AARP Raises Costs for Employees' Insurance Plans

j-mac · Nov 9, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Like unoins what? I'm not a union person myself, but yes, a union should consider what is best for it's employees, and that is often linked to democrat policy. Why? Because those policies are in the best interest of the working person in general.

How so? Unions often strangle the companies they infest, causing a loss of that company in the long run. So how is that in the working mans best interest?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Nov 9, 2010

j-mac said:
How so? Unions often strangle the companies they infest, causing a loss of that company in the long run. So how is that in the working mans best interest?

j-mac

That's a generalization. True, in some cases unions have gotten corrupt and did poor jobs. But remember what working conditions were before unions. There's no doubt that unions gave voice to the working man and allowed him to make changes he could not have made alone.

Again, I don't belong to a union. Never have. But I've read history, and understand how this all works. Employers are not always good to those who work for them, and the imbalance of power often has led to abuses in the past that were tragic for working people. Unions help change that, and part of that was voting for people who were really concerned with working man issues, too often democrats.

Donc · Nov 9, 2010

Boo Radley said:
That's a generalization. True, in some cases unions have gotten corrupt and did poor jobs. But remember what working conditions were before unions. There's no doubt that unions gave voice to the working man and allowed him to make changes he could not have made alone.

Again, I don't belong to a union. Never have. But I've read history, and understand how this all works. Employers are not always good to those who work for them, and the imbalance of power often has led to abuses in the past that were tragic for working people. Unions help change that, and part of that was voting for people who were really concerned with working man issues, too often democrats.

If it weren’t for corporations abusing the rights of the workingman there wouldn’t have been a need for unions in the first place.

ptif219 · Nov 9, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Like unoins what? I'm not a union person myself, but yes, a union should consider what is best for it's employees, and that is often linked to democrat policy. Why? Because those policies are in the best interest of the working person in general.

Wrong Unions are an arm of the democrat party. They care about pollitics not the people.

Reid got elected by Harrah and the unions there

Harrah’s Bosses Put Squeeze on Employees to Vote in Pro-Reid Effort - By Elizabeth Crum - Battle

ptif219 · Nov 9, 2010

donc said:
If it weren’t for corporations abusing the rights of the workingman there wouldn’t have been a need for unions in the first place.

There was a need 75 years ago. The unions have abused their power and now care more about electing democrats that they do their members.

Donc · Nov 9, 2010

ptif219

Wrong Unions are an arm of the democrat party.

Yet the teamsters union indorsed more republican Presidents than Democratic Presidents. Amazing isn’t it? :2wave:

Birdzeye · Nov 9, 2010

donc said:
If it weren’t for corporations abusing the rights of the workingman there wouldn’t have been a need for unions in the first place.

Exactly. If corporations uniformly treated their employees with respect and dignity, and paid them enough to actually put food on the table and a roof over the workers' heads, unions might not have come into existence.

Unfortunately, some unions are corrupt, and only seem to exist to take dues money out of members' (who may find union membership compulsory due to a "closed shop") paychecks. Funny how some conservatives are so indignant about that but don't show a shred of outrage over the awful way some employers treat their employees.

Boo Radley · Nov 9, 2010

ptif219 said:
Wrong Unions are an arm of the democrat party. They care about pollitics not the people.

Reid got elected by Harrah and the unions there

Harrah’s Bosses Put Squeeze on Employees to Vote in Pro-Reid Effort - By Elizabeth Crum - Battle

Why would they care about candidates regardless of the the needs of their memebers? I believe you are mixing things up. People do vote contrary to their needs. There may be reasons for that. But if the union is looking for the best concerning their memebers on the whole, they may want to strongly support a candidate.

Not suggesting anyone should force anyone to vote for anyone. Just showing your thinking is not as clear or sound as you believe.

Donc · Nov 9, 2010

Birdzeye said:
Exactly. If corporations uniformly treated their employees with respect and dignity, and paid them enough to actually put food on the table and a roof over the workers' heads, unions might not have come into existence.

Unfortunately, some unions are corrupt, and only seem to exist to take dues money out of members' (who may find union membership compulsory due to a "closed shop") paychecks. Funny how some conservatives are so indignant about that but don't show a shred of outrage over the awful way some employers treat their employees.

Your right and we have plenty drinking the Corp kool-aid on this thread. :thumbs:

ptif219 · Nov 9, 2010

donc said:
Yet the teamsters union indorsed more republican Presidents than Democratic Presidents. Amazing isn’t it? :2wave:

Show proof. I was in the union I know how they work.

ptif219 · Nov 9, 2010

Birdzeye said:
Exactly. If corporations uniformly treated their employees with respect and dignity, and paid them enough to actually put food on the table and a roof over the workers' heads, unions might not have come into existence.

Unfortunately, some unions are corrupt, and only seem to exist to take dues money out of members' (who may find union membership compulsory due to a "closed shop") paychecks. Funny how some conservatives are so indignant about that but don't show a shred of outrage over the awful way some employers treat their employees.

That was the case 75 years ago now the unions abuse their power and are more concerned about getting democrats elected

ptif219 · Nov 9, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Why would they care about candidates regardless of the the needs of their memebers? I believe you are mixing things up. People do vote contrary to their needs. There may be reasons for that. But if the union is looking for the best concerning their memebers on the whole, they may want to strongly support a candidate.

Not suggesting anyone should force anyone to vote for anyone. Just showing your thinking is not as clear or sound as you believe.

Shows you know nothing about todays unions. I have been in them and been a union steward. They support the democrats and care little about their members

ptif219 · Nov 9, 2010

donc said:
Your right and we have plenty drinking the Corp kool-aid on this thread. :thumbs:

Problem is there are to many here drinking the democrat kool aid and do not know how todays unions work

Boo Radley · Nov 9, 2010

ptif219 said:
Shows you know nothing about todays unions. I have been in them and been a union steward. They support the democrats and care little about their members

Well, that was an extremely logical defense.

What do you call careing for their memebers? Explain.

j-mac · Nov 9, 2010

Boo Radley said:
That's a generalization. True, in some cases unions have gotten corrupt and did poor jobs. But remember what working conditions were before unions. There's no doubt that unions gave voice to the working man and allowed him to make changes he could not have made alone.

the Unions at their inception are far different from the corrupt organizations that exist in todays work place.

Again, I don't belong to a union. Never have. But I've read history, and understand how this all works. Employers are not always good to those who work for them, and the imbalance of power often has led to abuses in the past that were tragic for working people. Unions help change that, and part of that was voting for people who were really concerned with working man issues, too often democrats.

I have in the past been in a union, however, not now, and I certainly don't wish to be. Unions today tend to foster that us against them mentality, and I just don't see it as helpful. As far as employers not always being good to their employees, who says that when you get a job, you are locked into that job? The so called imbalance of power as you put it is in direct correlation to the risk of the business taken at different levels. The line worker doesn't have the risk associated with the business as the owner does. Unions did make a difference at their inception, in terms of safety issues, and so forth, however, today is not 1940, and there are government institutions in place for issues like that including OSHA. the Unions of today are all about the political game, and their own power. Card check is a horrible idea, and would ruin this countries remaining industries.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Nov 9, 2010

J, all things change, butn that doesn't mean they are not still needed. Perhaps members do need to make some changes with their leadership. But I wouldn't recommend throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Mobility isn't what's cracked up to be. And without a worker voice, as we had in the past, there are limitations to what a worker can do. Leaving one bad deal for another isn't that conforting.

I suspect many don't remember the country before unions, and because gains have made things better for them overall, they are free to vote against thier best interests. Things may well go backwards before unions come back again. Who knows. But it is too easy to say that unions are only after power (whatever you mean by that) and not working for their base. It would be better to provide some evidenc eof this, and not just that they voted for democrats, who might well have policies that are good for workers.

j-mac · Nov 9, 2010

Boo Radley said:
J, all things change, butn that doesn't mean they are not still needed. Perhaps members do need to make some changes with their leadership. But I wouldn't recommend throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Mobility isn't what's cracked up to be. And without a worker voice, as we had in the past, there are limitations to what a worker can do. Leaving one bad deal for another isn't that conforting.

I suspect many don't remember the country before unions, and because gains have made things better for them overall, they are free to vote against thier best interests. Things may well go backwards before unions come back again. Who knows. But it is too easy to say that unions are only after power (whatever you mean by that) and not working for their base. It would be better to provide some evidenc eof this, and not just that they voted for democrats, who might well have policies that are good for workers.

Can you lay out today the things that Unions do to make their membership more secure in the work place? What is it that Unions do exactly to further the goals of their membership that doesn't end up killing the company, or the country when the country has to pick up the tab.

Demo's being the party of the working man is as much a lie as the one demo's tell to minorities to keep them down, and voting demo.

j-mac

Birdzeye · Nov 9, 2010

ptif219 said:
That was the case 75 years ago now the unions abuse their power and are more concerned about getting democrats elected

Uh huh. You can prove that the employers no longer abuse their employees and that they consistently treat them with respect and pay them enough to live on? Riiiight.

As for which party they endorse, I guess I'm wondering what the GOP has done recently for the average working stiff, to help improve working conditions etc. Or is worker support considered yet another entitlement by the GOP?

Boo Radley · Nov 9, 2010

j-mac said:
Can you lay out today the things that Unions do to make their membership more secure in the work place? What is it that Unions do exactly to further the goals of their membership that doesn't end up killing the company, or the country when the country has to pick up the tab.

Demo's being the party of the working man is as much a lie as the one demo's tell to minorities to keep them down, and voting demo.

j-mac

What exactly wouldn't kill the company? Frankly most companies can't compete internationally because of health care costs. A siingle payer would ease that. Would you support a single payer? Americans make higher incomes than third world countries. Making 50 cents an hour would make us competitve, would you support that? It isn't as easy as you make it sound. How would the membership feel about considerably lower pay and no benefits?

j-mac · Nov 9, 2010

Birdzeye said:
Uh huh. You can prove that the employers no longer abuse their employees and that they consistently treat them with respect and pay them enough to live on? Riiiight.

As for which party they endorse, I guess I'm wondering what the GOP has done recently for the average working stiff, to help improve working conditions etc. Or is worker support considered yet another entitlement by the GOP?

Once a company starts up and survives its first years to become a stable entity, do you consider the jobs they offer to be an entitlement?

j-mac

Birdzeye · Nov 9, 2010

ptif219 said:
Problem is there are to many here drinking the democrat kool aid and do not know how todays unions work

Riight. I've been a union member, so I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly about them. I've also seen the good, the bad and the ugly about the employers. Some of them still treat their staff like crap.

And these links prove your claim about unions endorsing Democrats is simply not true:

Cambridge Police Patrol Officers union endorses Republican Brown in Senate race - Cambridge, Massachusetts - Cambridge Chronicle

Republican Dubie collects labor union endorsements | The Burlington Free Press | Burlington, Vermont

State lobby group, labor union endorse Haslam | Chattanooga Times Free Press

There are more, but I think I've made my point.

j-mac · Nov 9, 2010

Boo Radley said:
What exactly wouldn't kill the company? Frankly most companies can't compete internationally because of health care costs.

That is a talking point line directly from the DNC. It's BS. What about Union costs built into the cost of every product produced from union labor here in this country? Think that pensioning someone for 30 years at their full salary has any effect on that?

A siingle payer would ease that. Would you support a single payer?

Why should I trust that? Because you say so? Competition reduces cost, and increases quality every time. Single payer kills that, so no.

Americans make higher incomes than third world countries. Making 50 cents an hour would make us competitve, would you support that?

Don't be silly. Obama had no care for his own family member in Kenya living in squaller in a shack on $20 per year, and your answer rather than bring those nations up from 50 cents an hour, is to bring us down to their level speaks volumes about where you stand.

It isn't as easy as you make it sound. How would the membership feel about considerably lower pay and no benefits?

they wouldn't like it. But why isn't that considered greed? huh? This country is in dire straights, and all the Union shlubs can do is cry that they don't get enough? Great.

j-mac

Birdzeye · Nov 9, 2010

j-mac said:
That is a talking point line directly from the DNC. It's BS. What about Union costs built into the cost of every product produced from union labor here in this country? Think that pensioning someone for 30 years at their full salary has any effect on that?

Why should I trust that? Because you say so? Competition reduces cost, and increases quality every time. Single payer kills that, so no.

Don't be silly. Obama had no care for his own family member in Kenya living in squaller in a shack on $20 per year, and your answer rather than bring those nations up from 50 cents an hour, is to bring us down to their level speaks volumes about where you stand.

they wouldn't like it. But why isn't that considered greed? huh? This country is in dire straights, and all the Union shlubs can do is cry that they don't get enough? Great.

j-mac

If you're going to piss and moan about "greed," then I'd suggest that a better target for your ire might be the boys and girls of Wall Street and the investment firms who helped cause the financial meltdown in '08 but still believe they're entitled to bonuses that are far bigger than anything some union member will ever get.

Donc · Nov 9, 2010

ptif219 said:
Show proof. I was in the union I know how they work.

In 1972 the teamsters endorsed Nixon,in 1980 and 1984 Ronald Reagan, in 1988 George the first.

During the primaries they didn’t endorse either Hillary or Obama, but seeing the tragedy of the bush years they endorsed and supported President Obama after he won the primary.As for a their support of Bill Clinton, it was luke warm at best, because of NAFTA.

I also know a thing or two how unions work, I was a Teamster Officer, both at the local and national(organizer in the late seventies)level for twenty years. When I retire I will have a nice pension in addition to SS.:2wave:

j-mac · Nov 9, 2010

Birdzeye said:
If you're going to piss and moan about "greed," then I'd suggest that a better target for your ire might be the boys and girls of Wall Street and the investment firms who helped cause the financial meltdown in '08 but still believe they're entitled to bonuses that are far bigger than anything some union member will ever get.

Don't turn all green with jealousy on me Birdy. Although, I'll concede that Wall St. had a role in the crash of the housing market that is the current catalyst of our woes, they weren't alone. If you want to be honest, they were only trying to cover their backsides after the poverty pimps like Jackson, and Sharpton, ACORN, and demo's in congress pushed them to lend to people that couldn't afford a hot dog on credit, let alone a house. And in the midst of all of this you have demo's in congress turning a blind eye to the collapse when it could have been avoided...Great.

j-mac