BWA HA HA HA
Not in this lifetime
Christopher, please check your 2nd link and remove your personal information!
Damned cookies anyways....
;D
Thanks for the warning serr8d, but I don’t know what, how, or…
Personal info? What cookies?
Please to enlighten me. I’d love to do a class-action lawsuit for violation of my privacy.
2nd link…
Christopher, when I clicked that link, it sent me to the Union Site with the form filled out...with your personal name and email address…
The link itself has that information associated with it.
Which means, any person clicking that link can post a message with your name and credentials already attached.
And, even worse, they will know your name and credentials.
My suggestion: kill that link!
And, when someone clicks your link, the IT folks at the site know where it’s coming from, and can find out quite possibly who you are.
If you want, email me, I’ll show you a screenshot…
serr8d at hotmail dot com
Yikes!
This may be a violation of the Privacy Act. Can you say class-action lawsuit? Wouldn’t be the first time a union has violated the law.
Yummy!
Thanks. Didn’t know about that.
Please do
See, how much more rotten can it get?
I just checked the link you told me about. It did show all of my info. I didn’t know. It is an obvious violation of the Privacy Act. I’m going to save that email and contact my Representative about that. And both of my Senators.
my union [AFSME]did not ballot us here in ohio for our choice either, they are in the demobag all the way. i’m leaving at the end of this month and will work hard to overcome their harm to our country. semper fi!
It might be better to be a “good” union member, and “go left”, by not bathing, screeching Dem talking points at inappropriate moments (restaurants, funerals, and day care centers suggest themselves), and generally being just a HUGE dKos-Class d**k. Fit in.
Me? Well, you can call me “MoonCHEese Guevara”,("mCHE" for short), and look for spray painted, misspelled Democrat slogans on government buildings you fascist, Nazi, Chimpy McHalliburton-NutWings.
“Viva la Raisins! Vote for Billary or Die MuvvaF***ers! Kookcinich Rules! Impeach Durth Cheney! Send him to The Hage!”
That’ll help ‘em!
MoonCHEese
Posted by heldmyw
11/11/2007 at 11:02 AM
I’m a tad bit confused as to the message in this post. Is there a real issue here or are you simply irked that your candidate wasn’t endorsed. Don’t get me wrong as I’m by no stretch a Hillary fan. She’s obviously a continuation of the problems instead of a solution. Regardless, your union endorsed a candidate and has asked you to buy into it. You have a choice to do so or you can decline. Had they endorsed a Republican that you like, would they then be less “anti-American”? Would Fred or Rudy be more representative of the rank and file than the one they chose? If so, one would think that that’s where the real debate would be, not in a Left bashing rant that tends to link The Ten Commandments, your local property taxes, the greedy poor, or your personal families living conditions to your disappointment in their nominee.
Posted by andy42302
11/11/2007 at 11:45 AM
Does anybody know what heldmyw said? I don’t get it.
As for andy42302, yeah, it’s a privacy issue. The union endorsed a traitor two months ago. Where have you been? My only complaint two months ago was that NO REPUBLICAN candidate was even on the ballot. But that’s old news.
Again, the union is putting my personal info in emails. I’ve already alerted my Rep, my two Senators, and WorldNetDaily. I’ve saved every post about this, including yours andy.
BTW andy, care to tell what Republican I like? Don’t like any of them. My last ditch hope was Mr.Newt. Don’t like him either now. He’s jumped on the ‘global warming’ bandwagon. I also don’t recall bringing in a Republican nominee on property taxes, greedy poor, etc. What’s your point? It was a looksee into HillaryCare. More money, less results. Maybe you’re a socialist, anti-Constitutionalist like Hillary? (Who should be shot for violating her oath of office. But then, so should so many of our so-called ‘leaders’ in Washington.)
Christopher, you never went into detail about any exploitation of your personal info in emails nor did I find that.
I concur with your argument that no Republican ever makes the ballot, regardless of their stance. It’s an obvious biasness. On the other hand, it’s seldom that a Republican candidate sides with union objectives and when they do, they have to overcome a history of proven and/or solid backing of their Democratic opponents. If you have examples where I’m wrong, or perhaps how a candidate of yours would have been better, I’m not too big a guy to digress. You ask for my point. My point is that unions look for a candidate that’s most likely to support their agenda and the agenda of the rank and file. If said candidate does not, or if another candidate would be better, THAT would be the issue to dispute. An example might be that if Dick Chaney were to run for Mayor of Detroit, obviously the UAW wouldn’t find him advantageous to their future. That’s not a personal or a political view but rather a simple fact. It’s also a reality that there’s a weak political environment right now for Republicans and that the lobbyist monies are going left. Unions have struggled for years and now see an opportunity to revamp. Considering how politics has become more money driven than ever, it’s really a no brainer.
I can assure you Christopher that I’m a life long entrepreneur and an advocate for it. As for socialism, it isn’t anti-American or anti-constitutional to support it or to be against it. To address your comment, I do not support long term handouts for workable adults. I do however, promote assisting our future with education and health care options for children that cannot otherwise acquire it. The payback will come with a more educated nation, something that we need not take for granted as always being here. But then, what’s that got to do with union endorsements?
Posted by andy42302
11/11/2007 at 01:00 PM
Really, andy, you’re missing the point Christopher is trying to make about Unions, and their dogmatic leftist agenda. Unions take dues from every member, and use those dues to promote, exclusively, a leftist and moonbattish agenda. That’s a given.
Unions are the driving force for forcing large manufacturing concerns out of this country. We see our automotive industry in shambles (Nissan North America, sans unions, is doing just fine); hammer-and-tong products now come almost exclusively from China; and do the Unions seek to help the entrepreneurial ‘bourgeois’ class they demand from and attack at every opportunity, to stay competitive in the world marketplace? No, we see more and more demands and less and less reasonable compromise. We can always raise the price of stamps to cover the costs incurred by Christopher’s Union’s demands, I suppose, since little competition exists for letter carriers (as opposed to UPS and FedEx, etc, in the parcel arena.)
Your argument seems based on the approach of ‘so what?’
I really wasn’t trying to step into the pros and cons of unionization but rather the rationale for their endorsements. It wasn’t intended as a “so what” rebuttal but more of a “what did you expect?”. My personal thoughts are the Edwards would be more of an advocate but he doesn’t quite lead the money and the current political climate demands that you follow the money. That’s disturbing but true.
Your comments Serr8ed, much like Christopher’s seem to denounce unions all together. I’m not going to go into regurgitated talking points as we’ve all heard them. I do have to wonder if Christopher would be happy with perhaps, $9 bucks an hour and a fraction of his current benefits. Can we really alleviate or minimize socialism with our work force competing with Mexico’s $8 per day wages? If the---- “Unions seek to help the entrepreneurial ‘bourgeois’ class they demand from and attack at every opportunity, to stay competitive in the world marketplace"----how can the working class break free of socialized programs? It’s truly hard to have both, isn’t it? Or perhaps, you have alternatives you’d like to share.
Ok, now spare me the concept that the free market will prevail in paying an individual based on his/her performance and ability. Historically, it just ain’t so. Prior to the civil war, the northern steel mills were competing with the southern farmers in a labor market. We atrociously saw the treatment of the slaves and how they were forced. In reality, northern workers were no different. While they weren’t forced, their pay did no more than provide enough food for survival. Their freedom was akin to a train removed from its tracts and placed in a corn field. Freedom to do what? It took a civil war to overcome this. You might recall that the plantation and steel owners were doing quite well. Later, in the 1930s, we saw soup lines, forced child labor, extreme unsafe work conditions, unrealistic hours, and a later explosion of socialized government involvement. It took the organized labor movement to bring about the middle class.
There seems to be a presentation here for the demise of unionization but I fail to see an alternative. What will happen if you succeed? What will become of the working class, the economy, home ownership, or traditional families? Surely, you understand that even the nonunion higher paid jobs are there because of competitive union wages. If you eliminate the competition, what then? Perhaps you didn’t mean to eliminate the unions and was perhaps just complaining. If that’s the case, uh, well, so what?
Posted by andy42302
11/12/2007 at 09:25 AM
Greed certainly knows no class. From your own admission Peiper, maybe great need for unions once upon a time. From that statement one could assume that unions, once upon a time, solved, resolved, or helped establish some sort of rule or protocol within the work force that perhaps made it a better environment than it was then. I think you’re saying that perhaps the unions curtailed the greed that oppressed the workers. I’m interpreting that you’re suggesting that now that environment has improved, we can now eliminate the unions without any possibility of ever returning to that “once upon a time”. That’s akin to suggesting that if a police department and a judicial system can reduce crime, we can now get rid of police protections and the courts as we’ll now live happily ever after. Can we further justify that statement by adding all the corruption and short comings of our legal system? You see, you can never conquer greed but with proper checks and balances, you can control it’s symptoms.
Posted by andy42302
11/12/2007 at 01:15 PM
As Peiper points out, Unions were once useful, but they’ve ‘jumped the shark’ today. Greed, your name is Union Thug…
Today, there are more laws and systems in place to regulate the evils of excessive capitalism. But, even with their successes firmly in place, new laws on the books, and the accomplishments they’ve help achieve beyond their wildest dreams, Unions still want more and more. And, they back Leftists.
That’s my gripe with Unions. If they could just pull away from their support of near-Communism, from their low level of applied socialism, they might actually still find some purpose to their existence. Maybe.
As it is, I can’t see them, collectively, as anything more than one of the major supporters of the Democratic party, which is in itself becoming more and more Leftist every day.
Should every Union member be forced to walk the party plank, with the forced appropriation and application of his union dues?
I work in the public sector and we have a union. Unusually they are not a contributor to the socialists (Labour). Most unions in the UK are. My union are fairly ineffectual, but they stand up to our managers and prevent them walking all over us. The unions undoubtedly did a lot of good if you go back to the turn of the last century up until the Second World War, but they were infiltrated by the communists after the war and did the bidding of Moscow. It reached it’s nadir in the 70’s when Britain was forced to go to the IMF for a loan because the unions had brought the country to a standstill. Margaret Thatcher had the guts to stand up to these marxist punks and broke them. Britain ever since has been significantly more successful compared to our European neighbours. France especially where they strike at the drop of a hat. The next couple of weeks will see a big stand off between Sarkozy and the unions. It will be interestiong to see if “Sarko” has the balls to face these muppets down and break them the way Thatcher did. My money is on the unions breaking him but you never know!
Interesting points Serr8d but I’m thinking your history vrs the present may be a bit muddled unless you’re referring to the present lobbying and campaign contributions. That however has seemed to become a modern day acceptance by both parties so it a quite moot point.
I can agree that unions have helps legislate laws that “regulate the evils of excessive capitalism” but I fail to understand your statement; “even with their successes firmly in place, new laws on the books, and the accomplishments they’ve help achieve beyond their wildest dreams, Unions still want more and more”. The reality is, unions have suffered significantly since the Reagan years. They’ve actually failed to hold their own ground. We’ve seen concessions with the auto, steel, tile, et al., and in most cases, union wages haven’t kept up with inflation and in some, are making less money than they were ten years ago. Health insurance has decreased and company paid pensions have almost become extinct. Another interesting note is that the average 2005 income was 4.2 percent more, in real terms, than in 2004. But this increase was almost entirely at the top. One in 500 taxpayers makes more than $1 million, but those taxpayers reported 58 percent of the total income gain, the I.R.S. report, known as Table 1.4, showed.
You ask a valid question; “Should every Union member be forced to walk the party plank, with the forced appropriation and application of his union dues?” This reminds me of a few years ago when I had helped a young man acquire a scholarship at the University of Louisville through a program with UPS and the City of Louisville. Since he had scored a high enough ACT score, UPS offered him a part time job with opportunity for advancement and would pay his tuition as well as reimburse student loans needed for living expenses. The UPS representative explained to the group that joining the Teamsters was mandatory. Another young man sitting near me grumbled a bit that it wasn’t fair and that he really didn’t want to join but was “forced” to. There’s a few points here. The Teamsters did work with UPS, The City Of Louisville, and The U of L in securing this program. Also, The Teamsters did negotiate his wages, the dental and medical insurance that he would have, a pension, paid vacation, paid holidays, security from discrimination and more. Why shouldn’t he be expected to pay his way for these perks? Why should he be entitled to a free ride? Also, the young man wasn’t forced to do anything. If the deal wasn’t satisfactory to him, the door that he entered worked both ways. Isn’t that the same way it works if an applicant is unhappy with the wage offer or benefit package?
It appears that the biggest issue here seems to be that unions don’t adhere to your thinking and therefore are “near-Communism”. I’m wondering if you consider anyone that votes for a Democrat to be “near-Communism”. You made a statement that the “Democratic party, which is in itself becoming more and more Leftist every day” but I’m wondering if they are truly more “left” or if they strongly disagree with the speed that the present administration and Supreme Court have used to move the country to the extreme right. The reality is that the wealth has strongly shifted from the working man to the most wealthy in just a short few years. I personally believe that unions will endorse advocates for the working man and that the working man will vote accordingly. Time will tell.
Posted by andy42302
11/12/2007 at 03:45 PM
You certainly don’t have to go far to find Union support for what many believe to be ‘leftist’ arguments. Democrats are moving farther left; did you notice what happened to Joe Lieberman? It’s not just the war (and I for one, even if I did disagree with the President and his conduct, which I don’t), would hold back from any leftist-style protests until the War is Won, for the simple reason of Supporting the Troops, and not seeming to be so power-hungry and bitter about successive Presidential defeats.
Unions haven’t really made any concessions to the facts of our economic downturn, which is due in part to the exodus of U.S. manufacturers leaving (because of unions) to conduct business overseas. The majority of jobs in America are now ‘service sector’, non-manufacturing jobs. I’ve worked with several companies that are forced to share costs with employees (the health insurance costs, mostly) or start hiring only part-time employees (so as to not offer benefits packages at all) while Unions won’t accept any sharing. Look again at the auto industry...GM’s Saturn plant in Spring Hill is closed right now, ‘re-tooling’, but those workers aren’t working. Nearby, here in Smyrna, Nissan is cranking out autos with great gusto. Nissan North America is right now building a new headquarters, less than 25 miles from the Saturn facility! What a contrast...every time a ‘Union’ vote comes up, employees at Nissan send the Union reps packing.
With good reason. Nissan treats it’s employees well, and employees don’t have to tithe up to an out-of-control political behemoth.
I have to say Christopher that the recent events re: Gov Strickland supporting Hillary would bode more toward exactly why your Union is pushing this (although I do agree, not a Republican on the ballot does present it’s own problems and concerns). I’ve heard a couple of rumblings of Strickland being seen as a potential VP for the Hildabeast.
So I guess everyone is jumping the gravy train, while the getting is good.
Scary thought of Clinton and Strickland making mayhem in DC together.
To what extent Serr8d, should unions or workers make concessions to our economic downturn? That’s truly the question. I’ve never agreed with Bill Clinton’s NAFTA nor do I with CAFTA. But, it’s a reality we have to face and deal with. Now Serr8d, I present to you a question; how much should American workers concede from their pay and benefits to retain manufacturing jobs? While you think on that you might ask yourself the following; What should unions and/or workers do to retain these jobs? Can American workers compete with the $2 an hour and a taco that Mexican workers earn? Is the $7 an hour Walmart jobs enough to sustain the middle or even poverty line class of workers? If so, we’re still competing with that taco scale so how do we overcome that? How Serr8d, can we continue to curtail socialized programs if we go that route? How can these workers spend 20k a year for their children’s further education? How can their children? I look forward to your answers. Andy
Posted by andy42302
11/12/2007 at 05:21 PM
If there were no Unions, then workers would be paid market wages, what they would be worth to an employer. That is, the wage that manufacturers would pay would be commensurate with what they would pay that worker to stay on the job and not taker a higher-paying job somewhere else. Those wages are based on what the employer can sell their product for in the competitive open market. Supply and Demand would drive the salaries of the workers, the same factors that drive how whatever the product is priced at on the market. The competitive market, mind you, not the protected market Unions would like to enjoy with their political power (wielded by Democrats) that force consumers to pay higher than necessary prices, by stifling competition from the global economy.
If a worker demands a higher wage than the market can bear, then everything breaks down, the price of the commodity is driven such that it no longer sells, and the industry drops the product(s) or leaves the country. Again, the auto industry is there to see as the best (worst) example of Union empowerment gone mad.
Socialized programs are anything but curtailed. Look to the bottom line of any company, you’ll find the greatest expenses are employee fringe benefits, including health care and matching Social Security taxes. We are in a giant entitlement society, with ever-increasing costs too burdensome for many employees to manage. Sharing costs for health insurance is something that companies have to do to survive; Unions simply won’t consent to do that (at least to the extent that is necessary to maintain a healthy Corporate Bottom Line.)
So, we have what we have, an exodus from our country of all but the service sector jobs.
Adding more socialized programs (Hillary’s Health Care) will not help. What will help? At this point, everything is fuel-based, price-wise, and prices are getting ready to really skyrocket. Everything will go up. Which may make Globalization decrease a bit (why should we pay for products with added fuel cost surcharges, if we can find local products cheaper?) So, with the coming down-turn looming, we will see corrections. Unfortunate, that, but everything is based on supply and demand, including workers and salaries.
Let’s hope that there is a demand for workers, period.
Serr8d, I’m a bit disappointed. Instead of addressing my post (as I did yours), you created your own argument, ignoring the issue on the table. More disturbingly, you seem to have forgotten your post # 17 that says “Peiper points out, Unions were once useful, but they’ve ‘jumped the shark’ today”. Why would they have been useful in an environment where a worker “would be commensurate with what they would pay that worker to stay on the job and not taker a higher-paying job somewhere else”. If that pay ethic ballast existed then, obviously unions would never have been needed. ? Flip flop much? And so, a rebuttal to my post # 14, 3rd paragraph didn’t enter you mind? If you honestly believe half of your last response(mathematically, it can’t be much more than half as you’ve already contradicted the majority), then I assume that you live in a place where everyday’s a holiday, Sunday comes twice a week and there’s a Wallgreens on every corner. Instead of countering anything I’ve said or answering any questions I’ve asked, you’ve responded with a canned ideology mixed with a couple cheap shots at the candidates. Realistically, I shouldn’t blame you as I should have expected as such.
Posted by andy42302
11/12/2007 at 08:03 PM
”If that pay ethic ballast existed then, obviously unions would never have been needed.” Wages were increasing despite the formation of Unions. Again, the modern Market will correct for wage differentials. I’m not a union apologizer, and really feel that if they have done a bit of good in the past, it’s only marginal good at best. I’m willing to give some credit, but as you see I’m not overly convinced of even their historical usefulness. I’m trying to be a bit diplomatic, here.
Bottom line, today, right now, Unions have outlived their usefulness, and should go the way of where ever outdated concepts get off to. Your 3rd paragraph, #14? Please. Pre-civil war history doesn’t carry much relevance today. You might as well bring up Dicken’s London or the economic wisdom of Marx and Engles (which isn’t far from where many on the left find themselves when they daydream.) The Great Depression was cured by WWII, not by Labor unions. The reforms we’ve pushed through are significant, and IMHO have swung the pendulum past the correct state to where actual harm is done to our economy by Unions. What more do they want? What more do they deserve?
There seems to be an assumption in these posts that unions are alive and well today and as strong as ever. That simply isn’t so. Union memberships have declined from 20.1% in 1983(the 1st year that data was available) to 12% last year. Laws protecting unions have dwindled as well, leaving them with not near the bite they once had. Legislation has tilted strongly in the industries favor in the last decade. Along with the slow bleed of organized labor, we’re seeing a suffering middle class, almost no gains in income, the demise of company paid pension, and less and less health insurance. Interestingly though, we’re seeing the average CEO of a fortune 500 company making $15.5 million a year. We saw tax breaks for $1 million dollar wage earners of roughly $50k and a tax break for the $50k worker of about $20 bucks.
It’s indisputable by any rational logic that the wealth of the country is going to the top wage earners.Serr8d, your statement “he modern Market will correct for wage differentials” defies history as well as logic. It’s simply wishful thinking. As we’re seeing today, Walmarts $7 bucks an hour and zero benefits pretty much leads the way and we’re seeing people stand in line for $10 to $12 an hour jobs. Skilled laborers (electricians, carpenters, machinist, etc.) are making close to the same (less in some areas of the country)that they were 10 years ago.
Ok,,,,my continued questions that you obviously have decided to run from; How can or how much should an American worker compete with Mexico’s pay scale? If they do compete, how can we avoid social programs?
Posted by andy42302
11/13/2007 at 12:43 PM
-’Walmarts $7 bucks an hour and zero benefits pretty much leads the way ‘- I know what Wal-Mart offers it’s employees - and they are the kind of benefits that last a lifetime (not just until the Union pension funds collapse and the Government is forced to pick up the tab) just because they aren’t ‘benefits’ as defined by Unions, does not make it any less a benefit. Wal-Mart et al are entry level jobs - yes it is a ‘national corporation’ but the beauty of it is the local aspect.
Does it skirt issues near and dear to Unions and leftists - yes. But it does it to allow people the Unions and leftists don’t seem to give a damn about - jobs and a place to shop that is afordable.
Not everyone wants to (or can) be a CEO - or a Union person. And that use to be (and should be) the Greatness of America. Freedom of choice.
"How can or how much should an American worker compete with Mexico’s pay scale? If they do compete, how can we avoid social programs?”
Let me get this straight: How do we expect Americans to compete with uneducated, dirt poor, near-third world living standards, a government that’s corrupt within and without, overpopulation in Mexico City that approaches the worst of any city in the world? (I assume you mean the residents of Mexico who haven’t yet fled to this country...those bring an entirely different argument; illegal workers who compete directly with fat, dumb and happy middle-class Americans who simply won’t do manual labor, anymore.)
I believe we are a culture that’s ‘over the hump’ as far as our desire to succeed. We look around and see, yes, fat, dumb and happy people who expect more than they want to give. A hard-working man or woman will be successful in this country. We are the land of opportunity, and the flood of immigrants proves that.
Do we need Unions, still, to get more and more money and benefits for the crappy level of goods and services Union shops are putting out? There’s a reason Nissan, Toyota and Honda are whipping the fenders off of Chevy and Ford. They make products that are usually reliable, thoughtful and practical; sure, American competition is catching up, but anyone who purchased a ‘big three’ car in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s (and most of the ‘90’s) will tell you that mostly that stuff was crap. Aries ‘K’ Car, give me a break! Even Saturns couldn’t sell in Japan. That experiment went nowhere. The foreign companies are forcing our companies to do what we wouldn’t do, unless the competition was there. Unions didn’t help our productivity, that’s for sure; they blooded the big three nearly dry.
Americans who are hungry and strong and have competitive spirit are doing just fine. Lazy lumps who are on entitlement programs are dragging all of us down. We need to ‘tighten up’, or we will not succeed in the world economy. Period.
"How come nobody ever shoots those bastards?” Obviously, any further comments or rebuttals or ignored questions from me would be a waste of broadband.
Posted by andy42302
11/14/2007 at 10:49 AM
11/12/2007 at 02:40 PM
Next entry: The Time Bomb Below America.... Yellowstone
Previous entry: Veterans Day