Is anyone still stupid enough to believe that the Repubs are for worker's rights?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

So you just assume I lied? Nice.

Perhaps embellished, maybe not. So what happened, were your feelings hurt? Were you beat to shit in the parking lot? Were your tires slashed like I had management do to me?

I used to play a lot of street ball, and altho I was never in a fight, I've had my nose broken, foot broken, 100's if not 1,000's of abrasions, lacerations, etc. And your feelings were hurt? Granted we all have the right to work in a harassment-free environment, fuck dude, we're guys, we get radical at times.

Quote

So your personal stories about bad cops = ALL cops bad.

My personal story about Unions = me being a liar.

I think I wrote that they are all inherently liars or something to that effect. I think I have cops at about 10-20% good. But we can be absolute if you need to skew it for your point. Hell, why not, you are the guy who quoted fragments of a rhetorical question as if I meant just that fraction. Then as claimed that 3 people could be each up to 100% responsible for an act or event, you tried to claim that it must accumulate to only 100%. It took a practicing lawyer and PhD univ professor to make you see the light, then recanted.

So I'm not saying you're wrong by way of your argumentation style, just that I expect the kind of argument that I'm reading here.

Quote

You do that ALL the time. Anyway it was not ignored, it has been answered several times. But since you dont like the answer you just ignore it.

1) You're back to quoting fragments w/o "..." and w/o putting teh arg in context.

2) This is just argumentative.

Quote

See you are saying that VOTING would be bad, but just filling out a card would be good.

Others (including me) have said that just filling out a card will encourage people to make choices without really thinking about it, and the Unions will use scare tacticts.

I fail to see how you could object to a vote. All of your fears could be applied to people who fill out the cards as well.

Filling out a card is experient and allows for 100% traceability. Some have argued that signing up could be done while an employee is on vacation, but that could be rectified if the person came back and disagreed.

Card submission is 100% accurate and people who dissent the union can simply claim they are still thinking about the card submission. To refuse to submit a card isn't necessarily a no vote.

Quote

You NEVER use any scientific methods. You use personal events ALL the time...Want proof?

Back to fragments I see.

I do post personal experiences, but that is 1 event, so to make an argument you must gather a lot of data, the more the better. I don't stand alone and say it that it happened to me therefore it is law. Perhaps you missed the pages of data in this thread.

I wrote as posted by you: "My professional interactions with cops, which have spanned years, are more convincing to me than a flowery story where 1 union guy strongarmed you. "

Yes, and if you can interpret, I did write that it is more convincing to me, not that since it happened to me everyone should consider it judicial notice. There is a HUGE difference. I asked in the last post to ask someone to provide cites to union violence and its frequency.

Someone wrote: Total BS, I like getting my paychecks. The COMPANY, not a union made them possible.

I wrote: Silly me, and here I thought the worker made them happen, but what do I know?

Divinci wrote: Clearly not much about economics.

You must have missed the pages of data I posted, so let's quit the flogging of the dog and talk union stuff and the Republicans 'taking care' of labor..... or is it too ugly to explain to the board how raising the min wage 2 bucks over 3 years (or whatever the prop was) is a bad thing for labor, so they killed it so as to help labor. It was a fucking standalone bill to my knowledge, so the result was standalone, not influenced by piggybacked legislation, a thing most hate.

Then talk ergo bill, talk OT Law. These are issues that I can't recall anyone even addressing in 10 fucking pages, anyone but me.

Cite of RTW states http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Cite of Erg Bill that Bush and the Repubs killed : http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=7664
The Clinton administration rules would have required businesses to change work stations to reduce injuries and compensate injured workers. The Labor Department estimated the changes would have cost businesses $4.5 billion, but would save them $9 billion by preventing injuries. Businesses estimated the cost at $100 billion.

The Democrat-controlled Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted 11-10 along party lines for the bill, which was sponsored by Sen. John Breaux, D-La.

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao announced in April that her agency was pursuing voluntary guidelines for certain industries with high injury rates. That announcement came as a disappointment to labor unions, Democrats and some Republicans, who had requested sweeping regulations.

Cite of Congress killing Erg Bill: http://www.allbusiness.com/...ations/783718-1.html

The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives both voted to disapprove the OSHA ergonomics standard in March.

President Bush signed the legislation to disapprove the bill, which makes the OSHA regulation null and void. Any future ergonomics rule that is "substantially similar" cannot be passed without an act of Congress.

Cite of RTW / non-RTW states wages: http://www.usatoday.com/...005-11-29-wage_x.htm

Connecticut $56,409
New Jersey $56,356
Maryland $54,302
Massachusetts $52,713
New Hampshire $52,409
Alaska $52,391
Minnesota $50,750
Virginia $50,028 *
Colorado $49,248
Delaware $48,770
California $48,440
Hawaii $48,274
Washington $48,185
Illinois $47,367
Utah $46,709 *
Wisconsin $46,538
Michigan $46,291
Nevada $45,249 *
Rhode Island $45,006
New York $44,139
Indiana $43,323
United States $43,318
District of Columbia $43,215
Ohio $43,119
Kansas $43,113 *
Pennsylvania $42,952
Vermont $42,649
Oregon $42,593
Georgia $42,421 *
Iowa $42,278 *
Nebraska $41,984 *
Arizona $41,963 *
Wyoming $41,554 *
Missouri $40,870
Texas $39,967 *
Idaho $39,859 *
North Carolina $39,438 *
Maine $39,212
Florida $38,985 *
North Dakota $38,223 *
South Dakota $38,008 *
South Carolina $38,003 *
Tennessee $37,925 *
Kentucky $36,663
Alabama $36,131 *
Oklahoma $35,634 *
New Mexico $35,091
Montana $34,449
Louisiana $33,792 *
Arkansas $33,445 *
West Virginia $32,967
Mississippi $32,397 *

RTW states = *

Cite of rate of fatalities for RTW / non-RTW

RHODE ISLAND 1.3 1
NEW HAMPSHIRE 2.1 2
VERMONT 2.1 2
DELAWARE 2.2 4
MASSACHUSETTS 2.2 4
CALIFORNIA 2.4 6
MAINE 2.4 6
MICHIGAN 2.6 8
MARYLAND 2.9 9
MINNESOTA 2.9 9
NEW YORK 2.9 9
CONNECTICUT 3.1 12
ARIZONA 3.1 12*
NEW JERSEY 3.1 12
WASHINGTON 3.2 15
WISCONSIN 3.2 15
ILLINOIS 3.4 17
OREGON 3.4 17
OHIO 3.6 19
PENNSYLVANIA 3.9 20
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4.0
HAWAII 4.1 21
TEXAS 4.2 22*
NORTH CAROLINA 4.5 24*
VIRGINIA 4.6 25*
NEBRASKA 4.8 26*
COLORADO 4.9 27
UTAH 4.4 27*
INDIANA 5.0 28
IOWA 5.1 29*
FLORIDA 5.2 30*
TENNESSEE 5.2 30*
GEORGIA 5.3 32*
NEVADA 5.3 32*
SOUTH CAROLINA 5.4 34*
OKLAHOMA 5.6 35*
ARKANSAS 5.7 36*
IDAHO 5.7 36*
KANSAS 5.7 36*
MISSOURI 5.7 36
SOUTH DAKOTA 5.8 40*
LOISIANA 6.3 41*
ALABAMA 6.4 42*
NEW MEXICO 6.6 43
NORTH DAKOTA 6.6 43*
MISSISSIPPI 7.0 45*
KENTUCKY 7.6 46
WEST VIRGINIA 7.7 47
MONTANA 8.4 48
ALASKA 12.7 49
WYOMING 15.5 50*

The graphs show that wages in non-RTW states are considerably higher and unemployment is ¼ to ½ % higher in non-RTW states, very negligible. http://www.giveupblog.com/...just-ripped-off.html


Perhaps you guys are right, workplace safety is more a red state issue than a RTW state issue. The top 21 most dangerous states are red states: http://www.giveupblog.com/.../05/mine-safety.html

Cite establishing union work environments are safer: http://www.trinity.edu/...R_Workers%20Comp.pdf

This study estimates union effects on workers' compensation indemnity claims in 1977-92, based on individual panel data constructed from the March Current Population Survey. Union members were substantially more likely to receive workers' compensation benefits than were similar nonunion workers, and they were more sensitive to variation in benefit levels and waiting periods. The authors suggest that differences in union, as compared to nonunion, workplaces arise because workers are provided with information from their union representatives, supervisors are more likely to inform injured workers about workers' compensation filing procedures and less likely to discourage workers from filing claims, workers are less likely to fear being penalized for filing claims, and management has less discretion and ability to monitor workers and penalize them for questionable claims. The findings suggest that communication of relevant information to workers is an important determinant of workers' compensation recipiency.

Cite establishing Bush and the goon Repubs in Congress has chopped mine safety funds: http://www.mineweb.net/...whats_new/769204.htm

The two men urged that Congress re-review its recent action regarding MSHA. For instance, next year's MSHA budget has a $4.9 million cut in real-dollar terms while MSHA staffing has been downsized by 170 positions since 2001, according to Miller and Owens.

"We are also concerned that MSHA has injected political considerations into its safety enforcement program," the lawmakers asserted. Under new procedures, the draft report and conclusion of professional investors regarding a serious or fatal accident can be subject to reconsideration by political appointments in the U.S. Department of Labor, who decide if any action is taken against a mining company.

In a news release, the NGO declared, "It is no coincidence that the Sago mine produced safety infractions at several times the industry norm, and that it is a non-union mine, where workers did not enjoy the job protection to speak out. Concerns about safety and health risks are one of the most compelling reasons why workers seek unions on the job in the first place."

Quote

Unions do not create jobs, business do. Without companies you do not have jobs. Companies can exist without Unions, Unions cannot exist without companies.

Companies cannot exist w/o employees. This is a very symbiotic relationship and the unions want to keep it mutually symbiotic. I’ve posted all kinds of data, so either address it, the 3 questions or run ‘long.

[Lucky... 0]

The last President to kill a raise in min wage was CLINTON.

The Issue was on the floor and the two sides could not agree. Congress voted 282-143 to increase the Federal Minimum wage a dollar. HR3846, which later became HR3081. Republicans wanted the increase to take three years, Democrats wanted it done in two. Republicans said OK, two but wanted tax cuts to help small business absorb the extra cost, Democrats called it a deal breaker. Clinton said he would VETO any bill that had tax cuts in it, so both bills died in Congress.

Right, HR 3081, a bill introduced by Republican Rick Lazio to benefit business owners, essentially the rich, then Congress piggybacked HR 3846 on top of it instead of letting it ride alone.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:H.R.3081:

When bills get too bogged down with contradictory legislation they often die. Clinton did not threaten to kill a min wage increase, he killed a fat bill that contained the wage increase bill. That is far different than killing a standalone bill.

Quote

The Issue was on the floor and the two sides could not agree. Congress voted 282-143 to increase the Federal Minimum wage a dollar. HR3846, which later became HR3081.

Love how you say it became 3081, it was pulled it 3081 probably by Republican Lazio to make it more desirable for Clinton. If the Reoubs wanted 3846 passed they would have let it stand alone, but they wanted to make a deal, that’s how Congress works and you know it. They didn’t have to do that with Bush in office, as they knew he would kill it.

Quote

Republicans wanted the increase to take three years, Democrats wanted it done in two. Republicans said OK, two but wanted tax cuts to help small business absorb the extra cost, Democrats called it a deal breaker. Clinton said he would VETO any bill that had tax cuts in it, so both bills died in Congress.

For the Repubs to give a dollar over 2 years as compared to the immediate raping they could do with the tax breaks would have been dimes for dollars. Small businesses would have 10-folded their benefit and the debt would have climbed again. Clinton did plenty for workers and the poor, but would not have jeopardized the work he had done to kill the deficit, which he did. Absorb the cost??? Nice one, pay one dollar 2 years later for immediate cash, do you think Clinton was that stupid? Here, I’ll dangle the fish.

Quote

"I strongly encourage the House to support this combined minimum wage increase and small business tax relief," Bush said in a statement following the Senate vote.

Also the Senate voted 94-3 to support min wage increases WITH tax breaks...Are there only 3 Repubs in the Senate?

This is from when? Can you provide cites as I do? Was this the min wage under Clinton or now? So let’s see, we have massive debt and deficit, if we raise wages and reduce taxes guess which way it goes? This illustrates that the Repubs are irresponsible fiscal leaders. Again, was this some excerpt from then or now???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html
The president's backing greatly enhances the prospects for congressional approval next year of the first hike in the federal minimum wage since 1997. He stressed, however, that it should be accompanied by tax breaks and regulatory relief that would cushion the blow for small businesses.

So there was a wage increase in 97. Who passed that one and when?

"Minimum wage workers have waited almost 10 long years for an increase -- we need to pass a clean bill giving them the raise they deserve as quickly as possible," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who sponsored legislation to increase the wage that failed in Congress earlier this year.

Right, so Kennedy wants a clean bill, not some fucking trade off BS…….oh, here ya go:

Democrats have pledged to reinstate budget rules that would require that any tax cut be offset by equivalent tax increases or spending cuts. Some Democrats say they do not want to complicate their effort to raise the minimum wage by linking that issue to business tax breaks, as Bush and many Republicans are insisting. House Democrats will vote early next month on a stand-alone wage increase, leadership aides said.

"Let's be clear, given that nearly a decade has passed since the last minimum wage increase, no one can seriously believe that the proposed increase will harm the small-business sector," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. "A minimum wage increase should not and need not be conditional on other legislation or policy changes."

So it’s clear that the Dems want a standalone and the Repubs want to use it as a fish to dangle and you still want to pretend that Repubs have worker’s interests in mind? Whatever works fro ya bro. This brings her home for ya:

But House Democrats concede that the situation may be different in the Senate. Earlier this year, Senate Republicans voted down a stand-alone wage hike, and Democrats may need 60 votes to break a filibuster if they try to pass a minimum wage increase without tax cuts. Senate Finance Committee aides are already looking for small-business tax breaks that the incoming committee chairman, Max Baucus (D-Mont.) wants passed regardless of minimum wage legislation.

White House officials, meanwhile, say they are still working to identify tax cuts they would like to see accompany a minimum wage increase.

This will bring it home:

"America's workers deserve a clean vote on a $7.25 increase, with no strings attached," AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney said. "Such an increase helps everyone and hurts no one."


Afl-cio and the Dems want a standalone, Bush the crimrepubs want to piggyback it on huge tax cuts. Are still wanting to argue your silly point?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

This I love:

"Why can't we do just one thing for minimum wage workers, no strings attached, no giveaways for the powerful?" asked Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a leading sponsor of the bill.

Congress has voted to give themselves pay raises over the last nine years totaling over $30,000. Thats more than $15 an hour for a 40-hour week, 52 weeks a year.

Woaw, woaw, let's keep her on track here. OK, you want to call Kennedy a POS, good, no prob and drunk too, if that makes ya happy. When Congress votes themselves a payraise it's usually accross teh board and is a non-partisan issue, the question here is that of whether there isa partisan devide when dealing with working falimies and legislation. Your point, true or not, has zero to do with this thread. Perhaps start a thread about fat cat Congressmen and their pay raises.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>Unless you knwo some real moderate Repubs, t ehy despise all that you listed.

I think that's a mistake we make sometimes here. Real world people are NOT like the people here. Most of them are moderates.

And you live in California, I live in a red state. ALtho I do agree that the Repubs who are outspoken here are not teh garden variety Repubs.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Nothing backfired, just guys like you running from the union issues and the 3 Repub gifts.

Just like you keep running from the fact that in was the Dems that prevented the Min wage law from being passed years ago but keep including it as a bad thing Repubs did?

A piggybacked bill that fails can be done so for so many reasons, to alow a standalone like Kennedy shows true colors.

If I offered to give you a car you would accept it, but if I then made the contention that I would be allowed to fuck your old lady once a week you would tell me to fuck off. If you want to pretend that standalone bills are teh same as piggybacked bills, enjoy.

The fact that the Repubs want the min wage to accompany tax cuts shows they don't want it, but they are willing to deal it. Clinton, in 97, had turned the corner on the debt and it was looking better, he eventually tyrned it horizontal and refused to be irresponsible by biting the bait and fucking up the debt recovery.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Can you understand or are you going to live in your world of mocrocosms?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Nothing backfired, just guys like you running from the union issues and the 3 Repub gifts.

Just like you keep running from the fact that in was the Dems that prevented the Min wage law from being passed years ago but keep including it as a bad thing Repubs did?

Well here's a little news I had forgotten about:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/20/minimum.wage.sign/

Clinton signs minimum wage increase

So just a year before your issue in question CLinton did sign a piggybacked min wage increase, then the Rpugs wanted more tax freebies to they wrote another one apparently. So to say CLinton "WOULD HAVE" vetoed it but it dies in Congress is to say that he had just a year prior folded into the Repubs in order to give workers 90 cents an hour. Your point is meaningless.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

just guys like you running from the union issues and the 3 Repub gifts. As well, commentators adding nothing but trying to impeach the individual, not the issue(s).

"guys like you" - seriously, you need to stop doing that

If you want to hit on your big three, then put them somewhere other than a post you started about private ballots

http://news.yahoo.com/...ress_labor_veto_dc_1


So, to stick with the original thread - How does a private ballot hinder the "right to have the option" to organize unimpeded? Seriously (and briefly), why do you think it is?

If you had a workforce of 100 laborers and 2 wanted to organize and 98 didn't, what would say is correct? 10/90, 50/50, 80/20? Where do you draw the line and force the rest to unionize?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

And even more clarity:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa030800a.htm

It was March 2000 that the HR's Divinci posted occurred.

House Passes Minimum Wage Increase With Tax Cut Package
But GOP Tax cut will bring presidential veto

Dateline: 03/10/00

The U.S. House yesterday passed a bill that would increase the minimum wage by $1 to $6.15 over the next two years, but House Republicans succeeded in passing a companion $112 tax cut bill which President Clinton has promised to veto.

"Once again, the Republican leadership has derailed what should be a simple vote on the minimum wage with a maximum of political maneuvering," stated the president after the Thursday vote. "Congress should send me a bill I can sign, not one I have to veto."

By a roll call vote of 246 - 179, the House passed a bipartisan amendment to bill H.R. 3856 increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 over the next two years.

Earlier, the House had passed H.R. 3081, the Republican-backed $112 billion tax cut bill, by a roll call vote of 257 - 169.

The House then passed the combined bill, H.R. 3846 by a roll call vote of 282 - 143.

By combining the two bills, Republicans hoped to prevent House Democrats from passing a stand-alone wage increase and making it a major campaign issue.

House Republicans argue that their tax package will help offset the costs of raising the minimum wage to businesses. Many GOP lawmakers consider the wage increase a "job-killer" and a roadblock to new investment and expansion of the economy.

President Clinton has repeatedly stated that he would veto any legislation containing large tax cuts because they would drain money from Social Security and Medicare.

Before the wage increase bill is sent to the president, differences between House and Senate versions will have to be resolved by a conference committee of both houses of Congress.

So if the pres had line item voto powers, he would have done so, he vetoed the tax breaks that the Repubs had piggybacked with the min wage increase.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

"guys like you" - seriously, you need to stop doing that

You need to stop running from issues and start addressing the imperical data, quotes, etc. Quit being semantic to avoid issues.

Quote

If you want to hit on your big three, then put them somewhere other than a post you started about private ballots

So you want this thread to die? WHy? Just pick a point and run with it. All I see you doing is criticizing how I write, who cares? I'ver posted a mountain of data, pick a spot and go.

http://news.yahoo.com/...ress_labor_veto_dc_1

It wouldn't come up, what is it? Can you build up a point rather than just trhowing in a URL?

Quote

So, to stick with the original thread - How does a private ballot hinder the "right to have the option" to organize unimpeded? Seriously (and briefly), why do you think it is?

The original point is: Is anyone still stupid enough to believe that the Repubs are for worker's rights?

That's a rhetorical question supported by union drive material and then RTW laws, safety, etc. The issue to the thread is well-rounded, unionizing is a part of it.

The card signing and ballotting is a huge pain inteh ass that leads to innacuracies, why not just have an open count of cards that are to be referneced whenever needed? More relaibel, more honest, less corrupt.

Quote

If you had a workforce of 100 laborers and 2 wanted to organize and 98 didn't, what would say is correct? 10/90, 50/50, 80/20? Where do you draw the line and force the rest to unionize?

Is this a serious question? Uh, you have to have 50% or is it over 50%, but if you have < 50% there is no need for a vote.

[rehmwa 2]

the link is YOUR link from Post #1

but you did answer the questions.

so, take away the private vote and possibly encourage strong arm tactics (legitimate concern even if it's a very small percentage) because the "card signing and ballotting is a huge pain in the ass that leads to innacuracies" - got it

so, 51% to 'force' the other 49% to unionize - got it

I haven't stated an opinion yet, that's the point of taking exception on the "guys like you statement". And, every time I ask a sincere question, you respond by bunching me in with some stereotype you have in your head.

but, here you go - all I have is my personal experience from working in both types of companies, and the non-union, right to work companies by FAR ran smoother and the people were FAR happier. But, each company is different and has to be treated one at a time. Bad management might mean a union is warranted, but if it's not, it's much better to go without.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

the link is YOUR link from Post #1

OK, I thought you entered a new link.

Quote

so, take away the private vote and possibly encourage strong arm tactics (legitimate concern even if it's a very small percentage) because the "card signing and ballotting is a huge pain in the ass that leads to innacuracies" - got it

Strongarm tactics you say, while everyone has essentially ignored my assertion about the company looking for these incidents to make the union look ugly for any fence riders. I think the company is the villain, you say the union is, now let's quit using isolated opinions and use data. The orginal question was about Republicans and their take on the union drive, keeping ballot elecions drawn out and private, I'm asking if anyone thinks the Repubs are for labor.

Quote

so, 51% to 'force' the other 49% to unionize - got it

I don't know if it's 50% or greater than 50%, but yes, that is he concept behind non-RTW states. IF teh union is adopted in a RTW states, the others are not forced to join.

Quote

but, here you go - all I have is my personal experience from working in both types of companies, and the non-union, right to work companies by FAR ran smoother and the people were FAR happier. But, each company is different and has to be treated one at a time. Bad management might mean a union is warranted, but if it's not, it's much better to go without.

That's why I throw in a lot of objective data. have questiosn for you, do think:

1) Unions are good fro workers?

2) Republicans dislike unions?

3) Unions promote better wages for workers?

4) Unions promote safer workplaces for workers?

5) Republicans promote workers advancements?
If so, answer these:
-----> Why does congress strike min wages bill that are not piggybacked?
-----> Why did the Repubs kill the Erg Bill?
-----> Why did Bush and his cronies push OT Bill until it passsed?

This issue is huge, the first cite was just a start as to how Republicans have treated workers. Let's address all the issues and get an answer for that question based not upon what you or Ithink, but upon the data and legislative acts.

[billvon 3,120]

I wanted to answer some of these:

>1) Unions are good fro workers?

In some cases, yes. In cases where there are egregious abuses (i.e. mining towns) then they are good for workers. In other cases, no. In terms of the US car industry, for example, US unions pretty much guaranteed that US car companies would not make money building cars in the US. So you have a great union with all its members out of work. Not good for workers overall.

>2) Republicans dislike unions?

In general, yes.

>3) Unions promote better wages for workers?

Unions say they are for better wages for workers. Overall I'd say they cause more unemployment, with fewer people making more money. In other words, they widen that division between rich and poor that many people take as a cause celebre nowadays.

Overall, does the average wage go up or down when you factor in the union members out of work? In dollars, it goes up. In wages corrected for inflation, it goes down.

>4) Unions promote safer workplaces for workers?

Overall, yes. Less of an issue nowadays with OSHA around.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

In some cases, yes. In cases where there are egregious abuses (i.e. mining towns) then they are good for workers. In other cases, no. In terms of the US car industry, for example, US unions pretty much guaranteed that US car companies would not make money building cars in the US. So you have a great union with all its members out of work. Not good for workers overall.

Wasn't it you saying that GM killed GM? Was it someone else? Anyway, GM's product line did that for themselves. Furthermore, to work for 12 bucks an hour is tantamount to cutting all corp taxes to ensure they would still employ people. WIth corps making huge profits overall, and employees largely w/o health ins, I think the problem lies with the employers.

Quote

Unions say they are for better wages for workers. Overall I'd say they cause more unemployment, with fewer people making more money. In other words, they widen that division between rich and poor that many people take as a cause celebre nowadays.

If more workplaces were union it would bring the middle class back. To say that union shop make non-union shops into 2-teir wage systems in kinda like saying that if we just cut all corp taxes corps would keep giving us jobs. There has to be a fight against the richest country in the world having poor wages/conditions. If it means making non-union shops into sweat shops, then good, perhaps they will become union too.

Quote

Overall, does the average wage go up or down when you factor in the union members out of work? In dollars, it goes up. In wages corrected for inflation, it goes down.

Have we established that unionization creates unemployment? If so, is it negligible? And is being out of work in case of a strike a bad thing if the strije was caused by poor working conditions?

Quote

Overall, yes. Less of an issue nowadays with OSHA around.

Really? The Sago mine was in a non-RTW state in a non-union shop. If employers lean on workers reporting accidents/unsafe conditions, then OSHA is just a poster on the wall.

If even Bill won’t answer these I must have a good point about Republicans / workers.

5) Republicans promote workers advancements?
If so, answer these:
-----> Why does congress strike min wages bill that are not piggybacked?
-----> Why did the Repubs kill the Erg Bill?
-----> Why did Bush and his cronies push OT Bill until it passed?

[billvon 3,120]

>WIth corps making huge profits overall, and employees largely w/o
>health ins, I think the problem lies with the employers.

Is it your assertion that GM is making huge profits? Not the case.

>If more workplaces were union it would bring the middle class back.

If more workplaces were union there would be many more well-off union workers and many more dirt-poor nonunion workers. There just aren't that many well-paying jobs, and if an employer can only afford to spend X on salaries, then he's going to fire people to pay the higher salaries of his new union people.

I know, all corporations are made up of evil executives sitting on big piles of money that they hoard to keep their workers poor. And while a few really do operate like that, the vast majority do not - they exist on small margins, and they fear being bankrupted by another company willing to operate on even smaller margins. Unionize one of ten of these companies, and it's out of business, out-competed by the cheaper non-union companies. If it does manage to hang on, it will do so by layoffs, so they can afford the higher priced workers.

So now you have more unemployment and a smaller number of higher-paid workers, which increases the gap between rich and poor.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Is it your assertion that GM is making huge profits? Not the case.

That's why I wrote corps overall. I don'tknow, are corp profits doing well now? I wonder how we're the richest country in the world, have perhaps the most vital economy, spend virtually dollar for dollar what the rest of teh world does on defense (offense), yet we have very poor worker conditions, lawer pay, short vacations, very bad benefis? Could it be that corps explloit workers? Could it be that corps make big profits, yet decide to funnel them to things other than worker benefits? A good example is the 911 response, airlines were given massive chunks of cash, no provision to pay back or keep employees on, 1 short unemp extension, then nothing, then American Airlines CEO still took his multi-million bonus until everyone complained..... and still workers have no/very shabby benefts.

Quote

If more workplaces were union there would be many more well-off union workers and many more dirt-poor nonunion workers. There just aren't that many well-paying jobs, and if an employer can only afford to spend X on salaries, then he's going to fire people to pay the higher salaries of his new union people.

Perhaps at first, then the corps are going to learn how to function by making other concessions or go out of business. I giess we could keep operating by fucking our workes. Don't worry, workers are too unorganized and ignorant to become solid, it will take enough people to lose family members until there is enough anger to make a change, which is why theRepugs are for Mexican immigration..... they cross lines and are answers to labor issues.

Quote

I know, all corporations are made up of evil executives sitting on big piles of money that they hoard to keep their workers poor. And while a few really do operate like that, the vast majority do not - they exist on small margins, and they fear being bankrupted by another company willing to operate on even smaller margins. Unionize one of ten of these companies, and it's out of business, out-competed by the cheaper non-union companies. If it does manage to hang on, it will do so by layoffs, so they can afford the higher priced workers.

Then how is it that foreign companies can stay in business even paying higher taxes so the gov can provide medical coverage for all citizens? Perhaps fewer gazillionaires? Our economy is more prolifi, so how can we do it and they not do it? Oh, I know, I know, we dump on our workers under the guise that anyone can go from rags to riches.

Quote

So now you have more unemployment and a smaller number of higher-paid workers, which increases the gap between rich and poor.

If the gov were less fascist and quit running behind corps, let the fair market determine itself, corps would learn to function with differnt rules.

WHat's funny is that a lot of professionals like you probably share management opinions, yet sometimes they are union. Riht now SPEA comes to mind; you're probably a member. SPEA is teh engineers union, so everyone knows what I'm talking about. But SPEA, how isit that engineers need a union? Can't they stand alone? Well, they are a smart, solid bunch of guys and they kick corps asses like Boeing everytime.

Now, will you answer the rest of the Republican issues? The ones where I ask if he Republicans are here to fuck workers via the legislation I posted?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

So now you have more unemployment and a smaller number of higher-paid workers, which increases the gap between rich and poor.

Another thought, the Revolutionary War was bloody, but things had to get worse before better, so we waged it rather than to fold in to Engalnd. So will things get bad if the workers trued to demand benefits? Yes. The idea is that it would be worth it in the longrun. Hell, I have read that back in the 20's, companies would have thugs pull guys out of strike lines and kill them. Things have to get ugly to establish peace, look at WWII; I bet there were millions of casualties worldwide.

[Lucky... 0]

More evidence that the Rpubs are not for working families:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_1&printer=1;_ylt=AiWYHZr8eVEJuhIU9x2D8gUGw_IE

Bush spotlights rising health care costs

President Bush is not giving up on his call to overhaul the tax code for those who buy health insurance. The president focused his attention again on the topic after a recent government report projected that health care spending would double by the year 2016. Analysts say current tax policy is contributing to the increase in spending through incentives that favor more comprehensive and expensive health benefits.

The president noted that the current policy also discriminates against those who buy their insurance in the individual market. They don't get the same tax advantages as those who get insurance through their employers.

"When it comes to health care, everyone should get the same tax breaks," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

The president has proposed treating health insurance contributions as income, which would cause workers' taxable wages to shoot up dramatically. But the president then calls for a standard tax deduction for those who buy health insurance — $15,000 for family coverage and $7,500 for individual coverage.

So, the key to getting a tax cut will be to keep the cost of the policy below the size of the new deduction. The prospect of a tax cut would serve as a huge incentive for people to spend less on health insurance.

Democratic leaders were quick to criticize the plan. But more recently, a group of 10 senators — five Republicans and five Democrats — wrote the president and told him they agreed that current tax rules for health insurance disproportionately favor the rich while promoting inefficiency.

Bush went to Chattanooga, Tenn., earlier this month to try to generate momentum for his tax proposal. He shared a stage with people who hold full-time jobs but cannot afford to insure their families. For Danny Jennings, a father of two who manages a nursery, the plan would save about $4,500 a year on his tax bill, Bush said.

"These tax savings would put basic coverage within the reach of his family," Bush said.

The president said he also wants to support governors who come up with innovative ways to help their citizens get insurance coverage.

Under his proposal, states that put in place a basic health plan for all of their citizens would get access to what he calls "affordable choice grants." The grant money would come from programs that now reimburse providers when they care for the indigent.

"By taking existing federal funds and turning them into Affordable Choices grants, we will give America's governors more money and more flexibility, so they can help provide private health insurance for those who need it most," Bush said.


____________________________________________________________

Mr. Tax Break wants to raise taxes on workers by raising their taxes, then tell them, if they purchase cheap health coverage, they can call it a tax break, all the while having less coverage.

Have you guys gone away with your, 'the Republicans aren't against workers' insanity?

[TheAnvil 0]

This thread is pretty funny. Some people really need to learn the basics of economics.

Employee Free Choice Act - I seriously doubt any of its supporters support the right of an employee to choose NOT to join a union. Actually, it's probably not in doubt at all, given that the anti-choice party is sponosoring it...pro-choice - as long as you make the choices they desire. LMFAO. The bill in question has little chance at making it to the President's desk. Even in its flawed form, the Senate is the more rational of the two chambers. The leftists made their point in the house with this nonsense and the senate will kill it.

Funny how those touting worker's rights never seem to get it through their skulls that there are few Americans who don't actually work. Management works - and long hours at that. Yet 'working Americans' is constantly used to describe the low-middle class. As if the rest of us DON'T work. Most insulting, but right leaning folks should be used to being insulted by leftists. They even call us racists for refusing to support racial discrimination. Nice class envy tool though, that 'working Americans' bit. When a party is utterly devoid of ideas, such things tend to help sustain it.

As the world flattens more and more, Unions will become a thing of the past, I do believe. Lifetime employment at a single company is going to become a much rarer thing than it already is. Companies can't guarantee a worker a job for life, though they can feasibly guarantee to keep the employee employable, I think. Unions are incompatible with that, as an employee going elsewhere is one less person they can force to pay them and less $$ they can give to the Democratic Party.

One major thing I would like to see happen with unions is that the Beck decision actually be enforced. That way the unions would be unable to take dues and give them to political causes its members don't agree with as easily as they do now. Forcing people to join an organization if they don't want to just to get a job is despicable, but taking their money and spending it on causes they don't support is even more so. I'd LOVE to see the Beck decision actually enforced.

Haven't been posting much. Working my ass off and just got internet up at home (it goes down often, apparently).

Rehmwa - good points as always.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[sundevil777 102]

Enforcing the Beck decision, agreed.

I think there should be 2 new laws regarding unions. The first I've already stated - union leadership should get the same strike pay as any of their represented members that are striking. The second is that workers should have to get evaluated on their performance, it should not be a seniority only pay-scale system as it usually is now.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

When bills get too bogged down with contradictory legislation they often die. Clinton did not threaten to kill a min wage increase, he killed a fat bill that contained the wage increase bill. That is far different than killing a standalone bill.

Clinton and the Left could have gotten the Min wage bill passed. They didn't back then but now are willing to make the SAME concessions.

Dance all you want, those are the facts.

Quote

Love how you say it became 3081, it was pulled it 3081 probably by Republican Lazio to make it more desirable for Clinton. If the Reoubs wanted 3846 passed they would have let it stand alone, but they wanted to make a deal, that’s how Congress works and you know it. They didn’t have to do that with Bush in office, as they knew he would kill it.

It DID become 3081. You say things like "probably" and expect people to take those as fact. The Repubs wanted to increase Min wage, but without killing small business, or hurting the lowest earners..Like what is happening now in AZ where people are getting fired since small companies cannot afford to keep them.

Quote

For the Repubs to give a dollar over 2 years as compared to the immediate raping they could do with the tax breaks would have been dimes for dollars. Small businesses would have 10-folded their benefit and the debt would have climbed again. Clinton did plenty for workers and the poor, but would not have jeopardized the work he had done to kill the deficit, which he did. Absorb the cost??? Nice one, pay one dollar 2 years later for immediate cash, do you think Clinton was that stupid? Here, I’ll dangle the fish.

Speculation, unless your name is Bill C. Like it or not the FACT is Clinton killed the bill by saying he would veto it. He could have passed it and the little folks would have gotten rasies.

Quote

This is from when? Can you provide cites as I do? Was this the min wage under Clinton or now?

NOW which goes against your rant of Repubs hating the little guy...Unless you want to claim only 3 Republicans in the Senate?

Quote

So it’s clear that the Dems want a standalone and the Repubs want to use it as a fish to dangle and you still want to pretend that Repubs have worker’s interests in mind? Whatever works fro ya bro. This brings her home for ya:

Again...FACT 1997 Clinton could have rasied Min wage...He choose to kill it. Dems choose to kill it. Now they are willing to do it....Why the sudden change?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Perhaps embellished, maybe not. So what happened, were your feelings hurt? Were you beat to shit in the parking lot? Were your tires slashed like I had management do to me?

I used to play a lot of street ball, and altho I was never in a fight, I've had my nose broken, foot broken, 100's if not 1,000's of abrasions, lacerations, etc. And your feelings were hurt? Granted we all have the right to work in a harassment-free environment, fuck dude, we're guys, we get radical at times.

I see back to your normal games. First you call me a liar, then claim I just had my feelings hurt and take a stab at my manhood.

Quote

I think I wrote that they are all inherently liars or something to that effect.

You called them all liars. Nice try at a back peddle.

Quote

So I'm not saying you're wrong by way of your argumentation style, just that I expect the kind of argument that I'm reading here.

I provide proof of your false claims and exagerations. While you make slams on me personally.

Quote

This is just argumentative.

You say that anytime you cannot back a claim with anything more than retoric.

Quote

Companies cannot exist w/o employees. This is a very symbiotic relationship and the unions want to keep it mutually symbiotic. I’ve posted all kinds of data, so either address it, the 3 questions or run ‘long.

Companies can have workers without Unions. Unions need companies and workers.

Your data only includes right to work states and does not seperate between Union and Non Union cases amd salary. So frankly you are not able to make any real comparisions.

[Lucky... 0]

The thread title is about Republicans and worker's rights, the union issue is just one of so many issues on teh table, feel free to grab any of the other many issues as well.

As for your rant about hating unions, it supports my point. Do you think union workers do better in union shops? The data suggests so, both in wage and in safety. Furthermore, things like the OT law, Erg Bill and min wage increase are pionts to further argue that Repubs are not for working families.

To answer your points:

- Unions a thing of the past:
------> I think they will cycle. As thinsg bet bad as tehy are now, people vote Dem more and unions are strengthened. As people foget, unions go away. I think this legislation is a note that unions will make a resurgency as Dems enter office.

- Senate is the more rational of the two chambers:
-----> Which is why they get to filibuster and the House does not. Yea, that's rational. They are both made up of the same type of politicians, just that the Senate is more exclusive.

- Funny how those touting worker's rights never seem to get it through their skulls that there are few Americans who don't actually work:
----->Inferring that people who work don't want unions???? Ridiculous. Go to a construction site or teamster's meeting and say that.

- Yet 'working Americans' is constantly used to describe the low-middle class:
-----> No, people who do the work, they call it, "touch labor" in many circumstances. People who actually do the work are the workers, management is just that, sit back and go to meetings, fuck around.

- Most insulting, but right leaning folks should be used to being insulted by leftists:
-----> (A tear rolls down face) Many union members are Republicans and many workers are Repubs who cinsider management lazy. Calling mnagement lazy and overpaid is not a partisan label.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Enforcing the Beck decision, agreed.

I think there should be 2 new laws regarding unions. The first I've already stated - union leadership should get the same strike pay as any of their represented members that are striking. The second is that workers should have to get evaluated on their performance, it should not be a seniority only pay-scale system as it usually is now.

I don't care if union leadership gets what pay.

Senioity is at the forefront of union membership. These evaluations are subjective and the union wants that removed from employment. As workers get older they can perform less, but their knowledge is valuable. Employers wnat to be able to fire old guys for cheaper young ones, unions want seniority rights so that cannot happen.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Clinton and the Left could have gotten the Min wage bill passed. They didn't back then but now are willing to make the SAME concessions.

Dance all you want, those are the facts.

No, these are the facts:

- Clinton signed a min wage increase that was packed with tax cuts for the rich in 1996, into effect in 1997.

- Congress introduced another bill with the same fat goodies for the rich in early 2000, it died in the Republican Congress, Clinton never had the ability to sign or veto it.

- Recently Congress just introduced a new bill that passed in the House, was killed in the Senate. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558329/

Senate Dems even agreed to the fat goodies, the Repubs denied even with those freebies.

So, once again, you are wrong, Clinton signed the only min wage increase that was ever put in front of him and it even included more huge giveaways to the rich as a concession.

Quote

It DID become 3081. You say things like "probably" and expect people to take those as fact. The Repubs wanted to increase Min wage, but without killing small business, or hurting the lowest earners..Like what is happening now in AZ where people are getting fired since small companies cannot afford to keep them.

HR3846 was funneled into HR3081. Who cares who did it, the House voted to combine them. By combining the two bills, Republicans hoped to prevent House Democrats from passing a stand-alone wage increase and making it a major campaign issue.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/...y/news/aa030800a.htm

Why a campaign issue, to argue that Dems are for workers and Repubs are not?

Show where employees are getting fired for an additional buck an hour.

Quote

Speculation, unless your name is Bill C. Like it or not the FACT is Clinton killed the bill by saying he would veto it. He could have passed it and the little folks would have gotten rasies.

No, he did sign one that went into effect in 97, he said he would veto it with all the packed goodies. Typical how Republican arguments are a microcosm of the entire truth. The Republicans now refuse to pass one even with the goodies, so I think we see where truths lie.

Quote

NOW which goes against your rant of Repubs hating the little guy...Unless you want to claim only 3 Republicans in the Senate?

I asked for more clarification: “This is from when? Can you provide cites as I do? Was this the min wage under Clinton or now?”

Uh, how is it that 3 Repubs and the little guys are clarification? Just provide clarification as I asked.

Quote

Again...FACT 1997 Clinton could have rasied Min wage...He choose to kill it. Dems choose to kill it. Now they are willing to do it....Why the sudden change?

- FACT: it was 96 that Clinton did sign the min wage bill with goodies for the rich.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/20/minimum.wage.sign/
Clinton signs minimum wage increase New law also gives tax breaks, brings back airline tax August 20, 1996
The bill, passed by Congress on August 2, raises the current $4.25 federal minimum wage by 90 cents an hour in two stages. The rate will rise to $4.75 an hour October 1, then will increase to $5.15 on September 1, 1997. So it went into effect in Oct 96 and was complete in Sep 97.

- FACT: it was 2000 when the issue came up again and dies in the Senate after being coupled with another fat package for the rich.http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa030800a.htmClinton Asks Congress to Raise Minimum Wage Dateline: 03/08/00 Update: 03/10/00 House Passes Wage Increase Bill

- FACT: The Republican Senate just killed another one that was packed with goodies for the rich, they just didn’t want to see an increase for the poor.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558329/

- FACT: You don’t have your facts straight.

[billvon 3,120]

>I wonder how we're the richest country in the world, have perhaps the
>most vital economy, spend virtually dollar for dollar what the rest of teh
>world does on defense (offense), yet we have very poor worker conditions,
>lawer pay, short vacations, very bad benefis?

I think a trip to China might give you a different outlook.

>Perhaps at first, then the corps are going to learn how to function by
>making other concessions or go out of business.

Exactly! The ones that make too many concessions go out of business. The ones that make too _few_ (i.e. treat employees like shit) go out of business. The ones that strike the right tradeoff are the ones that do well.

>I giess we could keep operating by fucking our workes.

To use your rhetoric, the people fucking over workers go out of business because everyone quits. The people treating workers like kings and queens go out of business because no one wants to spend $5000 for a cellphone. The ones that strike the right balance between worker pay, benefits, bonuses etc and product cost stay in business.

>WHat's funny is that a lot of professionals like you probably share
> management opinions, yet sometimes they are union. Riht now SPEA
> comes to mind; you're probably a member.

Uh, no. I just work at places that treat me well. That's all the "unionization" I need.