Lucky...

Since unions are the same as being for worler's rights, it's the same thing, but to satisfy you I will only list legislation that is w/o union consideration: ----- Fought the minimum wage Bill ----- Passed the Overtime Bill ----- Killed the Ergonomics Bill There ya go, the overtime law has language excluding labor unions from it, so that has zero union play. The min wage bill that Congress shot down was not about unions, it was for people unprotected by unions. The Ergonomic Bill that Bush killed had zero to do with unionization. SO address how these weren't attacks on labor and then show me examples of how Repubs look out for labor protections. Won't happen, will it Willard? A matter of opinion? Uh, keeping min wage earners at 5.25 instead of 7+ is either good or bad for workers? Let me see..... hmmm, that is a difficult question, I'll have to get back to you The Overtime Law..... hmmm, being unilatterally converted to salary and being required to work unlimited hiurs for the same salary...... huh...... that is tough..... you're really making some great points there Willard Killing the Ergonomics Bill..... yea, if I have an injury I must go thru work comp rather than have a fasttrack setup to prevent repetitive motion injuries and a quick remedy if it happens. Yea, that makes all kinds of sense So, Willard, let's hear your opinion as to how the three above are good for workers, I really am dying to read how you take the 3 above and make them viable for workers. Better yet, can you conjure anymore legislative reasons how Repubs have helped the working man? Just sitting here a waitin.

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?

-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.

W/o a doubt, many things teh gov claims to want to prevent they really want to perpetuate.

Strange bedfellows. See, Kalledn gets what I'm talking about. These justices decide based upon alliances, not issues.

Exactly

How so? Who in particular? It would be expected to think: For the upholding of the verdict:David Souter, Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy. Dissenting were Justices Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, and Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. I realize the argument made had to do with instructions to jurors, so that might skew things. The alliances usually don't change but by a person or 2, these are whacky.

Right, that's the hypocrisy of the whole deal, esp since McCain is pro-war. Just funny to watch in-fighting.

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.

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.

Right, they don't personally hate workers, they just want to exploit them. Right, or bust unions, buy politicians, etc.. 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. For sure and the elites who cry foul the loudest.

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

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. 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. Many non-union shops pay that in RTW states. Doesn’t matter, you would fire any employees wanting to organize. 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). 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. OK, you’re Mother Theresa’s long lost child, great. How is it that Republicans are for worker’s rights? 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) If you wanna run out of this argument, you don’t need my blessing, just answer the above list and go.

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.

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." 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. 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. 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

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. 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_bi_ge/scotus_philip_morris_5&printer=1;_ylt=AtuobIuO87g6jHcQm497ogBv24cA The Supreme Court threw out a $79.5 million punitive damages award to a smoker's widow Tuesday, a boon to businesses seeking stricter limits on big-dollar jury verdicts. The 5-4 ruling was a victory for Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA, which contested an Oregon Supreme Court decision upholding the verdict. In the majority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court said the verdict could not stand because the jury in the case was not instructed that it could punish Philip Morris only for the harm done to the plaintiff, not to other smokers whose cases were not before it. States must "provide assurances that juries are not asking the wrong question ... seeking, not simply to determine reprehensibility, but also to punish for harm caused strangers," Breyer said. The decision did not address whether the size of the award was constitutionally excessive, as Philip Morris had asked. Punitive damages are money intended to punish a defendant for its behavior and to deter repetition. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, joined with Breyer. Dissenting were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas. Mayola Williams sued Philip Morris for fraud on behalf of her husband, a two-pack-a-day smoker of Marlboros for 45 years. Jesse Williams died of lung cancer more than nine years ago. Philip Morris makes Marlboros. She argued the jury award was appropriate because it punishes Philip Morris' misconduct for a decades-long "massive market-directed fraud" that misled people into thinking cigarettes were not dangerous or addictive. Williams, according to his widow, never gave any credence to the surgeon general's health warnings about smoking cigarettes because tobacco companies insisted they were safe. Only after falling sick did Williams tell his wife: "Those darn cigarette people finally did it. They were lying all the time." The cigarette maker, however, said a jury can punish the company only for the harm done to Williams, not to other smokers. The jury should have been told explicitly that other smokers, no matter how tragic their stories, would have to prove their own cases, the company said. The Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and trade associations representing car and drug makers have weighed in on behalf of tighter restrictions on damage awards. The case also was watched closely as a test of whether the new makeup of the Supreme Court would lead to changes in its prior rulings limiting punitive damages. Roberts and Alito, the two newest members, were in the majority Tuesday, giving no hint of a change in the court's approach to punitive damages. The case is Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 05-1256. ________________________________________________________________________________ Irony is this: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, joined with Breyer. Dissenting were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas. A little partisan flip-flopping here. At least Thomas still has his nose stuck up Scalia's ass....that'll never change.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_el_pr/mccain2008_8&printer=1;_ylt=AkzSlGNw4NYxmlqyvFrlKM5h24cA Republican presidential candidate John McCain (news, bio, voting record) said Monday the war in Iraq has been mismanaged for years and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be remembered as one of the worst in history. "We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement — that's the kindest word I can give you — of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war," the Arizona senator told an overflow crowd of more than 800 at a retirement community near Hilton Head Island, S.C. "The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously." McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, complained that Rumsfeld never put enough troops on the ground to succeed in Iraq. "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history," McCain said to applause. The comments were in sharp contrast to McCain's statement when Rumsfeld resigned in November, and failed to address the reality that President Bush is the commander in chief. "While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service," McCain said last year when Rumsfeld stepped down. On a two-day campaign swing in South Carolina, McCain fielded questions from the crowd for more than an hour and said the United States can succeed in Iraq with additional troops and a new strategy. McCain has been a strong proponent of using more troops and favors Bush's increase of some 21,500 U.S. forces in the nearly four-year-old war. "I have been saying for 3 1/2 years that we would be in this sad situation and this critical situation we are in today," he said. McCain's bid for president was sidetracked in South Carolina in 2000 after a victory in New Hampshire. George W. Bush won the primary here and went on to win the nomination and White House. "In life, one of the worst things you can do is hold a grudge," he said. "I felt the important thing for me to do with my life was to move forward after we lost our race. You have seen other people who have lost who mire themselves in bitterness and self pity. That's not what my life is all about." Some in the crowd were Bush supporters who have not yet decided on a 2008 candidate. "It's too early to say," said Paul Baker, a retiree from Niagara Falls, N.Y., who has lived in South Carolina about four years. "I'm just going to wait it out and see what happens."

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. Fair as determined by non-union wages. $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. NO, RTW laws were enacted by guys like Barry Goldwater to keep dissention and thwart solidarity amongst the workers.

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?

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

Looks like cost of living plays a rather large part of the difference in salaries. Of course, admitting that takes rather a lot of wind out of your 'assertions', so I understand why you didn't normalize for it, sort of like your constant arguments about the economy. Nice, a sample size of 1. Most of the deaths result from manual labor, not office managers I think we all agree, someone on your side made that assertion, so these are low paid workers in many cases anyway. I think Kallend's data read construction laborers were near the top of the list of most dangerous jobs. SO you have not tied in wage to your argument foe a few reasons, namely sample size of your data. Furthermore, you have not even touched the issue of safety, which Kallend debunked by posting that mine workers were far down on the list of most dangerous jobs. Instead of creating an entire argument, you're poking straws trying to pop the balloon. Do you really think Repubican politicians are here to help workers? If so, explain all of the legislative acts they have done. Do you think Republican politicians are pro-union? If so establish how? Gee, that's nice. Make claims about the Republican party, then instead of providing facts to back those claims you want others to prove they are false. It's not up to us to prove you are wrong. It's up to you to prove you are right. Typical union tactic. Looks like cost of living plays a rather large part of the difference in salaries. Of course, admitting that takes rather a lot of wind out of your 'assertions', so I understand why you didn't normalize for it, sort of like your constant arguments about the economy. Nice, a sample size of 1. Most of the deaths result from manual labor, not office managers I think we all agree, someone on your side made that assertion, so these are low paid workers in many cases anyway. I think Kallend's data read construction laborers were near the top of the list of most dangerous jobs. SO you have not tied in wage to your argument foe a few reasons, namely sample size of your data. Furthermore, you have not even touched the issue of safety, which Kallend debunked by posting that mine workers were far down on the list of most dangerous jobs. Instead of creating an entire argument, you're poking straws trying to pop the balloon. Do you really think Repubican politicians are here to help workers? If so, explain all of the legislative acts they have done. Do you think Republican politicians are pro-union? If so establish how? Gee, that's nice. Make claims about the Republican party, then instead of providing facts to back those claims you want others to prove they are false. It's not up to us to prove you are wrong. It's up to you to prove you are right. Typical union tactic. I was just offering a chance at an affirmitive argument for you. See, you could put a quick end to this argument if you produced a list of things the Republicans have done for workers over the last 50 years, preferably more contemporary. Here's your list: - Uh, trying to keep union ballots private THAT'S FUCKING IT!!!!! YOU'RE OUT OF GAS AFTER THAT. 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. I'm just curious as to why you resist the obvious, is it that you want to make Republicans look sensitive and caring to the poor and underclass? Is it that you're an ideologue and find yourself a Republican and a worker, hate to think your party fucks labor? Sorry man, provide exmples of what your party has done to benefit labor.... I'm all ears.

A recap: - RTW states are or virtually all red - RTW states have amongst the lowest pay in the nation, I posted a list of averge salaries on page 5 or 6 - RTW states have amongst the highest death rates on teh job, again a list is on 5 or 6. I have concluded that epublicans are not for worker's rights, the other side has yet to provide anything but that the Repubs are fighting for private union elections, but have failed to provide any legislative or other examples of the measures the Repubs have done for workers. 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. They can tell the union to back off if there is litigation needed for any issue, there are no rights surrendered. Not true and if a guy is a real go-getter, management can pick them up. So you assume that union workers don't work hard? That's unfair and teh assmbly line moves regardless of anything else, so there is no slacking. Assuming the union worker is a slacker is just stereotypical and general. You have both types in union and non-union shops. When it comes time to cut nuts, who's going, the $10/hr kid that can do teh job or $25/hr old guy that has tons of seniority and is slower than he used to be? Agreed. Most unions are in large factories, so that really isn't usually the case. They do look at the company as the enemy and vice versa. The union is between the company and the worker so the company can exploit the worker. With the union there, they cannot exploit the worker, so it is a fight; either rollover and be exploited or fight for wages/conditions. This is akin to the death penalty args, 98%+ of all convicted murderers are guilty and should die for the shit they've done, but there is a sliver of innocent people that get in teh system too. Most of union workers produce as muck as their counterparts in non-union shops, but there scumbags who use the union as a shelter. SO are we supposed to fuck all of the good workers to fuck the lazy ones? Haven't you seen lazy workers at non-union jobs?

If animal rights means not being hung by their hooves for hours until the blood runs out of their bodies into their heads for better meat, yes, you are against animal rights. But here's the fallacy to your example, PETA focuses on lab animals and farm animals rather than pets, so to say ALL animals shows desperation to debunk a very old logical tool, the syllogism. If you have a general disloke for newspaper's right to deliver the news, then you dislike dissemination of teh news. Can you quit poking very thin straws and make a substantial argument? NO. I have established: - RTW states pay less - RTW states have less safety - RTW states are all red (w/o checking I believe they are) And yet you want to believe that Republicans are for worker's rights. Yet you have not posted examples of what the Republican Paty has done to benefit workers. You have the following: - Republicans fight to keep union voting drives private Is that fucking it? Furthermore, what the union wants is to make the cards count as votes so an election is not neccessary, so not not sign a card is not a no vote, but merely an abstainance from the vote. Amazing how you guys are out of gas, but won't conceed.

Looks like cost of living plays a rather large part of the difference in salaries. Of course, admitting that takes rather a lot of wind out of your 'assertions', so I understand why you didn't normalize for it, sort of like your constant arguments about the economy. Nice, a sample size of 1. Most of the deaths result from manual labor, not office managers I think we all agree, someone on your side made that assertion, so these are low paid workers in many cases anyway. I think Kallend's data read construction laborers were near the top of the list of most dangerous jobs. SO you have not tied in wage to your argument foe a few reasons, namely sample size of your data. Furthermore, you have not even touched the issue of safety, which Kallend debunked by posting that mine workers were far down on the list of most dangerous jobs. Instead of creating an entire argument, you're poking straws trying to pop the balloon. Do you really think Repubican politicians are here to help workers? If so, explain all of the legislative acts they have done. Do you think Republican politicians are pro-union? If so establish how?