Ok, let's talk unions again

[R/T Hemi]

I'm not sure, and I was even looking out for it.

I think conservatives would have a lot more respect for us Libbies if we were just better at debating. It's not our ideas that are bad, it's our ability/willingness to articulate them. That's opposed to the conservatives, who have terrible ideas but are rock-SOLID at argumentation.

j/k j/k

I think you're on to something here. On the other hand, if the conservatives all didn't sound like Bill O' ,with his balls in a bear trap, bellowing at anyone who'll listen, I think we'd bring our A game.

Anyway, I too sense a real dislike for unions with Greg's posts. It's been one of his favorite rants in the little time I've been here. Go Greg!

[AppleBonker]

Anyway, I too sense a real dislike for unions with Greg's posts. It's been one of his favorite rants in the little time I've been here. Go Greg!

Actually, he rants more about entitlement attitudes. I don't think he has a problem with unions, per se. It's more that he has a problem with unions who think they can get whatever they want just because they are a union. There really is a big difference.

Edit: ask him how he feels about employers who want to screw their employees out of everything. I'm sure he'd have the same problem. A company isn't entitled to all the benefits of business just because they are a company. They still need workers to perform the work. If you're an employee not getting enough from your employer, find another job. If you're an employer not getting enough from your employees, hire some new ones. That's the general theme he follows. It's a symbiotic relationship, and if one party doesn't recognize that it could bring the whole thing down.

[Encryptshun]

The more they bellow, the better I get at cutting their rhetorical legs out from under them. But that's the bane of a pundit's existance: an educated individual who can form her/his own opinions and is not satisfied with blind loyalty. That's why I don't belong to a political party or a religion.

If I end up making the wrong choice, at least I can say I was strong enough to make my mistakes for myself.

Edit* also, what Adam just said.

[szh]

I think you're on to something here. On the other hand, if the conservatives all didn't sound like Bill O' ,with his balls in a bear trap, bellowing at anyone who'll listen, I think we'd bring our A game.

Although I think of myself as more middle of the road than a conservative, I think the problem is that liberals all are shrill, and are always whining ... looking for more and more dole outs and entitlements.

Z

[szh]

Anyway, I too sense a real dislike for unions with Greg's posts. It's been one of his favorite rants in the little time I've been here. Go Greg!

Actually, he rants more about entitlement attitudes. I don't think he has a problem with unions, per se. It's more that he has a problem with unions who think they can get whatever they want just because they are a union. There really is a big difference.

I will not speak for Greg, but this above is also my problem with unions, yes!

They do serve a purpose and they do protect employees from unreasonable employers who are truly out to screw all their employees - often collectively.

However, when the unions ask - nay, demand - more than is fair, more than is practical in this day and age, and more protection than is being enjoyed by society as a whole, then I think they go too far!

Edit: ask him how he feels about employers who want to screw their employees out of everything. I'm sure he'd have the same problem.

Again, speaking for myself, yes, I'd have the same problem with such bad employers too.

Z

[szh]

Some information for the labor relations challenged

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop

You ignored a simple fact mentioned in the link above: it is a "may" situation, not as black-and-white as you made it out to be. Second, it is Wikipedia - take it with the appropriate grain of salt.

Furthermore, even if true, if any union tried to enforce these kinds of rules, then I am amazed that they are allowed to get away with such Mafia-like protection schemes! Even more reasons to remove unions from damaging people further, imo.

I am glad I do not work for a union company.

Z

[Encryptshun]

I think you're on to something here. On the other hand, if the conservatives all didn't sound like Bill O' ,with his balls in a bear trap, bellowing at anyone who'll listen, I think we'd bring our A game.

Although I think of myself as more middle of the road than a conservative, I think the problem is that liberals all are shrill, and are always whining ... looking for more and more dole outs and entitlements.

Z

LOL

If you watch MSNBC or read the Washington Post or your only other interaction with liberals are the ones who are very vocal on this forum, then I can see how you could authentically be under that impression. However, I'd respond with the following:

Liberals are shrill because sometimes you have to be louder than the conservatives. And if you can't be louder, you have to change your pitch.

Liberals may be perceived as whining when in fact they are voicing legitimate complaints -- in each and every interaction there is an aggressor and a victim. Always. And if you aren't the aggressor then you really have no choice in the matter.

What conservatives dub dole-outs and entitlements liberals would call fair play. Conservatives love to point out token examples of people who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and became successful -- but usually they don't tell the whole story, and there was help involved. And those success stories are such the exception that it is laughable. People need positive encouragement, not punitive judgement. We don't want communism but neither do we want feudalism. And "entitlement" programs like Medicare -- let's see anybody afford private insurance when they are 80 years old (if they can even GET insurance). My grandfather, a card-carrying lifetime Republican and one of the most conservative people I've ever met has seen almost his entire nest-egg reduced to nothing because my grandmother is being treated for cancer. He can't get private insurance -- no one will ensure him, and Medicare has capped. He's gone from being almost a millionaire to being on the brink of having to sell off parts of his farm all in ONE YEAR. If it hadn't been for Medicare, he'd have been bankrupt months ago. People talk about "death panels"; for hundreds of thousands of seniors, the absence of Medicare would mean everyone has to choose between being broke and being dead. That's a pretty sh*tty choice to offer people who worked their butts off to build the nation that we know today. You bet it's expensive, but cutting benefits or restructuring payments so only cut-rate physicians will accept the program isn't a viable option. We need the service because, without it, the effects to society at large are even MORE expensive.

I hope I don't sound shrill -- not my intent. Just trying to articulate the perspective.

[szh]

Your post is rational, not shrill.

I don't necessarily with all the items, but can see situations where some things make sense to do.

But, I usually find myself getting angry with extremes on both sides.

For example, I think that some tax increases (properly justified) may be necessary to make things work (yah, I am a registered Republican!).

But, I also believe that spending cuts are equally needed - in properly administered doses across the board (including military spending, by the way).

So, when I hear Pelosi's very shrill "no cuts to social security" speechifying, I have major moments.

I continue to believe that we must make progress to a balanced budget - indeed, towards positive revenue - over time (it cannot be instantaneous), so that we have a hope in hell of reducing the total deficit someday in the future. May take years, of course, but unless we are willing to make some tough decisions, it will be pushed out forever.

But, we are getting way off-topic in this thread - it is about UNIONS!

Z

[AZhitman]

blah blah blah

And again, in that whole post, you didn't provide any facts or data to dispute anything I presented.

It must suck to show up for battle with no arrows in your quiver.

[AZhitman]

I just assume it is the inferior education that one gets living in states that don't pay teachers very well.

Those that wind up in the bottom half of college classes wind up in states like booney where you live

Any time you'd like to compare education, IQ, or intelligence, step right up. You'll fail miserably just like you've always done.

Do you have any idea where I went to school, or for how long? That's right, you don't. You ASSume things, which puts you at a marked and severe disadvantage.

If my education is "inferior", then perhaps your poor grammar and pathetic spelling are indicative of an even lower level of education.

[Eikon]

I find it hilarious that he thinks New Jersey is the best state in the country. Personally, I'd rank it in the bottom 5.


Unions were absolutely vital 100 years ago when the laws of the nation didn't adequately protect the workers. They were a key building block in our nation's history.

The trouble is.. times have changed. We now have laws and regulatory agencies that do what the labor unions were designed to do. We now have international competition that requires businesses to compete in a global environment with nations that have lower wages and teaming masses of labor force. Unfortunately, labor unions are now destroying our economy by putting companies out of business, sending jobs overseas, forcing reduction in workforces. They have gotten big, bloated, greedy and politically corrupt. They are now harming the collective workforce of our nation.

Sure, they are great for those few who still have their jobs and get paid to not work and get free healthcare and massive pensions and double and triple time overtime and furlough days and well.. I could go on and on.. but the point is, unions have gotten too powerful and too greedy they are now harming the majority of the American workforce by preventing companies from hiring more workers. Plus, since the unions bought and paid for the last election and that moron has turned out country into a socialist state, the entire country is now bogged down paying for the benefits given to those who can't find work because the unions have destroyed our nations businesses ability to hire.

Oh.. and.. Don't start with me Howie.. I'm not in the mood! You've attempted to argue your point already and still haven't made any points. Stop preaching your new jersey liberal pro-union partisan viewpoints and get out and see the real world. You might learn a thing or two if you'd take off your blindfold.

[AZhitman]

I'm still waiting for an apology for calling my figures "B.S.".

I cited a direct quote by a Verizon finance manager, from a legitimate news source, and all he can do is dismiss it as a "rag". If it's B.S., then you might want to find some figures that are accurate. But I already did the math, and they seem to be reasonable.

This is the same guy who quotes the Huffington Post and DailyKos.

[R/T Hemi]

Any time you'd like to compare education, IQ, or intelligence, step right up. You'll fail miserably just like you've always done.

Do you have any idea where I went to school, or for how long? That's right, you don't. You ASSume things, which puts you at a marked and severe disadvantage.

That's not exactly part of the winners playbook there, Greg. You poke telcoman every chance you get, and then you deny him his dues when he successfully challenges you. Why not stop shaking your fist at him and listen to his points. Example...in this thread he gave you several reasons Unions have successfully changed the work situation for Americans. Go look at how you responded to that.

I enjoy your posts, but dude, you're a tad harsh wouldn't you say?

(and if one more person comes up and pats you on your back and offers to have your babies, I think I'm going to scream.)

[AZhitman]

That's not exactly part of the winners playbook there, Greg.

When you question my education, you'd better have more than me, or you're gonna get called out.

When you challenge my numbers, you'd better have something more substantive than a bumper-sticker slogan to counter it.

You poke telcoman every chance you get, and then you deny him his dues when he successfully challenges you.

When I'm wrong, and someone points it out with facts, logic, or stats, I have NO problem conceding.

Hasn't happened from Howie.

...in this thread he gave you several reasons Unions have successfully changed the work situation for Americans.

I didn't ask for a history lesson. I have a Dad if I want to hear about "the good ol' days". If he wants to address my post point-by-point and show me how I'm wrong, instead of just boo-hooing that I'm picking on union leadership (for being inflexible and hypocritical), then I'm all ears.

I enjoy your posts, but dude, you're a tad harsh wouldn't you say?

Thank you - the feeling is mutual (despite our frequent disagreements).

I'll try being nicer if he'll try being smarter. People from the "boonies" can be pretty nasty to tangle with.

(and if one more person comes up and pats you on your back and offers to have your babies, I think I'm going to scream.)

You think it's bad here, you should see it when I go out in person.

p.s. No screaming. We're men.

[heliochrome85]

p.s. No screaming. We're men.

there are alot of women in this room. including the men

[AZhitman]

there are alot of women in this room. including the men

Show me where the bad man touched you.

[telcoman]

Any time you'd like to compare education, IQ, or intelligence, step right up. You'll fail miserably just like you've always done.

Do you have any idea where I went to school, or for how long? That's right, you don't. You ASSume things, which puts you at a marked and severe disadvantage.

That's not exactly part of the winners playbook there, Greg. You poke telcoman every chance you get, and then you deny him his dues when he successfully challenges you. Why not stop shaking your fist at him and listen to his points. Example...in this thread he gave you several reasons Unions have successfully changed the work situation for Americans. Go look at how you responded to that.

I enjoy your posts, but dude, you're a tad harsh wouldn't you say?

(and if one more person comes up and pats you on your back and offers to have your babies, I think I'm going to scream.)

I think Greg is just upset that he did poorly in this years games

http://summerredneckgames.com/2011-schedule-of-events/

Telcoman

[szh]

I think Greg is just upset that he did poorly in this years games

http://summerredneckgames.com/2011-schedule-of-events/

Telcoman

And just what relevance to the thread does this link have?

Z

[Encryptshun]

Well, it *was* kinda funny. But not for the reasons telco thinks it is.

Eikon, one thing in reference to your post at the top of this page. Companies are sending jobs overseas for three primary reasons, none of which have to do (more than coindicentally, anway) with unions:

1) Labor force in low-cost countries is beneath even minimumum allowable by law in the U.S. It's not that they are cheaper than the unions, it's that they are cheaper than ANYONE here would be able to work. And more outsourcing is being done by non-union companies than by union companies, so again, you can't really make it a causal tie. It's just an easy cover.

2) Economic stagnation here coupled with economic growth overseas has made it very lucrative for U.S. companies to set up foreign headquarters, manufacturing, and logistics infrastructure to supply customer THERE as opposed to bringing them back to the U.S. If we aren't buying but the Chinese are, then you move to China and sell to the Chinese.

3) Telecommunications infrastructure has grown by leaps and bounds in China, India, the Philipines, Malaysia, and Eastern Europe -- that alleviates pretty much the last operations-focused barrier to entry to exploiting those markets.

TL;DR -- companies aren't moving jobs overseas just because of unions. They are moving them because the only thing cheaper than Chinese/Bangladeshi/Vietnamese labor is creating a workforce of zombies. Even robots require capital investment. Wanna blame someone? Blame trade policy and the big-box retailers. I'm not saying that unions are awesome - I agree that the need for them is far less now than it was a hundred years ago, but don't fall into the trap of thinking they are the root cause of the labor exodus.

[R/T Hemi]

When you question my education, you'd better have more than me, or you're gonna get called out.

Greg. Education != smarter nor does it mean you're correct in any given circumstance. Does this mean someone with a Masters in art trumps a BS in Biology? It does when discussing the Dutch masters, however probably not in a political discussion, certainly not in a discussion of the life cycle of a mollusk.

I didn't ask for a history lesson. I have a Dad if I want to hear about "the good ol' days". If he wants to address my post point-by-point and show me how I'm wrong, instead of just boo-hooing that I'm picking on union leadership (for being inflexible and hypocritical), then I'm all ears.

Are you serious my friend? Telcoman offers some of the backstory on unions. That backstory sets the stage for the discussion in this thread and you act like he's called your sister for an overnight date. Oh, and union leaders being inflexibile - Greg, that's what they get paid for.

I think Greg is just upset that he did poorly in this years games
http://summerredneckgames.com/2011-schedule-of-events/
Telcoman

And just what relevance to the thread does this link have?
Z

Oh, I know, I know, riases hand.....

OK, here's my thoughts, feel free to flame / dispute / argue

Emph. mine.

Greg does sometimes come across as a lovable redneck.

[AZhitman]

Well, why wouldn't I?

Amazing that a skinny, myopic, poor White kid who was educated in a tiny town in rural Alabama by a Dad with a GED and a Mom with a high school education, who never served as a Community Organizer and has never lived in The Center Of The Known Universe (a.k.a. the garden state) could debunk the positions of such a highly-regarded Liberal spokesperson.

I should make that my campaign platform. It's a feel-good story of epic proportions.

I think Matthew McConaughey should play me. Call Spielberg, we don't have much time.

[Encryptshun]

I hope you mean "Reign of Fire" Matthew McConaughey. We need a Greg like that in the White House.

[R/T Hemi]

Well, why wouldn't I?

Amazing that a skinny, myopic, poor White kid who was educated in a tiny town in rural Alabama by a Dad with a GED and a Mom with a high school education, who never served as a Community Organizer and has never lived in The Center Of The Known Universe (a.k.a. the garden state) could debunk the positions of such a highly-regarded Liberal spokesperson.

Oh hell that ain't so bad. It could be worse. That skinny, myopic, poor White kid could be bald and opinionated too.

[AZhitman]

I hope you mean "Reign of Fire" Matthew McConaughey. We need a Greg like that in the White House.

Of course. I'd certainly hope I could count on you to fill a Cabinet position.

Oh hell that ain't so bad. It could be worse. That skinny, myopic, poor White kid could be bald and opinionated too.

You just HAD to go after the hairline, didn't ya... Could have at least been original and called me "racist" or a "Nazi".

[R/T Hemi]

Here's a hook and some bait for you Greg. Our wonderful post office. Apparently it's going broke. I understand that congress has given them something like 5 years to fund the next 75 years of retiree health care benefits..... Wonderful congress, wonderful.

The post office, unlike other federal agencies, is also required to make an annual payment of more than $5 billion as an advance contribution to future retiree medical costs.

Can't find the full cite for you guys, I heard it on a radio talk show.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/broke-u ... c#comments

Let's rant about congress for doing the same thing to the post office that the union wants to do to Verizon.

[AZhitman]

No argument from me there. The post office claims it needs to eliminate 220,000 positions.

Anytime someone wants to bash Congress, I'm in. Hearing one of our "elected political heroes" say one thing a few years ago in a campaign speech, and then having them behave in a completely contradictory manner to their previous position later on down the line, smacks of weakness and demolishes their credibility in my eyes.

However, that should be a new thread - Go at it, man.

p.s. Good God, man - what are you doing on The Blaze?

[Encryptshun]

I hope you mean "Reign of Fire" Matthew McConaughey. We need a Greg like that in the White House.

Of course. I'd certainly hope I could count on you to fill a Cabinet position.

I'd be honored. But which post?

I think the only cabinet I'm qualified to man is a liquor cabinet.

[AZhitman]

I think the only cabinet I'm qualified to man is a liquor cabinet.

Well, hell then - You're Veep material.

Side note (for another thread). I read a really interesting in-depth article (IIRC, it was in Wired) about how the trend towards outsourcing (particularly for manufacturing) has actually reversed itself of late (especially to China), and why.

HINT: It had nothing to do with the current Administration, and everything to do with legitimate and naturally-occurring market forces.

[Bubba1]

Here's a hook and some bait for you Greg. Our wonderful post office. Apparently it's going broke. I understand that congress has given them something like 5 years to fund the next 75 years of retiree health care benefits..... Wonderful congress, wonderful.

The post office, unlike other federal agencies, is also required to make an annual payment of more than $5 billion as an advance contribution to future retiree medical costs.

Can't find the full cite for you guys, I heard it on a radio talk show.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/broke-u ... c#comments

Let's rant about congress for doing the same thing to the post office that the union wants to do to Verizon.

As info, Congress's mandating the billions in prefunding future USPS retiree benefits is very old news. That began a few years ago, last year's payment got suspended. That's actually just one of the reasons USPS losing so much money. Congress essentially ballooned USPS expenditures yet offered USPS no way to recoup the cost. Pretty dang stupid.

Want some others?

1. Fuel. USPS postage rates are locked by the board of governors. right now tUSPS can only raise postage according to the cost of living. Unlike UPS/Fed Ex, USPS cannot pass along any increase in fuel costs. They have to absorb it all and it's been a few years since the Board of Governor's allowed a non-cost of living increase..


2. USPS has always had a hiring preference for veterans, and pensions were split among the military and USPS depending on the number of years each employee working in each. A few years ago, in a move to shift more money to the military without a spending bill, Congress shifted the pension responsibility of Veteran postal employees completely to USPS, which freed up additional military funds to better destroy Iraq, but saddling USPS with a dramatic increase in pension payouts, with no way to pay for it.

3. An aging workforce. A lot of highly paid people that they are encouraging to retire without offering big retirement packages. An additional problem is that they are not trying to replace the knowledge they;re forcing out, so the expertise is rapidly disappearing.

4. A very big transportation reorganization, which accelerated slower cheaper types of mail, but exploded USPS' tranportation costs.

5. Closing branches. Congress is all for it unless the closure is in their home district, then they fight tooth and nail not to close them and blame USPS for being heartless.

If the BOD doesn't soon allow a big postage hike, Saturday delivery will be disappearing soon.

[Encryptshun]

I think the only cabinet I'm qualified to man is a liquor cabinet.

Well, hell then - You're Veep material.

Side note (for another thread). I read a really interesting in-depth article (IIRC, it was in Wired) about how the trend towards outsourcing (particularly for manufacturing) has actually reversed itself of late (especially to China), and why.

HINT: It had nothing to do with the current Administration, and everything to do with legitimate and naturally-occurring market forces.

LOL

And I made a faux pas above. I said "outsourcing". What I should have said was "offshoring". Mea culpa.