest scheme is for unionized companies with pension liabilities to declare bankruptcy - during a boom time in the coal business, particularly given coal's attractiveness compared to $55/barrel oil - and then sell their operations to each other to re-open with non-union labor.

Or do you approve of them doing this?

See, there is no bi-partisan position on this.

None of this could have been possible without generous corporate "reforms" to bankruptcy laws pushed through Congress in the last few years by conservatives.

Do you deny that the GOP between 2000-2006 pushed through the bankruptsy reforms that made it harder for you and me to file bankruptsy but made it easier for corporations to do it?

Why don't you give me the corporate response to my theories.

This is just like when Bush politicized the justice department, or when big oil was gouging us through speculation or before we knew Chaney/Libby outted valerie plames.

You need proof that shady shit is going on when it is obvious what is going on. And I already know the other sides position on this. They are innocent. I just don't buy it.

Not denying anything about what you say, hell, I wouldn't deny someone saying dems are golden ... however, when you use a source that is so obviously biased on either side you can't expect anyone to believe it.

 

[elvis]

So, you think that one example, with no specificity BTW, proves the rule, eh? It's still a load of crap.

There was also a cordless phone maker in Chicago that closed it's plant and moved to Mexico, only to be forced to return to the U.S. because it discovered that paying pennies on the dollar in labor costs resulted in deep losses from poor workmanship.

Now, since we’ve traded single offsetting examples, perhaps you’re prepared to show us some real evidence that proves your hypothesis.

OK, you're right, I apologize. Demanding that workers be paid 70 grand a year for a job that is worth half that has nothing to do with a company moving somewhere where they can pay workers a dollar an hour or less. My apologies.

Elvis,

The fact that there are examples of companies that have moved operations out of the country when confronted with union demands simply doesn’t mean that unions are inherently bad, or even that the union in a case such as yours was bad.

Let’s take your example in further detail. It may be your opinion that the workers weren’t worth 70 thousand dollars a year. It could be that others may disagree. And, what the media reported was the average wage for the workers may not have been accurate or honest.

I’ve seen cases where the media is provided wage averages by employers that are artificially inflated. For example, an employer, or a reporter sympathetic to the employer, may take an average of all employees including management rather than an average of only the workers represented by the union involved. That happened years ago when Iacocca was at Chrysler and concessions were being demanded of the union workers. News reports of their average wages included all of management, even Iacocca’s millions in salary and perks!

Lately, when the big 3 went to Congress, the public was led to believe that the workers at the big 3 were significantly above those at the imports such as Toyota. But, that wasn’t true.

And, there is no way to know if the wage level dispute was all there was to the decision to move to Mexico. For, example, a common sticking point in recent years has been health care. It could well be that the union was refusing to settle because the employer was also demanding deep cuts in employee health care, or that the workers take on more than a fair share of their health insurance.

And, then there’s the question of productivity. It’s quite possible that the workers in question were more productive than their peers at other companies. In such a case, the union would be justified in negotiating for higher wages for their members.

Another question is how these workers compared to their peers in regard to their wages overall. In other words, were their wages on par with other similar plants making similar parts?

Finally, it could be that this company was one that received federal money to relocate its plant to Mexico. As I posted earlier, this has been a huge problem.

These are details that your example leaves out and which would have a real impact on how the actions of the union should be judged.

unions are NOT inherently bad. I said they CAN and HAVE led to companies migrating to Mexico or china. Hell, my wife is IN a union. But hospitals don't move to China or Mexico.
The company I was referring to was paying production workers $27 an hour. They wanted the workers to go down to 20, they refused, and the company is in Mexico. Now they get to work for 7 at walmart. The union should have known the risk of being so belligerent, particularly after so many other companies in Michigan have moved out of the country.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealy, there are non-partisan sources of information, ones that show the stories from both sides and the facts of them as well. They can be hard to find buried under all the crap but they are there. I have found them at random, wish I would save the links more but once I read something I don't have to read it again so I don't think to save em. Just look for them, it gives more strength to your argument since it seems a habit of people to completely ignore anything that disagrees with their idea anyway. You may as well at least make it interesting enough for us with brains to read.

Do you deny that coal companies are using bankruptcy laws to bust unions? The newest scheme is for unionized companies with pension liabilities to declare bankruptcy - during a boom time in the coal business, particularly given coal's attractiveness compared to $55/barrel oil - and then sell their operations to each other to re-open with non-union labor.

Or do you approve of them doing this?

See, there is no bi-partisan position on this.

None of this could have been possible without generous corporate "reforms" to bankruptcy laws pushed through Congress in the last few years by conservatives.

Do you deny that the GOP between 2000-2006 pushed through the bankruptsy reforms that made it harder for you and me to file bankruptsy but made it easier for corporations to do it?

Why don't you give me the corporate response to my theories.

This is just like when Bush politicized the justice department, or when big oil was gouging us through speculation or before we knew Chaney/Libby outted valerie plames.

You need proof that shady shit is going on when it is obvious what is going on. And I already know the other sides position on this. They are innocent. I just don't buy it.

Not denying anything about what you say, hell, I wouldn't deny someone saying dems are golden ... however, when you use a source that is so obviously biased on either side you can't expect anyone to believe it.

You have to realize that the mainstream media is bias towards corporations and republicans. Has been ever since the Deregulations Act of 96.

You saw it all the time in the last 8 years. Great example, Scooter Libby. The media didn't even speculate that Chaney was the one that gave the order to out Valerie Plames. But we all know he did. So when discussing this topic and arguing that Chaney did give the command, I can not use the mainstream media, because the mainstream media has been bought and paid for. Do we really think that politicians can be bought but media's can't?

Remember Scott McClellan & Powell spoke out against the GOP? They were immediately thrown under the bus and called traitors by the right. So clearly, any news that is negative to them is "liberal".

So Chris Matthews said Obama sends shivers up his leg. Right? Does that mean we should never listen to a thing he says? Or if I hear something on his show, can't I use it? Or do I now have to go find another source that the people on the right find acceptable.

And that could be impossible. Right wing media or even mainstream media isn't going to tell you what lefties will tell you.

Who told you that Bush might have lied us into Iraq? Joe Wilson, right? Valerie Plames husband. Ok, so the right automatically discredited him the minute he spoke out. So where could I find a non liberal source to verify the Joe Wilson story? No where if you ask righties.

Oh we found plenty of bullshit media stories about how Bush was given bad information about yellow cake from Nigeria, but today we also know that Bush was given plenty of credible information that contradicted that information. So it is fairly obvious that he lied, but seeing as how any media that suggests that is automatically deemed "liberal", what can we do?