More Union Chutzpah

[bigmack]

Get 90Mil in loans, use 60+ mil to get Obama elected & now go after the bank that gave them the loan.

No wonder Stern is quitting.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/4_18_10_17_14_46.png


http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/4_18_10_17_15_16.png

[boxcar]

Even a deadly snake would feel uneasy with slime like SEIU crawling under its belly.

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

and union members wonder why most Americans can't stand their "unions"....that article was a great example why the seiu needs busting....acorn, too.

[bigmack]

acorn, too.
ACORN would still be intact with their squeaky clean operation had it not been for the underhanded tactics of two youngins who doctored video tape. :lol:

I feel sorry for ACORN. They were so instrumental in helping out the common man. :rolleyes:

http://antzinpantz.com/kns/images/jul09/091509PimpandHo3wf084204--300x450.jpg

[Buckeye]

most americans are not union members and Unions are a minor reason AT BEST why this economy is down-- so Get off blaming it on Unions which don't even really exist anymore for our problems. They might even be a solution but I digress.

[bigmack]

In a day when many cried and shouted foul of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing Corporations to fund campaigns we have a case of a Union that spent $66Million getting BO elected while Mr. Stern is the most frequent guest of the White House as well as getting a sweetheart deal on the health care bill that private citizens couldn't dream of getting.

Let's play fair boys, otherwise you might find some resentment.

[cj's dad]

To be fair, many years ago, I was a union member and union official.

Having said that, there was a time when unions served a valuable place in our society. Many here may not admit or realize that the pay scales and benefits that union/management agreed to in the past were the basis for many a wage and benefit package later agreed to by non-union shops.

ALL contracts are agreed to by both parties involved; no document is signed and ratified by one party only.

In fact, the wages agreed to were always used to raise the price of goods and services charged to the public, with management never failing to blame the union for these price hikes.

Many issues besides wages and benefits are discussed in contract negotiations; safety, hours of work, scheduling, etc...

Today's unions, with the exception of the skilled trades, are a sham. They accomplish little, have no real bargaining power and in the case of state, city and gov't workers have no ability nor the b--ls to strike which is really the only leverage a union and it's members have.

I do think it is unfair however to blame the problems of this society and the US economy on labor unions; I think we have to look much higher than that, like at the top.

[bigmack]

I do think it is unfair however to blame the problems of this society and the US economy on labor unions
Buckeye moved in that direction and it's tangential. I haven't seen anyone contending that 'the problems of society...'

I don't believe people are willing to see unions use their level of power in a bulldozing sort of fashion. That is commonplace with todays unions.

Now if you want to talk about Public/Government Unions - Now that is the bunch poised to take down anyone in their path with little regard for their neighbors.

Cities/counties/states & maybe even GMen will not be able to live-up to the previously unreasonable terms that were set when few were looking. Full disclosure on that world is bound to raise a couple o' :eek: :eek:

[mostpost]

Oh!!! That poor baby Bank of America!!!! :(, being picked on by that mean old union. :eek: :eek:
Just because they give customers trying to renegotiate their mortgages the runaround. (Despite taking $billions in TARP funds. Just because they charge outrageous 30% interest rates and $39 late fees. Just because they manipulate deposits and payments so depositors incur fees. Just because they will pay no federal taxes for 2009. How much of that is due to off shore tax havens?

Kyle Olson claims that SEIU is trying to intimidate BofA into renegotiating their loan, but he offers no proof. He quotes no request by SEIU to renegotiate the loan. He writes that SEIU has repaid $1,740,250 of a $94,578,779 loan. He uses the word paltry to make us think the union is behind in its payments. But if that were the case, why not just come out a say that the union is behind. Because if he said that he would be open to a libel judgement. So he uses innuendo. He urges BofA to call the loan. Except they can't and he knows it.

[bigmack]

Oh!!! That poor baby Bank of America!!!! :(, being picked on by that mean old union. :eek: :eek:
Just because they give customers trying to renegotiate their mortgages the runaround. (Despite taking $billions in TARP funds. Just because they charge outrageous 30% interest rates and $39 late fees. Just because they manipulate deposits and payments so depositors incur fees. Just because they will pay no federal taxes for 2009. How much of that is due to off shore tax havens?
Huh. You are nothing if not consistent.

You have 2 points in front of you and you pick 1 and 2 unrelated in virtually every one of your 'well thought out' ( :rolleyes: ) responses/cutting, 'slash' pasting.

They received a loan for $90 right?

[ElKabong]

Sorry Claven, your translation of "the sun hasn't come up tomorrow, thus you can't prove it will" won't cut it.

We can see why you defend the piece of shit govt unions. They buy politicians for gain, which screws the rest of us Americans. For people like you?, People with marginal skills that offer no real value to society with your contributions? Well, yeah I can see where you would try to defend them.

....And look like a fool doing so. These govt union leaders are nothing but dirtbags that try to shape policy with money that their members thought w/b used to good purposes....If you think buying off politicians constitutes a "good purpose" then you know why I think people that belong to such unions are nothing but shit on the bottom of a hotwalkers shoes. And I'm not in the minority.

[ElKabong]

Huh. You are nothing if not consistent.

You have 2 points in front of you and you pick 1 and 2 unrelated in virtually every one of your 'well thought out' ( :rolleyes: ) responses/cutting, 'slash' pasting.

They received a loan for $90 right?

expect another 42 paragraph reply, probably interspersed with wikipedia pasteage.... :rolleyes:

I can't take the guy seriously. Spins everything, and I do mean everything.

[mostpost]

expect another 42 paragraph reply, probably interspersed with wikipedia pasteage.... :rolleyes:

I can't take the guy seriously. Spins everything, and I do mean everything.
Two paragraphs. My reply was two paragraphs. As far as not taking someone seriously, I have yet to see you reply to anyone without an insult or snarky comment. I have yet to see you post any reply which does not rely on information which is readily proven false. And here again you have disproved nothing I said. Here again you are completely unable to see past the misrepresentations and outright falsehoods endemic to everything you reference. Here, again you display so well the insanity that rightwing America has become.

[mostpost]

Huh. You are nothing if not consistent.

You have 2 points in front of you and you pick 1 and 2 unrelated in virtually every one of your 'well thought out' ( :rolleyes: ) responses/cutting, 'slash' pasting.

They received a loan for $90 right?
This makes no sense at all> :confused:

[bigmack]

This makes no sense at all> :confused:
Come on man, keep up.

BofA doled out 90+ for SEIC.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1_4_139.gif

With me so far?

[mostpost]

Come on man, keep up.

BofA doled out 90+ for SEIC.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1_4_139.gif

With me so far?
Is your point that SEIU should not have taken the loan if they felt BofA was corrupt? Or is it that they should be grateful for the money and keep their mouth shut about the corruption?
One of the things SEIU has criticised BofA for is their use of deriviatives. I seem to remember a lot of talk about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac using deriviatives, none of it complimentary. Are they only bad when used by a government agency?

[bigmack]

Is your point that SEIU should not have taken the loan if they felt BofA was corrupt? Or is it that they should be grateful for the money and keep their mouth shut about the corruption?
You're coming unglued. Slow down & work with me.

In '08 they get a loan from BofA in the 96ish, right?

They use 66 to elect Mr. O, right?

Mr. Stern is the most frequent guest at the nations basketball gym. Right?

Unions get a sweetheart deal with hc, right?

And now YOU & SEIC are pimping BofA for their practices? :D :D

Tell me you can see how that looks like a Fellini flick?

[hcap]

Kyle Olson:

He has also appeared on Fox News’ “Glenn Beck Program” regarding his investigation of teachers' union ally ACORN. Kyle is the editor of Left-WingNuts.com and has appeared on NPR's "All Things Considered," WJR’s “Frank Beckmann Show,” WABC's “Bob Grant Show,” as well as Dom Giordano's radio show in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has given dozens on interviews on talk radio programs coast to coast.

Anybody ever listen to Bob Grant?

Enough said

[HUSKER55]

just curious guys

what would it take to stop the graft by dc politicians, judges and lawyers

certainly cutting in to the big banks profits is a start but interst rates are still high

other ideas?

[bigmack]

9LWNTUK8KtA

[ElKabong]

Two paragraphs. My reply was two paragraphs. As far as not taking someone seriously, I have yet to see you reply to anyone without an insult or snarky comment. I have yet to see you post any reply which does not rely on information which is readily proven false. .


Nonsense. I'll post that 900,000 people were foreclosed out of their homes (per pbs), you misdirect to some bullshit about the dow being up (and will drop), or some other misdirection. You have a hard time answering in a direct manner. You spin everything & misdirect.

Take a look at Mack's vid clip. Tell me what you think of the union punk's first two sentences?

[mostpost]

Take a look at Mack's vid clip. Tell me what you think of the union punk's first two sentences?
I don't think anything about it, because I don't know what it means. It was obviously taken from a much longer speech. Only those six words, "We're twisting arms; we're threatening people" were used in the clip. This tells me there is a strong likelihood that the real meaning was quite different than reason.tv wants us to think. BUT, I have been unable to find the full speech, so I can't say for sure.
One thing I do know. Your use of the phrase union punk tells me that it doesn't matter to you what the real meaning is,

[mostpost]

9LWNTUK8KtA
They cost too much.
If you read the original USA Today story you see it is not as simple as reason.tv would like us to believe. The salary comparisons are averages over many job categories. And jobs which may seem similar can have significant differences. Being a carrier in the Post Office, where you must sort mail and deliver it to 400 plus homes is quite different from being a mail clerk in a company.
Another factor is seniority. Government employees are more likely to remain in their jobs longer than private sector employees. From the USA Today story.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
But National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley says the comparison is faulty because it "compares apples and oranges." Federal accountants, for example, perform work that has more complexity and requires more skill than accounting work in the private sector, she says.
"When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector," she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work.

The problem isn't that government employees are paid too much or have too many benefits; the problem is that private sector employees are paid to little and have too few benefits.

We can't fire them.
The reason/tv guy tells us that the private sector has eliminated 8 million jobs since the recession began, as if this were a good thing. :rolleyes:
Using that logic, the best way to end the recession would be to fire everyone. Jobs are jobs. A person with a government job is earning a salary, which he can use to buy things produced by the private sector. The more things he buys, the more jobs created. Ive explained this to you guys many times. I have given up that you will ever understand it. :bang:

[bigmack]

The problem isn't that government employees are paid too much or have too many benefits; the problem is that private sector employees are paid to little and have too few benefits.
Holy Shit! I had hope for you given you were a fellow Chicagoan.

You ain't bent man, you're broke.

From what I've heard medications can do wonders.

The engagement is off!

[newtothegame]

If you read the original USA Today story you see it is not as simple as reason.tv would like us to believe. The salary comparisons are averages over many job categories. And jobs which may seem similar can have significant differences. Being a carrier in the Post Office, where you must sort mail and deliver it to 400 plus homes is quite different from being a mail clerk in a company.
Another factor is seniority. Government employees are more likely to remain in their jobs longer than private sector employees. From the USA Today story.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm



The problem isn't that government employees are paid too much or have too many benefits; the problem is that private sector employees are paid to little and have too few benefits.


The reason/tv guy tells us that the private sector has eliminated 8 million jobs since the recession began, as if this were a good thing. :rolleyes:
Using that logic, the best way to end the recession would be to fire everyone. Jobs are jobs. A person with a government job is earning a salary, which he can use to buy things produced by the private sector. The more things he buys, the more jobs created. Ive explained this to you guys many times. I have given up that you will ever understand it. :bang:

So, let me get this straight since youve tried to explain it to us several times, all private sector businesses should be like their counterparts on the government side and just hire at will, lose tons of money, pay people to ensure the business is non profitable, (and if that doesnt work), unionize them all??? Do I have it right now mosty???? :lol:

[mostpost]

So, let me get this straight since youve tried to explain it to us several times, all private sector businesses should be like their counterparts on the government side and just hire at will, lose tons of money, pay people to ensure the business is non profitable, (and if that doesnt work), unionize them all??? Do I have it right now mosty???? :lol:
No

[newtothegame]

No

So your not for private employees to get large raises????
Your NOT for unions????
Your NOT for much more in the way of benefits for private employees???
I could of sworn thats what ya said earlier!!!

[delayjf]

and Unions are a minor reason AT BEST why this economy is down
Not in California, Public Employee Union pension plans are literally going to bankrupt the state. Pro Union states like Ohio are taking it in the shorts while non union states like TX are thriving.

[mostpost]

So your not for private employees to get large raises????
Your NOT for unions????
Your NOT for much more in the way of benefits for private employees???
I could of sworn thats what ya said earlier!!!
The "no" was to this question"
Do I have it right now mosty????

I should have explained more fully yesterday but it was late.
I don't think it's an either or situation. Either the worker gets paid more and the company suffers or the company profit increases and the worker suffers.
It is possible to do both. In fact you must do both.
You and many others here have the impression that I wish to destroy the American economic system. Nothing could be further from the truth. Growth begins at the bottom and unless the roots are nourished growth will not be sustained.
You think the roots are the capital that entreprenuers have invested in their business. I think it is the capital they have invested and equally important the labor invested by workers. Both of those investments should be rewarded.

Let's look back over the last eighteen years. In that time the Dow has more than doubled. Even at its low point last March, it was twice what it was at the beginning of the Clinton presidency. This would indicate to me that businesses were doing well. Yet during this time wages rose very little.
During this time Executive salaries soared. We also found that worker productivity increased significantly. So why shouldn't those workers share in the success.

Finally, let me say there is a difference between a large multi-national corporation and the guy that runs the flower shop on the corner. The flower shop guy is much more likely to pay his employees the fairest wage he can.
He should not be expected to provide the same benefits the multi-national does. But he should provide something.

[delayjf]

Let's look back over the last eighteen years. In that time the Dow has more than doubled. Even at its low point last March, it was twice what it was at the beginning of the Clinton presidency. This would indicate to me that businesses were doing well. Yet during this time wages rose very little.

One problem with the above analogy is that it assumes that the size of the companies work force stays the same as it grows - it does not. Also, you wrongly assume that all workers play an equal role in the success of a company, and that simply is not true. The CEO or a company's investors play a much greater role in the companies success than the janitor. I would also guess that if saleries rose in proportion to the stockmarket, the economy would not stay rosey for very long. How many companies would be profitable if their payroll was double what it is today.

[mostpost]

One problem with the above analogy is that it assumes that the size of the companies work force stays the same as it grows - it does not. Also, you wrongly assume that all workers play an equal role in the success of a company, and that simply is not true. The CEO or a company's investors play a much greater role in the companies success than the janitor. I would also guess that if saleries rose in proportion to the stockmarket, the economy would not stay rosey for very long. How many companies would be profitable if their payroll was double what it is today.
In some cases the CEO plays a big part in the failure of a company. :lol:
Of course the CEO plays a bigger role than any individual worker.
Have you watched the CBS show Undercover Boss? The CEO of a major US corporation goes undercover and works entry level jobs at his company. Invariably they say how valuable their employees are and how they had forgotten this fact.
I don't advocate raising salaries in proportion to the stock market, but I think we can do better than a 2 to 200 ratio.

[newtothegame]

Unions!!!!!

Steven Malanga
The Beholden State
How public-sector unions broke California

The camera focuses on an official of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California’s largest public-employee union, sitting in a legislative chamber and speaking into a microphone. “We helped to get you into office, and we got a good memory,” she says matter-of-factly to the elected officials outside the shot. “Come November, if you don’t back our program, we’ll get you out of office.’

http://www.city-journal.org/assets/images/20_2-sm1.jpg



The video has become a sensation among California taxpayer groups for its vivid depiction of the audacious power that public-sector unions wield in their state. The unions’ political triumphs have molded a California in which government workers thrive at the expense of a struggling private sector. The state’s public school teachers are the highest-paid in the nation. Its prison guards can easily earn six-figure salaries. State workers routinely retire at 55 with pensions higher than their base pay for most of their working life. Meanwhile, what was once the most prosperous state now suffers from an unemployment rate far steeper than the nation’s and a flood of firms and jobs escaping high taxes and stifling regulations. This toxic combination—high public-sector employee costs and sagging economic fortunes—has produced recurring budget crises in Sacramento and in virtually every municipality in the state.

How public employees became members of the elite class in a declining California offers a cautionary tale to the rest of the country, where the same process is happening in slower motion. The story starts half a century ago, when California public workers won bargaining rights and quickly learned how to elect their own bosses—that is, sympathetic politicians who would grant them outsize pay and benefits in exchange for their support. Over time, the unions have turned the state’s politics completely in their favor. The result: unaffordable benefits for civil servants; fiscal chaos in Sacramento and in cities and towns across the state; and angry taxpayers finally confronting the unionized masters of California’s unsustainable government.

California’s government workers took longer than many of their counterparts to win the right to bargain collectively. New York City mayor Robert Wagner started a national movement back in the late 1950s when he granted negotiating rights to government unions, hoping to enlist them as allies against the city’s Tammany Hall machine. The movement intensified in the early sixties, after President John F. Kennedy conferred the right to bargain on federal workers. In California, a more politically conservative environment at the time, public employees remained without negotiating power through most of the sixties, though they could join labor associations. In 1968, however, the state legislature passed the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, extending bargaining rights to local government workers. Teachers and other state employees won the same rights in the seventies.

These legislative victories happened at a time of surging prosperity. California’s aerospace industry, fueled by the Cold War, was booming; investments in water supply and infrastructure nourished the state’s agribusiness; cheaper air travel and a famously temperate climate burnished tourism. The twin lures of an expanding job market and rising incomes pushed the state’s population higher, from about 16 million in 1960 to 23 million in 1980 and nearly 30 million by 1990. This expanding population in turn led to rapid growth in government jobs—from a mere 874,000 in 1960 to 1.76 million by 1980 and nearly 2.1 million in 1990—and to exploding public-union membership. In the late 1970s, the California teachers’ union boasted about 170,000 members; that number jumped to about 225,000 in the early 1990s and stands at 340,000 today.

more at the link.....

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_california-unions.html