• 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!

How to Kill a Union,,,in 3 Easy Steps.

JimboJ said:
Trust me I have absolutely no desire to blow smoke anywhere near your lower posterior. You have consistently misrepresented card check and EFCA throughout this post. Drawing ridiculous comparisons, which are really just pasted from some misguided articles and blogs. All I am doing is asking for a bit of honesty and justification. Instead, I get some taunts. I guess we can just start calling each other names, if you are tried of defending any position.
Click to expand...

I've shown you the facts, you deny them. As any loyal Union drone would do.:lol: You're only doing what I'd expect from a Union Worker. "Nothing More, or Less".
 
Bassman said:
All I am telling you is what is in the fine print!
Click to expand...

And I'm telling you that the pervasive mentality of knowingly breaking labor laws and then fabricating legal reasons for termination is a damn good reason to have unions. This type if trickery is also a fantastic reason that workers would want to have laws like EFCA to protect their bargaining rights. But yeah, I recognize there are a lot of ways to break the current labor laws without getting caught. As I said before, complete enforcement of labor law is nearly impossible. Thanks for providing the example.
 
Realist1 said:

I've shown you the facts, you deny them. As any loyal Union drone would do.:lol: You're only doing what I'd expect from a Union Worker. "Nothing More, or Less".
Click to expand...

Yes call me names. Which "facts" exactly have I denied?
 
Realist1 said:
So, you're telling me that if an Employee turns into a worthless, useless, typical Union Drone,,,I can't get rid of it.:roll:

Oh yeah,,,That'll make "Good Business Sense.".:doh
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can interpret this to be my argument. Why would I ever call a unionized worker a "typical Union Drone"? Remember I am the one challenging your anti-union position. So I guess no I'm not telling you this.
 
angrycarpenter said:
A little advice when arguing with some hardcore conservatives, or any fanatic for that matter.

You will NEVER get them to admit they were wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

You will NEVER get them to even see your side of argument much less agree with it.

They do not care about the substance of an argument. As long as they see themselves as doing battle with infidels they are happy.

After a while you just have to give up in disgust, they see this as a victory. For most people a discussion is a search for understanding, but for some people it is just a way to enjoy treating others like crap without risking a punch in the nose.
Click to expand...

Right,,,you deny the Right of a Free Labor Market, and think of anyone that opposes your "Union" mentality, as beneath you. :lol:

You're "Hive" Material for sure.
 
JimboJ said:
Yes call me names. Which "facts" exactly have I denied?
Click to expand...

You are pro Union,,,correct? And part of a Collective. If that offends you, there's still hope. :)
 
Realist1 said:

I've shown you the facts, you deny them. As any loyal Union drone would do.:lol: You're only doing what I'd expect from a Union Worker. "Nothing More, or Less".
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for more. Name some particular facts that I have denied. I hate to say it but it seems like you have given up on argument. Instead you will call me names. Oh and you will intentionally misinterpret my argument and argue with your misinterpretations. That's not as engaging as I had hoped for, but it is getting late.
 
Realist1 said:
You are pro Union,,,correct? And part of a Collective. If that offends you, there's still hope. :)
Click to expand...

Clever. I guess "pro union" is a little vague for me but sure call me pro union and it does not offend me in the least. I don't know what you mean by collective. By names, I mean Union drone. But of course you knew this.

Oh, and I am still waiting for you to name a particular fact that I have denied.
 
Realist1 said:
Right,,,you deny the Right of a Free Labor Market, and think of anyone that opposes your "Union" mentality, as beneath you. :lol:

You're "Hive" Material for sure.
Click to expand...

What?? I was commenting on the futility of arguing with people who believe their opinions to be the ultimate unalterable truth of reality and see an opposing view as an assault on their character and something to be fought till the last breath without budging an inch. You know a fanatic, sorry if you took it personally I was speaking generally.
 
JimboJ said:
Yes call me names. Which "facts" exactly have I denied?
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by JimboJ
Again card check does not take away the private voting from union members. Card check would allow non-members the chance to join a union through a majority signing cards. However, leadership elections as well as any other internal decision in unions is determined by the union's constitution. Card check would not change how these decisions are made.

Really?

EFCA supporters on Capitol Hill are now contemplating the union bosses’ plan to replace card check with a measure that would enable union elections to be held within five or 10 days of filing a petition with the National Labor Relations Board.


This would be about as fair as the Iranian presidential election. Quicker elections give union bosses the opportunity to lobby workers — in many cases, without the knowledge of the employer or the majority of employees — while disallowing the small business the opportunity to communicate with its own employees about unionization.


Quick elections are simply another way for union bosses to force unionization on businesses and gain dues from workers with little regard for how increased costs and burdens will affect an employer’s ability to stay in business.

Good Night.
 
Last edited:
Realist1 said:
Originally Posted by JimboJ
Again card check does not take away the private voting from union members. Card check would allow non-members the chance to join a union through a majority signing cards. However, leadership elections as well as any other internal decision in unions is determined by the union's constitution. Card check would not change how these decisions are made.

Really?

EFCA supporters on Capitol Hill are now contemplating the union bosses’ plan to replace card check with a measure that would enable union elections to be held within five or 10 days of filing a petition with the National Labor Relations Board.


This would be about as fair as the Iranian presidential election. Quicker elections give union bosses the opportunity to lobby workers — in many cases, without the knowledge of the employer or the majority of employees — while disallowing the small business the opportunity to communicate with its own employees about unionization.


Quick elections are simply another way for union bosses to force unionization on businesses and gain dues from workers with little regard for how increased costs and burdens will affect an employer’s ability to stay in business.
Click to expand...


I guess I don't see how the text you pasted contains a single fact that I have denied. Just pasting it again won't change this. Note that the elections, which Forbes is discussing are about union recognition. Moreover he is saying that EFCA would not allow card check but would mandate secret ballots. In either case, none of this has to do with the decisions that union members make. It affects how none union members become members. I don't know if I can make this clearer for you.
 
Realist1 said:
Originally Posted by JimboJ
Again card check does not take away the private voting from union members. Card check would allow non-members the chance to join a union through a majority signing cards. However, leadership elections as well as any other internal decision in unions is determined by the union's constitution. Card check would not change how these decisions are made.

Really?

EFCA supporters on Capitol Hill are now contemplating the union bosses’ plan to replace card check with a measure that would enable union elections to be held within five or 10 days of filing a petition with the National Labor Relations Board.


This would be about as fair as the Iranian presidential election. Quicker elections give union bosses the opportunity to lobby workers — in many cases, without the knowledge of the employer or the majority of employees — while disallowing the small business the opportunity to communicate with its own employees about unionization.


Quick elections are simply another way for union bosses to force unionization on businesses and gain dues from workers with little regard for how increased costs and burdens will affect an employer’s ability to stay in business.

Good Night.
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed the good night. Good night to you as well sir.
 
This whole argument is based on whether you see a labor union as a good or a bad thing.

Some of us think a company should see it's employees as limited partners who have every interest in seeing the company succeed and therefore should have a fair share of the success they helped provide. We believe a union serves the purpose of keeping management honest and provides workers with the leverage to get a living wage when the corporate impulse is worry about the stockholders far more than the workers that produced that profit to begin with.

Some of us believe that the boss is the boss and no one has the right to tell him what to do with his company. Employees are just people who can be replaced if they make trouble. That every measure to increase the profit margin even at the expense of workers is a good thing. Any tactic used to defeat unionization is good and proper. Unions are in it for themselves existing only to extort dues from workers.

These positions are irreconcilable and there is nothing to be gained from arguing about the free choice act as long as the opposition are against unions period much less making it easier to unionize. But I will say this, If a company were a country, Which of these positions looks like democracy and which one looks like a dictatorship?
 
angrycarpenter said:
This whole argument is based on whether you see a labor union as a good or a bad thing.

Some of us think a company should see it's employees as limited partners who have every interest in seeing the company succeed and therefore should have a fair share of the success they helped provide. We believe a union serves the purpose of keeping management honest and provides workers with the leverage to get a living wage when the corporate impulse is worry about the stockholders far more than the workers that produced that profit to begin with.

Some of us believe that the boss is the boss and no one has the right to tell him what to do with his company. Employees are just people who can be replaced if they make trouble. That every measure to increase the profit margin even at the expense of workers is a good thing. Any tactic used to defeat unionization is good and proper. Unions are in it for themselves existing only to extort dues from workers.

These positions are irreconcilable and there is nothing to be gained from arguing about the free choice act as long as the opposition are against unions period much less making it easier to unionize. But I will say this, If a company were a country, Which of these positions looks like democracy and which one looks like a dictatorship?
Click to expand...

I see Unions as a Bad Thing A/C...Check out Google, type in Union Scandals,,,and 1-2,340,000 Pages pop up to read. :lol:


[ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Union+Scandals&aq=f&oq=&aqi=]Union Scandals - Google Search[/ame]
 
Don't Tase Me Bro said:
It would appear to be the Obama way as well unless I am imagining that $1.7 trillion deficit for this year.
Click to expand...

Agree, seems there is getting to be no real difference between the political parties anymore...
 
One easy step in killing a union....
let one segment of the workforce unionize, and let the rest of the workforce see the results...
Happened where I last worked...the IBEW kept trying to get the electrical workers at a major utility in AZ, and the employees kept voting no.
So they tried just the security forces, and won. Security worker's pay immediately got negotiated DOWN, and they lost thier uniform allowance.
But they did get to pay union dues.:2razz:
 
Realist1 said:
I see Unions as a Bad Thing A/C...Check out Google, type in Union Scandals,,,and 1-2,340,000 Pages pop up to read. :lol:


Union Scandals - Google Search
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to show me a particular fact that I have denied. Failing to do so, just shows that you started this thread with misunderstandings and continue to maintain these misunderstandings even though they have been revealed as such. The bottom-line is that you were mistaken and you refuse to acknowledge your mistake. Instead you defend your mistake you make the same mistake. I would call this dishonesty, unless, of course, you really don't understand the dialogue this far. Either way I am afraid further engagement on this topic is probably of low-value.

Oh and no, I did not come to this conclusion just because you don't like unions. Note that all I have done is ask you to clarify your position. It would have been easy to admit that you had some misunderstandings about EFCA and still maintain your reasons for opposing unions. In fact I think this would have made your reasons for opposing unions more compelling because at least it would be evidence that you have some intellectual honesty in this position. Now I'm just left to wonder if your entire position on this issue is premised on easily rectified misunderstandings that you refuse to acknowledge.
 
angrycarpenter said:
What?? I was commenting on the futility of arguing with people who believe their opinions to be the ultimate unalterable truth of reality and see an opposing view as an assault on their character and something to be fought till the last breath without budging an inch. You know a fanatic, sorry if you took it personally I was speaking generally.
Click to expand...

Well stated.
 
JimboJ said:
I'm still waiting for you to show me a particular fact that I have denied. Failing to do so, just shows that you started this thread with misunderstandings and continue to maintain these misunderstandings even though they have been revealed as such. The bottom-line is that you were mistaken and you refuse to acknowledge your mistake. Instead you defend your mistake you make the same mistake. I would call this dishonesty, unless, of course, you really don't understand the dialogue this far. Either way I am afraid further engagement on this topic is probably of low-value.

Oh and no, I did not come to this conclusion just because you don't like unions. Note that all I have done is ask you to clarify your position. It would have been easy to admit that you had some misunderstandings about EFCA and still maintain your reasons for opposing unions. In fact I think this would have made your reasons for opposing unions more compelling because at least it would be evidence that you have some intellectual honesty in this position. Now I'm just left to wonder if your entire position on this issue is premised on easily rectified misunderstandings that you refuse to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

You've yet NOT to deny anything I've Posted,,,while claiming everything is just a "misunderstanding". As you're doing now. :lol: I agree, this engagement has been of low-value. My "Position" hasn't changed, I still think the Govt. and Unions have NO Business in Private Enterprise. You do.

Read this: [ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Union+Scandals&aq=f&oq=&aqi=]Union Scandals - Google Search[/ame]
 
The problem these Union Goons have is they don't understand a blasted thing from a management perspective. They don't know what those responsiblilites require.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom