A GREAT primer on the problem with gov't unions...

First:

Ok, not so fast, again, what is the label? __________________________


As for the above response I thank you for making my case per the statement:

"Perhaps you make the case for unions, that is, if they become no more than, as you say, the lowly tadpole in the pond that can no longer bear leverage against the onslaught of corporate funding and influence that has only widened the gap between rich and poor, then the primary driver for the middle class we have enjoyed will be all but gone and with the gap between rich and poor everwidening as we speak, the prospect for the middle class becomes in jeopardy. If you doubt this just consult your history"


After Republican Herbert Hoover's disastrous handling of the economy, FDR took over and for the first 60 years of the 80 you mention he, the Democrats and the unions, through raising the wages of working people, brought about the beginnings of the greatest middleclass the world has ever known. Without unions there was no precedent to believe business would have increased wages just as they did not during years prior.
Now, only when the last 20 years or so you mention began in the 80's & 90's did the middle class begin it's decline as the more Republican dominated government assisted the increasing gap between rich and poor. This is a fact.

It is good to consult history but i'm afraid you are refererencing the Rove/Fox news desperate for revision of history version.

One more thing; columns would be nice.

 

Which should be illegal nationwide.

 

Amen. If there is a union at all, it needs to be worker led, and in the case of public employee unions, should be forbidden from supporting political candidates or bills.

 

I'm not "desperate" at all. Labor unions stem directly from Marxist thought. That's why the CPUSA is all for them. That's also why many (most) Democrats are for them, and why the unions collect money and forward it to the Democrat Party.

I'm unconvinced that we would see all the evils of society that union propaganda suggests. When entire nations become one big labor union, the level of the people dramatically decreases instead of increases. That has been born out through history.

As for the decline -- are you really going to pin that on recent political activity when your side had DECADES of influence to muddle up the tax system, worker's rights systems, medical system, and create a government that far exceeded its Constitutional limits? I note that almost every entitlement program was brought in by Democrats. I note that the income tax system was instigated by Democrats. I note that the Federal Reserve (which is a self-supporting entity not tied to our government) was instigated by Democrats. Welfare, Medicaid and Medicare, social security, confiscatory taxation, etc., etc., etc., were all Democrat issues that have now ballooned to the point where our nation is bankrupt -- yup, the decline is all the fault of a couple years of Republican control... :BangHead:

 

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union


Unlike labor unions in the West, Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU. As such, they were partners of management in attempting to promote labor discipline, worker morale, and productivity. Unions organized "socialist competitions" and awarded prizes for fulfilling quotas. They also distributed welfare benefits, operated cultural and sports facilities, issued passes to health and vacation centers, oversaw factory and local housing construction, provided catering services, and awarded bonuses and prepaid vacations.
Although unions in the Soviet Union primarily promoted production interests, they had some input regarding production plans, capital improvements in factories, local housing construction, and remuneration agreements with management. Unions also were empowered to protect workers against bureaucratic and managerial arbitrariness, to ensure that management adhered to collective agreements, and to protest unsafe working conditions. However, strikes were illegal.

 

Ultimately, it is all about power and control. I see likewise in US unions. They are empowered when they gain total control of a shop or, perhaps all government workers. They then mandate payments and use the money to solidify that control, including control of elected officials who must bow to union demands lest the union organize a labor strike against the government. Essentially, that means that paid union officials have the capacity to run (or ruin) our government by overriding the will of the people who elected our officials.

That all changes if "right to work" is enacted. Give the choice to the people and let them decide if or when to join the union. Also, give the union workers who pay to support the union the choice to decide where their funds are spent by ballot, etc. Otherwise, the whole venture is nothing more than revolt and control for purposes other than are commonly stated.

 

Yup! Then our owners have all the control and we are industrial serfs.

 

Heard a joke today.

Q- How do you stop fourteen runners?
A- With one Walker.

 

So, you are actually AGAINST workers rights....You want them to be controlled by their masters, the union bosses.

Thanks for clarifying, my socialist friend.

 

People in one form or another have been working together to improve their lives and get a bigger part of the pie since time immemorial. Corporations and business work together to manipulate the populace in multiple ways so why shouldn't people be able to work together for balance. This demonization of and repugnance to the notion of unions seems like nothing more than servile surrender to the will and manipulation of the rich and powerful foundational base

And these attempts at incrimination by association are pointless because all groups have some element of truth otherwise they would not be able to decieve. I could care less that the communist party has a part of the truth or the Nazi party has a part of truth or that any extremist this or that has part of the truth. The truth is the truth and I will not surrender or give up any part of it because something else happens to identify with part of it. That would be the height of stupidity and cowardice.

Only one problem with that glfredrick, these you list above were fully active at the end of the Clinton presidency when the economy was in good shape and we had a surplus. 8 years of the kind of anti-government ideological mishandling by Bush 43 would bankrupt any nation and so it did.
700 billion in unnecessary tax cuts to the richest in society
800 billion for an unnecessary literally misguided war in Iraq.
800 billion twice to bail out the economy that if a democratic president had been elected would have believed in the government and in the wisdom of oversight and regulation possibly thwarting the pervasive corruption on wall street.
the list goes on. Yup, if the Republicans were not punking us in the legislative they were doing it in the executive.
8 years of insanity thankfully gone.

 

One very simple statement...

You would not be sitting safely behind your computer screen writing all this tribble unless a huge corporation made it all possible.

Unions have made NOTHING possible, only worked against the actual entities that indeed do make things, pay for things, and create the jobs that let us join the fun.

 

It's Bush's fault! It's Bush's fault! It's Bush's fault! :BangHead:

When libs can't reason, they blame.

 

Yup... It would be funny, save for the damage that our current administration has done to America. We may never recover, no matter who is in office next.

We've spent ourselves into oblivion... We're basically bankrupt as a nation. Only thing holding us afloat right now is the printing presses that are running non-stop.

Here is the monetary supply chart. Check out the incredible spike after Obama took office, then blame Bush (again...). :flower:

 

That is an excellent chart so I have reprinted it again here. It is a well known and established fact that President Obama had to save the economy from Bush's mishandling. This chart shows for the most part how much Obama had to spend to bail out the Bush bankrupt economy. This is getting embarassing. It would be best to stop applying the persistence that is appropriate to your faith to your political ideology. The mix is a bad brew as you are unwittingly displaying.

One additional not so simple but essential statement:

Had it not been for unions you probably would not be setting behind a computer to enjoy, nor enjoying all the things that allow you to, as you say, join in the fun because there was no pre-union precedent that corporations would have ever voluntarily raised wages for you as they have.
You more than likely would not have been able to afford those things and in fact most of those things would not even exist because of the lack of a middle class to consume them. A middle class that consumes things, that make it possible to pay for things and create jobs that make things.
You would be living in a world of things only the very rich could afford and the menial products the rest of the nation could afford but I seriously doubt the nation would have survived without the wisdom of unions or a means to extract fairer wages from the rich. You have no idea how unions, the essential vehicle for upward mobilization of the people, have changed this nation for the better. The truth is America would look demographically more like Soviet russia 30 years ago than it does now.
The reason this incredible experiment called America exists today as it does is because we learned balance.

To keep faith and political ideology apart is probably wise especially when you begin to equate the two. The former is perfect and deserving of unwavering support but the later is unperfect and periously in danger of being treated the same way.

 

Just had the 100th anniversary of the famous Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire. If not for unions most of you would be working under similar conditions in this year.

 

And if not for today's unions, more of us would be working.

Period.

 

President Obama did not have to spend anything to save the economy. He and others like Mrs. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid took advantage of the down economy to get their agenda through in a hurry. And the manner in which they did it shows their intentions. They are certainly less than honerable. If anyone thinks they did this out of concern for people or the middle class then they will find out they are sadly mistaken. Their lust for power seems to be the ultimate driving force.

 

President Obama had to save the economy from Bush's mishandling


What's a liberal to do when he has clearly lost the debate: Blame it all on George Bush. At least the "r" word hasn't been used yet.

 

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYup.

 

The debt went out of sight under Bush ... tax cuts and increased spending.

The first bail-our was under Bush.

Obama inherited two wars Bush started.

There is validity in criticism of Bush.

Now, why is it that many of the problems that began during the Bush years are blamed on Obama by conservatives? :tear: