• 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!

"An extinction-level event for American labor [unions]"

You have financial penis envy. Its obvious every time you commented on his financial status. The guy could have just gone into playboy investment banking and raked it in. Instead he became an entrepeneuer and devloiper and has hired and provided for the livlihood of literally millions of people in his career. His charities have been recognized for providing service to the black community foir four decades.

Again...How YOU doin? How do you stack up?

Where is your link on his charity providing for black communities? I haven't heard that one. He is a successful businessman, I'm not denying that. There is just something pretty nasty about a guy who has used illegal labor, bought materials overseas, and stiffed contractors wandering around to blue collar workers and telling them that he is going to bring their jobs back.
 
Last edited:
Where is your link on his charity providing for black communities? I haven't heard that one. He is a successful businessman, I'm not denying that. There is just something pretty nasty about a guy who has used illegal labor, bought materials overseas, and stiffed contractors wandering around to blue collar workers and telling him that he is going to bring their jobs back.

Indeed there is. And one could add the adjectives lying and self serving.
 
Where is your link on his charity providing for black communities? I haven't heard that one. He is a successful businessman, I'm not denying that. There is just something pretty nasty about a guy who has used illegal labor, bought materials overseas, and stiffed contractors wandering around to blue collar workers and telling them that he is going to bring their jobs back.

Sure. I will even post the vide.....oh...wait...is this going to be another one of those instances where you ask for proof, are given proof, and then still find a way to deny it? Cuz...we've done that dance before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sure. I will even post the vide.....oh...wait...is this going to be another one of those instances where you ask for proof, are given proof, and then still find a way to deny it? Cuz...we've done that dance before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The refugee thing was a judgement call. There wasn't a black and white answer to that one. This one is straight up did he actively help black communities through his charity.
 
The refugee thing was a judgement call. There wasn't a black and white answer to that one. This one is straight up did he actively help black communities through his charity.
https://youtu.be/iW9Xu35GUMY

Here's the thing. Before he ran as a republican for president, Donald Trump was well liked and respected by liberals. Oprah loved him. Jessie loved him. Hell HRC loved him. He didn't become a 'villain' until he dared to oppose the expected queen. Make no mistake. Sister Teresa would have been painted as a racist if she had run as a republican.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
https://youtu.be/iW9Xu35GUMY

Here's the thing. Before he ran as a republican for president, Donald Trump was well liked and respected by liberals. Oprah loved him. Jessie loved him. Hell HRC loved him. He didn't become a 'villain' until he dared to oppose the expected queen. Make no mistake. Sister Teresa would have been painted as a racist if she had run as a republican.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think Trump is a racist. The Mexican comment was rough, but I haven't seen too much else that was that bad. So is the proof that Trump has been actively helping the black community for four decades his donation of office space to the rainbow coalition? I'm not going to argue about it because it was very good of him to do that. Hopefully he'll reach out again soon.
 
You have financial penis envy. Its obvious every time you commented on his financial status. The guy could have just gone into playboy investment banking and raked it in. Instead he became an entrepeneuer and devloiper and has hired and provided for the livlihood of literally millions of people in his career. His charities have been recognized for providing service to the black community foir four decades.

Again...How YOU doin? How do you stack up?

A fundamental error many of those on the uber-right make when discussing employment, is to assume that because entrepreneur X made a play in some development, and hence employees were hired, is that no one, not a soul on the planet, would have ever thought of such a plan (build a hotel or casino or such), and so that employment would have never have happened, had not the lad in question taken such a bold move. Who else would think, hey, let's build a tacky hotel that looks like it was cribbed from a B movie, and see if anybody comes? Only those with money not theirs, and more time on their hands than common sense in their heads.

The thing is, he or she invariably did not make the move to provide employment in an altruistic fashion, but to make a buck. Employment may come, or not, or come and be a bust, as it was in may of the Donald's efforts. In fact, he stands head and shoulders above an already dubious flock in regards to employee and contractor dissatisfaction, lawsuits, and various references to flim flam.

In general, business creates enterprises to make money, and will employ those necessary, and only those necessary, and at the lowest wages negotiable, to make such happen. When this happens, said punter does not provide for the livelihood of employees, they work for the modest amount they get, and in the America of today, that is very often modest indeed. It is usually the other way around, in that cheap labour provides for extravagant profit, and a handsome livelihood for the minimal efforts of the creative folks who thought up the idea that a hotel or gambling place might work...or not, as was often the case.

Trump's charities have been well recognized for flim flam and dodgey financial practices, and some of them are now under criminal investigation, if I am not mistaken. The US government, and thereby the US taxpayer, is certainly not a "charity" of the Trump, as he has dodged taxes for years, rather than pony up and pay along with the rest of those "millions" of workers who had no such dodges available to them.
 
A fundamental error many of those on the uber-right make when discussing employment, is to assume that because entrepreneur X made a play in some development, and hence employees were hired, is that no one, not a soul on the planet, would have ever thought of such a plan (build a hotel or casino or such), and so that employment would have never have happened, had not the lad in question taken such a bold move. Who else would think, hey, let's build a tacky hotel that looks like it was cribbed from a B movie, and see if anybody comes? Only those with money not theirs, and more time on their hands than common sense in their heads.

The thing is, he or she invariably did not make the move to provide employment in an altruistic fashion, but to make a buck. Employment may come, or not, or come and be a bust, as it was in may of the Donald's efforts. In fact, he stands head and shoulders above an already dubious flock in regards to employee and contractor dissatisfaction, lawsuits, and various references to flim flam.

In general, business creates enterprises to make money, and will employ those necessary, and only those necessary, and at the lowest wages negotiable, to make such happen. When this happens, said punter does not provide for the livelihood of employees, they work for the modest amount they get, and in the America of today, that is very often modest indeed. It is usually the other way around, in that cheap labour provides for extravagant profit, and a handsome livelihood for the minimal efforts of the creative folks who thought up the idea that a hotel or gambling place might work...or not, as was often the case.

Trump's charities have been well recognized for flim flam and dodgey financial practices, and some of them are now under criminal investigation, if I am not mistaken. The US government, and thereby the US taxpayer, is certainly not a "charity" of the Trump, as he has dodged taxes for years, rather than pony up and pay along with the rest of those "millions" of workers who had no such dodges available to them.
That was a long way to go to avoid admitting that Trump provides income and opportunity for 60 thousand people a year and their families.
 
Again I appreciate that your experience is different from mine. I not only have read labor contracts, but have negotiated a couple of them. I just don't see unions as necessarily universally bad things as you do. I do believe many if not most unions are not good things though.

My solution for ridding ourselves of bad unions is:
a) make public unions illegal

If I cut you off right there, we're practically in full agreement.

or restrict them to negotiating working contracts when that would be beneficial for government entities. They would be prohibited from conducting any form of work slow down or strikes and would not be allowed to negotiate benefits beyond active employment.

If union shops were subject to competitive bidding for government work and government projects, most if not all of my problems with unions would be resolved. But simply prohibiting strikes/stoppages/whatever they feel like calling it is not always the full picture. For example, in my state, Class I PERA employees (police/fire/hospital/corrections/emergency services) cannot strike, but therefore they're entitled to binding interest arbitration when they don't get what they want out of a new bargaining session.

b) make the state a right to work state in which any employer can refuse a union and can eject a union at will. The federal government, including the courts, should stay out of this altogether.

Again, you're certainly not going to get disagreement from me. We're basically on the same page about this, at the end of the day.
 
"Too young" was meant in a quasi metaphorical sense, in that the young tend to have less life experience, and so tend to make less well informed decisions. This is not a hard and fast rule though, as some young people are pretty bright, and some oldsters have marked time without learning anything.

Seniority, and other such rules, were put in place to enforce some justice in the workplace, and have promotions and other perks go to those who have paid their dues, and stuck it out, and gained experience, and such does not go to those related to the boss, or who bend to excess or unfair demands of management.

I really do not care what the pro-union rationale is for seniority clauses. Not only are unions' numerous seniority preference clauses demented, they're actually bad for the unions over the long term, because the membership stagnates as the highest paid seniority employees who have been there for eons are the only ones fully indoctrinated and entrenched into the pro-union mindset. Most standard CBA language pushes for layoff clauses that compel employers to cull the youngest and newest first. So I laugh at unions that are finally beginning to notice with concern that young people aren't joining unions. Gee, might it be that your collective bargaining agreements that treat them like disposable peons have something to do with that? Nahhh, let's just blame that on greedy managers. Oh, and Republicans, of course. Yeah, that's why! Greedy managers and Republicans!

You can have "overlord bosses" anywhere there is a power differential,

Now you're stretching, because you started migrating into corporate culture when the central point I've been making concerns public unions.

Unions are designed to give a voice to those at the short end of the power stick.

Unions insist upon being the voice of people who would rather speak for themselves. Whatever you say unions "are designed" to do, it's going to be as flattering as possible to unions.

Whatever "laws and regulations" are in place are only there because some group fought to put them there, and indeed they would soon be gone if enough in influential positions decided to make them go.

That's what I'm saying should happen.

Why was there a boom?

Excellent question, for another thread. But as a spoiler, it wasn't all due to the fact that "unions were strong," and it wasn't all due to the fact that upper marginal tax rates were high. Those are post hoc ergo propter hoc missteps.

No, the OP was an uninformed bit of knee-jerk reaction, probably based on something heard on Fox News, some screaming neo-con blog, or similar.

The OP was a link to a super left-wing website, with a few provocative comments added in to stir up some discussion.

The business community has been voracious in recent years in rolling back unions, as they affect their bottom line, and hence are considered the enemy. They are less interested in the public sphere, as interactions there are much more indirect. Globalization has also put pressure on the private sector, but less so on the public, as many functions there cannot easily be offshored. And unions belong in the public area for the same reason as the private. They give a voice to those who would otherwise not have it, power to the powerless, and fairness where it might otherwise not occur.

I find the pro-union insistence that anyone without a union speaking for them is powerless to be highly offensive and despicable. I'll certainly continue doing all I can within my power and professional ability to increase awareness of what unions are really doing, what they really are, which politicians they really control, and why my state and eventually the country should eliminate them from public sector work.
 
I really do not care what the pro-union rationale is for seniority clauses. Not only are unions' numerous seniority preference clauses demented, they're actually bad for the unions over the long term, because the membership stagnates as the highest paid seniority employees who have been there for eons are the only ones fully indoctrinated and entrenched into the pro-union mindset. Most standard CBA language pushes for layoff clauses that compel employers to cull the youngest and newest first. So I laugh at unions that are finally beginning to notice with concern that young people aren't joining unions. Gee, might it be that your collective bargaining agreements that treat them like disposable peons have something to do with that? Nahhh, let's just blame that on greedy managers. Oh, and Republicans, of course. Yeah, that's why! Greedy managers and Republicans!

Seniority systems are an (imperfect) method of ensuring justice in the workplace. Without it, workers would lose power over their work and security, by the placement of absolute authority in the hands of management. Whether one keeps his job, or is promoted, or sees pay cuts or increases would be at the whim of a figure who may or may not be corrupt, or moral, or have a good sense of judgement, of have experience in the field in question, or any number of other things. Such may then depend upon relationship to the boss, gifts or favours given, etc. Seniority tends to favour older workers (although not always), as those who have been in a position longer tend to have more invested in the job. They are more likely to have a mortgage, kids to support, and may find it harder to retrain or adjust to a major work change. They also tend to have more experience in the work in question.

The only reason a workplace stagnates, or there are layoffs, is because of economic conditions, and those are controlled overwhelmingly by political and business elite, rather than union members or workers. And when this does happen, it is the contribution of unions over the years to create the social programs that will help that then is useful.


Now you're stretching, because you started migrating into corporate culture when the central point I've been making concerns public unions.

Do you think that human psychology changes when someone changes the sign on the door from Acme Road Maintenance to California Dept of Highways? Pray tell how that happens.

The concern of public sector unions is the same as those in the private sector. They protect worker's rights, advocate for fair pay and benefits, for a safe working environment, and provide a voice for those that would otherwise not have one.

Unions insist upon being the voice of people who would rather speak for themselves. Whatever you say unions "are designed" to do, it's going to be as flattering as possible to unions.

Completely nonsensical. Unions are democratic, and workers can vote for who they choose. As for "speaking for themselves", here is an experiment for you. Fly to Iran, and tell the folks there how you would like to restructure the nuclear treaty. Then get a ticket to China, and make your needs known to the president there re currency exchange, and the current tariff on steel. Don't forget to get back to Washington in time to direct the repeal of Obamacare.

Is some light starting to shine through? Or do I need to elaborate more?
 
That's what I'm saying should happen.

Yes, well thank you, you are making your personal political convictions clear at this point, you favour authoritarianism, and assume a strong man will do just what you imagine he will do if given free reign. Imagine is the key word here.


Excellent question, for another thread. But as a spoiler, it wasn't all due to the fact that "unions were strong," and it wasn't all due to the fact that upper marginal tax rates were high. Those are post hoc ergo propter hoc missteps.

No, it wasn't all about unions, but it most definitely was about a split from previous political sentiment, which was let the market alone and all will be well. That saw a sea change with the FDR administration, indeed a major transformation of capitalism as it had previously been known. America emerged victorious and relatively unscathed from WW2, which gave it a dominant economic position, however what wealth that would have then accrued to the US from that situation would have, without progressive reforms, simply gone to the most affluent in society, as was the previous custom. The fact that the middle class expanded, and wealth was generalized, is because of said reforms, with unions being a major part.

The OP was a link to a super left-wing website, with a few provocative comments added in to stir up some discussion.

The OP was a bit of uninformed mockery of a quoted media outlet.

I find the pro-union insistence that anyone without a union speaking for them is powerless to be highly offensive and despicable. I'll certainly continue doing all I can within my power and professional ability to increase awareness of what unions are really doing, what they really are, which politicians they really control, and why my state and eventually the country should eliminate them from public sector work.

The WalMart worker down in Bubbatown can walk into the boss's office and ask for a raise, because he earns so little that he qualifies for food stamps, the Latina fast food worker can ask for a raise because although she only flips burgers, her pay is still not enough to survive on, even working a second job. The coal miner in W Virginia can tell the boss working conditions are unsafe, and he should make some changes. Trump's secretary can tell him she needs her job, but still doesn't like him grabbing her p**sy.

The thing is, Mr N, that without support, without a group standing behind these, and millions of others in similar situations, without some kind of leverage, most are just pissing into the wind. You may be offended because someone speaking for you threatens your sense of masculinity, or whatever it is, but these sort of conditions are a fact of life across the nation, and the world.

Your claim that individuals should just speak up for themselves, and they will make things right by the strength of their right arm, suggests to me that you have learned most of what you know about society from Boy's Own comics, or right wing blogs, or similar. You may not like it, or believe it, but bad things happen in the world, and it is often only the solidarity of fellow citizens that can blunt things to any degree.
 
That was a long way to go to avoid admitting that Trump provides income and opportunity for 60 thousand people a year and their families.

I think that may be the weakest reply I have seen yet on these pages, which is saying something. 60,000 People huh? And where do you think they would be working without Trump? Or do you think they would be mooning around, slumped outside the Trump Tower, waiting for their leader to return and save them?

Employment depends on political policy in the final analysis. Your notion that the economy depends on corporate warlords would be laughable, except that one has the sobering realization that you are just another buying in to the spin and self serving nonsense of those that benefit most from your uninformed views.
 
Ganesh;1066611884[B said:
]I think that may be the weakest reply I have seen yet on these pages,[/B] which is saying something. 60,000 People huh? And where do you think they would be working without Trump? Or do you think they would be mooning around, slumped outside the Trump Tower, waiting for their leader to return and save them?

Employment depends on political policy in the final analysis. Your notion that the economy depends on corporate warlords would be laughable, except that one has the sobering realization that you are just another buying in to the spin and self serving nonsense of those that benefit most from your uninformed views.
:lamo

No you dont. You 'thought' that would be a pithy and perhaps snarky response. Nothing more.
 
Seniority systems are an (imperfect) method of ensuring justice in the workplace.

The don't ensure any such thing.

Without it, workers would lose power over their work and security,

Whereas with seniority clauses, the younger and lower paid workers don't even get "power and security" in the first place, because any staffing reduction requires starting with them. Give me a break.

by the placement of absolute authority in the hands of management.

What are you talking about? Seniority clauses give some union members inflated security by guaranteeing other members remain without it. Flip the seniority clause on its head and imagine a clause that forces layoffs to start with the most senior employees first. I could easily spin together an argument in favor of that the same way you're spinning an argument in favor of seniority clauses. Flipping seniority clauses on their head would make union jobs more attractive to new membership because advancement would happen faster.

Seniority clauses are twisted, and they're even bad for unions themselves.

Your uncritical and unwavering support and excuse-making for unions is tiresome. You are fully bought in. Private sector unionism could drop to zero and public sector unionism could rise to 70% and you'd still be singing the hymnals in favor of unions being some great force in society and reciting all the talking points about how they do such great things against evil public sector government managers.

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the most liberal president in US history
 
Last edited:
you favour authoritarianism

Public sector unions in my state enjoy security clauses that give the union firing power over "scabs" who never wanted their representation, protection, bargaining contract provisions, etc. in the first place, so don't tell me about "authoritarianism."

No, it wasn't all about unions, but it most definitely was about a split from previous political sentiment, which was let the market alone and all will be well. That saw a sea change with the FDR administration, indeed a major transformation of capitalism as it had previously been known.

You mean the same FDR that opposed public sector unionism?

Your claim that individuals should just speak up for themselves

I didn't claim that. You suggested anyone without a union speaking for them is powerless.

and they will make things right by the strength of their right arm, suggests to me that you have learned most of what you know about society from Boy's Own comics, or right wing blogs, or similar. You may not like it, or believe it, but bad things happen in the world, and it is often only the solidarity of fellow citizens that can blunt things to any degree.

This doesn't even make semantic sense, and I've never heard of "Boy's Own" whatever, but I have read AS 23.40, I've read collective bargaining agreements around my state, I've read the IBEW Constitution and bylaws, I've read NLRB decisions on grievance cases, I've read case law on unionism, I've read Clayton and the US Code referencing it concerning unions, I've read judges' decisions concerning union lawsuits, I've read grievances against employers for refusing to fire "scabs" the union demanded be fired, I've read unfair labor practice claims for the pettiest of little things, I've read union bargaining offers that constitute extreme regressive bargaining and watched the state labor board shrug about it, I've watched unions engage in bad faith regressive bargaining and watched employer management do nothing about it because they were ****ing clueless as to what regressive bargaining is and that it should constitute an unfair labor practice, I've read numerous judgments against employers and in favor of unions, including some that have declared an employee not paying dues to be a deprivation of union property. I could tell you which Public Employee Relations Act employee classes are entitled to binding interest arbitration and which aren't, and I can tell you that even binding interest arbitration isn't binding on a legislature (in the case of public sector unions). I can tell you that a hell of a lot of union employees in my state hate unions but can't organize a deauthorization vote because doing so violates the union's constitution and the union can order them fired, and they don't want to be fired because (other than the union), they like their job just fine and they like management just fine. I can tell you a lot about unions, both from my experience as well as from the point of view of my state, which happens to be the 2nd most union-infested state in the entire country behind New York. So your attempt to insult me by claiming I must get all my information from comic books just make you look like the child.
 
Back
Top Bottom