Unions leading

Whatever changes the legislature is making in government-run schooling, which they foolishly conflate with education, they should be careful not to undercut charter, private, or home schools. Public-school teachers might be far from the brightest bulbs along the track, but they'll do anything, even if it means shrinking all of society down to HO scale, to keep their gravy train rolling.

Will the legislature do what is best for our children or what will put more money into the pockets of the powerful union leaders?

Children don't vote or make contributions to political campaigns.

Young parents probably don't either.

We're too busy working long hours, raising kids, just trying to get by, and don't have time to follow these issues.

The outcome is quite predictable.

Deval likes throwing his supporters under the bus. Look what he did promising to lowering the moonbats property tax rates: NOTHING, absolutely nothing.

Who cares if Gov. Patrick takes money from the teachers union or not...he won't be around next November and we won't have to worry about this liberal wack-job!

Has anyone seen a job created by a UNION?

Nope! I didn't think so.

See, unions are for those who cannot think for themselves. They have squeezed the companys until they cannot compete. They have been forced to leave for more friendly places to set-up shop.

Our jobs are gone!

Bubble Gum smacking wrote:

Has anyone seen a job created by a UNION?
Nope! I didn't think so.
See, unions are for those who cannot think for themselves. They have squeezed the companys until they cannot compete. They have been forced to leave for more friendly places to set-up shop.
Our jobs are gone!

Those poor, defenseless corporations being attacked by those lazy, living wage-seeking union members. They're definitely the reason all the jobs are leaving the U.S., not NAFTA or the WTO. It's not like unions have been around since the industrial development of the U.S. without chasing any jobs away and it's probably just a coincidence that all the jobs left at the implementation of neo-liberal trade policies. oh wait...

Mike Honcho wrote:

<quoted text>
Those poor, defenseless corporations being attacked by those lazy, living wage-seeking union members. They're definitely the reason all the jobs are leaving the U.S., not NAFTA or the WTO. It's not like unions have been around since the industrial development of the U.S. without chasing any jobs away and it's probably just a coincidence that all the jobs left at the implementation of neo-liberal trade policies. oh wait...

Living Wage are you for real??? How much does a UAW make an hr.? And how much gets kicked back to the union bosses? To be told where in it with you! What a crock o' sheet the unions have turned into.

yourmomsayhi wrote:

<quoted text>Living Wage are you for real??? How much does a UAW make an hr.? And how much gets kicked back to the union bosses? To be told where in it with you! What a crock o' sheet the unions have turned into.

Don't be confused, I'm not implying unions are without problems. There are definitely some top-down authority issues, particularly in the more mainstream unions. It would be hard to estimate how much a UAW member makes since the UAW does more than cover just auto workers but since your problem seems to be with the perception that union members are overpaid maybe you should take a look at how much corporate executives make.

Mike Honcho wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't be confused, I'm not implying unions are without problems. There are definitely some top-down authority issues, particularly in the more mainstream unions. It would be hard to estimate how much a UAW member makes since the UAW does more than cover just auto workers but since your problem seems to be with the perception that union members are overpaid maybe you should take a look at how much corporate executives make.

To hire a United Auto Worker for 1 hour will cost $92. an hour.
Which you seam to have no problem with. But someone who takes bigger risks and manages more people and money is not okay?
Hell Deval was fired from his job(s) as a CEO and board member of several corp. so I guess it was okay then.

yourmomsayhi wrote:

<quoted text> To hire a United Auto Worker for 1 hour will cost $92. an hour.
Which you seam to have no problem with. But someone who takes bigger risks and manages more people and money is not okay?
Hell Deval was fired from his job(s) as a CEO and board member of several corp. so I guess it was okay then.

Source, please.

I know where I am from, not all of the rank and file votes the way the TOP wants the to.

In our shop, if a secret vote was taken, the UNION would be kicked out.

And, the JOBs were leaving the USA long before NAFTA.

Name me a job that a UNION has created!

lhs mom wrote:

<quoted text>
Source, please.

You haven't been paying attention huh. Look at Devals resume. And the price tag for an UAW was in the papers during the bailout. I will dig it up Saturday for you. Its geting late.

yourmomsayhi wrote:

<quoted text> To hire a United Auto Worker for 1 hour will cost $92. an hour.
Which you seam to have no problem with. But someone who takes bigger risks and manages more people and money is not okay?
Hell Deval was fired from his job(s) as a CEO and board member of several corp. so I guess it was okay then.

I'm interested in where you got this figure of $92 an hour from. I can assure you the casino workers and especially the grad students who make up a significant portion of the UAW do not cost nearly that much, even with any potential benefits they may receive taken into account (I am speaking from personal experience). Perhaps actual auto workers may cost that much but it's not a stretch to say they're performing, at the very least, "semi-skilled" work (can you build auto parts? I certainly can't) and therefore deserve to be paid more as a basic rule of economics. It's not as if Japanese or European auto companies don't have to deal with unions, yet they manage to have a large share of the auto market in the U.S. Perhaps if domestic auto companies are so concerned with increasing their profits they could produce a better product?

As for upper management making bigger risks, I'd like to know what actual risks they're making. They're not actually managing their own money -there's no personal financial risk, that problem lies on investors who know full well what they're getting into. Ultimately, this whole disagreement falls down to a personal, ideological argument over the value of different types of labor. Personally, I don't believe that someone whose job is to make certain decisions is necessarily any more important than that of someone who does physical labor or creates something tangible.

In regards to Deval Patrick, I think we can both agree that he sucks pretty hard. I can't wait until he's just a sad memory.

Bubble Gum Smacking wrote:

Name me a job that a UNION has created!

This would be a good argument if the point of a union was to create jobs, which it isn't.

Mike Honcho wrote:

<quoted text>
Those poor, defenseless corporations being attacked by those lazy, living wage-seeking union members. They're definitely the reason all the jobs are leaving the U.S., not NAFTA or the WTO. It's not like unions have been around since the industrial development of the U.S. without chasing any jobs away and it's probably just a coincidence that all the jobs left at the implementation of neo-liberal trade policies. oh wait...

Actually, unions have been pressuring businesses to pay non-competitive wages and benefits for decades. They couldn't pay them and survive. Greater Lowell was once a thriving manufacturing center for footwear and textiles, it's all gone now. Many of them were union jobs. This exodus from Massachusetts and the rest of the country started decades before NAFTA.

If you want to see a list of troubled and/or defunct union companies you need to look no further than the PBGC list:
http://www.pbgc.gov/workers-retirees/find-you...

Look what the unions did for the American automobile industry. Look at the steel industry, I recall at least a few times when the unions called for tariffs on imported steel because there is no way American steel companies can compete without them. The only real success the unions have had these days are the government jobs. These jobs are protected by the politicians that were purchased by the unions. I think that's beginning to change too. It will just take longer.

Good girl Tinkleberry!

Another one of my lessons finally crept into your tertiary syphilis laden cranial cavity.

It's been a painfully long and slow journey bringing you into the realm of adult thinking but we are seeing progress.

Keep up the good work lil fella, I'll be delivering more lessons soon.

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, unions have been pressuring businesses to pay non-competitive wages and benefits for decades. They couldn't pay them and survive. Greater Lowell was once a thriving manufacturing center for footwear and textiles, it's all gone now. Many of them were union jobs. This exodus from Massachusetts and the rest of the country started decades before NAFTA.
If you want to see a list of troubled and/or defunct union companies you need to look no further than the PBGC list:
http://www.pbgc.gov/workers-retirees/find-you...
Look what the unions did for the American automobile industry. Look at the steel industry, I recall at least a few times when the unions called for tariffs on imported steel because there is no way American steel companies can compete without them. The only real success the unions have had these days are the government jobs. These jobs are protected by the politicians that were purchased by the unions. I think that's beginning to change too. It will just take longer.

Luggin Fiberals wrote:

Good girl Tinkleberry!
Another one of my lessons finally crept into your tertiary syphilis laden cranial cavity.
It's been a painfully long and slow journey bringing you into the realm of adult thinking but we are seeing progress.
Keep up the good work lil fella, I'll be delivering more lessons soon.
<quoted text>

Go feed your pigs.

Mike Honcho wrote:

<quoted text>
It would be hard to estimate how much a UAW member makes

It would be easy. The UAW put most of their members on taxpayer funded welfare. They make nothing. Ford isn't on welfare but they make a profit. The other two, not yet.

Unfunded Accrued Actuarial Liability, Massachusetts Pensions,
$21,759,452,000.00 in the red.

Massachusetts’ health care and other post-employment benefit programs are 1.79% funded.$15,031,600,000 in the red.

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedF...

If I were in a municipal union, I'd be saving for retirement after seeing this.

Get a 2nd job taxpayers wrote:

The Philadelphia Experiment is the name given to a naval military experiment which was supposedly carried out at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, sometime around October 28, 1943. Conspiracy theorists allege that the U.S. Navy destroyer escort USS Eldridge was to be rendered invisible (or "cloaked") to enemy devices. The experiment is also referred to as Project Rainbow.

That was a pretty good movie.