Labor unions made it possible

[hcap]

Corporations may be people, but Unions not corporations were responsible for all these things we take for granted this Labor Day.

Weekends without work
All breaks at work, including your lunch breaks
Paid vacation
Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Sick leave
Social Security
Minimum wage
Civil Rights Act/Title VII - prohibits employer discrimination
8-hour work day
Overtime pay
Child labor laws
Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
40-hour work week
Workers’ compensation (workers’ comp)
Unemployment insurance
Pensions
Workplace safety standards and regulations
Employer health care insurance
Collective bargaining rights for employees
Wrongful termination laws
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
Whistleblower protection laws
Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) - prohibits employers from using a lie detector test on an employee
Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
Compensation increases and evaluations (i.e. raises)
Sexual harassment laws
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Holiday pay
Employer dental, life, and vision insurance
Privacy rights
Pregnancy and parental leave
Military leave
The right to strike
Public education for children
Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 - requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work
Laws ending sweatshops in the United States

[ntheiroff]

It seems as though you listed all of the reasons that we don't have jobs in this country--they have all gone overseas.

[hcap]

It seems as though you listed all of the reasons that we don't have jobs in this country--they have all gone overseas.Yeah it sure sucks not exploiting 12 year old children and having to clean up after some stupid worker looses his arm in our glorious meatpacking sweatshops'' wonderful labor saving pig shredder.

[ntheiroff]

Most (if not all) of the reasons that you cited for being a member of a labor union were obsolete 50-60 years ago.

[badcompany]

Most (if not all) of the reasons that you cited for being a member of a labor union were obsolete 50-60 years ago.

Yes, Ol' Hcap loves hopping into the Delorean, firing up the Flux Capacitor and taking us back to the Fifties.

The reality is that increases in pay and conditions came as a result of increases in productivity. Leftists always cite the poor working conditions of yesteryear without providing any context.

The reason you had children working in factories back then is that the other option was to starve to death in the country. You see this today in poorer countries where there is a black market that takes payoffs to get people jobs with those evil multinational corporations.

Why do people in poor countries agree to pay to get a job with a multinational? Because they pay, on average, twice the local prevailing wage.

Today, in this country, child labor laws only serve to deny entry into the workforce to the people who need it the most: those poor people Hcap and his ilk supposedley care so much about.

[Actor]

Most (if not all) of the reasons that you cited for being a member of a labor union were obsolete 50-60 years ago.Assuming you are an employee and not an employer, which ones would you be willing to do without?

[ArlJim78]

labor unions also made this possible.

7QS3x6WOh_0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QS3x6WOh_0&feature=player_embedded

[delayjf]

Today Unions bankrupt cities, states and companies with impunity.

[Tom]

So hcap, you must be all in favor of no gun laws, because the thing over all other that made the USA possible was the gun and the ability to use it.

Can I put you down as favoring unlimited carrying and concealing side arms?

You know what else union made possible?
Labor laws, which effectively negate the need for unions. After all, labor laws benefit ALL, while union only benefit a select few.

[badcompany]

Assuming you are an employee and not an employer, which ones would you be willing to do without?

No one wants to work in sh!tty conditions, but, the greatest protection an employee has from a bad boss is the option to go somewhere else.

Creating endless hurdles for employers in order to hire and fire someone only limits employee options.

[hcap]

Ok, from now on PA off topic will celebrate Corporate Day. And will in honor of the specialness of big money go to work 16 hours, forgo lunch and bathroom breaks, bring their wives and young children to work besides them and be sure to purchase commodities from the on site company stare.

Yes, most of the most important reforms were accomplished by unions at the beginning of the workers rights era because the most egregious abuses were rampant then. The fabric of American society changed after that and business realized they could only get away with so much before they came across as labor abusers and lowlifes.

Besides look at it this way guys, capitalism is the enlightened market place. Workers trading their services intelligently and in a unified manner is another example of Capitalism and Adam's Smith Invisible Hand setting prices based on the true costs of goods and services. Not slave labor prices.

[Actor]

So hcap, you must be all in favor of no gun laws, because the thing over all other that made the USA possible was the gun and the ability to use it.

Can I put you down as favoring unlimited carrying and concealing side arms?If ever there was a post that was off topic, this is it. What was there in the OP that was about gun laws?

You know what else union made possible?
Labor laws, which effectively negate the need for unions.Circular reasoning. Unions made labor laws possible, ergo, unions are no longer needed. But if we have no unions why not repeal the labor laws?

After all, labor laws benefit ALL, while union only benefit a select few.Where is it written that everything has to benefit ALL. What's wrong with benefiting only a few? Lots of things benefit only a few. Corporations benefit only their stockholders. Want a system where everything benefits everybody? Try Marx!

[mostpost]

Corporations may be people, but Unions not corporations were responsible for all these things we take for granted this Labor Day.

Weekends without work
All breaks at work, including your lunch breaks
Paid vacation
Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Sick leave
Social Security
Minimum wage
Civil Rights Act/Title VII - prohibits employer discrimination
8-hour work day
Overtime pay
Child labor laws
Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
40-hour work week
Workers’ compensation (workers’ comp)
Unemployment insurance
Pensions
Workplace safety standards and regulations
Employer health care insurance
Collective bargaining rights for employees
Wrongful termination laws
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
Whistleblower protection laws
Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) - prohibits employers from using a lie detector test on an employee
Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
Compensation increases and evaluations (i.e. raises)
Sexual harassment laws
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Holiday pay
Employer dental, life, and vision insurance
Privacy rights
Pregnancy and parental leave
Military leave
The right to strike
Public education for children
Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 - requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work
Laws ending sweatshops in the United States
An excellent post which gave rise to some of the stupidest responses in the history of this forum.

[Actor]

No one wants to work in sh!tty conditions, but, the greatest protection an employee has from a bad boss is the option to go somewhere else.Do you really believe that in the days before unions that employees had the option to go somewhere else? I mean somewhere else that was different?

Creating endless hurdles for employers in order to hire and fire someone only limits employee options.What endless hurdles? Employers can fire someone for cause. They can downsize. They are simply being held to certain standards of fairness. If they find that inconvenient, tough.

Meanwhile, no one has responded to my question.

[mostpost]

Most (if not all) of the reasons that you cited for being a member of a labor union were obsolete 50-60 years ago.

Those rights were won by labor unions; they are protected by labor unions and they are now being lost because we no longer have strong labor unions.

Every one of those rights can be lost if we don't have the strength to keep them.

[horses4courses]

the thing over all other that made the USA possible was the gun and the ability to use it.

Are you serious?

[dartman51]

Hcap, I'm curious. How, exactly, was labor unions responsible for the introduction of SOCIAL SECURITY?? :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

Yes, Ol' Hcap loves hopping into the Delorean, firing up the Flux Capacitor and taking us back to the Fifties.

1 The reality is that increases in pay and conditions came as a result of increases in productivity. Leftists always cite the poor working conditions of yesteryear without providing any context.

2. The reason you had children working in factories back then is that the other option was to starve to death in the country. You see this today in poorer countries where there is a black market that takes payoffs to get people jobs with those evil multinational corporations.

Why do people in poor countries agree to pay to get a job with a multinational? Because they pay, on average, twice the local prevailing wage.

Today, in this country, child labor laws only serve to deny entry into the workforce to the people who need it the most: those poor people Hcap and his ilk supposedley care so much about.

1 The reality is that before unions there was little relationship between productivity and wages. Workers were paid whatever the employer could get away with. It was only after unions gained some traction that wages and productivity began to rise at similar rates. Now, once again, wages have stagnated but productivity continues to rise. Result? A lot of executive bonuses while the workers languish.

2. Children had to work so they wouldn't starve? Can't you see the problem with that statement? How morally bankrupt does a person have to be to say something like that.

The reason children were forced to work in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was that their parents were not being paid enough money to support their families. Children should not be forced to work in factories to keep from starving. Anyone who thinks that has lost his humanity.

[DJofSD]

I don't see unions listed here (http://video.pbs.org/program/civilization-west-and-rest-niall-ferguson/) . I guess this guy is just stupid.

[hcap]

Hcap, I'm curious. How, exactly, was labor unions responsible for the introduction of SOCIAL SECURITY?? :ThmbUp:Since the end of the 19th century, the increasing number of industrial workers left without an income in old age had been a matter of growing public concern. In the 1890's a number of trade unions established homes for their aged members and shortly afterwards began to experiment with retirement benefit systems.

And oh my God!!
In 1911, Congressman Victor L. Berger, a socialist from Wisconsin, introduced a bill which provided for pensions up to $4 a week for those aged whose income was less than $10 a week. It, too, failed but it did attract attention.

Organized labor has played an important role in making American society more just. As President Jimmy Carter noted, "Every advance in this half-century-Social Security, civil rights, Medicare, aid to education, one after another-came with the support and leadership of American Labor."

[Shemp Howard]

My spinster aunt started rolling cigars for Bayuk Cigar in Philadelphia at the age of 8, 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. Saved her pay and bought duplexes/ garden apartments. When she died she was worth $ 2.5 million. Hated everything unions stood for till the day she died. All of her union friends had $25 a month pensions and social security when the retired while the union officials lived high off the hog, running in to my aunt in Palm Beach every winter.

Enough said.

[ElKabong]

Unions were needed 80 + years ago, no doubt about it. But with the corruption and the municipal failures b/c of union contracts, the populace isn't behind unions anymore. Unfortunately many union leaderships abused their power and priviledge.

Wisconsin's June elections should tell you what you need to know about how middle America feels about the entire issue, esp when it comes to government employee unions.

If you clerk a window, stamp boxes, do menial taxes along these lines in any endeavor, people realize those unskilled gov't workers shouldn't be aided by unions at taxpayer expense.

If you're a cop, firefighter or serve in a dangerous capacity, people see the need for union protection.....but for sorting mail or menial tasks of that nature? No. That's not just my opinion either

[ElKabong]

And oh my God!!
In 1911, Congressman Victor L. Berger, a socialist from Wisconsin, introduced a bill ......



It's 2012...Scott Walker is tugging on his nutsack, laughing at your post. Thanks

[hcap]

My spinster aunt started rolling cigars for Bayuk Cigar in Philadelphia at the age of 8, 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. Saved her pay and bought duplexes/ garden apartments. When she died she was worth $ 2.5 million. Hated everything unions stood for till the day she died. All of her union friends had $25 a month pensions and social security when the retired while the union officials lived high off the hog, running in to my aunt in Palm Beach every winter.

Enough said.Good for your aunt Shemp
Changes nothing however. Do you honestly think the other 95 % of those who retire on SS and Medicare should throw it all away?

[PaceAdvantage]

An excellent post which gave rise to some of the stupidest responses in the history of this forum.Oh my! :faint:

[hcap]

It's 2012...Scott Walker is tugging on his nutsack, laughing at your post. ThanksProves only that a real jerk can attain high office and others who admire jerks can delude themselves all they want about jerkhood.

[wisconsin]

Proves only that a real jerk can attain high office and others who admire jerks can delude themselves all they want about jerkhood.

You may think he is a jerk, but his policies are working. School districts have more money, my own property taxes went DOWN, while the so-called value of my house did not. When was the last time your property taxes went down? And now the poor, poor teachers in Wisconsin have to buy health insurance just like me. Waaaaahhhhh :(

Yeah, the guy who has the sackage required to tell it like it is must be a real jerk.

[wisconsin]

Proves only that a real jerk can attain high office and others who admire jerks can delude themselves all they want about jerkhood.


And you should not speak about your President this way, either.

[dartman51]

Since the end of the 19th century, the increasing number of industrial workers left without an income in old age had been a matter of growing public concern. In the 1890's a number of trade unions established homes for their aged members and shortly afterwards began to experiment with retirement benefit systems.

And oh my God!!
In 1911, Congressman Victor L. Berger, a socialist from Wisconsin, introduced a bill which provided for pensions up to $4 a week for those aged whose income was less than $10 a week. It, too, failed but it did attract attention.

Organized labor has played an important role in making American society more just. As President Jimmy Carter noted, "Every advance in this half-century-Social Security, civil rights, Medicare, aid to education, one after another-came with the support and leadership of American Labor."

That's odd, because unions were among the social securities original opponents. In fact, Samuel Gompers, the father of the American labor movement, called the concept of government-provided social insurance, "in its
essence undemocratic." :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

Are you serious?

You deny it?
Without the gun, we would have never settled this country.
We would have never broke free from the King.


Bleeding heart liberals who were unarmed and spend all the energy taking away from those who did the work would have stalled us in our tracks.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
An excellent post which gave rise to some of the stupidest responses in the history of this forum.


Agree....:1::2:, :1::3:, :1::6:

Show no insights or imagination at all. Just myopic parroting.
Good catch.

[horses4courses]

You deny it?
Without the gun, we would have never settled this country.
We would have never broke free from the King.


Bleeding heart liberals who were unarmed and spend all the energy taking away from those who did the work would have stalled us in our tracks.

Oh sure, they helped us the 18th century.
Ever since, it's been a downward spiral, with the exception of both World Wars.

[Tom]

Since the end of the 19th century, the increasing number of industrial workers left without an income in old age had been a matter of growing public concern.

And do you know why that is?
Because you libs steal it from them all through their working years, to pay for others to sit on their butts and not contribute.

[Tom]

Proves only that a real jerk can attain high office and others who admire jerks can delude themselves all they want about jerkhood.

The PEOPLE spoke, twice.
Scott delivered.

End of your fairy tale.

[Tom]

Oh sure, they helped us the 18th century.
Ever since, it's been a downward spiral, with the exception of both World Wars.

Now you get it....the SAME thing about unions.
Exactly the same thing.

Nowadays, we have laws, so no one needs a union or a side arm.

[mostpost]

Oh my! :faint:
Sorry, but thinking that labor unions and their purpose are obsolete (ntheiroff) is stupid.
Thinking that the way to solve the problem of children starving is to make those children work, rather than paying their parents a living wage, (badcompany) is stupid.
Blaming unions for bankruptcy (delayjf) is stupid.
Believing that this country was established, grew and prospered because of guns is stupid (Tom)
Thinking that Niall Ferguson is someone who has an unbiased view of unions is stupid. (delayjf)
Posting a reply that reads "Oh my. :faint: is... you get the point.

And I would like to point out that I said the replies were stupid, not any particular poster.

[Tom]

Thinking that mostpost is someone who has an unbiased view of unions is stupid.

FTFY

[hcap]

That's odd, because unions were among the social securities original opponents. In fact, Samuel Gompers, the father of the American labor movement, called the concept of government-provided social insurance, "in its
essence undemocratic." :ThmbUp:Yes there were some union leaders that distrusted the government. But not all and FDR was definitely influenced by the public's sympathy for workers and unions.

"In the aftermath of the Great Depression during which poverty encompassed 60 percent of the senior population, Social Security was a major plank of Roosevelt's "New Deal." The law was passed after an intense period of struggle in which the trade unions, the left generally and the Communist Party played a significant role".

Remember Roosevelt in addition to passing SS a long standing union/liberal concern, also passed other legislation as part of the New Deal that was quite favorable to unions and workers.

National Labour Relations Act '35

...This act forced employers to deal with trade unions. Workers were also given the right to form and join trade unions and to take part in collective bargaining. A board was set up to investigate and punish those companies bosses who did not abide by the rules of the NLRA.

In 1935 trade union membership stood at 3.6 million. By 1941 it was 8.6 million. In 1935 the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organisations) came into being.

Fair Labour Standards Act 1938

..The FLSA sort to cut the maximum hours someone could work and to raise the minimum wage for those who worked in inter-state trade.

This act gave protection to over 13 million people. It introduced a 40 hour week and a minimum wage of 40 cents an hour.

So we can thank FDR and his views influenced by workers and union concerns during the Great Depression and the long tradition of liberal concerns dating back to England's "Poor Law"

[mostpost]

No one wants to work in sh!tty conditions, but, the greatest protection an employee has from a bad boss is the option to go somewhere else.

And get a job at another company with a bad boss and sh*&^ conditions. This fairy tale that the free market provides worker protection MIGHT be true if employees were competing for workers, but they are not. Workers are competing for jobs. And which worker will get the job? The one who will do it for the least amount of money. The one willing to work even if the saw has no guard, if the mine doesn't have proper ventilation.

[Itamaraca]

Believing that this country was established, grew and prospered because of guns is stupid (Tom)

This pre or post white :lol:bread Tom?

Thanks for the chuckle.

[Tom]

And get a job at another company with a bad boss and sh*&^ conditions. This fairy tale that the free market provides worker protection MIGHT be true if employees were competing for workers, but they are not. Workers are competing for jobs. And which worker will get the job? The one who will do it for the least amount of money. The one willing to work even if the saw has no guard, if the mine doesn't have proper ventilation.

The lies continue.
Ever hear of OSHA?

And why are there not enough jobs.....ask OBAMA.
Ask any of the dems in Congress - they drove them away and keep them away.

[hcap]

Still don't get why so-called Capitalists and avid free marketers would not consider workers selling their labor and services for market price. Enabled by Worker organizations we call Unions. Let the market set perceived value. If the workers ask to much the company can shut down. Just like if the worker is not happy with his deal, let him work somewhere else.

Only provision should be neither the worker or company can skedaddle overseas and add wealth to another country.

[newtothegame]

Tom, I know you are aware but you're arguing with the poster boy for Obama and unions.
You see, the lefts retort about this country being founded with guns is "that was a long time ago"....but when the right uses the SAME argument aghainst unions, well that's not playing nice lol.
Unions are obsolete...and the american worker knows it. Believe not? look at the dwindling numbers in Unions.
Look at Wisconsin, Indiana and monay more to come down the road based on states struggles to balance budgets.
Now Harry, and others here will tell you we are headed back to slave labor, children in sweat shops etc etc. yet I would challenge either one to show me an instance of this in America in the last say forty years.

The government has regulated business to the point that a company would be foolish to try anything of the sort. With things like OSHA in place, again it would be stupid for ANY employer to try something absurd.
How many Union leaders have been found of corruption as of late??? Unions refuse to see the people screwing them are not business, its their own damn leaders!

Again, I ask any union guy or gal to explain to me how they can claim (bargaining with a politician for pensions and such) is fair when it is not the politicians place to pay for said pensions. Why would unions NOT wish to put it up for votes with the american tax payer (who they claim to protect)??
I would welcome any union labor board to ballot any pension increases that the tax payer has to pay for. Why Harry, is this not policy? Union workers claim they are being screwed by the companies yet they screw the tax payers they say they are for......quite a delimma there. I wish I could negotiate with someone who wasn't responsible for paying pensions. :lol:

By the way, did you all notice GM is still headed for bankruptcy ...(just kicking that can down the road).....Wonder why??? I thought the company was heading in the right direction now?

And another kicker, union workers are all against cheap labor, yet they constantly vote to open our borders to illegals who are the CHEAP LABOR.....
on one hand they want the votes, on the other they bitch about the labor and wages incurred those votes produce.
Now you may try to make an argument that companies bring in the cheap labor and I would tell you then get on the DO's ass and have them prosecute. I am all for companies being prosecuted for illegals working there at unfair wages against the american worker....

Seems to me though I recall memebers of both parties employeeing illegals for their own homes and needs...hmmmmm ???

Go ahead, complain about Nafta and other trade agreements...and I again will agree to a point. Problem is, unless you're willing to go the route of isolationism IT WONT WORK!
When goods can be brought into this country at half the price of what the american worker is willing to do, you have a huge problem. you all want to complain about low priced goods, yet Wally world is packed daily!!! you dont want low wages, yet you want to pay low prices.....hmmmm a quandry to say the least!!

[newtothegame]

Still don't get why so-called Capitalists and avid free marketers would not consider workers selling their labor and services for market price. Enabled by Worker organizations we call Unions. Let the market set perceived value. If the workers ask to much the company can shut down. Just like if the worker is not happy with his deal, let him work somewhere else.

Only provision should be neither the worker or company can skedaddle overseas and add wealth to another country.
Harry, the market is setting perceived value ...we are no longer a single country with a monopoly.
japan, china, India, etc etc send in goods at very low prices...and guess who buys them???? If you guessed that american worker who wants high wages yet buys low priced goods you would be correct......quite the delimma.....lol

[newtothegame]

Still don't get why so-called Capitalists and avid free marketers would not consider workers selling their labor and services for market price. Enabled by Worker organizations we call Unions. Let the market set perceived value. If the workers ask to much the company can shut down. Just like if the worker is not happy with his deal, let him work somewhere else.

Only provision should be neither the worker or company can skedaddle overseas and add wealth to another country.
So you are for isolationism??? That's the only way your statement above could possibly even ring true.....

[hcap]

I am just giving you guys back your own medicine.
Theoretically Adam Smith's invisible hand can be used to support collective bargaining and if the free market solution is applied to workers not getting a fair shake..... That they should simply leave and work somewhere else, so can the free markett approach apply to businesses falling and taking their lumps if they can not satisfy union demands

Problem is exaggerated by globalization. Some have called it a race to the bottom. I try to buy American as much as possible but would not call myself a strict isolationist. Of course if other countries followed a liberal agenda workers would be paid on par with Americans and skirting environmental regulations would not be so easily done. That is not realistic. But nevertheless my contention that workers should have the same rights and ability to deal from a position of strength as their bosses is valid

[PaceAdvantage]

But nevertheless my contention that workers should have the same rights and ability to deal from a position of strength as their bosses is validNo it's not valid. Bosses (or owners, if you will) deal from the strongest position because they are the ones who will be cutting the paycheck. Without them, you don't get paid.

There is a much larger pool of employees than there are bosses (owners). Therefore, based on supply and demand, and based on the fact that owners are cutting the checks and taking all the financial risks associated with the company, THEY deal from the strongest position. They get to choose who they will hire, the working conditions and benefits, and how much they will pay the employee.

The employee's strength comes from the fact that they don't have to accept the job, can look elsewhere (towards a competitor in fact), and FORCE the owner to revise his hiring practices and working conditions until he too can attract the employee that best fits his business requirements.

If the employer can't attract qualified employees because he pays too little or offers a shit working environment, he will go out of business unless he revises his business model and starts attracting qualified employees.

I'm not saying all unions are useless...some industries require them based on health and safety concerns for instance.

[ArlJim78]

no doubt that communism would not have been able to survive in this country, even thrive, had it not been for unions. so there's that.

[mostpost]

You may think he is a jerk, but his policies are working. School districts have more money, my own property taxes went DOWN, while the so-called value of my house did not. When was the last time your property taxes went down? And now the poor, poor teachers in Wisconsin have to buy health insurance just like me. Waaaaahhhhh :(

Yeah, the guy who has the sackage required to tell it like it is must be a real jerk.

At what cost do they have more money? Fewer teachers. Less Technology. Increased class size. All of these are certain to make learning more difficult. Walkers budget for FY 2012 and FY 2013 slashed $793M from education. Congratulations! Your property taxes went down. Never mind that it was at the price of your children.

You say your property taxes went down. The tax rate for the town of Mukwonago stayed the same from 2010/2011 to 2011/2012 and the rate for the village of Mukwonago increased from 6.67 to 6.84. Unless the assessed value of your house declined, I do not see how it is possible for you to be paying less in taxes.

[elysiantraveller]

Still don't get why so-called Capitalists and avid free marketers would not consider workers selling their labor and services for market price. Enabled by Worker organizations we call Unions. Let the market set perceived value. If the workers ask to much the company can shut down. Just like if the worker is not happy with his deal, let him work somewhere else.

Only provision should be neither the worker or company can skedaddle overseas and add wealth to another country.

Good luck with that...

The bolded part is exactly why capitalists hate it. It can't happen. It would require a completely self-contained, fully isolationist country. It won't work.

Its the belief (yours) that the Government can control the Market against my pan-historical one that the Government is a direct reflection of the Market.

States will NEVER be stronger than market forces... ever...

[PaceAdvantage]

At what cost do they have more money? Fewer teachers. Less Technology. Increased class size. All of these are certain to make learning more difficult. Walkers budget for FY 2012 and FY 2013 slashed $793M from education. Congratulations! Your property taxes went down. Never mind that it was at the price of your children.

You say your property taxes went down. The tax rate for the town of Mukwonago stayed the same from 2010/2011 to 2011/2012 and the rate for the village of Mukwonago increased from 6.67 to 6.84. Unless the assessed value of your house declined, I do not see how it is possible for you to be paying less in taxes.All this money pouring into education and teacher's unions, and yet you guys still cited (at least when a Republican is in the White House) how poorly America's children fare compared to the rest of the world in terms of rankings in science and math.

So what good does it do? According to the left (at least under Bush), America's education system sucked (despite Bush making education one of his priorities as President), so why continue throwing good money after bad?

Obviously, another solution should be pursued...one that might actually save the taxpayer, as is happening in Wisconsin.

[hcap]

No it's not valid. Bosses (or owners, if you will) deal from the strongest position because they are the ones who will be cutting the paycheck. Without them, you don't get paid.

There is a much larger pool of employees than there are bosses (owners). Therefore, based on supply and demand, and based on the fact that owners are cutting the checks and taking all the financial risks associated with the company, THEY deal from the strongest position. They get to choose who they will hire, the working conditions and benefits, and how much they will pay the employee.

The employee's strength comes from the fact that they don't have to accept the job, can look elsewhere (towards a competitor in fact), and FORCE the owner to revise his hiring practices and working conditions until he too can attract the employee that best fits his business requirements.

If the employer can't attract qualified employees because he pays too little or offers a shit working environment, he will go out of business unless he revises his business model and starts attracting qualified employees.

I'm not saying all unions are useless...some industries require them based on health and safety concerns for instance.Workers are owners of themselves and their blood and sweat and services. When they unionize they gain an advantage bargaining their services.

Yes they do not have the same rights in running the company as the owners of that company nor should they, but when 2 parties have to deal with each other in the realm of financial deals, BOTH have the same rights to deal and accept or not accept propositions from the other sude. Unions just level the field.

[wisconsin]

At what cost do they have more money? Fewer teachers. Less Technology. Increased class size. All of these are certain to make learning more difficult. Walkers budget for FY 2012 and FY 2013 slashed $793M from education. Congratulations! Your property taxes went down. Never mind that it was at the price of your children.

You say your property taxes went down. The tax rate for the town of Mukwonago stayed the same from 2010/2011 to 2011/2012 and the rate for the village of Mukwonago increased from 6.67 to 6.84. Unless the assessed value of your house declined, I do not see how it is possible for you to be paying less in taxes.

The 2011 tax rate is the Village of Mukwonago was $17.60 per thousand, up from $17.22 per thousand in 2010. The 2012 assesment (to be published in December) is expected to be about $17.48 per thousand. It's not a large swing, but it is none the less a reduction.

[wisconsin]

Workers are owners of themselves and their blood and sweat and services. When they unionize they gain an advantage bargaining their services.


If a worker feels underpaid, they leave. End of story. Remind me of what the foodworkers union did for my son when he was stocking shelves at the local grocery store. Meanwhile, they took $10 per week from his minimum wage job. What a deal.

[Tom]

Workers are owners of themselves and their blood and sweat and services. When they unionize they gain an advantage bargaining their services.

And when they over-price them, the owners have every right to ship elsewhere.

What you bozos on the left fail to grasp is that Cadillac pensions are not sustainable. Look at GM - classic case of a union destroying a company, and forcing the rest of us to bail out the union boys' asses.

What you guys assume, incorrectly, is what you are worth. Believe it or not, there are many people out there that will never be worth 1/2 of minimum wage. There are groups of people out there not worth a single minimum wage.

[wisconsin]

And when they over-price them, the owners have every right to ship elsewhere.

What you bozos on the left fail to grasp is that Cadillac pensions are not sustainable. Look at GM - classic case of a union destroying a company, and forcing the rest of us to bail out the union boys' asses.

What you guys assume, incorrectly, is what you are worth. Believe it or not, there are many people out there that will never be worth 1/2 of minimum wage. There are groups of people out there not worth a single minimum wage.

Not to mention the trickle-up affect wage increases have within a company. That's another thing these living wage advocates fail to recognize.

[ElKabong]

Workers are owners of themselves and their blood and sweat and services. When they unionize they gain an advantage bargaining their services.



Or, the steel mills can have their unions bargain the plant mngmnt to the point of shutting down and move south of the border

At my previous job, our biggest 2 suppliers (steel mills) were in Monclova, MEX. Moved from Pennsylvania. If you need a detailed reason WHY those mills moved south, you'll never get it.

[NJ Stinks]

Hope everybody enjoyed today's national salute to organized labor! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[badcompany]

1 The reality is that before unions there was little relationship between productivity and wages. Workers were paid whatever the employer could get away with. It was only after unions gained some traction that wages and productivity began to rise at similar rates. Now, once again, wages have stagnated but productivity continues to rise. Result? A lot of executive bonuses while the workers languish.

2. Children had to work so they wouldn't starve? Can't you see the problem with that statement? How morally bankrupt does a person have to be to say something like that.

The reason children were forced to work in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was that their parents were not being paid enough money to support their families. Children should not be forced to work in factories to keep from starving. Anyone who thinks that has lost his humanity.

I can see why Mike considered banning you, as you have a dispicible habit of distorting what people say. I also regret coming to your defense (You're welcome, btw).

Those children weren't forced to work in factories. Their parents had the option of staying in the country but they obviously felt their chances of surviving were better in the city. No one wants to see kids working in factories, but, at the time, it was the lesser of two evils, the other being starvation.

Liberals seem to think this is a world of plenty where if only the wealthy would part with their "fair share" all want would be eliminated. The truth is that nature is very stingy and only the productive efforts brought about by Capitalism have created enough wealth that even someone as useless as you can live a comfortable life.

However, in the bizarre, entitled, liberal worldview, all pain and suffering is caused by the very people who produce wealth. This argument is easily crushed by looking at parts of the world like sub-saharan Africa where there is little foreign investment. How's their standard of living?

[tbwinner]

I only read parts of this thread but wanted to give a few of my thoughts. I do small business consulting and also handle payroll and bookkeeping for many small businesses.

Unfortunately one of the biggest problems is all the RED TAPE that's involved with hiring. I'm not saying none of those things aren't necessary but the amount of paperwork, time required, money spent, for things that could be made reasonably simple (Payroll taxes, changing withholding rules, exemptions, unemployment insurance,etc) not to mention complying with all the laws and regulations that impact each and every business.

I truly believe that nearly ALL of small businesses and mid-level managers have some sort of CARE and Compassion for their employees. They want to provide a reasonable wage and assistance for all workers. The MAJORITY of people don't exploit their employees and want to provide a reasonable wage and benefits while also maintaining best possibility for profit. I don't know how hard that is to understand by a lot of people that always think employers are out to get them and people in higher command don't give any care. It's all about reasonable and realistic expectations.

[NJ Stinks]

I can see why Mike considered banning you, as you have a dispicible habit of distorting what people say. I also regret coming to your defense (You're welcome, btw).

Those children weren't forced to work in factories. Their parents had the option of staying in the country but they obviously felt their chances of surviving were better in the city. No one wants to see kids working in factories, but, at the time, it was the lesser of two evils, the other being starvation.

Liberals seem to think this is a world of plenty where if only the wealthy would part with their "fair share" all want would be eliminated. The truth is that nature is very stingy and only the productive efforts brought about by Capitalism have created enough wealth that even someone as useless as you can live a comfortable life.

However, in the bizarre, entitled, liberal worldview, all pain and suffering is caused by the very people who produce wealth. This argument is easily crushed by looking at parts of the world like sub-saharan Africa where there is little foreign investment. How's their standard of living?

I agree with you, BC. It is OK to have an unexpressed thought! ;)

[DJofSD]

Hope everybody enjoyed today's national salute to organized labor! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
Nice try. I think you're confusing May 1st with Labor Day.

[NJ Stinks]

Nice try. I think you're confusing May 1st with Labor Day.

The History of Labor Day

Check out our Labor Day 2012 page (http://www.dol.gov/laborday/), complete with videos, photo, resources, and more.

Labor Day: How it Came About; What it Means

Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.


More at the link: http://www.dol.gov/opa/aboutdol/laborday.htm

[badcompany]

Still don't get why so-called Capitalists and avid free marketers would not consider workers selling their labor and services for market price. Enabled by Worker organizations we call Unions. Let the market set perceived value. If the workers ask to much the company can shut down. Just like if the worker is not happy with his deal, let him work somewhere else.

Only provision should be neither the worker or company can skedaddle overseas and add wealth to another country.

When your bargaining tactic is to shut down a business via a strike, it's not the market price. It's a form of coercion.

The Union model has had its chance and has failed. That's why you have to resort to Fascist tactics like forcing a company to stay in a certain place. If unionized industries were really more efficient this tactic wouldn't be necessary.

[ntheiroff]

Sorry, but thinking that labor unions and their purpose are obsolete (ntheiroff) is stupid.
Thinking that the way to solve the problem of children starving is to make those children work, rather than paying their parents a living wage, (badcompany) is stupid.
Blaming unions for bankruptcy (delayjf) is stupid.
Believing that this country was established, grew and prospered because of guns is stupid (Tom)
Thinking that Niall Ferguson is someone who has an unbiased view of unions is stupid. (delayjf)
Posting a reply that reads "Oh my. :faint: is... you get the point.

And I would like to point out that I said the replies were stupid, not any particular poster.

If labor unions and lobbyists were to be made illegal, 90+% of corruption at all levels of government would disappear. This by itself would cause the cost of many products that we purchase on a daily basis to be less. At some point these products would become cost effective with products that we now import. Voila, we could now make it in the good ol' U.S.A, new jobs!

[hcap]

If labor unions and lobbyists were to be made illegal, 90+% of corruption at all levels of government would disappear. This by itself would cause the cost of many products that we purchase on a daily basis to be less. At some point these products would become cost effective with products that we now import. Voila, we could now make it in the good ol' U.S.A, new jobs!After so many years of lurking, you sure found your voice. Quite hysterical but damn, you fit right in. Welcome to OT :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

When your bargaining tactic is to shut down a business via a strike, it's not the market price. It's a form of coercion.

The Union model has had its chance and has failed. That's why you have to resort to Fascist tactics like forcing a company to stay in a certain place. If unionized industries were really more efficient this tactic wouldn't be necessary.Globalization and outsourcing have been going on WAY before you gentlemen got the bug to blame Union tactics for the "Giant sucking sound" we are hearing. The advent of cheap international shipping and .10 cents/hour Chinese/Vietnamese/Caribbean sweatshop labor, and offshore tax havens have drawn companies overseas. Even if Unions were to roll back wages, do you honestly think many companies would alter their race to the bottom strategies?

[badcompany]

Globalization and outsourcing have been going on WAY before you gentlemen got the bug to blame Union tactics for the "Giant sucking sound" we are hearing. The advent of cheap international shipping and .10 cents/hour Chinese/Vietnamese/Caribbean sweatshop labor, and offshore tax havens have drawn companies overseas. Even if Unions were to roll back wages, do you honestly think many companies would alter their race to the bottom strategies?

Much like NJ Stinks, you're an economic illiterate. So, explaining why an International Division of Labor increases overall wealth and has resulted in the average Joe having access to goods and services that weren't available even to the top 1% just a few years ago is pointless.

But maybe you can understand a basic economic concept like the Demand Curve which illustrates that when the price for something goes up, the demand for it goes down. This applies to labor, as well. Anyone can price themselves out of the labor market if they charge too much for their services.

When Unions use coercive tactics like strikes to gain a monopoly price, the demand for union labor goes down. This creates a glut of workers in non-unionized sectors of the economy. The increased supply of workers in those sectors pushes wages DOWN. That's the real class warfare.

Unionize everybody, you say! Then you'd have permanent large scale unemployment akin to what would happen if Minimum Wage were raised to $20 hour.

The "Race to the bottom" you cite is just a decrease in demand for overpriced labor.

[BlueShoe]

no doubt that communism would not have been able to survive in this country, even thrive, had it not been for unions. so there's that.
If there is one institution that has been infiltrated, influenced, and controlled by the American Communist Party, it has been organized labor. The CPUSA has been active in the unions since the early years of both movements. During the Depression the unions were almost completely run by the Reds, for an example take a look at Harry Bridges and the longshoremen's union. Later anti communist leaders such as George Meaney and Lane Kirkland tried to clean up the unions by kicking the Reds out, with moderate success. However, in recent years the doors have been opened wide for the communists, with the presidency of John Sweeney, an openly avowed Marxist, and Richard Trumka, whose ideology is at least as far left as Sweeney's.

[DJofSD]

With the pending termination of the regime, I wonder how many of the unelected elite will find positions in union related organizations. Just like cockroaches when the lights are turned on, they'll be looking for any place to hide out of the spotlight.

[Tom]

Many of those people came to the Obama administration from underneath refrigerators to begin with!

[DJofSD]

The cap to the milk bottle must have rolled under it.

[BlueShoe]

For those that "look for the union label", here is a brief profile of AFL/CIO President Richard Trumka, a man that is in touch with the White House two or three times a week, and who has stated that being labeled a socialist is a step upward.
www.frontpagemag.com/2011/matthew-vadum/union-gangsters-richard-trumka/ (http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/matthew-vadum/union-gangsters-richard-trumka/)

[mostpost]

I can see why Mike considered banning you, as you have a dispicible habit of distorting what people say. I also regret coming to your defense (You're welcome, btw).

Those children weren't forced to work in factories. Their parents had the option of staying in the country but they obviously felt their chances of surviving were better in the city. No one wants to see kids working in factories, but, at the time, it was the lesser of two evils, the other being starvation.

Liberals seem to think this is a world of plenty where if only the wealthy would part with their "fair share" all want would be eliminated. The truth is that nature is very stingy and only the productive efforts brought about by Capitalism have created enough wealth that even someone as useless as you can live a comfortable life.

However, in the bizarre, entitled, liberal worldview, all pain and suffering is caused by the very people who produce wealth. This argument is easily crushed by looking at parts of the world like sub-saharan Africa where there is little foreign investment. How's their standard of living?

From your original post:
The reason you had children working in factories back then is that the other option was to starve to death in the country.
This is a good example of how something can be misinterpreted. When I saw country, I took it to mean "nation". You meant it as "rural." That does somewhat change the tenor of your remarks and my response to them.

It does not, however, make them correct.

By and large, the people affected by child labor were not people moving from farms to the city. They were immigrants moving from Europe to America. People in the city were much more likely to be starving than people on the farm.

All of which leaves my question. How is it moral that a child should have to work in order to feed himself? How is it moral to not pay a parent enough to feed himself and his family? How is it moral to put (excessive) profits ahead of people? If a business can survive after paying its employees fairly, great! If it can not, then let it fail.

[Valuist]

Corporations may be people, but Unions not corporations were responsible for all these things we take for granted this Labor Day.



And Labor Day does not mean Union Day.

http://www.thedisciplinedinvestor.com/blog/2012/09/03/message-to-working-america-its-labor-day-not-union-day/

[mostpost]

Liberals seem to think this is a world of plenty where if only the wealthy would part with their "fair share" all want would be eliminated. The truth is that nature is very stingy and only the productive efforts brought about by Capitalism have created enough wealth that even someone as useless as you can live a comfortable life.

Talk about distorting. :bang: Liberals do not want the wealthy to part with their fair share. We just want them to give us back our fair share. They have been taking more and more of that over the past thirty years.

Understand, I am talking about a general trend. There are many business owners who try to pay employees what the are worth. Nonetheless, even those owners and companies face constant pressure from those who would prefer to keep all for themselves.

They say it is unwise to criticize a person's religion. But I am going to criticize your religion, Capitalism. At least I am going to criticize your slavish devotion.

Capitalism provides the foundation for productivity, but the productivity itself must come from the producers. The producers are the ones who physically create-the ones on the assembly line. The Capitalist can build as many factories as he wants, but unless there is worker on that assembly line, that factory is worthless.

[badcompany]

All of which leaves my question. How is it moral that a child should have to work in order to feed himself? How is it moral to not pay a parent enough to feed himself and his family? How is it moral to put (excessive) profits ahead of people? If a business can survive after paying its employees fairly, great! If it can not, then let it fail.

The economic George Costanza strikes again, but, at least George had the self-awareness to realize that his every instinct is the opposite of what it should be. You actually take yourself seriously. That's what's so tragic.

The "Living Wage" you advocate really would cause failures among marginally profitable businesses. These failures would cause a decrease in the supply of goods and services, consequentially prices would rise, causing a decrease in real wages. In addition, the dismissed workers from the failing businesses would create a glut of workers in the dwindling number of still profitable businesses, also putting downward pressure on wages.

In summary, you fail.

[Tom]

We just want them to give us back our fair share.

Only if you EARN it.

[davew]

When your bargaining tactic is to shut down a business via a strike, it's not the market price. It's a form of coercion.

The Union model has had its chance and has failed. That's why you have to resort to Fascist tactics like forcing a company to stay in a certain place. If unionized industries were really more efficient this tactic wouldn't be necessary.

I feel it is a 20-50% extortion

[mostpost]

The "Living Wage" you advocate really would cause failures among marginally profitable businesses. These failures would cause a decrease in the supply of goods and services, consequentially prices would rise, causing a decrease in real wages. In addition, the dismissed workers from the failing businesses would create a glut of workers in the dwindling number of still profitable businesses, also putting downward pressure on wages.

It really would not. It also would not cause a rise in unemployment. I did a little research on my own. First I looked for the times the minimum wage has increased. Then I checked the unemployment rate in that month and compared it to the rate in the same month one year later. I figured that gave enough time for the change to take effect.
Since 1950 there have been 19 increases in the minimum wage. Eleven times the unemployment rate has been lower one year later-twice it has stayed the same.
Six times it has been higher; May 1974 to May 1975; Jan 1979 to Jan 1980; Jan 1980 to Jan 1981; Jan 1981 to Jan 1982; July 2007 to July 2008; July 2008 to July 2009.

You will notice that I put the last five of those dates in Red. Those were the five times when an increase in unemployment coinciding with an increase in minimum wage also coincided with a recession.

I'm sure I will have to spell it out for you, so I will. The unemployment was not caused by the increase in minimum wage. It was caused by the recession(s).

There are also official studies that disprove the theory that an increase in the minimum wage leads to business failure and unemployment.
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_raising_minimum_wage_2004/

figure 5 is particularly informative. Not that you wish to be informed.

[badcompany]

It really would not. It also would not cause a rise in unemployment. I did a little research on my own. First I looked for the times the minimum wage has increased. Then I checked the unemployment rate in that month and compared it to the rate in the same month one year later. I figured that gave enough time for the change to take effect.
Since 1950 there have been 19 increases in the minimum wage. Eleven times the unemployment rate has been lower one year later-twice it has stayed the same.
Six times it has been higher; May 1974 to May 1975; Jan 1979 to Jan 1980; Jan 1980 to Jan 1981; Jan 1981 to Jan 1982; July 2007 to July 2008; July 2008 to July 2009.

You will notice that I put the last five of those dates in Red. Those were the five times when an increase in unemployment coinciding with an increase in minimum wage also coincided with a recession.

I'm sure I will have to spell it out for you, so I will. The unemployment was not caused by the increase in minimum wage. It was caused by the recession(s).

There are also official studies that disprove the theory that an increase in the minimum wage leads to business failure and unemployment.
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_raising_minimum_wage_2004/

figure 5 is particularly informative. Not that you wish to be informed.

You can't refute anything I said from the standpoint of economic theory, so you cherry pick meaningless stats. Seen it before. Have no interest refuting it yet again.

Yawn.

[mostpost]

You can't refute anything I said from the standpoint of economic theory, so you cherry pick meaningless stats. Seen it before. Have no interest refuting it yet again.

Yawn.
How are stats meaningless when the tell us the opposite of what you claim. A theory has to be based on facts and the facts I presented don't gibe with your theory. Maybe there is something wrong with your theory. Your theory says if we pay people more business will close and unemployment will rise.

My facts show that this is not true. My theory says if you pay people more they will have more money to buy. If they have more money to buy, companies will have to increase production. If they increase production they will have to hire more people.

If your theory is true, then why not pay people nothing. That way businesses can make bigger profits. No, wait! If no one has any money, we wouldn't sell anything. Not good for business.

Unlike me, you probably majored in business and economics in college. Maybe you aced all your courses. Maybe you were the pride of your professors. All this means is that you are an expert on a flawed theory.

[nijinski]

My Dad worked for the Teamsters Union... cough... for 21 years and he died very young in the late seventies. My Mom didn't see a dime of his pension after those 21 years of driving the rigs and paying his union dues.

They said he needed more years to meet the required age . Some years later I called them to re open his case and asked them to at least send
my Mom his dues back with interest . I knew of another Teamster who actually fought to get dues back .

They told me the law had finally changed to protect the young widows and pay the benefit . Just one small problem . The law wasn't grandfathered .
They and their lawyers are totally useless and corrupt . But we already knew about the corrupt part.

[badcompany]

How are stats meaningless when the tell us the opposite of what you claim. A theory has to be based on facts and the facts I presented don't gibe with your theory. Maybe there is something wrong with your theory. Your theory says if we pay people more business will close and unemployment will rise.


Your stat is meaningless because you used the unemployment rate for the entire workforce. Less than 10% of the workforce actually makes minimum wage. Your stat included Doctors, Lawyer, CPAs, Engineers etc. who obviously aren't affected one way or another by minimum wage.

Do a bit of "research" for black teenage unemployment, you know, those underpriviledged youths you care so much about. Then, report back.



My facts show that this is not true. My theory says if you pay people more they will have more money to buy. If they have more money to buy, companies will have to increase production. If they increase production they will have to hire more people.

If your theory is true, then why not pay people nothing. That way businesses can make bigger profits. No, wait! If no one has any money, we wouldn't sell anything. Not good for business.


Yes, paying people nothing is an excellent way to staff a business. The applicants would be lined up for miles.:lol:

Ironically, employers would like to pay their employees nothing, much in the same way I'd like to get a Porsche for nothing, but, neither will happen anytime soon.

Employers must pay the market rate for employees, the same way I have to pay the market rate for a Porsche.

Once again, you fail.

[Tom]

The idea of a living wage is only sound if the person who wants to earn it can offer services worth it. No business owes anyone more than he or she contributes to their bottom line.

If your want to earn more, contribute more.
Is a Wal Mart greeter worthy of a living wage?
Of course not.
Is your paperboy?

[newtothegame]

I really applaud you gents for trying to explain to those on the left how economics works......But, you're fighting an uphill battle. It's hard to explain to those who have not had to work in the private sector for many years what an economy is and how it works.
When all you have ever had to do is recieve TOP dollar (comparitive to market wages) for a job that obviously is worth less then what you were making, I would expect these types of responses (from the left).
There is a reason the government is having to borrow more and more.....
There is a reason state budgets are so far out of line around the country....
There is a reason the USPS is losing money hand over first and essentially holds a monopoly on their business model.......
There is a reason GM will be near bankruptcy in the near future.......
There is a reason union membership is dropping like a rock over the last thirty years........
Question is, do those on the left really want to understand that reason or continue to blame others????
If it's bad management (as most on the left complain about), then I would agree...yes its TERRIBLE management of the UNIONS!
If they wish to shield their union brothers (and I use that term lightly as it has been shown time and time again how union leadership screws their members out of millions), then YES, again I agree that government leadership has been Terrible.
In the case of GM, yes I again agree poor leadership as I would of closed the damn plants down as NO company is too big too fail.
You see, union boys want to hold companies hostage because they essentially know the business will do everything it can to survive and ultimately cave in to those demands. I say don't cave an inch....they want to close a plant with picket lines, SO BE IT!!!

[mostpost]

I really applaud you gents for trying to explain to those on the left how economics works......But, you're fighting an uphill battle. It's hard to explain to those who have not had to work in the private sector for many years what an economy is and how it works.
When all you have ever had to do is recieve TOP dollar (comparitive to market wages) for a job that obviously is worth less then what you were making, I would expect these types of responses (from the left).
There is a reason the government is having to borrow more and more.....
Because Republicans cut taxes far below what was necessary to sustain necessary services.
There is a reason state budgets are so far out of line around the country....
See bold sentence above.
There is a reason the USPS is losing money hand over first and essentially holds a monopoly on their business model.......
Yes, and I have explained it to you several times. My question to you is, "Do you forget so easily or are you so set in your righty ways that you forget on purpose.
USPS surplus or deficits over the last several years.
Postal Service Net Income By Year

2010 - $8.5 billion loss
2009 - $3.8 billion loss
2008 - $2.8 billion loss
2007 - $5.1 billion loss
2006 - $900 million surplus
2005 - $1.4 billion surplus
2004 - $3.1 billion surplus
2003 - $3.9 billion surplus
What changed between 2006 and 2007? The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. ( A misnomer if ever there was one)
The main provision of this act was one which required USPS to prefund its pension and Helath plans 75 years in the future. No private company is required to do this. No other government agency is required to do this. This requirement added $5.5B per year to USPS expenses. There was only one purpose for this requirement. To Destroy the United States Postal Service.

There is a reason GM will be near bankruptcy in the near future.......
There is no empirical evidence to back up that claim, just the opinion of one guy in a column.
There is a reason union membership is dropping like a rock over the last thirty years........
Question is, do those on the left really want to understand that reason or continue to blame others????
If it's bad management (as most on the left complain about), then I would agree...yes its TERRIBLE management of the UNIONS!
If they wish to shield their union brothers (and I use that term lightly as it has been shown time and time again how union leadership screws their members out of millions), then YES, again I agree that government leadership has been Terrible.
In the case of GM, yes I again agree poor leadership as I would of closed the damn plants down as NO company is too big too fail.
You see, union boys want to hold companies hostage because they essentially know the business will do everything it can to survive and ultimately cave in to those demands. I say don't cave an inch....they want to close a plant with picket lines, SO BE IT!!!

Nonsense. Total nonsense.

[bigmack]

I did a little research on my own.
With your track record, NOT a good thing to declare.

Strive to be less of a tool. You might actually learn something from others instead of running around with such laughably blind bias.

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by newtothegame
I really applaud you gents for trying to explain to those on the left how economics works......But, you're fighting an uphill battle. It's hard to explain to those who have not had to work in the private sector for many years what an economy is and how it works.
When all you have ever had to do is recieve TOP dollar (comparitive to market wages) for a job that obviously is worth less then what you were making, I would expect these types of responses (from the left).
There is a reason the government is having to borrow more and more.....
Because Republicans cut taxes far below what was necessary to sustain necessary services.
There is a reason state budgets are so far out of line around the country....
See bold sentence above.
There is a reason the USPS is losing money hand over first and essentially holds a monopoly on their business model.......
Yes, and I have explained it to you several times. My question to you is, "Do you forget so easily or are you so set in your righty ways that you forget on purpose.
USPS surplus or deficits over the last several years.
Postal Service Net Income By Year

2010 - $8.5 billion loss
2009 - $3.8 billion loss
2008 - $2.8 billion loss
2007 - $5.1 billion loss
2006 - $900 million surplus
2005 - $1.4 billion surplus
2004 - $3.1 billion surplus
2003 - $3.9 billion surplus
What changed between 2006 and 2007? The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. ( A misnomer if ever there was one)
The main provision of this act was one which required USPS to prefund its pension and Helath plans 75 years in the future. No private company is required to do this. No other government agency is required to do this. This requirement added $5.5B per year to USPS expenses. There was only one purpose for this requirement. To Destroy the United States Postal Service.

There is a reason GM will be near bankruptcy in the near future.......
There is no empirical evidence to back up that claim, just the opinion of one guy in a column.
There is a reason union membership is dropping like a rock over the last thirty years........
Question is, do those on the left really want to understand that reason or continue to blame others????
If it's bad management (as most on the left complain about), then I would agree...yes its TERRIBLE management of the UNIONS!
If they wish to shield their union brothers (and I use that term lightly as it has been shown time and time again how union leadership screws their members out of millions), then YES, again I agree that government leadership has been Terrible.
In the case of GM, yes I again agree poor leadership as I would of closed the damn plants down as NO company is too big too fail.
You see, union boys want to hold companies hostage because they essentially know the business will do everything it can to survive and ultimately cave in to those demands. I say don't cave an inch....they want to close a plant with picket lines, SO BE IT!!!


So, I see you still only like to pick and chose your words and facts huh??
Problem is in your own RIDICULOUS reply, you put up numbers prior to 06. So, let's assume for a sec you are right about after 06. How do you account for the DOWNWARD spiral of surplus prior to 06??

And, accounting is a tricky thing for business. IT DOESNT MATTER if it was pre funder or not after 06. IT WOULD STLL have to be paid at some point. See, this goes to the heart of the argument....you on the left wish to keep just kicking the can down the road (SEE GM). THE usps was and has been a failed entity for sometime. You never once address the fact that workers in government positions (like USPS) make more then their counterparts in the private sector. And coincidentally, those private sector companies are fairing very well versus the government jobs.
How is that? How is it that on a comparitive scale, private sector businesses hold there own while government jobs in similiar fields are having dwindling surpluses??????
See, although you will never admit it, government (like unions) is a bloated pig that keeps growing and will take whatever resources it needs to survive. And those resources are in the form of taxes and union dues.
You get on here and bitch to no end about CEO and executive pays yet I have NEVER heard you talk about the CEO (presidents) and execs of unions and what they make.
Our union rep drove around in almost a 6 figure car...yet I never once saw him on the rails laying track...switching cars, ....
But you wont bitch about that will ya?
Hell his secretary made more then most of us out in the yard.....(not to worry though, she was rather stunning).
I remind all of my old buddies (still union) how I am sure she appreciates their dues!!!!

[wisconsin]

Is a Wal Mart greeter worthy of a living wage?


Mosty does not know what a Wal Mart greeter is, he never shops there.

[ArlJim78]

good video from Reason, The Machine.

mVyNlJUKgug

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mVyNlJUKgug#!

[BlueShoe]

Mosty does not know what a Wal Mart greeter is, he never shops there.
Of course not. Walmart is an American success story, and if there is anything that a liberal cannot tolerate, it is a company that has made it's founders very wealthy, made money for it's stockholers, provided employment for millions over the years, and saved billions of dollars for it's customers, all the while keeping the unions out. Leftists do not like companies that make money, it upsets their Marxist/Leninist mindset and arouses their fantasies about "greedy capitalists" and "exploited downtrodden workers." :rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

Teachers union bussed in the occupy protestors in Tampa, then moved them up to Charlotte

[hcap]

Much like NJ Stinks, you're an economic illiterate. So, explaining why an International Division of Labor increases overall wealth and has resulted in the average Joe having access to goods and services that weren't available even to the top 1% just a few years ago is pointless.

But maybe you can understand a basic economic concept like the Demand Curve which illustrates that when the price for something goes up, the demand for it goes down. This applies to labor, as well. Anyone can price themselves out of the labor market if they charge too much for their services.

When Unions use coercive tactics like strikes to gain a monopoly price, the demand for union labor goes down. This creates a glut of workers in non-unionized sectors of the economy. The increased supply of workers in those sectors pushes wages DOWN. That's the real class warfare.

Unionize everybody, you say! Then you'd have permanent large scale unemployment akin to what would happen if Minimum Wage were raised to $20 hour.

The "Race to the bottom" you cite is just a decrease in demand for overpriced labor.Amazing how corporations are suffering under evil unions demanding living wages and commie comrade Obama reign

[elysiantraveller]

Amazing how corporations are suffering under evil unions demanding living wages and commie comrade Obama reign

This has absolutely nothing to do with what BC posted.

[dartman51]

This has absolutely nothing to do with what BC posted.

Give him credit ET, at least he finally admitted that Obama is a Commie. :lol:

[hcap]

This has absolutely nothing to do with what BC posted.But it has much to do with the assumption that unions are sending corporations overseas.

[DJofSD]

But it has much to do with the assumption that unions are sending corporations overseas.
Ya, I'll believe that when I see a press release. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

But it has much to do with the assumption that unions are sending corporations overseas.

Businesses have tons of money overseas that they want to invest here, but cannot because of the insane policies of the left. This is a fact.
And when you say Obama, you are saying Union.

No business in it's right mid would invest major money in the US right now.
Remember, no one even knows what is all in Obama care yet - no one read what they voted for. Morons.

[badcompany]

Businesses have tons of money overseas that they want to invest here, but cannot because of the insane policies of the left.

The main problem with the Leftist analysis of the economy and business is that they consider profits without a corresponding consideration of the possibility of losses. Since HCAP and Mostpost are such research experts, they should talk to local business people and ask if it's easy to stay profitable.

Even the biggest companies can go busto in a short period of time. I believe it was you who pointed out the bankruptcy of Kodak, which, at its peak employed over 100k.

In the Leftist economic world, the employees get all the profits but take none of the risks. Losses? That's the Boss' or the Taxpayers' problem.

Why would anyone start a business under these conditions?

[badcompany]

But it has much to do with the assumption that unions are sending corporations overseas.

At this point unions are largely irrelevant in the private sector. It's taxation and regulation that sends businesses looking for a more friendly environment.

[elysiantraveller]

But it has much to do with the assumption that unions are sending corporations overseas.

That assumption was made in the film Roger and Me...

But you are right... Private sector unions are mostly dead...

[mostpost]

Your stat is meaningless because you used the unemployment rate for the entire workforce. Less than 10% of the workforce actually makes minimum wage. Your stat included Doctors, Lawyer, CPAs, Engineers etc. who obviously aren't affected one way or another by minimum wage.

Do a bit of "research" for black teenage unemployment, you know, those underpriviledged youths you care so much about. Then, report back.

Here is a chart from BLS.gov comparing teenage unemployment with changes in minimum wage. (the first chart in the blog)
http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2009/11/minimum-wage-canard-revisited.html
Once again reality does not coincide with your opinion. Teenage unemployment is pretty much independent of changes in minimum wage.

Look at the decade of the nineties. Minimum wage was increased by 27% early in the decades and by 21.2% in the last half. Meanwhile, teenage unemployment dropped from 23% in 1992 to 12% in 2000. Also note the shaded areas. Those are recessions. Teenage unemployment closely follows those time periods.

[badcompany]

Here is a chart from BLS.gov comparing teenage unemployment with changes in minimum wage. (the first chart in the blog)
http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2009/11/minimum-wage-canard-revisited.html
Once again reality does not coincide with your opinion. Teenage unemployment is pretty much independent of changes in minimum wage.

Look at the decade of the nineties. Minimum wage was increased by 27% early in the decades and by 21.2% in the last half. Meanwhile, teenage unemployment dropped from 23% in 1992 to 12% in 2000. Also note the shaded areas. Those are recessions. Teenage unemployment closely follows those time periods.

In the piece, Bonddad argues that Teen Unemployment is more correlated to recessions than to changes in the minimum wage. Unfortunately, Bonddad's lack of economic chops cause his analysis to be very shallow.

When do you two think wage price controls would have its deleterious effects? During boom times employers can get away with overpaying a little for labor. Recessions are when the chickens come home to roost. Without the minimum wage hike during the early 2000's, the current teen unemployment rate would most certainly be much lower.

The last point I made also illustrates why that chart is insufficient. It doesn't take into account what the unemployment would've been without the minimum wage increases.

Economics is a complext subject. That's why very simplistic arguments like yours, "If you pay people more, they'll have more to spend and everything will be great" sound nice, but don't pan out as planned in practice. Just giving people more money without a corresponding increase in productivity only results in higher prices as more dollars chase the same amount of goods. So, what the workers gain in nomimal wages they lose in real wages.

[mostpost]

In the piece, Bonddad argues that Teen Unemployment is more correlated to recessions than to changes in the minimum wage. Unfortunately, Bonddad's lack of economic chops cause his analysis to be very shallow.

When do you two think wage price controls would have its deleterious effects? During boom times employers can get away with overpaying a little for labor. Recessions are when the chickens come home to roost. Without the minimum wage hike during the early 2000's, the current teen unemployment rate would most certainly be much lower.
Let's review.
In #77 you said:
The "Living Wage" you advocate really would cause failures among marginally profitable businesses. These failures would cause a decrease in the supply of goods and services, consequentially prices would rise, causing a decrease in real wages. In addition, the dismissed workers from the failing businesses would create a glut of workers in the dwindling number of still profitable businesses, also putting downward pressure on wages.

I responded with statistics proving that there was little correlation between increases in the minimum wage and increases in unemployment, but there was a correlation (as would be expected) between increases in unemployment and recessions.

Even though there was nothing in your #77 about teenagers, you changed the rules and told me my stats were meaningless because they did not address a demographic that you had not mentioned previously.

Fine, I found stats (from the Bureau of Labor Standards) that even more conclusively that an increase in minimum wage does not cause an increase in unemployment even among teen age workers. If you can read a chart you can see that. OOPS!!

Again I pointed out the correlation between higher teen unemployment and recessions. Your response was of course the rate is higher during a recession-its a recession, but it would have been lower had we not had increases in the minimum wage. For this statement you offer as proof, nothing. But you offer your opinion with the fervor of a true zealot.

You said:
Without the minimum wage hike during the early 2000's, the current teen unemployment rate would most certainly be much lower

There was no hike in the early 2000's. The last hike was in 1998; then in 2008. Oh, and putting the words "Most certainly" into an inaccurate statement does not increase the accuracy of that statement one iota.

[badcompany]

Let's review.
In #77 you said:


I responded with statistics proving that there was little correlation between increases in the minimum wage and increases in unemployment, but there was a correlation (as would be expected) between increases in unemployment and recessions.

Even though there was nothing in your #77 about teenagers, you changed the rules and told me my stats were meaningless because they did not address a demographic that you had not mentioned previously.

Fine, I found stats (from the Bureau of Labor Standards) that even more conclusively that an increase in minimum wage does not cause an increase in unemployment even among teen age workers. If you can read a chart you can see that. OOPS!!

Again I pointed out the correlation between higher teen unemployment and recessions. Your response was of course the rate is higher during a recession-its a recession, but it would have been lower had we not had increases in the minimum wage. For this statement you offer as proof, nothing. But you offer your opinion with the fervor of a true zealot.

You said:


There was no hike in the early 2000's. The last hike was in 1998; then in 2008. Oh, and putting the words "Most certainly" into an inaccurate statement does not increase the accuracy of that statement one iota.

What you found was a chart which you assumed to be the be all end all. I pointed out that it was insufficient and gave a reason why. You can't handle the reason. So, you whine.

I don't see you having a problem with Obama going on and on about how bad things would've been without his stimulus and deficit spending, but, when I do the same, I'm a "zealot."

Then again, you're a guy who thinks tax hikes cause economic growth. So, why wouldn't you think that the price of labor has no effect on the demand for it?

Oh, yeah, and, just in case you wondering about those underpriviledged African-American youths you care so much about, here's some info. Does it confirm what I said about not lumping everybody together as you did in your "Research"?:


The unemployment rate for black Americans jumped up to 14.4 percent in June, from 13.6 percent the previous month.

By comparison, white unemployment remained consistent at 7.4 percent. Hispanic and Latino unemployment was unchanged at 11 percent.

Even more alarming is the unemployment rate among black youth, ages 16-19, jumped a full 2.8 points, to 39.3 percent. That's nearly double the 20.9 percent unemployment rate for whites in the same age demographic.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/black-teen-unemployment-rate-jobs-report-2012-7#ixzz25dzivqJo

[Actor]

Corporations may be people, but Unions not corporations were responsible for all these things we take for granted this Labor Day.

Weekends without work
All breaks at work, including your lunch breaks
Paid vacation
Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Sick leave
Social Security
Minimum wage
Civil Rights Act/Title VII - prohibits employer discrimination
8-hour work day
Overtime pay
Child labor laws
Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
40-hour work week
Workers’ compensation (workers’ comp)
Unemployment insurance
Pensions
Workplace safety standards and regulations
Employer health care insurance
Collective bargaining rights for employees
Wrongful termination laws
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
Whistleblower protection laws
Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) - prohibits employers from using a lie detector test on an employee
Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
Compensation increases and evaluations (i.e. raises)
Sexual harassment laws
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Holiday pay
Employer dental, life, and vision insurance
Privacy rights
Pregnancy and parental leave
Military leave
The right to strike
Public education for children
Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 - requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work
Laws ending sweatshops in the United States
Add these to the list:

The company must pay you in legal tender, not company scrip.
The company cannot force to buy only at the company store.

Thank you Tennessee Ernie Ford! :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

No one dismisses the important role unions played at one time.
How many of this items on hcap's list are now protected by labor laws?

[hcap]

No one dismisses the important role unions played at one time.
How many of this items on hcap's list are now protected by labor laws?The point is they weren't. And they all look VERY socialistic to me. Just like SS and Medicare and the Dept of Education.

But looks like you guys will be able to continue bitching about birth certificates and college grades for FOUR MORE YEARS :jump: :jump: :jump:

[mostpost]

No one dismisses the important role unions played at one time.
How many of this items on hcap's list are now protected by labor laws?
There is not a single law that can't be repealed, watered down, nullified or not enforced. The only way we keep those laws is by having the strength to keep them. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom and it is the price of any of our rights.

[Tom]

There is not a single contract that can't be repealed, watered down, nullified or not enforced.

I do see your point, though, like the law that Obama broke by cutting out the legal owners of GM - the bond holders - in favor of the UAW, contributors to him. GM was STOLEN from the owners and given to the exact group - UAW - that broke it in the first place.

And hcap, just because YOU have zero to celebrate with the loser in the WH doesn't mean WE are not concerned with the issues. OBam knew the reuslt of the unemployment last night, before his speech, the one where he blamed Bush, attacked Romney, give no specifics, and generally avoided the real issues of his failed presidency, while about 400,000 people who dropped out of the job market last month sat home and pondered the question are they better off now that they were 4 years ago. 400,000 people.

When the dems tok over both houses of Congress, 01/03/2007 the unemployment rate was 4.5%. All those people had jobs, plus millions more.
Gas was under $2 and Obama's policies had not yet driven them up to just shy of $4. Since that date, the dems have either controlled both houses, or the senate, where they have refused to vote on anything but tax hikes.

So stick the BC where the sun don't shine, which is pretty much the whole country as long as this failure is in office.

There is no exit strategy, no plan for recovery, no idea what to do.

But you lefties found time to cheer a sexual pervert and GD drunk who let a young girl drown, say no to GOD and throw Israel under the bus.

You guys are losers and will never be anything but losers.

[Actor]

I do see your point, though, like the law that Obama broke...Exactly what law is that?

...by cutting out the legal owners of GM - the bond holders - Bondholders do not own any of the company. They have loaned money to the company with first claim to the assets of the company should the company default on the loan. The company is owned by stockholders. The value of their stock is determined by market forces. If the company goes bankrupt, as Romney wanted, then the stockholders probably get nothing and the bondholders get pennies on the dollar. Whether you agree with Obama's action or not the fact is that the bail out of GM benefited both the stockholders and the bondholders.

[lsbets]

Exactly what law is that?

Bondholders do not own any of the company. They have loaned money to the company with first claim to the assets of the company should the company default on the loan. The company is owned by stockholders. The value of their stock is determined by market forces. If the company goes bankrupt, as Romney wanted, then the stockholders probably get nothing and the bondholders get pennies on the dollar. Whether you agree with Obama's action or not the fact is that the bail out of GM benefited both the stockholders and the bondholders.

GM did go bankrupt, although they went through a corrupt bankruptcy proceeding which took the rightful assets of the bondholders and gave those assets to the UAW. The bondholders were screwed more than anyone in the GM bankruptcy.

Whether you agree with it or not, the facts are GM went through bankruptcy and the bondholders did not get what was rightfully theirs.

[HUSKER55]

i still do not think our founding fathers ever intended for government to be involved in business to that extent.

[mostpost]

GM did go bankrupt, although they went through a corrupt bankruptcy proceeding which took the rightful assets of the bondholders and gave those assets to the UAW. The bondholders were screwed more than anyone in the GM bankruptcy.

Whether you agree with it or not, the facts are GM went through bankruptcy and the bondholders did not get what was rightfully theirs.

It what way was it corrupt? The bankruptcy proceeding went through a bankruptcy court. Was the judge corrupt? You better have some good evidence for an accusation like that.

The offer, before bankruptcy was !0% of GM stock in exchange for $27B of unsecured debt. That was rejected by the bondholders.

This information is from this article.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bankruptcy-likely-for-general-motors-1691469.html

The article also has the following bit of information.
Another factor complicating the decision of GM's bondholders: Many large investors hold insurance policies on their bonds known as credit default swaps. Such policies would reimburse bondholders in the event of a "credit event" like a bankruptcy filing.

Isn't that interesting? Many large investors would not lose any money if GM went to bankruptcy, but if they agreed to restructuring without bankruptcy they would likely lose some money. The Obama administration demanded a 90% participation rate in the deal.

Prior to bankruptcy, GM made an offer to its creditors which the UAW accepted and the bondholders did not. Once the company went into bankruptcy the creditors were required to accept the plan put forth by the bankruptcy court. Since it only required 10% to reject the deal, it was easy for the larger bondholder to kill the deal and ensure that their credit default swaps would come into play.

Also note that the article says this was unsecured debt.

[lsbets]

It what way was it corrupt? The bankruptcy proceeding went through a bankruptcy court. Was the judge corrupt? You better have some good evidence for an accusation like that.

The administration pushed through a plan which ran counter to bankruptcy law and rewarded one of the administration's largest campaign contributors and supporters. That is corrupt.

And :lol: :lol: at "you better have some good evidence". What are you gonna do? Report me to government? "This guy is talking bad about Obama. We just cannot have that." :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Was the judge corrupt? You better have some good evidence for an accusation like that.

I don't know about the judge - was he democrat?
If so, he was most like corrupt as hell.
I am sure the POTUS is thief - that is beyond debate.

[ElKabong]

You better have some good evidence for an accusation like that.

.

This one ranks right up there with your "please mr moderator, do not delete this post"

[lsbets]

This one ranks right up there with your "please mr moderator, do not delete this post"

He claims to have no recollection of that exchange, at least what lead to him asking PA to leave the post up. He also claims that he cannot find those posts, which were from barely a month ago. But, he also claims to be really smart. You know, he can join a club. :lol:

[mostpost]

He claims to have no recollection of that exchange, at least what lead to him asking PA to leave the post up. He also claims that he cannot find those posts, which were from barely a month ago. But, he also claims to be really smart. You know, he can join a club. :lol:

So, we finally reveal the source of your FALSE accusation that I said you did not care about your family.
It is in the "Obama Care Ruling thread; on page 31. You are referring to post # 456 in which I said you were "Play(ing) Russian roulette with your family's health" & "Saving a few dollars because of Ideological stupidity."

The purpose of that reply was to point out that you would be making bad choices and how those choices would affect your family. Quite the opposite of saying you do not care about your family, I was using that caring to try to persuade you that your actions could be detrimental to them. Just because you care about your family does not mean you will always do the best thing for them. Unless you are some kind of super human.
Interesting that you should interpret it in exactly the opposite way that it was intended. Interesting that you refused to reveal the source of your anger.

[lsbets]

So, we finally reveal the source of your FALSE accusation that I said you did not care about your family.
It is in the "Obama Care Ruling thread; on page 31. You are referring to post # 456 in which I said you were "Play(ing) Russian roulette with your family's health" & "Saving a few dollars because of Ideological stupidity."

The purpose of that reply was to point out that you would be making bad choices and how those choices would affect your family. Quite the opposite of saying you do not care about your family, I was using that caring to try to persuade you that your actions could be detrimental to them. Just because you care about your family does not mean you will always do the best thing for them. Unless you are some kind of super human.
Interesting that you should interpret it in exactly the opposite way that it was intended. Interesting that you refused to reveal the source of your anger.

Hey lying POS, post your whole comment. Off the top of my head "Start thinking about your family". Hmm, how should I take that. That I don't think about my family? Well, pretty obvious, that's what you said. Would you like to dissect your whole comment? Now you try to wiggle out of it. I didn't refuse to reveal anything, you're just too ****ing stupid to find it.

When you have a family, you can tell me how to raise mine.

Oh wait, you won't have one. You're a lonely, miserable old bastard who has nothing.

[ElKabong]

Oh wait, you won't have one. You're a lonely, miserable old bastard who has nothing.

Before people start saying the above is impolite or politically incorrect, Ls bets is right to his opinion. And it's one I wholly agree with.

As I read mostposts comment to Lsbets months ago I cringed. You can't tell someone they're a bad parent (paraphrasing). If you do you are in for a fight. If these 2 ever meet person to person it won't be pretty.

Mostpost does this often, it causes a chain reaction. Comments propagate, gets ugly. What mostpost wouldn't do is say the things he said to Jeff's face. Not a chance in the world. I've never met either of these 2 guys, but from mostposts rantings here gives a good look into his personality, and yes, his life as a whole.

I could go on, but everyone here knows what Lsbets posts is truth in this instance.

When you take shots at someones parenting, you need to be prepared for the reaction. If you're lucky you'll be posting to someone who doesn't care. Post it to someone who does, you have your hands full.

[lsbets]

I've never met either of these 2 guys

We really need to fix that. JR just moved to the area. The 3 of us live within 20 miles of each other. Maybe Breeders Cup (as long as my daughter doesn't have a gymnastics meet, those come first)?

[PaceAdvantage]

lsbets has been pretty darn open about his personal life on here. He's shared difficult and informative stories from his time over in Iraq as a member of the armed forces. He even posted a picture of his lovely wife not too long ago. He's shared stories about his daughter and her gymnastic endeavors.

By every account he has a beautiful, loving, healthy family who loves him and he them.

mostpost (someone who has shared comparatively little in the way of personal info, other than his former employer and a photo of himself from the Arlington meet-up) had absolutely no right nor evidence to say what he did about Jeff and his family. mostpost was letting his built in bias based on some buzzwords Jeff had written (playing poker, his insurance situation) to formulate the things he subsequently posted about Jeff. In short, mostpost was taking the simpleton route...gathering very, very few bits of information and making a wholly generalized assumption based on mostpost's built in biases that he has accumulated throughout life.

[ElKabong]

We really need to fix that. JR just moved to the area. The 3 of us live within 20 miles of each other. Maybe Breeders Cup (as long as my daughter doesn't have a gymnastics meet, those come first)?

Sounds good, probably need to meet up after the college football season is done (busy schedule for me). Looking forward to it.

[BlueShoe]

But looks like you guys will be able to continue bitching about birth certificates and college grades for FOUR MORE YEARS :jump: :jump: :jump:
No, we will be bitching about how the Democrats in Congress are not cooperating with President Romney and about how they are opposing his efforts at reform.

[ntheiroff]

I would like to pass along one of the best pieces of advice ever given me:

"Don't ever get into a farting contest with a guy named "Boomer"!"

[JustRalph]

Given the choice, they are running like scalded dogs away from the unions



http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/scott-walkers-actions-left-unions-reeling-b9959395z1-216523371.html


Wisconsin’s public employees are leaving their unions in droves, which should be no surprise: With passage of Act 10 in 2011, public unions in the Badger State lost many of their reasons for being. The “budget-repair bill” pushed through the Legislature by Republicans and signed into law by Gov. Scott Walker limited bargaining to wages only, and then only up to the cost of living; it also required unions to recertify each year and barred the automatic collection of union dues. Relying on federal financial records, the Journal Sentinel’s Dan Bice found union membership has declined by 50% or more at some unions, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 48, which represents Milwaukee city and county workers. It has gone from more than 9,000 members and income exceeding $7 million in 2010 to about 3,500 members and a deep deficit by the end of last year. Walker inherited a budget mess from the administration of former Gov. Jim Doyle. He was facing a sizable deficit and entrenched public sector unions that had big political power bases that they used to protect their members. That often put them at odds with both good government and overburdened taxpayers. It was necessary to ask more of public workers — to have them pay a larger portion of their benefits. In particular, Walker needed to get control of spiraling health care benefits.

[Capper Al]

Unions had a lock on labor which with globalization has vanished. The corporations only want to give their employees what is minimally necessary. The problem now is that there isn't a collected way workers can deal with employers except through the ballot box. And at the ballot box the middle class hasn't learned to vote for their better interest.

[mostpost]

No, we will be bitching about how the Democrats in Congress are not cooperating with President Romney and about how they are opposing his efforts at reform.
Thanks to JustRalph for resurrecting this thread so I could point out just how wrong you were. :jump: :jump:

[JustRalph]

This is being totally ignored by the Press..........

http://cei.org/news-releases/kenosha-teachers-vote-down-union-empowered-wisconsin-labor-reforms


Kenosha Wisc teachers union was DECERTIFIED today on a vote that is required by the laws that Scott Walker passed.

only 37% of the Union members wanted to keep the Union.

The Union is no longer a representative of the the teachers. Out the door and the Teachers get to keep their dues etc............

Funny how that works when they have A CHOICE!

[Capper Al]

This is being totally ignored by the Press..........

http://cei.org/news-releases/kenosha-teachers-vote-down-union-empowered-wisconsin-labor-reforms


Kenosha Wisc teachers union was DECERTIFIED today on a vote that is required by the laws that Scott Walker passed.

only 37% of the Union members wanted to keep the Union.

The Union is no longer a representative of the the teachers. Out the door and the Teachers get to keep their dues etc............

Funny how that works when they have A CHOICE!

This is awful. It will eventually hurt the children.

[HUSKER55]

How?

I know one of the teachers involved and his contention was that they had been riding high for awhile. His only complaint was that he wanted it to go thru the union.

If a teacher becomes a bad teacher because they don't belong to a union then what makes you think that teacher was a good teacher in the first place?

If that happens then that teacher is guilty of child abuse and their lack of character proves it

[HUSKER55]

ACCORDING to the news tonight AFL-CIO is having a problem with Obamacare and the rank and file.

[PaceAdvantage]

This is awful. It will eventually hurt the children.How is it awful that union members themselves decided they no longer want a union?

How will this negatively affect children if the teachers themselves, who will still be teaching these children, are the ones who decided to the union's fate?

Between this and your recent Rick Perry post, you're batting 1.000.

[Tom]

What could hurt our children more than exposure to a total wreck of an educational system? Every year, we turn out dumber and dumber kids who are falling further behind the rest of the world.

Our educational system is an embarrassment.

[newtothegame]

Unions had a lock on labor which with globalization has vanished. The corporations only want to give their employees what is minimally necessary. The problem now is that there isn't a collected way workers can deal with employers except through the ballot box. And at the ballot box the middle class hasn't learned to vote for their better interest.
We know, Obama was elected again...damn middle class fools!!! :lol:

[Capper Al]

How is it awful that union members themselves decided they no longer want a union?

How will this negatively affect children if the teachers themselves, who will still be teaching these children, are the ones who decided to the union's fate?

Between this and your recent Rick Perry post, you're batting 1.000.

The people have to assert themselves at the ballot box since the unions lost their clout. The problem is that the power of the right wing propaganda convinces people to vote their own interest. Idioms from the right such as don't guarantee us a livable salary, education, or healthcare is actually to our own better interest is crazy.

[Tom]

The people have to assert themselves at the ballot box since the unions lost their clout.

They did.
The unions lost out.
Ain't this a great country? :lol:

[Capper Al]

They did.
The unions lost out.
Ain't this a great country? :lol:

The public fell victim to misinformation in a mid-term vacation.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Even the teachers are too dumb to know what's best for them. To hell in a bucket, I say.

[JustRalph]

The public fell victim to misinformation in a mid-term vacation.

What does that mean?

[Tom]

It means he's in denial.

[newtothegame]

The people have to assert themselves at the ballot box since the unions lost their clout. The problem is that the power of the right wing propaganda convinces people to vote their own interest. Idioms from the right such as don't guarantee us a livable salary, education, or healthcare is actually to our own better interest is crazy.
And here I thought I was supposed to vote for that.......
Next time remind me Al and I will vote for your self interest versus mine....:bang:

[PaceAdvantage]

What does that mean?It means he has no answer, but feels compelled to answer anyway.

[PaceAdvantage]

The people have to assert themselves at the ballot box since the unions lost their clout. The problem is that the power of the right wing propaganda convinces people to vote their own interest. Idioms from the right such as don't guarantee us a livable salary, education, or healthcare is actually to our own better interest is crazy.Maybe I'm extra dumb this early morning.

Did the union vote ITSELF out of existence, or not? (In other words, did members of the Kenosha Wisc teachers union vote among themselves, and the tallied vote favored dissolving the existing union??)

[JustRalph]

Maybe I'm extra dumb this early morning.

Did the union vote ITSELF out of existence, or not? (In other words, did members of the Kenosha Wisc teachers union vote among themselves, and the tallied vote favored dissolving the existing union??)

Basically that is it.

The new law requires unions to "certify" which means they have to hold an up or down vote from their members as to whether not they want the union to continue, representing them. Comma inserted on purpose.

[HUSKER55]

balanced budgets will do that for you

[Capper Al]

What does that mean?

mid-term election. My mind was on vacation.

[Capper Al]

Unions don't have the power they once had because it is easier to import now. Therefore, they don't have the same bite that they had 50 years ago.

[Clocker]

Unions don't have the power they once had because it is easier to import now.

We are importing education? How does that work?

A lot of manufacturing jobs have been moved off-shore for a number of reasons. One is that unions priced themselves out of the market when they did have power. Other reasons include high taxes and burdensome government regulation. ObamaCare is one more big nail in the coffin.

[Capper Al]

We are importing education? How does that work?

A lot of manufacturing jobs have been moved off-shore for a number of reasons. One is that unions priced themselves out of the market when they did have power. Other reasons include high taxes and burdensome government regulation. ObamaCare is one more big nail in the coffin.

Is this a recital for righties? No, unions lost their ability to be effective because of imports. No one cares about anything else when it comes to unions.

[Clocker]

No one cares about anything else when it comes to unions.

I care about public service unions and the corrupt system under which they operate. The public service unions negotiate with their "management" for wages and benefits. Then they contribute campaign funds and get out the vote to elect that same "management" to office.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.

The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.

That quote is from that extreme right-wing greed monster, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[Tom]

It wasn't the righties who voted out the union.
It was those who knew best what the union was all about - its members.

[Clocker]

It was those who knew best what the union was all about - its members.

I've worked union jobs, and never felt that the union cared any more about me than the company did. And the union never gave me any more information about what was going on than the company did. All they cared about was maximizing head count and collecting dues.

[Tom]

Today's worker has three groups involved with him:

1. The government, which doesn't care about him and just wants taxes
2. The union, which doesn't care about him and just wants dues
3. The employer, who doesn't care about him but pays his wages.

[mostpost]

Quote:
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.

The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.


That quote is from that extreme right-wing greed monster, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
This quote has been presented here before and they always leave out an important part. It is from Franklin D Roosevelt's "Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service."

A letter which also includes this, "The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical,

Roosevelt's objection was not to unions or even collective bargaining. It was to the use of strikes by federal employees.

Regardless of Roosevelt's views, collective bargaining by federal employee's has been legal since Kennedy signed an executive order in 1962.

[mostpost]

I care about public service unions and the corrupt system under which they operate. The public service unions negotiate with their "management" for wages and benefits. Then they contribute campaign funds and get out the vote to elect that same "management" to office.
Elected officials do not negotiate with unions. The negotiations take place between the managers of the particular governmental department and the union representing the workers in that department.

In the case of the United States Postal Service, a negotiating team chosen by the Postmaster General negotiates with representatives of the several postal unions. The same applies to any government agency, be it the IRS, HUD, whatever.

USPS is a special case in that it funds itself through revenues and not taxes.
Other governmental agencies have a budget which is approved by Congress.
Management must balance the restrictions of that budget with the necessity to be competitive with private industry in negotiating pay and benefit levels.

The Secretary of State is not an elected official' nor are any of his assistant or deputy secretaries. Therefore, your theory that they acquiesce to any union demands in order to obtain campaign funds is wrong.

You ask what about a local school board which is elected and which does negotiate directly with a teacher's union or any other case in which there is a direct connection. It may be that the union contributes to and works for the election of candidates favorable to its goals. But in any particular school district there are many more people who are not members of the union than those who are. And there are many groups advocating against union goals.

There is absolutely no proof that elected school boards gain more political capital than they lose by agreeing to union demands.

[mostpost]

Today's worker has three groups involved with him:

1. The government, which doesn't care about him and just wants taxes
The government cares about the worker enough to provide him with schools and roads and fire and police protection and national defense and clean air and clean water and more things than I can post here. It doesn't want taxes; it needs them to provide these necessary services which no other entity can or will provide as efficiently.
2. The union, which doesn't care about him and just wants dues
The Union cares about the worker enough to protect him from the employer and to procure just wages, sufficient benefits and safe working conditions. It collects dues to pay for the cost of providing that representation.
3. The employer, who doesn't care about him but pays his wages.
The employer only cares about the worker because without the worker the employer would be screwed. The employer pays the minimum wages he can get away with, provides the minimum benefits he must provide.

[Clocker]

Elected officials do not negotiate with unions. The negotiations take place between the managers of the particular governmental department and the union representing the workers in that department.

And who appoints those managers? And who approves and funds the budgets under which those managers operate? Who defines the limits and constraints under which those managers operate? Elected officials, perchance?

In the case of the United States Postal Service, a negotiating team chosen by the Postmaster General negotiates with representatives of the several postal unions. The same applies to any government agency, be it the IRS, HUD, whatever.

And those teams have full authority to make the best deal they can for the taxpayers, right? They don't go in with very detailed instructions and limits from above?

I think I need some Kool Aid to wash this down.

[Ocala Mike]

3. The employer, who doesn't care about him and just wants his blood, sweat, and tears.



FTFY, Tom. Your sentences weren't parallel.

[mostpost]

And who appoints those managers? And who approves and funds the budgets under which those managers operate? Who defines the limits and constraints under which those managers operate? Elected officials, perchance?



And those teams have full authority to make the best deal they can for the taxpayers, right? They don't go in with very detailed instructions and limits from above?

I think I need some Kool Aid to wash this down.
I don't think they do go in with very detailed instructions. Why would you give someone the authority to negotiate for you and then not trust them to do so without interference. Ultimately, any agreement has to be ratified, but it is foolish to hamstring your negotiators with too many instructions. If they are competent to represent you, they know the parameters.

You don't want the negotiating team to make the best deal it can for the taxpayers. You want it to make the worst deal for the workers.

[Clocker]

I don't think they do go in with very detailed instructions. Why would you give someone the authority to negotiate for you and then not trust them to do so without interference. Ultimately, any agreement has to be ratified, but it is foolish to hamstring your negotiators with too many instructions. If they are competent to represent you, they know the parameters.

And then they all lived happily ever after.

You don't want the negotiating team to make the best deal it can for the taxpayers. You want it to make the worst deal for the workers.

And you know this how? What psychic powers do you have that allow you to intuit that a statement by a complete stranger on the internet is based on motivations other than those asserted by the poster? Is it the voices in your head that told you the statement was a lie?

[PaceAdvantage]

Unions don't have the power they once had because it is easier to import now. Therefore, they don't have the same bite that they had 50 years ago.What does this have to do with voting THEMSELVES out of existence?

And since when are teacher unions so vulnerable to "importing?"

You seem to be flailing here. Your only response seems to be to insult "righties."

That only goes so far. Sooner or later, you'll have to bring the cattle along with your hat.

[Tom]

What does this have to do with voting THEMSELVES out of existence?



Unions used to have more control over their members.
Get out of line, get your head cracked open.
Could that be what he means?