Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 186

Thread: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

  1. #21
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

    Chalk one up for the good hard-working people of Ohio....despite the best efforts of the corporate minded GOP's propoganda!
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  2. #22
    Guru
    GhostlyJoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,684

    Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    the bill was passed without much debate or input. it was a mistake to lump public safety workers with the teachers. some provisions such as not protecting seniority, rather than competence are very popular and will probably be passed in the near future.
    It would have been closer had police and firefighters been exempted like in Wisconsin, I agree.

    But everyone loves a teacher -- they're respected by most. Generally conservative parents will defend them when it personally involves their children. I think the bill still would have been unpopular.

  3. #23
    Advisor Swit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-13-16 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    390

    Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    do you have any proof that the teaparty is mostly made up of people making more than 250K a year?
    Nope.... do you have any proof that anyone is suggesting that people making less than 250k/yr should pay more taxes? Well besides Herman Cain, Rick Perry and any other person suggesting a flat tax.

    EDIT: Keep in mind these were your words: "this is really hysterical. most of the people in the tea party movement are not the top 1 percent but rather those are tired of government waste, entitlement mentality and being told that they need to pay more and more taxes. Its the people who actually are paying income taxes"

    EDIT 2: oops meant to mention: Bold emphasis added by me.
    Last edited by Swit; 11-09-11 at 04:22 AM. Reason: trying to make sure you dont paint yourself into a trick-bag

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

    Always worth a laugh when people actually consider bargaining a right.

    If you are forcing someone to bargain with you it can't possibly be a right to do.

    Please do not tell me but that isn't what it is about. If the government said no just once people would cry they had their rights violated and this kind of thing proves it.

  5. #25
    Guru
    GhostlyJoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,684

    Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Chalk one up for the good hard-working people of Ohio....despite the best efforts of the corporate minded GOP's propoganda!
    I actually think the "no on issue 2" side's propaganda was worse this time -- at least there was definitely a lot more of it.

    Check out this bit of propaganda.



    Here's one from the other side.




    Sad.

  6. #26
    Advisor Swit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-13-16 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    390

    Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Always worth a laugh when people actually consider bargaining a right.
    So free speech isn't a right then? Someone in authority can just dictate terms and you have no right to provide your position / counter offer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    If you are forcing someone to bargain with you it can't possibly be a right to do.
    There are countless examples of one group or another refusing to bargain with the other.... since this is the case how can you claim it is forced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Please do not tell me but that isn't what it is about. If the government said no just once people would cry they had their rights violated and this kind of thing proves it.
    So can I assume that if government said you owe us 100% of your income you would be okay with it? I.E. it seems that in this situation you would be "crying" about your rights.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Swit View Post
    So free speech isn't a right then? Someone in authority can just dictate terms and you have no right to provide your position / counter offer?
    Free speech and results have nothing to do with each other. You can say whatever you please, but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

    There are countless examples of one group or another refusing to bargain with the other.... since this is the case how can you claim it is forced?
    If I can't fire them and I can't keep on the replacements instead of the strikers as that would be a violation of federal law. I can't move to another factory to get around the process, nor can I send the work elsewhere in any other way. Tell me again how I can ignore these people in front of my business and better yet how to get rid of them without bargaining with them? Got any ideas? The only thing the employer gets is they don't have to pay them when they strike. Gee..maybe they will leave or maybe they will be even a bigger pest and hurt my business. Btw, ever here of the government suing business when they refuse to bargain? Yeah, that is what happens.

    So can I assume that if government said you owe us 100% of your income you would be okay with it? I.E. it seems that in this situation you would be "crying" about your rights.
    Ah..how is that related exactly? These people have jobs, JOBS they can leave if they don't like how they are paid. If the government said I owe them everything I make I don't exactly have any other choice since they arrest me if I say no. Learn your laws and market forces then offer up a good comparison.
    Last edited by Henrin; 11-09-11 at 05:13 AM.

  8. #28
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,121
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Perhaps they realize that there is no real difference in budget problems between states that allow collective bargaining and those that don't.
    Actually, when it comes to states with serious pension liability problems, there does seem to be a difference.There are only 5 states that don't allow collective bargaining for public sector unions. Of the 45 states where it is permitted, it's mandatory in 34 of them.

    Now, according to a 2010 Pew Research study, there are 19 states considered to be in serious financial trouble when it comes to funding the pensions of state union workers. Of those 19 states, 18 of them allow collective bargaining and only 1 does not. The study also considers 16 states to be in solid financial shape when it comes to funding union pensions. Of those 16, 14 of them allow collective bargaining, while 2 do not. The remaining 15 states the study classifies as "needing improvement".

    So, when it comes to funding union pensions:

    * Currently, 40% of the states that allow collective bargaining are in serious financial trouble, compared to only 20% for the states that don't allow it.

    * Less than 1 in 3 collective bargaining states (31%) are financially solid, compared to the 40% for states that don't allow collective bargaining.

    As you can see, when you break the numbers down it shows there is a difference.

  9. #29
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

    Quote Originally Posted by GhostlyJoe View Post
    I actually think the "no on issue 2" side's propaganda was worse this time -- at least there was definitely a lot more of it.

    Check out this bit of propaganda.



    Here's one from the other side.




    Sad.
    Considering that one ad (#1) told the truth....and the second ad was filled with lies and rhetoric (i.e. "Gold-plated pensions")....I think your post just proved my point.

    The pro-corporate GOP's propoganda failed despite their best efforts.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  10. #30
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    Actually, when it comes to states with serious pension liability problems, there does seem to be a difference.There are only 5 states that don't allow collective bargaining for public sector unions. Of the 45 states where it is permitted, it's mandatory in 34 of them.

    Now, according to a 2010 Pew Research study, there are 19 states considered to be in serious financial trouble when it comes to funding the pensions of state union workers. Of those 19 states, 18 of them allow collective bargaining and only 1 does not. The study also considers 16 states to be in solid financial shape when it comes to funding union pensions. Of those 16, 14 of them allow collective bargaining, while 2 do not. The remaining 15 states the study classifies as "needing improvement".

    So, when it comes to funding union pensions:

    * Currently, 40% of the states that allow collective bargaining are in serious financial trouble, compared to only 20% for the states that don't allow it.

    * Less than 1 in 3 collective bargaining states (31%) are financially solid, compared to the 40% for states that don't allow collective bargaining.

    As you can see, when you break the numbers down it shows there is a difference.
    What you have spouted off here is nothing more than talking points from the anti-worker/pro-corporate propogandists. There is absolutely no correlation between the numbers you site and collective bargaining rights.
    When did "Conservatives" become so "big government" oriented?

    Why should workers not have a right to negotiate with the government regarding their wages and benefits?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •