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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

If i don't like newspapers, it may be because of the ink, it may be because of the layout, there are any number of reasons. I may even start a campaign to have newspapers banned. But that doesn't mean I am against freedom of the press.

It's a shame for you that you are relegated to abstract, obscure arguments like this, but feel good that you are in company, another conservative argued that straight criminals might get married to avoid having to tesify each other under 5th protections. It could happenand as soon as the homophobes are driven out of office, gay marriage will become legal to some extent and if enough time goes by you will see just that, straight guys getting married to avoid testifying. And with your example, 'm sure there is a nut talking to his walls about how the ink rubs off on his hands, so he hates newspapers. Continue to live in your obscure corner as opposed to answering this:

Here's my list of what Republicans have done to worker's rights:

- Fought the minimum wage Bill

- Passed the Overtime Bill

- Fights organized labor laws

- Killed the Ergonomics Bill

- Disallows strikes by labor

- Helps bust unions

The Dems do the reciprocal. So that list doesn't fully indicate that Republicans are against worker's rights? One more time:

- Worker's get their rights thru unions (Royd just asserted that)

- Republicans hate unions (you even said so)

- Therefore, Republicans are not for worker's rights.


Provide a list of what Republicans have done to benefit worker's rights. Quit your silly little, 'striught guys will get married to avoid testifyng' type arguments and hit me with a list of things the Repubs have done that have objectively helped labor. Cutting their wages to benefit employers, hence their employers stay in business longer isn't a reasonable argument. That's like cutting off your hand so you never get it snagged in farm equipment. Come on, give me a list or establish these as incorrect:

- Fought the minimum wage Bill

- Passed the Overtime Bill

- Fights organized labor laws

- Killed the Ergonomics Bill

- Disallows strikes by labor

- Helps bust unions

Remember, the thread is about all aspects of Republicans fucking labor, not just via anti-unionization.

Quote

Repubs may be against the unions, but hat doesn't mean they are against worker rights. That's a bullshit conclusion and you know it.

OK, then address these:

- Fought the minimum wage Bill

- Passed the Overtime Bill

- Fights organized labor laws

- Killed the Ergonomics Bill

- Disallows strikes by labor

- Helps bust unions

What impact did these goodies have on labor? What was the intent?

Quote

Who's out of gas? You keep chanting the same ol' lines...."Repubs are against worker rights. RTW sates pay less and are less safe."

Sorry for clouding this argument with data and legislative history - way out of line. I keep chanting them becuase all you have is that you feel that Repubs are looking out for privacy in union voting, PERIOD.

Quote

But, as i have said to many times already, you have not provided any proof. It is not up to me to disprove your theory. If you make claims then the proof is for you to provide, which you have not done. Claims by the unions are not proof! They are just more claims.

I don't work in proof for the simple reason that proof is for idiots. Scientists don't use language like, "proof." as the next theing they know someone will disprove their proof an everything asserted by that scientist is now suspect. Proof is a word used in church and in court, places where lies are disseminated and pushed thru people's minds by way of extreme language.

I have provided tons of evidence that Repubs are not for worker's rights, once again:

- RTW states have lower pay
- RTW states are less safe at work
- Republican politicians have:
- Fought the minimum wage Bill
- Passed the Overtime Bill
- Fights organized labor laws
- Killed the Ergonomics Bill
- Disallows strikes by labor
- Helps bust unions

These are very strong arguments that support a contention that Repubs are not for worker's rights. hey ae so string that the burden shifts to you to establish something tangible, are these incorrect, is teh Overtime Law somehow helpful to workers, was teh Ergonomics Bill bad for workers, etc... You, instead, are relagated to arguing that the use of a syllogism is incorrect because hating the newspaper is predominantly due to the layout and/or ink they use.

Willard, quit wasting key strokes and answer the above issues, how is it that Republicans have benefited workers?

Furthermore, these are not claims by unions, they are claims by me and I have not been a member of a union since 1987. These are independent claims by me using my knowledge of legislative acts and events that have transpired over theyearsd.

How's this for your great pres, after 911 when the airlines were hurting, Bush fired off million sof $ to keep them afloat. He made no requirement to keep a certain # of employees on, just here, have this cash. Backing up to the summer before, Bush told I think it was American and US Air mechs that if they struck he would void their contract. Going forward when all of these peole were out of work he signed 1 3-month extension to their unemployment comp, hen let em fuck themselves. Then at the end of his first term, he pushed thru for the upteenth time the Overtime Bill whichwas fianally passed thru Congress. Many Republicans fought that at first, but after continued backroom deal they finally folded. And if that's not enough, the Bankruptcy Law passed and was put into law on Oct 17, 2005 making it difficult for poor people to dischrge debt, corporate BK's weren't touched. BTW, in 2004 1/2 the 1.5 million personal BK's were done so as a matter of medical debt, so the answer was to make it more difficult to BK rather than to help the little guy.

See,I have a library of data and legislative history to support my contention that Bush and the Repubs are for fucking the little guy, the worker. All you have is some obscure story about the nut who hates newspapers because the ink rubs off on his hands.

One I make enormous arguments, the burden shifts to you...... it is there my friend, run with it.

Quote

You can't make the claim that the only people who are for workers rights are the unions, yet that is essentially what you are saying.

No it's not, demonstrate how I'm saying that. I'm saying that Republican politicians are not for worker's rights. They have done nothing but try to cut wages and benefits since Reagan. The ACLU is for worker's rights too. Again, this thread is about how Republicans like to undermine worker's rights, not how unions are the only saviours to the worker. Read the thread title.

Quote

The unions represent what, 25%-30% of the workforce? That means 70%-75% are not union. Does that mean those 70% don't care about their rights in the workplace? No, it just means they have not chosen to let a union represent them.

If you care to dissect other demographics of employers, do so, but this thread is not how unions make everything cheery, but how Republicans have fucked the American worker. Granted I use unionization as a model for fair treatment, but thsi thread addresses how Repubs have fucked workers in many ways, busting unions, Overtime Law, minimum wage laws, ergonomic bill, etc. I am attacking the Repubs from so many angles, not saying unions are the answer-all, although I have suppoorted very well that workers in non-RTW states have tons better rights.

Quote

Not everyone wants to be in a union. For the unions to come into a shop on a 51%-49% vote and force the minority to join and give them money is a blatant violation of a workers right. Or are you going to say that workers don't have that right?

We're talking 2 hrs per month and statistically the union workers make several percent more money, certainly far more than 2 hrs / month. We work 173 hrs a month at 40 hrs/wk, so 2/173 = 1.16%, are you going to make that monumental? So if a worker earned 2% more by being union, he/she would be money ahead. Your point is void.

Quote

You have made claims, resorted to calling Rebublicans "Nazis", and have presented no proof.

Unless I had notarized statements from the top empoyers in teh land, you would not consider teh mountain of evidence I have preovided as "proof."

I think you are likely not well versed in the operation of teh courts, but people are sent to death row on, "proof" such as Ray Crone and his snaggletooth bite mark. He ws convicted twice until his family spent 300k and convinced/bought a judge to get teh DNA tested, then with no match he was freed. This prrof standard you seek is in leui of you actually addressing the list of Republican attacks on worker's rights that I have provided.

Repub politicians are Nazi's. Is this your version of misdirection since you cannot address teh list?

Quote

Repeat a lie enough times and maybe someone will believe it.

Igniore this:

- RTW states have lower pay
- RTW states are less safe at work
- Republican politicians have:
- Fought the minimum wage Bill
- Passed the Overtime Bill
- Fights organized labor laws
- Killed the Ergonomics Bill
- Disallows strikes by labor
- Helps bust unions

enough times and you hope it goes away.

Quote

Like their claims about card counts. Are really so naive to think the unions only want this for expediency?

Why else would they want it? It establishes an accurate account of who voted for it by signing up.

Quote

Are you so naive to think they won't take notice of who refused to sign the cards?

So what if they do, they are required to represent all members by legal duty. If you're such a man of integrity, you would wear your affiliation on your sleeve.

Quote

Time to step out of the union hall for a while and get back in touch with reality.

Time to quit pretending this isn't real:

- RTW states have lower pay
- RTW states are less safe at work
- Republican politicians have:
- Fought the minimum wage Bill
- Passed the Overtime Bill
- Fights organized labor laws
- Killed the Ergonomics Bill
- Disallows strikes by labor
- Helps bust unions

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I worked const. 25 yrs. Got fucked all the time by employers. I joined the union 5 yrs. ago. Tripled my pay and will have a small pension. And all the brothers (most) work their asses off. Their are slackers everywhere in the world. Union or non union. And as I posted awhile back the NLRB headed by the GOP lately is handing down all sorts of anti union measures. And the GOP would love to see OSHA go away

This is so obviously moot that it is only required you post it due to Willard refusing to address this:

- RTW states have lower pay
- RTW states are less safe at work
- Republican politicians have:
- Fought the minimum wage Bill
- Passed the Overtime Bill
- Fights organized labor laws
- Killed the Ergonomics Bill
- Disallows strikes by labor
- Helps bust unions

BTW, what state were you in during your construction years?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I worked const. 25 yrs. Got fucked all the time by employers. I joined the union 5 yrs. ago. Tripled my pay and will have a small pension. And all the brothers (most) work their asses off. Their are slackers everywhere in the world. Union or non union. And as I posted awhile back the NLRB headed by the GOP lately is handing down all sorts of anti union measures. And the GOP would love to see OSHA go away

Glad to hear it. I'm all for a fair wage and benefits. As an employer I paid our experienced welders prevailing wage and their insurance, plus really good vacation package. (After 5 years they got three weeks paid, plus an extra 40 hrs pay each week. So, basically double pay while on vacation). But you had a choice. That is the point of RTW, to give workers that choice. The unions, knowing more members means more money coming in and more influence, don't want workers to have that choice.

I agree, there are slackers both union and non-union.

Quote

Glad to hear it. I'm all for a fair wage and benefits.

Fair as determined by non-union wages.

Quote

As an employer I paid our experienced welders prevailing wage and their insurance, plus really good vacation package.

$10 + ????? is how much an hour?

You've tipped your hand now Willard. You're an employer, I get it. See, my dad was a welder for 40 years, he was a union steward. He made great money until the fascist pig came into office and themn his union was also busted. He ws in Seattle, in a non-RTW state. The company came dawn with this 3-teir BS and I remember him telling his guys not to go for it, but they did, which subsequently ended the union. The co told teh idiots that they were most valuable, so they won't touch their pay, but new guys comming in didn't deserve the high pay they were getting, so if they set up a 3-teir wage system it would save things. My dad said they can teach monkeys how to be a boilermaker, so if you buy into this, they will replace teh journeymen.

The idiots bought it, the co kept the journeymen on long enough to trainthe $8 hr monkeys and then teh co started chopping nuts, high dollar nuts. My dad left and others stayed on for $10/hr. He retrained into being a trucker. Funny thing is that he was a Repoublican, now that he is old and need medical care he has pulled his head out and realized what an idiot he was for voting for the Nazi party as a working man.

I don't balme you tho Willard, you can't keep making money if you have to share more with the workers. So it's a paradigm issue, but the fact remains that Repub politicians do what tehy can to take things from worlers.

Quote

But you had a choice. That is the point of RTW, to give workers that choice. The unions, knowing more members means more money coming in and more influence, don't want workers to have that choice.

NO, RTW laws were enacted by guys like Barry Goldwater to keep dissention and thwart solidarity amongst the workers.

[Royd 0]

Quote

What is freedom to an AMerican? ISn't money and representation a large part of that? I'm not sure how a man is less free by being union.

Are there not ceartain jobs that I would not have access to if I were not in a union? I'm sure that I couldn't just go to the dock and pick up a job, if I had the skills, without being subjected to a union's heavy handed rules.

Why should I have to give anyone part of my money just to feed my family? It just has the smell of extortion. Kind of like the mafia or the cops demanding a payoff in order to business in their territory.
A person should be free to do business without intimidation.

The govt. does the same thing. In the name of worker's rights, they extort millions in worker's comp. insurance. You have to jump through a thousand hoops just to start a business.
Don't get me wrong. I have a fully functioning wrist with no pain because of workman's comp., but it is a system that is abused on a regular basis.

Amazing how the bad back disappears on the first hole on Sat. morning.

BTW, don't union organizers always seem to be a bunch of fat cats. Maybe that's just a stereotype.

[Butters 0]

Quote

- RTW states pay less

In RTW states, what is the average pay for a union employee and non-union employee?

Quote

- RTW states have less safety

In RTW states, what is the average number of accidents for a union employee and non-union employee?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[willard 0]

Now you've gone the whole nine yards. Youve resorted to name calling, false accusations based on assumptions, and otherwise lost your temper. That is not a good way to win any debate.

As I have said, all you have shown is that the Repubs have been anti-union, something I agreed to so as to save argument. You have not shown anything at all that they are against workers rights. The logic you try to apply just doesn't hold water. Hypothetical situation: If group A is anti-union, yet does more to help the average worker than any other group, does that still mean they are against workers rights? According to your logic it does. I'm not saying the Republican party has a great history of working for the average Joe, but just because they are known anit-union doen't automatically make them against workers rights.

As far as how much I paid my workers, where did you ever come up with $10/hr? Prevailing wage is almost always set according to union scale and I can assure you we paid a quite a bit more than $10/hr to our skilled workers.

I am not against all unions, just those that rape their employees and the system more than the government ever thought of. As I said in a previous post I have friends who are bricklayers and laborers. Their union treats them well without screwing them over or trying to control the contactors.

Like I said, keep believing what the unions are telling you if that is your choice.
I am able to decide for myself.

Just so you know, both my grandfathers were union members, my father was a union member, and I was a union member. So don't give me that "poor working stiff vs rich business owner" bullshit. More than once my father and I gave up our wages (yes, we were on the payroll too. In fact, I made LESS than our senior welder) so we wouldn't have to lay off anyone during hard times. I once went for SIX MONTHS without a paycheck, living off my savings. When did your union bosses ever do that for you?

Now, if you don't mind, show me some evidence that the Repubs are against workers rights, not just against the unions. Because, regardless of what you think, unions and workers are only the same thing 30% of the time.

Of course, you can always end this debate. Just Refer to the republican party as "Nazis" again and this thread will be all yours.

[DaVinci 0]

Oh no a VOTE!!!!!!

Quote

To form a union under current law, a majority of workers must vote in favor of one in a government-supervised election. Sign-ups are permitted, but an employer can reject it and force a ballot, which often takes several weeks but can take months.

[Guest]

Business owners (esp big business Capital R Repubslicans) want to maximize profits through the least amount of paid wages possible. They can do this through all kinds of deceptive and unfair practices (outsourcing, hiring illegals, offshore tax havens, etc.).

Liberals and democrats want to take what little is left over and give it to those who haven't earned it.

It's always the workers who take it in the shorts.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I can use your same numbers and draw the conclusion that the cost of living is higher in union states because of the union. You still haven't proven the connection.

With all of the inferrential data I have provided, a conclusion that RTW states pay less and are less safe due to Republicans diminishing the rights of workers, (minimum wage incr fight, overtime law, etc) if you want to refuse to address that mountain of inferrential data, yet subscribe to the judicial system that jails and executes people on far less, merely circumstantial evidence, then it is your logic that is denying the truth.

Quote

Wow, you mean like your constant mantra of "what about the debt" whenever anyone posts numbers to show that the economy is stronger?

A micrsosm of a few months doesn't undo 6 years of record debt rate increase. Bush doubled the rate of increase of GHW bush and Regan, so your microcosm is a nice start, but establishes nothing. My data is of a larger sample size, in fact, absolutely enomous. The entire country with teh average wage and safety data, the the debt history of the nation for 170 years. You choose to select a few state's wages and look at a few months of the economy. Anything can be argued when you dissect a moment of it, the truth lies in teh big picture - an ugly thing for Repubs since 1980.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Are there not ceartain jobs that I would not have access to if I were not in a union? I'm sure that I couldn't just go to the dock and pick up a job, if I had the skills, without being subjected to a union's heavy handed rules.

Heavy handed rules? Like what, beijng to work on time, producing, being solid with your brothers and sisters? Yea, or the 1.16% union dues? Yea, and when you make 20%+ more than your counterparts, cry about the 1.16%? Define, "heavy handed."

Quote

Why should I have to give anyone part of my money just to feed my family? It just has the smell of extortion. Kind of like the mafia or the cops demanding a payoff in order to business in their territory.
A person should be free to do business without intimidation.

You should be a part of a brotherhood that stands for each other if the co wants to fuck with anyone. If you were ever fired or severely fucked with at work you would understand. As for freeto do business, explain Bush's intervention into unions w/o legal authority.

Quote

The govt. does the same thing. In the name of worker's rights, they extort millions in worker's comp. insurance. You have to jump through a thousand hoops just to start a business.

I know, and to think they could just let the injured worker rot. The inhumanity of work Comp. BTW, Work Comp reduces or eliminates an employees right to sue, so it helps both worker and employee.

Quote

Don't get me wrong. I have a fully functioning wrist with no pain because of workman's comp., but it is a system that is abused on a regular basis.

So it's a great thing for you as a worker, but as a business owner it sucks? OK, so the world should help you as a worker and then help you as a bus owner by abolishing Work Comp dues? Pick a side

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

In RTW states, what is the average pay for a union employee and non-union employee?

In RTW states, what is the average number of accidents for a union employee and non-union employee?

I looked for that data, it would be great to have. Actually I think a post I'm gonna put up has some of that data, so hang on.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Now you've gone the whole nine yards. Youve resorted to name calling, false accusations based on assumptions, and otherwise lost your temper. That is not a good way to win any debate.

Who have I called a name to. The rest, name the incidents. The best way to win a debate is to post factual data and create an augment, I have. You have provided your opinion while disregarding most of my data w/o reason. You have failed to provide a list of the things the Republican Party has done to help workers, I have listed several recent legislative acts and the subsequent effect data.

Quote

As I have said, all you have shown is that the Repubs have been anti-union, something I agreed to so as to save argument. You have not shown anything at all that they are against workers rights. The logic you try to apply just doesn't hold water. Hypothetical situation: If group A is anti-union, yet does more to help the average worker than any other group, does that still mean they are against workers rights? According to your logic it does. I'm not saying the Republican party has a great history of working for the average Joe, but just because they are known anit-union doen't automatically make them against workers rights.

Uh, you agreed to it as the mountain of evidence makes it moot - to argue it is silly. The logic doesn’t hold water? Then address these Republican goodies and create a reason why Repubs are for workers:

- RTW states have lower pay
- RTW states are less safe at work
- Republican politicians have:
----- Fought the minimum wage Bill
----- Passed the Overtime Bill
----- Fights organized labor laws
----- Killed the Ergonomics Bill
----- Disallows strikes by labor
----- Helps bust unions

Your hypothetical: So then draw up your own list or use mine above and demonstrate how these acts actually help workers. ATTENTION - UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR: “I'm not saying the Republican party has a great history of working for the average Joe,…” To be fair I will post the rest of that sentence. “…but just because they are known anit-union doen't automatically make them against workers rights.” OK, I’ll give that one doesn’t *automatically* determine the other, although it’s a great start. So then use my examples above or some of your own and explain via legislation, case law, anything, how Repubs have helped workers thru the years.

Quote

As far as how much I paid my workers, where did you ever come up with $10/hr? Prevailing wage is almost always set according to union scale and I can assure you we paid a quite a bit more than $10/hr to our skilled workers.

Many non-union shops pay that in RTW states. Doesn’t matter, you would fire any employees wanting to organize.

Quote

I am not against all unions, just those that rape their employees and the system more than the government ever thought of. As I said in a previous post I have friends who are bricklayers and laborers. Their union treats them well without screwing them over or trying to control the contactors.

So it’s a contest of raping? I think it’s a bunch of guys fighting for each other, fighting massive multi-billionaire corps. That pay their CEO’s millions, even in light of 911 (American Airlines).

Quote

Like I said, keep believing what the unions are telling you if that is your choice.
I am able to decide for myself.

I haven’t spoken with a union for years, so that is irrelevant. Furthermore, you could establish that unions are the demon-seed and you still haven’t addressed the above issue as to how Repubs are for worker’s rights.

Quote

Just so you know, both my grandfathers were union members, my father was a union member, and I was a union member. So don't give me that "poor working stiff vs rich business owner" bullshit. More than once my father and I gave up our wages (yes, we were on the payroll too. In fact, I made LESS than our senior welder) so we wouldn't have to lay off anyone during hard times. I once went for SIX MONTHS without a paycheck, living off my savings. When did your union bosses ever do that for you?

OK, you’re Mother Theresa’s long lost child, great. How is it that Republicans are for worker’s rights?

Quote

Now, if you don't mind, show me some evidence that the Repubs are against workers rights, not just against the unions. Because, regardless of what you think, unions and workers are only the same thing 30% of the time.

OK, sure.

- Republican politicians have:
----- Fought the minimum wage Bill
----- Passed the Overtime Bill
----- Fights organized labor laws
----- Killed the Ergonomics Bill
----- Disallows strikes by labor
-----Red states have the lowest pay and least safety (Sago mine is a great example of a non-union bus in a non-RTW state)

Quote

Of course, you can always end this debate. Just Refer to the republican party as "Nazis" again and this thread will be all yours.

If you wanna run out of this argument, you don’t need my blessing, just answer the above list and go.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Oh no a VOTE!!!!!!

Quote

To form a union under current law, a majority of workers must vote in favor of one in a government-supervised election. Sign-ups are permitted, but an employer can reject it and force a ballot, which often takes several weeks but can take months.

Do you object to card collection rather than secret ballots? Why?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Business owners want to maximize profits through the least amount of paid wages possible.

Right, they don't personally hate workers, they just want to exploit them.

Quote

They can do this through all kinds of deceptive and unfair practices (outsourcing, hiring illegals, offshore tax havens, etc.).

Right, or bust unions, buy politicians, etc..

Quote

Liberals and democrats want to take what little is left over and give it to those who haven't earned it.

Oh I see, so all the workers who have built all of teh structures, WTC, bridges and the sort, all of the truckers, they're all lazy fckers? Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Quote

It's always the workers who take it in the shorts.

For sure and the elites who cry foul the loudest.

[billvon 3,120]

This is getting silly.

Extremist republicans claim they are for worker's rights by reducing taxes on companies, on the theory that a big, growing company will always do right by its employees even without unions, explicit worker protection laws or minimum-pay laws. To them, no worker can possibly be mistreated because "they can always leave."

Extremist democrats clam that they are for worker's rights because they support unions and come down hard on CEO's and large companies in terms of taxes and regulation. They feel that if the worker is protected all is well, even if the company he works for goes out of business due to excessive taxation or union-caused noncompetitiveness.

Moderates in both parties recognize the need to protect both workers and companies, and that unions are sometimes good, sometimes bad.

[Lucky... 0]

Here's a follow-up adendum:

http://www.giveupblog.com/2005/11/right-to-work-or-just-ripped-off.html

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.

Here’s a quiz you guys might like:

http://www.giveupblog.com/hitlercoulterquiz.html

Perhaps you guys are right, workplace safety is more a red state isue than a RTW ststae issue. The tiop 21 most dangerous states are red states:

http://www.giveupblog.com/2006/05/mine-safety.html

That further supports my argument that Repubs are not for worker’s rights. This next article is a long read, but it explains why there are more injuries reported in union shops than in non-union shops. Their study shows that in union shops there is no threat of job loss if a claim is reported, unlike in non-union shops. Furthermore, union jobs are inherently more dangerous.

http://www.trinity.edu/bhirsch/Published%20Articles/ILRR_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.

Here’s some good info for you mine safety folks…..BTW, yes, the Repubs have fucked it all up again. She talks of the Sago Mine disaster, a non-union mine located in a non-RTW state.

http://www.mineweb.net/sections/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."

So Bush and the Repub Congress is for mine worker’s safety? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

This is getting silly.

Extremist republicans claim they are for worker's rights by reducing taxes on companies, on the theory that a big, growing company will always do right by its employees even without unions, explicit worker protection laws or minimum-pay laws. To them, no worker can possibly be mistreated because "they can always leave."

Extremist democrats clam that they are for worker's rights because they support unions and come down hard on CEO's and large companies in terms of taxes and regulation. They feel that if the worker is protected all is well, even if the company he works for goes out of business due to excessive taxation or union-caused noncompetitiveness.

Moderates in both parties recognize the need to protect both workers and companies, and that unions are sometimes good, sometimes bad.

I've illustrated how unions can sacrifice 1 employee to save 10, doesn'thappen real often, but that is what I see as the ugly side of unions. They do support worthless people, but there about as many in non-union shops, usually under the desk of their boss.

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

The unionization issue is just one of many that I used to establish how Republicans are not for worker's rights, curious what your take is on that.

[willard 0]

I'm not running from anything. I'm just biding my time waiting for that so-called evidence that the Republican party is against workers rights and not just against the unions. The instances you have listed over and over again are against the unions. You can only take those and use them to infer that the Repubs are against workers rights if you think that the unions somehow have a monopoly on standing up for workers rights, which they don't. They don't even represent a majority of the workers in this country.

Name calling? Two examples. Just in the title of this thread you are calling anyone who believes that Repubs are for workers rights "stupid". Can't deny it, it's right there for all to see. Several times you have referred to the Republican party as "Nazis". Again, it's there for all to see.

False accusations on assumptions.

Quote

Many non-union shops pay that in RTW states. Doesn’t matter, you would fire any employees wanting to organize.

If that's not a perfect example then I don't know what is.

You assume that because Repubs are against unions that they are against all workers rights. Yu have asserted that the Republicans are out to take away all workers rights. You haven't even come close to showing that, having only posted time and again the same instances of Repubs doing things the unions don't like. If they are so against workers rights, then why are they trying to protect a workers right (yes, it is a RIGHT) to a private ballot?

You made the assertion that Repubs are against worker rights. It is for you to provide evidence of that and not of something else that you think isd the same. It is not upon me to disprove your statements. As Kallend once challenged me, if I said there were dragons on Jupiter am I right until proven wrong?

There were a couple times when union reps came to our shop. I didn't make any attempt to stop them from talking with our guys. I didn't have to . Every time they came to the shop every person they talked to told them they weren't interested.

If you have a beef about what happened to your father, don't just look at the Republican party. Look inside the union itself.

[Lucky... 0]

-Republican politicians have:
----- Fought the minimum wage Bill
----- Passed the Overtime Bill
----- Fights organized labor laws
----- Killed the Ergonomics Bill
----- Disallows strikes by labor


Quit running and explain these. These are Republican legislative acts, the Dems fought these tooth and nail, pls explain each and every on eof them and detail how they are good for workers.

[willard 0]

Quote

Here's a follow-up adendum:

http://www.giveupblog.com/2005/11/right-to-work-or-just-ripped-off.html

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.

Here’s a quiz you guys might like:

http://www.giveupblog.com/hitlercoulterquiz.html

Perhaps you guys are right, workplace safety is more a red state isue than a RTW ststae issue. The tiop 21 most dangerous states are red states:

http://www.giveupblog.com/2006/05/mine-safety.html

That further supports my argument that Repubs are not for worker’s rights. This next article is a long read, but it explains why there are more injuries reported in union shops than in non-union shops. Their study shows that in union shops there is no threat of job loss if a claim is reported, unlike in non-union shops. Furthermore, union jobs are inherently more dangerous.

http://www.trinity.edu/bhirsch/Published%20Articles/ILRR_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.

Here’s some good info for you mine safety folks…..BTW, yes, the Repubs have fucked it all up again. She talks of the Sago Mine disaster, a non-union mine located in a non-RTW state.

http://www.mineweb.net/sections/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."

So Bush and the Repub Congress is for mine worker’s safety? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Oh, c'mon, lucky! Even you wouldn't accept as evidence anything from a website so biased as that unless they were saying just what you wanted to hear.
While waiting for you to post reliable info, I've done some checking. I have found good data to back up your claim that union jobs are safer than non-union, but also have found reliable info to refute that data. So where does that leave us? I can't find enough to convince myself either way, so it is doubtful you will.

[willard 0]

Quote

-Republican politicians have:
----- Fought the minimum wage Bill
----- Passed the Overtime Bill
----- Fights organized labor laws
----- Killed the Ergonomics Bill
----- Disallows strikes by labor


Quit running and explain these. These are Republican legislative acts, the Dems fought these tooth and nail, pls explain each and every on eof them and detail how they are good for workers.

Those are all examples of the Repubs going up against the UNIONS! How many times do I have to tell you that?
Add to that the fact (yes, FACT) that whether these bills were good for workers or not is entirely a matter of opinion. If they weren't, there would have been no argument, right?

[willard 0]

Quote

This is getting silly.

Extremist republicans claim they are for worker's rights by reducing taxes on companies, on the theory that a big, growing company will always do right by its employees even without unions, explicit worker protection laws or minimum-pay laws. To them, no worker can possibly be mistreated because "they can always leave."


Extremist democrats clam that they are for worker's rights because they support unions and come down hard on CEO's and large companies in terms of taxes and regulation. They feel that if the worker is protected all is well, even if the company he works for goes out of business due to excessive taxation or union-caused noncompetitiveness.

Moderates in both parties recognize the need to protect both workers and companies, and that unions are sometimes good, sometimes bad.

Thank you.
I believe that is close to what I have been saying. I have openly acknowleged that Repubs are historically against the unions. I have openly acknowledged that not all unions are bad. I don't agree with everything the Repubs do where labor is concerned, nor do I think everything the unions do is evil. If I haven't, please feel free to correct me.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Republican politicians have:
----- Fought the minimum wage Bill

So have Dems. That bill would have passed in 97 if the Dems had agreed on a few things. They voted it down back then, and as recent as the last Congress. NOW they will agree on a few things since they are in power. They could have done that back in 97. Doing now what they could have done then is playing politics. Trying to make this congress look good for doing something they could have done years ago but refused since it would have made the Repubs look good.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Do you object to card collection rather than secret ballots? Why?

Ever been recruited by the Teamsters? I have. They tell as many lies or more that you accuse the "fatcats" of telling. I had a Union guy tell me that signing a card was no big deal and that all it did was register me to be contacted to get more information. The card was asking to force a vote to Unionize. It was written right on the card, but many folks just signed the thing. When I tried to point out what the card said and asked people to READ it before they signed it the Union guy pushed me and made threats. Why be afraid of someone making an INFORMED choice? Unions use intimidation and force to make people join. This would just make it easier.
If all it took was signing a card more people would do it before even thinking about the action. A Vote requires both sides to put forth their platforms.

Also the company is still doing fine unlike the threats given to me by the Union guy.

BOTH sides lie. I just dislike the Unions version more than the company owners...I have never had an executive threaten to hit me if I didn't shut up.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Oh, c'mon, lucky! Even you wouldn't accept as evidence anything from a website so biased as that unless they were saying just what you wanted to hear.
While waiting for you to post reliable info, I've done some checking. I have found good data to back up your claim that union jobs are safer than non-union, but also have found reliable info to refute that data. So where does that leave us? I can't find enough to convince myself either way, so it is doubtful you will.

So make an argument for once by using that data. Your style of argumentation works in, uh, certain circels, but if you were reporting to an educational arena they would shut you out. Why not try being empirical or just walk away?