• 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

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..

But aren't there federal laws about this? Further do you REALLY think an employer would risk the lawsuits associated with such discrimination? Certainly it does happen AND those employers get thier asses sued off. But more importantly what does this have to do with RTW?

again fantasyland indeed...

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.

How exactly would I do that? Do you think these 'individual contracts' are public? Isn't that also...against the law?...but I will try
 
Name for me one corporation that pays its workers what you would consider a non fair wage?
I see you have reached another dead end and need to go off on yet another tangent.

Again, tangents are concessions, you are conceding once again
 
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.

The facts show that but since you don't understand a unified budget it is hard dealing with people like you
 
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?

Not to mention the differences in regional standard of living.

In Chicago fast food employees get paid $12.00 an hour to flip burgers, in Green Bay the same job is $7.00 an hour.

So what exactly is "fair?" Of course the pro-union anti-wealth clowns cant tell you that.

I love how these clowns believe that its ok for an individual to risk their life savings (or amass epic debt) to start a business (which fails 75% of the time) and then the remedial workers believe they somehow are entitled to their "fair share" er "equal share" of the profits... Those worker didn't take the financial gamble the owner did, yet the remedial worker believes the profits should be shared equally.

Like I have always said, businesses aren't in business to employ people or "share equally" with their cannon fodder employees.
 
But aren't there federal laws about this? Further do you REALLY think an employer would risk the lawsuits associated with such discrimination? Certainly it does happen AND those employers get thier asses sued off. But more importantly what does this have to do with RTW?

Suddenly and conveniently obtuse, I see. Try thinking a little harder. It'll come to you.

again fantasyland indeed...

How exactly would I do that? Do you think these 'individual contracts' are public?

So, you admit that you just made up that whole ridiculous diatribe out of thin air.

Isn't that also...against the law?...but I will try

Yeah, good luck with that. :lamo
 
Just responding to your claims about corporations paying low wages yet you cannot name one. Here is the real problem which you want to ignore

Union Facts: Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers Leaders, Employees, and Salaries
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.
 
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.

I see, Think Progress is much better, right? The content doesn't matter but the source does?
 
Rick Perry and his Texas jobs boom: The whole story - Aug. 12, 2011

You still havent proven a thing Perry has created more minimum wage job than anyone in the country. Period Those are fact that you cant seem to grasp!

From Politifact:

Lloyd Doggett says Texas has worse unemployment than 25 states and it's tied with Mississippi for most minimum-wage workers



U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett told ABC News on Aug. 11, 2011, that Gov. Rick Perry’s rosy depictions of employment conditions in Texas aren’t entirely accurate.

"Twenty-five states have lower unemployment than Texas does today," the Austin Democrat said, adding that "we're tied with Mississippi for more minimum-wage jobs than anywhere in the United States."

Is Texas middling in unemployment and tied with the Magnolia State for minimum-wage jobs?

Yes and yup.

read more:

PolitiFact Texas | Lloyd Doggett says Texas has worse unemployment than 25 states and it's tied with Mississippi for most minimum-wage workers
 
I see, Think Progress is much better, right? The content doesn't matter but the source does?

The bias is up front with TP, if you didn't figure it out with the name.

Good grief, your argument just gets worse and worse. I didn't think it was possible.
 
Yeah, good luck with that. :lamo

Actually after thinking about this the VAST majority of companies negotiate many individual compensation contracts to the middle and upper level management folks...GE, Ford, GM, etc...shall I go on?
 
Suddenly and conveniently obtuse, I see. Try thinking a little harder. It'll come to you.

So your discrimination assertion was based on race/gender? Again how are Unions more effective at preventing this than the force of law?
 
Actually after thinking about this the VAST majority of companies negotiate many individual compensation contracts to the middle and upper level management folks...GE, Ford, GM, etc...shall I go on?

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.


 
The bias is up front with TP, if you didn't figure it out with the name.

Good grief, your argument just gets worse and worse. I didn't think it was possible.

So prove that the salaries for top union management isn't as reported?
 
Again, information out of context as usual. TX has less than 500,000 at or below the FEDERAL Minimum Wage and that FEDERAL minimum wage is all that is captured by the BLS. How about California minimum wage of $8 an hour, how many collect that wage?

Why don't you look it up and make a point for once
 
So your discrimination assertion was based on race/gender? Again how are Unions more effective at preventing this than the force of law?
The irony is that union efforts were in large part responsible for much of that legislation as has been argued previously.
 
So your discrimination assertion was based on race/gender? Again how are Unions more effective at preventing this than the force of law?

I never argued that they were.

Keep thinking.
 
What does this tangent have to do with the efforts of these union busting actions in LOWERING wages?

How does personal choice lower wages? The ones concerned about union busting are the union management as the workers will still have their jobs
 
Last edited:
How does personal choice lower wages? The ones concerned about union busting are the union management as the workers will still have their jobs

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom