earthworm
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,728
- Reaction score
- 904
- Location
- Goldsboro,PA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Unions=good. Corporations=bad.
Hello?
So now you're saying that the First Amendment exercise of free speech must carry "consequences"?
Corporations, being legal constructs, can't speak for themselves.
What they do, is they are used to hire umm....let's call them "people", or to use a John-and-Ken-ism, "spokesholes" , who then utter noises and issue printed statements and direct advertising done, at the behest of ummm...."people", who are called "stockholders" and "corporate officers", to make the positions known, and these positions, the positions of the collective will of the owners of the corporation, are called the "positions of the corporation", because it's convenient to use that language instead of repeating what I just said everytime one wants to say what a corporation's position is on an issue.
And, unless the speech is libelous or incites riot or other forms of direct harm to others or their property, there are no "consequences" under the First Amendment.
Unions used to be for the worker. Today they exist as their own version of corporations. They spend millions if not billions buying politicians. And to what gain?
Look at some of the very telling evidence from the auto industry. Or the teachers unions. heck...even the culinary unions. I truly dont think they CARE. They are so used to being able to dictate wages and benefits via work stoppages that they dont think what is best long term.
Ive seen the federal employee unions in action. They defend incompetence. Ive never seent he unions go after their own people or take a management side, regardless of how blatant the employee offense or violation. maybe others have examples of how unions have done the right thing by all parties...I dont.
We exist as a service based economy. Thats NOT a way to build an economy...selling other peoples goods. We NEED an effective and vibrant industrial base.
- Hello :2razz:
- No :doh
- ummm...Ok :roll:
- Congress shall not prohibit... that being said, corporations should not be granted the rights of person under the 14th. They are not people. The people are the, ummm, let's call them "people" :rofl
Yes.
Since the people actually generating the ideas to be expressed are...umm...people, and since those people have the freedom to assemble, then they have the freedom to hire a spokeshole through their corporation that can do their expressing for them.
Most are, true.Investors have no control beyond moving their investments which is to say they have no input in the speech of the corporation. None. They are passive at best. They do not come together in a group for the purposes of speech.
Investors have no control beyond moving their investments which is to say they have no input in the speech of the corporation. None. They are passive at best. They do not come together in a group for the purposes of speech.
You are wrong as evidenced by history. Corporations large enough to be able to move high paying jobs or labor intensive jobs (like a call center, textiles, etc.) to low wage countries will do so because they can save labor costs while still accessing the American consumer. As fewer and fewer people make a decent wage they look for ways to maintain their lifestyle of greed through less expensive outlets, this hailed the arrival of the "Big Box" stores. After 30 years of Reaganomics we are at a point where the middle class is shrinking, the top 2% has more money than ever in our history while our poor class has gotten larger. We are getting to the point now where the majority has finally realized the damage not having manufacturing jobs has done and it's getting worse.Look...I know you BELIEVE that crap and all...but most corporate execs are PRETTY business savvy...and they understand that it would be FAR more desirable to keep affordable jobs in the country. Affordable jobs translate to more consumers. Are they interested in bottom line profit? Sure...but sustainable profit is a desirable result.
What you mean is, 'why won't unions just go away so we can pay our citizens third world wages too', forgetting however that the less people make the less they can buy.But I'll even give you the 50/50 responsibility...given that...do you think the unions are going to step in...negotiate lowered benefits and workable salaries to encourage the companies to bring jobs back?
Unfortunately, not a reflection of my views.
How about we let people speak for themselves.
Must I really go back through the thread and find that exchange we had or will you or will you simply admit it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?