Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Proud to be union?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850

    Proud to be union?

    Unions at their best...

    Video from Michigan

    How do you protect your job? Violence and intimidation. Yeah.
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Re: Proud to be union?

    Let me be clear and say that I'm not anti-union. What I'm against is people being required to join unions whether they want to or not. I believe in free association, not forced association. Let unions collectively bargain only on behalf of the workers who are members, and let those who don't belong to the union hire attorneys for whatever grievances they have.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Let me be clear and say that I'm not anti-union. What I'm against is people being required to join unions whether they want to or not. I believe in free association, not forced association. Let unions collectively bargain only on behalf of the workers who are members, and let those who don't belong to the union hire attorneys for whatever grievances they have.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    I will say that I am.

    The union concept has far overstayed it's welcome. You should get a job because you are the best, not because you are willing to "play the game". I have never joined and I never will. The video shows the true nature of the machine they have constructed: violent, vulgar, abusive, tyrannical. They can suck eggs.

    IBEW has been very busy damaging my ability to work and feed my family here in Washington State by abusing the regulatory systems of the State. They and their willing cohorts in Tumwater are doing their very best to ensure that only union members from larger companies can flourish in the market.
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    210

    Re: Proud to be union?

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom First View Post
    I will say that I am.

    The union concept has far overstayed it's welcome. You should get a job because you are the best, not because you are willing to "play the game". I have never joined and I never will. The video shows the true nature of the machine they have constructed: violent, vulgar, abusive, tyrannical. They can suck eggs.

    IBEW has been very busy damaging my ability to work and feed my family here in Washington State by abusing the regulatory systems of the State. They and their willing cohorts in Tumwater are doing their very best to ensure that only union members from larger companies can flourish in the market.
    I did my apprenticeship with IBEW local 26 after leaving the army.

    You know what I was told the most? Slow down man, you'll work yourself out of a job.

    It was a lot of groupthink and god forbid if there were "scabs" working on site with us. People would screw with them all the time.

    Tap'n while driving...
    Last edited by Anonymouse; 12-11-2012 at 05:49 PM.

  5. #5

  6. #6
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Let me be clear and say that I'm not anti-union. What I'm against is people being required to join unions whether they want to or not. I believe in free association, not forced association. Let unions collectively bargain only on behalf of the workers who are members, and let those who don't belong to the union hire attorneys for whatever grievances they have.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    But federal labor law does not allow for that, if a union is certified for a worksite then they must represent a worker even if he's not a member.

    remember, if the big business owners had just played fair the first time around their would be no such thing as unions. unions are nessecary even today. just read up Wal-Marts issues, having been sued many times for forcing employees to work off the clock, locking employees in with no means to leave the store, refusing to give senior employees more then 34 hours to avoid paying benefits.

    but that never happened to me, beucase if it did then UFCW local 21 would've stood up for me.
    if you're so against union shops then don't work for a union shop and you wont have to join. I find it just stupid how people gripe and female-dog over union shops and them being "forced to join the union" and they're nearly always the same people who say "don't like what this business does then don't shop there"

    don't like a union shop then don't work in one, you have that option. in the mean time states shouldn't be standing passing "right to work laws" becuase they encourage viotation of federal labor law, in fact any state with such a law should automatically lose all federal funding (which would tank the economies of every right to work state because every single right to work state except texas sucks at the teat of the US taxpayer, only texas recieves less federal money then they contribute. lets see how well the right to work states do when they have to pay for schooling and medicaid and everything like that by themselves....

    all of the top contributer states (meaning states that pay in more then they take out) are union states. the right to work states have good economies only bcause they're being subsidized.

    EDIT
    if the union members don't think the union is doing a bang-up job they can always gather signatures and attempt a de-certification election too, it's not like there's no recourse against a union...
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 12-12-2012 at 03:56 AM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  7. #7
    Regular Member Tacitus42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tacoma,Wa
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    But federal labor law does not allow for that, if a union is certified for a worksite then they must represent a worker even if he's not a member.

    remember, if the big business owners had just played fair the first time around their would be no such thing as unions. unions are nessecary even today. just read up Wal-Marts issues, having been sued many times for forcing employees to work off the clock, locking employees in with no means to leave the store, refusing to give senior employees more then 34 hours to avoid paying benefits.

    but that never happened to me, beucase if it did then UFCW local 21 would've stood up for me.
    if you're so against union shops then don't work for a union shop and you wont have to join. I find it just stupid how people gripe and female-dog over union shops and them being "forced to join the union" and they're nearly always the same people who say "don't like what this business does then don't shop there"

    don't like a union shop then don't work in one, you have that option. in the mean time states shouldn't be standing passing "right to work laws" becuase they encourage viotation of federal labor law, in fact any state with such a law should automatically lose all federal funding (which would tank the economies of every right to work state because every single right to work state except texas sucks at the teat of the US taxpayer, only texas recieves less federal money then they contribute. lets see how well the right to work states do when they have to pay for schooling and medicaid and everything like that by themselves....

    all of the top contributer states (meaning states that pay in more then they take out) are union states. the right to work states have good economies only bcause they're being subsidized.

    EDIT
    if the union members don't think the union is doing a bang-up job they can always gather signatures and attempt a de-certification election too, it's not like there's no recourse against a union...
    First. So called union shops are owned by the company. Second. Sounds like your for options, just as long as we ask you first if its optional.
    More union douchbaggery..http://michellemalkin.com/2012/12/11...y-in-michigan/
    I was OC'ing when i wrote this.
    "Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms." Josey Wales

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Re: Proud to be union?

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    But federal labor law does not allow for that, if a union is certified for a worksite then they must represent a worker even if he's not a member.

    remember, if the big business owners had just played fair the first time around their would be no such thing as unions. unions are nessecary even today. just read up Wal-Marts issues, having been sued many times for forcing employees to work off the clock, locking employees in with no means to leave the store, refusing to give senior employees more then 34 hours to avoid paying benefits.

    but that never happened to me, beucase if it did then UFCW local 21 would've stood up for me.
    if you're so against union shops then don't work for a union shop and you wont have to join. I find it just stupid how people gripe and female-dog over union shops and them being "forced to join the union" and they're nearly always the same people who say "don't like what this business does then don't shop there"

    don't like a union shop then don't work in one, you have that option. in the mean time states shouldn't be standing passing "right to work laws" becuase they encourage viotation of federal labor law, in fact any state with such a law should automatically lose all federal funding (which would tank the economies of every right to work state because every single right to work state except texas sucks at the teat of the US taxpayer, only texas recieves less federal money then they contribute. lets see how well the right to work states do when they have to pay for schooling and medicaid and everything like that by themselves....

    all of the top contributer states (meaning states that pay in more then they take out) are union states. the right to work states have good economies only bcause they're being subsidized.

    EDIT
    if the union members don't think the union is doing a bang-up job they can always gather signatures and attempt a de-certification election too, it's not like there's no recourse against a union...
    Sorry, but I still can't agree with forced association. Unions are organizations, and no one should be forced to join any organization they don't want to join. And no union should be forced to represent anyone who isn't a member. If I want to work somewhere, I'm working there because that is what I want to do for a living; why should union membership be a caveat of me working there? Union membership, as well as the unions deciding to represent their own, should all be voluntary.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Why did they leave the police and firefighters unions out of the ruling?

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    <snip>
    A little research would clearly show that you are incorrect regarding your assertion that "right-to-work" encourages violation of federal labor law.

    Taft-Hartley Act.....giving states the right to opt out of the requirement that workers pay dues. The law technically allowed states to ban “union security clauses” in labor contracts requiring workers to belong to unions.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfi...ssion-era-law/
    You desire the citizen who does not wish to be a member of a union to be compelled, under threat of termination, to financially support that union. That is anti-liberty and anti-citizen.

    In one of its most significant rulings, Communications Workers vs. Beck, the high court held that workers can’t be compelled to pay for anything other than the costs of collective bargaining and representation in grievances and other matters before their employers. It is unconstitutional, the court held, to compel workers to pay dues for political activities they may disagree with.
    This issue is settled law. Right-to work is a desirable manifestation of what the SCOTUS has previously ruled. The only draw back is that the right-to-work laws do not address the union dues to cover only union specific functions. If my money could not under the law be used to fund liberal candidates then I would not complain. I do not cite conservative candidates cuz they are as rare as the California Condor.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    .........You desire the citizen who does not wish to be a member of a union to be compelled, under threat of termination, to financially support that union. That is anti-liberty and anti-citizen.........
    This is Truth. Unions had there place, but that time is gone. Only 12% of the gen pop is union (just said on q13) so why so much power and so much "shove it down your throat" tactics from them?

    This is anecdotal evidence shows that employment INCREASES with this sort of legislation.

    http://www.mackinac.org/16278

    Right-to-work means low unemployment. Between 1999 and 2009, non-farm private-sector employment grew 3.7 percent in right-to-work states, but decreased 2.8 percent in non-right-to-work states. Further, the vast majority of jobs created during the Obama administration have been in states with a right-to-work law. According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, right-to-work states (excluding Indiana, which passed a right-to-work law in early 2012) “were responsible for 72 percent of all net household job growth across the U.S. from June 2009 through September 2012.”
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Michigans race to the bottom begins.
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money...-29-wage_x.htm

    Per capita income by state. The BOTTOM TWENTY STATES are Right to WORK.


    The TOP TWENTY except Virginia are NOT, Michigan just passed yesterday, naturally a year from now the wages will be lower.
    A poorer, sicker population
    Workplace safety suffers even more under RTW laws. The rate of workplace deaths is 52.9 percent higher in RTW states. When it comes to health care, only 50.3 percent of employers in RTW states offer health insurance, compared to 56.7 percent in those with union rights. People in RTW states are 23.7 percent more likely to be uninsured, and their kids are 38.7 percent less likely to be insured.

    http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2012...d-the-economy/

    28.3 percent of jobs in RTW states are classified as “low-wage occupations,” while only 19.5 percent are classified as low-wage in workplace fairness states. It’s easier to create third-world level pay and benefits, which some multi-national employers absolutely love. But it’s a disaster for workers, their kids, and for America’s middle class.
    Last edited by beebobby; 12-12-2012 at 10:31 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Why did they leave the police and firefighters unions out of the ruling?
    They shouldn't have. We have had a fairly steady decrease in crime. Why do police demand more every year?

    I was told by the fire marshal when he was touring a rather large house I framed. "With the way you build now, you are building us out of work", my reply was "then why are we still paying you?" , the tour ended very shortly.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    A little research would clearly show that you are incorrect regarding your assertion that "right-to-work" encourages violation of federal labor law.

    You desire the citizen who does not wish to be a member of a union to be compelled, under threat of termination, to financially support that union. That is anti-liberty and anti-citizen.

    This issue is settled law. Right-to work is a desirable manifestation of what the SCOTUS has previously ruled. The only draw back is that the right-to-work laws do not address the union dues to cover only union specific functions. If my money could not under the law be used to fund liberal candidates then I would not complain. I do not cite conservative candidates cuz they are as rare as the California Condor.
    QFT

    Again he complains about the states "sucking at the Federal Teat" ignoring the fact the feds don't have milk they didn't steal from us to begin with.

    Freedom of association, why can't I work for my friends business at a lower rate just because his employees decided to unionize?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    This is Truth. Unions had there place, but that time is gone. Only 12% of the gen pop is union (just said on q13) so why so much power and so much "shove it down your throat" tactics from them?

    This is anecdotal evidence shows that employment INCREASES with this sort of legislation.

    http://www.mackinac.org/16278

    Right-to-work means low unemployment. Between 1999 and 2009, non-farm private-sector employment grew 3.7 percent in right-to-work states, but decreased 2.8 percent in non-right-to-work states. Further, the vast majority of jobs created during the Obama administration have been in states with a right-to-work law. According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, right-to-work states (excluding Indiana, which passed a right-to-work law in early 2012) “were responsible for 72 percent of all net household job growth across the U.S. from June 2009 through September 2012.”
    I used to think the same thing until I started delving more into the history of that a bit.

    Unions were a way for socialist/progressives to gain control. They also were and still are major problems with protectionism which harms the consumers more. Similar to how mercantilism in England were able to lobby for the King to make protectionist rules and laws that actually thwarted a thriving economy and the quality of life for many, but enriched the few.

    Real increase in wages and our quality of life came from technology. Once an employer started making money and reaping profits because he was helping others, socialist convinced the employees they needed to have a share of those profits. Which then helped make those items cost more, and thwarted the amount of goods we could by with our wages.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member HKcarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    831
    The union idiots destroyed this street vendor's hot dog cart. This guy's been in downtown lansing for years... I can't believe they would do something like this...

    http://www.gofundme.com/SupportClint
    When you put the gun in the holster, put the ego in the gun safe.

  17. #17
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I used to think the same thing until I started delving more into the history of that a bit.

    Unions were a way for socialist/progressives to gain control. They also were and still are major problems with protectionism which harms the consumers more. Similar to how mercantilism in England were able to lobby for the King to make protectionist rules and laws that actually thwarted a thriving economy and the quality of life for many, but enriched the few.

    Real increase in wages and our quality of life came from technology. Once an employer started making money and reaping profits because he was helping others, socialist convinced the employees they needed to have a share of those profits. Which then helped make those items cost more, and thwarted the amount of goods we could by with our wages.
    yes when you're working 12 hours a day with one day off a year, working in dangerous and dirty conditions and then when you ask management for more consideration and they tell you to pound sand, that does have the effect of encouraging socialism. so if you want to avoid socialism the answer is not to abuse people, its all good and well to talk about your theoretical libertarian system, but it doesn't account for human factors. people don't exist in a vacuum, they won't just happily slave away at whatever "the market" determines they're worth if they don't see it as fair, nor do the business owners want capitalism either. pure capitalism means less profits.

    true libertarianism is simply not possible on a macroeconomic scale, because people will only take so much before they violently overthrow the system or organize like the unions did. if the coal miners were being paid fairly and given proper safety equipment and the mine owners did it without being forced to then unions woud've never emerged... which proves my point that you always refuse to address, all unchecked capitalism leads to is socialism

    Sixteen tons, load sixteen tons and what do I get? another day older and deeper in debt! St. Peter don't call me, I can't go, I owe my soul to the company store
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 12-12-2012 at 12:33 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    yes when you're working 12 hours a day with one day off a year, working in dangerous and dirty conditions and then when you ask management for more consideration and they tell you to pound sand, that does have the effect of encouraging socialism. so if you want to avoid socialism the answer is not to abuse people, its all good and well to talk about your theoretical libertarian system, but it doesn't account for human factors. people don't exist in a vacuum, they won't just happily slave away at whatever "the market" determines they're worth if they don't see it as fair, nor do the business owners want capitalism either. pure capitalism means less profits.

    true libertarianism is simply not possible on a macroeconomic scale, because people will only take so much before they violently overthrow the system or organize like the unions did. if the coal miners were being paid fairly and given proper safety equipment and the mine owners did it without being forced to then unions would've never emerged... which proves my point that you always refuse to address, all unchecked capitalism leads to is socialism
    Your premise seems to be that the abolishment of unions would also mean the abolishment of federal laws that mandate workplace safety requirements.

    Also, there are laws that mandate the "basic" 40-hour workweek.

    5 USC § 6101 - Basic 40-hour workweek; work schedules; regulations

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/6101

    29 USC § 207 - Maximum hours

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/207

    29 USC § 206 - Minimum wage

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/206
    What prevents a non-union shop from only paying the federally mandated minimum wage?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Your premise seems to be that the abolishment of unions would also mean the abolishment of federal laws that mandate workplace safety requirements.

    Also, there are laws that mandate the "basic" 40-hour workweek.

    What prevents a non-union shop from only paying the federally mandated minimum wage?
    I responded to the claim that unions were established to promote socialism, my response was "yes" because of the conditions that people worked in during the time they were formed would tend to make people sympathetic to socialist ideas.

    after the big corporations are done destroying the unions, the workplace safety laws and OSHA are next, and SVG probably believes they should all be abolished anyway, because "The free market" will mandate workplace safety, just like they did circa 1870. no problems at all.

    as far as the mimimum wage it's getting their, if every employer suddenly charged only mimimum wage then there would be an uproar, like the frog put in boiling water, they're easing their wages down, or if wages do go up, the banks and federal reserve will simply loosen monetary police until we're all making the inflation adjusted equivelant of minimum wage. but they're doing it slowly so people become normalized to the idea.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    ....Also, there are laws that mandate the "basic" 40-hour workweek.......

    What prevents a non-union shop from only paying the federally mandated minimum wage?
    Nothing, but you do not have to work for minimum wage if you have an ability your employer wants. Do not force me, as an employer, to pay huge amounts of anything, when I have workers just as skilled who want to do the work for a bit less.

    obamacare says the "new" work week is thirty hours.
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obam...-now-full-time


    UNIONS KILLED THE TWINKIE
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  21. #21
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    Nothing, but you do not have to work for minimum wage if you have an ability your employer wants. Do not force me, as an employer, to pay huge amounts of anything, when I have workers just as skilled who want to do the work for a bit less.

    obamacare says the "new" work week is thirty hours.
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obam...-now-full-time


    UNIONS KILLED THE TWINKIE
    No bad business decisions killed the twinkie, Hostess had been in bankruptcy court twice before, both times the union made massive concessions to their contracts, and hostess still wanted more each time after promising that they could profitable for both bankruptcy sessions if the contracts were re-negotiated.

    Hostess was going brankrupt anyway. why would you suspect anything else? those who blame the union overlook (or are ignorant to) the face the bakers union gave hostess what they wanted twice before. saying that conceeding more on the contracts would save hostess is like saying raising taxes will plug the budget deficit, if more money goes to people who don't know what they're doing it won't help anyone.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I responded to the claim that unions were established to promote socialism, my response was "yes" because of the conditions that people worked in during the time they were formed would tend to make people sympathetic to socialist ideas.

    after the big corporations are done destroying the unions, the workplace safety laws and OSHA are next, and SVG probably believes they should all be abolished anyway, because "The free market" will mandate workplace safety, just like they did circa 1870. no problems at all.

    as far as the mimimum wage it's getting their, if every employer suddenly charged only mimimum wage then there would be an uproar, like the frog put in boiling water, they're easing their wages down, or if wages do go up, the banks and federal reserve will simply loosen monetary police until we're all making the inflation adjusted equivelant of minimum wage. but they're doing it slowly so people become normalized to the idea.
    Your premise that if/when unions are abolished, labor laws will then be repealed as a natural consequence from the abolishment of unions. That premise is pure fantasy, boarding on tinfoil hat rhetoric. I hold unions either in a positive nor negative light. Liberty demands that all citizens be free to associate or not as they choose. In right-to-work states there are union shops. Right-to-work is not anti-union it is pro-liberty and pro-citizen. Union security clauses are anti-liberty and anti-citizen.

    You may only be armed for self-defense outside of your home (RKBA) after the state grants your request to do so via a carry permit. Or, you may retain your job if you pay the union dues, if you refuse to pay the union dues you will be terminated.

    The choice is clear, keep your job or be terminated. The unemployed have the "luxury" of choosing a union shop or a non-union shop. Your continued advocacy of force association places you squarely in the anti-liberty/anti-citizen camp. Good day to you Sir.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    They shouldn't have. We have had a fairly steady decrease in crime. Why do police demand more every year?

    I was told by the fire marshal when he was touring a rather large house I framed. "With the way you build now, you are building us out of work", my reply was "then why are we still paying you?" , the tour ended very shortly.
    Was he suggesting that newer homes do not burn? If so, I would like you to build my next one. Newer homes are far more dangerous than older built homes. Sounds like this guy didn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground.
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  24. #24
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    I am a retired member of the National Association of Letter Carriers. I no longer pay dues, nor do I contribute to the political action fund. They supported Obama. I did not.

    For what it may be worth to those 71 percent of the "Hispanic" electorate who support the Dem's, Obama, and unions - I offer this little tidbit of history for their consideration:

    Back in 1958 my Dad was a card-carrying member of the California Carpenter's union. He was adamantly AGAINST the right to work effort. He was a construction superintendent, and union wages scale had been a great benefit to him.

    He got me an Apprentice Carpenter card when I was 16, and I worked as an A.C. under my Dad. The "Mexican-American" construction crew on the job COULD NOT OBTAIN A CARPENTER CARD - apprentice or journeyman. They could only obtain a Laborer card. Everyone of those guys had better carpentry skills than I did. I earned about .25 cents more an hour than a Laborer. That translated into significantly greater disparity in weekly take-home pay in 1958 than today. Those Laborers had families to support.

    Pretty sad commentary on union history I think . Things have changed since 1958 - but history speaks for itself.

    And yes - this sort of display of extremism by union thugs WILL bring about the destruction of their unions.

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Taxpayer money to fed government (Obama) => government (Obama) gives taxpayer money to UAW => union gives dues (formally taxpayer money) to democrats and Obama.

    Money laundering scheme.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •