End of collective bargaining/other anti-union measures plus reactions ...

No, but the whole defense of unions is the "employers will totally SCREW EVERY WORKER EVER IF WE DON'T HAVE UNIONS!" defense.

There was a time and a place, but that has passed here in the US. Now all the unions are about is power, money and influence instead of worker protections.

 

Please. You wear your prejudice on your sleeve.

Your examples aren't particularly compelling, sorry. Yes, unions lead to higher bank fees. That's true! And other higher prices on stuff. They also lead to workers making more wages, creating a healthy middle class which can then spend its higher wages on the higher priced stuff. The decline in unions and the decline of the middle class in our country over the last 40 years or so didn't happen coincidentally and independently. I'm not going to cry over higher bank fees because workers want to be better compensated.

And someone told you a lie when they told you that teacher couldn't be fired, although firing is not the only solution for an ineffective teacher. Sounds like what you really ran into was an ineffective school administrator who was too incompetent or lazy to manage his/her staff well.

Oh but yeah, one example of a big misunderstanding with a teacher definitely proves that unions are worthless, even harmful.

I just don't understand why you have to constantly make it personal. It does happen that I have significant experience with a really huge union, but I'm not making a thing of it. Because this conversation isn't about me nor my personal anecdotes. You keep reaching for this appeal to authority, as though if you can prove that I don't have as much experience dealing with unions as you do, then I must be wrong and you, right.

My argument isn't based on my own authority. It's based on reason and facts.

Workers need a voice in their workplace, just as citizens need a voice in their government. They are similar although not identical situations. As unions have steadily disappeared from the private sector, real wages have stagnated and the gap between rich and poor has grown larger. These are facts.

Everyone benefits from having a vibrant, healthy and large middle class. Unions are a necessary part of that.

With the corporations and government wielding the power and influence that they do, unions are a necessary counter-balance. Right now the balance has already shifted far too much against workers, and that's bad for everybody, as I said.

 

The goal was to recall Senators who supported Scott Walker. They got 3 seats out of 7 and lost a Supreme Court race. And one Republican is left in the Senate who voted against Walker. So if the GOP doesn't whip that guy on every vote (meaning he holds tremendous power right now), the Democrats can still stifle Walker's legislation. The two Democrats next week are expected to win.

You were able to mis-represent the goals of the unions, but you still haven't had the time to find me that news story about Obama ditching the Grand Bargain deal between him and Boehner. Could you get back to me on that?

 

I'm going to try to stop everyone right now and agree with Stanger - in part. Unions aren't as relevant as they used to be, and what unions are left are clinging to power through lobbying and stuff like that. Unions are likely to make a comeback once the Teahadists all die off (ten years left before their Medicare benefits expire!), but for now they don't really do anything wildly useful...government regulations, business incentives to make quality workspace, and union dues going to...? are all contributing.

That said, there is absolutely no reason why the pro-business groups need to hasten the decline of the unions by stripping them of their rights. Anybody who thinks that Walker's proposal was good is an idiot. Just plain and simple. And this should really end this discussion since it's getting waaay too personal.

 

Ha, ha, ha... yep, big victory and it only cost the unions $30 million. Do you not get dizzy from all that spinning?

And I addressed Obama's failure in the deficit ceiling debate last night.

 

Generalize much? Working in the NYC construction industry, I know for a fact that without unions, developers and contractors would be pushing safety and condition limits WAY more than they do now, and its getting worse all the time due to the economy.

In a world where corporations decide whether to recall items based solely on cost-risk analysis, where mining/drilling accidents seem to occur regularly recently due to tip-toeing or completely flouting OSHA and industry regulations, how anyone can say that employers should have no counter balance on the workers side is beyond ridiculous.

The fact that SOME employers are completely indifferent to the publics/workers safety/conditions, just for profits sake, means that unions are still necessary.

And I havent even mentioned the other HUGE reason unions are necessary: they give a political voice to many people who would otherwise be drowned out by big business' special interest lobbies.

 

So in one post you ask me then in the next chastise me for answering.

And finally something we can agree on. Workers need protections against abuses in the workplace regardless of what type of protections those are. What I see in Ohio are unions that have overstepped their bounds into the political arena, the huge number of members of the public service unions are forced to donate their fees to support candidates they don't necessarily support, and the inability to hold members of the unions responsible for their actions that are detrimental.

Unions have grown way too influential in the same way that big businesses have become way to influential. Both sides need to be reigned in. But for you to say the balance has shifted too far against workers, I have to disagree. Unions ARE the Democratic party. Look at this link from just before last year's interim elections.

If you can separate the two then go ahead and blame "the government and corporations" but to be more realistic, with a Democratic Senate and President, it's more like unions and Democrats against Republicans and corporations. Until those links are broken we are all screwed.

 

Two things:

1) The entire cost of the recall campaigns cost $30 million...that's every dollar spent on both sides. As I've addressed, the GOP may have spent slightly more, although we can't tell because the SuperPAC dollars are basically invisible. So when you say the unions spent $30 million, you really mean the spending was about 50-50, with the GOP maybe spending more.

2) Just because you say something doesn't make it true, mate. It only makes you more stubborn. Go ahead and look it up...do a little bit of fact-checking on yourself. Does wonders for one's ability to be critical. So let me know which deal Obama scuttled via news story.

 

You brought it up. You made the assertions supposedly based on personal experience. You argued the appeal to authority. I asked you to clarify.

Union members are no more forced to support their leaders and their union's policies, than you are forced to support your nation's leaders and government's policies. They have a say in who leads them and how their union dues are spent, as you have a say in who leads your country and how your tax dollars are spent.

The Democratic party is in plenty of corporate pockets as well.

 

Hey, we agree on something! It's a start...

 

Here's a number for you, the left outspent the right 2 to 1 and couldn't reach the end zone. And I remind you, there are two more recall elections next week.

Resist we much!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE5ZDBqNcYE&feature=related"]‪Al Shartpon: 'Resist, We Much, We Must And We Will Much..."‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

Sure it was a bit disappointing that we (the royal we) didn't win, but after a day to think of it, the Democrats still made gains and gave the Republicans a damned good scare. The GOP may be claiming victory, but they're on notice that they can't act with impunity.

EDIT: Just fact-checked my figures and may have been off...

 

Kewl. Did you find the news story that says the left outspent the right 2 to 1?

 

Yeah, plenty.

Here's a fun number. The unions spent $200 per vote in a losing cause.

 

Still doesn't beat what Rudy spent in 2008...haha. Couldn't happen to a bigger douchebag

 

But Rudy wasn't spending his own money, unions were gambling big in Wisconsin and lost.

 

Okay, you have to actually show your findings. Here's what I can do now that you don't have anything to show for yourself.

The Unions didn't spend a dime in Wisconsin and picked up two seats even though the GOP spent $30 million.

WHOA

 

I just want to note how wrong this post is.

 

I have to agree with American Brummie. I was under the impression that the Koch Brothers et al. vastly outspent the unions, and was disappointed to find after checking that it was actually roughly equal.

 

In your opinion.

 

From the WSJ. You will probably discredit the source, or the fact that it is impossible to verify this stat. But you know what, I believe it.

"Spending in the recalls totalled around $28 million, only a few million less than total spending in the state's 2010 gubernatorial election, and Democrats are widely estimated to have outspent Republicans two to one."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...00413793950.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

 

I have not read through 135 pages of this thread... but lost in this whole debate, is the fact that despite shedding 3,000 government workers in July, Wisconsin still created a larger number of net jobs in July than the entire US combined.

Another notch in the belt of big government liberalism...