Union or No Union?

Unions have destroyed our manufacturing and our country...

Triangle

No Union.

Ok your not pro union, tell us why. How did it destroy our manufacturing? Wasn't that outsourcing? Oh I get it, your saying that because of outsourcing jobs to other countries that the high wages have destroyed manufacturing? So it's better to have 3rd world countries produce our stuff? Ya that's better 2 bowls of rice instead of one. That's pretty nice of those corporations to do that.

The only way unions work in a nation is all jobs unionized or none of them.

Half and half shit is not equality under the law.

There should be no federal state or local laws about unions.

Separation of union and state because of the equality protection clause of the constitution and many case laws.

The government can only set a standard for all workers.They are not allowed to protect unions " aka special Interest" with laws.



Because of this no federal, or state money should go to any organization, because it violates the equal protection of any instance under the law.

It is illegal by the constitution to give out federal or state money to anyone that ask for it , if not everyone is allowed the same opportunity to the cash.

Last Edited by <x> on 11/30/2012 09:30 PM

Fuck all Public Service Unions!!!

Take the union commie crap and burn it to the ground. Fuckers.

Unions, 2012 = THUGS . . .

They are looking out for the "upper" ranks, NOT the membership.

They TAKE the dues of the hard-working, decent members and do NOTHING for them when their rights are violated.

But they WILL fight for the rights of the lowest of the low because the companies AND the union want the obedient sheeple as they are most easily manipulated.

When the union fights for them and insures they remain on the job, the sheeple are then so indebted, they will be good soldiers and do as they are told, with infinite loyalty to the good ol' union.

Well there were no unions before the infamous sit down and look what happened. We are headed in that direction now and it's not a good thing. That's why your probably right, all jobs should be unionized or a large percentage of them should be because we are only repeating history again.

I bet most of the people in the US who own homes (cept those entitled by ill gotten wealth system of slavery and corporate share cropping slave system) have a union to thank for helping them realize the American dream....

I agree with that but that's why as I was saying unions were created because of the mistreatment and unfair wages and practices presented to workers. Companies needed to be watched. Now unions need to be watched. I guess that was supposed to be the job of the government? That's why I was saying that revenue sharing should have always been a part of the equation.

Your probably right, otherwise I think we would have been worse off today.

HUD housing is unconstitutional by case law based on equal protection.

Basically the case law states: If you use state or federal moneys you have to give everyone the same opportunity under the laws.

Opportunity is not allowed in the u.s government Because it is a bias word. The State has can not be bias in any manor.

Thus if the state gives to one it must give to all.

Laws and regulation can not be bias, thus bias based on income,race, etc is unconstitutional.

If a laws says you only have opportunity if you make under so much money. Or you have opportunity because you are a certain race . Then the law is junk.

Thus in the long run all welfare is unconstitutional.

A socialist society in the u.s and all hand outs are unconstitutional.

Unless The government gives it to everyone.
Other wise the government cant give anything.

Last Edited by <x> on 11/30/2012 09:43 PM

It would still work if it were based on percentages. There is always bias on everything anyways. There has to be something that is more fair than the current.

My IQ is way too high to be in a union, so I say no.

Unions had a useful place in history...
...but now are purely a RELIC of a bygone era.

They have now de-evolved into a thorn sticking in the side of the USA's economy.

:uniontwink:

Last Edited by Useless Cookie Eater on 11/30/2012 10:05 PM

Unions ceased to be necessary by Legislation.

The Fair Labor Standards Act 1938 is a federal statute of the United States. The FLSA introduced a maximum 44-hour seven-day workweek, established a national minimum wage, guaranteed 'time-and-a-half' for overtime in certain jobs, and prohibited most employment of minors in "oppressive child labor," a term that is defined in the statute
Federally Mandated Minimum Wage was enacted.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act is the primary federal law which governs occupational health and safety in the private sector and federal government in the United States. It was enacted by Congress in 1970 and was signed by President Richard Nixon on December 29, 1970. Its main goal is to ensure that employers provide employees with an environment free from recognized hazards, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), established January 1, 2000, regulates the trucking industry in the United States

Unions served an important purpose in the implementation of many of these laws by creating a powerful lobby. But when the Federal Government created legislation to safeguard workers and workers right, the unions became highly unnecessary.

This may sound harsh, but there are some jobs that do not require the excessive pay for the work being done.

Seriously, does someone that bakes snack cakes for a living truly deserve to be paid $16.00 or more per hour. Is is difficult? Is it hard labor? Is it a critical need job?

The only purpose unions supply besides lininng the pockets of their leadership is to create Collective Bargaining units to threaten a strike unless concessions are given.

So you think all the factories would come back from China if unions dissapeared Burt? You are one stupid fucker.

Again I agree in some way. But how much money would twinkies be making if they didn't have unionized workers? So they pay everyone min wage, zero benefits and make billions more? Way more twinkie advertising would be seen and probably a lot more fat people. Ya they shouldn't be paid $16.00 bucks an hour to make them but would it be better if China made them on 3 cents a day?

Lol....

.....relevance to the unions currently screwing the USA into a hole??


NONE.

You don't get it do you? It's not the unions, it's your beloved capitalists heros who are doing it. They're the ones shoving the shiv in your back and shipping your factories to China. Like I said Burt, you're one stupid fucker.

I was listening to KFI 640 this morning and Bill Handle was talking about the pay of union clerks for the dock workers. They make 85,000 a year plus 80,000 a year in benefits on top of that they get 4 weeks paid vacation and 21 personal days paid. FOR A FUCKING CLERK!!!!

Yeah...those Chinese screwed Hostess and GM all to hell didn't they?

Derp!

What is a business IN business to do? Make money, of course, That's the sole reason for its existence. When politicians find political and financial gain in excessively regulating and taxing a company into the red, it has one of two choices: sink or swim. And for better or worse, if moving overseas becomes necessary to the viability and profitability of the company, how precisely does that make one's "beloved capitalist heroes" the bad guys? Unions have become the standard-bearers or an entitlement society. Moreover, a modern labor union is nothing more than a pyramid scheme, who's gains are made at the expense of ALL Americans, not just the members they "serve." Union labor is an unnecessary expense to any business, and simply put, they are recruiting pools for the democratic party. The reason the foreign auto and equipment manufacturers have excelled here in the U.S. is based entirely on the highly-skilled, highly-motivated, NON-UNION labor they employ. That may very well change when they too are somehow punished by the politicians for their success. And if you're still a die-hard union advocate at the end of the day, go start a business for yourself in a non-unionized market and learn for yourself what makes a labor union non-competitive.

Well you may have a point, but I sure as fuck do not want to go back to being a non unionized worker and having to deal with the constant badgering BS etc. Ask those foreign workers if they "like" their non union jobs. I bet all of them wish they didn't have to slave away like they do. I'm saying there can be a better balance. Unions were good and still can be, but is corporate greed better then?

Union v. Non-Union can certainly be enigmatic, depending on the prism you're looking at it through. You can't apply the value of a labor union to the general welfare of the population at large as though the prism we're looking through is in the year 1900. Labor laws, standardized practices, and safety features on equipment have made any argument for the same irrelevant. We've all been frustrated at work, and we're all searching for some degree of certainty in our lives. No one can argue that. But we don't enter this world with any guarantees and have no claim to entitlements. Particularly not in the workplace. If the same set of dynamics were equally as favorable to non-union businesses as they are to union business, if the playing field was level in a free-market economy, and if politicians did not have and exercise the power to reward select segments of the population for their votes through accommodating legislation, I'd welcome union companies as competitors. Furthermore, when I was reconciling my meager 401k investments yesterday, my only concern was for the success of my investments.

I have every confidence that people can ALWAYS guide themselves through this world better than any living man or group thereof can offer for guidance and oversight. Some people don't share that confidence. And that's fine. I don't believe in entitlements or collectivism, nor do I ask for it to be force-fed to me. When you strip away the benefits a union offers its members to find it's an illusion, or a pyramid scheme at best, as mentioned earlier, I can't imagine it wouldn't frustrate a lover of liberty an independence who happens to belong to a union as much as it does someone like me. Unions and modern government are a system of socialism inside a developing system of socialism.

That's a good post, and I agree in a lot of ways. I just don't understand why people think that unions are driven by socialism. To me, that would mean that communism is the better choice then? Lol I don't think it is the better way either. The fact that unions have made it so far today, has made the playing field unequal.

But I guess what I am saying is that the union was there to protect the worker back in the day. Today we all know that is not the case. A perfect example of this is that in my union, which is government job, I work in an old age home, but our government wants to freeze all our wages. To me it's not a huge deal as we are paid quite well. But let's flip that and ask the government employees to freeze their wages. That simply doesn't happen. So again there is no balance where I think there can be.

The other question I have is would corporations etc have outsourced all those jobs if unions had not gotten so powerful? I don't think they would have. I think that everyone today complains that our products are made in "foreign" countries and hate the quality of just about everything.

So if all these jobs weren't outsourced because of high paying union jobs, would we be better off?