Page 36 of 66 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 660

Thread: Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

  1. #351
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    How does personal choice lower wages? The ones concerned about union busting are the union management as the workers will still have their jobs
    Taking away union influence does lower wages.
    That is why the Koch bros fund such actions, that is why you support it, you are a corporatist too.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  2. #352
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig View Post
    Yes, but we're not talking about golden parachutes and such for corporate executives, are we? I suggest you steer away from this topic for the sake of what is left of your failed argument.
    No, we aren't...is it your assertion that middle management are awarded 'golden parachutes'?

    Unfortunately I have allowed you to steer me away from my original argument…Your original point was 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?

    To which your response was ‘I can see this happening in fantasyland’ obviously subliminally admitting failure then diverting me into some rabbit hole…my bad…carry on.
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!

  3. #353
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,375

    Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

    Quote Originally Posted by TaraAnne View Post
    Umm get the facts Rick Perry created more minimum wage jobs than threst of the country because of right to work. You keep talking about fact yet you provide no links, really all your doing at this point is blowing hot air. Texas is anti Union state created by Republicans we all know the other crap Perry and Republicans have done. Do we need to get in to the wasted money on toll roads. Poor education bad health insurance, Alll do to right to work.
    Do you really think that any politician can create a job? Really?
    People in Dubai don't like the Flintstones but people in Abu Dhabi do

  4. #354
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    I don't bother with anti-union propaganda from Koch supported websites, yes, I do ignore this tripe.

    Again, this is yet another tangent away from the fact that these effort in MI are state level actions by the Koch brothers to lower worker wages. You support these actions because you are a corporatist too. It is that simple.
    You're wrong...

    Do you even know what "right to work" means?

    It means that an individual has the right to NOT join a labor union if they don't want to. Which of course means the labor unions will be ripping people off less, and the labor unions don't want that to happen. As a matter of fact labor unions are opposed to "right to work" because they damn well know their unions are nothing more than a racket and if the individual has the right not to join their union they generally wont. They will pocket those union dues instead of the union taking them, they will go to work when the union strikes... You know why? because all hazards the unions claim they're protecting the worker from are already federal law - in reality the unions do nothing more than extort money out of businesses via threats of work stoppages. I suppose their leverage would go away if people had the RIGHT to NOT join a union..

    Now, with that said I would be willing to wager my life on the notion that the majority of the simpletons protesting pro-union even understand a damn thing I said, which is pretty funny considering that is probably why they need unions in the first place - because those pro-union clowns in Michigan are absolute idiots, hence they need the labor unions because they would be fired in 2 seconds if they didn't have unions protecting them.

  5. #355
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,375

    Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig View Post
    I really hate having to repeat myself:

    No one is forced to join a union. However, a scab will be required to pay 85% of the standard union dues in the form of a negotiations fee as return for the union wage he is earning, a wage which the union obtained at its own expense.

    What "Right to Work" really amounts to is giving the scab the right to collect a union wage without paying the negotiations fee, thus garnering a significantly higher wage for the scab than the dues-paying union member. Obviously, the intent of so-called "Right to Work" is to encourage union members to jump ship and join the scabs by giving a financial incentive to do so.

    "Right to Work" is just a veiled method of union-busting.
    Is this different than someone getting government benefits without having ever paid taxes?
    People in Dubai don't like the Flintstones but people in Abu Dhabi do

  6. #356
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,261

    Re: Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Again, that is not any unions webpage, it is a Koch bros front organization.

    Edit, sorry, got my corporatist mixed up, it is a Rick Berman front group.
    So the site is misquoting union management salaries? Prove it?

  7. #357
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    You're wrong...
    Yeah, I know, and I corrected myself...."unionfacts.com" is a Rick Berman anti-union front group.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  8. #358
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,261

    Re: Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Taking away union influence does lower wages.
    That is why the Koch bros fund such actions, that is why you support it, you are a corporatist too.
    That is your opinion yet you have not provided me one corporation that pays what you would consider a non liveable wage?

  9. #359
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    So the site is misquoting union management salaries? Prove it?
    I said it before, I am not going to waste my time with anti-union front sites that are funded directly by corporatists like Rick Berman.

    Whether you choose to believe the propaganda is up to you, but you would being a corporatist yourself.

    I'm still asking, what does this tangent have to do with the fact that all of this is simply designed to lower wages.
    Last edited by Gimmesometruth; 12-13-12 at 01:29 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  10. #360
    Professor
    Sig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-13 @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,179

    Re: Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    No, we aren't...is it your assertion that middle management are awarded 'golden parachutes'?

    Unfortunately I have allowed you to steer me away from my original argument…Your original point was 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?
    We already have considered this, Dickieboy, and have deemed it pure fantasy since no industrial size employer is going to individually negotiate legally binding contracts with every one of its individual employees. The expense alone would make this impractical, if not impossible. Thus, your hypothetical can only occur in fantasyland. This is the point.

    To which your response was ‘I can see this happening in fantasyland’ obviously subliminally admitting failure then diverting me into some rabbit hole…my bad…carry on.
    Ah, the Svengali effect. You're not wrong, I'm just making you believe that you're wrong through the power of suggestion.

    This has been fun, you've made me laugh and all, but I've got many errands to run today. Bye.
    It's like you're dreaming of Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

Page 36 of 66 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... 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
  •