34
   

Why the anti-union animosity?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2011 11:37 am
@Robert Gentel,
Public employees are also "us." That many are pointing out the conflict of the workers and who's paying the bill is short-sighted at best. Without the existence of unions, the worker has no power. That's an extreme I would not like to see - even though I'm no longer in the work force.

The biggest problem, perhaps, is that government has never learned to live within its means. That's the dynamics that have created the current battle between the taxpayers and government workers.

I believe it would be fair to examine the pay and benefit scales of government workers vs civilian workers to see if there are areas of conflict that should be addressed - rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

We must look at the long-term effect of destroying all unions.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2011 11:48 am
@cicerone imposter,
An interesting story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal about a sink hole that opened up in a street in the middle of the night on a weekend.

Comments criticize the union department of works employees for taking an hour to show up. I guess they want to pay those employees to sit around in their trucks waiting for things like this to happen. Probably not though. They just want great service and don't want to pay anything for it. If only they didn't have unions I'm sure there would have been someone there within 5 minutes.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2011 11:54 am
@parados,
I see; middle of the night on a weekend, and they took a whole hour to show up. Never mind they were in the middle of snooze land on a weekend, and they didn't even point out what the distance was between their homes, their place of work - to pick up any necessary equipment, and show up at the site.

Damn those union workers!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 03:08 pm
Seder is dead on here.



Bullshit is the word for the arguments used by the anti-union forces. There's no other word to describe it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  5  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 08:38 pm
http://www.rall.com/rallblog/comics/2011-03-14.jpg
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 06:23 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Pretty cool video, but he should have mentioned that unions have now devoted $20 million to recalling Republicans, street actions, and lobbying efforts to preserve their current deals.

So what? Unions are lobbies. Why should their lobbying look any different than the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying to repeal Obamacare, and to throw out the representatives who voted for it?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 06:29 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
After watching the video two posts above mine I see it made the same point but concluded that we should oppose these unions based on only this conflict of interest, and the corruption (which it is correct to point out)

This reminds me of something I meant to ask: What solid empirical evidence do we actually have about modern-day corruption in unions? How does it compare to, say, corruption in the modern-day chamber of commerce? The closest thing to such evidence I'm recently seeing is endless TV replays of On The Waterfront, a Marlon-Brando movie from the 1950s.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 06:34 am
@Thomas,
The Teamsters were so corrupt in the 40s, 50s and 60s that it became a byword not just for union corruption, but corruption in general. I think that perception has remained with the public, even though there was no evidence then that other unions were as corrupt as the Teamsters, nor even corrupt at all. I doubt that anyone will be able to provide unambiguous evidence that the majority, or even a significant fraction of modern unions are corrupt. Your questions about lobbying by unions qua by industrial organizations could apply as well to the issue of corruption.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 10:25 am
@Setanta,
That's the problem with the public perception of an issue they have little knowledge, but conclude something that isn't true. It happens all the time.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 02:11 pm
@Setanta,
In 1957, United Auto Workers President Walter Reuther compared the corrupt Teamsters Union to a fallen woman, and headed the drive to expel it from the A.F.L.-C.I.O.

So even other unions recognized the corruption of the Teamsters and attempted to deal with its corruption because it gave Labor a black eye.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,941703,00.html#ixzz1Gt9YaNtV

Saying that unions are corrupt is akin to stating that politicians are corrupt; some are, but most are not.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 02:14 pm
@kuvasz,
kuvasz wrote:
Saying that unions are corrupt is akin to stating that politicians are corrupt; some are, but most are not.[/quote

Agreed . . . and for almost 60 years, politicians for whom it was expedient to say that the unions are corrupt have pointed to the Teamsters--and have usually gone unchallenged.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 03:13 pm
@kuvasz,
Even I've heard of the Teamsters - and I don't even know what type of worker they represented? Tarring all unions with the Teamsters brush is not un-akin to calling all politicians Richard Nixon.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 03:28 pm
There has been a great deal of corruption in the Teamsters, I am rather certain. But, when I was a member, back in '68, they protected my job when I was getting unjustly fired. It all depends who's on the receiving end whether unions are good, I suppose.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 03:47 pm
@kuvasz,
Perhaps not corrupt, but when a politician is given hundreds of thousands of dollars by an industry do you think this dosent have an effect on the way they vote?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 04:07 pm
@RABEL222,
Of coarse it does; most of the legislation presented in Sacramento were sponsored by corporations, and we're talking the majority. A staff member from the San Jose Mercury News did a research study, and found that most legislation passed during the past terms were corporate interest stuff. The reporter won some awards for her reporting.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 05:23 pm
@hingehead,
Asserting that Union corruption is limited to the Teamsters of old, is intellectually dishonest.
hingehead
 
  4  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 06:22 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Who is asserting that? Why didn't you say that I was asserting that all political corruption was limited to Richard Nixon?

You construct arguments to fight against that aren't there.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 10:29 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

There has been a great deal of corruption in the Teamsters, I am rather certain. But, when I was a member, back in '68, they protected my job when I was getting unjustly fired. It all depends who's on the receiving end whether unions are good, I suppose.


There's a great deal of corruption possible in any institution that has any power. (and some who don't.)

There is also a great deal of corruption in the organizations that unions fight for workers against.

One simply attempts to frame rules and laws to limit this.

Any working person who blanketly opposes unions is just silly.

As for what's happening in Wisconsin, it ought to be illegal. It's sure immoral.

Hasn't the US signed some sort of human rights thing somewhere along the line?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 10:43 pm
@dlowan,
Politics works in mysterious ways. People who wish to destroy unions also has family and friends who are union members. Go figure.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 11:00 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Who asserted that? I missed that, and i've been scrolling back and forth looking for it.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 02:28:21