Author Topic: Obama Calls Out the Union Thugs to Directly Engage Protesters! (Read 5211 times)

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #50 on:** August 10, 2009, 12:33:12 PM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 10, 2009, 12:26:57 PM

I assume then that you support the creation of unions siding for the practical over theory, correct me if I'm wrong. ok, second question: At what point in American History would it have been practical for you to end the practice of unions? Keep in mind with this question that we have a government TODAY that works more for the corporations than it does for the citizens. I don't even think you would argue against that.

At the time the Unions were formed we did not have the DOL as it is today, EEOC, State Departments of Labor, OSHA, etc. So in my mind, the unions were succesful in their campaign by virtue of the creation of all of these things, but we dont need both at the same time.

The government works fior itself and the largets corps, not the middle and small ones. Look at GE and GS and that is all you need to know.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #51 on:** August 10, 2009, 12:52:44 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on August 10, 2009, 12:33:12 PM

At the time the Unions were formed we did not have the DOL as it is today, EEOC, State Departments of Labor, OSHA, etc. So in my mind, the unions were succesful in their campaign by virtue of the creation of all of these things, but we dont need both at the same time.

The government works fior itself and the largets corps, not the middle and small ones. Look at GE and GS and that is all you need to know.

Now this is where we disagree. So you think government is sufficient. You actually do believe the gov works more for the people than the corporation. This is just not the case. Corporations don't have a sense of right and wrong. They don't have a conscience. Oh they might have a statement of values and ethics for the public, but we all know full well how often those are completely ignored. Those statements are for PR only. What I'm getting at here is that the corporation always always pushes the limit for the bottom line. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by pushing. We both know they have people who work full time at doing nothing but moving barriers to the bottom line out of the way. Nothing in government is off limits to their attempts. They're like a virus, like a terminator. They will not stop.
You know how the NRA, as a collective group has influence over politicians. It's the same way with Unions. Many people with one voice. Without the numbers coming together, who do you think would get their way in Washington over time? Big business or blue collar workers? So I go to my third question: with no unions, what makes you think that the corporations would not push and push and push and push until once again the American worker found themselves in a terrible place?

balance of power

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #52 on:** August 10, 2009, 12:57:21 PM »

I dont know, I have to mull on that question.

I dont like the huge multi national corps like GS and GE. The Cap & Trade scam is ap erfect example of where this is going and who it benefits.

yopu and I are going to get royally screwed on that one.

BM OUT · « **Reply #53 on:** August 10, 2009, 01:03:49 PM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 10, 2009, 12:52:44 PM

Now this is where we disagree. So you think government is sufficient. You actually do believe the gov works more for the people than the corporation. This is just not the case. Corporations don't have a sense of right and wrong. They don't have a conscience. Oh they might have a statement of values and ethics for the public, but we all know full well how often those are completely ignored. Those statements are for PR only. What I'm getting at here is that the corporation always always pushes the limit for the bottom line. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by pushing. We both know they have people who work full time at doing nothing but moving barriers to the bottom line out of the way. Nothing in government is off limits to their attempts. They're like a virus, like a terminator. They will not stop.
You know how the NRA, as a collective group has influence over politicians. It's the same way with Unions. Many people with one voice. Without the numbers coming together, who do you think would get their way in Washington over time? Big business or blue collar workers? So I go to my third question: with no unions, what makes you think that the corporations would not push and push and push and push until once again the American worker found themselves in a terrible place?

balance of power

About 12% of the people who are employed in this country are in unions.How in the world do you think ALL the other workers and companies survive and thrive day after day after day without them.Unions are an outdated force.There is no need for them.The private sector takes care of wages and benefits.If the company sucks,they will get poor quality workers,if they pay a good wage and have good benefits they will attract good workers.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #54 on:** August 10, 2009, 01:05:04 PM »

Quote from: BILLY MIMNAUGH on August 10, 2009, 01:03:49 PM

About 12% of the people who are employed in this country are in unions.How in the world do you think ALL the other workers and companies survive and thrive day after day after day without them.Unions are an outdated force.There is no need for them.The private sector takes care of wages and benefits.If the company sucks,they will get poor quality workers,if they pay a good wage and have good benefits they will attract good workers.

The biggest problem with Unions is in the public sector. There is no reason whatever that government workers should be unionizing against the taxpayer.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #55 on:** August 10, 2009, 01:30:50 PM »

Quote from: BILLY MIMNAUGH on August 10, 2009, 01:03:49 PM

About 12% of the people who are employed in this country are in unions.How in the world do you think ALL the other workers and companies survive and thrive day after day after day without them.Unions are an outdated force.There is no need for them.The private sector takes care of wages and benefits.If the company sucks,they will get poor quality workers,if they pay a good wage and have good benefits they will attract good workers.

So way more members than the NRA has. Since you're addressing my post, you help make my point. I know for a fact that a lot of workers ride off the back of unions without being unionized. Don't think for a second that non unionized workers don't benefit from unions. They do. If that threat wasn't on the horizon for that company, I guarantee decisions handed down from corporate would often be very different for the workers. I know that's an absolute fact.

BM OUT · « **Reply #56 on:** August 10, 2009, 02:00:41 PM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 10, 2009, 01:30:50 PM

So way more members than the NRA has. Since you're addressing my post, you help make my point. I know for a fact that a lot of workers ride off the back of unions without being unionized. Don't think for a second that non unionized workers don't benefit from unions. They do. If that threat wasn't on the horizon for that company, I guarantee decisions handed down from corporate would often be very different for the workers. I know that's an absolute fact.

You obviously dont understand companies.They dont fear ANYTHING.If the company unionises,they still have to have collectively bargained contracts.The company doesnt have to give in.The union can threaten to strike,the company can just hire temps.The problem with most American workers is they think companies will fold if they arent there.There are 50 just like you out there waiting to take your spot.Strike,they just replace you with temps,the company goes on,your out of a job.Companies will hire temps,to take your place and probably get much more productivity then they EVER would from a union worker and pay less money ,give no benefits and have a better bottom line.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #57 on:** August 10, 2009, 02:05:19 PM »

Quote from: BILLY MIMNAUGH on August 10, 2009, 02:00:41 PM

You obviously dont understand companies.They dont fear ANYTHING.If the company unionises,they still have to have collectively bargained contracts.The company doesnt have to give in.The union can threaten to strike,the company can just hire temps.The problem with most American workers is they think companies will fold if they arent there.There are 50 just like you out there waiting to take your spot.Strike,they just replace you with temps,the company goes on,your out of a job.Companies will hire temps,to take your place and probably get much more productivity then they EVER would from a union worker and pay less money ,give no benefits and have a better bottom line.

well, what you just said is an outright lie. You're just flat out wrong. I know for a personal fact that there are large companies that do adjust their compensation/wages because of the union threat. I have no doubt of this and I know it to be true. Is that so with every company, I'm sure not. But I know of large companies that it is absolutely true of.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #58 on:** August 10, 2009, 02:07:40 PM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 10, 2009, 02:05:19 PM

well, what you just said is an outright lie. You're just flat out wrong. I know for a personal fact that there are large companies that do adjust their compensation/wages because of the union threat. I have no doubt of this and I know it to be true. Is that so with every company, I'm sure not. But I know of large companies that it is absolutely true of.

Sometimes they have to pay prevailing wage instead of having a union.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #59 on:** August 10, 2009, 02:40:54 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on August 10, 2009, 02:07:40 PM

Sometimes they have to pay prevailing wage instead of having a union.

Ok... I'll explain exactly what I'm talking about. Lets take wal-mart for example. Unions are a big concern for them but they don't really give a shit about them, like Billy said. If an entire store votes in a union, Wal-mart is so big, they'll just shut down the store. They've done that shit before. But now let's say we have a business which is extracting a regional resource. Big company, many employees. They can't just shut down their opperation and they do often compensate with possible unionization as a factor. I absolutely know there are many curcumstances where this happens. I even know of times where a company started to fuck employees and where the employees dropped the hint. A card left in front of a door, a rumor... And boom, they back off when the threat looks possible. It depends on a lot of things but it does happen and more often than Billy would have you think. My statement that there are many non union workers that benefit from unions being there is absolutely true.

Skip8282 · « **Reply #60 on:** August 10, 2009, 06:22:19 PM »

Hugo's right about this. I used to work for a trucking company when I was much younger. We were the only company that was non-union and the unions were constantly at the entrance trying to recruit members to turn the company. Voting took place several times and when the union managed to start getting some serious support, suddenly our top wages went up and in-line with those paid at the union companies.

Unions definetely have problems, but they also definetely help to keep wages up.

Cap · « **Reply #61 on:** August 10, 2009, 07:09:18 PM »

Quote from: Skip8282 on August 10, 2009, 06:22:19 PM

Hugo's right about this. I used to work for a trucking company when I was much younger. We were the only company that was non-union and the unions were constantly at the entrance trying to recruit members to turn the company. Voting took place several times and when the union managed to start getting some serious support, suddenly our top wages went up and in-line with those paid at the union companies.

Unions definetely have problems, but they also definetely help to keep wages up.

Yeah but for all intents and purposes the auto unions got high pay for uneducated people doing jobs you could train a monkey to do. My dad told me stories about how they would not buy cars made on Mondays because they were afraid the workers were hungover on Monday and would make a shit vehicle. Apparently people still do that.

I think it's funny how all of a sudden engaging in protests is un-American to liberals. When it is on their terms it is okay but now it's wrong. Give me a break.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #62 on:** August 11, 2009, 02:48:37 AM »

Quote from: Cap on August 10, 2009, 07:09:18 PM

Yeah but for all intents and purposes the auto unions got high pay for uneducated people doing jobs you could train a monkey to do. My dad told me stories about how they would not buy cars made on Mondays because they were afraid the workers were hungover on Monday and would make a shit vehicle. Apparently people still do that.

I think it's funny how all of a sudden engaging in protests is un-American to liberals. When it is on their terms it is okay but now it's wrong. Give me a break.

wait, so a guy that didn't have the same opportunities as some rich fucker, but works his ass off to support his family despite any downfalls deserves less pay? OH MY GOD this post makes me sick to my stomach. unreal...

Also engaging in protests is not un-American. Shutting down and preventing the process is un-American. There's a huge difference. Not to mention when any liberal group has done this, they get their asses hauled out in short order. But you fuckers are demanding your right to stand there and disrupt and prevent events from taking place. Nice hypocrisy... These people are not demanding that their voices be heard at the meetings, they're demanding their voice is the only voice heard at the meetings. Unreal cap, really....

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #63 on:** August 11, 2009, 04:42:07 AM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 11, 2009, 02:48:37 AM

wait, so a guy that didn't have the same opportunities as some rich fucker, but works his ass off to support his family despite any downfalls deserves less pay? OH MY GOD this post makes me sick to my stomach. unreal...

Also engaging in protests is not un-American. Shutting down and preventing the process is un-American. There's a huge difference. Not to mention when any liberal group has done this, they get their asses hauled out in short order. But you fuckers are demanding your right to stand there and disrupt and prevent events from taking place. Nice hypocrisy... These people are not demanding that their voices be heard at the meetings, they're demanding their voice is the only voice heard at the meetings. Unreal cap, really....

Hugo - there is simple math involved. A line worker in a plant is not going to make as much as doctor or engineer.

Of course it is best if the guy can make a wage to support his family, but that is not the same as to say that he should be deserving of the same wage as someone highly skilled in some other trade or profession.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #64 on:** August 11, 2009, 04:52:07 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on August 11, 2009, 04:42:07 AM

Hugo - there is simple math involved. A line worker in a plant is not going to make as much as doctor or engineer.

Of course it is best if the guy can make a wage to support his family, but that is not the same as to say that he should be deserving of the same wage as someone highly skilled in some other trade or profession.

that's not what I said

I'm not a communist or something

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #65 on:** August 11, 2009, 04:55:15 AM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 11, 2009, 04:52:07 AM

that's not what I said I'm not a communist or something

This is what you said:

wait, so a guy that didn't have the same opportunities as some rich fucker, but works his ass off to support his family despite any downfalls deserves less pay? OH MY GOD this post makes me sick to my stomach. unreal...

