• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

Sig said:
With the considerably violent and unjustly repressive opposition which organized labor endured from the beginning of the labor movement in the mid 19th century and far into the 20th century, continuing to this very day in the second decade of the 21st century (though in much more politically sophisticated form), it should be of no surprise to see union members exert pressure upon their co-workers to sign up. Their very livelihoods depend upon maintaining a collective front in order to maintain a union wage.
Click to expand...


I thought so, you have to go back 80 years or more to justify the union with conditions that don't even resemble what they were in a time that made unions a necessity. Stirkes anymore are rarely, if ever for reasons that precipitated the formation of unions in their inception. They now are for ever increasing pay, and benefits that are unsustainable, and they know it, but in their greed demand them anyway regardless of how it will effect the long term longevity of the company they work for.
 
Whipsnade said:
So whats your point?From your link.

<"Traditional workers really feel these [new] people have gotten a raw deal," she says, "but entry-level workers are looking at it differently, figuring, 'If I stick around long enough, I'll get the wage you got.' They understand the bargain.">


<"These are still good jobs. They still pay benefits," Schwartz says. "The health care is extremely good. ... We're talking about an industry that's competing very hard in a global marketplace, where they tend to have a labor-cost advantage. This is one way of trying to overcome it without damaging anybody who's already there.">

When the economy kicks in (when the obstructionism in the house gets kicked to the side of the road) they will get brought back up to scale.Why the hatred for working folk trying to help bring work and wages back to the home county?:(
Click to expand...


Hahahaha, obstructionism in the house....get real man. This is the union having to make concessions because they were strangling the company. The longer time union auto worker gets on average $79 wage, plus benefits per hour. That is insane. And these jokers have the gall to demand more and more, then threaten violence if they don't get it....

Now, don't get me wrong, there is a place for unions, but I think they have to change their model of operation. If they are as great as they think they are then more people would want to join them.
 
Dickieboy said:
No, I have never suggested that they were not impossible. It was you who has repeatedly stated my proposal was ‘impossible’ all the way to 'fantasyland'. I have not reversed myself yet, which is your duty to attempt. It was my (and has been) assertion that individuals can (and commonly do) negotiate their individual employment compensation package. This should be overly obvious as currently the union maintains merely +/-7% of the total workforce. How do you suppose the employment compensation package for the other +/-93% are secured? Further it was my assertion that an individual maintaining employment in a union shop can secure a better employment compensation package than the union does (CAN not DOES or WILL). You have stated that this would be impossible and impractical but the current arrangement in +/-93% of the workforce proves otherwise…where am I wrong?
Click to expand...

"How do you suppose the employment compensation package for the other +/-93% are secured?"

I assure you that it is not secured through collective bargaining, at least not directly. It is, however, secured by the existential threat of collective bargaining, which a great many employers try their very best to avoid by offering various benefits packages in order to placate their employees so they do not organize. Of course, if there were no unions, there would be very little existential threat of collective bargaining and these very same employers would not even bother to offer benefits packages to their employees, let alone pay them anything close to a middle class wage. Instead, they would exploit the pool of desperately unemployed workers and pay them just enough to keep them from walking off the job, or dropping dead on the line from malnutrition and lack of health care.

I am not going to keep knocking down your same flimsy argument, over and over again. You may be obtuse. I am not. Find something useful to revive your failed argument, such as the example requested earlier by me. Otherwise, have the grace to admit that you are wrong, to admit that you do not know what you are talking about, and to get lost.

Once again, if you would like to take this discussion to the basement, that would be fine by me.
 
j-mac said:
Hahahaha, obstructionism in the house....get real man. This is the union having to make concessions because they were strangling the company. The longer time union auto worker gets on average $79 wage, plus benefits per hour. That is insane. And these jokers have the gall to demand more and more, then threaten violence if they don't get it....

Now, don't get me wrong, there is a place for unions, but I think they have to change their model of operation. If they are as great as they think they are then more people would want to join them.
Click to expand...

Evidently you don’t know the meaning of a union(a number of persons,states,etc.,joined or associated together for some common purpose: student union; credit union.)The UAW, like most unions of the 21,st century are Represented by elected leaders and have a vote on who/what they do in their work places.Do you think that the country woulda been better off if GM/Chrysler would have folded?
 
Sig said:
I assure you that it is not secured through collective bargaining, at least not directly. It is, however, secured by the existential threat of collective bargaining, which a great many employers try their very best to avoid by offering various benefits packages in order to placate their employees so they do not organize…

I am not going to keep knocking down your same flimsy argument, over and over again.
Click to expand...

Again you have failed to present any contrarily cogent argument and yet claim to have been ‘knocking down your same flimsy argument’. I am understanding this time your supposition is that ‘it is not secured through collective bargaining’. Well no sh*t considering my argument is based on an individual negotiating his benefits agreement. I also understand you profess it is ‘secured by the existential threat of collective bargaining’. This may be true since the original supposition was based on an individual negotiating in a ‘union shop’ environment. It has been my belief that said individual would/could negotiate a better benefits package than the union and your ‘existential threat’ assertion supports this belief somewhat. Thanks for that!

Once again, if you would like to take this discussion to the basement, that would be fine by me.
Click to expand...

What is your obsession with taking this to the basement? I predict once there you will go on a vile derogatory tirade that will be neither productive nor pleasant. I will refrain from that but if you wish to go to the basement do so now…and knock yourself out!
 
Whipsnade said:
Evidently you don’t know the meaning of a union(a number of persons,states,etc.,joined or associated together for some common purpose: student union; credit union.)The UAW, like most unions of the 21,st century are Represented by elected leaders and have a vote on who/what they do in their work places.Do you think that the country woulda been better off if GM/Chrysler would have folded?
Click to expand...

Insulting me will not get you far friend. There are indeed many different types of unions, and your trying to muddy the water by confusing labor unions, with other types of unions like credit unions is laughable.

do I think that we would have been better off? I don't own a crystal ball, but I will say this, not bailing out GM/Chrysler did not help them much as they went into bankruptcy anyway. But, they wouldn't have gone under, they would have restructured, just like they ultimately did anyway, and come out stronger. However, instead of screwing the shareholders to benefit the unions like Obama did, they would have come out stronger without the political payback promised them by Obama for their support...Corruption at its finest....
 
j-mac said:
I thought so, you have to go back 80 years or more to justify the union with conditions that don't even resemble what they were in a time that made unions a necessity. Stirkes anymore are rarely, if ever for reasons that precipitated the formation of unions in their inception. They now are for ever increasing pay, and benefits that are unsustainable, and they know it, but in their greed demand them anyway regardless of how it will effect the long term longevity of the company they work for.
Click to expand...

WRONG.

I don't even have to go back a single day to justify the necessity of labor unions. The fact of the matter is that today, and tomorrow, and next week, there are and will be millions of workers in America, and all around the world, who are being grossly exploited by their employers by not being paid a living wage, by having to work in unsafe conditions, by being exposed to unconscionable abuse by their supervisors, etc..

You talk about greed as if it is something peculiar to the union worker. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of union workers in America earn nothing more than a middle class wage. If you doubt me, then I challenge you to present evidence to the contrary.

The greed to which you are referring is attributable to the real estate moguls who set the price for the middle class housing in which the union workers reside, and the health care providers who set the price for the health insurance which the union worker needs in order to maintain his physical existence in the world, as well as his job and the health of his family.

Henceforth, be careful of whom you accuse of being greedy. Maintaining a middle class lifestyle does not make one greedy. It only makes one middle class. In other words, it only makes one desirous of maintaining a modest standard of living.
 
Dickieboy said:
Again you have failed to present any contrarily cogent argument and yet claim to have been ‘knocking down your same flimsy argument’. I am understanding this time your supposition is that ‘it is not secured through collective bargaining’. Well no sh*t considering my argument is based on an individual negotiating his benefits agreement. I also understand you profess it is ‘secured by the existential threat of collective bargaining’. This may be true since the original supposition was based on an individual negotiating in a ‘union shop’ environment. It has been my belief that said individual would/could negotiate a better benefits package than the union and your ‘existential threat’ assertion supports this belief somewhat. Thanks for that!



What is your obsession with taking this to the basement? I predict once there you will go on a vile derogatory tirade that will be neither productive nor pleasant. I will refrain from that but if you wish to go to the basement do so now…and knock yourself out!
Click to expand...

this is an interesting take.

<It has been my belief that said individual would/could negotiate a better benefits package than the union and your ‘existential threat’ assertion supports this belief somewhat>
Click to expand...

Care to get me up to speed on your interpretation on that brief sentence and spare me from rooting thru the whole thread. Would that include negotiations for whole industries, such as national agreements that represent, maybe, several hundred shops?
 
Whipsnade said:
Care to get me up to speed on your interpretation on that brief sentence and spare me from rooting thru the whole thread. Would that include negotiations for whole industries, such as national agreements that represent, maybe, several hundred shops?
Click to expand...

Sure:

Dickieboy said:
Your point is based on the a presumption that the 'scab' cannot get a better deal than the union for HIS individual compensation. Consider if the 'scab' did individually negotiate a better compensation package AND through fair negotiation discovery the union finds out the 'scab's' package then moves their goal to his should the 'scab' then receive the negotiation fee the union would have justified?
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Insulting me will not get you far friend. There are indeed many different types of unions, and your trying to muddy the water by confusing labor unions, with other types of unions like credit unions is laughable.

do I think that we would have been better off? I don't own a crystal ball, but I will say this, not bailing out GM/Chrysler did not help them much as they went into bankruptcy anyway. But, they wouldn't have gone under, they would have restructured, just like they ultimately did anyway, and come out stronger. However, instead of screwing the shareholders to benefit the unions like Obama did, they would have come out stronger without the political payback promised them by Obama for their support...Corruption at its finest....
Click to expand...

Didn’t mean it as an insult,just showing you the definition of the word union.(what follows is an insult).I assumed that you had the intelligence of an omega. I was wrong.:rock


Now for the rest of your fail. You say that you don’t have a crystal ball when answering “Do you think that the country woulda been better off if GM/Chrysler would have folded? “but somehow the crystal ball miraculously appears in the next sentence, when you say “ they would have restructured “.


That begs the question.

Where would the $64 billion come from?As an aside ,do you know which of the big three that owes the Gov money now?CLUE. its not GM or Chrysler that owes$5.9 billion it borrowed in June 2009. Another CLUE. This company didn't take a bail out.
 
j-mac said:
And that is the absurdity of the union claim. I grew up in Lansing, and had many, many friends that worked for GM. They are what is called a 'closed shop' which means that if you get hired into GM you have NO choice but to join the union, or don't take the job. How is that fairness? I would think if the union is so great they wouldn't need such coercive measures. So, why not open it up to choice....
Click to expand...

Well if everyone knows that they are a 'closed shop' and they are trying to get hired there then they should probably know that they are going to have to join a union.

What is the downfall of joining a union? that you have to pay union dues? 50 bucks a month for the benefits I get is not that hard of a pill to swallow.

The argument I was making was not about UAW workers. You brought that up to suit your own point you were trying to make. My point was If you don't like union jobs, dont pursue one. There are plenty of non-union jobs out there for union haters such as yourself to get. In fact some 90% of the jobs out there are non-union.

Why hate on unions so much?
 
Sig said:
WRONG.

I don't even have to go back a single day to justify the necessity of labor unions. The fact of the matter is that today, and tomorrow, and next week, there are and will be millions of workers in America, and all around the world, who are being grossly exploited by their employers by not being paid a living wage, by having to work in unsafe conditions, by being exposed to unconscionable abuse by their supervisors, etc..

You talk about greed as if it is something peculiar to the union worker. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of union workers in America earn nothing more than a middle class wage. If you doubt me, then I challenge you to present evidence to the contrary.

The greed to which you are referring is attributable to the real estate moguls who set the price for the middle class housing in which the union workers reside, and the health care providers who set the price for the health insurance which the union worker needs in order to maintain his physical existence in the world, as well as his job and the health of his family.

Henceforth, be careful of whom you accuse of being greedy. Maintaining a middle class lifestyle does not make one greedy. It only makes one middle class. In other words, it only makes one desirous of maintaining a modest standard of living.
Click to expand...


Wrong? I don't think so Jasper....Look, The health care ( for whom Obama exempted from his little take over of the system) and the pensions system is what is breaking the system....Union workers in many cases can retire according to years of service, not tied to age of retirement that the nation has to abide by....So as a result you have people retiring from the union job at 50 years old, recieving 75% of better of their salary, and full health care for the rest of their lives....That can be a longer period of time than they actually worked for the company in the first place...How is that sustainable?
 
OnWisconsin said:
Well if everyone knows that they are a 'closed shop' and they are trying to get hired there then they should probably know that they are going to have to join a union.

What is the downfall of joining a union? that you have to pay union dues? 50 bucks a month for the benefits I get is not that hard of a pill to swallow.

The argument I was making was not about UAW workers. You brought that up to suit your own point you were trying to make. My point was If you don't like union jobs, dont pursue one. There are plenty of non-union jobs out there for union haters such as yourself to get. In fact some 90% of the jobs out there are non-union.

Why hate on unions so much?
Click to expand...

Because while at a point in their history they were a needed answer to a problem in the country regarding business, that reasoning has been addressed, so they have moved to communist greed, and communist ideology.

But considering your own avitar, I don't need to tell you that....
 
Sig said:
That's a good question, Jonny. Why is one better than the other?

The answer, of course, is that neither are necessarily "better" than the other. They are naturally opposing forces held together by a common interest, namely, the procuring of profits through the sale of company product on the market. The job of company executives (among other things) is to maximize profits for the share holders. The job of the union executives (among other things) is to maximize profits for the employees. Together, they form a peculiar symbiotic relationship, a classic thesis + antihesis = synthesis manifestation.

That being said, the so-called "Right to Work" concept needs to be recognized for what it is: a clever ploy by company executives to break-up the union and end the aforementioned symbiotic relationship for the total benefit of the share holder, and not for any benefit of the employee, though the deceitful choice of words "Right to Work" are inclined to beguile the naive into believing the contrary.
Click to expand...

And unions need to be recognized for that they are, a clever ploy by union bosses to line their own pockets at the expense of the people they claim to be representing.
 
I want to see Doug Geiss out in front of the club weilding mob of liberals ready to do battle. The most violent think liberlas ever did was permitting Nancy Pelosi to be seen in public.
 
j-mac said:
Because while at a point in their history they were a needed answer to a problem in the country regarding business, that reasoning has been addressed, so they have moved to communist greed, and communist ideology.

But considering your own avitar, I don't need to tell you that....
Click to expand...

Isn't that what the barons of industry called unions when they first started, Communistic?
What is communistic about the ability of workers to choose to join a union and have someone with the power of the collective bargain for better wages and working conditions?

Is the real problem the fact that unions tend to support Democrats and vice versa?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Isn't that what the barons of industry called unions when they first started, Communistic?
What is communistic about the ability of workers to choose to join a union and have someone with the power of the collective bargain for better wages and working conditions?

Is the real problem the fact that unions tend to support Democrats and vice versa?
Click to expand...

I grew up a lot different that apparently many here in that I had higher goals in life than to be a union employee for life, allowing someone else to negotiate my pay rather than my performance, and then retire on a union defined pension. Seems to me that unions destroy incentive and create complacency but then again as many here would say, I could be wrong. That also describes today's Democratic Party, destroying incentive, creating dependence, and social engineering by spending in the name of compassion vs generating compassionate spending thus positive individual results.
 
Conservative said:
I grew up a lot different that apparently many here in that I had higher goals in life than to be a union employee for life, allowing someone else to negotiate my pay rather than my performance, and then retire on a union defined pension. Seems to me that unions destroy incentive and create complacency but then again as many here would say, I could be wrong. That also describes today's Democratic Party, destroying incentive, creating dependence, and social engineering by spending in the name of compassion vs generating compassionate spending thus positive individual results.
Click to expand...

Joining a union is a lot like hiring a lawyer. You get someone with more power and more experience going to bat for you against an entity that is most likely more powerful and more experienced than you are. Neither is a marriage, 'till death do us part, but is a contract you can end simply by quitting the job and going elsewhere.

But, you do have one point: If the job you're in has lousy wages and working conditions, there is more of an incentive to move on, to upgrade skills, or to open a private business. That's probably the only justification for maintaining terrible wages and working conditions.

What makes you think that the Tweedledumocrats do more to destroy incentive than the Tweedledeeblicans do?
 
If you enjoyed last weekend thank a union.

Honestly though, I got screwed pretty hard by the union. I worked for three years at Local #113 and a lot of money was put into my pension plan from my employer. The job moved to Chicago and I had to transfer to Local #2. Same union, different local. I worked there 2 years until the job was done.

But because I wasn't at local # 113 for four full years I wasn't "vested." And because local #113 and local #2 did not have a "reciprocity (sp?)" agreement" between them, I lost ALL of the money my employer paid into my pension. Five years worth. That was THOUSANDS of dollars. The union KEPT it all.

So, needless to say, I got a F.U. in my pocket for unions.

What does upset me is the rightwing hypocracy of wanting to keep government out of the private business sector while, all the while, approving of government sticking their dick skinner's in the unions. And the lie they use to justify their hypocracy about actually caring for these workers is just mind boggling. Rightwing corporatist type people don't give two snits for workers. Never have, never will. They just as soon have a chinaman do their work. This is just the government, under republican dominance, attempting to diminish their competition (democrats) by going after their revenue streams. No more, no less. They do not care about workers, union or not. It's all about their dirty politics. Gerrymandering, voter oppression, union busting, is what they are doing in attempt to bolster their OWN power and assure the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer and more dependant on the rich.

No. I'm no fan of the union. But I hate the GOP much, much more.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Joining a union is a lot like hiring a lawyer. You get someone with more power and more experience going to bat for you against an entity that is most likely more powerful and more experienced than you are. Neither is a marriage, 'till death do us part, but is a contract you can end simply by quitting the job and going elsewhere.

But, you do have one point: If the job you're in has lousy wages and working conditions, there is more of an incentive to move on, to upgrade skills, or to open a private business. That's probably the only justification for maintaining terrible wages and working conditions.

What makes you think that the Tweedledumocrats do more to destroy incentive than the Tweedledeeblicans do?
Click to expand...

Because with Tweedledumocrats there are never any consequences for failure and always someone else to bail you out. Democrats destroy incentive with this kind of social engineering. You don't hear Republicans demonizing individual wealth creation and promoting class warfare. You really think any Republican cares how much you individually make or pay in taxes?
 
Captain America said:
If you enjoyed last weekend thank a union.

Honestly though, I got screwed pretty hard by the union. I worked for three years at Local #113 and a lot of money was put into my pension plan from my employer. The job moved to Chicago and I had to transfer to Local #2. Same union, different local. I worked there 2 years until the job was done.

But because I wasn't at local # 113 for four full years I wasn't "vested." And because local #113 and local #2 did not have a "reciprocity (sp?)" agreement" between them, I lost ALL of the money my employer paid into my pension. Five years worth. That was THOUSANDS of dollars. The union KEPT it all.

So, needless to say, I got a F.U. in my pocket for unions.

What does upset me is the rightwing hypocracy of wanting to keep government out of the private business sector while, all the while, approving of government sticking their dick skinner's in the unions. And the lie they use to justify their hypocracy about actually caring for these workers is just mind boggling. Rightwing corporatist type people don't give two snits for workers. Never have, never will. They just as soon have a chinaman do their work. This is just the government, under republican dominance, attempting to diminish their competition (democrats) by going after their revenue streams. No more, no less. They do not care about workers, union or not. It's all about their dirty politics. Gerrymandering, voter oppression, union busting, is what they are doing in attempt to bolster their OWN power and assure the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer and more dependant on the rich.

No. I'm no fan of the union. But I hate the GOP much, much more.
Click to expand...

Certainly your choice, but I am waiting to see how the GOP hurt you and your family more than the union did?
 
Conservative said:
Certainly your choice, but I am waiting to see how the GOP hurt you and your family more than the union did?
Click to expand...

Well, I may never recover the losses I incurred back when the Halliburton, er, Cheny/Bush regime blew our money on unjustified wars and fat-cat corporate subsidies and Wall Street running roughshod through my life's 401 savings.

I mean, thanks to Obama, et al, I did recover my losses from the Bush era and my house value is back where it was before the Bush era. So, 8 years later, I'm back to even. But I would have a LOT more in the kitty had it not been for these fatcat, corporate/Wall Street ass kissers commonly known as the GOP.

So, there is five years of lost savings from the unions. 8 years of lost savings from the GOP. I'd just as soon that they both die and go to hell. But that's just me.
 
Conservative said:
Because with Tweedledumocrats there are never any consequences for failure and always someone else to bail you out. Democrats destroy incentive with this kind of social engineering. You don't hear Republicans demonizing individual wealth creation and promoting class warfare. You really think any Republican cares how much you individually make or pay in taxes?
Click to expand...

Why, yes, yes, I think they do.

Supporting raising the maximum tax rate by 3 or 4% on the "wealthy" is not "taking away incentive." It is not, in fact, much of anything more than a way to gain support of the lower middle class. The effect would be minimal, both in terms of revenue raised and in taxes paid by individuals.

And, the consequences for failure are somewhat reduced when the "too big to fail" entities are bailed out and continue to operate, correct? Is that a Democrat issue, or did the Republicans also support it?
 
minnie616 said:
And the majority in the US Senate passed
the affordable health care act back in
December of 1999.

Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Lol....it sure made health care "affordable".

What a moronic law. Hell half of the States are refusing to set up exchanges which means the Fed has to pay for all of the new medicare patients.

And with what money ?
 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
Well, I may never recover the losses I incurred
back when the Halliburton, er, Cheny/Bush regime blew our money on unjustified wars and fat-cat corporate subsidies and Wall Street running roughshod through my life's 401 savings.

I mean, thanks to Obama, et al, I did recover my losses from the Bush era and my house value is back where it was before the Bush era. So, 8 years later, I'm back to even. But I would have a LOT more in the kitty had it not been for these fatcat, corporate/Wall Street ass kissers commonly known as the GOP.

So, there is five years of lost savings from the unions. 8 years of lost savings from the GOP. I'd just as soon that they both die and go to hell. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

You realize Clinton gave halliburton their first " no bid" contract right ?

So much for your warmed over plattitudes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom