Supreme Court Justices now get campaign contributions? I thought that Ruth Ginsberg looked a little shady.
Capitalism Has Destroyed / Is Destroying American Family Values
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
Supreme Court Justices now get campaign contributions? I thought that Ruth Ginsberg looked a little shady.
"You people"? What a bigoted stereotype. I was a Teamster, but I was not forced to join to keep my job. If a union increases a person's wages and benefits that person will want to join. If the union is not making any improvements for the workers but the union leaders are making big bucks and using union dues to support political candidates the members oppose, they will choose not to join. Government policy is subsidizing unions at the expense of workers. It would be like requiring church membership because someone thinks they are good for you.
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
stupid lies are not good debate tactics
Deal.
In some places public employees are not allowed to collectively bargain or strike and unions serve no useful purpose for those employees but still collect their dues.
Oracle Of JPP 714
nazi/racist hunter
That's because you have a filthy mind.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
Right to work makes it sound like this is something bred out of concern for workers but everybody knows workers benefit from having unions. Nobody is ever forced to join a union. Workers are free to work anywhere they want. If they want to work without the benefit of costly union gains at another employer they are free to do that. It is not right for them to expect to come into a unionized work place and get all the benefits of union gains without joining the union. That is just one rung above scab.
You have no concern for workers. It is easy to see through this faux 'concern.' You just want stocks and profits to go higher for the already rich who can afford them.
The USA without unions would have child labor with no minimum wage and no overtime pay. People would be poorer, the rich richer, less economic activity, taxes higher, lower GDP, more debt, more worker accidents, fewer safety standards and more pollution.
Knowledgeable loyal Americans are grateful we have unions and supportive.
Right to work makes it sound like this is something bred out of concern for workers but everybody knows workers benefit from having unions. Nobody is ever forced to join a union. Workers are free to work anywhere they want. If they want to work without the benefit of costly union gains at another employer they are free to do that. It is not right for them to expect to come into a unionized work place and get all the benefits of union gains without joining the union. That is just one rung above scab.
You have no concern for workers. It is easy to see through this faux 'concern.' You just want stocks and profits to go higher for the already rich who can afford them.
The USA without unions would have child labor with no minimum wage and no overtime pay. People would be poorer, the rich richer, less economic activity, taxes higher, lower GDP, more debt, more worker accidents, fewer safety standards and more pollution.
Knowledgeable loyal Americans are grateful we have unions and supportive.
evince
Truthmatters
link
Very true. That is why I gave a sarcastic reply to the post that the Supreme Court is "owned by Citizens United."
Your reply is based on putting me into an partisan, bigoted stereotype you assume must characterize all those who do not agree with you on every point. Everybody does not fit into such a simplistic dichotomy. I want stocks and profits to go higher for the ordinary worker because millions of teachers, plant workers, pipefitters, etc. own retirement accounts and retire with well over $1 million after 40 years of accumulated earnings. It is naive and unrealistic to
assume only the wealthy benefit from stock.
Unions made great contributions to the U. S. but we would not still have child labor or other benefits without them--although they brought it about sooner. But today's young people are not nearly as sympathetic to unions and the percentage of unionized workers has declined sharply leaving primarily public employees as the only target for increased membership. Sometimes movements (unions, civil rights) are ruined by their own success. When they have run out of major legislation to rally around they have little appeal to new membership.
My father was OCAW and I was a Teamster, so I am not hostile to unions, just forced membership. I found pressure from other members (often hostility) is probably a better way to get other employees to join than laws. Of course, hiring halls have bypassed some of those procedures. When I was teaching our union did nothing for members and raises and benefits came from the legislature. That is why WI teacher unions have dropped by 40% since they prohibited union shops. Our teachers' union gave us that same guilt trip about getting benefits without joining although they were not responsible for any of them
Birds, chickens, rabbits, blah, blah, blah.
Thank you ronald reagan.
This is your brain on moron; don't be one. 
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello evince,
You made a good point here.
Point lost; and worse, this made a rational argument by Flash look better.
You should have left well enough alone with the first sentence.
Would have been a much more effective post.
You made a good point here.
Point lost; and worse, this made a rational argument by Flash look better.
You should have left well enough alone with the first sentence.
Would have been a much more effective post.
evince
Truthmatters
dude I tried nice
they dont respect nice
I give them all they deserve
It is incumbent on a society that is plagued by a faction that lies to publically shame those liars until they stop lying or shut the fuck up
I reflect the society I live in
Invective is funny to most Americans
liars need to pay a price for lying
evince
Truthmatters
iolo is a thousand times your intellectual superior
Not true. I have never insulted, called names, used obscene or crude language to you and have supplied links when asked.
I try to be respectful and civil to all humans.
You do seem to contain a lot of anger you express through your political views.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
This is an excellent post. And very commendable to maintain composure as evince wigs out.
Obviously you have first hand experience with unions that I certainly do not possess. There has to be a better way to deal with the issue of union corruption than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
You know, we frequently hear a conservative argument about how bad government is. Some extremists have expressed hatred for anything government. Sometimes I get the impression that there are government haters who would simply want to abolish government altogether. I have to wonder what they would replace it with. Government does have it's merits. We do have to accept the bad with the good in order to benefit from the merits. I think it is the same way for unions.
Really, a better model would be to allow workers to have more say in the decision making of their employer. In Germany all corporate boards must include worker representatives. That sounds like a really good idea.
I have been kicking around an idea lately. It's my idea but I doubt I am the first to have it. It has to do with the evolution of corporations. They often begin as a company owned by one person or a small group of people. These people work very hard and take on some workers to help them. They know all the workers personally when the company is still small. Typically, these workers are treated very well in the beginning. As the company grows and the number of workers grows there are people in the organization who were not there in the beginning. For them, it means a whole different thing. Eventually management becomes separated from the workers and these people are not even acquainted. It can grow so much that the leaders and the workers have never even met personally. That is a point of change for the company. Management no longer cares as much about the well being of the workers as it did in the beginning. And because there are so many workers, each one means less and less to the company, becomes less vital to the existence of the company. In the beginning, every worker was important and had an impact on success. The big seasoned corporation knows that workers are replaceable and it shows.
That is when unions become needed to remind management that the workers are people with concerns and needs, worthy of consideration.
Much of this relationship gets lost as corporations grow.
Eventually the original company owners sell out to a larger corporation which buys other corporations.
Workers are no longer valued at all. They are thought of as an expense. That's just no good for people who need a job. It makes America pitiful, not great.
So here is my idea to deal with that:
Let corporations become employee-directed after the original owners die or want to sell out. The corporation should not be allowed to become worker-insensitive. The problem with corporations are kind of like the problem with government. It is an entity we humans created but then it becomes something that exists much longer than the humans who created it. It continues to grow more and more powerful because it exists far longer than any human can live. Humans thus are at a disadvantage vs corporations. Many of them have already existed for several generations and are far more powerful than most humans.
We know we must have a well established government. It is less clear why we must have well established corporations.
Corporations were never originally intended to outlast humans. Their original charters were temporary. Perhaps we never should have changed that.
This is an excellent post. And very commendable to maintain composure as evince wigs out.
Obviously you have first hand experience with unions that I certainly do not possess. There has to be a better way to deal with the issue of union corruption than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
You know, we frequently hear a conservative argument about how bad government is. Some extremists have expressed hatred for anything government. Sometimes I get the impression that there are government haters who would simply want to abolish government altogether. I have to wonder what they would replace it with. Government does have it's merits. We do have to accept the bad with the good in order to benefit from the merits. I think it is the same way for unions.
Really, a better model would be to allow workers to have more say in the decision making of their employer. In Germany all corporate boards must include worker representatives. That sounds like a really good idea.
I have been kicking around an idea lately. It's my idea but I doubt I am the first to have it. It has to do with the evolution of corporations. They often begin as a company owned by one person or a small group of people. These people work very hard and take on some workers to help them. They know all the workers personally when the company is still small. Typically, these workers are treated very well in the beginning. As the company grows and the number of workers grows there are people in the organization who were not there in the beginning. For them, it means a whole different thing. Eventually management becomes separated from the workers and these people are not even acquainted. It can grow so much that the leaders and the workers have never even met personally. That is a point of change for the company. Management no longer cares as much about the well being of the workers as it did in the beginning. And because there are so many workers, each one means less and less to the company, becomes less vital to the existence of the company. In the beginning, every worker was important and had an impact on success. The big seasoned corporation knows that workers are replaceable and it shows.
That is when unions become needed to remind management that the workers are people with concerns and needs, worthy of consideration.
Much of this relationship gets lost as corporations grow.
Eventually the original company owners sell out to a larger corporation which buys other corporations.
Workers are no longer valued at all. They are thought of as an expense. That's just no good for people who need a job. It makes America pitiful, not great.
So here is my idea to deal with that:
Let corporations become employee-directed after the original owners die or want to sell out. The corporation should not be allowed to become worker-insensitive. The problem with corporations are kind of like the problem with government. It is an entity we humans created but then it becomes something that exists much longer than the humans who created it. It continues to grow more and more powerful because it exists far longer than any human can live. Humans thus are at a disadvantage vs corporations. Many of them have already existed for several generations and are far more powerful than most humans.
We know we must have a well established government. It is less clear why we must have well established corporations.
Corporations were never originally intended to outlast humans. Their original charters were temporary. Perhaps we never should have changed that.