That's about the same way I feel whenever I read one of the links you provide from the Media Matters George Soros fan club.
See what I mean? Its comments like these that reveal your bias and where you get your information.
Glenn Beck anyone? If you can produce a refutation of anything Media Matters has said, then be my guest. Complaining about the fact that it takes the time to correct false statements about Soros, doesn't demonstrate they are his fans so much as it demonstrates their willingness to correct the Right Wing media's lies. The thing is Media Matters operates as a "fact checker" for media outlets and the "Liberal" shows are not entirely out of its target range. FOX News has been
dragging him through the mud since the early 2000's. So why do Right Wingers hate the fact that they don't have
all billionaires backing their agendas? So what if he donates money to Progressive causes? Is political activism only something Right Wing billionaires are allowed to engage in?
It's historical fact that unions have supported child labor laws. It's not a historical fact that they are the sole group to thank for their passage. Turns out that a lot of people in this country took issue with children working around dangerous industrial machinery.
I've pointed to successful political action on their part from the early 1830's (way before the depression) throughout the next century, and you've pretty much ignored it all and still assert these child labor laws would have happened anyway, without a shred of evidence. None. It is like you've predetermined nothing good can come from unions, no matter what the evidence.
My experience with unions tells me that their support for such laws had more to do with removing competition for their members than anything else.
You seem to think joining a union automatically instills into people all the negative mental characteristics and beliefs you've decided they must have. The unions were able to change the laws
because they were unions, they were organized, and as labor groups they had political sway. It is really that simple. You cannot even accept this well established fact that unions can get things done, without reading sinister motives into their actions. I'm just laying out the historical facts that are accepted by most every historian. You're engaging in psycho-historical analysis based on your negative preconceptions of unions.
in recent history don't have the best record when it comes to putting children first. No one needs to look further than the public education system in the country and the teachers unions who control it.
Even if your claim is true (and it isn't), how would this say something about the reasons for union action
nearly two centuries ago? So now you're going to start hating on those who work in public education? Color me surprised! And I guess, like Herman Cain, you think they don't care about children because they're in a union? Please, elaborate.
Skilled labor doesn't equal marketable labor. There are plenty of fields that have shortages. Maybe the unions should do a better job at educating their people. That would be more helpful than organizing strikes.
You seem to have fallen for the Right Wing myth that children fail in school because of bad teaching and nothing more. When all the available data points to socio-economic factors being the most important distinction between failure and success. We've discussed this recently in another thread, but I'll just ask you a simple question. How do you explain the fact that lawyers, astronauts, surgeons, etc regularly graduate from public schools? Why is it that the worst public schools in the country usually fall within districts with above average rates of poverty?
You're assuming way too much on that one
Then help me out here. Where are you getting your information from, and why? We can sit here all day and say "yes it is, not it isn't" but ultimately the truth is going to boil down to the reliability of our sources of our information.You want to dismiss everything from media matters based on the fact that it has corrected some Right Wing falsehoods about Soros. But Media Matters pretty much refutes Right Wing nonsense by going directly to the source, usually independent analyses, not left wing propaganda. Their response to the Keystone myths is a perfect example. Most of their pieces are responses to specific claims. It usually goes something like this. FOX (or some other Right Wing media outlet) makes claim X based on source Y. Media Matters will either directly quote source Y to show that it has been misrepresented, or it will cited independent analysis to prove source Y is just a bad source of information to begin with. How the hell can you fault the organization for this? If their method is flawed and conclusions wrong, then you should be able to demonstrate it.
Who are 'they'? The unionized media that overwhelmingly votes democrat?
No, the Right Wing Media of course. Talk Radio, FOX News, the plethora of websites that engage in incestuous dependency, etc. Tell me I'm wrong.
Tell that to Hostess.
Dude, you're a victim of Right Wing media. Hostess didn't go bankrupt because of unions. Hostess files bankruptcy three times over the past four years, and you actually think it is due to paying its workers too much? You don't think it might have something to do with poor management? How do you
explain this: "As the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256."
That these greedy fat cats would blame the union is typical. It is very much the same way those predatory lenders were blaming the CRA for the collapse of the housing market. Always have to blame the government or the poor people. If you're really crafty, you can conjure up a scenario that manages to blame both! But only Republicans swallow this BS because it feeds their preconceptions and biases.
Makes you wonder why Walmart if fighting so hard to keep the unions out of their stores here in the States.
Yes, because they care about one thing only, to maximize profits at any cost. It is why they support the minimum wage, to help put their smaller competitors out of business. You should watch the documentary,
Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices. Here,
it is free online. When you're done, please tell me about the virtues of capitalism's greatest product.
Probably because they see how damn expensive it is to support Unions in Europe.
The point is Walmart is doing perfectly well in Europe despite the union benefits. It refutes this repeated meme that unions are rejected because businesses wouldn't survive with them.
Probably why the CEO of Goodyear laughed and mocked the president of France and his "so-called French workers" recently when they tried to convince him to buy up a failing Tire factory.
So you're going to reject the data that disproves your rhetoric, and keep quoting like-minded folks who just assert baseless and ridiculous things? So you found an American, France-hating CEO who is willing to dish out the same talking points and he probably listens to Rush Limbaugh. Does that make him an expert on French labor?
French Industrial Renewal Minister Arnaud Montebourg responded to this CEO with an
effective slam: "Can I remind you that Titan, the company you head is
20 times smaller than Michelin, the French technology leader with a global reach, and 35 times more profitable? That shows the extent to which Titan could have learned and gained enormously from a French base.”
Ouch.
Man, this is just really stretching it. Corporations can't force you to work for them.
I didn't say they force you to work for them. I'm saying the work environment is generally the closest thing you'll ever see to tyranny. It is why I probably won't ever work for a corporation again.
Or, here's one for you, you can start your own business--if you don't mind dealing with all the regulations that democrats love.
Well, we've actually decided to start another business next year. But I doubt you know anything about the so-called "regulatory burden" that the Right Wing media keeps talking about. If you really want to see regulatory burden, try opening a business in Brazil. Here in the USA, opening a business is extremely simple. The government bends over backwards to help you start one. The number one problem businesses have in the USA is consumer demand, or predicting consumer demand. That's one of the reasons why I "turned coat" and started voting Left. They actually get it. Business
owners know that the #1 thing hindering future hiring is the uncertainty of consumer demand, not those evil government regulations.
As if getting fired from your job is the worst thing in the world. It's not death, it's just getting fired.
In an economy where there are five applicants to every job available, it is no small thing. Especially for workers who support families. You and I live in an fairly large metropolitan area. But most Americans aren't so lucky to have a wide variety of employment options.
The best thing to ever happen for my career was getting 'let go'.
And because that was true for you, it must be a great thing for everyone else? You're not very pragmatic or empathetic to other people's situations, nor do you seem to appreciate how theirs might differ from yours.
It made me work harder and become better at what I do.
So it must be the case that anyone else who gets fired can just "work harder" and find a job, right? Is this really what you believe?
You're removing an important character building 'teacher' when you remove the ability to get fired from people's lives.
Who said anything about "removing" that "ability"? I'm actually against the whole concept of tenure. I was just pointing out the irony that the Right Winging folks who are constantly yapping about "liberty and freedom", are generally the same folks who have taken a stand with corporations at belittling workers. Blaming the workers for everything. This whole anti-union campaign is a well funded propaganda piece by... guess who? Those who really don't want to pay a fairer wage. The corporations that don't want to lose their edge in the labor contracts. They want the workers to have as few rights as possible because ultimately it means more bonus money for their executives like at Hostess or Enron. Now are their cases where unions overstep their bounds? I'm sure there are. But throwing the baby out with the bathe water doesn't do it for me.
That's the way Americans want it. Overwhelmingly, American workers have rejected unions.
Is that what they're saying in the
bubble?
Reality says otherwise. But even if true, since when does the Right give a damn about what most Americans want or support?
It's one of the reasons that union membership has been in a steady decline, even under democrat rule.
Based on what evidence? What's hindered Unionization over the past few decades is globalization as well as the change in labor laws. The Washington Post did a
piece explaining why unions have continued to surge in Canada but not in the USA:
In the United States, by contrast, there’s usually a second step involved—a secret-ballot election is held by the National Labor Relations Board, and usually only after a lengthy period in which employers can campaign against the union. “During the time between the petition and the election,” Warner writes, “which is often delayed by employer opposition and can last for months, employers usually run anti-union campaigns – often committing illegal acts of coercion, intimidation, or firing – in an attempt to discourage their employees from voting to unionize.” Research suggests (pdf) that U.S. employers have become remarkably adept in fending off unionization drives, often with the help of anti-union consultants.
Warner also points to a second key policy difference. In Canada, workers who have formed a union can seek arbitration to ensure that they actually get a contract. By contrast, in the United States, employers have much more freedom to delay that process. As John Schmitt notes, “even after workers win an election, they only reach a contract in a bit over half the cases.”
So no wonder unions are in decline. This would have pissed off Ronald Reagan, by the way.
I'm pretty sure that my 401k has nothing to do with my company competing with unions pensions, seeing how there are no people in the Union who do the kind of work that I do.
But the 401k is essentially a pension plan. So what's wrong with Unions getting pensions? Because they're
sometimes subsidized by the government? And my tax dollars don't help subsidize
private corporations? Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree. Walmart effectively makes me have to pay more for the welfare of its workers because it refuses to pay them a livable wage. That documentary I spoke of shows meetings Walmart holds for some of its employees, passing out information on how to get on government assistance programs. Walmart is the largest employer in the country and aside from encouraging its millions of workers to obtain government assistance, it receives billions in subsidies each year to help build new stores.
My buddy Chip works over at Lockheed. Maybe I should be bitching to him about the fact that his income is dependent on my tax dollars? After all, what do you think pays for those F-22s his company sells to the military? In fact, we spend more than $125 billion in corporate welfare each year. But hey, the Republicans are fine with that. To them, it is more important to bitch about Food Stamps, which costs about half that amount and actually serves a purpose of stimulating the economy. Lets just keep giving tax dollars to companies that insist on shipping jobs
overseas. The only consistency about the Right Wing bitching is that they're almost always going to be against the working class and on the side of the minority (rich, corporations, their primary constituents) who already has all the power. The second the workers try to even the playing field (i.e. unions) they have a conniption fit and use their corporate funded propaganda machine to demonize them.
I was simply saying that many companies are pretty strict on safety because it's really bad PR for your employees and your customers if you have a bad safety record.
True, but in many industries customers wouldn't know about accidents unless someone died and it made the news. But companies are mostly strict about safety standards because of government regulations and the fear of being sued. If someone dies on the job and there was no evidence of any safety standards, then they're going to pay a lot more in a lawsuit. I also remember attending these OSHA meetings at PFS that the company bemoaned.
That's interesting. Weren't those coal miners part of a union?
Nope.
Massey Energy wasn't union:
"Massey Energy owned and operated Upper Big Branch Mine where 29 miners were killed in April 2010. The Mine Safety and Health Administration found that the company's culture of favoring production over safety contributed to flagrant safety violations that caused the coal dust explosion. It assessed $10.8 million in fines for 369 citations and orders, the largest for any mine disaster in U.S. history. Alpha Natural Resources additionally settled Massey's potential criminal liabilities for $209 million."
Funny how these companies can pay these outrageous fines and offer ridiculous bonuses to the folks at the top of the ladder, and do so on a regular basis, but then claim they'll go out of business if they have to take safety measures for their workers. No wonder the companies were supporting Romney, and
forcing their employees to do likewise. Tyranny at its finest. But hey, I'm sure those folks in backwoods Kentucky could just as easily become computer programmers if they wanted to. No reason to feel their freedom or liberty infringed by an oppressive employer who knew they needed their job more than he needed them.
Yes, I believe I was when I worked there while going to school.
Well I worked at Kroger some twenty years ago, and don't remember paying any union dues. But it might explain why I was paid a surprisingly high rate which more than offset any dues I was paying. Incidentally, Publix is unionized in Florida where it started. Strange how these two unionized companies are mopping the floors with their competition.
Simple, the ones I like don't have the following mentality
Then you can't seriously call it a "union mentality" if it isn't something unique to union workers. You're just coming up with all these negative attributes and arbitrarily calling it "union" mentality because it fits the image you've created in your mind about unions.
Leaving when the whistle blows at 2:30 on the dot. Working exactly 40 hours a week.
Why is that bad? I can name several people outside the union who think exactly like this. And why should people be forced to work more than 40 hrs if that wasn't stipulated in their labor contract? This is why jobs today tend to let the employee know that overtime is required at times. But if it isn't stipulated, then why should an employee have to give up time with the family to spend it at work? Because the company is paying them? That's beside the point. What if I feel like time with the family is worth more than what they're paying me? I just have to bend to my employer's will, otherwise I'd be giving in to "union mentality"?
This goes back to what I was saying about a tyrannical work environment. The company decides to throw its weight around to coerce you to do something you don't want to do. And we're supposed to just accept it?
Having a "that ain't in my job description" mentality.
Do they have to say "ain't"? And what's wrong with that anyway? Should you be expected to drop what you're doing and start engaging in Hungarian Basket weaving just because your boss says so? Or should an experienced basket weaver be expected to start writing code because the boss thinks he should just pick up a book and learn it? I guess it all depends on what kind of "job" your describing and how far off that veers from the job someone was hired to do. But the fact is employers try to cut down on labor costs by making current employees be far more productive than what they're pay grade requires. It is a problem we've seen since Reagan. Wages have stagnated while productivity has skyrocketed. Why? Because employers are doing precisely the things you describe here, except you seem to think they have that right. Take for example Family Dollar, which paid their "managers" no overtime while requiring them to work up to 100 hrs per week. They classified them as "managers" to avoiding paying Old Testament, but in reality these folks had no managerial duties. They were stock clerks, cashiers, etc. More than
1700 employees are going to receive a settlement from the company.
But this phenomenon is everywhere. Companies are more and more using their power to oppress the workers and make them do more work so they won't have to hire others. I say if they're going to help you save money by doing someone else's job, then they could at least pay you more money since they're effectively saving you on labor costs. When I came back from Brazil I was amazed at the number of fast food places that had one or two employees doing EVERYTHING. The first drive-thru window isn't even used anymore. Customers are told to proceed to the second window because the person at the second window is doing what the person at the first window used to do. In some cases I see the lady running around doing figure eights, cooking the food, while taking my money and speaking to the next customer on her head set. This is usually the manager too!
Hell, you were telling me just last week your employer didn't think you needed any free time with your family. Were you just joking?
Working at as slow a pace as possible, instead of just getting the work done.
Yes, and only union workers do this
.
We worked together at PFS, you know there are people like this in every industry. And they do it because they can. They don't always get fired for it. Union has nothing to do with it.
Fear of learning anything new
How do you know what people fear? Maybe they're just not as smart as you?
If forced to learn something new, demanding "training" instead of getting a book and learning the damn thing on your own.
So expecting to be trained is wrong as well?
Bitching a moaning because office staff get 'cooler stuff'.
Again, that must never happen in non-unionized Corporate America.
Looking down on your fellow union brothers who don't think the way you do (said people who have non-union mentality).
Dude, I take it you've had some run-ins with certain people, but judging the entire unionized world based upon these silly anecdotes, is a text book case of bad generalization. I can tell you stories about lazy asses who aren't union. Does that say something about the non-union world? Of course not.
1. You are comparing apples and oranges and describing a large corporate culture doesn't compare well to most small to mid-sized companies that represent the majority of working non-union Americans in this country.
Sure it does. Small businesses are merely corporations in embryos. They can become large corporations by adopting the same culture than made other corporations successful. Not least of which is keeping those workers in line and reminding how expendable they really are. When a companies gets so big that it decides to sell its stock to the public, that's usually a bad turning point because ownership becomes divorced from management. The shareholders now run the show.
I hope you aren't trying to compare your step-father to me or most of my office co-workers, because you would be very far from the truth on such a comparison.
Honestly that thought never crossed my mind.
I don't hate unions. I actually feel they are necessary and good in many cases. My saying the minimum wage hike is just a hand-out to Obama supporters does not mean I hate unions.
But it is still a baseless claim. Obama's push for higher minimum wage is entirely consistent with his philosophy that a more even distribution of wages leads to a stronger economy. That's the best explanation. Your explanation is unsophisticated, simplistic, and straight from talk radio.
Most of the "union-hating" republicans that I DO know are actually family members and friends of mine who once were or are currently union members.
Most union haters I know have never been in a union, but think they know everything about them anyway.
Again, you are assuming a lot there. I'm pretty sure I have a better deal.
I'm speaking in general about union haters. I mean they generally have more power than non-union workers. What's the reason to be pissed off about that, aside from envy? The reasons you're giving me simply don't hold water.
Also, I believe I have true job security, and I didn't need a union to obtain that. True job security is the ability to get work at any time you decide you need it. That's possible by being marketable. Today, it's programming.
But not everyone can do programming. You make it sound so easy just because you managed it. Like anyone can just pick up a book and make themselves more marketable by learning to program. If only they weren't lazy, or fearful, etc. This is the extremely judgmental nature of Right Wing politics that I despise.
And do you have any idea how many folks with advanced degrees are having trouble finding employment? Even if you want to argue they made bad career choices, not everyone can be doing the same thing. For example you say programming pays well and has great benefits, etc. Well if everyone could be a programmer it wouldn't pay squat. Why? Because the market would be saturated with too many employees which would lead to much lower costs to employers.
The fact is people are different. Not everyone is Left brain dominant like you and I. Imagine if the forces of the free market were different and suddenly things like analytic skills and the ability to write code, became worthless and we were left to become artists or musicians in order to make ourselves more marketable. We'd be screwed!
I know some CISCO routing guys that are looking for work right now, because they have that mentality
No, it is because they weren't good at their job. I know enough about the industry to know experience is the #1 factor. Of course you won't get experience unless you're good at your job to begin with.
You can be as skilled at your job as you like, but if it's not something that anybody wants or needs right now, good luck finding a job.
Right. But how does this pertain to unions?
Are you kidding me? Who did Obamacare benefit the most?
Millions of poorer Americans who will now benefit from health care. Obviously this was just a handout to them since they give so much money to his campaign!
How about the insurance companies and medical corporations that support democrats.
Uh, not according to Forbes who reported:
Health Insurers Secretly Spent Huge To Defeat Health Care Reform While Pretending To Support Obamacare.
What about green energy?
So Obama supported Green Energy because he wanted their campaign contributions, and not because he genuinely wanted us to start moving in that direction? Again, this makes no sense. If he were only interested in corporate funding, he'd support the usual suspects that fall in line behind the Republicans instead of gambling on a risky industry.
Straw-man and irrelevant to my last point. Raising the minimum wage was a handout to his supporters. I'm not for lowering the minimum wage.
Fair enough. But your claim is based in nothing but a correlation = causation fallacy. It ignores the fact that it dovetails with his rhetoric and actions over the course of his entire political career.
Well, you have the anti-capitalist, pro-socialism talking points down.
No, I have my facts in order. And I'm not anti-capitalist. In another context I would be told I have my "anti-Mormon chestnuts down," but ultimately no direct refutation of anything I've said.
I guess in your world, it's much better that politicians and lawyers decide where all the money goes. Yeah, no conflict of interest there, I'm sure. The real solution, of course, is a smart electorate that votes out corrupt politicians who only want to give handouts to their supporters.
I've always said the best thing that could happen is if lobbying were outlawed. But Republicans would never support that. And most Democrats probably wouldn't either.