Great article by Mort Zuckerman of US News and World Report. Thanks to Bert Ralston for posting on FB.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/mzuckerman/2010/05/14/the-crippling-price-of-public-employee-unions.html
A taste:
QuoteThe American public feels it is drowning in red ink. It is dismayed and even outraged at the burgeoning national deficits, unbalanced state and local budgets, and accounting that often masks the extent of indebtedness. There is a mounting sense that taxpayers are being taken for an expensive ride by public sector unions. The extraordinary benefits the unions have secured for their members are going to be harder and harder to pay.
The political backlash has energized the Tea Party activists, put incumbents at risk in both parties, and already elected fiscal conservatives such as Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. Over the next fiscal year, the states are looking at deficits approaching hundreds of billions of dollars. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, estimates that this coming year alone states will face an aggregate shortfall of $180 billion. In some states the budget gap is more than 30 percent. The result is a crowding out of the state role as the supporter of adequate infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
How did we get into such a mess? States have always had to cope with volatility in the size and composition of their populations. Now we have shrinking tax bases caused by recession and extra costs imposed on states to pay for Medicaid in the federal healthcare program. The straw (well, more like an iron beam) that breaks the camel's back is the unfunded portions of state pension plans, healthcare, and other retirement benefits promised to public sector employees at a time when federal government assistance to states is fallingâ€"down by roughly half in the next fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
I find such speech to be seditious.
We need stricter controls on this type of opinion peddling.
Here's an example of how one city council member in San Diego proposes to solve this problem and it's completely voluntary for city employees: http://reason.tv/video/show/fixing-san-diego-a-conversatio
How awful. Allowing workers to have pensions, health care, overtime pay and access to 401Ks. These communists should be taken out back and shot.
Mi9ght be a good idea for SD to actually read something before commenting. Zuckerman's main thrust concerned government unions. We have reached a point where government employees have salaries and benefits far beyond many of their private sector counterparts. Unions for government employees is an unpleasant outgrowth of the Civil Service laws of the Nineteenth Century, whose original intent was to protect the appointees of one p[arty when the other party took power. There is much to be said for the Jacksonian spoils system, if for no other reason of assuring a certain degree of accountability for government employees in the performance of their duties.
At least in a private company, a union may perform some useful functions of representing the worker in his "struggle" against the evil capitalist, which SD apparently thinks is the guy with the silk hat on the Monopoly board, or the way he was depicted in cartoons in "Pravda" of yore. Private industry at least produces something withe public can buy, or not, as they choose.
But government unions are struggling against... us. And themselves. Which gives us the situation faced in many Western countries (Greece, among them), where government workers represent a larger and larger voting bloc, and elected officials- seeking always to be re-elected- seek to buy those blocs with with large salaries and benefits paid for by... someone else. Us.
And what happens when we run out of money?
Quote from: LPBrennan on May 18, 2010, 12:01:42 PM
Mi9ght be a good idea for SD to actually read something before commenting. Zuckerman's main thrust concerned government unions. We have reached a point where government employees have salaries and benefits far beyond many of their private sector counterparts. Unions for government employees is an unpleasant outgrowth of the Civil Service laws of the Nineteenth Century, whose original intent was to protect the appointees of one p[arty when the other party took power. There is much to be said for the Jacksonian spoils system, if for no other reason of assuring a certain degree of accountability for government employees in the performance of their duties.
At least in a private company, a union may perform some useful functions of representing the worker in his "struggle" against the evil capitalist, which SD apparently thinks is the guy with the silk hat on the Monopoly board, or the way he was depicted in cartoons in "Pravda" of yore. Private industry at least produces something withe public can buy, or not, as they choose.
But government unions are struggling against... us. And themselves. Which gives us the situation faced in many Western countries (Greece, among them), where government workers represent a larger and larger voting bloc, and elected officials- seeking always to be re-elected- seek to buy those blocs with with large salaries and benefits paid for by... someone else. Us.
And what happens when we run out of money?
So wait, let me understand what you are saying here, and please tell me if I am wrong. You are saying that winning wage and benefit increases is ok as long as its done in a way that you see fit, is that correct? You are also saying that Americans should not have the right to free associate with whomever they choose and speak about whatever they want as they see fit, is that also correct?
Quote from: LPBrennan on May 18, 2010, 12:01:42 PM
Private industry at least produces something withe public can buy, or not, as they choose.
I didn't choose to cover AIGs losses when the public stopped buying their BS, yet it happened anyway.
Amazing how no one really pays attention to a rant. Logic hurts, eh?
Yes- I am opposed to government "unions" on the face of it. If you can't see the inherent conflict in them... well, I wonder what you do see. The civil service bureaucracy has become the most powerful branch of our government, because Congress has grown too lazy to legislate: It is easier to create a massive agency to handle the running of things, and the enabling legislation usually lets it set up its own rules. Congress has "oversight" but who is overseeing the hundreds of thousands of regulations produced annually? We are drawing ever closer to a system in which more and more of our lives falls under a regulation, a license, a permit... when a damp area in your property can be identified as a "wetland" because certain plants grow there sometimes, and more and more people need to work for government to administer this load. These workers will belong to a government union. And there is no opting out.
When and if cuts must be made, the government union swings into action to protect its members- and the union's income from dues- by lobbying legislators to moderate the cuts. Or forgo them. The people who ostensibly work for us also vote for their bosses. That system bothers me. A lot. Quis ipsos custodiet...
SD- I can easily confuse your general attitude on capitalism with the cartoon figures in Pravda. I used to buy it whenever I was passing through Washington years ago- it and Izvestia were about thirty-five cents at a news stand in Georgetown- an obviously subsidized price by the good ol' Soviets. They were quite amusing to look at. Uncle Sam was usually depicted with fangs.
For a look at how bureaucracies work, I suggest you all read C. Northcote Parkinson: Parkinson's Law; The Law and the Profits; Inlaws and Outlaws; and others. Parkinson writes well and humorously, something most of the posters here would benefit from.
As I said, make a logical answer or or keep on with the "funny" remarks.
One. I said there is an inherent conflict in a government union. I stated the conflict. Can you see it?
Russian imperialism? Are you unable to distinguish the Soviets from the Tsars?
As to the free market- works pretty good when it's tried. I'm not so sure what you think of it.
And seriously- read Parkinson.
No conflict? Not looking very hard. Don't want to, I guess.
While both the Tsars and Soviets were Russians (Well, mostly) and they were both imperialists, the Tsars generally were not busily subverting governments all over the world in the attempt to bring them into one happy people's republic. The Soviets were.
The point about Pravda and Izvestia was that in the Soviet days, they were merely organs of the state or the party and- as the old Russian joke ran- there was no news in the Truth and no truth in the News. To that extant that they were hardly journalism... I assume even you can see that.
Repeating jingoism? Use the right word, not its second cousin. Soviet-era Pravda was full of it.
Why Parkinson? Well, aside from Parkinson's law (Work expands to fill the time available) there was the corollary Executives multiply subordinates and not equals- or- the rising pyramid. Parkinson gives a simple and enjoyable look into the workings of bureaucracies. His commentary is worth reading. And funny. Go ahead- it won't hurt you.
Please explain what "value for value" is and why the word is, in its application, subjective or objective.
Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2010, 12:30:05 PM
Quote from: JC on May 19, 2010, 11:06:51 AM
Please explain what "value for value" is and why the word is, in its application, subjective or objective.
I have something of value, and I trade it for something else that I deem to be just as valuable, as does my trading partner.
Whether that be money or product or service.
Because trade is based on agreement, the values are always subjective. Either I am willing to pay or trade this much for what you are offering or I am not.
So value being subjective means that the more powerful side, or the side with a perceived lesser need because increased supply can artificially undervalue a good or service?
(I realize there is more to this but I am trying to get somewhere specific)
Value is subjective. It is intangible.
If I set the value of my labor at $2500.00 per hour, and no one is willing to pay that, I would do well to re-evaluate.
As to the question you pose regarding two trade partners with differing bargaining positions, yes. Value does change with supply/demand variance.
Being in construction you see this as clearly as anyone. You might be about to suggest setting specific values on labor, (if I'm reading it right) but that would also be subjective, as well as arbitrary.
[edited for spellin] ;)
Quote from: buckethead on May 19, 2010, 02:17:25 PM
Values is subjective. It is intangible.
If I set the value of my labor at $2500.00 per hour, and no one is willing to pay that, I would do well to re-evaluate.
As to the question you pose regarding two trade partners with differing bargaining positions, yes. Value does change with supply/demand variance.
Being in construction you see this as clearly as anyone. You might be about to suggest setting specific values on labor, (if I'm reading it right) but that would also be subjective, as well as arbitrary.
I am not arguing that anyone specific should set a value on labor but unions should act as a check against the collective interest of the employing class, which is to make money and in so doing, make wages as low as possible.
Quote from: buckethead on May 19, 2010, 02:17:25 PM
If I set the value of my labor at $2500.00 per hour, and no one is willing to pay that, I would do well to re-evaluate.
Unless you're a "too big to fail" bank, in which case you can value your off-balance sheet toxic "assets" at 100 cents on the dollar even though they are worthless on the open market.
I do not disagree. There is a pendulum, however.
Many unions are cannibalizing the companies that feed their members. Unions are a business. (Just like BP)
QuoteEvery cause becomes a business. Every business becomes a racket.
Someone Else
Quote from: finehoe on May 19, 2010, 02:31:23 PM
Quote from: buckethead on May 19, 2010, 02:17:25 PM
If I set the value of my labor at $2500.00 per hour, and no one is willing to pay that, I would do well to re-evaluate.
Unless you're a "too big to fail" bank, in which case you can value your off-balance sheet toxic "assets" at 100 cents on the dollar even though they are worthless on the open market.
Now we are getting into crony capitalism/corporate welfare.
I was for it before I was against it.
Quote from: buckethead on May 19, 2010, 02:32:08 PM
I do not disagree. There is a pendulum, however.
Many unions are cannibalizing the companies that feed their members. Unions are a business. (Just like BP)
QuoteEvery cause becomes a business. Every business becomes a racket.
Someone Else
Yes, there are flaws in organized labor but they are a response to a system which requires their existence, yes, the pendulum swings!
Quote from: buckethead on May 19, 2010, 02:32:08 PM
I do not disagree. There is a pendulum, however.
Many unions are cannibalizing the companies that feed their members. Unions are a business. (Just like BP)
QuoteEvery cause becomes a business. Every business becomes a racket.
Someone Else
Agreed.
As long as we're not delving into absolutisms, yes.
Free market yes...........principles of value for value .......yes also! I believe there are some organizations that were based, operate on that also, on just that premise! Todays age, based upon me first, would not work out too well under that umbrella though stephen!
I would never suggest a group of workers should not have the right to set a value for the price of their labor, skilled or unskilled.
To imply that unions are simply a group of workers seeking to set a fair value for their labor is a bit disingenuous. I can attest to my experience as a Teamster working for UPS.
That particular union was a very intimidating beast, that you don't cross. I learned this when I returned from NYC during the strike (96ish). When going to retrieve my check due to me for work performed prior to the strike, I feared for my safety.
Explaining that I was a union member here to collect my wages afforded me no favor with the thugs at the gate. (People I had never seen before) Crossing the picket line was a crime punishable by threats and intimidation.
I crossed, got my pay, and never returned. BTW, I was not unhappy with the wage level I received there.
Unions have largely made workers into pawns for union hierarchy to use for the purpose of acquiring wealth and power.
The problem with labor unions is the same problem that exists when any organization becomes large enough to be an 'institution.' Governments, religions, and corporations are examples of what happens when the institution overshadows the people that it is supposed to serve.
In the early years, a group of people start off with a common purpose. They are often alternately praised and derided as being renegade, revolutionary or righteous. As the movement gains popularity, its influence begins to change the landscape. The problem is when any organization consolidates its power and then becomes part of the establishment it sought to change.
Hierarchy and power are what can corrupt even the most noble cause. I just find it to be disingenuous for critics of labor unions to condemn the labor movement because of excesses that we will often tolerate on Capitol Hill or in the corporate boardroom.
We like to complain how the Democrats or Republicans are in the pockets of the moneyed classes, but we refuse to consider any reasonable way to give the working classes a fair hearing in the corridors of power.
We like to complain about how more people are subsisting on the public dole and how they do not value work, but we do not seek out fair and safe working conditions for those who do work for a living.
We like to talk about how the free market will weed out business and employers that mistreat their workers but we will gladly buy products from businesses that shortchange or abuse their workers simply because we want a deep discount.
Should we reform the excesses of the labor movement? Yes. Should we allow this to be an excuse to allow working men and women to become a doormat for the same politicians and businessmen who ran our economy into the ground? NO!
Would someone stick a copy of Newsweek up Mort Zuckerman's rear end?!? He notes the combined 50 states
face a budget shortfall of $180 Billion. Does he mention that the 23 largest Wall Street firms are paying $140 Billion in bonuses this year? I didn't think so. I bet he doesn't mention that all 23 of those firms combined to produce absolutely not one thing. Well, they almost produced the Second Great Depression.
QuoteI bet he doesn't mention that all 23 of those firms combined to produce absolutely not one thing.
Produce nothing?
QuoteAn investment bank is a financial institution that assists corporations and governments in raising capital by underwriting and acting as the agent in the issuance of securities. An investment bank also assists companies involved in mergers and acquisitions, derivatives, etc. Further it provides ancillary services such as market making and the trading of derivatives, fixed income instruments, foreign exchange, commodity, and equity securities.
QuoteDoes he mention that the 23 largest Wall Street firms are paying $140 Billion in bonuses this year?
Seems like a pretty good compensation package... Talk about motivation...
QuoteInvestment banks such as Goldman and Morgan Stanley typically pay employees about 50% of revenue. The rate is lower at commercial banks, whose tellers and other retail-banking employees earn less than traders.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125547830510183749.html
Quote from: stephendare on May 20, 2010, 09:40:23 AM
Buckethead. Your only complaint with your union was that the picket line was too thuggish?
Well dont go to the supermarkets off of firestone avenue then!.
But you got good pay for a good job?
Surely they woke you up in the middle of the night and forced you to recite Mary had a Little Lamb until they broke you down!
Or something, right?
My complaint with the Teamsters was the intimidation and threat of bodily injury I was subjected to for getting my paycheck. This is after explaining that I was a union member, and not going in to work. It wasn't even my shift. (3am) This was just my very limited experience, and only serves as an anecdote.
Unions have served (and still do) a valuable function to society. My contention is the perpetual pendulum has swung too far towards the advantage of union hierarchy that does not have its members wellbeing as their top priority. One might think the profitability of an employer should come into play at some point. No employer, no union member.
I am not anti-union.
QuoteProduce nothing?
Produce fraud. They gamed the system through accounting fraud. In the financial sector, accounting is the weapon of choice. And accounting fraud when you are a publicly traded firm â€" and these were all publically traded firms â€" is a felony.
QuoteTalk about motivation...
Motivation to steal. The FBI has testified that in 80 percent of the mortgage-fraud losses, lender personal were involved in the frauds. In other words, these frauds were led from the top, but there hasn’t been a single conviction of a senior lender for this kind of fraud.
Could it be that regulatory enforcement, legislators, and wall st execs are in bed together?
^^ya think?
Oh those wonderful gov't unions
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/business/economy/21pension.html?ref=nyregion
I do not get how today's populists even are able to refer to themselves as such. The true populists, back in the day, held equal contempt for the government and for the corporations. They did not agree with a government by oligarchy. Today's so-called populists seem to be doing the dirty work for corporations to run things in Washington.
Quote from: whitey on May 24, 2010, 11:24:43 PM
Oh those wonderful gov't unions
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/business/economy/21pension.html?ref=nyregion
See this is a classic example of someone taking SOME fraud and painting an ENTIRE organization with the same BROAD brush. The very nature of capitalism is to take advantage of everyone and everything while pushing the legal envelope to the edge and sometimes pushing right past it. How about "those cops put their lives on the line" and "they deserve so much more for protecting us" you know what most of those cops did for overtime post 9/11?
If someone committed fraud, they should be treated the same way walls street fraudster bankers were treated!
QuoteSee this is a classic example of someone taking SOME fraud and painting an ENTIRE organization with the same BROAD brush.
:D :D
NOBODY does THAT here... :D ::)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 25, 2010, 09:25:26 PM
QuoteSee this is a classic example of someone taking SOME fraud and painting an ENTIRE organization with the same BROAD brush.
:D :D
NOBODY does THAT here... :D ::)
Another useful reply!
Exactly! Very similar to yours... You are... inspiring!
Quote from: JC on May 25, 2010, 09:22:52 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 24, 2010, 11:24:43 PM
Oh those wonderful gov't unions
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/business/economy/21pension.html?ref=nyregion
See this is a classic example of someone taking SOME fraud and painting an ENTIRE organization with the same BROAD brush. The very nature of capitalism is to take advantage of everyone and everything while pushing the legal envelope to the edge and sometimes pushing right past it. How about "those cops put their lives on the line" and "they deserve so much more for protecting us" you know what most of those cops did for overtime post 9/11?
If someone committed fraud, they should be treated the same way walls street fraudster bankers were treated!
Some fraud? You can find cases like this everywhere in every gov't union. And we all get to pay for it
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 09:37:09 PM
Quote from: JC on May 25, 2010, 09:22:52 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 24, 2010, 11:24:43 PM
Oh those wonderful gov't unions
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/business/economy/21pension.html?ref=nyregion
See this is a classic example of someone taking SOME fraud and painting an ENTIRE organization with the same BROAD brush. The very nature of capitalism is to take advantage of everyone and everything while pushing the legal envelope to the edge and sometimes pushing right past it. How about "those cops put their lives on the line" and "they deserve so much more for protecting us" you know what most of those cops did for overtime post 9/11?
If someone committed fraud, they should be treated the same way walls street fraudster bankers were treated!
Some fraud? You can find cases like this everywhere in every gov't union. And we all get to pay for it
LOL doing it again!
I have typed 4 short sentences in this thread and already stephendare has my whole view of unions all figured out. How does he do it? He is so foolish wise
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 09:59:28 PM
I have typed 4 short sentences in this thread and already stephendare has my whole view of unions all figured out. How does he do it? He is so foolish wise
Please, prove him wrong. I would love to hear your interpretation on the necessity of WORKERS TO ORGANIZE in order to collectively bargain against well organized corporations for livelihood, insurance and benefits. Please tell us!
Quote from: JC on May 25, 2010, 10:01:07 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 09:59:28 PM
I have typed 4 short sentences in this thread and already stephendare has my whole view of unions all figured out. How does he do it? He is so foolish wise
Please, prove him wrong. I would love to hear your interpretation on the necessity of WORKERS TO ORGANIZE in order to collectively bargain against well organized corporations for livelihood, insurance and benefits. Please tell us!
Corporations? I am against public unions, I could care less about private unions except when their benefits are dumped onto the backs of taxpayers.
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 10:19:55 PM
Quote from: JC on May 25, 2010, 10:01:07 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 09:59:28 PM
I have typed 4 short sentences in this thread and already stephendare has my whole view of unions all figured out. How does he do it? He is so foolish wise
Please, prove him wrong. I would love to hear your interpretation on the necessity of WORKERS TO ORGANIZE in order to collectively bargain against well organized corporations for livelihood, insurance and benefits. Please tell us!
Corporations? I am against public unions, I could care less about private unions except when their benefits are dumped onto the backs of taxpayers.
So civil service workers do not have the right to collectively bargain?
Quote from: JC on May 25, 2010, 10:23:38 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 10:19:55 PM
Quote from: JC on May 25, 2010, 10:01:07 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 09:59:28 PM
I have typed 4 short sentences in this thread and already stephendare has my whole view of unions all figured out. How does he do it? He is so foolish wise
Please, prove him wrong. I would love to hear your interpretation on the necessity of WORKERS TO ORGANIZE in order to collectively bargain against well organized corporations for livelihood, insurance and benefits. Please tell us!
Corporations? I am against public unions, I could care less about private unions except when their benefits are dumped onto the backs of taxpayers.
So civil service workers do not have the right to collectively bargain?
Collectively bargain, lol
Where is the bargaining happening? Give us what we demand or our members will vote you out of office.
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 10:38:47 PM
Quote from: JC on May 25, 2010, 10:23:38 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 10:19:55 PM
Quote from: JC on May 25, 2010, 10:01:07 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 09:59:28 PM
I have typed 4 short sentences in this thread and already stephendare has my whole view of unions all figured out. How does he do it? He is so foolish wise
Please, prove him wrong. I would love to hear your interpretation on the necessity of WORKERS TO ORGANIZE in order to collectively bargain against well organized corporations for livelihood, insurance and benefits. Please tell us!
Corporations? I am against public unions, I could care less about private unions except when their benefits are dumped onto the backs of taxpayers.
So civil service workers do not have the right to collectively bargain?
Collectively bargain, lol
Where is the bargaining happening? Give us what we demand or our members will vote you out of office.
Please explain this statement a little better to me.
JC, the fine SEIU member at the 0:45 mark can explain it a lot better than I can
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSh7WUK1GDc
@JC --- It is true that labor unions are mostly Democrat. Based on the way elections go in our city and state, it doesn't look like the Republicans are in any danger. Well, of course, our current mayor chose to curry favor with the unions when he first ran for office. Now, the unions are suddenly an obstacle to financial stability and the mayor is a martyr? Really?!
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 11:02:00 PM
JC, the fine SEIU member at the 0:45 mark can explain it a lot better than I can
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSh7WUK1GDc
Not good enough!
Quote from: Jaxson on May 26, 2010, 06:36:29 AM
@JC --- It is true that labor unions are mostly Democrat. Based on the way elections go in our city and state, it doesn't look like the Republicans are in any danger. Well, of course, our current mayor chose to curry favor with the unions when he first ran for office. Now, the unions are suddenly an obstacle to financial stability and the mayor is a martyr? Really?!
I just dont see a problem with a group of individuals who have a common interests (a living wage and good benefits) choosing to vote as a block to affect an election one way or the other, seems pretty democratic to me. I dont think its any different than the tea party getting together sharing ideas (often disinformation) and influencing elections as a group.
Oakland Pot Club Says Union, Yes
"At a ceremony hosted by Oakland City Council's Rebecca Kaplan, 100 employees at medical marijuana dispensary and education hub Oaksterdam University turned in their membership cards to join the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 5.
It may well be the first union pot shop in the country, if not the world.
While it will help employees collectively bargain and resolve disputes with management, it also gives owner Richard Lee political allies with labor organizations.
Lee is responsible for the Tax Cannabis 2010 ballot measure, which would decriminalize recreational use of cannabis, which polls suggest has neatly divided California voters."
Whole article here: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Oakland-Pot-Club-Says-Union-Yes-jw-95052719.html (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Oakland-Pot-Club-Says-Union-Yes-jw-95052719.html)
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on May 28, 2010, 07:30:02 PM
Oakland Pot Club Says Union, Yes
"At a ceremony hosted by Oakland City Council's Rebecca Kaplan, 100 employees at medical marijuana dispensary and education hub Oaksterdam University turned in their membership cards to join the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 5.
It may well be the first union pot shop in the country, if not the world.
While it will help employees collectively bargain and resolve disputes with management, it also gives owner Richard Lee political allies with labor organizations.
Lee is responsible for the Tax Cannabis 2010 ballot measure, which would decriminalize recreational use of cannabis, which polls suggest has neatly divided California voters."
Whole article here: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Oakland-Pot-Club-Says-Union-Yes-jw-95052719.html (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Oakland-Pot-Club-Says-Union-Yes-jw-95052719.html)
Look for the union label.
http://exoticdancersunion.com/
Quote from: JC on May 28, 2011, 07:01:21 AM
http://exoticdancersunion.com/
Look for the union label? Where? Tramp stamp?
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 10:38:47 PM
Quote from: JC on May 25, 2010, 10:23:38 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 10:19:55 PM
Quote from: JC on May 25, 2010, 10:01:07 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 25, 2010, 09:59:28 PM
I have typed 4 short sentences in this thread and already stephendare has my whole view of unions all figured out. How does he do it? He is so foolish wise
Please, prove him wrong. I would love to hear your interpretation on the necessity of WORKERS TO ORGANIZE in order to collectively bargain against well organized corporations for livelihood, insurance and benefits. Please tell us!
Corporations? I am against public unions, I could care less about private unions except when their benefits are dumped onto the backs of taxpayers.
So civil service workers do not have the right to collectively bargain?
Collectively bargain, lol
Where is the bargaining happening? Give us what we demand or our members will vote you out of office.
Congratulations. You've just described every special interest group from the Tea Party to government unions.
Let's not forget corporate interests. They want to influence politicians, so the corporations spend hefty sums on lobbyists. Forget welfare for a moment, corporate welfare and handouts are at the foundation of our political system, according to many and we must advocate for more government freebies in our 'free enterprise' system. And, if the lobbying does not work, the corporations work super duper hard to unseat those awful politicians who will not do the bidding of big business.
This is what puzzles me about the Tea Party. They rail against the excesses of Big Government, but have nothing to say about the corrupting influences of Big Business. The Tea Partiers do not mind going after 'union bosses' and 'welfare queens,' but tend to cower in the presence of the corporations that truly seek to run our nation...
I am still hopeful that the Tea Party may mature into something useful for America. Right now they are the sky is falling environmentalists of the 70s who won't back a deliberate long term 30 year approach. So just like the 70s group people have started tuning their we have to slash and burn now message out. We could be a diversified energy independent country if energy activists in the 70s had sold the approach we could have bought back then. We can solve our financial problems without European Austerity if we can take a reasonable approach now.
Nice post, Jeffrey!
Agreed, buckethead!
Quote from: Dog Walker on May 28, 2011, 10:35:20 AM
Quote from: JC on May 28, 2011, 07:01:21 AM
http://exoticdancersunion.com/
Look for the union label? Where? Tramp stamp?
You mean Trump stamp?
-Josh
The Germans have an even more descriptive word for them; it translates to "ass antlers".