- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The corporatist viewpoint again, we have reached labor utopia!
If unions had outlived their usefulness, then there would be no need to legislatively cripple them.
A worker has choice currently, to take lower pay since he doesn't support union efforts....or pay to support the union and receive far greater benefits.So providing choice cripples the unions? How liberal of you!
A worker has choice currently, to take lower pay since he doesn't support union efforts....or pay to support the union and receive far greater benefits.
Again, if they have reached the end of their usefulness, then let the market determine that. You, as a corporatist, are relying on govt to further your seeking of lower wages.
Yap yap yap, you still have nothing to show that SSTF dollars were spent for Vietnam funding.
Show it or shut it.
Again, the corporatist viewpoint, union benefits (higher wages in return for small dues) is viewed primarily as an additional cost, not as a benefit for the worker. Keep showing your true colors, always racing to the bottom, looking for the cheapest labor.So choice only matters if the choice someone else makes is the one that you support? How does providing choice to a worker cripple the unions? I particularly love how those higher wages fund union management that provides nothing but an expense to the company.
Interesting how you make a claim.....and can't come up with anything to support it......and you keep highlighting your failure over and over again.Interesting how you are able to look at a unified budget and tell exactly what funds support a particular line item. How did you get such a gift?
Again, the corporatist viewpoint, union benefits (higher wages in return for small dues) is viewed primarily as an additional cost, not as a benefit for the worker. Keep showing your true colors, always racing to the bottom, looking for the cheapest labor.
Interesting how you make a claim.....and can't come up with anything to support it......and you keep highlighting your failure over and over again.
Violence comes in many forms, one of which is vast sums of lobbying money which are inherited from a father who got rich building oil refineries for Joseph Stalin, then had the nerve to posture as a "libertarian" while he, then his sons, plot to destroy organized labor through such deceitful political advocacy groups as "Americans for Prosperity."
You want me to prove a negative?So you are saying that SS funds weren't used to fund the Vietnam War? Since that appears to be your claim it is up to you to prove it.
And you claim to run your own business? wages are a cost of the business and someone always pays for those costs or the company goes out of business. How many employees do you have? ( I do know the answer but want others to see it) Just goes to show how little liberals know about private business.
Looks like another gift that you have in knowing the personal liabilities and cost of living of others. Where did you get this gift? Do you always apply your standards to everyone else?
But that is still the point, the worker does have the choice, you corporatists should not need government to further your agenda.How does personal choice on the part of an employee destroy the union? If unions provide the services that you and others claim why wouldn't an employee choose to belong?
Let me get this, you have the gall to talk about the cost of living.....while arguing for lower wages?And you claim to run your own business? wages are a cost of the business and someone always pays for those costs or the company goes out of business. How many employees do you have? ( I do know the answer but want others to see it) Just goes to show how little liberals know about private business.
Looks like another gift that you have in knowing the personal liabilities and cost of living of others. Where did you get this gift? Do you always apply your standards to everyone else?
So you are saying that SS funds weren't used to fund the Vietnam War? Since that appears to be your claim it is up to you to prove it.
"In 1968, a 10% surtax was imposed to pay for the Vietnam War, which raised revenue by about 1% of GDP. And there was conscription during both wars, which can be viewed as a kind of tax that was largely paid by the poor and middle class--young men from wealthy families largely escaped its effects through college deferments."
The Cost Of War - Forbes.com
How does personal choice on the part of an employee destroy the union? If unions provide the services that you and others claim why wouldn't an employee choose to belong?
You want me to prove a negative?
It was your claim that SSTF dollars were used, you can't find anything to support your claim, so you try to get me to prove a negative. If this is your method of conceding the argument, I accept.
Because the entire line of "Right to Work" is total B.S.
No one is forced to join a union. However, a scab will be required to pay 85% of the standard union dues in the form of a negotiations fee as return for the union wage he is earning, a wage which the union obtained at its own expense.
What "Right to Work" really amounts to is giving the scab the right to collect a union wage without paying the negotiations fee, thus garnering a significantly higher wage for the scab than the dues-paying union member. Obviously, the intent of so-called "Right to Work" is to encourage union members to jump ship and join the scabs by giving a financial incentive to do so.
"Right to Work" is just a veiled method of union-busting.
Hiring the cheapest labor available is not always such a good business plan. I'd say Henry Ford was a pretty good businessman, at least based on his success.
And just what is your definition of "liberal" anyway? The way you use the term, it seems to mean, "anyone who disagrees with my point of view." If that's wrong, then post your own definition.
Is there some reason that you cannot admit that you are wrong? What is a unified budget? Maybe you can get some of your employees to explain it to you?
"In 1968, a 10% surtax was imposed to pay for the Vietnam War, which raised revenue by about 1% of GDP. And there was conscription during both wars, which can be viewed as a kind of tax that was largely paid by the poor and middle class--young men from wealthy families largely escaped its effects through college deferments."
The Cost Of War - Forbes.com
But that is still the point, the worker does have the choice, you corporatists should not need government to further your agenda.
Let me get this, you have the gall to talk about the cost of living.....while arguing for lower wages?
That is just whacked out nonsense.
He already did support his position:
You OTOH have not supported your position
Because the entire line of "Right to Work" is total B.S.
No one is forced to join a union. However, a scab will be required to pay 85% of the standard union dues in the form of a negotiations fee as return for the union wage he is earning, a wage which the union obtained at its own expense.
What "Right to Work" really amounts to is giving the scab the right to collect a union wage without paying the negotiations fee, thus garnering a significantly higher wage for the scab than the dues-paying union member. Obviously, the intent of so-called "Right to Work" is to encourage union members to jump ship and join the scabs by giving a financial incentive to do so.
"Right to Work" is just a veiled method of union-busting.
Another liberal that doesn't understand the unified budget. Where did the 10% tax go? How do you know that tax was used to fund the Vietnam War?
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?