• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-union group’s ad scores in Super Bowl

I don't have anything really negative about the ad itself. It was decently well done. I just in general have a distaste for that kind of stuff during the Superbowl.
 
Utility Man said:
The National Labor Relations Board does not protect certain employees.

employed as an independent contractor
Click to expand...

yep. and here's the current situation : if you're looking for work, chances are (if you get hired) you'll be hired in as an "independent" contractor.

what it means : no vacation days, no sick days, and no benefits unless the contractor you are technically employed by offers them to you.

and no job security. most companies give you a maximum contract, and then you're out the door.

most of the jobs hiring in 2010 in my area were "independent" contract work. this is for someone with a graduate degree.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about anyone else but I immediately disregard any thread that has "union thugs" in the OP. "Union thugh" is just a caricature and a stupid one at that. It lowers the intelligence of the conversation immediately and one can have an anti-union stance without having to resort to dated 1900's caricatures.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
It is so nice to see the Union Thugs coming under scrutiny by the masses. Folks should be able to choose whether they want representation or not.
Click to expand...

They already do.

They should be able to choose whether their union Dues supports the political candidates they want.
Click to expand...

Union dues don't support political candidates, except internally, and that's a matter for union leadership like any other, which is democratically elected.

The taxpayers deserve to get a fair shake with the politicians that the unions routinely purchase for their own benefit.
Click to expand...

The taxpayers vote, not unions.
 

Such deals are illegal. You engaged in an illegal act if you negotiated this. And it is certainly not common. Of course, stockholders have to worry about business leaders being blatantly corrupt like this too, don't they?
 
Prof. Peabody said:
And do what? As I said all the things including family medical leave are incorporated into current labor law. So again what is their purpose today besides what fishstyx said political fundraising?
Click to expand...

You're full of crap if you think everything labor has is codified into law. Pay and benefits are ceratinly not.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Besides, non union members in a union shop must pay their fair share of the cost to negotiate contracts, just no extra for the unions political activities. How is that unfair?
Click to expand...

But that's what the people in this ad want to get rid of.
 

I wonder how many roads would be built if being taxed for them was optional but you still were allowed to drive on them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…