Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35

Thread: The Labor Union Myth

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default The Labor Union Myth

    When President Trump won his travel ban the American people won a big one that could be the start of something big:


    Supreme Court Deals Big Setback to Labor Unions
    In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that non-members do not have to pay labor union fees.
    By Mark Sherman / AP 10:33 AM EDT

    http://time.com/5323405/supreme-cour...ions-decision/

    NOTE: The SCOTUS did not address union dues forcing Americans to purchase the Democrat Party’s big government ideology.


    Justice Elena Kagan wrote the main dissent in the case, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.


    Opinion analysis: Court strikes down public-sector union fees (Updated)
    Amy Howe
    Posted Wed, June 27th, 2018 12:14 pm

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/op...or-union-fees/
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1466_2b3j.pdf

    Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees is worth looking back to a brief history of the American Labor Movement.

    Bumper sticker mentalities be forewarned.

    Beginning in 1962 there were two labor movements operating in the United States at the same time:

    1. The private sector labor movement.

    2. The federal government employee labor movement.

    Note that JFK created government unions by executive order:


    Fifty years ago, on January 17, 1962, Federal employees first obtained the right to engage in collective bargaining through labor organizations when President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, "Employee-Management Cooperation in the Federal Sector." Executive Order 10988 issued as result of the findings of the Task Force on Employee-Management Relations in the Federal Service, which was created by a memorandum issued to all executive department and agency heads by President Kennedy on June 22, 1961. In this memorandum the President noted that, "The participation of employees in the formation and implementation of employee policy and procedures affecting them contributes to the effective conduct of public business," and that this participation should be extended to representatives of employees and employee organizations.

    https://www.flra.gov/50th_Anniversary_EO10988

    The first president of the AFL-CIO opposed public sector unions:

    “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
    That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.

    Public sector unions insist on laws that serve their interests -- at the expense of the common good.

    The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

    Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.


    F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions
    James Sherk
    Updated July 23, 2014, 4:19 PM

    https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...-sector-unions

    As did Calvin Coolidge:

    When government workers tried to engage in private sector-type unionism, they ran into fierce opposition. The 1919 Boston police strike—which occurred in the middle of the post-World War I Red Scare and an extraordinary year-long series of militant strikes in virtually every industry—showed how far public employers would go to block public-sector militancy and the political gains to be made in doing so. The Boston police commissioner did not object when police officers joined a local, independent association. But when they affiliated their group with the AFL, in effect claiming the same rights and status as private-sector workers, he suspended nineteen officers, precipitating a walkout. Governor Calvin Coolidge, in the name of defending “the sovereignty of Massachusetts,” fired all the strikers, brought in state troops to patrol the city, and recruited a new police force from demobilized soldiers. He rode his strike-breaking into the 1920 Republican vice presidential nomination and ultimately to the White House.

    Many liberals shared Coolidge’s belief that government employees should not be allowed to unionize, or at least not engage in private-sector style unionism. In 1937 President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a letter to the head of a federal employees group, proclaimed that:

    All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service... . The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives...

    This is the essence of the sovereignty argument against public-sector unionism, that collective bargaining undercuts the inherent power of the state as a sovereign representative of the people, and therefore is anti-democratic.


    6-8-11
    A Brief History of Opposition to Public-Sector Unionism
    by Steve Fraser and Joshua B. Freeman

    http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/139820


    Two labor movements were diametrically opposed to one another from day one although private sector union members were shielded from that truth at all costs. Government employee unions organized against the American people while private sector unions are part of the American people.

    NOTE: There has not been an effective private sector labor movement in this country since the National Labor Relations Act was amended by Taft-Hartley in 1947. The private sector labor movement in the U.S. was only effective from about 1934 until Taft-Hartley became law over President Truman’s veto; a period of thirteen or so years.

    When the AFL merged with the CIO in 1955, the heart and soul of the private sector labor movement was finally laid to rest. The AFL was basically made up of skilled workers while the CIO was made up of semi-skilled and unskilled workers.

    I always found humor in the fact that in the beginning owners and their stooges hated unions while union members in the AFL hated the CIO.

    Parenthetically, there were no engineers on sailing ships. MEBA, (Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association) was founded in 1875. Jack London’s novels told us 'Butch' Raglan

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034431/

    and Wolf Larsen were the villains

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034162/

    but old-time seaman who sailed in the late 19th century always said that engineers were the worst sons-of-bitches that ever sailed. They had their union but did not want unlicenced personnel to organize. Being “officers” in a quasi-military industry they made life a living hell for unlicenced personnel. Glorified auto mechanics eventually saw the error of their ways after unlicensed engineers organized and acquired some muscle of their own.

    Taft-Hartley, combined with the AFL-CIO merger, gave big government advocates absolute control over both labor movements just by controlling a few labor leaders. Most importantly, union shops lost the Right to call a job action at the local level.

    Taft-Hartley also took away union power that is inherent in secondary boycotts. For example: If union members working in an oil refinery go out on strike at the refinery, union members cannot picket gas stations selling that company’s product. That is a secondary boycott. Organized labor’s awesome power was effectively placed in the hands of a few union officials who play golf in the same country clubs with the executives of major corporations and high-ranking government officials.

    America’s part in WWII was fought from Dec. 1941 to Aug. 1945; towards the end of the private sector labor movement’s most influential years. I do not know just what effect that war had on union membership, but I do know that the men and women who fought that war did not flock to the union banner when they came home. Had they done so Taft-Hartley would never have become law.

    The possibility that private sector organized labor unions might return to an adversarial relationship with management is the biggest economic fear Socialists/Communists live with. The last thing Democrats want is for private sector workers to see the government as management. The government seen as management would lead to labor unions picketing the government rather than going out on strike against one corporation or another.

    Should Democrat Party fears become a reality great opposition to the creation of tax dollar millionaires loyal to Socialism would spring up like Jack’s beanstalk. That possibility is better eliminated before it takes hold.

    There is also a possibility that workers in private sector unions, that is workers in industries that actually produce something, will demand the same unlimited access to their income tax dollars education and medical industries enjoy.

    Socialists eliminated opposition from private sector labor unions by transferring as many jobs as possible to foreign countries. After those industries that lend themselves to organized labor here in the United States were spread thin in dozens of foreign countries, the private sector labor union all but disappeared entirely. Private sector laborers in every country can then be enslaved by the United Nations/International Community (UNIC) in order to establish a universal minimum wage at the lowest possible level. A universal minimum wage is essential in protecting the fortunes and incomes of absentee owners on a global scale. Notice that I said “absentee owners” rather than owners.

    Socialists must always leech off of the producers. If the producers are not working there is nothing to feed on. In the case of labor unions Socialists are twice a leech. They donned a cloak of respectability by hiding in the ranks of necessary civil servants, and at the same time they camped under the same tent as private sector labor unions; feeding on, while controlling, both.

    Private sector unions were established in the U.S. away back in the nineteenth century, but they were powerless for the most part until the Great Depression. The Sailors Union of the Pacific was founded in 1884, but it remained powerless until the nineteen-thirties.

    Here is a little bit about the labor movement you will not learn in a public school.

    Whenever a seaman quit a ship prior to the year 1934, that ship’s master would write in the seaman’s employment book what he thought of that seaman’s performance and conduct. That book, known as a fink book, was despised by every seaman that ever sailed before the mast. Before a seaman could sign aboard a ship, the master would read what previous captains had to say about the job applicant. If there was one black mark in the fink book the seaman in question was not hired.

    NOTE: In Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island, that scoundrel Long John Silver assumes the mantle of a moralist when one of his fellow mutineers marks a black spot on a page torn form the Bible. I always felt that R. L. Stevenson was having some fun with readers of his day by implying that the Holy Bible was a fink book fated to be championed by the likes of Long John. There is certainly more going on in that specific chapter of Treasure Island than meets the eye when first read.

    Seamen were required to carry the very instrument that might deny them employment. Without a fink book in his possession a seaman would be lucky to find a berth on the meanest of ships.

    Even before labor legislation came into existence, steamship companies would call the union hiring hall for replacements. Seamen that shipped out of the hiring hall were also required to supply their fink books upon demand. The SUP hiring hall, going back to the year 1900 or thereabouts, was nothing more than a shack on a pier in San Francisco harbor.

    During the big strike in 1934, the boys got together at the Ferry Building down at the foot of Market Street in San Francisco and burned their fink books; no small decision in the throes of a deepening depression. The fat was in the fire so to speak. They either won that strike or they could forget about earning a living on ships. Of course, they won that all important strike and fink books were done away with. Or, to be more accurate, the fink book evolved into “seaman’s papers” issued by the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Seaman’s papers are nothing more than a military type ID card the Coast Guard can revoke at any time. No one can get seaman’s papers without a promise of employment from a union or a shipping company which further shows how unions and government work together. I do not know if it is still the same, but it used to be that not everyone with seaman’s papers could sail on oceangoing vessels. Only those papers with the endorsement “Any waters. Unlimited” or some such terminology could work on oceangoing vessels. The endorsement on some papers restricts employment to rivers, harbors, the Great Lakes, etc.

    Without seaman’s papers you cannot work on an American flag vessel. Not that it matters to the overall economy since this country no longer has a merchant marine worth mentioning. Building and sailing oceangoing vessels was the first industry to be outsourced long before outsourcing dominated economic foreign policy.

    It is important to understand that the fink book embraced company stiffs. In theory, abolishing fink books would be replaced by a system of job rotation. Although job rotation works very well in very limited applications, that system of allocating labor is unrealistic on a national scale even though it was an important evolutionary step in labor-management relations.

    NOTE: The men in the SUP who opposed the fink book were never against ownership. The private sector’s labor movement’s most important slogan was always “Down with the hated boss.” It was never”Down with the hated owner” —— robber barons notwithstanding. The earliest union members wanted a piece of the wealth their labors created so they could become owners. Hence, a dedicated private sector union man or woman represented a very important component in American capitalism. Now that Socialists —— implementing Communist thinking —— control the American workforce there are no true union workers in the U.S.

    The fink book wheel has truly come around. There are a few private sector unions whose members enjoy high pay. Today’s unions use a system of invisible fink books that protect sloth, lifetime tenure, favoritism, nepotism and butt-sucking. The only significant difference is that today’s company stiffs have to suck up to a union official rather than a company supervisor.

    Many Americans who pay dues to one union or another mistakenly believe they are trade unionists occupying the moral high ground against the evil slave masters. Few of today’s rank and file union members know that the altruism associated with unions in an earlier age is largely a myth. The early labor movement was about capitalism; it was about individuals getting a piece of the pie for themselves. It was never about collectivism in the minds of rank and file union men back in the beginning.

    One must be well-connected to get into a well-paying union. Most, if not all, of the high paying union jobs are passed down from father to son. That form of union nepotism was practiced by white Americans before federal and state intervention into the workplace, and is now used just as effectively by minorities against the majority. The government’s interference in this area of labor changed two things. It reversed who got good jobs, and it made every level of the workplace dependent upon government patronage. Any American who does NOT hold a good union job has no reason to vote for candidates who support private sector, or civil service, labor unions.

    Many of the Johnny-come-lately unions that were founded in the middle and late nineteen-thirties were organizations designed to prevent guild Socialism type unions from flourishing. American working men and women were attracted to unions during the Great Depression, but they were not attracted to unions that fill the air with an overpowering stench of guild Socialism.

    Private sector labor unions throughout their brief period of some political influence contributed much to creating a secure private sector middle class. A private sector middle class is a cancer on society when viewed from a government perspective.

    Socialists/Communists believe that every society should be structured with them at the top, government employees and business managers in the middle class, and every private sector employee at the bottom; earning less than the lowest paid government employee earns. That is the natural order of things to a Communist. Anything less than that is not pure Socialism.

    Except for a very few unions whose members are still exceptionally well-paid private sector unions were given the dirty end of the stick after Taft-Hartley, while civil service unions escalated their rush to Socialism led by the teachers’ unions.

    Before private sector union members vote for candidates who are unquestionably in favor of big government they should ask themselves the following questions:

    1. How many unionized teaching jobs went overseas because of trade agreements?

    2. How many teaching jobs of any kind went overseas?

    3. How many administrative jobs in the entire field of education went overseas?

    4. What is the number of all unionized civil service jobs lost to foreign trade agreements?


    5. Do private sector unions have as much influence in Washington, or in state capitals, as do civil service unions or the teachers’ unions? (Teachers really belong to civil service unions when you get right down to it.)

    6. Do I actually believe that government employee unions controlled by big government Socialists are rowing the boat in the same direction as me?

    7. Is there one private sector union whose members receive full pay from the company for not showing up for work?


    NOTE: Private sector Americans loved it when the government was shut down by President Clinton. They thought the national debt could be paid off if federal employees stayed home for a while. Americans only turned against government shut downs when they found out that federal employees got full pay and benefits for not working. No private sector union ever got a deal like that during organized labor’s best days. As far as I know, the labor contract with government unions remains the same.

    8. What is the number of foreign nationals holding influential positions, paid by tax dollars, in the United States? In think tanks? In universities? In government bureaucracies?

    9. Could the answers to the above questions be the reason why so many Americans have turned against all unions? (There was a time in this country when many non-union Americans would honor a picket line as a show of respect for working people. Not so anymore.)

    It just blows my mind knowing that rank & file private sector union members vote for the very Democrats who have been screwing them in incremental steps for the last half century or so. It is global village Democrats who are most responsible for sending jobs overseas, yet trade agreements alone are blamed for the loss of union jobs. Conservatives are not lily-white in this area to be sure, but they are less to blame for loss jobs than are the global villagers.

    Considering the way rank & file union members vote, I have to conclude that those voters think they have it as good as it gets. In my opinion things would be a hell of a lot better with a much smaller government controlling less of everything. Jobs will never come back to this country as long as the power structure is committed to a global village. And it would certainly be much better if every leech is driven away from the public trough. “If you ain’t necessary in maintaining traditional government, you ain’t getting your hands on tax dollars” says it all for me.

    Public sector unions is why I often say private sector union members should ever vote for labor union candidates, most especially candidates financed by teachers’ unions.

    Public sector unions are an abomination. None more than teachers’ unions, yet few Americans think about teachers’ unions as GOVERNMENT UNIONS designed to work against the American people.

    “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820 – 1895).

    At the time that pronouncement was laid down in Europe it sounded pretty good to people who had no property. The basic method used to impose a Communist dictate on American homeowners is quite simple: Confiscation.

    Do not pay your property taxes and Socialist teachers’ unions will bounce you out into the street faster than an old-time slum lord ever dreamed of doing. I am singling out the teachers’ unions because they are the primary beneficiaries of property taxes but they are not the only ones.

    Increasing local property taxes enriches parasites in the education industry. So with billions of property tax dollars going to education industry parasites every year how come American children are getting dumber by the hour? The day is not far off when a vast majority of Americans will be legally defined as idiots. I say Americans because ill-educated children become dumb adults.

    From a Socialist/Communist perspective property taxes are a far greater detriment to individual liberties than the income tax because property taxes give teachers’ unions, far more leverage over the homeowner than does the income tax.

    Incidentally, you never hear politicians of any stripe brag about property taxes being up, too. Big government parasites do not want homeowners in communities where taxes are still relatively low noticing that Socialism is slowly creeping its way towards them.

    Note that parasites also bankrupt the public education system. Not to worry about that one. Teachers’ unions have their own key to the public trough.

    The federal government turning to property taxes for more revenue should be a very real fear to Americans because candidates for federal office sweat bullets at the thought of turning the teachers’ unions against them. Why should that be? Property taxes are levied by each state or local community; so anyone running for federal office should not be afraid of the teachers’ unions. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of politicians are afraid because teachers’ unions want office-holders in Washington indebted to teachers.

    Major and minor political parties cater to, as well as fear, the teachers’ unions because the Ministry of Propaganda is squarely on the side of teachers feeding at the tax tub for all they can get.
    Last edited by Flanders; 12-10-2018 at 01:10 PM.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. The Following User Groans At Flanders For This Awful Post:

    FUCK THE POLICE (12-10-2018)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    61,320
    Thanks
    7,144
    Thanked 8,821 Times in 6,166 Posts
    Groans
    5,805
    Groaned 1,532 Times in 1,444 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Labor unions were against bosses and not the owners? Like how fucking stupid can you be? The entire point of the labor movement is that more should go to the actual producers, and less to the leeching owners who merely receive rent while contributing nothing to society.
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to FUCK THE POLICE For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (12-11-2018)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by You thought it was View Post
    Labor unions were against bosses and not the owners? Like how fucking stupid can you be? The entire point of the labor movement is that more should go to the actual producers, and less to the leeching owners who merely receive rent while contributing nothing to society.
    To You thought it was: Try not to be an asshole all of your life. Make an effort to learn the difference between owners and ABSENTEE OWNERS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Notice that I said “absentee owners” rather than owners.

    Socialists must always leech off of the producers. If the producers are not working there is nothing to feed on. In the case of labor unions Socialists are twice a leech.
    The so-called robber barons were essential in building this country. If you were on a real jury you would have found Roark guilty:



    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    You have to love it when the press goes on strike against the press. This is a bastardized version of strikes:


    Writers and editors at Slate have voted nearly unanimously to green-light a strike, escalating tensions between the digital publication and its newly unionized employees.

    Had labor unions been restricted to bargaining for wages only, —— not vacation time, not sick time, coffee time, maternity leave, pensions, work rules, and the rest of the garbage labor unions imposed on the country Slate would be the creek without a paddle. Notice that the Writers Guild did bury a wage demand under the rest of the garbage. They would have been fools not to since wages are paid with tax deductible advertising dollars:


    Slate’s editorial employees authorized the potential strike by a vote of 52 to 1, according to a spokesman for the Writers Guild of America – East, and are now weighing when they may walk off the job. Along with stronger diversity policies and cost of living increases, the union wants the company to back off its insistence on making union fees optional, the kind of “right-to-work” policy loathed by liberals and organized labor.

    “We just feel that it’s a total and absolute betrayal of Slate’s most fundamental values,” said Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern, a member of the union’s bargaining committee. In June, President Trump’s Supreme Court appointee Neil Gorsuch was part of a 5-4 majority that made the whole U.S. public sector “right-to-work,” a ruling roundly denounced on Slate’s site.

    Slate did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The Slate union is part of a wave of organizing in digital media, fueled by industry upheaval and buoyed by media brands’ sensitivity to public shaming. In recent years, workers have unionized at outlets including Gizmodo Media Group, the HuffPost, Vice Media, the Guardian, the Daily Beast, and the New Yorker.

    The recently unionized digital media shops have yet to stage a full-fledged strike. Union members at legal news website Law360 authorized a strike but didn’t end up mounting one. Last week they reached a tentative deal which includes a ban on quotas for how many articles employees write and a requirement that the contract stay in effect even if the company is sold, according to a spokesman for their union, the Communications Workers of America’s NewsGuild.

    Workers in a number of other industries have recently gotten results by striking, including charter school teachers in Chicago, Marriott workers in several cities, and thousands of non-union Google employees around the world who staged a walkout over the company’s handling of sexual misconduct.

    Voting to authorize a strike sends a powerful signal of solidarity, said Temple University labor law professor Brishen Rogers: “Workers will only walk out if they trust one another to actually walk out, and to support one another during the strike.”

    Some of Slate’s freelance contributors have already signaled their solidarity with the site’s employees. In October, a group of law professors and other legal experts who’ve written for Slate released a statement urging the company to abandon its insistence on “right-to-work,” calling it “anathema to the values that drew us to Slate in the first place.”

    Jordan Weissmann, who covers business at Slate, said he’s also received messages of support from dozens of “Slate Plus” members, who pay $35 or more a year for additional content. “People support publications that align with our values right now,” Weissman said, and Slate “has positioned itself in front of its readers and the public as part of the resistance.”

    Before the strike vote, Slate employees engaged in other forms of protest, including hour-long periods during which they refused to respond to their managers on the workplace chat hub Slack.

    The union’s proposals include a requirement that Slate consider a diverse mix of candidates for open positions. The company is owned by Graham Holdings Company, whose other assets include a health and hospice care provider, TV stations, and the education and test prep company Kaplan. Graham Holdings was named the Washington Post Company until it sold that paper to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in 2013.


    Slate's Newly Unionized Writers and Editors Give OK to Strike
    By Josh Eidelson
    December 11, 2018, 9:52 AM EST

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-her-in-canada

    Does anybody think the American people will honor journalists walking on a picket line?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    (There was a time in this country when many non-union Americans would honor a picket line as a show of respect for working people. Not so anymore.)
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To You thought it was: Try not to be an asshole all of your life. Make an effort to learn the difference between owners and ABSENTEE OWNERS.



    The so-called robber barons were essential in building this country. If you were on a real jury you would have found Roark guilty:



    Oh gawd not another free market fundamentalist. Yes...Capital is neccessary for economic growth and all respect given for producing Capital but this nonsensical bullshit that they do it all on their very own is completely divorced from reality. In that vein, a health market economy not only needs capitalist but also needs organized labor so that both entities are on equal footing when negotiating the cost of goods and services. If labor is denied it's right to organize and negotiate in equal terms than you don't have a free market economy. What you really have is an oligarchy.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mott the Hoople For This Post:

    Lightbringer (12-12-2018), Phantasmal (12-12-2018)

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    27,505
    Thanks
    5,209
    Thanked 7,295 Times in 5,845 Posts
    Groans
    1,263
    Groaned 390 Times in 368 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Oh gawd not another free market fundamentalist. Yes...Capital is neccessary for economic growth and all respect given for producing Capital but this nonsensical bullshit that they do it all on their very own is completely divorced from reality. In that vein, a health market economy not only needs capitalist but also needs organized labor so that both entities are on equal footing when negotiating the cost of goods and services. If labor is denied it's right to organize and negotiate in equal terms than you don't have a free market economy. What you really have is an oligarchy.
    Thank you, I've been saying this for a while now. Unions are necessary for a healthy capitalist economy.
    Don't be afraid to see what you see

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lightbringer For This Post:

    Mott the Hoople (12-12-2018), Phantasmal (12-12-2018)

  11. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Oh gawd not another free market fundamentalist. Yes...Capital is neccessary for economic growth and all respect given for producing Capital but this nonsensical bullshit that they do it all on their very own is completely divorced from reality. In that vein, a health market economy not only needs capitalist but also needs organized labor so that both entities are on equal footing when negotiating the cost of goods and services. If labor is denied it's right to organize and negotiate in equal terms than you don't have a free market economy. What you really have is an oligarchy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Guille View Post
    Thank you, I've been saying this for a while now. Unions are necessary for a healthy capitalist economy.

    To Mott the Hoople
    & Guille: In your view of a capitalist economy who negotiates for the taxpayers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Two labor movements were diametrically opposed to one another from day one although private sector union members were shielded from that truth at all costs. Government employee unions organized against the American people while private sector unions are part of the American people.
    capitalism (noun)

    an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or sate owned means of wealth.

    laissez faire also laisser faire (noun)

    1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

    2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  12. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    27,505
    Thanks
    5,209
    Thanked 7,295 Times in 5,845 Posts
    Groans
    1,263
    Groaned 390 Times in 368 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post

    To Mott the Hoople
    & Guille: In your view of a capitalist economy who negotiates for the taxpayers?
    No one. Elected representatives set tax rates.
    Don't be afraid to see what you see

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Lightbringer For This Post:

    Mott the Hoople (12-12-2018)

  14. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post

    To Mott the Hoople
    & Guille: In your view of a capitalist economy who negotiates for the taxpayers?
    Quote Originally Posted by Guille View Post
    No one. Elected representatives set tax rates.
    To Guille: Are you putting me on, or are you naturally stupid? What in hell do elected representatives have to do with negotiating a government union contract? Even if there is connection conservatives will cut wages. Better still they could do this to government unions:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Had labor unions been restricted to bargaining for wages only, —— not vacation time, not sick time, coffee time, maternity leave, pensions, work rules, and the rest of the garbage labor unions imposed on the country.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  15. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    27,505
    Thanks
    5,209
    Thanked 7,295 Times in 5,845 Posts
    Groans
    1,263
    Groaned 390 Times in 368 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To Guille: Are you putting me on, or are you naturally stupid? What in hell do elected representatives have to do with negotiating a government union contract? Even if there is connection conservatives will cut wages. Better still they could do this to government unions:
    Everything, dumbass.
    Don't be afraid to see what you see

  16. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post

    To Mott the Hoople
    & Guille: In your view of a capitalist economy who negotiates for the taxpayers?



    capitalism (noun)

    an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or sate owned means of wealth.

    laissez faire also laisser faire (noun)

    1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

    2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.
    Your elected representatives. BTW, laissez faire capitalism, due to its perpetual boom/bust cycles, is every bit as failed an economic system as communism and probably even more exploitative.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Mott the Hoople For This Post:

    Lightbringer (12-12-2018)

  18. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    27,505
    Thanks
    5,209
    Thanked 7,295 Times in 5,845 Posts
    Groans
    1,263
    Groaned 390 Times in 368 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Your elected representatives. BTW, laissez faire capitalism, due to its perpetual boom/bust cycles, is every bit as failed an economic system as communism and probably even more exploitative.
    Exactly. No oversight is a bad thing no matter what system you run.
    Don't be afraid to see what you see

  19. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To Guille: Are you putting me on, or are you naturally stupid? What in hell do elected representatives have to do with negotiating a government union contract? Even if there is connection conservatives will cut wages. Better still they could do this to government unions:
    Are you purposefully being obtuse? You didn't ask him who negotiated a government union contract, you asked who negotiated for the taxpayers and Guille gave you a factually correct answer.

    My guess is you're probably some sort of Government worker who's never spent a day running his own business or working in a corporate office. For whatever reason conservative government workers love to lecture those of us who actually work in the capitalist world about the glories and the wonders of capitalism.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  20. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guille View Post
    Exactly. No oversight is a bad thing no matter what system you run.
    Yup, the real question we argue about is how much regulation is to much/not enough regulation.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  21. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    27,505
    Thanks
    5,209
    Thanked 7,295 Times in 5,845 Posts
    Groans
    1,263
    Groaned 390 Times in 368 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Yup, the real question we argue about is how much regulation is to much/not enough regulation.
    Yep, the argument seems to center on that. I say regulation should discourage advantage.
    Don't be afraid to see what you see

Similar Threads

  1. APP - This Labor Day: The Renewed Labor Movement?
    By Howey in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 09-05-2013, 05:23 PM
  2. Anecdotal evidence busting a union myth
    By Canceled.2014.1 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-26-2013, 05:57 PM
  3. Obama's Labor Union Problem/Challenge
    By cawacko in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2011, 02:46 PM
  4. this should annoy the anti-labor union folks
    By Don Quixote in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-30-2009, 06:36 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-09-2008, 08:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

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