• 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 many here belong a union in the public or private sector? Why? or Why not?

How many here belong to a union?


  • Total voters
    67
  • Poll closed .
Nah. When government interferes in labor disputes it is overwhelmingly to tip the scales in favor of unions.
Look at the recent laws in Michigan, Wisconsin, and many other Republican states, then try again. Didn't you know union busting has become the order of the day for the GOP at the state level?
 
A perfect example of what RabidAlpaca and I are talking about with business interference in government and it's effect on the economic landscape.

yeah, the economy is so much better under the Obama model:roll:
 
Boy did you miss the point of that. The point is the same as it was told by Aesop, an individual by themselves can be broken while in unity there is strength. And what you take from that is drug cartels. :roll: Amazing!!!!! :doh

cpwill is right. bundle of sticks vs the lone stick is MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

And you know it.

This is why our system use to be better, government should be to defend the individual stick with the "government bundle", from everyone else. You dshould not be allowed to form your own criminal gang of toughs to get your way, and worse, form a gang and then also collude with government. You do realize much of the labor movement has ensured the poor performance in a number of non-government union-driven industries, and is one of the primary reasons so many U.S. jobs are shipped oveseas? Faced with having to navigate through brain-dead, more-harm-than-good, ignorant labor-influnced laws, you just go overseas. And which jobs are best offshored? Not the precious teachers and government workers...not the academics, not the professionals..no you paid them off to get your legislation passed..it's the more middle-class and low income jobs. You guys try to interfere and end up breaking everything you claimed you were trying to "fix". Thanks for that!
 
Threatening to fire me if I refuse to take a pay cut, deal with poorer working conditions, or any other thing where you have failed to hold to our original agreement is also blackmail.

But, hey, if you're saying the business owners hold all the cards and make the rules of game besides then you've shown exactly why labor unions came into existence in the first place. Most things don't just pop up out of a vacuum. Poor employment practices forced a response by workers. I can't recall union talk getting any traction at a company where the employees are happy with their jobs. But start crapping on your employees and some will start flinging the poo back at you.

You are trading your labor to an employer in exchange for money. They decide what they're willing to pay, you decide if you're willing to work for that amount. If you don't like it, go find another job that pays better. It's that simple. If you want to be paid more money, either find an employer willing to pay you more or make yourself more valuable to the employer you already have. I don't know where you people get the idea that anyone owes you a damn thing. You need to EARN IT!
 
Look at the recent laws in Michigan, Wisconsin, and many other Republican states, then try again. Didn't you know union busting has become the order of the day for the GOP at the state level?

:) Cute except that this doesn't actually tilt the scales in favor of business. It simply reduces the tilt in favor of unions.

I'm sure Cephus understood even if you didn't.

:) Well since it's a Yes/No question, how about you go ahead and just answer ;)
 
You are trading your labor to an employer in exchange for money. They decide what they're willing to pay, you decide if you're willing to work for that amount. If you don't like it, go find another job that pays better. It's that simple.

That is exactly 100% correct. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement in which each trades something he needs less for something he wants more; and outside the confines of a contract pre-establishing certain conditions, neither side is any more or less blackmailing the other to say that they wish to exchange that arrangement to one more beneficial to themselves. Getting fired for no reason is no different than quitting for no reason, with the exception of the fact that the state will pick up the expense of the irresponsible quitter, whereas the irresponsible business owner suffers all the consequences on his own organization.
 
You are trading your labor to an employer in exchange for money. They decide what they're willing to pay, you decide if you're willing to work for that amount. If you don't like it, go find another job that pays better. It's that simple. If you want to be paid more money, either find an employer willing to pay you more or make yourself more valuable to the employer you already have. I don't know where you people get the idea that anyone owes you a damn thing. You need to EARN IT!
For money (wage) I will do what you tell me to do (slave), just as I've always said. I have no problem with that but quit calling it a "contract" because it really isn't other than your promise to pay me at the end of the day. But there are abusive employers - and some abused workers, just like some abused women, don't feel they can leave, so they rebel instead. Abusive businesses have no one to blame but themselves.


Someone said businesses cull the herd (of workers) and a pro-business poster denied it. What nonsense! Of course they cull the herd just like cheetahs cull the herd of antelope. If, on occasion, a group of antelope get trapped and defend themselves from the cheetah, the cheetah doesn't complain. He learns a lesson and changes his hunting strategy a little - or fails to learn the lesson and has fewer surviving offspring than the one that did learn. What pisses me off is when pro-business people make polite euphemisms for non-humanitarian behavior, like they're ashamed of it or something. Man up and own it for God's sake! Businesses do what they do (which has nothing to do with humanitarian acts) and, if done correctly, everyone prospers for a long time. It's the idiots out for short-term profit that kill the economy.
 
Last edited:
yeah, the economy is so much better under the Obama model:roll:
It was Bush and the bankers that put us here. You're trying to blame the current administration for having to clean up that mountain of crap left-overs.

Ronnie had a mountain of crap to clean up, too, from the oil embargo/rising oil prices and the long-term aftermath of Vietnam. He also spend money like crazy. Would you like to slam him, too?
 
Last edited:
:) Cute except that this doesn't actually tilt the scales in favor of business. It simply reduces the tilt in favor of unions.
Apparently you haven't learned algebra, yet.
 
For money (wage) I will do what you tell me to do (slave), just as I've always said. I have no problem with that but quit calling it a "contract" because it really isn't other than your promise to pay me at the end of the day.

What utter crap. Being told what to do does not make one a slave - having ones' rights stolen, being made into human property, and (and this is sort of important) not being paid makes one a slave. It's mutually beneficial trade - you sell your labor, they sell their money.

But there are abusive employers

:shrug: and there are abusive employees.

It's the idiots out for short-term profit that kill the economy.

Agreed. For example, the idiots who choke off the businesses they work at in order to coerce a better compensation package today, in return for the company being unable to hire or even going under tomorrow.

Apparently you haven't learned algebra, yet.

:roll: what a fantastically erudite response.
 
Last edited:
It was Bush and the bankers that put us here. You're trying to blame the current administration for having to clean up that mountain of crap left-overs.

Ronnie had a mountain of crap to clean up, too, from the oil embargo/rising oil prices and the long-term aftermath of Vietnam. He also spend money like crazy. Would you like to slam him, too?

Obama is spending at double the rate of Bush ignoring the economy and putting people back to work. Liberal leadership rewards people for bad behavior and now we are seeing many rewards from this administration, unfortunately for our grandchildren Obama is borrowing from China to hand them out.
 
What utter crap. Being told what to do does not make one a slave - having ones' rights stolen, being made into human property, and (and this is sort of important) not being paid makes one a slave. It's mutually beneficial trade - you sell your labor, they sell their money.
That's why there's an adjective attached to the word "slave" - but you keep ignoring it in favor nonsense like this.
Own it, dude, and quit making lame and dishonest excuses just because you don't like the phrase.

Wage slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Obama is spending at double the rate of Bush ignoring the economy and putting people back to work.
Considering Bush inherited a balanced budget (or damn near depending on what numbers you use) and Obama inherited the Economic Collapse of 2008, the worst financial disaster in 80 years, I'd say Obama wins that test hands down.
 
Last edited:
Considering Bush inherited a balanced budget (or damn near depending on what numbers you use) and Obama inherited the Economic Collapse of 2008, the worst financial disaster in 80 years, I'd say Obama wins that test hands down.

Until debt is actually reduced, the argument is laughable
 
For money (wage) I will do what you tell me to do (slave), just as I've always said. I have no problem with that but quit calling it a "contract" because it really isn't other than your promise to pay me at the end of the day. But there are abusive employers - and some abused workers, just like some abused women, don't feel they can leave, so they rebel instead. Abusive businesses have no one to blame but themselves.

Slaves don't have the ability to quit. You do. Stop being dramatic. If you don't like the conditions of your workplace, go find another one you like better. In fact, if you really don't like it, go start your own business and hire people to do the work you need done.
 
Why is that?

Consider running your household growing your debt each year, let us know how that works out for you.
 
Slaves don't have the ability to quit. You do. Stop being dramatic. If you don't like the conditions of your workplace, go find another one you like better. In fact, if you really don't like it, go start your own business and hire people to do the work you need done.
Most workers don't really have the option of quitting, either, and it doesn't do a bit of good to work "over there" when it's the same BS that's over here, as it usually is. Burger flippers at McD's have the same job, pay, and work environment as the burger flippers at BK - and most jobs are this way.

And why shouldn't I use common terms like that? Some people routinely talks about an "employment contract", which is complete crap, too. Joe uses his time and money to go to an employer (notice it's always on the employer's turf, never even neutral ground?) then gets hired as a mechanic - a job he likes and has done before - and everything is fine for two years. Then one day The Boss decides he needs four coffees for a meeting he's having so he tells Joe to go fetch them for him from Starbucks. Joe wasn't hired as a go-for, he was hired as a mechanic. Why should he be obliged to all-of-a-sudden become a go-for? Because if he doesn't, if he just tells his boss to shove it because that wasn't what he was hired to do, the boss fires him and his two years of employment can't even be used as a reference, thereby making Joe less marketable. Joe has no real choice but to fetch coffee, even if he hands in his two-weeks notice afterward. And you'll also note employers routinely expect two week's notice - but if a company decides to lay someone off they often get a notice late Friday afternoon to not come to work on Monday.

Again, I understand all too well how the system works - and I'm actually not complaining about it, though I'm sure it looks that way. I just don't like the bull****, which is usually what I hear from the pro-business camp, polite and/or impersonal euphemisms to cover up unequal and/or non-humanitarian behavior by businesses. It's not the unequal and/or non-humanitarian behavior I'm complaining about, it's the words used to cover it up.
 
That's why there's an adjective attached to the word "slave" - but you keep ignoring it in favor nonsense like this.
Own it, dude, and quit making lame and dishonest excuses just because you don't like the phrase.

Wage slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, and it's idiocy. I might as well call them "enslaved employers" because they, too, require an income :roll:

It's a dishonest description used by drama queens who are hoping to make rhetoric make up for a lack of evidence or reasonable position.
 
Most workers don't really have the option of quitting,

Actually not only do they have the option of quitting, they do so fairly often. As I think I've pointed out to you two or three times now: one-third of US workers plan on quitting this year ALONE. I'm one of them. I will be leaving my current employer and (surprise) increasing my income by between 50-100%.

Again, I understand all too well how the system works

No you don't. You have this industrial - era notion of labor immobility that is completely unconnected to the modern workforce.
 
Last edited:
No they didn't. The Bush Recession ended in summer of 2009. This is 100% the "Obama Recovery".
Europe took your approach - how's that working out for them???
 
Yeah, and it's idiocy. I might as well call them "enslaved employers" because they, too, require an income :roll:
Small business - if that's who you're talking about - is trapped in the capitalist system just like everyone else including the workers. Nothing wring with that, it's the best system we've come up with so far. But they're not slaves in that, if they decide to make less profit for being more "caring" that's their choice. Megacorp managers are trapped by the Board, forced to make decisions dictated by someone else, but they actually have real, paper contracts to spell out their responsibilities and compensation, unlike like rest of us.

It's a dishonest description used by drama queens who are hoping to make rhetoric make up for a lack of evidence or reasonable position.
There's plenty of evidence - and the response is always "quit and go somewhere else". Of course, IRL and especially at times like these, there is often no place else to go.
 
Back
Top Bottom