# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  The Union is the worst thing that ever happened to the states

## Maximatic

They could have just allied for the war and then went on as free states. A bunch of sucker governors had cold feet and STILL signed up to be ruled by some bigger abstraction. Why?! Dumbasses!

----------


## Trinnity

States rights - maybe now people are starting to see why they do matter.

----------



----------


## lostbeyond

This is an absolutely excellent question!!!  

I guess I could say, that there were a few Soviet theoreticians a few years ago who were translated to German, and they said that in the future, only those countries will survive that will be able to reduce themselves to the most minimal and flexible overseeing of their purposely semi-independent regions.  

Apparently, this is how post-Soviet Russia decided to become a federation too, instead of a monolythic autocracy like France.  (On paper.)

----------



----------


## Irascible Crusader

> They could have just allied for the war and then went on as free states. A bunch of sucker governors had cold feet and STILL signed up to be ruled by some bigger abstraction. Why?! Dumbasses!


The Articles of Confederation, in spite of popular opinion, were sufficient to outline a loose confederation between the states and nothing more.  It's pounded into the heads of young victims of government education that the Articles of Confederation were hopelesslly flawed because it didn't give enough power to the central government.  Now we see that this was actually the BRILLIANCE of that document. Instead, we threw that out and proceeded to hard sell (federalist papers) a despotic central government via the Constitution.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

I support freedom for the states.

----------


## patrickt

Since the war, the authority of the U.S. government is based on nothing but force. That's why VP Biden and Sen. Harry Reid can sneer at us and call the Income tax a "voluntary" tax. Voluntary my ass. It's why the king can get up on April 15th and sneer and say taxpayers should be thanking him. Kiss my ass.    Displease us and we'll send a SWAT team to raid your dairy farm. Our king's moment of glory was having an old man in Pakistan murdered. Force is all the government knows. I'm old enough to remember when they persuaded but those days on long gone. You will switch to HD television now and you will pay for deadbeats to get the service. You will not buy or use incandescent lightbulbs. You will buy cars that are unsafe and cost thousands more than they should...because we say so. You will eat what we say to eat, you will buy what we say to buy, and you will do as we say to do. Or else.

----------

Mainecoons (01-01-2013),usfan (01-04-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> The Articles of Confederation, in spite of popular opinion, were sufficient to outline a loose confederation between the states and nothing more.  It's pounded into the heads of young victims of government education that the Articles of Confederation were hopelesslly flawed because it didn't give enough power to the central government.  Now we see that this was actually the BRILLIANCE of that document. Instead, we threw that out and proceeded to hard sell (federalist papers) a despotic central government via the Constitution.


Well said and profound. Rep sent.

----------

Irascible Crusader (01-01-2013)

----------


## garyo

Unions are the bane of free enterprise but the backbone of anti-business, the backbone of America.

----------


## Maximatic

> Unions are the bane of free enterprise but the backbone of anti-business, the backbone of America.


It sounds like your talking about the kind of union that people join to bargain collectively with their employer. I don't see any problem with people doing that, as long as they don't get violent and start forcing people to do things.

----------


## patrickt

> It sounds like your talking about the kind of union that people join to bargain collectively with their employer. I don't see any problem with people doing that, as long as they don't get violent and start forcing people to do things.


No, Maximatic, he's talking about the unions whose stock in trade is extortion by means of assault, murder, arson, sabotage, vandalism, and kidnapping and who are supported in their criminal enterprises by liberal politicians. Different union but allied.

----------

Mainecoons (01-01-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> No, Maximatic, he's talking about the unions whose stock in trade is extortion by means of assault, murder, arson, sabotage, vandalism, and kidnapping and who are supported in their criminal enterprises by liberal politicians. Different union but allied.


Not all unions are like that.

----------


## Guest

> No, Maximatic, he's talking about the unions whose stock in trade is extortion by means of assault, murder, arson, sabotage, vandalism, and kidnapping and who are supported in their criminal enterprises by liberal politicians. Different union but allied.


Not all unions do this, but perhaps the ones that do are just taking a cue from "K Street"?

----------


## garyo

Agreed, but they seem to condone it, if Jimmy Hofa Jr was not his Fathers son his biggest problems would be will that be paper or plastic or most likely whens my next parole hearing?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> It sounds like your talking about the kind of union that people join to bargain collectively with their employer. I don't see any problem with people doing that, as long as they don't get violent and start forcing people to do things.


But unions don't thrive without force, which is why they lobby so hard to have the use of force.  Left to their own free will, people will negotiate their own contracts and will not join a union when they don't have to.  Forcing people into unions and forcing them to pay union dues is the only way for unions to function.  They're virtually non existant in RTW states like Idaho where I live.

----------


## patrickt

> Not all unions do this, but perhaps the ones that do are just taking a cue from "K Street"?


All unions are extortionists. If they don't practice arson, assault, vandalism, kidnapping, murder, and so forth then perhaps it's because their opponents roll over faster than a frenchman. And, no, they aren't taking cues from anyone. They've been extortionists for 100 years and are as likely to change as the liberals are to quit having dead people vote.

I apologize for hijacking the thread since it isn't about unions but rather The Union but The Union and unions exist only through force.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> All unions are extortionists. If they don't practice arson, assault, vandalism, kidnapping, murder, and so forth then perhaps it's because their opponents roll over faster than a frenchman. And, no, they aren't taking cues from anyone. They've been extortionists for 100 years and are as likely to change as the liberals are to quit having dead people vote.
> 
> I apologize for hijacking the thread since it isn't about unions but rather The Union but The Union and unions exist only through force.


What ignorant tripe. Modern unions are full of shit and need to go the way of the dinosaur, but the unions 100 years ago are the only thing that protected workers from things like child labor, extremely low pay, and deadly working conditions.

----------

Mainecoons (01-01-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> What ignorant tripe. Modern unions are full of shit and need to go the way of the dinosaur, but the unions 100 years ago are the only thing that protected workers from things like child labor, extremely low pay, and deadly working conditions.


Right. Because legislation couldn't have addressed those issues, right?

----------


## Paperback Writer

> Right. Because legislation couldn't have addressed those issues, right?


Legislation didn't address those issues, mate.  That would be the problem.  You yanks are so thick.

----------


## patrickt

> Right. Because legislation couldn't have addressed those issues, right?


No, there never was legislation. They had to rely on arson, assault, murder, vandalism, kidnapping. I have never heard such tripe as was in the previous post singing the bogus praises of unions. The best part of unions is their long record of pension fraud and their immunity from prosecution.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> No, there never was legislation. They had to rely on arson, assault, murder, vandalism, kidnapping. I have never heard such tripe as was in the previous post singing the bogus praises of unions. The best part of unions is their long record of pension fraud and their immunity from prosecution.


Why weren't there legislation, eh?  If that would have done the job.  Why not?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Legislation didn't address those issues, mate. That would be the problem. You yanks are so thick.


Go back to your tea and crumpets you European metrosexual fairy.  Legislation is precisely the remedy prescribed by the Constitution to deal with problems, not unions.  We have strong labor laws that do what unions could never do, restore fairness to the workplace and create an even playing field.  It isn't justice for the unionized, it's justice for all.

----------


## Guest

> Go back to your tea and crumpets you European metrosexual fairy.  Legislation is precisely the remedy prescribed by the Constitution to deal with problems, not unions.  We have strong labor laws that do what unions could never do, restore fairness to the workplace and create an even playing field.  It isn't justice for the unionized, it's justice for all.


Unions, or the idea of them, is perfectly democratic, Mike.  What they've turned into sucks, but the idea behind them of people banding together to make demands is perfectly fine and moral.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Unions, or the idea of them, is perfectly democratic, Mike. What they've turned into sucks, but the idea behind them of people banding together to make demands is perfectly fine and moral.


Unions are perfectly democratic?  Pray tell where in the Constitution are unions set up as a means for remedy instead of legislation?

Are unions democratic?


Do unions not have more relevance to communism, "workers unite" and workers controlling the means of production and all that tripe in the Communist manifesto?  Wasn't it communism that was ushered in on the red carpet of assent to "workers rights?"  


I think your statement is a precise opposite of the truth.

----------


## Guest

> Unions are perfectly democratic?  Pray tell where in the Constitution are unions set up as a means for remedy instead of legislation?


Are you kidding me????  You are saying that because we have a government we cannot have free association?

And you're calling other people commies?

Sheesh.

----------


## Maximatic

Bring on the asteroid

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Right. Because legislation couldn't have addressed those issues, right?


Please. If the government legislated things like 40 hour work weeks and lunch breaks your kind would scream socialism.

And yes, legislation did solve the problem - after unions pushed for it.

----------


## Guest

> Bring on the asteroid


Yup.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Unions are perfectly democratic?  Pray tell where in the Constitution are unions set up as a means for remedy instead of legislation?
> 
> Are unions democratic?
> 
> 
> Do unions not have more relevance to communism, "workers unite" and workers controlling the means of production and all that tripe in the Communist manifesto?  Wasn't it communism that was ushered in on the red carpet of assent to "workers rights?"  
> 
> 
> I think your statement is a precise opposite of the truth.


Wow, this is the first time I've heard you say something truly stupid.

This is beneath you, dude. You're better than that.

----------


## Maximatic

Hey wait! If we call a meteoroid that hits the earth a meteorite, how come we don't call an asteroid that hits the earth an asterite?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Are you kidding me????  You are saying that because we have a government we cannot have free association?
> 
> And you're calling other people commies?
> 
> Sheesh.


She called unions "free association"

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Please. If the government legislated things like 40 hour work weeks and lunch breaks your kind would scream socialism.
> 
> And yes, legislation did solve the problem - after unions pushed for it.


Funny thing, issue advocacy groups also push for legislation and get it.  They don't force people to become members, extract involuntary dues, and use mafia tactics to discourage dissent and yet they manage to get laws passed.

So why were you saying we need unions?

----------


## Guest

> She called unions "free association"



1. Do you have to work at a particular company?  Yes/No
2. Do you have to work at a company that has a union?  Yes/No
3. If you work for a company that is near sweatshop conditions do you not have the right to freely associate and use collective bargaining?  Yes/No

Whatever unions turned into the same principles apply anywhere else...you have the choice to work somewhere or not.

----------


## Guest

> Funny thing, issue advocacy groups also push for legislation and get it.  They don't force people to become members, extract involuntary dues, and use mafia tactics to discourage dissent and yet they manage to get laws passed.


Do they force people to work somewhere, too?

Like do people get picked up off the street, black bags thrown over their heads, and taken to a union shop to work?  Or do people apply to union shops because you get paid crazy money to turn a screw?

Let's get real here on the "involuntary" thing.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Funny thing, issue advocacy groups also push for legislation and get it.  They don't force people to become members, extract involuntary dues, and use mafia tactics to discourage dissent and yet they manage to get laws passed.
> 
> So why were you saying we need unions?


Forced union membership is actually a myth, but whatevs.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> 1. Do you have to work at a particular company?  Yes/No



Stop right there. I can now dismiss anything you say as sheer ignorance.  You've never lived in a unionized state where every good job that provides a living wage is unionized and you are either forced to join that union or move your family to another state.  Yes, people are forced into a union, you have no idea what you're talking about.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Forced union membership is actually a myth, but whatevs.


Some are some are not. In a unionized state they pretty much are. In say SC it's by choice but not many unions in the Carolina's.

----------


## Guest

> Stop right there. I can now dismiss anything you say as sheer ignorance.  You've never lived in a unionized state where every good job that provides a living wage is unionized and you are either forced to join that union or move your family to another state.  Yes, people are forced into a union, you have no idea what you're talking about.


Piss off.  I started my US life in Detroit Michigan.  I'm saying--much like Republicans do to people on welfare who don't want to get off assistance for a 7-11 job, that you do have choices.  You may not like the choices you have, but you have choices.

And if you disagree I will certainly memorialize it in a signature line and bring it up later.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Some are some are not. In a unionized state they pretty much are. In say SC it's by choice but not many unions in the Carolina's.


It's by choice in every state.

----------


## Guest

> It's by choice in every state.


I love how _some people_ love to remind poor people that they have tons of choices when it comes to working versus entitlement, but not if it comes to unions.  Unions coerce you.  Jobs at Wal-Mart do not.

Work for low wages or starve = okay
Work for a union or starve = bad

hahahahaha...I love inconsistencies.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I love how _some people_ love to remind poor people that they have tons of choices when it comes to working versus entitlement, but not if it comes to unions.  Unions coerce you.  Jobs at Wal-Mart do not.
> 
> Work for low wages or starve = okay
> Work for a union or starve = bad
> 
> hahahahaha...I love inconsistencies.


They are adorable  :Tongue:

----------


## Roadmaster

> It's by choice in every state.


I have never worked for a union but my dad did at one time and they didn't help him at all. I was told they had to in certain fields by my dad-in-law.

----------


## Maximatic

> Funny thing, issue advocacy groups also push for legislation and get it.  They don't force people to become members, extract involuntary dues, and use mafia tactics to discourage dissent and yet they manage to get laws passed.
> 
> So why were you saying we need unions?


"get laws passed"
"don't force people to become members, extract involuntary dues, and use mafia tactics to discourage dissent "

That's what those laws do.

----------


## Guest

> "get laws passed"
> "don't force people to become members, extract involuntary dues, and use mafia tactics to discourage dissent "
> 
> That's what those laws do.


Yes, the force of government means nothing to him.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> "get laws passed"
> "don't force people to become members, extract involuntary dues, and use mafia tactics to discourage dissent "
> 
> That's what those laws do.


I was talking about issue advocacy groups.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Yes, the force of government means nothing to him.


The force of unions means nothing to you.  See how that works?

----------


## patrickt

> Do they force people to work somewhere, too?
> 
> Like do people get picked up off the street, black bags thrown over their heads, and taken to a union shop to work?  Or do people apply to union shops because you get paid crazy money to turn a screw?
> 
> Let's get real here on the "involuntary" thing.


Some people think innocence is cute. When I got my first factory job the town had one factory. It was a closed shop. I had ninety days to join the union. During that 90 days I never worked a full 8-hour day because I refused to pay kickbacks to the shop steward, I was fined often for violating union rules, I was threatened with physical violence for working too hard, and when I told them to take the union and shove it I got fired.

When I because a police officer the officers bargained with the city but the city was allowed to fire officers who were incompetent, lazy, brutal, corrupt, and alcoholics. Our pay was excellent, health care excellent, benefits very good, and we went from a lousy mismanaged pension to a 401k at the employees option. When we worked over time we got either overtime pay or comp time off, at the employees choice, until the federal government did away with comp time.

So, the incompetent, lazy, brutal, corrupt, and alcoholics starte coercing officers to join the push for an international union. They promised the moon and threatened officers who refused to join. I had my reports taken from the supervisors desk and destroyed, my equipment vandalized, I was threatened with violence, and the union goons refused to cover me on calls. They actually thought I wanted them there. I preferred working alone to working with those dickheads.

Have you ever had a job? Have you ever worked where there was a union? Did you join the union? Or, are your comments based on ideology learned in school.

----------


## Guest

> Some people think innocence is cute. When I got my first factory job the town had one factory. It was a closed shop. I had ninety days to join the union. During that 90 days I never worked a full 8-hour day because I refused to pay kickbacks to the shop steward, I was fined often for violating union rules, I was threatened with physical violence for working too hard, and when I told them to take the union and shove it I got fired.


Why did you apply at a union shop?




> When I because a police officer the officers bargained with the city but the city was allowed to fire officers who were incompetent, lazy, brutal, corrupt, and alcoholics. Our pay was excellent, health care excellent, benefits very good, and we went from a lousy mismanaged pension to a 401k at the employees option. When we worked over time we got either overtime pay or comp time off, at the employees choice, until the federal government did away with comp time.


Uh huh.




> So, the incompetent, lazy, brutal, corrupt, and alcoholics starte coercing officers to join the push for an international union. They promised the moon and threatened officers who refused to join. I had my reports taken from the supervisors desk and destroyed, my equipment vandalized, I was threatened with violence, and the union goons refused to cover me on calls. They actually thought I wanted them there. I preferred working alone to working with those dickheads.


Course they did.




> Have you ever had a job? Have you ever worked where there was a union? Did you join the union? Or, are your comments based on ideology learned in school.


In fact, I do have a job (and I'm sure in your line of work you love "me") and I come from a union town where my father did not take a union job because he didn't want to be a part of that racket.

I'm not pro-union, as in I think unions are great, I'm saying that we all have choices in life.  We may not like our choices, but we have them.  You didn't have to work at a union shop.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Some people think innocence is cute. When I got my first factory job the town had one factory. It was a closed shop. I had ninety days to join the union. During that 90 days I never worked a full 8-hour day because I refused to pay kickbacks to the shop steward, I was fined often for violating union rules, I was threatened with physical violence for working too hard, and when I told them to take the union and shove it I got fired.
> 
> When I because a police officer the officers bargained with the city but the city was allowed to fire officers who were incompetent, lazy, brutal, corrupt, and alcoholics. Our pay was excellent, health care excellent, benefits very good, and we went from a lousy mismanaged pension to a 401k at the employees option. When we worked over time we got either overtime pay or comp time off, at the employees choice, until the federal government did away with comp time.
> 
> So, the incompetent, lazy, brutal, corrupt, and alcoholics starte coercing officers to join the push for an international union. They promised the moon and threatened officers who refused to join. I had my reports taken from the supervisors desk and destroyed, my equipment vandalized, I was threatened with violence, and the union goons refused to cover me on calls. They actually thought I wanted them there. I preferred working alone to working with those dickheads.
> 
> Have you ever had a job? Have you ever worked where there was a union? Did you join the union? Or, are your comments based on ideology learned in school.


You chose to work at a union shop. Take some personal responsibility.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Some people think innocence is cute. When I got my first factory job the town had one factory. It was a closed shop. I had ninety days to join the union. During that 90 days I never worked a full 8-hour day because I refused to pay kickbacks to the shop steward, I was fined often for violating union rules, I was threatened with physical violence for working too hard, and when I told them to take the union and shove it I got fired.
> 
> When I because a police officer the officers bargained with the city but the city was allowed to fire officers who were incompetent, lazy, brutal, corrupt, and alcoholics. Our pay was excellent, health care excellent, benefits very good, and we went from a lousy mismanaged pension to a 401k at the employees option. When we worked over time we got either overtime pay or comp time off, at the employees choice, until the federal government did away with comp time.
> 
> So, the incompetent, lazy, brutal, corrupt, and alcoholics starte coercing officers to join the push for an international union. They promised the moon and threatened officers who refused to join. I had my reports taken from the supervisors desk and destroyed, my equipment vandalized, I was threatened with violence, and the union goons refused to cover me on calls. They actually thought I wanted them there. I preferred working alone to working with those dickheads.
> 
> Have you ever had a job? Have you ever worked where there was a union? Did you join the union? Or, are your comments based on ideology learned in school.


^^^ Pay attention, Zosiasmom, because this is what unions are all about.  You want to ride me about not knowing how police and prosecutors work, you don't know shit about unions trying to argue that people have a choice.  Unions by their very nature despise free will.  And I don't give a crap how much experience you CLAIM to have with unions. You're calling Patrickt a liar so why shouldn't you be called one?  But whether you have experience or not, one thing is clear, you've NEVER IN YOUR LIFE opposed a union and seen what happens to dissenters.  It's a whole different ball of wax when you don't go along with the program.

----------


## Guest

> ^^^ Pay attention, Zosiasmom, because this is what unions are all about.  You want to ride me about not knowing how police and prosecutors work, you don't know shit about unions trying to argue that people have a choice.  Unions by their very nature despise free will.  And I don't give a crap how much experience you CLAIM to have with unions. You're calling Patrickt a liar so why shouldn't you be called one?  But whether you have experience or not, one thing is clear, you've NEVER IN YOUR LIFE opposed a union and seen what happens to dissenters.  It's a whole different ball of wax when you don't go along with the program.


Where did I call Patrickt a liar??????????????????????????????????????????????  ??????????????????????????

I'll rebut the rest, but tell me where I've called him one.  I'm not a rude bitch like that.  The only person I've called a liar is Dave1mo.


--I brought up the point that no one dragged him off the street and asked him to work ANYWHERE.  He's applied for every job.  

My father could have applied at a union shop in Detroit and instead went to work in our community for a shitty company.  He got paid a lot less and we were completely poor and struggling because of it, but...he chose not to work at a union shop.

I would have preferred he did work somewhere that he could make $40 an hour.  Trust me on that.

----------


## Guest

> You chose to work at a union shop. Take some personal responsibility.


Thank you.  Again, these guys are all about personal responsibility until it doesn't suit their argument.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Where did I call Patrickt a liar??????????????????????????????????????????????  ??????????????????????????
> 
> I'll rebut the rest, but tell me where I've called him one.  I'm not a rude bitch like that.  The only person I've called a liar is Dave1mo.


  "Uh huh. Course they did."  The sarcasm comes through quite readable.  You definitely were dismissive of Patrick's testimony, you just want to dodge, hide, and run away from it now.  Own up to it like a big girl.




> --I brought up the point that no one dragged him off the street and asked him to work ANYWHERE.  He's applied for every job.  
> 
> My father could have applied at a union shop in Detroit and instead went to work in our community for a shitty company.  He got paid a lot less and we were completely poor and struggling because of it, but...he chose not to work at a union shop.
> 
> I would have preferred he did work somewhere that he could make $40 an hour.  Trust me on that.


As I said, you have NO experience opposing union aggression.  None.  So be quiet and learn from those of us who have.

----------


## Roadmaster

I don't know how these union people are but have worked for a company ran by the mafia in my younger years. Got away after college but you learn to keep your mouth shut which was easy for me because I am not a talker anyway.

----------


## Guest

> "Uh huh. Course they did."  The sarcasm comes through quite readable.  You definitely were dismissive of Patrick's testimony, you just want to dodge, hide, and run away from it now.  Own up to it like a big girl.


No, I wasn't.  Please tell me where I've said that unions are "good".  He was not refuting my point at all which is that you have a choice whether to a) apply at a union shop, b) apply at a non-union shop, c) move.

I don't need to be told about how unions have turned out.  That's apparent, BUT...I'm not going to deny people whatever choice they wish--even if I don't agree with the choice.




> As I said, you have NO experience opposing union aggression.  None.  So be quiet and learn from those of us who have.


Who cares about opposing union aggression if the argument is that you don't have to work there?

I repeat, were you and Patrick dragged off the street and forced to work at these companies?  Or where they either the best gig or one of the best gigs in town?

You had choices of employment.  You didn't like your choices, but you had them.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> "Uh huh. Course they did."  The sarcasm comes through quite readable.  You definitely were dismissive of Patrick's testimony, you just want to dodge, hide, and run away from it now.  Own up to it like a big girl


You are the last person that has any authority to tell someone to own up to being wrong.

----------

The XL (01-01-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

> I was talking about issue advocacy groups.


I was talking about all legislation.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> You are the last person that has any authority to tell someone to own up to being wrong.


You're the last person that has any authority to tell someone to own up to being wrong.

(see how that works?)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I was talking about all legislation.


You were responding to my statement, or did you forget?

----------


## Guest

> You're the last person that has any authority to tell someone to own up to being wrong.
> 
> (see how that works?)



So back to my question: did the unions black bag you and Pat and drag you off to work at their forced labor shops, or did you apply for jobs there?

 :Big Grin: 

*waits on the weaseling out of a direct question*

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> So back to my question: did the unions black bag you and Pat and drag you off to work at their forced labor shops, or did you apply for jobs there?
> 
> 
> *waits on the weaseling out of a direct question*


Until you can say that you've lived in a state that's heavily unionized, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!  When all the good paying jobs are unionized, THERE IS NO FUCKING CHOICE, HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND?  If you want to be a teacher, but to be so, you have to join a union, THAT ISN'T A CHOICE. 

Damn!  How thick can you be?

Here's a question for you.  Why are you so afraid of the right to work without being forced into a union?

----------


## Maximatic

> Some people think innocence is cute. When I got my first factory job the town had one factory. It was a closed shop. I had ninety days to join the union. During that 90 days I never worked a full 8-hour day because I refused to pay kickbacks to the shop steward, I was fined often for violating union rules, I was threatened with physical violence for working too hard, and when I told them to take the union and shove it I got fired.
> 
> When I because a police officer the officers bargained with the city but the city was allowed to fire officers who were incompetent, lazy, brutal, corrupt, and alcoholics. Our pay was excellent, health care excellent, benefits very good, and we went from a lousy mismanaged pension to a 401k at the employees option. When we worked over time we got either overtime pay or comp time off, at the employees choice, until the federal government did away with comp time.
> 
> So, the incompetent, lazy, brutal, corrupt, and alcoholics starte coercing officers to join the push for an international union. They promised the moon and threatened officers who refused to join. I had my reports taken from the supervisors desk and destroyed, my equipment vandalized, I was threatened with violence, and the union goons refused to cover me on calls. They actually thought I wanted them there. I preferred working alone to working with those dickheads.
> 
> Have you ever had a job? Have you ever worked where there was a union? Did you join the union? Or, are your comments based on ideology learned in school.


I'm pretty sure I heard about some legislation that permits labor unions to use a certain amount of violence and coercion to get what they want.

----------


## Maximatic

In case anyone wonders why I keep saying "legislation", it's not because I prefer longer words. It's because I don't want to call that shit law.

----------


## Guest

> Until you can say that you've lived in a state that's heavily unionized, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!  When all the good paying jobs are unionized, THERE IS NO FUCKING CHOICE, HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND?  If you want to be a teacher, but to be so, you have to join a union, THAT ISN'T A CHOICE.


Michigan is not a heavy union state?




> Damn!  How thick can you be?


You use the exact same argument about entitlements that people should get their ass to work anywhere rather than be on them.  Well, even in Michigan there are quickie marts, Wal-Marts, Best Buys, 7-11s, Five Belows, Dollar Trees, 

Don't give me that crap that 100% of the places to work are union.  It's not true.  Until there are NO APPLEBEES in your state or no Wallyworld's quit with that.




> Here's a question for you.  Why are you so afraid of the right to work without being forced into a union?


I'm not.  I said that people should be allowed all freedoms, which includes the freedom to quit a job, not take a job, join together to demand better pay, etc.

I'm into freedom, baby.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I'm pretty sure I heard about some legislation that permits labor unions to use a certain amount of violence and coercion to get what they want.


It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to get their mafia tactics codified into law.  Wouldn't surprise me at all.

----------


## Guest

So Mike and Pat: were you guys forced to apply at union shops by the unions?  Yes or No.

Or did you live on the arctic circle in Alaska where there are (maybe) no Wal-Marts?

----------


## Maximatic

> You were responding to my statement, or did you forget?


I remember. But you said "get laws passed". Laws have to be enforced with, well, force.

----------


## Maximatic

Here's a good lecture.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> You use the exact same argument about entitlements that people should get their ass to work anywhere rather than be on them. Well, even in Michigan there are quickie marts, Wal-Marts, Best Buys, 7-11s, Five Belows, Dollar Trees,


  Ok, apparently you have no idea what a "good paying job" is.  When's the last time Dollar Tree paid its employees $18/hr plus benefits.



> Don't give me that crap that 100% of the places to work are union. It's not true. Until there are NO APPLEBEES in your state or no Wallyworld's quit with that.


  Hell bells!  I just figured out what's wrong with you.  You make a lot of money and so you have NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT IT'S LIKE to try to support a family working at Applebees.  Apparently you think that Applebees pays the same wage as a GM auto machinist. Apparently 7-11 is no different than a welder's salary.  You're so rich that you live in a bubble and don't have any idea what people actually get paid when they're not lawyers.




> I'm not. I said that people should be allowed all freedoms, which includes the freedom to quit a job, not take a job, join together to demand better pay, etc.
> 
> I'm into freedom, baby.


No you're not.  Freedom is the ability to choose between jobs without being forced into a union.  The right to work is the right to have ANY job without being dragooned into union membership.  The right to work is freedom from cohersion, being able to apply for the highest paying jobs without having thugs make you pay for it with dues.  You can't support unions and freedom. The two concepts are at loggerheads.

----------


## Maximatic

> So Mike and Pat: were you guys forced to apply at union shops by the unions?  Yes or No.
> 
> Or did you live on the arctic circle in Alaska where there are (maybe) no Wal-Marts?


Pat told a story about a cop union that destroyd the property of, and threatened and coerced people to join.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I remember. But you said "get laws passed". Laws have to be enforced with, well, force.


Go back and read what you responded too.  TRAT said that labor laws were passed because of unions.  I countered by pointing out that advocacy groups also get laws passed but don't operate like mobs like the unions do; that getting good laws passed doesn't require unions.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Pat told a story about a cop union that destroyd the property of, and threatened and coerced people to join.


You can't argue with someone who thinks a Walmart job is just the same as a machinist or a merchant marine.

----------


## Guest

> Ok, apparently you have no idea what a "good paying job" is.  When's the last time Dollar Tree paid its employees $18/hr plus benefits.


I agree that Dollar Tree is not a good paying job, but I've also heard a great many conservatives say "go back to school" and "take any job" when it comes to bitching about people on entitlements who don't want to work minimum wage--hell, you guys bitch about minimum wage.

What's the fucking philosophical difference?  Do you have the choice to not work at one or go to school?  Yes, right?  Then you have the right to not work at a union shop or go back to school.




> Hell bells!  I just figured out what's wrong with you.  You make a lot of money and so you have NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT IT'S LIKE to try to support a family working at Applebees.  Apparently you think that Applebees pays the same wage as a GM auto machinist. Apparently 7-11 is no different than a welder's salary.  You're so rich that you live in a bubble and don't have any idea what people actually get paid when they're not lawyers.


No, I'm not indifferent to it.  Why do you think people formed unions in the first place, Mike.  To make more money for themselves and their families.  I completely get that.  Without the unions those guys on the assembly lines wouldn't make $40 an hour.  The police wouldn't have the benefits they do or the teachers.

That's the whole point to them.




> No you're not.  Freedom is the ability to choose between jobs without being forced into a union.  The right to work is the right to have ANY job without being dragooned into union membership.  The right to work is freedom from cohersion, being able to apply for the highest paying jobs without having thugs make you pay for it with dues.  You can't support unions and freedom. The two concepts are at loggerheads.


You are free to choose a job.  You may be forced between choosing a non union job versus a union job.  Quit sounding like a progressive with trying to force people to not do something you don't want them to.

If people want to ban together to form unions they should have the right, just as you have the right to not join them, go back to school, or choose a different career path.

I mean, that's what so many of you say about the poor and people on entitlements, right?  Go back to school?  Right?

I'm going with that same argument.

----------


## Guest

> You can't argue with someone who thinks a Walmart job is just the same as a machinist or a merchant marine.


You can't argue with men who create straw men, either.  When I say they are the same, clock me, Mike.

----------


## Guest

> Pat told a story about a cop union that destroyd the property of, and threatened and coerced people to join.


Coerced them to join the police or join the union?

----------


## Maximatic

> Go back and read what you responded too.  TRAT said that labor laws were passed because of unions.  I countered by pointing out that advocacy groups also get laws passed but don't operate like mobs like the unions do; that getting good laws passed doesn't require unions.


See, the only good law I know of is natural law. Any act that doesn't result in the suffering of some victim who is not also the perpetrator, it is not a violation of natural law. If it is not a violation of natural law and it is written, it's not a good law, it's just coercion. So, the guys in Pat's story are criminals in violation of the law, even if their actions were legal according to all legislation. Legislation only perverts law. I guess you could say that law cannot be created or destroyed.

----------

Irascible Crusader (01-01-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

> Coerced them to join the police or join the union?


The union. His department was not part of any union when he joined.

----------


## Guest

> The union. His department was not part of any union when he joined.


Well, you know how I feel about both force and criminal activity.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Go back and read what you responded too.  TRAT said that labor laws were passed because of unions.  I countered by pointing out that advocacy groups also get laws passed but don't operate like mobs like the unions do; that getting good laws passed doesn't require unions.


A union is an advocacy group, genius.

----------


## Maximatic

> Well, you know how I feel about both force and criminal activity.


Yes, you're opposed to the initiation of force, and your tired of being hit on by criminals.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> A union is an advocacy group, genius.


No it isn't.  Advocacy groups don't have the power to force membership in order to get a job, or extract dues as payment for having their "protection" whether you want it or not.  If you think unions are no different than advocacy groups such as the NRA, Sierra Club, or SPLA then there's no way I can have an intelligent conversation with you.

----------



----------


## Guest

> Yes, you're opposed to the initiation of force, and your tired of being hit on by criminals.


I'm opposed to both.  

Where I am going with this, however, it so lead them to a better understanding of their own positions about minimum wage laws and the inconsistency of saying that you have the opportunity to work elsewhere rather than take a minimum wage job while also saying you don't have the opportunity to work elsewhere if it is a union shop.

Just trying to help them find consistency in their position.

----------


## Guest

> No it isn't.  Advocacy groups don't have the power to force membership in order to get a job, or extract dues as payment for having their "protection" whether you want it or not.  If you think unions are no different than advocacy groups such as the NRA, Sierra Club, or SPLA then there's no way I can have an intelligent conversation with you.


Extortion is criminal activity.

...and by the way I am not personally fond of unions.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

Damn I love how these libertarian anarchist types hate the use of force except when it comes to unions.   Force and coersion are fine when it's unions doing it and not government

You're all hypocrits.

----------


## Guest

> Damn I love how these libertarian anarchist types hate the use of force except when it comes to unions.   Force and coersion are fine when it's unions doing it and not government
> 
> You're all hypocrits.



Haha, continue to misrepresent my position, Mike.  When have I said that criminal activity and force are "good"?  I have not.  I said the right to form a union should not be prevented by force of government.

And then I messed with you for several posts hoping to walk you to some consistency of opinion when it comes to jobs being voluntary.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Damn I love how these libertarian anarchist types hate the use of force except when it comes to unions.   Force and coersion are fine when it's unions doing it and not government
> 
> You're all hypocrits.


I think it's rather sad that almost any argument you have with someone, you feel like the only way you can oppose them is to make shit up. Pretty much all of us said modern unions suck, but hey, keep lying about our positions.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I think it's rather sad that almost any argument you have with someone, you feel like the only way you can oppose them is to make shit up. Pretty much all of us said modern unions suck, but hey, keep lying about our positions.


Keep thinking that unions are no different than AARP.

----------


## Guest

> Keep thinking that unions are no different than AARP.


Who said that unions are good?  Please point out the individual who said that most (or any) modern unions are good, Mike.

Thanks.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Who said that unions are good?  Please point out the individual who said that most (or any) modern unions are good, Mike.
> 
> Thanks.


I'll wait.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> I think it's rather sad that almost any argument you have with someone, you feel like the only way you can oppose them is to make shit up. Pretty much all of us said modern unions suck, but hey, keep lying about our positions.


Make shit up, too right.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Who said that unions are good?  Please point out the individual who said that most (or any) modern unions are good, Mike.
> 
> Thanks.


Excuse me if I interpret your tireless, sycophantic defense of unions as thinking unions are good.

My bad.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> Excuse me if I interpret your tireless, sycophantic defense of unions as thinking unions are good.
> 
> My bad.


Too right.  Have a go at her.  That one thinks shes so much smarter than everyone else.

----------


## Guest

> Too right.  Have a go at her.  That one thinks shes so much smarter than everyone else.


Piss right off, ya limey bastard.

----------


## The XL

> Too right.  Have a go at her.  That one thinks shes so much smarter than everyone else.


If she did feel that way, she'd have good reason to.

----------

Irascible Crusader (01-02-2013)

----------


## Guest

> If she did feel that way, she'd have good reason to.


Thanks, Binks!  

 :Smile:

----------


## patrickt

> Extortion is criminal activity.
> 
> ...and by the way I am not personally fond of unions.


You really are innocent. Extortion is a crime but not for unions.
"Under the Supreme Court's 1973 Enmons decision, vandalism, assault, even murder by union officials are exempt from federal anti-extortion law. As long as the violence is aimed at obtaining property for which the union can assert a "lawful claim"--for example, wage or benefit increases-- the violence is deemed to be in furtherance of "legitimate" union objectives. By the Court's peculiar logic, such violence does not count as extortion."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-316es.html

----------


## kilgram

> All unions are extortionists. If they don't practice arson, assault, vandalism, kidnapping, murder, and so forth then perhaps it's because their opponents roll over faster than a frenchman. And, no, they aren't taking cues from anyone. They've been extortionists for 100 years and are as likely to change as the liberals are to quit having dead people vote.
> 
> I apologize for hijacking the thread since it isn't about unions but rather The Union but The Union and unions exist only through force.


Unions are evil. Business are good.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> You really are innocent. Extortion is a crime but not for unions.
> "Under the Supreme Court's 1973 Enmons decision, vandalism, assault, even murder by union officials are exempt from federal anti-extortion law. As long as the violence is aimed at obtaining property for which the union can assert a "lawful claim"--for example, wage or benefit increases-- the violence is deemed to be in furtherance of "legitimate" union objectives. By the Court's peculiar logic, such violence does not count as extortion."
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-316es.html


Don't mind her.  That one lives in a world of philosophy.  Sides I'm pretty sure she knows the law given where she is this morning.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> Unions are evil. Business are good.


That's the bit where I will never understand the conservative position.  They are under some false impression that business types are benevolent and working towards their best interest.  I've a lot of conservative positions but I can't bring myself to vote for their candidates because when they're not trying to tell people that the immigrants from all our former colonies should go home they're pushing for the royals and the rich to get out of paying what the rest of us do.  They're total cunts, really.

----------


## patrickt

> That's the bit where I will never understand the conservative position.  They are under some false impression that business types are benevolent and working towards their best interest.  I've a lot of conservative positions but I can't bring myself to vote for their candidates because when they're not trying to tell people that the immigrants from all our former colonies should go home they're pushing for the royals and the rich to get out of paying what the rest of us do.  They're total cunts, really.


Not at all. But, unless a specific business forms an alliance with the government then I have a choice to do business with them or not. And, I have yet to see a business sending SWAT teams out to enforce their will on people. And, businesses actually give me something for my money. When I buy a car I don't get a letter saying, "We delivered your car to a drunk in Pasadena as a part of our property redistribution policy."

Forty years ago a Brit was lecturing me on how the U.S. needed to handle race relations and kept pointing out that England didn't have a problem and they didn't forty years ago. My, my, my how things have changed.

Liberals all over the world love that word "cunt". I wonder why the dickheads go for that word so quickly? Could it be their inherent hatred of women?

----------


## Paperback Writer

> Not at all. But, unless a specific business forms an alliance with the government then I have a choice to do business with them or not. And, I have yet to see a business sending SWAT teams out to enforce their will on people. And, businesses actually give me something for my money. When I buy a car I don't get a letter saying, "We delivered your car to a drunk in Pasadena as a part of our property redistribution policy."


Awrite here's the bit where I agree with you.  I'm not particularly fond of paying more than my weight in quid each month so a bunch of chavs can sit on the dole.  The reality however is that we've moved away from where I even have a choice in the matter.  So many are on the dole and are used to the lifestyle that to quit would cause mass riots.  I recognise this apparently unlike yourself and therefore choose to work within the system that exists and make incremental changes.

Conservatives are under the unmistakably to anyone else _false_ impression that if they complain they will eventually get their way.  Complaining is an art form amongst you types.  Unions exist because businesses will pay low wages if not forced to do otherwise.  If you want unions to go away then you have to legislate better wages and conditions.  You can't have low wages and have people happy about it.  You really can't.  People want more money.  I'd think this would be obvious to a yank whose always yelping about money.

So do you want the government to increase your minimum wage standard or would you rather have your citizenry bargain collectively for it?




> Forty years ago a Brit was lecturing me on how the U.S. needed to handle race relations and kept pointing out that England didn't have a problem and they didn't forty years ago. My, my, my how things have changed.


Wots our problem with race relations?




> Liberals all over the world love that word "cunt". I wonder why the dickheads go for that word so quickly? Could it be their inherent hatred of women?


And what is "dickhead" then, mate?  Misandry?

----------


## Coolwalker

There was a time in America that without unions, many people would have starved. Thugs hired by companies beat and even killed people simply because they wanted a "living wage". yes, much good was accomplished by early unions, however the times have changed. The living wage was achieved and then some. Now unions have become greedy and even more than that; they are trying to strangle companies in order to take them over as "employee bosses". We need to reverse course and fast.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> There was a time in America that without unions, many people would have starved. Thugs hired by companies beat and even killed people simply because they wanted a "living wage". yes, much good was accomplished by early unions, however the times have changed. The living wage was achieved and then some. Now unions have become greedy and even more than that; they are trying to strangle companies in order to take them over as "employee bosses". We need to reverse course and fast.


It's the biggest myth believed about unions, that they were at one time necessary but have today outlived their usefulness.  I'm trying to get people to understand that we never needed unions and there is nothing that unions achieved that wasn't better achieved through changes in labor laws that benefitted everyone, not just those in unions.

----------


## Coolwalker

A picture is worth a thousand words...here's 2,000.

----------

garyo (01-02-2013)

----------


## garyo

Prior to WWII unions were direly needed no matter their corruption, factory workers and miners were especially taken advantage of, abused by pip squeak managers, forced to work 12-16 hour days sometimes 7 day weeks and there was no Gov there to help them. The Taft-Hartley act of 1947 began the start of laws to protect workers. I believe in todays work force unions are nothing but legalized extortionist.

----------


## Guest

> Prior to WWII unions were direly needed no matter their corruption, factory workers and miners were especially taken advantage of, abused by pip squeak managers, forced to work 12-16 hour days sometimes 7 day weeks and there was no Gov there to help them. The Taft-Hartley act of 1947 began the start of laws to protect workers. I believe in todays work force unions are nothing but legalized extortionist.


I think most of these types of things start out with the best intentions and then go sour.  Look at our government.  The Founders gave us an excellent start and look what we've done with it?  We are so far away from their pro individual, small government ideals that we're almost like a different nation entirely.

----------


## Coolwalker

> I think most of these types of things start out with the best intentions and then go sour.  Look at our government.  The Founders gave us an excellent start and look what we've done with it?  We are so far away from their pro individual, small government ideals that we're almost like a different nation entirely.


So you are conservative.

----------


## Guest

> So you are conservative.


I have classical liberal (Jefferson) and libertarian (Paul) leanings and am small government.  I don't know what conservative means anymore based on how Republicans are defining it by their spending and intrusive actions.

----------

The XL (01-02-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Prior to WWII unions were direly needed no matter their corruption, factory workers and miners were especially taken advantage of, abused by pip squeak managers, forced to work 12-16 hour days sometimes 7 day weeks and there was no Gov there to help them. The Taft-Hartley act of 1947 began the start of laws to protect workers. I believe in todays work force unions are nothing but legalized extortionist.


There's already a Constitutional remedy for all of that, it's called legislation.  And legislation, unlike unions, benefits everyone, not just union members.  Real change in the workplace didn't occur because of unions, it occurred because of draconian changes in our labor laws.  Unions have been a blight of American life; useless right from the very beginning.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> So you are conservative.


Ha!  Not even close.  She's a hard core Leftist, in spite of what she'll claim to be.  Just watch her posts and you'll see it too.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Prior to WWII unions were direly needed no matter their corruption, factory workers and miners were especially taken advantage of, abused by pip squeak managers, forced to work 12-16 hour days sometimes 7 day weeks and there was no Gov there to help them. The Taft-Hartley act of 1947 began the start of laws to protect workers. I believe in todays work force unions are nothing but legalized extortionist.


Yes I do believe from what I did hear from my dad and others that unions did help back then and make sure people got breaks, better pay, and better working conditions. In the right to work states even today they can fire you for no reason and just in the Carolinas I know many that contract to other states because of wages here. An example: A designer making $20 to $40 here can make $60 an hour and higher in another state. I know some that contracted in Canada and others places. Our police officers start off around 30,000 a year here and some less. A waitress if she is in the right area can end up making more than them without being shot at.

----------


## Coolwalker

> I have classical liberal (Jefferson) and libertarian (Paul) leanings and am small government.  I don't know what conservative means anymore based on how Republicans are defining it by their spending and intrusive actions.


Not all the GOP, just some. Tax and spend is a democrat ideal. The GOP that voted for this cliff thing screwed the pooch. We should have gone over the cliff then started the repair process by cutting back.

----------


## Guest

> Ha!  Not even close.  She's a hard core Leftist, in spite of what she'll claim to be.  Just watch her posts and you'll see it too.


Okay, Mike...all leftists want there to be no government and to allow free enterprise and voluntary associations.  **double eye roll and snap**


btw, say a prayer for me.  I just got a call about what could be the biggest case of my career!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Yes I do believe from what I did hear from my dad and others that unions did help back then and make sure people got breaks, better pay, and better working conditions. In the right to work states even today they can fire you for no reason and just in the Carolinas I know many that contract to other states because of wages here. An example: A designer making $20 to $40 here can make $60 an hour and higher in another state. I know some that contracted in Canada and others places. Our police officers start off around 30,000 a year here and some less. A waitress if she is in the right area can end up making more than them without being shot at.





What's wrong with that?  Since when does a business need a reason to fire somebody?

----------


## Paperback Writer

> [/COLOR]What's wrong with that?  Since when does a business need a reason to fire somebody?


Explain your arguement that people don't have rights to form unions but companies have a right to fire at will.  Why do companies have more rights than the people that work for them?

----------


## Coolwalker

> Explain your arguement that people don't have rights to form unions but companies have a right to fire at will.  Why do companies have more rights than the people that work for them?


Ya' don't bite the hand that feeds you.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Explain your arguement that people don't have rights to form unions but companies have a right to fire at will.  Why do companies have more rights than the people that work for them?


Businesses have a right to hire or fire people as they see fit, nobody has a right to a job, to force a business to hire them, and nobody has the right to force a business to keep them.   Employment is a perfect example of freedom of choice. Either party can terminate employment at will.  Of course companies have more rights than people that work for them. It's their business to run as they see fit.  Only in the whacky Leftisphere is this anathema.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> Businesses have a right to hire or fire people as they see fit, nobody has a right to a job, to force a business to hire them, and nobody has the right to force a business to keep them.   Employment is a perfect example of freedom of choice. Either party can terminate employment at will.  Of course companies have more rights than people that work for them. It's their business to run as they see fit.  Only in the whacky Leftisphere is this anathema.


She's right about your being inconsistent.  You were argueing til yer blue that unions prevented people from having jobs and that you had a right to a well paying job that those damn unions were preventing and now you're back to you don't have a right to a job.

Which is it, mate?

----------


## Paperback Writer

> Ya' don't bite the hand that feeds you.


Employer and employee have a mutually beneficial association.  They need your labour and you need their equipment.  Without the company the worker has no job and without the worker the company has no product.

Seems to me like neither should be biting the other.

----------



----------


## Coolwalker

> Employer and employee have a mutually beneficial association.  They need your labour and you need their equipment.  Without the company the worker has no job and without the worker the company has no product.
> 
> Seems to me like neither should be biting the other.


But one "Bloke" pays the others wages. He takes the chances. He provides for the safety...the worker just works therefore deserves less of the pie than the employer.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> She's right about your being inconsistent.  You were argueing til yer blue that unions prevented people from having jobs and that you had a right to a well paying job that those damn unions were preventing and now you're back to you don't have a right to a job.
> 
> Which is it, mate?


The right to apply for a job without joining a union is not the right to have a job or to keep a job.  There's no inconsistancy here, and in fact, they're not even the same discussions.

----------

garyo (01-02-2013)

----------


## Paperback Writer

> But one "Bloke" pays the others wages. He takes the chances. He provides for the safety...the worker just works therefore deserves less of the pie than the employer.


I don't think that the labourer should make as much as the employer, but I do think that you discount the role of the person doing the work.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> The right to apply for a job without joining a union is not the right to have a job or to keep a job.  There's no inconsistancy here, and in fact, they're not even the same discussions.


Whatever you say.

----------


## Coolwalker

> I don't think that the labourer should make as much as the employer, but I do think that you discount the role of the person doing the work.


Really...someone needs and deserves $75.00 per hour to turn a bolt? That is insane.

----------


## garyo

I agree with Mike, I have been in business over 20yrs and I did NOT take the risks I have to create anyone a job, I did it to benefit my family and me, period and I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me who I can hire and who I can fire unless they want to invest in my company, unions are nothing but legalized extortionist and I am tickled to death to see states adopting right to work laws.

----------

Irascible Crusader (01-02-2013)

----------


## Coolwalker

> I agree with Mike, I have been in business over 20yrs and I did NOT take the risks I have to create anyone a job, I did it to benefit my family and me, period and I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me who I can hire and who I can fire unless they want to invest in my company, unions are nothing but legalized extortionist and I am tickled to death to see states adopting right to work laws.


It's why I live in Virginia.

----------


## garyo

Most people just have no grasp of what it takes to start and maintain a business, they just have their hand out and their big mouth running.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> Really...someone needs and deserves $75.00 per hour to turn a bolt? That is insane.


Oi.  Don't believe I said that now.  That's ludicrous.  I said that companies benefit from employee's labour and employees benefit from their company cheques.  Why the adversarial tone?

----------


## Coolwalker

> Oi.  Don't believe I said that now.  That's ludicrous.  I said that companies benefit from employee's labour and employees benefit from their company cheques.  Why the adversarial tone?


There is no "tone" from a keyboard.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> There is no "tone" from a keyboard.


I meant the adversarial tone between labour and owner.  I'm liberal when it comes to social issues but I very much favour capitalism.  I like having a job.  I hope to run my own business some day.  Having worked shite jobs in the past I understand what it means to put in long hours for crap pay and hopefully it will inform my approach and tone should that occur.

----------


## Coolwalker

> I meant the adversarial tone between labour and owner.  I'm liberal when it comes to social issues but I very much favour capitalism.  I like having a job.  I hope to run my own business some day.  Having worked shite jobs in the past I understand what it means to put in long hours for crap pay and hopefully it will inform my approach and tone should that occur.


having owned three separate businesses, I know exactly what it takes to earn a living and to keep things afloat. Two of those businesses were in the music industry and the other was a printing company. I never took guff from anyone who worked for me and I treated them fairly. When someone stepped out of line, they were gone. Life is too short to coddle people.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> having owned three separate businesses, I know exactly what it takes to earn a living and to keep things afloat. Two of those businesses were in the music industry and the other was a printing company. I never took guff from anyone who worked for me and I treated them fairly. When someone stepped out of line, they were gone. Life is too short to coddle people.


Fascinating.  I'd love to hear more about this.  The music bit.

I realise I'm a bit of a wee bastard on here but a lot of it is taking a piss.  I'm visiting with a mate and she told me the site could use a liberal perspective.  Not sure if I'm liberal enough but I imagine you lads are having some fun cracking at a limey wanker.   :Wink: 

Don't worry I am to home soon and you'll have your conservative paradise all to yourselves again.

----------


## Coolwalker

> Fascinating.  I'd love to hear more about this.  The music bit.
> 
> I realise I'm a bit of a wee bastard on here but a lot of it is taking a piss.  I'm visiting with a mate and she told me the site could use a liberal perspective.  Not sure if I'm liberal enough but I imagine you lads are having some fun cracking at a limey wanker.  
> 
> Don't worry I am to home soon and you'll have your conservative paradise all to yourselves again.


You are welcome anytime and this is an international IP address, so visit again, just remember as in a fist fight...put your chin out and it will be punched.

----------


## The XL

> Ha!  Not even close.  She's a hard core Leftist, in spite of what she'll claim to be.  Just watch her posts and you'll see it too.


What?  She advocates for a way smaller government than you do.  It's not even really debatable.

----------


## The XL

Anyway, I do believe unions do more harm than good at this point.  What may have been needed years ago is not now.

----------

Coolwalker (01-02-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> [/COLOR]What's wrong with that?  Since when does a business need a reason to fire somebody?


The problem I have is if a person gives a two week notice in right to work states which is the best to do in most states, they will just go ahead and let you go. The wages are lower also. If a business requires a person to give a two week notice shouldn't a company also do this? They talk about loyalty and all that crap but don't use those standards when it comes to employees. If you don't see anything wrong with this , I can't help you.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> The problem I have is if a person gives a two week notice in right to work states which is the best to do in most states, they will just go ahead and let you go. The wages are lower also. If a business requires a person to give a two week notice shouldn't a company also do this? They talk about loyalty and all that crap but don't use those standards when it comes to employees. If you don't see anything wrong with this , I can't help you.


I quite agree.  Sounds like a gentleman's agreement without gentlemen.

----------


## Maximatic

> But one "Bloke" pays the others wages. He takes  the chances. He provides for the safety...the worker just works  therefore deserves less of the pie than the employer.





> I don't think that the labourer should make as much as the employer, but I do think that you discount the role of the person doing the work.


You guys talking about how much someone should or should not make is like pissing in the wind. It's no different than trying to fix prices. Supply and demand will dictate what an employee can charge and what an employer can pay. Anything you try and do about it from outside of that relationship will always only screw up the market.

----------

garyo (01-02-2013),The XL (01-02-2013)

----------


## garyo

Like I said before, some have no concept, just opinions.

----------


## Roadmaster

> I quite agree.  Sounds like a gentleman's agreement without gentlemen.


Exactly but if you don't give a two weeks notice because most know what's going to happen, they will try and blacklist you from ever getting a job in their company or same name companies in other states in the future.

----------


## Paperback Writer

You have to understand that I've grown up in the UK so I'm used to labour laws and social policies that are more "liberal" that than of the States, so when I hear about this sort of thing I'm a bit taken aback as we are more protected in many respects.  However, our policies are not perfect.  I'm sure that the policies have inflated our currency and made it difficult for new industry to emerge.  I think there should be a balance between our system and yours.  Both labour and owner should be able to survive in whatever terminology that would respectively mean for them.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Ha!  Not even close.  She's a hard core Leftist, in spite of what she'll claim to be.  Just watch her posts and you'll see it too.


Unfortunately for you, this post is meaningless because you are utterly clueless what "leftist" actually means.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> having owned three separate businesses, I know exactly what it takes to earn a living and to keep things afloat. Two of those businesses were in the music industry and the other was a printing company. I never took guff from anyone who worked for me and I treated them fairly. When someone stepped out of line, they were gone. Life is too short to coddle people.


This is what I like to see, people who have real experience in the business world taking clueless lefties to task.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Unfortunately for you, this post is meaningless because you are utterly clueless what "leftist" actually means.


Whatever dude.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> But one "Bloke" pays the others wages. He takes the chances. He provides for the safety...the worker just works therefore deserves less of the pie than the employer.


The worker does not just work there. For some jobs, the worker's life could be in danger no matter how many safety precautions there are. This is made worse if they have a family. 

Employer and employee take equal risks, and both play necessary roles without which there would be no company.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Fascinating. I'd love to hear more about this. The music bit.
> 
> I realise I'm a bit of a wee bastard on here but a lot of it is taking a piss. I'm visiting with a mate and she told me the site could use a liberal perspective. Not sure if I'm liberal enough but I imagine you lads are having some fun cracking at a limey wanker. 
> Don't worry I am to home soon and you'll have your conservative paradise all to yourselves again.


Why would you stop posting just because you went home?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> What? She advocates for a way smaller government than you do. It's not even really debatable.


She's very anti business and anti corporation.  Conservatives know that businesses are behind American greatness, not government.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> Why would you stop posting just because you went home?


The time difference.  Right now I'm knackered to bits waiting on my friend to get here because I'm still on London time.

----------


## The XL

> She's very anti business and anti corporation.  Conservatives know that businesses are behind American greatness, not government.


She's anti corporatist, anti crony capitalism, but she's certainly not anti business.  I'd like some proof to back up your assertion, if you would

And she's either an anarchist or minarchist, she's described herself as both, months apart though, so I'm not sure what she considers herself now.  I think she's evolved into a minarchist.  Either way, she wants an extremely tiny/nonexistent government, so she certainly knows government has nothing to do with American greatness.

----------



----------


## Coolwalker

> The worker does not just work there. For some jobs, the worker's life could be in danger no matter how many safety precautions there are. This is made worse if they have a family. 
> 
> Employer and employee take equal risks, and both play necessary roles without which there would be no company.


There will always be workers but not always people who start up companies.

----------


## garyo

I couldn't imagine going over the hurdles I did when I started out 24yrs ago, I wouldn't do it under today's staggering regulations.

----------


## Coolwalker

> I couldn't imagine going over the hurdles I did when I started out 24yrs ago, I wouldn't do it under today's staggering regulations.


Me either. Lord...I just can't imagine fighting inflation, paying those staggering bills, employees, health care, fines...crap...just too much.

----------


## Maximatic

> She's anti corporatist, anti crony capitalism, but she's certainly not anti business.  I'd like some proof to back up your assertion, if you would
> 
> And she's either an anarchist or minarchist, she's described herself as both, months apart though, so I'm not sure what she considers herself now.  I think she's evolved into a minarchist.  Either way, she wants an extremely tiny/nonexistent government, so she certainly knows government has nothing to do with American greatness.


What's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist?

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (01-02-2013),The XL (01-02-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

> What's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist?


Six months.

----------


## The XL

Lol.  The suspense was killing me as I scrolled down the page.

----------


## Paperback Writer

I thought she was voluntaryist.  That's the latest bit she's trying to sell me on.  Four years ago she was a libertarian who liked Paul, now she wants to live in a commune and grow her own food supply.  Next time we talk she could be living in the woods like a sasquatch.  Never know what to expect with that one.  For example, where the bloody hell is she?  I'm starvin'.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Six months.


Bahahaha XD

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> She's anti corporatist, anti crony capitalism, but she's certainly not anti business.  I'd like some proof to back up your assertion, if you would
> 
> And she's either an anarchist or minarchist, she's described herself as both, months apart though, so I'm not sure what she considers herself now.  I think she's evolved into a minarchist.  Either way, she wants an extremely tiny/nonexistent government, so she certainly knows government has nothing to do with American greatness.


You don't have to convince me she's an anarchist.

----------


## The XL

> You don't have to convince me she's an anarchist.


Point being, she believes in small government, and you clearly do not.

----------


## patrickt

> Legislation didn't address those issues, mate.  That would be the problem.  You yanks are so thick.


I would say "you brits are such twits" but that wouldn't be true. It's just you and Carygrunt, Paperback.

Why haven't we passed legislation restricting the government and unions? Because there is so much money to be made by being corrupt and crooked. Why haven't we passed legislation requiring the politicians and bureaucrats to follow the same odious laws they require us to follow? Because they have the power.

We did pass laws limiting child labor. We did pass laws about minimum wages, although I disagree with that. One of the major skills of the unions is for taking credit for things they had nothing to do with and passing the buck for the damage they do. My god, Obama is a union man.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> What's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist?


About the same difference as light brown poo and dark brown.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> About the same difference as light brown poo and dark brown.


Ignorance at its finest.

Anarchist - No government

Minarchist - Small/limited government

----------


## Network

You jokers made me go through 5 previous pages to see who "she" was.  

She's a Molotov-throwing traitor, that's what.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> You jokers made me go through 5 previous pages to see who "she" was.  
> 
> She's a Molotov-throwing traitor, that's what.


Zosiasmom?  I'm having a hard time forming that image.  It's easier to picture her making a casserole for the church potluck than a molotov firebomb.

----------

Network (01-04-2013)

----------


## Network

> Zosiasmom?  I'm having a hard time forming that image.  It's easier to picture her making a casserole for the church potluck than a molotov firebomb.


She plays nice like the totalitarian Maoist dems do, but just like they will massacre you by the millions, she will Molotov your block, no doubt.

----------


## KSigMason

> They could have just allied for the war and then went on as free states. A bunch of sucker governors had cold feet and STILL signed up to be ruled by some bigger abstraction. Why?! Dumbasses!


I believe the Federalist papers covered this very topic.

----------