Maybe I was confused by what you wrote there, but it seems to me like you were arguing that both should get the same wage?

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #66 on:** August 11, 2009, 05:55:12 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on August 11, 2009, 04:55:15 AM

This is what you said:

wait, so a guy that didn't have the same opportunities as some rich fucker, but works his ass off to support his family despite any downfalls deserves less pay? OH MY GOD this post makes me sick to my stomach. unreal...

Maybe I was confused by what you wrote there, but it seems to me like you were arguing that both should get the same wage?

yes you're confused and maybe I could have stated it differently. I don't think a laborer should be paid the same as a "highly skilled professional." Just guessing but that would mean I am saying laborers should be making a few hundred dollars an hour and maybe more. What I am saying is that someone who gives the best part of their life to a company deserves fair compensation. I'm saying his hard work has value. I'm saying the countless hours of his life given to the company has value. I'm saying, for what he does, the value of that sacrifice to the company shouldn't be any less because he didn't have the good fortune to be handed an easier path through life. A hell of a lot of Americans have worked their asses off and at a minimum they should be able to live a decent life. Have a house, be able to provide for a family and every once in a while be able to afford to take a break and enjoy life. What I've been telling you is that, left up to the corporations of America alone, they would chip away at those things slowly and surely. Unions have lost power. Some of it is their own fault, but much of it is a direct result of corporate influence. Go look at the charts over the last 40 years or so and tell me what you see in regards to CEO compensation/pay vs. the worker. It's absolutely sickening. Here you are blaming the downfall of companies on the worker while the CEO's pay goes up 500% or some shit. And yes, I know there have been abuses union wise by lazy ass people. But that is not the rule. By far Americans are willing to work hard. Another thing that's wrong is the loss of loyalty for the company. When the worker looks up at the CEO making that kind of UNWARRANTED income at THEIR expense and also goes through years of the company fighting them. There is no loyatly to work hard for the company. Now I've seen businesses featured that treat their employees good and the result is amazing. Just to bad there are so few companies that put value in their employees past being stupid worker drones.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #67 on:** August 11, 2009, 06:05:52 AM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 11, 2009, 05:55:12 AM

yes you're confused and maybe I could have stated it differently. I don't think a laborer should be paid the same as a "highly skilled professional." Just guessing but that would mean I am saying laborers should be making a few hundred dollars an hour and maybe more. What I am saying is that someone who gives the best part of their life to a company deserves fair compensation. I'm saying his hard work has value. I'm saying the countless hours of his life given to the company has value. I'm saying, for what he does, the value of that sacrifice to the company shouldn't be any less because he didn't have the good fortune to be handed an easier path through life. A hell of a lot of Americans have worked their asses off and at a minimum they should be able to live a decent life. Have a house, be able to provide for a family and every once in a while be able to afford to take a break and enjoy life. What I've been telling you is that, left up to the corporations of America alone, they would chip away at those things slowly and surely. Unions have lost power. Some of it is their own fault, but much of it is a direct result of corporate influence. Go look at the charts over the last 40 years or so and tell me what you see in regards to CEO compensation/pay vs. the worker. It's absolutely sickening. Here you are blaming the downfall of companies on the worker while the CEO's pay goes up 500% or some shit. And yes, I know there have been abuses union wise by lazy ass people. But that is not the rule. By far Americans are willing to work hard. Another thing that's wrong is the loss of loyalty for the company. When the worker looks up at the CEO making that kind of UNWARRANTED income at THEIR expense and also goes through years of the company fighting them. There is no loyatly to work hard for the company. Now I've seen businesses featured that treat their employees good and the result is amazing. Just to bad there are so few companies that put value in their employees past being stupid worker drones.

Hugo - a lot of what you are talking about has a lot to do with the lack of purchasing power of the dollar.

My grandfather came here from Italy and worked for years as tailor in a small dry cleaners. On his meager salary he was able to raise a family and have a small house in the Bronx, NY. He never made big money.

During those times, people had a lot more purchasing power with what they made so that most people could afford to take care of themselves.

Additionally, the tax burden was a lot lighter in terms of.FICA, property taxes, etc.

That is not the case now.

The dollar has no value and that is why people are falling behind. You want to blame the evil corporations, fine, but you simply cannot ignore the fact that it takes a ton more dollars now just to keep pace due to inflation, taxes, and the loss of purchasing power of the dollar.

Cap · « **Reply #68 on:** August 11, 2009, 06:14:16 AM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 11, 2009, 02:48:37 AM

wait, so a guy that didn't have the same opportunities as some rich fucker, but works his ass off to support his family despite any downfalls deserves less pay? OH MY GOD this post makes me sick to my stomach. unreal...

Also engaging in protests is not un-American. Shutting down and preventing the process is un-American. There's a huge difference. Not to mention when any liberal group has done this, they get their asses hauled out in short order. But you fuckers are demanding your right to stand there and disrupt and prevent events from taking place. Nice hypocrisy... These people are not demanding that their voices be heard at the meetings, they're demanding their voice is the only voice heard at the meetings. Unreal cap, really....

I didn't say that they should make nothing but their pay and pensions for what they do is ridiculous. You automatically assume that they were put down by "the system". Give me a break. From what I hear about the auto-unions they don't work very hard.

Liberals protest everything and they've done so with violent unions, illegal immigrant mobs that turn violent, etc. The groups that are protesting are comprised of both Dems and Repubs and they are making sure their representatives know they will lose votes if they pass the crap known as universal health care.

BM OUT · « **Reply #69 on:** August 11, 2009, 06:22:16 AM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 11, 2009, 05:55:12 AM

yes you're confused and maybe I could have stated it differently. I don't think a laborer should be paid the same as a "highly skilled professional." Just guessing but that would mean I am saying laborers should be making a few hundred dollars an hour and maybe more. What I am saying is that someone who gives the best part of their life to a company deserves fair compensation. I'm saying his hard work has value. I'm saying the countless hours of his life given to the company has value. I'm saying, for what he does, the value of that sacrifice to the company shouldn't be any less because he didn't have the good fortune to be handed an easier path through life. A hell of a lot of Americans have worked their asses off and at a minimum they should be able to live a decent life. Have a house, be able to provide for a family and every once in a while be able to afford to take a break and enjoy life. What I've been telling you is that, left up to the corporations of America alone, they would chip away at those things slowly and surely. Unions have lost power. Some of it is their own fault, but much of it is a direct result of corporate influence. Go look at the charts over the last 40 years or so and tell me what you see in regards to CEO compensation/pay vs. the worker. It's absolutely sickening. Here you are blaming the downfall of companies on the worker while the CEO's pay goes up 500% or some shit. And yes, I know there have been abuses union wise by lazy ass people. But that is not the rule. By far Americans are willing to work hard. Another thing that's wrong is the loss of loyalty for the company. When the worker looks up at the CEO making that kind of UNWARRANTED income at THEIR expense and also goes through years of the company fighting them. There is no loyatly to work hard for the company. Now I've seen businesses featured that treat their employees good and the result is amazing. Just to bad there are so few companies that put value in their employees past being stupid worker drones.

This is why unions suck!!!You dont get paid for your hard work.The hard worker gets paid the same as the non-productive worker.If ALL companies would go back to incentive only pay,then ,those who produced would get what they deserved and those that didnt wouldnt make a decent wage.

I worked in a place[still do,but they went away from incentive work and went to straight hourly wage and its killing productivity]where you used to get a base pay of 12.00 an hour.You then got paid in levels of 75%-100%[anything lower then 75,you were out].If you worked at 100% you could make 16.00 an hour.However,if you worked at over 100% your pay would go up as well.It got to the point that I was making 25.00 an hour,plus overtime,doing basic wharehouse work.

If we were union,we would all be making 15.00 an hour,no matter how hard you worked or didnt work.THATS the problem with unions.Everyone is the same,the only way you get more is to last a long time.

garebear · « **Reply #70 on:** August 11, 2009, 08:21:52 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on August 10, 2009, 01:05:04 PM

The biggest problem with Unions is in the public sector. There is no reason whatever that government workers should be unionizing against the taxpayer.

The biggest problems with unions is your face.