Why Aren't We Talking About Union Busting?

I saw the video before, either they aren't doctors (easy to get a lab coat) or they're med students who figured they'd start some shit. I know they've got one of the slips and looked up the license number and all, but that can be forged too.

I wouldn't even be surprised if this was some stunt by some conservative group.
 
They also believed O'Keefe's ACORN videos at first, too.

And the Shirley Sherrod videos.

And the Planned Parenthood "child sex trafficking" videos.

You see where I'm going with this.
 
Didn't see the cbs link. I guess I'll believe it for now. I don't see anything unethical happening however. It's their opinion against yours whether they should have been given notes for anything. Although this could end up hurting the teachers later on if the schools stop accepting these notes as excuses for being out.
 
Yeah the Breitbart standard of proof is a really tough standard to meet. Now we need to see a board certified doctor diagnose an otherwise healthy teacher as 'sick' after giving the teacher a full examination. Otherwise it isn't believable.
 
Come to think of it, what is the penalty for impersonating a doctor? I mean even though one was supposedly named in the CBS article, if that turned out to be someone using the name, how much trouble could they be in?
 
Yeah that's been stated for a while now, that they're willing to take a hit to benefits and pension if Walker will leave collective bargaining alone. His response has basically been "fuck off".
 
[quote name='Clak']Yeah that's been stated for a while now, that they're willing to take a hit to benefits and pension if Walker will leave collective bargaining alone. His response has basically been "fuck off".[/QUOTE]

Bingo. Can't reason with liars.
 
[quote name='IRHari']http://www.mediaite.com/tv/liberal-media-this-week-unfairly-balances-tea-party-and-union-protests/

My favorite part:



Right, because for the past 2 years the GOP totally respected the fact that the Democrats won and 'dealt with it'. We should now defer to them and their union busting agenda.[/QUOTE]

This is my biggest problem with today's politics. For nearly 20 years since the republicans and newt gingrich gained power during Clinton's presidency any win is seen as a "mandate by the people." This results in the winning party going buck-wild shoving their agenda down our throats as quickly as possible. Then the American public gets tired of it and votes in the opposite party which makes them then think they've got the "mandate."
 
[quote name='Don Chubo']Smells like fraud so far. If this is what's going on, docs ought to have their licenses pulled. Protesting teachers ought to be canned it's not like they need to be there anyway, the unions are busing in an ample amount of protesters.[/QUOTE]

It's a bit of a stretch to compare taking sick days to outright class warfare. Apples and bowling balls, etc.

Just saw this on reddit:

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).
Click to expand...

It's a nice little excerpt from the bill Walker's trying to ram through. That's right kids, this is an attempt at no-bid privatization of the state's power plants.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']This is my biggest problem with today's politics. For nearly 20 years since the republicans and newt gingrich gained power during Clinton's presidency any win is seen as a "mandate by the people." This results in the winning party going buck-wild shoving their agenda down our throats as quickly as possible. Then the American public gets tired of it and votes in the opposite party which makes them then think they've got the "mandate."[/QUOTE]

That's just the surface game to distract you while they chum up with their rich buddies to pick your pocket.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']holy shit why?[/QUOTE]
I can't believe the union gave them what they wanted money wise. And I can't believe the Republicans didn't take the offer.
 
If it was actually about the budget, then they wouldve taken the deal. But its primarily about destroying the democratic party, with a side of selling state assets to the Koch brothers.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']It's a nice little excerpt from the bill Walker's trying to ram through. That's right kids, this is an attempt at no-bid privatization of the state's power plants.[/QUOTE]

Wow. If you ever thought for a second that the Republicans weren't the party of the Kochs, the wealthy, and nobody else, now you see otherwise. They have nothing for you, no interest for you, and no interest for your well being.

speed, you're shocked that the Republicans didn't concede in a sensible fashion? you know better than that.

quillion, that link is somewhat heartening.
 
Unions are monopolies and just like monopolies they hurt everyone but those in them. The "collective bargaining" drives up the wages of the few at the expense of the consumer and all non labor workers within all other sectors as funds are diverted to wages. Do unions help the worker rights of non union members or scabs? Nope! Thy intimidate them with picket lines and violence. I don't see how anyone with common sense or knowledge about economics could see a benefit in unions and their restriction of labor with higher prices. We don't need them. Competition among employers drives up wages naturally and anything unnatural is unsustainable on a large scale over time.

Also noteworthy is that doctors are the only group which has pledged to refrain from unionizing. Good thing or we'd have doctors picketing hospitals for collective bargaining for higher pay, lower hours, nicer offices, etc. while everyone else suffers. It's what those jackass teacher unions are doing now. fuck them and all their supporters. fucking selfish monopoly goons! YOU are the culmination and face of all that is shit in politics.

Last note, instead of paying $$$ on union dues, why don't you put that money in a Roth IRA or 401k or mutual fund. No way the dues are a better investment. Unions makes no sense even at the Personal level.

Last last note, fucking union goons are no better than corporate monopolies. They are banned and so should you
 
:rofl:

Competition among employers drives up wages naturally and anything unnatural is unsustainable on a large scale over time.

:rofl:
 
[quote name='tivo']Unions are monopolies..."collective bargaining" drives up the wages of the few at the expense of the consumer and all non labor workers within all other sectors as funds are diverted to wages.[/QUOTE]

this guy respectfully disagrees with you:

[quote name='tivo']nstead of paying $$$ on union dues, why don't you put that money in a Roth IRA or 401k or mutual fund. No way the dues are a better investment. Unions makes no sense even at the Personal level.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='tivo']Competition among employers drives up wages naturally and anything unnatural is unsustainable on a large scale over time.[/QUOTE]

Shouldn't workers have someone fighting for them? So they're not being paid shitty wages? So they're not working in shitty working conditions?
 
Employees have to play fair IRHari, they each need to bargain individually with ginormous corporations. It's not a level playing field if they start joining together.
 
Could you imagine if large groups of employers got together and decided the wages and benefits they were going to provide as a group? Could be interesting.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Could you imagine if large groups of employers got together and decided the wages and benefits they were going to provide as a group? Could be interesting.[/QUOTE]


Don't we already have something like that, minimum wage and now the ACA?

How about at that same time we bring a cap on executive wages? Could be interesting.
 
[quote name='tivo']Unions are monopolies and just like monopolies they hurt everyone but those in them. The "collective bargaining" drives up the wages of the few at the expense of the consumer and all non labor workers within all other sectors as funds are diverted to wages. Do unions help the worker rights of non union members or scabs? Nope! Thy intimidate them with picket lines and violence. I don't see how anyone with common sense or knowledge about economics could see a benefit in unions and their restriction of labor with higher prices. We don't need them. Competition among employers drives up wages naturally and anything unnatural is unsustainable on a large scale over time.
[/QUOTE]

You just start taking an Econ 100 class or something? I agree that unions need to be roped in a little bit, but to say they serve no purpose doesn't make any sense, because history has shown multiple times how workers will be treated without unions.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Could you imagine if large groups of employers got together and decided the wages and benefits they were going to provide as a group? Could be interesting.[/QUOTE]

The 19th Century called and wants you back, Bob.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Could you imagine if large groups of employers got together and decided the wages and benefits they were going to provide as a group? Could be interesting.[/QUOTE]

Someone construct me a Captain Picard head the size of Jupiter.

You know where I'm going with this.

If you could also bend reality so it stops looking like fantasy, that'd be great too, because given the level of insanity that this thing is brewing I'm half expecting my broom to fly me across state if I just jump high enough with it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Could you imagine if large groups of employers got together and decided the wages and benefits they were going to provide as a group? Could be interesting.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't gigantic companies or multinationals doing it be enough? I'm trying to think of an employer with the power to set wages and benefits, regardless of local market conditions. An employer like that would have far more power than a localized union. Can you think of one Bob?
[quote name='mykevermin']speed, you're shocked that the Republicans didn't concede in a sensible fashion? you know better than that.[/QUOTE]
I guess I forgot how full of shit they are.
 
Companies more ore less already do set wages and benefits collectively. It varies from company to company of course, but few people are going to find work at a company making outside of standard pay for a position within a field. Now you can call that the free market or whatever you want, but the fact is that companies set the pattern for pay in basically any field/industry.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Wouldn't gigantic companies or multinationals doing it be enough? I'm trying to think of an employer with the power to set wages and benefits, regardless of local market conditions. An employer like that would have far more power than a localized union. Can you think of one Bob?[/QUOTE]

I'm sure there are a few, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Even the world's largest employer, Walmart, adjusts pay based on local conditions (cost of living, etc.).
 
Yeah. The wealthy elite and large multinational corporations don't engage in political collectivism.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

...buh? Oh, wait. You actually think that.

'Scuse me while I go find the latest economic research AEI-Cato-Heritage-Club for Growth-US Chamber of Commerce.
 
Question for those following this:

What is your opinion of the Democrats walking out so votes can't be held on this bill?

I see Republicans livid that the minority can effectively halt the actions of the majority, such that you can't even have an up or down vote on the thing.

I see Democrats cheering the minority slowing and basically blocking an up or down vote on the thing.

Thoughts?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah. The wealthy elite and large multinational corporations don't engage in political collectivism.[/QUOTE]

regardless of local market conditions.

Besides, backroom deals are a lot different than open statements and rioting in the streets.

Let's pretend that every major and most minor gas station chains in the US got together and announced that they were going to start adding a flat $10 service fee on every gasoline purchase. What would happen?

Now, what would happen if one of the larger unions announced that they were going to start demanding $X or X Benefit for every member of said union?
 
[quote name='speedracer']I guess I forgot how full of shit they are.[/QUOTE]

Conservatives; in this country, in our lifetimes never act in good faith

It is the key to understanding quite a bit about modern life.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']regardless of local market conditions.

Besides, backroom deals are a lot different than open statements and rioting in the streets.

Let's pretend that every major and most minor gas station chains in the US got together and announced that they were going to start adding a flat $10 service fee on every gasoline purchase. What would happen?

Now, what would happen if one of the larger unions announced that they were going to start demanding $X or X Benefit for every member of said union?[/QUOTE]
There would be negotiations, probably a strike, eventually there would be a compromise most likely. In the meantime scabs would probably be hired to do the work.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']regardless of local market conditions.

Besides, backroom deals are a lot different than open statements and rioting in the streets.

Let's pretend that every major and most minor gas station chains in the US got together and announced that they were going to start adding a flat $10 service fee on every gasoline purchase. What would happen?

Now, what would happen if one of the larger unions announced that they were going to start demanding $X or X Benefit for every member of said union?[/QUOTE]

You show your ideological hand with your flippant treatment of 'backroom deals.' Go back and re-read the section of this same bill and examine how it allows for the privatization of energy plants and de facto defines them legally as in the public interest. How will this solve a revenue shortfall - giving away a source of revenue that will invariably cost citizens more to use?

More to the point, your greatest error is by presuming that unions always get their way. You don't think that, by virtue of merely existing, unions always get the demands they seek, right? They're far more conciliatory on the whole than the politicians you elect to office.
- Walker won't budge.
- Republicans won't speak out against Walker's unwillingness to budge (i.e., they won't budge either, whether they want to or not).
- Unions have made a negotiated offer of accepting the increase in contributions, but refuse to concede their bargaining rights.

Yet your conclusion is that unions wield all the power and always get their way? You haven't paid attention to unions in the US the past...well, your entire lifetime if you're in your mid/late 30's, have you? Particularly in the recent recession, union contracts have accepted accepted, via negotiation, forced furloughs, wage cuts, wage freezes, and a litany of other concessions. You don't know that because you can't be bothered to follow long term political/economic trends, and because it doesn't jive with your worldview.

So, to answer your question: what would happen if unions demanded something? The same thing that happens every time: they go to the negotiating table and negotiate a deal that is mutually agreed upon.
 
I've already mentioned that I'm not a fan of the way things are going down in this situation.

But I like that negotiation thing... it's a shame those giant mega-corporations control everything and people don't have a choice but to pay what they want when they want...
 
[quote name='IRHari']Shouldn't workers have someone fighting for them? So they're not being paid shitty wages? So they're not working in shitty working conditions?[/QUOTE]

Someone will be willing to work for those shitty wages, it's just that this group of unionizers believe they are ENTITLED to having better pay or working conditions. And then they antagonize workers who really need the job, calling them scabs, preventing them from entering work with picket lines and attacking them historically. Whose here to protect non unionizers or the little guys from this sort of intimidation. It should be the govt but there has NEVER been a case brought up against unions. They are all selfish goons
 
[quote name='tivo']Someone will be willing to work for those shitty wages, it's just that this group of unionizers believe they are ENTITLED to having better pay or working conditions. And then they antagonize workers who really need the job, calling them scabs, preventing them from entering work with picket lines and attacking them historically. Whose here to protect non unionizers or the little guys from this sort of intimidation. It should be the govt but there has NEVER been a case brought up against unions. They are all selfish goons[/QUOTE]

If you want shitty working conditions and if you want to be paid in credits you can only use at the company store, why don't you go find that job? If you want to do away with government intervention so bad, and if you want to eliminate workers' rights so bad, why not just go all the way and start becoming an advocate of returning to the truck system?

The rest of us enjoy the residual benefits of the history of collective worker action in the United States.
 
Lets ask those miners who were trapped in Chile if they would have liked a union that could have demanded safer working conditions from the mine.

Of course if it happened the way it did here, company goons would have intimidated the workers into not forming a union and any who didn't fall in line would have been "dealt with". At least that's the way they did it up in Virginia.
 
I can not say I'm pro-union, in fact I normally would argue against them and say the vast, vast majority are in need of major reform. I could probably argue that sure. However, I do not believe taking away their bargaining rights is aimed at accomplishing anything aside from the obvious & shady political objectives. I do not get how making temporary budget cuts involves permanantly removing a group's bargaining power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top