• 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

Conservative said:
That would be the definition that I would use to define a liberal since choice only matters when it comes to issues that a liberal wants and one whose opinion is the same as another liberal. To me a liberal thinks with their heart instead of their brain. Isn't it amazing how so many people here that have never run a business, never employed anyone else are such experts in the field of business? It would make sense that in this country where you can be whatever you want to be that some of these experts would start their own business, hire employees, and pay them whatever they deem as a living wage but somehow never do it.
Click to expand...

I see. So, my definition was correct. Liberals are anti choice, unless the choice is one they themselves would have made. Therefore, you are pro choice, even for choices you think are wrong. Liberals think with their hearts, therefore, you are logical as Spock. Liberals have never run a business, but you have, and are successful and are an expert in the field of business. All of that, of course, can be inferred from your being the opposite of a liberal.

I think we're getting close to your philosophy. The pro choice part of it sounds pretty libertarian to me.
 
Conservative said:
Exactly, this is about choice by the individual and it seems that the liberals only accept choice that supports their point of view. This is total arrogance in believing that the American people aren't smart enough to choose wisely when it comes to their employment, wage, and benefits opportunities and thus need union leadership to decide what is best for them.

Unions have outlived their usefulness as evidenced by the small percentage of the labor force now unionized. We have laws on the books now to protect workers many of which came from union efforts but those efforts are no longer needed as the laws protect the workers so enforce the laws.
Click to expand...

But I still have no problems with unions. If two people want to use their collective power to try and negotiate with an employer, have at it. So long as the employer has the right to say no, and the employees or union have a right to quit. The problem is entirely on govt who has gotten in the middle of a simple employment contract.
 
jonny5 said:
But I still have no problems with unions. If two people want to use their collective power to try and negotiate with an employer, have at it. So long as the employer has the right to say no, and the employees or union have a right to quit. The problem is entirely on govt who has gotten in the middle of a simple employment contract.
Click to expand...

The only problem I have with unions are the public unions where I believe all wage and benefits should be put on the ballot for the voters to decide. I don't like politicians getting campaign contributions to vote on specific wage and benefit issues that the taxpayers have to fund long after the politician is out of office.
 
Sig said:
Because the entire line of "Right to Work" is total B.S.

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
winston53660 said:
Just saying "unified budget" does not support your position.
Click to expand...

It most certainly does, a unified budget puts all funds into that budget with all tax dollars treated the same way. No one knows what tax funds what line item. Apparently you don't understand the term unified budget and what it actually is
 
Conservative said:
Of course it is because we know that living in California is just as expensive as living in Indiana. Talk about wacked out nonsense. Wages should be determined by the market place and not a union or the federal govt. why don't you start hiring people and help solve the problems you say we have in this country?
Click to expand...
Hogwash, you are not interested in fair wages, you are interested in seeking the lowest wages, you are a company man, a corporatist, an anti-union provocateur.
 
MaggieD said:
If what you say is true, then why is it that when union members have a choice, they are unlikely to pay dues? It's your own members that unions fear when right-to-work goes into effect. Their own members don't want to pay the dues. Are they scabs?
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not making this clear enough. I'll try again.

Suppose you are a dues-paying member of a union, on the line at a widget factory. Mr. Scab, the guy working next to you, is a non-union worker. You are both earning $1000.00 per week union wage, paid weekly. The union dues are $100.00 per pay, of which you, as a dues-paying union worker, are paying 100%, while Mr. Scab, as a non-union worker is paying 0%. Obviously, Mr. Scab is going to be making significantly more money than you by year's end as a non-union worker collecting a union wage, and for doing nothing more than being a scab.

Do you get it now?

If you do, then I'm sure you can see that, in the fullness of time, so many union workers will take the bait and crossover to the scab side that the union will no longer be able to afford its operating expenses and will dissolve. Then, of course, so will the union wage.
 
Conservative said:
Is there some reason that you cannot admit that you are wrong? What is a unified budget? Maybe you can get some of your employees to explain it to you?
Click to expand...
YOU brought forward the links to what Johnson did, none of it supported your view that SSTF were used to finance the Vietnam war. You then demand that I prove a negative since you couldn't support what you claimed. All you have now is flailing failure.

Concede, you are wrong.
 
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...

Yes, I can see this happening in fantasyland, but in the real world where there are all sorts of laws pertaining to discrimination, it would not be at all practical. And do you really think that a company which employs thousands of workers is going to take the time and expense to negotiate individual contracts for each of its employees?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Hogwash, you are not interested in fair wages, you are interested in seeking the lowest wages, you are a company man, a corporatist, an anti-union provocateur.
Click to expand...

What I am not interested in are people like you claiming you know what a fair wage is. The market decides what is fair, not you, not the govt, and certainly not any union.

It would be very simple for you to help solve the problem, hire some employees and pay them what you feel is fair. What exactly would that be?
 
Sig said:
Maybe I'm not making this clear enough. I'll try again.

Suppose you are a dues-paying member of a union, on the line at a widget factory. Mr. Scab, the guy working next to you, is a non-union worker. You are both earning $1000.00 per week union wage, paid weekly. The union dues are $100.00 per pay, of which you, as a dues-paying union worker, are paying 100%, while Mr. Scab, as a non-union worker is paying 0%. Obviously, Mr. Scab is going to be making significantly more money than you by year's end as a non-union worker collecting a union wage, and for doing nothing more than being a scab.

Do you get it now?

If you do, then I'm sure you can see that, in the fullness of time, so many union workers will take the bait and crossover to the scab side that the union will no longer be able to afford its operating expenses and will dissolve. Then, of course, so will the union wage.
Click to expand...

No, your point was crystal. But you presume that an employer will not realize that a non-union employee will be MUCH less expensive overall and thus can justify paying him individually more than the $1000/week...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
YOU brought forward the links to what Johnson did, none of it supported your view that SSTF were used to finance the Vietnam war. You then demand that I prove a negative since you couldn't support what you claimed. All you have now is flailing failure.

Concede, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Get some help from all your employees to help you read the article and then do some research on why LBJ formed the commission to handle budget issues?
 
Sig said:
Yes, I can see this happening in fantasyland, but in the real world where there are all sorts of laws pertaining to discrimination, it would not be at all practical. And do you really think that a company which employs thousands of workers is going to take the time and expense to negotiate individual contracts for each of its employees?
Click to expand...

Discrimination? How so? As to the 'time and expense to negotiate individual contracts for each of its employees', how do you think it has been going on in RTW states for the MANY years they have existed? Or are you under the delusion that there are no companies in the RTW states?

...fantasyland indeed...:lamo
 
Dickieboy said:
No, your point was crystal. But you presume that an employer will not realize that a non-union employee will be MUCH less expensive overall and thus can justify paying him individually more than the $1000/week...
Click to expand...

See my above post.
 
Conservative said:
What I am not interested in are people like you claiming you know what a fair wage is. The market decides what is fair, not you, not the govt, and certainly not any union.

It would be very simple for you to help solve the problem, hire some employees and pay them what you feel is fair. What exactly would that be?
Click to expand...
What is fair in your corporatist mind and what is fair from a workers viewpoint are two very different things, as is the power of a corporation compared to an individual worker. You can yap about about what you view as fair, but we all know your viewpoint, it is not that of the worker. It is the viewpoint of a company man.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
What is fair in your corporatist mind and what is fair from a workers viewpoint are two very different things, as is the power of a corporation compared to an individual worker. You can yap about about what you view as fair, but we all know your viewpoint, it is not that of the worker. It is the viewpoint of a company man.
Click to expand...

What I view as fair and what you view as fair is irrelevant for it what the market determines is fair that matters. A company doesn't stay in business when it prices itself out of the market and the biggest single monthly operating expense of any business is payroll
 
Conservative said:
Get some help from all your employees to help you read the article and then do some research on why LBJ formed the commission to handle budget issues?
Click to expand...
His minimizing the cost of the war by changing the reporting of the budget.....is not the same thing as using SSTF dollars to fund a war.

You just cannot understand the difference or admit that you are in total error.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
His minimizing the cost of the war by changing the reporting of the budget.....is not the same thing as using SSTF dollars to fund a war.

You just cannot understand the difference or admit that you are in total error.
Click to expand...

How did he MINIMIZE the cost of the war? He hid the true costs of the war by putting all tax funds into the general fund and because there was a SS surplus the deficit was reduced. People don't seem to matter what costs are if there are funds to cover those costs and that is what the SS surplus at the time did.
 
Dickieboy said:
Discrimination? How so? As to the 'time and expense to negotiate individual contracts for each of its employees', how do you think it has been going on in RTW states for the MANY years they have existed? Or are you under the delusion that there are no companies in the RTW states?

...fantasyland indeed...:lamo
Click to expand...

Discrimination litigation quite easily: When you pay a white employee a higher wage than a black employee when they are both working in the same job title, or pay a male worker a higher wage than a female worker, etc..

Show me one company in a RTW state who employees more than a 1000 workers and negotiates individual contracts with each and every worker on a recurring basis.
 
Conservative said:
What I view as fair and what you view as fair is irrelevant for it what the market determines is fair that matters. A company doesn't stay in business when it prices itself out of the market and the biggest single monthly operating expense of any business is payroll
Click to expand...
Corporation use various means to lower labor costs,to influence the market, the one at hand is to cripple the influence of unions in the market place by legislative means. Again, this is an action by corporations using govt to further their ends of lower wages.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Corporation use various means to lower labor costs,to influence the market, the one at hand is to cripple the influence of unions in the market place by legislative means. Again, this is an action by corporations using govt to further their ends of lower wages.
Click to expand...

Name for me one corporation that pays its workers what you would consider a non fair wage?
 
Conservative said:
How did he MINIMIZE the cost of the war? He hid the true costs of the war by putting all tax funds into the general fund and because there was a SS surplus the deficit was reduced. People don't seem to matter what costs are if there are funds to cover those costs and that is what the SS surplus at the time did.
Click to expand...
Again, you are still trying to argue that SSTF were directly spent in the Vietnam war, they were not. Time and again I have said that it was an accounting trick, you are still trying to wiggle out of your original claim without providing any supporting evidence.

Next, you will change your claim to something else entirely, I know your deceitful debate methods. It will not work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom