• 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!

Unions threaten Business

Walter said:
But Good Luck. It will be ENTERTAINING as the next state falls, then the next....etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, having citizen's rights taken away should make that much easier.

jcon79l.jpg


Power to the people................scratch that, power to the corporations!!!
 
washunut said:
Interesting analogy in that you think a loyal listenor of Rush Limbaugh would also be a viewer of Rachel Maddow.
Click to expand...

Actually Comcast is a cable television provider and with their purchase of NBC, they now are the proud owners of MSNBC, too. Rush probably does want Rachel Maddow off the air and what better way for him to make that happen than to have his audience boycott Comcast until she's gone. I don't think it would work but I think it's a more apt analogy than Kal'Stang's.
 
Whovian said:
Stating 'I will not buy from so-and so- because of X', ia VASTLY different than an organized attempt to shut businesses down because someone doesn't like their politics. It's a pity you are unable to comprehend this. …
Click to expand...

It's a pity you can't manage to explain why it's “VASTLY different.”
 
Whovian said:
perhaps you should read some of my other posts on this subject. Then you wouldn't continue to talk out of your ass about things you have no knowledge of.
Click to expand...

If your stance has more depth, please tell me about it, I am not going to take the time to hunt down random posts of yours.

Whovian said:
That is about the dumbest explanation for this union driven boycott I have yet to hear. Even you can't possibly believe this is not driven by the recent actions of the governor and legislature.
Click to expand...

Of course it is driven by recent legislation, but that doesn't invalidate my point, perhaps you should read my views in depth ;)
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
perhaps you should read some of my other posts on this subject. Then you wouldn't continue to talk out of your ass about things you have no knowledge of.
Click to expand...

I know you were not addressing me but being new to this site why would I after reading your last few replies want to read any thing else you posted, your demeanor is condescending and insulting
 
Catawba said:
Yes, having citizen's rights taken away should make that much easier.

jcon79l.jpg


Power to the people................scratch that, power to the corporations!!!
Click to expand...

What you really mean, is power to the unions. What we have here, are public employee unions that are willing to crush private industry and kill private sector jobs, if those companies don't get in line with the PEU's agenda.

Collective bargaining isn't a right, BTW.
 
megaprogman said:
And if they don't want to buy from you for being neutral, that is their right. This right trumps your right, because it is their money to spend.
Click to expand...

But, is it right for tax payer funded unions to use those millions of taxpayer dollars to crush private business?
 
apdst said:
Collective bargaining isn't a right, BTW.
Click to expand...

Its a part of freedom of association.

apdst said:
But, is it right for tax payer funded unions to use those millions of taxpayer dollars to crush private business?
Click to expand...

A boycott is not an example of that happening.
 
Chappy said:
The right wing freak show is pushing a recent letter, excerpted below, which identifies the history of collective bargaining in five decades of peaceful labor relations and that Scott Walker did not run on highly constraining collective bargaining in his gubernatorial campaign and then goes on to say:

… In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table. Wisconsin’s public employee unions serve to protect and promote equality and fairness in the workplace. We hope you will stand with us and publicly share that ideal. …

— letter, from executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association to Tom Ellis, President, Marshall & Ilsley Corporation¹​

The right wing freak show residents would have us believe this is a kind of extortion. Personally, this letter is a valid form of direct political action. There's nothing wrong with withholding your patronage for businesses whose politics are contrary to your own. Conservative groups and liberal groups and groups in between all use economic boycotts to express their displeasure with a business or public entity.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, "If you're not willing to pay even more goddamn taxes, so we can keep our fatcat salaries and sweetheart bennies, we're going to use our millions of taxpayer dollars to shut your ass down".

Ya know...I seriously believe that the PEU's are picking a fight that they will lose, in a very bad way.
 
megaprogman said:
Its a part of freedom of association.
Click to expand...

Freedom of association isn't collective bargaining. Scott isn't telling anyone that they can't join a union.



A boycott is not an example of that happening.
Click to expand...

This boycott is a prime example of that happening.
 
apdst said:
Freedom of association isn't collective bargaining. Scott isn't telling anyone that they can't join a union.
Click to expand...

He is invalidating their freedom of contract which is a part of freedom of association. An individual can enter into a contract (which is the basis for employment) as well as a group of individuals.

apdst said:
This boycott is a prime example of that happening.
Click to expand...

I disagree, the union is a private organization, not a public one.
 
megaprogman said:
He is invalidating their freedom of contract which is a part of freedom of association. An individual can enter into a contract (which is the basis for employment) as well as a group of individuals.
Click to expand...

You don't even know what Collective Bargaining is. Do you?



I disagree, the union is a private organization, not a public one.
Click to expand...

But, public employee unions get most, if not all of their money from taxes. It should be illegal for them to use tax money to attack private business.
 
I'm sorry but between President Obama's handling of the bond holders in General Motors and invalidating mortgage contracts, not unlike a king, contracts are becomming a moot point.

Where I worked there was a union without collective bargaining rights. The union still got to shake down the taxpayers, though.
 
apdst said:
You don't even know what Collective Bargaining is. Do you?
Click to expand...

Its a group of people entering into a contract with an employer.

apdst said:
But, public employee unions get most, if not all of their money from taxes. It should be illegal for them to use tax money to attack private business.
Click to expand...

Once state employees receive a paycheck, that money goes from being public state funds, to private personal funds. Union dues, even though they are transferred through the state's payroll software, is still private once the bank transaction processes and is simply a matter of the state being a proxy in moving what are fully private funds. However, the funds are fully private because they are ultimately derived from paychecks.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
You don't even know what Collective Bargaining is. Do you?





But, public employee unions get most, if not all of their money from taxes. It should be illegal for them to use tax money to attack private business.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious, once a person receives their salary it's no longer public money it's their money to spend or use in any way that they legally choose to use it, it is a shame that the unions private and public didn't start to use this tactic long before now, but you know what they say better late then never
 
megaprogman said:
Its a group of people entering into a contract with an employer.
Click to expand...

Ok, that confirms that you don't have the first damn clue what Collective Bargaining really is.



Once state employees receive a paycheck, that money goes from being public state funds, to private personal funds. Union dues, even though they are transferred through the state's payroll software, is still private once the bank transaction processes and is simply a matter of the state being a proxy in moving what are fully private funds. However, the funds are fully private because they are ultimately derived from paychecks.
Click to expand...

It's tax payer money, no matter how you spin it.
 
apdst said:
Ok, that confirms that you don't have the first damn clue what Collective Bargaining really is.

It's tax payer money, no matter how you spin it.
Click to expand...

I see I have reduced you to making assertions without backing up your statement with logic or examples.
 
EarlzP said:
You can't be serious, once a person receives their salary it's no longer public money it's their money to spend or use in any way that they legally choose to use it, it is a shame that the unions private and public didn't start to use this tactic long before now, but you know what they say better late then never
Click to expand...

Where does the money come from to pay public employees?

Taxes, right? The more money that public employees get paid, the more union dues they will pay. So, is it really right for unions, who depend on tax dollars to keep their coffers full, to turn around and use that money to shakedown private businesses? Just because it's leagal doesn't make it right. As I said before, I think the public employee unions have picked a losing battle.
 
megaprogman said:
I see I have reduced you to making assertions without backing up your statement with logic or examples.
Click to expand...

If collective bargaining were simply an employment contract, then everyone would have collective bargaining. But, that's not the case, is it?
 
apdst said:
If collective bargaining were simply an employment contract, then everyone would have collective bargaining. But, that's not the case, is it?
Click to expand...

Not everyone wishes to bargain as a group. However, because a right isn't exercised does not mean it doesn't exist. I don't own a gun for example.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
So, in other words, "If you're not willing to pay even more goddamn taxes, so we can keep our fatcat salaries and sweetheart bennies …". …
Click to expand...

I just reread the letter again; there's nothing about taxes or compensation at all. It's about the right to collectively bargain. Your “other words” are your words and as it turns out your words are (no surprise!) flat out lies.
 
Whovian said:
Translation:
If you side with those Republican bastards, we'll make sure you're business is driven into the ground until it folds up like a house of paper.
Click to expand...

actually, you'll note, it's: "if you don't side with the demonions" (do they each really need their own name at this point?), then we'll get you. no neutrals allowed in this fight.
 
Chappy said:
I just reread the letter again; there's nothing about taxes or compensation at all. It's about the right to collectively bargain. Your “other words” are your words and as it turns out your words are (no surprise!) flat out lies.
Click to expand...

Where does the money come from to pay public employees? To close the hole in the budget, they must either raise taxes, or lower wages and bennies for public employees. Those are really the only options, aside from paying people off.
 
megaprogman said:
Not everyone wishes to bargain as a group. However, because a right isn't exercised does not mean it doesn't exist. I don't own a gun for example.
Click to expand...

Ok, where in the US code, or the Constitution, does it say that collective bargaining is a right? As always, thanks in advance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom