You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
I would like to welcome you all to the first post regarding the upcoming election. I will take this opportunity to thank James Lofton, Pride and Glory, and all the rest who participated in these discussions 4 years ago. Imagine 2008 if you will...the economy is losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month, Sarah Palin has just been announced as John McCain's running mate, and the country on the cusp of a modern day great depression.
Let the games begin...
I have chosen one of the most interesting topics to kick off these discussions. It is also one that is near and dear to my heart. It is the topic of labor unions. It is also a topic that will be a significant factor in November's election.
What are the costs and benefits of labor unions to all parties involved? I often hear labor union members complain about paying their dues, or about the POS employee who does nothing, but is protected by his union.
More globally, labor unions allow members of a work force to actively participate in the capitalist experience. The cost of this is that labor because increasingly expensive. Free trade agreements such as NAFTA allow employers to send their jobs across borders to take advantage of countries that have less stringent laws protecting their labor force.
It's time for all of you to weigh in, folks...I'm anxious to hear some debate...
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Having been in a union and given them a lot of money while receiving little to no benefit, I can safely say that unions really don't have a place in the business world these days. The worst places I've ever worked were union shops and the best by far were not. I don't think there's even anything to discuss.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
There are bad unions, but lets face it, without them business would have no problem with paying you 2.95 an hour with zero benefits.
Since minimum wage is quite a bit more than that, I'll respectfully disagree with you.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Unions are a mess now, but let's not forget they are the father of the entire middle class.
Today? I don't know. The machine appears to have grown too large to stop, so I'm not sure there's even a reason to care. The system has taken over and it will take us where it will. I mean, compared to just 10 years ago, how many people give a shit whether Romney or Obama is President anymore? Political debates have been dying ever since the late Bush years.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Unions once where great to prevent exploiting the worker. Not now.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Romney needs to win, Obama doesn't have a clue of what the fuck he is doing.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
misterID wrote:There are bad unions, but lets face it, without them business would have no problem with paying you 2.95 an hour with zero benefits.
Since minimum wage is quite a bit more than that, I'll respectfully disagree with you.
Without the pushing of unions minimum wage would still be around 2 bucks an hour. Without Unions, right now, Corporate Republicans would roll it back. Like they want to.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Romney needs to win, Obama doesn't have a clue of what the fuck he is doing.
How's that?
Congress hasn't even taken up a vote for his Jobs bill, but have voted 56 times to end Obamacare. What has Romney done that makes you think he'll change anything? He has the same team of advisors Bush had, but Romeny is willing to go more radically right than Bush, who refused to go as far as they wanted, both on economic and foreign policy, thank God.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Romney needs to win, Obama doesn't have a clue of what the fuck he is doing.
I don't know. Jack and Bobby really put a dent on the whole notion of actually meaning what you say as a politician. Likely Romney too values his frontal lobe enough to continue racking up debt and war. He even got a father named George W.
Difference is he won't be wearing the minority kevlar. Pretty soon you might hear people starting to question the constant bombing campaigns of brown people using killer robots from Dick Cheneys company.
In four years I can't say I've ever seen a critical article on Obama in the msm. He could be filmed throwing puppies off a bridge and it simply wouldn't be written about. Instead you'd get a piece that the President is an animal lover and how his family dog was saved from a shelter. It really is a phenomenon, and for that reason I think he's the surest bet for re-selection in a long time.
But yeah, if only by the nature of the inherit restraints put on his effectiveness as a president, being an articulate and attractive white male, he should win. And you just know a seemingly restrained, devout Christian like that got at least a couple of Monicas stacked up, so if anything his term(s) could at least be entertaining.
