The Dems pretty much always speak in the opposite.

"Employee Free Choice Act"
"Fairness Doctrine"
"Etc."

Whatever name they assign to a piece of legislation, in application it does the opposite of what it says.

If you people in the rest of the country want mass uninonzation, come to Michigan and take a look at what they've done to the place. Companies don't want to come to open businesses here, and part of the reason is unions. If you want the same level of unemployment as Michigan, then go ahead and support mass unionization, but don't come crying to me when the unemployment rate hits double digits in your state.

Whatever name they assign to a piece of legislation, in application it does the opposite of what it says.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ

So true.

Last Friday night I was watching Star Wars: The Clone Wars Season Finale on Cartoon Network (my nephew got me hooked into it) and some Senators, before they were taken hostage, were having a meeting about stop a piece of legistlation they called "The Enhanced Privacy Invasion Bill." So funny and sad at the same time. I was thinking when I saw that that if Obama was a Senator of the Republic he would vote "present" or say, "it's an imperfect bill, but the separatists must be stopped at all costs!"

The Dems pretty much always speak in the opposite...Whatever name they assign to a piece of legislation, in application it does the opposite of what it says. -- #1 | Posted by JeffJ

They have a long way to go to match the "Patriot Act."

("Operation Iraqi Freedom," the military exercise leading to our occupation of Iraq, has got to be in the running too.)

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-03-22 10:46 AM |

it's Orwellian 'doublespeak'. check out the annex at the end of 1984 regarding doublespeak. pretty interesting in light of these modern times.

Obama is a Monkey Boy.

He leads a Merry Band of Useful Idiots.

Leave the U.S. now before it's too late!

Oooooooo Unions scarey. Be afraid be very afraid of Unions. What utter and complete rightwinged rubbish.

Larry

Overkill is scarry...

But considering that the Unions have had the unfair end of the stick for the past 30 years its about time for some overkill in favor of the unions for a change!

The author is being a bit to clever in his argument. He acknowledges that a secret ballot is still possible with card-check act yet in the next paragraph rails against the fact that a loss of a secret ballot is anti-democratic. Why is it anti-democratic when called by the union and not anti-democratic when called by management?

I would like to see the card check become law because it will drive more employers to try to offshore and outsource even more jobs. This will inevitably lead to more protectionist sentiments. And, with the increasing strength of the unions, Dems in control of Congress and the WH, we may finally be able to bury the concept of free trade.

Fair trade: yes. Free trade: hell no!

You know, in this day and age, unions have little power against multi-nationals, who own or run almost everything. The union represents what small collective power the individual has in this "new world order". As somebody else said, it is unusual to find workers unionizing in a company they like.

Unions have destroyed labor in the U.S.

But considering that the Unions have had the unfair end of the stick for the past 30 years its about time for some overkill in favor of the unions for a change!

Yea! Lets have inflated hourly wages! No one is going to buy overpriced U.S. goods. But then again, someone has to be paid $20 an hour to push a broom!

Unions haven't destroyed labor in the US. It's fucking corporate greed that has destroyed labor. If they would worry more about their employees than less than their bottom lines there wouldn't be the problems we face today. Don't blame this one on Unions.

Larry

Now why does it not surprise me that it is JJ that put up a union bashing thread.

For anyone to think allowing companies visibility to see which employee voted for unionization has and lacks prudent common ethical and moral sense.

It just means the individuals are corporate management hacks.

they would worry more about their employees than less than their bottom lines there wouldn't be the problems we face today.

Yea larry, like employees today really give a fuck about the company they work at. Most selfish fucks today would kiss the ass of anyone that GIVES them anything. You get a paycheck for hours worked. Unions have overinflated workers worth for many years. THAT's why the U.S. labor bubble has burst. I really dont care what liberals think, the market will hasten the demise of unions, just like the auto industry...

The young today are so fucking stupid, to think unions are bad because it hurts corporate business and so they toe in line destroying the very nature of their future.

Yea larry, like employees today really give a fuck about the company they work at.

Most employees are not like you!

Unions have destroyed labor in the U.S.

LOL! Yes, unions took down wall street, yep they are the problem.

Dumb hack for sure.

Moneywar,

Why do you always get personal? I wasnt talking about ME. I made a comment to larry in general. If you cant talk about the issue, please dont comment.

Boaz,

You mean the generalizational attacks on groups of other people don't warrant attacks upon your character?

In a union shop the worst employee gives the rest of the union a bad name. The union will defend the bad worker no matter how wrong or bad that worker is. This takes up labor as well as management resources. On the same token that lazy union worker makes the same as the hardest working union member. However unions do bring about some positive things. Sadly, most of the time the union is a thorn in the companies side.

The union will defend the bad worker no matter how wrong or bad that worker is. This takes up labor as well as management resources.

Prove this.

The union protects and defends all of it represents. If the worker is a bad worker it is up to the company...management to have documentation proving such. The union and the company made an agreement to follow policy and the union makes the company do just that.

The post you have made tells me YOU have never worked for a company with union employees nor have you managed. I think you need to actually inform yourself instead of listening to rhetorical hearsay from lazy managers.

Money the problem seems to be you think everyone everywhere should be unionized. While unions can be usefull tools against bad managment not all companies need them and when not needed they can be as bad as bad management is.

Personaly I can't imagine the need for a union in my present job, I have worked for a union once and it was worthless however the job also sucked so no supprise there. I have worked some jobs that could have benifited from a strong union so I am not saying they are always or even mostly bad.

Somehow I don't think card check is a very good idea in either direction but as long as laws were enforced to avoid abuses I don't think it would make much of a difference.

You mean the generalizational attacks on groups of other people don't warrant attacks upon your character?

No it doesnt. I havent attacked a person here. I was talking about the subject.

Whatever...

Money is fighting a losing battle. Their industrial base is almost gone and the only place they have left is government.

Money the problem seems to be you think everyone everywhere should be unionized.

Really? Where have I ever said such?

When management abuses employees union show up...simple as that.

Tao, the problem seems to be you think it is OK for management to be lazy and abuse employees because it increases the bottom line and that is the only thing that matters.

""""Hey, the management treats us so well and fair that we should form a union."""""""""

Unions have killed us. Look at the U.S. Steel Industry, U.S. Auto Industry ,,, etc

They had their place, they are extinct and well should be.

#20 | Posted by KBM

The union will defend the bad worker no matter how wrong or bad that worker is. This takes up labor as well as management resources.

I have and I was.

Truer words were never spoken.

Money is fighting a losing battle. Their industrial base is almost gone and the only place they have left is government.

LOL! I am not fighting anything...I am fucking management but don't let that stop your idiotic posts ray.

I merely point out the lies and the false rhetoric because I don't hack from some misguided delusion of ideals.

It will be a pay me now or pay me later for the country and these young nonthinking corporate sheep will learn 20 years from now about why UNIONS are needed.

Keep getting ride of them, as they union goes in this country so has the economy but that's not a relationship right ray.

#21 | Posted by moneywar

YOU have never worked for a company with union employees nor have you managed.

I have and I did.

You obviously have never managed.

Unions have killed us. Look at the U.S. Steel Industry, U.S. Auto Industry ,,, etc

They had their place, they are extinct and well should be.

#26 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-03-23 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag

LOL! Delusional hacks keep coming to the surface.

Unions did it, yep, the unions made all those bad poor managerial decisions.

You sound like such a smart guy, we should all listen.

I have and I did.

After seeing this from you several time I am wondering if I am conversing with a 3rd grader.

"""did too
""""did not

I am fucking management but don't let that stop your idiotic posts ray.

Who in management are you fucking?

Keep getting ride of them, as they union goes in this country so has the economy but that's not a relationship right ray.

Good riddance unions. They priced themselves out of the market. Self destructed.

#31 | Posted by moneywar

Nice try son.

#32 | Posted by Ray

Yes they did.

Unions = Made in China

#30 | Posted by moneywar

Unions did it, yep, the unions made all those bad poor managerial decisions.

Spoken like a true union drone. Wait, does Taco Bell have a union?

Who in management are you fucking?

NICE answer?!!

Good riddance unions. They priced themselves out of the market. Self destructed.

Now this is change we can believe in right?

Spoken like a true union drone. Wait, does Taco Bell have a union?

I don't know, but taco bell is not my measure of corporate production. Why don't you inform me.

Spoken like a true union drone.

What part of MANAGEMENT did you not understand?

Chickenrancher

What destroyed manufacturing in this country was the reserve status of the dollar. We could import real goods and create money for export around the world. American manufacturers couldn't compete with the cheap money we were exporting.

There's a tsunami coming when that money starts returning.

Taco Bell, with 2004 combined company and franchisee sales reaching $5.7 billion dollars, holds the largest share of the Mexican-style restaurant market in the United States.

What is your measure of corporate producion, fry cook?

Now this is change we can believe in right?

#36 | Posted by moneywar

Shit happens!

Wow taco bell and 5.7 bil. and they are your model of why unions are bad.

Sorry but my company does that in a week.

And just so you know, I clearly see you missed the point of the exercise.

I will help you out here,

did not!
did too!

The US is in a dumper, buy gold and life will be better.....right ray.

The problem ray is your not part of the solution but definitely part of the problem.

When the economy really fails Ray, you can sit back and say see unions and free money did this I told you so.

Life will be really good for you then.

I always have to laugh at Ray, always there to bitch and piss on any solutions ventured but can't manage to pabulate even the lightest idea of a solution.

"The US is in the dumpers man and I told you so!"

#42 | Posted by moneywar

Whatever fry cook.

Thanks for playing.

Go have Mommy tuck you in now.

Whatever fry cook.

Wait, I am not the one using taco bell!

FF Moneywar

Money,

I said

I have worked some jobs that could have benifited from a strong union so I am not saying they are always or even mostly bad.

No it is not ok for managment to suck. I have organized workers to fire bad managers myself. I just don't see your obsesion with unions always being good. They can be but they are not always.

If I am the best welder on the line and an opening comes up should joe the average welder get it or should I and why should it matter if joe has been there 5 years longer than me if I am better?

When I got my first job with a union I was started in the lowest position with the company it didn't matter that I had experiance in a non union shop at the highest base wage position I had to start at the bottom.

If a manager is promoting friends and buddies or is abusive or demands un-paid overtime and upper managment does nothing or supports them then there is a problem for a union to deal with. However it would have to be fairly bad to make me give up my freedom to a union. Frankly if it were that bad I would probably not stick around for a union to form I would find a better job.

Now that said with the rising unemployment I can see the need for unions to increase. When an employee can find another job in 5 min there is no benifit to treating your employees as crap however when there are no jobs that changes.

Ray serious question for You. You obviously have bank. You also believe that the United States is in the dumps. Why if You believe that would You not do everything in Your power to help rebuild America to it's former glory?? I would if I had the bank but I lack a pocket to piss in nor a boot to pour it out of. Translation I am poor financially. Why would You continue to bemoan Americas status without helping it out?? Seems to Me if You loved America You would want to rebuild Her greatness. What say You Ray??

Larry

No it is not ok for managment to suck. I have organized workers to fire bad managers myself. I just don't see your obsesion with unions always being good. They can be but they are not always.

I have never said unions are always good, unions can be just like any company. There are not bad companies, there are bad managers and the same is within unions.

Like I said earlier, unions just make sure companies follow there own policies.

If I am the best welder on the line and an opening comes up should joe the average welder get it or should I and why should it matter if joe has been there 5 years longer than me if I am better?

Well, promotions are not done by seniority they are done by company policy. Unions don't promote, companies do and the promotions are decisions by management but can't figure out why you are trying to push such false rhetoric.

When I got my first job with a union I was started in the lowest position with the company it didn't matter that I had experiance in a non union shop at the highest base wage position I had to start at the bottom.

I am confused, did you get the job with a company or with a union?

Did the union hire you or did the company? Did the union have access to your experience? Did the union decide your position?

You have all kinds of blame but so far NOT one has anything to do with decisions of unions.

If a manager is promoting friends and buddies or is abusive or demands un-paid overtime and upper managment does nothing or supports them then there is a problem for a union to deal with.

No, this is a problem with the company management and unions can only correct violations that effect those they represent.

MONEYWAR, which company would you hire to have your roof repaired. Same materials, same quality of work.

Company A. $20/hour + benefits. Non-union. Job cost $1,500.

Company B. $40/hour + benefits. Union. Job cost $4,200.

Unions result in higher consumer prices. And the market reacts to it.

Consumers themselves are killing the unions through free choice.

MONEYWAR, which company would you hire to have your roof repaired. Same materials, same quality of work.

Company A. $20/hour + benefits. Non-union. Job cost $1,500.

Company B. $40/hour + benefits. Union. Job cost $4,200.

Unions result in higher consumer prices. And the market reacts to it.

Consumers themselves are killing the unions through free choice.

Posted by BENDOR at 2009-03-23 11:54 PM | Reply

Hey I'll do You one better. I will hire Myself to do My roof and save the money for groceries.

Larry

Unions haven't destroyed labor in the US. It's fucking corporate greed that has destroyed labor. If they would worry more about their employees than less than their bottom lines there wouldn't be the problems we face today. Don't blame this one on Unions.

Larry

#12 | Posted by LarryMohr

--------------------

Interesting point Larry but I disagree. Apparently those greedy bastards at Walmart gave out 2 Billion dollars in bonuses. Where does that fit into your greedy corporations argument?

It's also apparent that you don't run a business because if you had, it would have failed by now. Your advice to business owners is reckless and ignorant. You've confused business owners with government. You see government can spend what it don't have but businesses have to spend less than they make. It's irresponsible to run a business in the same fashion as the government runs itself.

Lonnie

On this topic, I think Moneywar makes the most sense. Union Busting has been going on for more than 30 years in most of North America, and the losers have been the emplyees. Sure, Walmart gives out bonuses and Taco-Bell shows earnings in excess of 2B, but those jobs are low wages. You can't have a vibrant economy with the majority of the people living on those wages, they can't afford to spend, which is what our economies need right now.

We will have a South American Economy in 30 years. Most of the working class will be broke.

GIGGAB

A really smart businessman once figured out the same thing and then rolled out wages never seen before for factory workers. Worked out pretty well for the workers AND the country.

Henry Ford.

If workers can't afford to buy what they build, the company and the country are in big trouble. Sad to see us turning into a country of $10 an hour jobs for those too poor or unlucky enough to not have made it to college. Heck, even a college degree isn't a guarantee of a decent job anymore either.

We will have a South American Economy in 30 years. Most of the working class will be broke.

#59 | Posted by rastaninja

Just the way the "Two Santa Clauses" masterminds wanted it. (Article: Two Santa Clauses Or How the GOP Has Been Conning America for 30 Years)

"Starve the Beast" - run up massive deficits so the New Deal can be unraveled.

And to think in 8 years, Gsorge W Bush and his cronies destroyed a hundred years of progress. Only someone as outstanding at failure could have pulled that off.

AU you make a lot of sense. If the masses can't purchase the goods that the corporations manufacturer who will? Those in power fail to see that tidbit. Maybe they figure other countries will have enough purchasing power that they can ignore the US market.

I know, we're living it. My spouse worked for a company in the 90's that decided the union wages were too high, they locked out the emplyees to break the contract. They forced wage cutbacks and loss of benefits on them. The company folded in 01,since then, even in union shops he's been unable to get the same salary he was making in 01.

Democrats, he said, had been able to be "Santa Clauses" by giving people things from the largesse of the federal government. Republicans could do that, too spending could actually increase. Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people's taxes! For working people it would only be a small token a few hundred dollars a year on average but would be heavily marketed. And for the rich it would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. The rich, in turn, would use that money to import or build more stuff to market, thus increasing supply and stimulating the economy. And that growth in the economy would mean that the people still paying taxes would pay more because they were earning more.

There was no way, Wanniski said, that the Democrats could ever win again. They'd have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections.

When Reagan rolled out Supply Side Economics in the early 80s, dramatically cutting taxes while exploding (mostly military) spending, there was a moment when it seemed to Wanniski and Laffer that all was lost. The budget deficit exploded and the country fell into a deep recession the worst since the Great Depression and Republicans nationwide held their collective breath. But David Stockman came up with a great new theory about what was going on they were "starving the beast" of government by running up such huge deficits that Democrats would never, ever in the future be able to talk again about national health care or improving Social Security and this so pleased Alan Greenspan, the Fed Chairman, that he opened the spigots of the Fed, dropping interest rates and buying government bonds, producing a nice, healthy goose to the economy. Greenspan further counseled Reagan to dramatically increase taxes on people earning under $37,800 a year by increasing the Social Security (FICA/payroll) tax, and then let the government borrow those newfound hundreds of billions of dollars off-the-books to make the deficit look better than it was.

AU you make a lot of sense. If the masses can't purchase the goods that the corporations manufacturer who will?

I'd love to take credit, but it wasn't my idea. Henry Ford figured that out and started paying $5 a day - enough to support a family and still be able to buy a Model A

GIGGAB

That's sad. Most Americans were too distracted by Iraq (was that an accident?) to see that the 20,000,000 living wage jobs Clinton created along with a host of other living wage jobs disappeared - replaced with subsistence level $10 an hour jobs.

This housing bubble was all smoke and mirrors of the "ownership society" Bush pushed - all while the WH had the figures that showed falling wages.

Poof!

RASTA

The "Two Santa Clauses" article made perfect sense when I read it the first time.

Having lived through the Reagan era and observing the changes in this country was an eye opener. Most evidently how the homeless population exploded.

Thanks for the sympathy AU, but I'm not American, I'm Canadian. Up here in the great white north, we know that when America sneezes we catch a cold, our economies are interlinked. Yes, we have a bad case of the sniffles right now:)

Ironically, all that happened under Reagan was done under cover of "National Security" too. Bush took a page from that book by starting an unnecessary war that cost a trillion and counting - human toll and lost national honor aside.

I know what you mean, GIGGAB

I really like Canada. I hope they'll forgive us for George W Bush one day .... Sure wasn't because I voted for him! I spotted an incompetent moron the minute I saw him first burst on the national scene. Once he was elected I hoped he'd do well, but (sigh) you know the rest of the story ...

Up here, we know that the average American isn't responsible fot the debacles of George Bush, we know and knew the score first time we set eyes on him too. I mean, really Bush Jr., we were all going huh?!

I think what's more troubling is the anti worker views most right wingers hold. They just don't get that without better wages and better working conditions, people don't have money to spend...and that impacts the economy, locally and globally. The fallout from the American meltdown is going to reverberate far and wide for along time to come.

most rightwingers will vote against their interests because of wedge issues. Or they seem to think millions are around the corner for them and they think the tax rates will hurt them in the future.

GIGGAB

Surprisingly, even college educated posters from the "conservative" side here at DR thought he hung the moon.

Now that his failure is affecting everyone they're all about "THAT WAS THE PAST!" and "HISTORY WILL JUDGE HIM" - all while they started bashing Obama during the election and try to lay this whole thing on him. Something he had nothing to do with creating.

Republicans!! They're a really screwed up party and bunch of people in America right now. Guess they're all angry America doesn't like them anymore.

GIG

Hand in there. America's been through some bad times in the past. We'll come out of this eventually. At least we have a guy who wrote two books all by himself instead of a President who hasn't read two books in his life by all indications.

This pic says it all (he didn't even notice):

I think what's more troubling is the anti worker views most right wingers hold.

And some will continue to vote against their own best interests. Dwindling number though. Republican party ID is lagging Democrats by 10% now, and falling fast.

Intelligent Republicans know the score. I have several moderate Republican friends who would not bring themselves to vote for a Republican this past election. Most voted for Obama. My Aunt Belle wrote me in as a candidate LOL

what's the chance of being intimidated if you vote against a union and all your coworkers are told how you voted?if this is fine then lets do it for all elections.

Money,

You don't give unions enough credit. They can and do dictate hiring policy. They can and do dictate promotions. They do this through the contracts that they force the company to write.

Like I said sometimes the companies need to be forced to write a contract for the union so still not bashing the union but to say they have no say in hiring and promotions is just not true.

Now as for getting rid of corrupt or incompetent managment maybe I'm giving unions too much credit. I simply assume that if I can organize 30 employees to get rid of a very bad manager that a union with an existing organization of employees could do the same. Maybe they can't, however something tells me (logic maybe) that they can.

Anybody not wanting a union is a moron. Who the hell wants lower wages and decreased benefits? I work in a union shop after 3 years not working in one and the difference is amazing. We get 6 weeks of vacation compared to two weeks. I make 7 dollars an hour more plus my Health insurance is light years better. Non union companies screw employees whether employees realize it or not.

"Anybody not wanting a union is a moron. Who the hell wants lower wages and decreased benefits?"

Anyone who's ever worked in HR at any large company knows that unions have FAR outlived their usefulness. The employee at the end of the day holds the power with just the threat of the potential lawsuit. Companies, thanks to government intrusion, creating "protected classes" and me, me, me whiners like you, don't operate under the banner of "what is profitable" but instead "how can I avoid getting sued today?"

Unions now are political entities that have no concern or regard for the folks they claim to represent. They operate using coercion, greed & envy & like our elected Dems who worship them, it's all about gaining & maintaining power.

Your statement is BS. A right to work state means the right to be fired for any reason the employer chooses. Even if you sue what can be obtained? Not much since the laws are written to favor the corporation doing the firing. Secondly how is an out of work person going to hire a high priced lawyer to take a corporation with endless resources to court? Corporations know they can usually outlast the individual in court. what you say makes no sense.
Companies, thanks to government intrusion, creating "protected classes" and me, me, me whiners like you, don't operate under the banner of "what is profitable" but instead "how can I avoid getting sued today?"

They do this everyday that is why so many companies outsource because they want to hire workers that accept low wages and have no rights. Sadly you fail to realize that your job may not exist due these practices one day.

HBG you are a fool and that is probably the reason you haven't gotten very far in life.

Unions now are political entities that have no concern or regard for the folks they claim to represent. They operate using coercion, greed & envy & like our elected Dems who worship them, it's all about gaining & maintaining power.

#79 | Posted by HATEBIGGOV

Is that why they get their members better wages and benefits because they don't care about their members?

Anyone who's ever worked in HR at any large company. . .

This is amazingly self-unaware.

Anyone who's ever worked in HR at any large company. . .

This is amazingly self-unaware.

#82 | Posted by YAV

She's pretty good at painting everything in sight with an enormous brush.

Yesterday she flatly stated that the Obamas had nothing but hate and contempt for our military, but then couldn't cite a single example of anything they had said or done that supported her contention.

"Anyone who's ever worked in HR at any large company knows that unions have FAR outlived their usefulness."

Most folks working in HR are sell outs who will gladly tow the company line on any issue. These are the same folks who force employees to undergo piss tests and years ago insisted upon lie detector tests. I have know HR managers who loved to eat lunch with her fellow employees and they ran afterwards to tattle on anyone who said anything the company might think was negative. Never trust anyone from HR, they are not your friends they are generally spies for management.

Danni,

Funny attitude. I love to bitch to HR directors about every damn thing wrong with the company. It's a great way to get the attention of managment. You just have to be aware that what you say will get to managment and be prepared when they call you in.

see that the 20,000,000 living wage jobs Clinton created along with a host of other living wage jobs disappeared - replaced with subsistence level $10 an hour jobs.

Most of those jobs were in the tech bubble. I was a computer operator in the army in late 98-99. I was due to get out of the military and was offered several 100k plus jobs, even though I didnt have a degree at the time. But it didnt feel right. I knew my skills were not worth what these companies were trying to pay. Anyone was getting A+ and the most basic Microsoft certs and were trying to command six figure salaries. Well the bubble burst when companies realized workers were overpaid to change computer tapes and doing backups. People were fired or laid off as they should have been. I stayed in the military and graduated from college like I should have. People need to think for themselves. Unions tend to overpay people and give them a false sense of self worth. Sure, it's nice to get all those bennies, but is what you do really worth that? And if it kills the company, what is it worth then? No company has to give you all those bennies. To me, its all about people wanting to get something for nothing. The days of getting out of high school and making $50 an hour as soon as you graduate are over. It just doesnt make sense. People are just trying to get as much for doing less and the train is about to stop. Your product has to cost more to pay your bennies. Why dont you union people understand that? It only makes sense. The consumer rules. If your car costs $2000 and the competition's car costs $1500 and looks better, the competition will win. Period.

so the rumor is that the people sent in on buses to intimidate aig employees were union people.
so IF thats true, are more fascists activities like that scheduled against any corporate people in the NEW AMERica??
hhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Yesterday she flatly stated that the Obamas had nothing but hate and contempt for our military, but then couldn't cite a single example of anything they had said or done that supported her contention.

#83 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Perhaps you didn't read the follow up there skippy? I've worked in HR & I know from my own experience. Global company at the whim of loss prevention due to the half assers. You know, you guys.

Never trust anyone from HR, they are not your friends they are generally spies for management.

#84 | Posted by danni

They are just doing their jobs Danni. If they were union spies you'd be wetting yourself about how they were so helpful so don't be a hypocrite.

They are just doing their jobs

Yes, they certainly are. They can be very helpful if you know exactly what they're there for: To protect the Corporation.

I know, I've won battles with management because management was risking huge lawsuits by proceeding down the path they were taking. HR and Legal agreed.

But don't you ever think they're on the side of the Employee.

They aren't.

Most folks working in HR are sell outs who will gladly tow the company line on any issue. These are the same folks who force employees to undergo piss tests and years ago insisted upon lie detector tests. I have know HR managers who loved to eat lunch with her fellow employees and they ran afterwards to tattle on anyone who said anything the company might think was negative. Never trust anyone from HR, they are not your friends they are generally spies for management.

#84 | Posted by danni

Where's Sanan to put down this egregious use of the "enormous brush?"

#92 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Nobody should do that.

But I'm STILL waiting for that comprehensive list of things that the Obamas have said and done showing their hate and contempt for the military from Biggie.

She seems to be studiously ignoring the question.

The problem ray is your not part of the solution but definitely part of the problem.
#43 | Posted by moneywar

You would want to rebuild Her greatness. What say You Ray??
#50 | Posted by LarryMohr

This country is bankrupt at every level from consuming too much and saving too little. For some odd reason, these two geniuses hate savers. When the dollar becomes worthless, America will need all the gold she can get to rebuild.

Sadly, when people like Money and Larry dominate popular thinking, this country is in for a long Depression.

It's obvious Ray doesn't give a shit about what happens to America. Sad really.

Larry

It's obvious that Larry just throws out accusations of hating or indifference to America when he can't argue with someone. Sad really.

It's obvious that Larry just throws out accusations of hating or indifference to America when he can't argue with someone. Sad really.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-03-24 04:07 PM | Reply

KMA Live Or Die. Capisce??

No thanks, Larry.

It's obvious Larry is flat broke and in debt over his head. He wishes he could do more for America, but he can't get any more credit and he's running out of ice cream.

Larry, it's both corporate greed and union boss greed that has destroyed American labor. It takes two. Just like it's both Republicans and Democrats fault that the country is screwed up.

Both unions and corporations give money to politicians to buy laws and votes.

Guys, it's divide and conquer - there is no difference between the two parties anymore - it doesn't matter which one is the President and which one controlls Congress - the constitutional balance of powers ensures that they are both to blame.

Wake up, people.

Back to point, unions can be a good thing as a check to management. Unfortunately, that power is often abused by whomever has it.

"Guys, it's divide and conquer - there is no difference between the two parties anymore - it doesn't matter which one is the President and which one controlls Congress - the constitutional balance of powers ensures that they are both to blame.
Wake up, people"

#100 | Posted by Spielmannsfluch

He gets it. The 2 party system we have a is a disaster.

"Yes, they certainly are. They can be very helpful if you know exactly what they're there for: To protect the Corporation."

At least that's honest. Unions today aren't protecting anything but themselves & their power much to the detriment of the worker.

"I know, I've won battles with management because management was risking huge lawsuits by proceeding down the path they were taking. HR and Legal agreed."

Everything is about the risk of lawsuits, employees know this, they have power on their own & can exercise liberal open door policies without unions. Do you think EVERY large company needs or wants unions?

"But don't you ever think they're on the side of the Employee."

I agree with that. HR & big unions look about the same to me.

"They aren't"

Yep, neither of them.

#91 | Posted by YAV

MW,

Now why does it not surprise me that it is JJ that put up a union bashing thread.

I didn't put this thread up to bash unions.

I put this thread up to bash 'the employee free choice act' in general, and the card-check provision in particular. One can be opposed to this stupid piece of legislation and NOT be opposed to unions.

Yesterday she flatly stated that the Obamas had nothing but hate and contempt for our military, but then couldn't cite a single example of anything they had said or done that supported her contention.

#83 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Well, I am not going to state that the Obamas have nothing but hate and contempt for the military, however if you need a couple of examples of actions taken where such a position could be construed, I offer the following:

1. Skipping the Medal of Honor dinner

2. His proposal to have vets fund their own health care

3. His budget which contains massive cuts in spending for the military

Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with #3. I think the case can be made that we spend too much on our military and that intelligent cuts can be made without comprimising our military strength. Having said that, #1 and #2 were pretty bad.

3. His budget which contains massive cuts in spending for the military

And the largest ever increase for Veterans.

2. His proposal to have vets fund their own health care

Come on Jeff. He never made such a proposal. It was one idea that was considered, and rejected when there was significant opposition.

Do you think that in running anything, from a business to the government, various ideas are not discussed and ultimately adopted or rejected after discussion?

Equating that, even tangentially, to Biggie's flat statement that both of the Obamas have hate and contempt for the military is patently absurd.

1. Skipping the Medal of Honor dinner

It wasn't a Medal of Honor dinner, it was the Medal of Honor winners Inaugural Ball.

From UrbanLegends fact check section...

He did, however, attend the official Commander-in-Chief's Ball honoring all U.S. servicemembers, the guest list of which included Medal of Honor and Purple Heart recipients, hundreds of wounded soldiers (and their families) from Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and spouses of troops currently deployed overseas. He saluted America's men and women in uniform during brief remarks:

"It is wonderful to be surrounded by some of the very best and bravest Americans," the President said. "Your courage, grace and your patriotism inspire us all. To you, and to all those watching around the world, know that as president, I will have no greater honor or responsibility than serving as your commander in chief."

So, exactly WHERE does this demonstrate hate and contempt for the military?

3. His budget which contains massive cuts in spending for the military

All of which are to come from cost savings, greater efficiency, and no more no-bid contracts.

He has also proposed increasing the size of both the Army and the Marine Corps.

Hatred? Contempt?

Come on Jeff. He never made such a proposal. It was one idea that was considered, and rejected when there was significant opposition.

He held a meeting with a veteran's group, rolled it out, and according to a vet who was interviewed, wouldn't even listen to their objections.

Do you think that in running anything, from a business to the government, various ideas are not discussed and ultimately adopted or rejected after discussion?

It was rejected because it was politically-toxic. My understanding is that he really wanted to run with it.

Equating that, even tangentially, to Biggie's flat statement that both of the Obamas have hate and contempt for the military is patently absurd.

It's not absurd at all. It's quite applicable, actually. You asked for an example of his words or actions that could support Biggie's flat statement, and I provided 3, and this one was a big slap-in-the-face. Again, I don't agree with Biggie's flat-out statement and I wasn't supporting Biggie's statement. I was simply providing you with examples of Obama's actions that could be construed as anti-military.

It wasn't a Medal of Honor dinner, it was the Medal of Honor winners Inaugural Ball.

Forgive me for not getting the name of the event perfectly accurate.

It was rejected because it was politically-toxic. My understanding is that he really wanted to run with it.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ

Your opinion, to which you're entitled... nothing more.

Forgive me for not getting the name of the event perfectly accurate.

#109 | Posted by JeffJ

Or the missing the fact that instead, he went to a ball honoring the wounded and their families, and the families of those still overseas.

Jeff... really.

"It is wonderful to be surrounded by some of the very best and bravest Americans," the President said. "Your courage, grace and your patriotism inspire us all. To you, and to all those watching around the world, know that as president, I will have no greater honor or responsibility than serving as your commander in chief."

What did you think he was going to say?

"You guys are scum and I'd like to personally spit in each and every one of your faces!"

Look, he may very well have been sincere (probably was), but he's also a politician - He says what he needs to say, be it sincere or not.

Sorry Jeff, but you have become so eager to slam Obama at every turn that you're even willing to throw out specious half-truth examples supporting a hack like Biggie who says the Obamas have nothing but hatred and contempt for the military, then runs away.

I don't know what happened to you, but you are attempting to defend the indefensible here.

Or the missing the fact that instead, he went to a ball honoring the wounded and their families, and the families of those still overseas.

If those 2 events were held at the same time, then I stand corrected. That wasn't clear in the excerpt you provided.

It said, "He did, however, attend the official Commander-in-Chief's Ball."

To me, that comes accross as:

"Well yeah, he did skip the Medal of Honor thing, BUT he DID attend this__________"

What did you think he was going to say?

"You guys are scum and I'd like to personally spit in each and every one of your faces!"

#112 | Posted by JeffJ

Don't try to move the goalpost. You used a half-truth about him not attending one event honoring the military when the other half of the truth was that he was attending ANOTHER event honoring the military.

If those 2 events were held at the same time, then I stand corrected. That wasn't clear in the excerpt you provided.

It said, "He did, however, attend the official Commander-in-Chief's Ball."

To me, that comes accross as:

"Well yeah, he did skip the Medal of Honor thing, BUT he DID attend this__________"

#114 | Posted by JeffJ

Sorry. I thought pointing out that the first one was ALSO an inaugural ball would indicate that.

Sorry Jeff, but you have become so eager to slam Obama at every turn that you're even willing to throw out specious half-truth examples supporting a hack like Biggie who says the Obamas have nothing but hatred and contempt for the military, then runs away.

#113 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

And you've become so sensitive about any criticisms of Obama that you see what you want to see. Read this again:

Again, I don't agree with Biggie's flat-out statement and I wasn't supporting Biggie's statement. I was simply providing you with examples of Obama's actions that could be construed as anti-military.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-03-25 11:07 AM

I don't know what happened to you, but you are attempting to defend the indefensible here.

I am not defending Biggie's statement (that's the 3rd time I've said that now).

You asked for examples of Obama's actions that could be construed as anti-military and I provided them. That is all. You are reading way too much into this.

Sorry. I thought pointing out that the first one was ALSO an inaugural ball would indicate that.

I know he had a lot of balls to attend, I think the number was 10. He certainly can't be in 2 places at the same time. Nevertheless, every president since Eisenhower attended the Medal of Honor ball. I think you are being disingenuous if you can't recognize that some could construe his absence as anti-military.

Were it me, I would have prioritized a bit differently.

Don't try to move the goalpost.

I wasn't moving the goalpost.

You felt it necessary to include a quote of his words and I was merely pointing out that he's a politician, and while he was most likely being genuine, politicians often lie convincincly.

What did you think he was going to say?

So you bitch when he doesn't show up to one event, but when he makes a public appearance and honors US soldiers you shrug it off. Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

Nevertheless, every president since Eisenhower attended the Medal of Honor ball. I think you are being disingenuous if you can't recognize that some could construe his absence as anti-military.

#118 | Posted by JeffJ

Perhaps, but then again it might behoove one to look beyond the headline to discover that what he actually did was direct that the Commander-in-Chief's Ball be changed from one that traditionally included only the top brass and dignitaries, to one that was for the enlisted people, the wounded, and the families left behind.

I would think that should cause one to think twice about citing not attending the Medal of Honor Ball as supporting an anti-military attitude.

So you bitch when he doesn't show up to one event, but when he makes a public appearance and honors US soldiers you shrug it off.

I pointed out that he broke a long tradition by missing the event. I also pointed out that such an absence could be construed as anti-military. Furthermore, I acknowledged that his nice words were most likely genuine; I was just pointing out that regarldess of how he truly felt, he was going to say something like that.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

Part of the problem was a bit of ignorance on my part. I didn't realize the Medal of Honor thing was an inaugural ball and as such, he was attempting to juggle all sorts of commitments. Such an understanding dampens my criticism of him on this.

Perhaps, but then again it might behoove one to look beyond the headline to discover that what he actually did was direct that the Commander-in-Chief's Ball be changed from one that traditionally included only the top brass and dignitaries, to one that was for the enlisted people, the wounded, and the families left behind.

I would think that should cause one to think twice about citing not attending the Medal of Honor Ball as supporting an anti-military attitude.

Agreed on the last point.

I think he made a mistake with his prioritizing, but given the FULL context, I find it extremely difficult to cite his mistake as an example of being anti-military.

Let me be clear, I don't believe that he's anti-military.

You asked for examples proving him to be anti-military and I provided examples of what I felt could be construed as anti-military.

Guys--there were 14 Inaugural Balls that night.

Did he miss any others besides the Medal of Honor?

I don't believe he made every single one.

And the cut on military spending of 40 billion--I think that was the number doesn't sound overkill. The devil is in the details.

Obama is not anti-military--but many on the left sure are.

As for this thread--

Card Check is not needed. It gives the unions a way to shanghai the workers.

And there are so many agencies that protect workers that unions are only doing what they do for money.

Unions do not reward merit--they reward numbers--what is your seniority?

Can get rid of the bad ones unless they are drunk or steal something and then there is still a hearing.

So right to work is better ? You can get shitcanned for any reason and I mean any reason. I see it happen all the time.

Can't get rid...

Rasta--

People can and do sue their employer for wrongful termination all the time.

Attorneys work on contingency fees.

There is also the EEOC and many other agencies that protect workers from getting fired without cause.

They have to have a reason--or it is a lay off.

----

I sued an employer years and years ago--It took three years to settle and 3 days of deposition from me--but it settled.

The company had gotten rid of the bad players, no more chaos, better treatment of the workers--and this was a huge company (insurance).

Murphy you just summed it up for me. 3 years is a long time. Most people aren't willing to fight in court for 3 years over a job that they lost. Even if you sue in win you can only collect lost wages up to the point of the verdict. Let's say you win 100k. The lawyer will take half if they are even willing to do it on a contingency. Do you understand right to work? They don't have to have a real reason. They can just say the employee was performing below standards and poof you are gone. In the midwest and south good luck trying to win the case.

I'll try again.....

Perhaps you didn't read the follow up there skippy? Posted your Obama military response 2 times already on another thread.

I'll try again.....

Perhaps you didn't read the follow up there skippy? Posted your Obama military response 2 times already on another thread.

#132 | Posted by HATEBIGGOV

No, you posted some flimsy non-responsive "guilt by association" dodge from out of the past.

Show me direct examples of either of the Obamas showing contempt and hatred for the military.

#133 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

Sounds like contempt & broad sweeping generalization to me.

Sounds like contempt & broad sweeping generalization to me.

#134 | Posted by HATEBIGGOV

Really? That's pretty much your usual stretch, since he was criticizing the administration and the poor strategy, not the military.

Try again.

"Really? That's pretty much your usual stretch, since he was criticizing the administration and the poor strategy, not the military"

Try again.

#135 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Well of course he was? Deflect again...

Deflect again...

#136 | Posted by HATEBIGGOV

LOL!

Biggie - does John McCain have nothing but hate and contempt for the military?

"In the most obscene chapter in recent American history is the conduct of the Kosovo conflict when the president of the United States refused to prepare for ground operations, refused to have air power used effectively because he wanted them flying he had them flying at 15,000 feet where they killed innocent civilians because they were dropping bombs from such in high altitude." - John McCain, 2000 Presidential bid

Politics is mostly class warfare. The first thing Congress did after WWII was make it illegal for Unions to strike in unison. That is the teamsters couldn't join a UAW strike, if their contract was in place....

Today the clear winners are FIRE (financial sector, insurance and real estate developers). As they shifted the economy from production to paper shuffling, FIRE went from 2% of Corporate profits to 40%. Production and employment are secondary to usary. The results speak for themselves. Key policy changes in this economic shift are:

Nixon laughingly approved HMO Plans when Haldeman explained that the more care they deny patients, the more money they make.

Reagan suspended usary laws, interest rates were legally capped at around 8-9% prior to that time.

Gramm initiated the repeal of Glass-Steagal and created the Securities Modernization Act which was passed without anyone reading it. Clinton and Shrub played along.

Welfare benefits were severely slashed by Clinton. Social Security and unemployment compensation were slashed by manipulating statistics.

Bankruptcy Laws were rewritten by Shrub in order to litigate poor people into the ground using Federal Prosecutors working as agents for Banks.

Shrub's FERC put the screws to users of oil and electricity for Enron and other energy giants.

Shrub's SEC suspended the uptick rule and Swap transparency. Highly leveraged derivatives speculation was then used to drive down stock prices and profit by short selling and collecting excess value from swaps piled on top exceeding the net worth of the targeted companies. If only working stiffs had been stiffed no one in Washinton would give a shit. But, since the brunt of these crimes were felt by Rich Bond Holders who would get mad and sue, the decision was made to stick taxpayers with the losses instead.

Reagan suspended usary laws, interest rates were legally capped at around 8-9% prior to that time.

Exactly!!!

-Danni