Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAbraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, recognized that there was an eternal struggle between toilers and those who exploited their labor. And he was pretty clear about has allegiance to those who "hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed; that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor."
Theodore Roosevelt, whose presidency renewed and expanded the appeal of the Republican party at the beginning of the last century, argued that, "It is essential that there should be organizations of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize."
Dwight Eisenhower, whose presidency ushered in the era of modern Republicanism, was of the view that, "Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice."
So what happened to the Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower brand of Republicanism?
Was it discarded when the party lurched right to nominate Barry Goldwater, when Richard Nixon charted his "southern strategy," when former labor leader Ronald Reagan set out to break the air traffic controllers union?
Did it disappear in the swamp of big money and corporate-interest, of Enrons and Abramoffs, that so defined the Bush presidency?
Not entirely.
For all the talk about how the debate over the Employee Free Choice Act pits pro-labor Democrats against anti-labor Republicans, there is a good deal of partisan nuance in the struggle over whether to remove barriers to labor's ability to organize.
EFCA, which removes barriers that now block legitimate and popular union organizing drives, has 223 cosponsors in the House and, yes, the vast majority of them are Democrats. But more than three dozen House Democrats -- most of them southern and western members, many of them aligned with the conservative "Blue Dog" caucus -- and not signed on.
And a handful of House Republicans, including New Jersey's Frank LoBiondo and Chris Smith and New York's John McHugh, have bravely added their names to the cosponsor list.
In the Senate, all the announced cosponsors are Democrats. But Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, who backed EFCA in 2007, is still likely to back the bill -- despite intense pressure from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other lobbying groups and the prospect of a bloody Republican primary fight in 2010. And labor groups have hinted that there might be a few other Republican backers of the bill.
Republican supporters are needed in the Senate not merely because it will take 60 senators -- two more than the Democrats now have -- to overcome filibuster threats.
GOP backers are also needed because a number of Democrats are shaky on EFCA.
Labor commentator Jonathan Tasini suggests that, when it comes to passing EFCA, "The problem is that there are a handful of Democratic Senators who are, at best, weak on labor, and, at worst, just outright shills for corporate interests in the Congress. Here is my list: Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln; it's not clear to me what the replacement Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet will do on the bill, nor do I entirely trust Bill Nelson or Mark Pryor (on Pryor, maybe it's a family thing: his father was one of two Democratic Senators who would not vote in the 1990s to break a filibuster on the legislation that would have banned striker replacements, dooming the bill and giving corporations even more power to intimidate workers). That's seven Senators who, in my opinion, you cannot count as passionate champions of EFCA."
Yes, Democrats are, on balance, more pro-labor than Republicans.
But this is an essential issue for American workers, too essential to let it be subsumed to pure partisanship. Highlighting Republican support for EFCA takes apart the argument that labor law reform is merely a political payout to labor groups that backed Democrats -- along the same lines as pro-corporate legislation advanced by GOP leaders when there party was in power -- and makes it tougher for southern and western Democrats to go astray.
There are Republicans who are getting EFCA right, and that is a detail that must not be lost in this debate. Where all House Republicans opposed the stimulus bill, the GOP caucus will not be so united on the question of workplace fairness.
Smart lobbying efforts will note and exploit this opening by putting pressure not just on wavering Democrats but on "possible" Republicans to embrace the position that when a majority of employees in a workplace want union representation they should have it.
After all, it was a lifelong Republican named John L. Lewis who said: "Let the workers organize. Let the toilers assemble. Let their crystallized voice proclaim their injustices and demand their privileges. Let all thoughtful citizens sustain them, for the future of Labor is the future of America."
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice."
I'm sorry, did Ike just call lvlib/antisoc a "fool"?!??!??!?
I knew DDE was a Commie!
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 3:16pm
Any person who works for a living and doesn't back organized labor is a moron. Big business is organized to the nth degree and they all back each others' play, hence the chamber of commerce.
But, God forbid that the lowly workers have a say in how many hours they'll work, make a wage to where they can actually survive without falling further into debt, and actually wish to have a chance in life. Nope, only the rich folks deserve these things. If you aren't born with that silver spoon in your hands, by God you are destined to toil your life away for the upper class....kind of reminds me of the cast system except the cast system is more honest about it's principles.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/12/2009 @ 3:29pm
I'm sorry, did Ike just call lvlib/antisoc a "fool"?!??!??!?
I knew DDE was a Commie!
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 3:16pm
That's classic Mask!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/12/2009 @ 3:30pm
I always thought the secret ballot was the underpinning of our representative government. What these thugs want is a Stalinist world where a goon tells you what to do and think. No thank you.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/12/2009 @ 3:42pm
And all this time I thought that Employee Freedom of Choice was what our states "RIGHT TO WORK" laws were all about! Why are the Demoncrats and Regressives claiming that their "Socialistic" new act will bring us more freedom? They want the power to INTIMIDATE those who refuse to join the communist mafia called labor unions! This is what they are all about!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 3:48pm
Take a good look at what Unionism has done to the American Auto Industry which is now begging for money to PAY OFF their extortionist unions so thier businesses can survive!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 3:50pm
Absolutely, you should have the right to work without being forced to join a union. Anything else is not freedom.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/12/2009 @ 3:51pm
Employee Free Choice Act Now Launches Website to Educate Public on Card Check Legislation
The Truth About EFCA.Org is part of a multi-faceted new media campaign slated to help shed light on the "card check" issue and expose some of the misinformation being spread by corporate front groups who oppose the EFCA and who try to continue their control and lavish life styles. Besides tracking the latest news on EFCA, the www.TheTruthAboutEFCA.Org website contains a link to our blog with contributions from EFCA bloggers and special guests.
Website: www.TheTruthAboutEFCA.Org
For More Information on EFCA please visit our websites and blog
http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org
http://efcanow.blogspot.com/
http://efcaunionbustingclub.blogspot.com/
http://www.FreeChoiceActNow.Org
http://www.LaborUnionResources.Org
Posted by EFCANOW at 03/12/2009 @ 4:00pm
Cons must have something other than trickle-down theoretics that they can offer to the working class.
The pie-in-the-sky, bootstrap stuff is great, but we will always need security guards, nurses, truck drivers, clerks, and these humans have value.
The EFCA gives working people an edge against the stealth union-busting teams employed by the Walmarts.
I would rather see an industry bite the dust providing hard working people a middle class living than cannibalized by the type of unpatriotic scum that resonded to 9/11 with layoffs.
If we give people the tools they need to live well, they won't need the Dems to keep them in subsidized hovels with free cheese.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/12/2009 @ 4:08pm
"Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice."
I'm sorry, did Ike just call lvlib/antisoc a "fool"?!??!??!?
I knew DDE was a Commie!
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 3:16pm
Well, I've never been a fan of Ike as president (soldier yes, president no).
So Nichols quotes center left Republicans who buy into the disgrace to mankind that unions represent? Who cares.
Unions are for people who lack personal initiative, responsibility, self-confidence, and a self-reliance. People who are lazy and non-productive.
Unions destroy what is natural in mankind to achieve and have personal success. They settle for mediocrity.
Only such people willingly join unions; or marxists looking for an area to infiltrate and agitate.
The EFCA goes against everything that made this country the greatest nation in the history of mankind.
It's hardly surprising that the leftists promote this kind of lowered expectations and mediocre performance.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/12/2009 @ 4:59pm
Unions are for people who are sick of moneyed-interests taking advantage of the individual and aren't afraid to stand up to intimidation, together.
Why are you worried about what other people do if you're so self-reliant and productive anti?
Marxist infiltration?! Are you off your meds? I know they've gotten expensive with all that "free market" competition and all.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 5:20pm
I'm exactly right. I worked in both the Teamsters and UAW and saw it all first hand as both a member and as a Shop Steward.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/12/2009 @ 5:23pm
Unions are for people who lack personal initiative, responsibility, self-confidence, and a self-reliance. People who are lazy and non-productive.
Unions destroy what is natural in mankind to achieve and have personal success. They settle for mediocrity.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/12/2009 @ 4:59pm
What is mediocre or lazy about a person with a very specialized skill, say underwater welding? Many of these CEOs don't have any skills. They have a pedigree, and they live like kings.
Some of these Reps would love it if no hard-working, self-reliant, skilled worker made more than 25K, that's why Nixon sucked up to Mao without a peep from the so-called anti-communists.
Antisoc, the people whose labor creates the fat of the land share much more with you and I, in terms of common values than with either the instant-gratification scum on Wall Street or their Monday-morning detractor, Friday night one-night-stands on the rad Left.
Labor unions force employers to acknowledge the value of ACTUAL production, in the paychecks of the real producers.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/12/2009 @ 5:26pm
<i>Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 3:58pm </i>
You said "if the workers want a secret ballot, they can have it." What does this mean? Does it mean that they can vote for a secret ballot, because that's not any less problematic; the same issues in a non-secret-ballot for other things would come up here.
What choice does the law allow on secret ballot, exactly?
Posted by Thrawn at 03/12/2009 @ 5:28pm
The basic question now is how can people buy what they need? Their credit cards are maxed out, same with their their mortgages, or second or third mortgages. We have been running this country on credit. The Employee Free Choice Act will allow people to collectively bargain for the wages which they have been cheated out of for the past thirty years.
Support EFCA, you can get an EFCA bumper sticker here:
https://unionshop.aflcio.org/product1.cfm?Product_ID=1474
Posted by JohnBryansFontaine at 03/12/2009 @ 5:36pm
Investors are, by definition, non-productive
Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 5:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Investors are the REASON you can sit back and loaf and collect all the benifits from being EMPLOYED, or if your union STILL get a paycheck even if your NOT working!
ie. dummy no business, no job, get the connection? Were would unions be with NO place to work after the union money runs out?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 5:37pm
The Employee Free Choice Act will allow people to collectively bargain for the wages which they have been cheated out of for the past thirty years.
If you have a JOB how are you being cheated? No businesses = no jobs?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 5:39pm
The Employee Free Choice Act will allow people to collectively bargain for the wages which they have been cheated out of for the past thirty years.
Support EFCA, you can get an EFCA bumper sticker here:
https://unionshop.aflcio.org/product1.cfm?Product_ID=1474
Posted by JohnBryansFontaine at 03/12/2009 @ 5:36pm
No, you would have a better opportunity to make income gains if you show some initiative to either learn a new skill or trade, or open your own business. that is the true way to increase your worth in the labor market.
Not through intimidation and coercion.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/12/2009 @ 5:43pm
HEY COMANCHEAMERICAN GO GET FALLING DOWN DRUNK YOU DUMB@$$. YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT JUST WHAT YOU SEE ON FOX NEWS.
Posted by timbro at 03/12/2009 @ 5:45pm
Investors are the REASON you can sit back and loaf and collect all the benifits from being EMPLOYED.
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 5:37pm
Agreed. Investors are important, and being no communist myself, I have no problem with the manager-class having plenty of loot for mansions, cocaine, and tween Thai sex-slaves.
But when the parasites take TOO much for themselves, they will not invest in production because the producers will not have the income with which to purchase the goods. So they will short-sell, and buy up bad mortgages, and every conceivable paper asset, until the whole house of cards comes down, and then they need the producers, or the Chinese government, to stand them up and dust their shoulders off.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/12/2009 @ 5:49pm
COMANCHEAMERICAN SOUNDS LIKE A SMUG PERSON THAT DRIVE A PUSSY FORIEGN CAR LIKE A PRIUS IT SOUNDS MORE LIKE COMANCHEANTIAMERICAN !!!
Posted by timbro at 03/12/2009 @ 5:52pm
Posted by timbro at 03/12/2009 @ 5:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Don't listen to radio, no cable, no dish, FOX who?
What do you disagree with? I see no proof against what I said posted by you?
Guess you would just rather sound like the FOOL you are!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 5:58pm
No one should be refused the vote to have a union or not..the issue is the use a secret ballot whether or not a union is desired.
I,too, was in a labor union and can tell you from experience, that they all know who are for and against unions...and the guys that are not for unions are harassed,threatened, and "roughed up to show them the value of joining"...this has been my experience...
A blind man can see where the UAW has help an industry collapse in one part of the country and thrive in another...
Second issue...
My friend has a small construction company of 15 guys....if 8 vote to unionise, and the cost of doing construction for his company just increased exponetialy...and he is no longer competetive with those who are not unionised...
My friend says he has 3 choices...
1. unionise and fire enough people to offset the increase in cost..
2. Close down and re open up with people who do not want a union...
3. Close the business completely..since he can't compete.
Small business will be devastated by this rule and it is small busineess that is the most important piece of the system for the economy to grow..
I see this law as having the effect of costing more local jobs and more large companies will FLEE off shore faster than the past..
BTW, Delta and Northwest just voted out their union for mechanics and others...seems the strike called during the most difficult financial times in the airline industry back fired and thousands lost their jobs...
Union growth seems to be in industrys that have no competition, no skills for the most part,are a draw to people who want a job where they can't be fired, and are paid for showing up verses getting paid based on productivity and innovation. Thats why unions growth is in government.
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/12/2009 @ 6:00pm
Posted by gangpapist at 03/12/2009 @ 5:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Good point, there are getting to be too many people in the nation low income and high income who ALL fell like they are "entitled" to something more than they have! I never read anything in the constitution that said anyone had some of the rights now claimed by many!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 6:01pm
Posted by timbro at 03/12/2009 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Try a 99' ford 1/2t.sb, wifes 97'escort wagon w/a motor I rebuilt! Course I do have a 69 SS396 EL and a 69 Chevelle 300hp. both I rebuilt engines on and both needing paint!
My leftist extremist immoral sister has a prius! Want a date shes unmarried!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 6:10pm
"I never read anything in the constitution that said anyone had some of the rights now claimed by many!"
Name one!
Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 6:03pm |
Where is "welfare benefits" guarrented in it? How about HUD homes and public housing or even unemployment?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 6:13pm
There was a time when unions were probably too powerful, but the pendulum has swung far to the other side now.
An argument that a business can't compete if they have unionized labor is missing the point. If unions are reasonably strong you can't pit some guy in TN against another guy in Detroit. That is the famous 'race to the bottom'.
Posted by SK9 at 03/12/2009 @ 6:16pm
"Sure thing, Anti. And I'd get the loan for that bizness opportunity exactly where these days?
Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 6:02pm
It depends on what skills you have and the demand for them in your area...if you show up at a bank with a skill to build swimming pools in the winter during a recession in a city where you already have 3 other pool companies struggling...or if you have credit issues,you will not get a loan...
If you have a business plan that is viable and meets the cap rate for investors ...you might be surprised...but right now...banks do not like the govt actions since Jan 20 th.
When I was in the union, the guys I worked with all scabbed on weekends for less per hour and were paid cash...if I were an unemployed construction worker, for example..I would work for cash as much as I could...worked for me like a charm....especially during the Carter nightmare...which by the way...will be back very soon...
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/12/2009 @ 6:17pm
It really sounds like you're insinuating that the prius is what makes her loose. ;) Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 6:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
COMANCHEAMERICAN SOUNDS LIKE A SMUG PERSON THAT DRIVE A PUSSY FORIEGN CAR LIKE A PRIUS IT SOUNDS MORE LIKE COMANCHEANTIAMERICAN !!!
Posted by timbro at 03/12/2009 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
No it was this FOOL above that suggested something like that!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 6:20pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 6:13pm
I never could find Affirmative Action, Abortion, or an open border in the constitution or the Fedralists Papers or any FF writings,..yet many in black robes say it is there...
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/12/2009 @ 6:22pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 5:37pm
Investors are the reason? Really? Without investors we would not have any small businesses?
I we could still have businesses without investors.
I don't get all the union haters, personally I enjoy having a weekend. Yeah, you can thank the labor movement for that.
Posted by Extraneous at 03/12/2009 @ 6:23pm
could...worked for me like a charm....especially during the Carter nightmare...which by the way...will be back very soon...
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/12/2009 @ 6:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It is looking SURE that it has returned with Lyndon Baines Obamanation at the helm! He is channeling LBJ and Carter with his programs!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 6:25pm
I don't get all the union haters, personally I enjoy having a weekend. Yeah, you can thank the labor movement for that.
Posted by Extraneous at 03/12/2009 @ 6:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Industialization was good to power economys, look at China; Unions for a time served a useful purpose and some to a small degree still do, but there is now NOTHING they do that an "empowed" representative for workers rights U.S. dept. of labor can't do. Our economy foundering under the weight of Unions and government regulation now to the extent it is COLLAPSING in on itself!
Why would anyone want to give more power to unions that are now destroying what is left of our industries?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 6:32pm
Sure thing, Anti. And I'd get the loan for that bizness opportunity exactly where these days?
Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 6:02pm
There are 1000's of businesses you can start with little or no money.
And your question is one that always amuses me; but usually regarding those griping about jobs and opportunities.
How come Hispanics, Asians, Africans, Russians, and people from all over the world can come here with little or no money and scrimp sacrifice and start their own business and succeed?
The answer is because a) they understand the opportunity that is uniquely American, and b)they are willing to do what it takes to get ahead. Mexican illegals work as day laborers to start or get a job working for another Hispanic's landscape business or restaurant, or tamale or taco stand, and then end up starting their own after a year or 2 or even 5.
your attitude is what holds people back.
I've started businesses as diverse as silk screen, catering, and direct sales with no money of my own or almost none. I joined with a partner on the silk screen. We borrowed 2500 from his parents to buy a used transfer press, some heat transfers, blank shirts, some biz cards, and a booth at a Christmas trade show at the LA convention center. We earned enough there to pay back the loan, and secured 3 contracts with comm'l accts which we subcontracted out. I later bought out the partner and then sold the business for a profit.
I started the catering biz with a partner for $200. We did business catering. We later dissolved the business because of some problems my partner had.
There are 2 brothers from Mexico, they mostly speak an Indian dialect and some English. They now have a successful landscape company with 10 employees. They came here with nothing
Posted by antisocialist at 03/12/2009 @ 6:33pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/12/2009 @ 6:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The real problem is that even though school children can read and understand the U.S. constitution and bill of rights. Most adults today don't even know what they say! They think Demoncrats and Judges are the only ones that follow it. Whats not funny is a lot of congressmen in both houses don't even know what it says, you hear them quote it INCORRECTLY then its believed by the public!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 6:40pm
I'd rather see a thriving, educated, GAINFULLY-employed middle class.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 6:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Here's a question for you! Name the business or industry still in business STARTED by and growing prosperously by unions?
How do unions create new prospering businesses and increased job opportunities even in existing businesses and industries?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 6:46pm
I'd rather see a thriving, educated, GAINFULLY-employed middle class.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 6:38pm
Congratulations on your success. But you would never have what you have with a union. You didn't get what you've got because of the govt. You got there because of a desire to succeed.
I also want a thriving middle class, but without creating a replica of socialist Europe.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/12/2009 @ 6:49pm
"They settle for mediocrity.
Only such people willingly join unions; or marxists looking for an area to infiltrate and agitate."
So was Ike a mediocrity or a marxist?
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 6:52pm
I have a copy on my iPhone. It's become more precious to me over the last eight years.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 6:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
My point exactly! But, you'll never see a Demoncrat politician ridiculed by the national media when he misquotes!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 6:53pm
I am really disappointed: Not a word of FACT about the actual provisions of the Bill. Only a litany of opinions pro and con.
I believe in Unions. I believe in secret elections. I do not believe in forcing anyone with peer pressure to sign a card, or else everybody will be against you.
The N Y Times did the same thing in an article, 3.11.09, page B3. About 20 column inches of opinion and about 1.5 in. of facts.
Let's be liberal, but let's deal in facts as well as feelings.
Thurs 3/12. 8 p.m.
Posted by rareoldpearl at 03/12/2009 @ 7:04pm
So was Ike a mediocrity or a marxist?
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 6:52pm
I've never seen anything that showed that Ike ever joined a union.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/12/2009 @ 7:08pm
we could still have businesses without investors.
Posted by Extraneous at 03/12/2009 @ 6:23pm
Abraham Lincoln..."hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed; that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor."
And both of you, are mistaken. Lincoln's mistake is easier to understand since the concept of economics was certainly not well-studied then.
First off, NO business can exist without at the very least, ONE investor......at the simplest level we call that ONE investor, a sole proprietor or sole owner. In this set up, capital and labor are one and the same! In slightly more complicated manner, a business started with some seed capital provided by source other than yourself, say a parent or distant uncle, that capital is provided by an "investor" who may not demand any monetary returns, but he/she is most definitely an `investor' in YOU and pulling for your success.
On to....Lincoln, where he said "labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor."
Labor that exist w/out any capital was true ONLY in the prehistoric days, long before even the Age of the Neanderthals, before the time when humanoids learned how to use tools or construct own shelters, which are definitely "capital". Humanoids with tools, weapons and defensible shelters, can slaughter those less evolved & without such "capital"!
Also, today, unlike Lincoln's days, there is the concept of `intellectual' property (even ideas not yet put down in writings) which is most definitely "capital" and can be monetized.
Anyway, today, LABOR is CAPITAL! It just isn't in the form of uniform legal tender.
Posted by Happy at 03/12/2009 @ 7:13pm
Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 3:58pm
This IS about card check. The fact is very simple, the secret ballot IS freedom of choice by its very definition. Neither Corporate thug or Union thug can interfere with a secret ballot.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/12/2009 @ 9:25pm
My con friends, I appreciate your entrepeneurial spirits.
But do you really believe that EVERYBODY should either start their own business, or settle for poverty?
Skilled workers deserve a decent living, and sometimes they can only achieve that by joining together.
The Reps MUST have something to offer the working class. The Culture Wars and "Be a Captain of Industry or live in a trailer park," is not going to swing the vote. Let's leave the goodies and the welfare-state to the Dems. They want us to be poor. They want the immigrant to never learn English. They want the ghetto to stay the ghetto, so that their web of interdependency will keep them in power.
Give people the tools they need to do well for themselves, and they won't feel compelled to vote against their values.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/12/2009 @ 9:41pm
Skilled workers deserve a decent living, and sometimes they can only achieve that by joining together. Posted by gangpapist at 03/12/2009 @ 9:41pm
I agree. But joining together should be a choice, not forced on you by EFCA.
Posted by twillie at 03/12/2009 @ 10:03pm
Skilled workers deserve a decent living, and sometimes they can only achieve that by joining together.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/12/2009 @ 9:41pm
"deserve"? That's an entitlement mentality!
Unless.....you think UNskilled workers DON'T deserve a decent living which I tend to agree with. Unskilled workers are supposed to struggle to make a living so that the more self-motivated and of sufficient intelligence, will strive to obtain skills to climb the ladder of opportunity.
BTW, there is no reason unskilled auto assembly line workers are compensated at up to $75 (w/all burdens) per hour, or even the direct pay of $30 an hour....but that's what they get! And there is also no reason why UNskilled clerks shuffling paper at City Hall or snapping photos at the DMV get paid $15 an hour....but they do.
Without exception, unions lead to higher costs and less growth; with the exception of gov. employees' unions.....incestuous as hell with the pols! Overly powerful unions always kill off the employers over time...either that, or they become weak unions.
Our nation is littered with proof of my point above....but the Left and short-sighted labor bosses just can't see beyond the immediate.
Posted by Happy at 03/12/2009 @ 10:14pm
Give people the tools they need to do well for themselves, and they won't feel compelled to vote against their values.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/12/2009 @ 9:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
A big Amen to that! Given a proper basic and advanced education rather than socio-politically correct indoctrination as recieved today anyone can, and will be given the opportunity to succeed in the U.S.A. based on their knowledge and skills!
That is what the constitution, bill of rights and the justifiable 14th amendment was all about! Anyone with a brain realizes that all are on equal footing and there is no need to create ANY privileged or protected class of citizen today except for the blinded myopic people on the left! Sadly the Demoncrats and NAACP types want political entitlement slavery just to secure votes!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 10:27pm
"deserve"? That's an entitlement mentality!
Posted by Happy at 03/12/2009 @ 10:14pm
Why? I don't see how hard-working people with skills that are vital to a first-world infrastructure (often much less expendable then more "educated" graduates of our pathetic Left-dominated universities) are not "entitled" to a decent middle-class living.
As for un-skilled workers, should they make less? Yes, they should have an incentive to improve their skills. But we need them too, and it's probably cheaper to pay them a liveable wage than to give them more incentive to live off the dole, or the criminal economy.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/12/2009 @ 11:18pm
I heard something on the tv about Wal-Mart stocks taking a hit because of this bill. The report said investors had fears that unionizing would hurt Wal-Mart's competitiveness.
I'm sorry, but I have to laugh... Isn't the big knock on Wal-Mart, as well as the biggest reason for it's success, that it drives competitors out of business?
That bullshit, about goons forcing people to join unions, is just a scare tactic to frighten people from supporting their own self-interest.
Posted by koroviev at 03/13/2009 @ 12:28am
citi downgraded walmart from AAA based on the premise that EFCA would pass unionization would hurt them. As noted on Rachel Maddow's show, this was a hypocritical self-serving move by citi to try to hype the angst in the business community over EFCA. If they were truly making their risk management ratings objectively, they would upgrade Safeway based on the fact that it is already unionized and should flourish under EFCA.
Posted by Irmanator at 03/13/2009 @ 02:10am
From: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi? dbname=110_cong_reports&docid=f:hr023.110.pdf
The ‘‘union avoidance'' industry--comprised of anti-union consultants who help employers defeat organizing drives or encourage the decertification of existing unions--is ‘‘worth several hundred million dollars per year.'' Companies intent on busting organizing drives pay top dollar to anti-union consulting and law firms. These consultants wage highly sophisticated campaigns against workers trying to form a union. These campaigns may include such tactics as ‘‘captive speeches, employee interrogations, one-on-one meetings between employees and supervisors, ‘vote no' committees, antiunion videos, threats of plant closures, and discriminatory discharges.'' A rare light was shed on the ‘‘union avoidance'' industry in a 2004 New York Times expos´e. According to the article, the battery company EnerSys had paid the anti-union law firm Jackson Lewis $2.7 million for its services--during which time the company, according to a federal complaint containing some 120 unfair labor practices, fired union leaders, assisted the anti-union campaign, improperly withdrew recognition from the union, and moved production to nonunion plants in retaliation for workers' union activity. EnerSys later accused Jackson Lewis of malpractice for its advice, which Jackson Lewis denied.
Posted by Irmanator at 03/13/2009 @ 02:17am
There has been a huge misinformation campaign from the C of C and corporate America about the EFCA taking away the sacred right of the secret ballot. Isn't it wonderful to se ethe boss so choked up and teary eyed about worker's "rights?"
Under PRESENT labor law, there are two methods of union recognition: Card check and election. Yes, card check is actually legal under current labor law.
But it is the employer who decides whether to allow card check, or force an election, which after management threats and intimidation will look more like an election in a third world banana republic.
EFCA merely takes that option away from the employer. The workers decide whether or not to do card check or election. If as little as 30% of the workforce demands an election, then one must be held.
EFCA also requires the company to negotiate in good faith with the union if it is certified, and contains some stronger penalties for labor law violation.
Posted by ohb0b at 03/13/2009 @ 04:30am
"Take a good look at what Unionism has done to the American Auto Industry which is now begging for money to PAY OFF their extortionist unions so thier businesses can survive!"
The tech sector is not very highly unionized. Has it helped preserve obs there? How about the southern "right-to-work" states? What has that done for their standard of living?
Posted by ohb0b at 03/13/2009 @ 04:33am
I'm exactly right. I worked in both the Teamsters and UAW and saw it all first hand as both a member and as a Shop Steward.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/12/2009 @ 5:23pm
Liv, I don't know what you saw, but I'll tell you what I saw as a kid growing up with a dad working in a steel mill. The old man would come home from time to time and tell us over dinner of how some guy fell in the furnace, or some guy's hand or leg was taken off on the job etc. These were routine occurences on the job. Accidents do happen, but a lot of them can be avoided with proper training and also making sure that workers aren't over worked and pushing to get things done fast. That's when accidents usually happen.
Being a shop steward means you were the foreman which means you were the master, not the worker. That doesn't hold much water Liv.
But, I digress. The truth of the matter is that big business is organized against workers and that is one little tidbit folks like you tend to gloss over. It's ok in your little heads for businesses to screw workers over to add to the bottom line, but if workers wish to be paid for what they're really worth, all of a sudden, that's a bad thing. You side with the ultra rich as does the GOP. At least admit that much and you might get a little more respect on this blog.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2009 @ 05:36am
I've probably paid more in unemp insurance since then than you make in a year, but you don't see me crying about people feeding their kids.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 5:58pm
Snowball, First of all, I'd like to say my hat is off to you. You sound like a good person who actually cares about the well being of others. That quality is very difficult to find on the right side of the political spectrum.
You are trying to convince folks who are so friggin brainwashed with their neoconservative ideology that they would bitch about having to pay for any services rendered to them. Of course these assholes think "they" should make a boatload of money, but other people who do the menial but real day to day work deserve nothing.
This group of narrow minded jerks are a bunch of self serving hypocrits. Money and money alone dictates their existence, thought process and belief system. Anything else they use for their arguments is pure smoke and mirrors and that includes their religious arguements.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2009 @ 05:45am
Here's a link that shows just how corrupt the jackasses on wallstreet are. This guy was dumb enough to have this interview video taped. I wonder when the SEC will pay him a visit. Notice that he claims "everyone does it" like that makes this ok!
I mostly put the link below for Happy since this guy speaks Happy's language....manipulate the market for your own gain. Lie out your ass to get what you want, and by the time people catch up with your lie, you are on to bigger better lies. The SEC looked the other way, Congress looked the other way and so did the president of the United States. We, the people, have been screwed to the nth degree by the government which is supposed to represent us and look out for our well being folks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVmlxhk-tU
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2009 @ 06:52am
I worked for twenty four years in a non union shop in a non union industry. I know first hand what it is like to work as an "at will employee." How many places and how many shops where it did not matter that I came to work everyday on time and not hung over ready to work. It did not matter how productive I was. Want to know what the problem was? I had to be told this by a manager because I never would have thought of it myself. He told me that the reason I was being layed off from a place I had worked at for ten years so he could keep his friend who had been there two months was because I was not white. I have had employers hire me at one pay scale then refuse to pay me what they promised. Then when I refuse to work until they pay me what was promised they fire me and hire a high priced law firm that specializes in unemployment to deny me my unemployment. Yes I did get it in the end but it was seventeen weeks before I did. Meanwhile it was looking for another job and waiting in line to unload trucks at a warehouse so my sons and I could eat. One person cannot stand up to them, not if you have a family to support. I am a Master Craftsman and I tried. For more than twenty years I tried. I lost. Now I have mortgaged the rest of my life so I can go to school and get a union job. So tell me again why a union would not have helped me and millions of others like me.
Posted by bascaville at 03/13/2009 @ 06:53am
Wow. so much hate and fear.
I too have worked in union and "right to work" states and shops. Not once, EVER, did anybody EVER bring up Marx in a union shop. I was never intimidated by union workers. If they complained about someone working "too hard" (which was maybe twice in 5 years) I told them to F off. Maybe JOMAMAMA and ANTI were too pants shitting scared to stand up for themselves, but I have no such phobias.
Working in a union state I was able to pay my bills and save money. When I worked in Virginia I was barely able to survive on the whopping $10/hr they were paying me to do skilled labor and supervise a crew of 4-6. I could see the effects of "right to work" all around me, huge gentleman horse farms...next to dilapidated worker housing. It is the neo con dream, a distinct class system.
unionization is at it's lowest point since, I think, the 1950's. Where is our employment level? Unemployment is creeping up on 10% and will reach 12% before we see any positive gains. Not only is unemployment rising rapidly, wage growth has been nearly stagnant for years.
If unions are corrupt, like the Teamsters, they should be brought to justice, like they have been. There are laws on the books, and the multi national corporations that oppose unions have all the legal staff they need to fight for their rights in court. Only those truly opposed to our judicial system (commanche, JOMA etc) think that Ford and Whirlpool are helpless against their production staff. If you think intimidation is only the stategy of unions, you have never worked in a non union shop that is attempting to unionize. If you speak out, you WILL lose your source of income. You may be beaten, you may have your house damaged at night or while you work. If you are in S America, you may be killed.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/13/2009 @ 07:06am
So tell me again why a union would not have helped me and millions of others like me.
Posted by bascaville at 03/13/2009 @ 06:53am
They can't. A good portion of the neocons posting here talk a lot about how hard they have worked and yadda yadda yadda, but most of them evidently haven't worked in the real world or they wouldn't hold the backwards views they hold. Either that, or they have the brain capacity of the middle of a cheerio.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2009 @ 07:06am
Posted by bascaville at 03/13/2009 @ 06:53am
Because the neo cons have theories, versus your real world experience!
Are there union members that seek out the backroom couch and want as much money for as little work as possible? Sure. But, I find that in management level positions in the multi-national corp I work for now. (and I see it in HAPPY every day here) The larger the company, the more room to hide. "We" are scaling back our work force this year. The lay offs are often not associated with merit, often it is who played the Dept heads game the bestest. or who plays golf with him that gets to keep his/her job. The Utopian fantasy that merit ALWAYS is rewarded is just that, a fantasy.
Unions can, and should be, democratic institutions. They hold votes, elect their own leadership (who may just rape the pension fund like management if not watched) and BARGAIN with the board appointed managers. Whereas a CEO hires a "benefit consultant" who then convinces the CEOs friends on the board (who sit on each others boards) to pay what the other board members make at their corps.
Which is more democratic?
Here are some non union companies that are in the news this week:
AIG
CITIGROUP
Bank of America
Then they are joined by companies that have made their union work force shrink
Chrysler
GM
Here are some companies that the cons use
southwest- heavily unionized
Boeing-union
Northrup Grumman-union
Raytheon -fights tooth and nail agin unions, but still has it
Their police dept
Their fire dept.
The NYFD (do you have one of their hats Anti? it was big after 9/11 to proudly wear it)
Why is it that the cons can call cops and firefighters "lazy Marxists" then stand next to their uniforms with hands on hearts singing the Anthem?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/13/2009 @ 07:30am
"Take a good look at what Unionism has done to the American Auto Industry which is now begging for money to PAY OFF their extortionist unions so thier businesses can survive!"
hmmm, globilization may have had something to do with it. The race to find the cheapest labor possible. The real fact is that Fords unions have voted to take pay cuts, benefit cuts and pension cuts. GM retirees have given up their medical benefits.
I wonder, did Dan Quayle take a pay cut this year to help keep one of his subsidiaries (Chrysler) in business? How about John Snow?
Commanche, why don't you write about the auto industry wanting to "pay off" it's non union staff?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/13/2009 @ 07:36am
The people that come here and try to tell us EFCA will "take away the secret ballot" are
1: Lying
2: the same people that told us Saddam had wmd's
3: the same people that told us there is no recession
4: the same people that would have put a union member in the VP residence, (formerly occupied occasionally by a lesbian they put in in 2000.)
5: Don't care if America fails, hell, they even want it to fail.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/13/2009 @ 07:40am
Neither Corporate thug or Union thug can interfere with a secret ballot.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/12/2009 @ 9:25pm |
Ignorance is bliss.
Both are able to do it. And do.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/13/2009 @ 07:45am
Posted by antisocialist at 03/12/2009 @ 7:08pm
But Ike SUPPORTED unions, Larry...
or didn't he know they were "Communist union thugs run by capitalist Mafiosos"?
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 08:10am
""Unions are for people who lack personal initiative, responsibility, self-confidence, and a self-reliance. People who are lazy and non-productive."
Fuck you."
Snowball, you have said all that needs to be said on the issue. I thank you.
Posted by onthehelm at 03/13/2009 @ 08:13am
In case you didn't see this on Peter's thread ***********************************************
No, because Ronald Reagan, personally, was a cold, sociopathic son-of-a-bitch. I don't know if you guys *are* heartless bastards, but your policies make it look that way.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/13/2009 @ 06:53am
I suppose if you saw a kitten you'd describe it as a vicious, man-eating lion.
Don't believe your own bullshit.
The conspiracy of union busting you believe in is a myth. Unions have died out in the private sector because they lost their usefulness when courts and OSHA legislated safer working conditions.
They continue to thrive in government, schools, and universities, because the financing of those functions is immune to market realities.
You still see a lot of unions in the construction trades due to "seasonality"(?) effects. Plumbers, electricians, carpenters, masonry, etc tend to move shops a lot due to seasonality of work. The Union acts as a shock absorber to wild swings in the price of labor as demand swings wildly, but they also manage pension, health benefits, vacation, ect which would be greatly interupted with frequent job changes.
Where unions provide/create value, they will thrive. Where unions create an artifically higher wage, they will maintain this temporarily, until the companies move or go bankrupt (like Detroit).
The laws of economics are laws, not mere suggestions.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 09:37am
The laws of economics are laws, not mere suggestions.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 09:37am
I can't stress this enough: Those of you who believe that unions are an intrinsic good in and of themselve probably also believe that the only possible explaination for thier decline must be some nefarious conspiracy of "cheating" by "dishonest fat cats" (or whatever you charicature of "the enemy" is).
This is a comforting lie you tell yourself because it reinforces your worldview that unions are intrinisaclly good because they tilt the playing field in the direction of the people you think government should favor.
The think that separates humans from the other animals is that human construct tools for future use. Like hammers, knives, guns, language, and computers, unions are tools that are niether inherintly good nor evil: they are simply tools that can be used by humans.
Economics is not the study of money, it is the study of human motivation. Unions (like guns, knives, language and computers) do not change human nature. Therefore, they will exist if they are usful and will cease to exist when they become obsolete.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 09:55am
And the American auto industry is being taken down by the health insurance industry, not unions.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 3:58pm
You don't know what you are talking about. Big companies self-insure. The health insurance companies charge an admin fee about 2% to administer claims for giant companies that can afford the ups and downs of healthcare costs. If is the promise to pay the health claims of retirees that is killing the big three. The value of those benefits are too high relative to the price of the cars that have been sold.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 10:06am
And the American auto industry is being taken down by the health insurance industry, not unions.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/12/2009 @ 3:58pm
You say this, not because you have any evidence what-so-ever to support the statement, but because you have a desire to believe it because it reinforces the worldview you want to believe in.
Your wishful thinking is not a basis for establishing government policy.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 10:09am
The laws of economics are laws, not mere suggestions.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll
Durwood, Which laws of economics are you talking about? The unwritten laws of supply and demand or the written laws of the land that are supposed to be followed by bankers, wallstreet, the FDIC, the SEC and so on?
The reason I ask is the supply and demand laws haven't been working too well as of late....hence the bailouts.
Now, as far as the U.S laws that have been stretched, bent and broken beyond any doubt, the SEC, Congress and President didn't do their jobs.
Please explain why the bankers were able to quit paying for their insurance and Congress (republican Congresses by the way) sat on their asses and did nothing?
Explain why the SEC sat on their asses with this whole Madoff situation for 10 years and also isn't looking up that Craig idiot's orifaces with a microscope after coming out publicy and saying that he manipulated markets for gain.
As we lowly folks have seen, the laws don't appear to apply to the rich and shameless. It's a different matter if your average Joe crosses the line though. They'll throw the book and Jesus Christ at that guy.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2009 @ 10:58am
This is why the employers don't want the rules to change.
from: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi? dbname=110_cong_reports&docid=f:hr023.110.pdf
The anti-union activities of employers have become far more sophisticated and brazen in recent history. Today, 25 percent of employers illegally fire at least one worker for union activity during an organizing campaign. Additionally, 75 percent of employers facing a union organizing drive hire anti-union consultants. During an organizing drive, 78 percent of employers force their employees to attend one-on-one meetings against the union with supervisors, while 92 percent force employees to attend mandatory, captive audience anti-union meetings. More than half of all employers facing an organizing drive threaten to close all or part of their plants.
Posted by Irmanator at 03/13/2009 @ 11:19am
"Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice." ---Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Again, just find it fascinating that IKE (to our friends on the Right) was either a lazy no-account...a fool...or a Marxist?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 11:36am
Ike in 2012!
Posted by gangpapist at 03/13/2009 @ 11:43am
And why Goldman-Sachs was able to pay < 1% in corporate tax last year because they repatriated all their profits from the rest of the globe.
Please. We don't understand why you vote for this.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/13/2009 @ 11:11am
Snowball, Here's the standard response to the taxation questions you posed. Trickle down. If Goldman Sachs is taxed 30% like you or me, then they'll set up shop where they don't have to pay taxes. It seems to be their standard response to anything requiring multi billion dollar businesses to anti in with the rest of us. Trickle down is more like pissing all over our backs and crapping on our heads as a grand finale.
The fact that these corporations reap the benefits and protections provided via the U.S. military using the sons and daughter's of tax paying folks. Compare the poor military families with the rich ivy league college folks' kids who don't don't join the military. So, they are all for using the military to protect their investments, just not paying for it, just like the cheap bastards that they are.
The other thing a lot of right wing liars don't point out is that a lot of them don't pay any taxes at all because they've hidden their money in overseas account, tax shelters etc. How does the CCR song Fortunate Son go? "When the tax man comes to the door the house looks like a rummage sale"?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2009 @ 11:55am
Again, just find it fascinating that IKE (to our friends on the Right) was either a lazy no-account...a fool...or a Marxist?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 11:36am
Wasn't it that commie Ike that came up with the Eisenhower Highway System? Yep, that bastard didn't like America. All of those federal roads should be owned by private investers from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, Germany and so on, not the American people for God's sake!! The American people owning their own country is socialism damn it just like that socialistic commie bastard Ike would have wanted it!!! LOL
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2009 @ 11:59am
They're screwing you so many ways, it's getting hard to keep track, but some of us are gonna have a lot more time on our hands for that kind of contemplation.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/13/2009 @ 12:12pm
Well, since they are using us like whores, the least they could do is pick up the tab. Maybe that's what we need. We need to hire some pimps to kick the crap out of the John's screwing us and then not paying for it!!LOL
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2009 @ 12:22pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2009 @ 07:06am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2009 @ 05:36am
1. I was not a foreman when I was a shop steward. Stewards were elected by the union members within the company. I was just an inspector in a machine shop at the time.
2. I am not "siding' with the rich. I have a principled belief based upon both real life experience and study that concludes that unionism is a bad choice for anyone with self respect and a desire to succeed in life.
3. And a little more on my real world experience. I have worked full time since age 15 (part-time since age 12). I supported my mom and siblings while in high school. I started as a dishwasher (fired after a week) and then worked 70 hours a week in high school before going in the military. I worked in the Aerospace industry for 20 years starting at the bottom washing racks of alum parts and then dipping them in chromate. Back breaking, stinking work. But I paid my dues and later managed, became an executive and even a partner in Aerospace companies. No unions, my efforts got me there.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 12:33pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/12/2009 @ 7:08pm
But Ike SUPPORTED unions, Larry... or didn't he know they were "Communist union thugs run by capitalist Mafiosos"? Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 08:10am
That's Ike's problem. I've said repeatedly that I wasn't a big fan of Ike.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 12:36pm
""Unions are for people who lack personal initiative, responsibility, self-confidence, and a self-reliance. People who are lazy and non-productive."
Fuck you."
Snowball, you have said all that needs to be said on the issue. I thank you. Posted by onthehelm at 03/13/2009 @ 08:13am
I stand by my statement. Nothing I have read here by union or former union members demonstrates anything to the contrary. Union people from reading examples are people unwilling to accept that life has risks, that no one is guaranteed that life will always be fair.
I make every effort to show my displeasure with unionism. I will gladly cross any picket line that I come across just to demonstrate my anti-union principles.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 12:37pm
Posted by crabwalk at 03/13/2009 @ 07:45am:
Not if it is secret. As long as you are not watched and your name is not tagged to a ballot, you have the freedom to safely vote as you please. If you are not allowed these things then it is not a secret ballot. If it takes a government organization to run the election then so be it. The fact is, the purpose of card check is to eliminate a secret ballot and individually intimidate employees to sign the card.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/13/2009 @ 12:43pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 12:37pm
You forgot to mention how the capitalist Mafiosos run the communist unions!
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 1:06pm
But I paid my dues and later managed, became an executive and even a partner in Aerospace companies. No unions, my efforts got me there. Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 12:33pm Liv, Sounds like you are a hard worker. My hat is off to you for your efforts.
Where you and I disagree is on the paths available now for a person from a poor or middle class family to achieve a the same results with the same effort.
What you were able to achieve is now much harder to pull off. I will use my dad as an example. He was able to raise four kids and purchase a home without a college education. He did this working in a steel mill and as a union member. When his union went on strike, our family went without and just barely had enough food at times. But, without that union, my dad never would have been able to accomplish what he did. He worked his ass off as did all the folks he worked with.
They had a company foreman watching their every move so the lazy union worker stereotype doesn't wash too well.
Finally, I had to make my bones in a similar fashion though I put myself through school. I look at young people struggling to get through college now and wonder why they are even trying. A good portion of their potential jobs have been outsourced to countries with lower economies than ours. That's great for consumers, but the problem is that the consumers in this country are also the workers. Without workers, those consumers will live on the bare necessities and nothing more which is where we are heading. There should be rewards for working hard and keeping with it, but those rewards should be somewhat proportional don't you think? Just beccause some guy makes risky gambles with other peoples' money shouldn't mean he should make 100 times more $$
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2009 @ 1:09pm
Hope you have good healthcare, Anti. The union guys I know do not 'lack personal initiative'. ;)
They are surprisingly responsible, especially when it comes to their kids, which is why they want a decent job and healthcare.
"Union people from reading examples are people unwilling to accept that life has risks, that no one is guaranteed that life will always be fair."
Just fighting to make sure that life doesn't have to ALWAYS be UNFAIR for MOST so John Thain can use a $35k crapper.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/13/2009 @ 12:57pm
I don't have healthcare benefits. I don't believe in using doctors or hospitals if at all possible.
It's funny that supporters of unionism like yourself argue that it's unionism that provides "fairness" and benefits to Americans. Yet somehow, nearly 90% of Americans aren't in unions and most are middle class, approx 70% own a home, most people have their medical needs taken care of, most Americans vacation and travel, nearly all Americans aren't starving (quite the opposite-we're the most obese nation on earth); I see most Americans driving cars, owning tv's and designer sneakers, theater attendance higher than ever, restaurants packed, soccer, baseball, and football fields packed with kids with nice uniforms and support gear that isn't cheap.
The fact is that it appears that the anecdotal evidence suggests that most people are succeeding pretty well compared to most of the world without unions.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 1:10pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 09:55am
Probably one of the most thoughtful responses to the union question. There is no principled BS here just shere fact. LVL is deluded completely into the repeated BS of the extreme right wing. While you have a much more measured response. Unions have done great things in this country in advancing the rights of workers and protecting them those bosses in cerain industries that would exploit them, particularly the ones who hired union busters to murder upstarts.
Now-a-days unions don't have as much of a need in certain industries. I work in film where the union is still solvent in order to protect workers rights and gain us some access to consistent healthcare, since our industry much like plumbing is up and down when it comes to jobs. However no one sane can even deny that the UAW played a helping hand in the current situation in the auto-industry.
Joining a union does not mean any of what LVL said. That is, again, being brainwashed by a lie. The same lie that says if you work hard you can pull yourself of by your bootstraps. There is a multitude of evidence to disprove that. I have seen people bust their asses and gain new skills and never move up in the work place. Only so many people can be at the top which logically means everyone else HAS to stay under them. So maybe one day LVL will join us in reality. Oh and LVL, the reason your example is BS is because you went from being and UNSKILLED worker to being a SKILLED worker. There are many many many SKILLED workers who make dirt and can't move up.
I applaud your thinking Darin. I am much along the same lines. Unions are neither good nor bad. They serve a purpose and when they no longer serve that purpose they go away.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 1:27pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 1:10pm
Hmm. I'm sure all those non-unionised workers in China who get paid pennies would agree.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 1:31pm
The fact is that it appears that the anecdotal evidence suggests that most people are succeeding pretty well compared to most of the world without unions.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 1:10pm
Yes, but you live in Californina which is a state of great wealth, or should I say a state of wealthy people, the state itself is broke.
Contrast where you live with where I live in the good ole SE USA. There are people down yonder more poor than you can imagine. Workers don't have too many rights in the south and the wages are lower. I don't see too many people runnin around in designer anything aside from the rich kids.
The schools all put a ton of money into their atheletic programs and cut money in the arts which is ironic considering a person can still do most of the arts when they are older versus not being able to run a 4.4 forty when they're forty.
This country is wealthy when contrasting it with other countries of course. But, this country is rapidly losing it's wealth. We are hemmoraging money out, but it isn't the well to do who are losing their shirts. It's the poor and middle class. It's high time the millionaires and billionaires in this country pull their heads out of their asses and pay their damn taxes and use their power to stop blowing money on useless wars and defense spending.
Our economy is like an elephant sitting on a chair with legs too small to support the load. The elephant is going to have to lose some weight, or we're going to have to add some more legs under the chair to support the weight, otherwise we'll all be crushed under the enormous load.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2009 @ 1:32pm
Oh and LVL, the reason your example is BS is because you went from being and UNSKILLED worker to being a SKILLED worker. There are many many many SKILLED workers who make dirt and can't move up.
I applaud your thinking Darin. I am much along the same lines. Unions are neither good nor bad. They serve a purpose and when they no longer serve that purpose they go away.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 1:27pm
You really are a pompus little.....
You overlook the obvious and central point. I went from being an unskilled worker to not a skilled worker but an executive, because of my determination and effort; not because of unions or govt programs.
It is also absolute leftist nonsense that a person with determination, perseverance, and a strong desire to succeed will not advance. It may require changing jobs, changing careers, or even moving to another county or state (all of which I did), and sometimes even taking a job in another country (which I also did); But the only thing that will ever hold back someone is themselves.
That is the truth and you are unwilling to accept the truth.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 1:36pm
I stand by my statement. Nothing I have read here by union or former union members demonstrates anything to the contrary. Union people from reading examples are people unwilling to accept that life has risks, that no one is guaranteed that life will always be fair.
I make every effort to show my displeasure with unionism. I will gladly cross any picket line that I come across just to demonstrate my anti-union principles.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 12:37pm
This is all just more of a brainwashing. You sound like your average scientologist. "Union people from reading examples are people unwilling to accept that life has risks, that no one is guaranteed that life will always be fair." You fault them for trying to make their lives livable? I have to agree with Wolfgang. The more advanced things become the harder it becomes to work your way up. Again, society can only support so many people at the top LVL. If EVERYONE works harder enough to get to the top it only follows that most of them won't be allowed.
Your irrational hatred of unions is ridiculous. They are part of the reason this country is as amazing as it is and to deny that is to deny a huge portion of our history. Yes it is true now unions are not needed in certain industries but they protect workers in others. Again in order to deny that you prove that you are not a student of reality but instead you live in a made up fantasy land in your head. You want proof that not everyone can work their up by just working hard?
"that no one is guaranteed that life will always be fair."
You said it brother. Life isn't fair you can work your butt off and never move up. SO doesn't it then follow that IF you are going to work your butt off you should at least be guaranteed the ability to live?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 1:41pm
You really are a pompus little.....
You overlook the obvious and central point. I went from being an unskilled worker to not a skilled worker but an executive, because of my determination and effort; not because of unions or govt programs.
It is also absolute leftist nonsense that a person with determination, perseverance, and a strong desire to succeed will not advance. It may require changing jobs, changing careers, or even moving to another county or state (all of which I did), and sometimes even taking a job in another country (which I also did); But the only thing that will ever hold back someone is themselves.
That is the truth and you are unwilling to accept the truth.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 1:36pm
No. I didn't miss the point. You went from being an UNSKILLED worker to a SKILLED worker. An executive is just a SKILLED worker when the company is publicly owned. They are still just an employee they just get paid more.
"It is also absolute leftist nonsense that a person with determination, perseverance, and a strong desire to succeed will not advance."
You already made the argument against yourself LVL. You said that life is not fair. Which means this is a complete lie. Since life is not fair it means even if you work hard you may never move up as you fairly deserve. Unless you are now going to try to argue that life is always fair?
"That is the truth and you are unwilling to accept the truth."
No that is a grand fabrication built up by companies long ago who didn't want their employees unionising. The same companies who resorted to murder so that they could continue to provide workplace where employees could likely die and could continue to pay them poverty wages.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 1:44pm
You really are a pompus little.....
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 1:36pm
Coming from you that is funny by the way. The person who comes here to tell everyone why they are wrong and he is right. Yeah that's not pompous at all.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 1:45pm
You said it brother. Life isn't fair you can work your butt off and never move up. SO doesn't it then follow that IF you are going to work your butt off you should at least be guaranteed the ability to live?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 1:41pm
"guarantee the ability to live"
that is pure marxism comrade CCC.
I'm not surprised that you fully endorse such a marxist dogma.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 2:10pm
Bullshit is a label you've attached to my personal experience.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/13/2009 @ 10:34am
Bullshit is the label I've attached to your perception of reality.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 2:19pm
I'm not surprised that you fully endorse such a marxist dogma.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 2:10pm
Hmm. No it's not. It's called having compassion. Call me a marxist all you want Anti. You know nothing about me you Fascist. You going to go back your Nazi handlers?
But then again you have shown no regard for truth and yet you complain constantly about people making false assertions about you. Of course you are a hypocrite so I shouldn't expect better.
If you think that people who work hard should not at least get the ability to live then you are a heartless human being who the world will be well rid of one day. You are the one sitting here spouting BS about how if you work hard you are GUARANTEED to move up. You then make a statement like this one proving that not even you believe your own BS.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 2:23pm
don't*
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 2:26pm
Posted by snowball666 at 03/13/2009 @ 2:25pm
Apparently Anti can't read or he is choosing to flat out lie. One or the other.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 2:27pm
"guarantee the ability to live"
that is pure marxism comrade CCC.
I'm not surprised that you fully endorse such a marxist dogma.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 2:10pm
Wait. So LVL you think the American dream is Marxist? Because that's what the founding fathers believed. That in America if a man works hard he is guaranteed to move up through the toil of his own labors? So are you saying the found fathers are Marxists?
"IF you are going to work your butt off you should at least be guaranteed the ability to live? "
That's what I said. So you actually believe that hard work does NOT guarantee you the ability to live?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 2:48pm
Posted by snowball666 at 03/13/2009 @ 1:53pm
Boy who can refute the overwhelming rebuttal evidence you provided.
I said approx 70% own their home
4th qtr 2008 stood at 67.8% down from 67.5 in 2007
http://tinyurl.com/b8pxhf
48% of households in 2007 had income between 30k and 99k according to Census Bureau
When you add in households at 100-200k which is considered by the Obama Admin to be middle-upper muddle class, you are at about 60-62%
http://tinyurl.com/d94nmb
All data shows less than 5% of Americans don't have their medical needs taken care. No breakdown is available about how many are like myself who choose not to use healthcare insurance or doctors.
Vacation and travel are not decreasing.
Cruise ship bookings are higher than any time in the past 10 years. Disney has no problems selling out either their cruises or Disney World. US bookings by the middle class to Cabo, Cancun and other destinations remain at all time highs.
Cruise lines continue to build and booking totals continue to increase
http://www.cruising.org/Press/overview2008/#cruiseMarket
Standard of living declining? Absolute nonsense. have most Americans lost their tv's, 100 dollar sneakers, Ipods, microwave ovens, cars, alt means of transportation, have all the movie theaters closed (no, they're full), and on and on.
Like most on the left, the glass is always half empty rather than half full. This 21st century liberalism thrives on doom and gloom, and everyone is suffering without massive govt and unionism.
The left has no message of hope, nor confidence in people or our imagination and creativity.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 2:49pm
Posted by snowball666 at 03/13/2009 @ 1:53pm
Dude, umemployment is like 10%? Each year, about 100 children drown in 5-gallon buckets. Fewer than that starve to death. This nightmare you see is a delusion. A very tiny fraction of the country is struggling like you see "everyone" doing.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 2:50pm
The left has no message of hope....---Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 2:49pm
As opposed to "If you don't elect us, the 'smoking gun' will be a mushroom cloud"?
or this "Message of hope"-
"Maybe it will be good to see this country fall..."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 12:47pm
Partisanship Isn't a Dirty Word posted by Ari Berman on 01/27/2009 @ 11:41am
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 3:03pm
Larry,
I agree with you most of the time. Here I'm more sympathetic to Comfy's argument. Philosphers have debated destiny/free will for centuries and they are still debating.
Let me put is this way: Can any US citizen make the US Olympic marathon team through sheer will and determination? No, you're born with a VO2 capacity of 60 or you're not and if you're not, you are not going to make the Marathon team.
Can any person be a model through sheer will and determination? No, you're born with looks and the right figure or you're not and surgery can't make that much of a difference.
If you are born with an IQ of 75, you are never going to lead a fortune 500 company and you are never going to be President.
If you are born with Downs Syndrome, no amount of effort is going to give you the income needed to buy a house and support you family.
Now 97.5% of Americans are born with an IQ > 70. But some of them are born into an environment where their culture doesn't instill a sense of "can do" spirt or belief in one's self.
Where I disagree with Comfy is the notion that the Government should guarantee outcomes to people who believe they are working hard.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 3:03pm
BTW, CCC....accusing Larry of being pompous?
Is a VAST understatement. The man literally thinks it's IMPOSSIBLE for him to be wrong-
"There is no possibility of being wrong when a president engages with his Democratic partners in crime in Congress to bankrupt the nation with the most massive illegal take over of the nation and theft of the people's money in our history.---Posted by antisocialist at 03/03/2009 @ 2:48pm
GOP Chair to Rush: "You're The Boss!" posted by John Nichols on 03/03/2009 @ 12:24am
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 3:05pm
Where I disagree with Comfy is the notion that the Government should guarantee outcomes to people who believe they are working hard.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 3:03pm
I don't think the government should either. Unions aren't the government.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 3:14pm
If you are born with an IQ of 75, you are never going to lead a fortune 500 company and you are never going to be President..... Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 3:03pm
Durwood, Now, we know this isn't true. W became president of the United States with an IQ of about 75 and he did run a few companies into the ground including the Texas Rangers. LOL See, therein lies the problem. The only people truly living the "American Dream" are the wealthy and well connected.
Most people would have made more of themsevles than W did with all of the opportunites he screwed off. The guy was a complete failure at pretty much everything he touched with the exception of spewing off rehearsed sound bites to be elected for public office.
I fear for my own survival in the future with this economy, but I am mortified about what my little girls will have to deal with in the future. The future of this country looks damn bleak.
The well to do believe that they are entitled to extreme wealth and others are entitled to extreme poverty and they don't see a problem with this. As I've pointed out before, we are becoming like a feudal system or more appropriately phrased, a cast system. The well connected seem to believe they have some sort of devine right to live as kings while others starve and wallow in poverty.
History shows that societies like that don't last too long....look at the Roman Empire. The Leaders became lazy, fat, arrogant and greedy and thought themselves superior to other nations only to have their asses handed to them on a platter....Cheney would have fit right in with that group. Really tough when others did his fighting for him just like most of the wealthy in the U.S.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2009 @ 3:39pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 3:03pm
In your sympathy w/CCC, you are taking liberty's writings as being universally true; which is not the way he intended, I think.
Like what Rush says in the CPAC speech he replayed today and I heard another portion: "I want every American to succeed!" Of course, your pointing out the <70 IQ or physically-handicapped folks is absolute truth and most will NOT succeed in the average, understood way, which is the conservative mantra of living up to ones' God-given POTENTIAL.
Where CCC was coming from, and I didn't read all of his posts, was fairly typical of the Libs by accentuating the outliers where efforts does NOT lead to commensurate levels of success.
Using a reverse example: like equating 100 persons who each week, buy $20 worth of lottery tickets from the same store for 10 years and at the end of that 10 years, the results weren't `fair'. They all tried with the same exact effort....now, flip it around, fortunately in the world of work, in a highly adaptive and opportunity-filled Pre-Magic economy like ours, most of the 100 people who tried hard, will `win' while a few, won't despite making the same efforts.
Posted by Happy at 03/13/2009 @ 3:41pm
snowball666: "Hope you have good healthcare, Anti. The union guys I know do not 'lack personal initiative'. ;) "
That's why they are called thugs.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/13/2009 @ 3:44pm
Using a reverse example: like equating 100 persons who each week, buy $20 worth of lottery tickets from the same store for 10 years and at the end of that 10 years, the results weren't `fair'. They all tried with the same exact effort....now, flip it around, fortunately in the world of work, in a highly adaptive and opportunity-filled Pre-Magic economy like ours, most of the 100 people who tried hard, will `win' while a few, won't despite making the same efforts.
Posted by Happy at 03/13/2009 @ 3:41pm
And I agree life is not always fair. But that sort of dashes LVL's argument. Work does not always lead to success is the truth of life. Does that mean you shouldn't work hard? Hell no it doesn't. Working hard increases your statistical chance of getting ahead. But it's a Republican myth that everyone who works hard or even 50% of everyone who works hard will get ahead. Since we can't track percentage this is all opinion. You guys like to posit that anyone who doesn't get ahead must have been lazy. While I differ in my opinion. While I believe there are many lazy lazy people out there. There are plenty of people who are middle-class, does that mean all those people are just mediocore?
Someone said that over 60% of people in the US are considered middle class. So does that mean everyone of those 60% are just underachievers because they aren't upper class? It's simple statistics Happy. A society can only support a certain amount of people in it's upper class. Therefore an entire society can not be upper class no matter how hard everyone works.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 4:18pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 3:03pm
I agree with you but from a different standpoint. I agree just wanting to become a rock star or olympic athlete won't get you there. But we each have to find our talents and devote ourselves to maximize our opportunities within that focus. And sometimes it even means our second best option.
But I want to relate about a childhood friend.
Brian Downing was a kid I grew up with in Southern California. He was a little younger than me. My dad didn't care for sports and I loved baseball. Brian's dad gave him all the equipment he needed although we both grew up in lower middle class families.
Brian was not a gifted athlete. In high school, he was not outstanding. In 2 years of jr college ball, he didn't impress anyone. A neighbor was a scout for the White Sox and they badly wanted Brian's best friend, Dennis. Dennis was an overpowering pitcher. When they signed Dennis, he would not sign unless they signed Brian.
Dennis blew out his arm in the minors. Brian made it to the Sox. Bill Melton once told me Brian was the hardest working player in baseball. Brian came to the Angels as a free agent. Became one of the greatest players in Angel history. Not because of natural talent, but a desire to overcome his own shortcomings and to succeed.
So much is up to the individual and that is my main point with those arguing the opposite.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 4:21pm
So much is up to the individual and that is my main point with those arguing the opposite.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 4:21pm
What do you say to all the people who work their asses off but don't make it LVL? You story is inspiring and all but again I can quote you plenty of stories of people putting their entire selves into something and completely failing. Is your response next time put more than your entire self in? Again you are out of touch with reality. You bought into the Horatio Alger myth. Not everyone succeeds. All these families who worked their butts off to move up and are no getting their homes foreclosed on is empirical evidence of that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 4:29pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 4:29pm
And by the way LVL I already know your response will be, well they all just cheated because you somehow believe you can make blanket statements like that without knowing these people and they are always "right". It has to do with your pompousness.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 4:30pm
Oh and LVL I noticed you ignored my question so I will ask it again. Are you saying that my statement that everyone who works hard should be guaranteed some sort of success is Marxist. Does that mean you are defending a Marxist lie? Considering you are saying that everyone who works hard will succeed.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 4:34pm
A society can only support a certain amount of people in it's upper class. Therefore an entire society can not be upper class no matter how hard everyone works.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 4:18pm
As you read from anti's comment....you see his background as lower middle class. I'm from solidly middle class. Today, most would say I'm in the upper class.
What you refuse to get, is the class-less society/economy we have, where with effort, just about anybody (other than IQ<70 or physically handicapped) can climb up. Rush Limbaugh didn't even go to, much less graduate from, college. Dell & Gates both dropped out of college.
Go to CNN/Money and read the 8 stories of people starting businesses over the past year or so....most are ordinary, middle-class folks. My bet is more than one will succeed and reach into the upper class. I also have no doubt, one or two will become discouraged when their venture fail and settle down in their present economic level for good.
Posted by Happy at 03/13/2009 @ 4:40pm
Posted by Happy at 03/13/2009 @ 4:40pm
No Happy as you may have missed I get all of this. But I also see reality. That there are many people who work their butts off that fail. That is life. Simple statistics say that not everyone who tries will succeed. You can increase your statiscal chance of moving up in class by working hard but you guys speak of it as if it is a guaranteed truth. It is not. I wish I could live in the dreamland that you guys occupy but I live in reality. Where plenty of people who work hard fail and fail again.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 4:44pm
Posted by Happy at 03/13/2009 @ 4:40pm
By the way our society isn't class-less. Being able to move between classes doesn't make a society or economy classless.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 4:45pm
Where plenty of people who work hard fail and fail again.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 4:44pm |
That is life.
and how you get up and try again is the measure of the man...not how fast you can work to make the guy who has risen above you get pulled down by the govt to your level for, as you cheer the effortws to make it harder for him.... for a "level field of fairness"...provided by govt, of course.
And then you hate him more when succeeds anyway by going around, through, or under all the obsticals you put in his path..and you take 50% or more of his income and you STILL call him greedy.
Most likely the level one is at is due to the lack of preparation on the individuals part to place himself in a position to rise...
I mean, how many english majors does America need? Or would we need more science/engineering back grounds? who would make more money, contribute more and be in more demand? engineers or English/ethnic studies major types who end up in govt destroying the opportunities of others?
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/13/2009 @ 5:01pm
CCC,
you made several followups relative to my comments so let me piggyback on Happy and JM.
I'm not saying everyone is guaranteed success. I'm saying that
1. liberals too quickly advocate for the govt to step in when people need to find more inner character and determination rather than govt reliance.
2. The bottom line isn't about everyone succeeding. It's about the dignity and self worth of trying your best without the crutch of letting govt do what you aren't. you will never find out your true character unless you do it on your own.
And if you fail, it's better to fail giving it 110% then to achieve mediocrity through a combination of your efforts and the crutch of govt.
I've had plenty of occasions when I could have gotten govt help and made life easier for myself and my family. But I've never resorted to that. It meant going without meals, it meant no normal activities and life at times, but that is part of life. I tried through my example and teaching to bring that same philosophy to my children.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 5:17pm
I've had plenty of occasions when I could have gotten govt help and made life easier for myself and my family. But I've never resorted to that. It meant going without meals, it meant no normal activities and life at times, but that is part of life. I tried through my example and teaching to bring that same philosophy to my children.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 5:17pm
You still ignored my question about the Marxist thing but whatever.
I will address one thing here because no where does my personal philosophy differ form yours and again I will repeat unions are not government intervention it is a group of workers getting together and forcing their own employers to treat them better through community cooperation.
On another issue the matter of going without eating. Some people would commend your bravery in sticking with your guns to achieve what you wanted to without help despite the suffering that you had to undertake. However some people would it's incredibly irresponsible to let your kids starve because of your pride. I'm not taking a stance on either side. But often times people resort to government help because they put their kids before their pride. They would rather get a little help from the government and relinquish a little pride so their kids could eat. You look down on them for that? For putting their kids before themselves?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 6:39pm
Oh and LVL I noticed you ignored my question so I will ask it again. Are you saying that my statement that everyone who works hard should be guaranteed some sort of success is Marxist. Does that mean you are defending a Marxist lie? Considering you are saying that everyone who works hard will succeed.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 4:34pm
What I'm saying is the principle of guaranteed wages and living is marxist.
And as corrected elsewhere, I wasn't saying that everyone who works hard will have "success". That is too subjective anyway to be that blanket of a statement.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 6:43pm
What I'm saying is the principle of guaranteed wages and living is marxist.
And as corrected elsewhere, I wasn't saying that everyone who works hard will have "success". That is too subjective anyway to be that blanket of a statement.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 6:43pm
I never said anything about guaranteed wages. I said you would be able to live that's a term with a VERY wide meaning. You can LIVE on minimum wage. You could probably live on less than minimum wage. Unless you condone slavery then you can at least agree that everyone who works should at least be making some money.
No where did I say anyone should have guranteed wages or living. So why then did you call me a Marxist? Is it because you use that word with no knowledge of what it means? Or is it because you just like to hurl insults with no actual reason behind them?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 6:57pm
Or something else in return in the case of internships.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 6:59pm
The reason we need strong unions is as a balance against high concentrations of capital/wealth, and the ability of that wealth to freely exploit the lowest cost option, irregardless of the social cost of that exploitation to the commons. Thus capital finds the cheapest slave wage, the location with the fewest pollution controls, the society with the most compliant police state, and the rest of us suffer as a result. Labor does not have the fluidity of capital - the only way it can defend its interests is to organize as a group. Adam Smith defended the right of labor to organize for exactly this reason, as he defended free markets. In the current world order, capital has all the freedom to exploit the lowest common denominator, while labor has none. The result has been predictable - lowering wage levels and standards of living, global warming, increasing social unrest. The right wingers on this thread post the usual nonsense about ipods, cruise lines, etc... without mentioning housing, health care, education - all of the basics that are increasingly becoming out of reach of the average citizen. Our current economic collapse is in no way due to unions - its due to a global economic order that gave all of the power to capital, and none to anyone else: a totalitarian mindset that favored pure scientific markets over all other social goods. Ayn Rand - Sheesh! The constant refrain of "socialist" is boring. I hope the EFCA passes. Our society is based on checks and balances - its time to restore that balance. The idea that union workers are somehow inherently lazy or stupid is yet another case of the right demonizing the non-believers. Notice how scared they are... Wimps!
Posted by Dwight Wall at 03/13/2009 @ 8:41pm
I've had plenty of occasions when I could have gotten govt help and made life easier for myself and my family. But I've never resorted to that. It meant going without meals, it meant no normal activities and life at times, but that is part of life. I tried through my example and teaching to bring that same philosophy to my children.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 5:17pm
This, to me, is the "content of character" that Dr King mentioned...on every level.
This separates those who view the negatives of America and DEMAND the rest of us, who somehow cheated, give them a piece of our work....and those who come here and sees a "no way can I lose!" opportunity.
THAT is the difference between those who claim they victims of 200 years of history, the conquistedores, the English, the Germans, the Jews, the Irish, the whites, the last name they were cursed with, the neighborhood, the fact they never knew the right people, ....and the those who come here from another country, of the same ethnic origin of those who have been here for generations,and with in 1/2 of a generation...own not only the business that they used to work for, but they own the entire block.
The ability to recognize an opportunity and not is teh biggest difference between success and ...a union job.
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/13/2009 @ 9:29pm
Oh please. Do me a favor, and don't quote Dr. King to support such utter tripe, a man who was a strong proponent of economic justice. Quit setting up these false analogies between the ideal entreprenuer and union workers - the world is much more complicated than your simple minded tropes depict. Of course, entreprenuerial activity should be supported, but the idea that somehow the EFCA is going to severely undermine this is idiotic. I'll tell you what has really undermined small business - Walmart. AIG. Citibank. Not a union worker in sight.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 03/13/2009 @ 10:03pm
From Wikipedia: "On March 29, 1968, King went to Memphis, Tennessee in support of the black sanitary public works employees, represented by AFSCME Local 1733.." Yeah, Dr. King sure hated those unions.
Oh, and for the self reliant aerospace manager, I bet that aerospace company you worked for never ever ever ever relied on any kind of government contract whatsoever. I'll bet it never ever ever had to deal with the FHA. That would seem to be a major break of your "principles". After all, why have air traffic controls - planes should just compete for airspace.
Behind every boot strappin Cheney, behind every brush clearin Bush, there is usually a very big government tit. The problem isn't socialist redistribution. The real problem is these jokers want that tit all to themselves. They want the tax shelters (which the rest of us pay for) they want the contracts (which the rest of us pay for) they want the infrastructure (which the rest of us pay for) they want compliant educated workforce (which the rest of us pay for) they want the freedom to pollute (which the rest of us pay for) they want the national defense (which the rest of us pay for) but, hey, according to them, we're the freeloaders!
Posted by Dwight Wall at 03/13/2009 @ 10:26pm
How dare you unionists attempt to reduce the amount of prey available to the sanctimonious rapacious bootstrappers and silver spooners.
Clearly these low hanging fruits of our society could have chosen to bud themselves much higher up the tree.
It's just the nature of life, he philosophically mused to himself. However that nagging voice kept asking whether a wolf or any other lower creature shared such disdain for his meal.
Posted by canaarak at 03/13/2009 @ 10:58pm
The ability to recognize an opportunity and not is teh biggest difference between success and ...a union job.
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/13/2009 @ 9:35pm
Once again a load of sentimental BS, not in keeping with reality. It's sweet to hear and all but when faced with reality that is not statistically supported and is becoming less and less the case as time passes. The reason you could do this stuff in America more than anywhere was because we were a brand no country with no previous system. Which meant the class system was not filled out. As the classes become more filled out there is less room at the top. Which means slowly but surely sentimental stuff like this becomes more and more of a fantasy and reality dawns that not everyone gets to move up. You may work just as hard and produce just as much as your neighbor but for some reason your neighbor will have success and you won't. You make work harder than some kid who has slacked off and was handed everything in life yet that person will be rich and famous and you will middle class.
You want proof that riches are not given out based on achievement? Paris Hilton.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 11:28pm
The ability to recognize an opportunity and not is teh biggest difference between success and ...a union job.
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/13/2009 @ 9:35pm
Oh an by the way. You want to know why you Republicans have so many examples to cite of success? Because that's what people want to hear. People don't like hearing about the person who busted their ass for years and never went anywhere. But if you choose to chip the skin and look underneath there are MILLIONS of stories of hard working people who never moved up in this "class-less" system. Who never gained anything more for all their efforts.
Essentially the Republican's SHOULD be saying IF you get lucky and happen to be at the right place, at the right time, with the right set of circumstances you MIGHT move up.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/14/2009 @ 12:27am
It's just the nature of life, he philosophically mused to himself. However that nagging voice kept asking whether a wolf or any other lower creature shared such disdain for his meal.
Posted by canaarak at 03/13/2009 @ 10:58pm
Brilliant!
Union Stew
You'll need:
100 union workers A large cauldron Salt Sanctimony
Using sharp knife, strip union workers of rights until well wounded. After rubbing salt into wounds, place into cauldron on high heat. Add sanctimony, and stir until boiling. Reduce boil to a low simmer and cover. When workers are soft, remove from cauldron and demonize. Dry with soft constitution, and place on rack to cool. Will be ready for serving when workers mouths shut.
Serves 1.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 03/14/2009 @ 12:49am
But if you choose to chip the skin and look underneath there are MILLIONS of stories of hard working people who never moved up in this "class-less" system. Who never gained anything more for all their efforts. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/14/2009 @ 12:27am
Most folks are hard working, average Joes who will never become super-entreprenuers. Wealth isn't just created by investment: labor also plays a vital role. Advocating for a society that creates a decent living for the average person benefits entreprenuers, labor, all of us. There is no free market: neocon supply side economics manipulates the market to send the rewards to the top every bit as much as the "socialist" systems they love to demonize. To claim that this is somehow "deserved" or "the natural order of things" is a gross understatement of the market manipulations that have been occuring, and for which we are now paying a very steep price. Simply look at the way retirement savings have been literally stolen out of workers pockets over the past 30 years - there was nothing "patriotic" or "good" about that at all - it was out and out theft. Progressives know that looking out for the least of us just might be what benefits the most of us.
We're smarter. We're braver. And we're tougher than these pampered punks with too much time on their hands.
Stand tall!
Posted by Dwight Wall at 03/14/2009 @ 01:15am
A society can only support a certain amount of people in it's upper class. Therefore an entire society can not be upper class no matter how hard everyone works.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 4:18pm
I know this isn't what you meant, but it sounds like your saying that since the "upper class" isn't open to everyone it should be outlawed- kind of like "whites only" clubs.
I think Larry's point is that, while 100% can't belong to the upper class at one time, theoretically, anyone can join with enough effort. I'm more suspect. I don't believe in economic determinism, but there is something close.
When you are born, your genes contain a probability function related to how tall you will be as an adult. Bob might be destined to 6 foot plus or minus 2 inches while mike might be destined for 5 foot plus or minus 2.
Exercise, nutrition, parents who smoke, will effect whether you are taller or shorter than your expected mean hieght at birth. Radical surgery can also make a difference (as could disease requiring amputation).
Some of the things you can control (exercise, job choice, nutritian, smoking) some of the things you don't.
This is where I disagree with Larry, no amount of effort will make Mike 6 foot.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting Larry. As a kid, I was told you can be anything you want if you just try hard enough. I think that's bullshit. I wasn't born with the personality, figure, or hair needed to lead a fortune 500 company. I wasn't born with the advantages needed to be elected Senator of my state. I don't have the looks to be an actor as successful as Tom Cruise. I don't have the intellectual capcity to earn a PhD in French literature. And no amount of effort will change that.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/14/2009 @ 06:17am
Posted by snowball666 at 03/14/2009 @ 06:46am
No one who has enterd the 3% or any of those working their way to that level, even if they never make it, believes that they do not have to pay for using Ikes roads or the system...just don't tax us so much that we lose interest in the goal..60% taxes is a dead hint. We will find other ways around and the govt will end up with LESS money.
what we are revolting against is the road blocks the govt puts in place to prevent or make it harder to rise above..punative taxes, the harsh laws restricting growth of business climates,the demonization of those who are there or almost there in the 3%..if they put themselves in a health risk to get there, then that is something the sick person needs to look at...
I imagine the bulk of nations 3% are...democrats..limosine libs... Pelosi, Feinsteins, Kennedys,..Hollywood...industrial leaders of a large size...all have their moneies safely away from the IRS..
Look at the criminals Obama has had a hard time getting into his cabinet? So much for change.
And yes, labor is part of the wealth creation formula...there is a larger pool of laborers than there are a pool of entrepeneurs out there with the grit to make things happen...
Encouraging guys to join a union is fine, but just remember...once in the union, they have ZERO chance of rising above to any level. They are stuck at the pay and the work load assigned by someone else....not matter what...and are W2ed, where half their check is gone before it is printed..
tried it for 2 years..no thanks...for me it defined failure and slavery....even as I failed 3 times...I kept and keep going ..the level behind the 3%..thats where the REAL govt exists...
and not one is in a union...they helped create the unions..hmmmm
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/14/2009 @ 10:11am
WTF are you talking about with 60% taxes?
Even the last part of my marginal tax rate is near half-that after deductions.
And the economy grew just fine when Ike was building those roads and corporations paid 90% on their tippy-top income bracket. The 50s and 60s were the best growth we've ever seen.
You don't see that there's at least SOME correlation between Goldman-Sachs paying < 1% tax and the situation in which we find ourselves?
The top 3% are: chemical engineers, patent lawyers, and INVESTMENT BANKERS.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/14/2009 @ 10:50am
So many distortions, so little time.
60% taxes.
If you live in a high tax state like california, are self employed and have an taxable income of 47,000, here's what you pay.
Fed effective rate of approx 18%
FICA of 15.2%
State Income tax rate of 9.55%
Average property tax bill in CA- approx $3500 =7.4% of AGI
Gas tax in CA w/Fed= 15.5% per gal of gas 15 gals per week @2.25
Add state sales tax in LA or SF approx 10%
You are well over 50% in taxes.
If you are "upper middle income" household like a fireman and a teacher, that rate increases to approx 62-65%
Posted by antisocialist at 03/14/2009 @ 12:11pm
He's distorting the numbers. The fed rate is actually 13 - 17% depending on filing status. He's also equating consumption with income taxes. Because he is self employed, he no doubt is using business write offs to lower his reported income substantially - the combination of higher consumption and lower income (through write offs) creates the illusion he's trying to create. If he isn't using tax write offs, he is an idiot. However, this also points to another problem with the neocons - they have managed to shift tax burdens down to the lower income brackets, while basically exempting the upper brackets. That's why Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher percentage than he does. It is a regressive tax system, not a progressive. The same can be said about consumption taxes. Unions, by the way, have been one of the strongest advocates for creating a more balanced tax structure.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 03/14/2009 @ 12:49pm
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/06/warren-buffet-p.html
Posted by snowball666 at 03/14/2009 @ 12:29pm
the Buffet I believe was referring to his corporate tax rate, not his individual rate.
he doesn't pay the full FICA the way any of us self employed who are not incorporated pay. That's 15.2% by itself. He only pays 7.65 on the first 96,000. then 6.25 on the rest of his personal income. Like most, he takes a small salary and has most of his perks and benefits like vehicles, club memberships, meals out, entertainment paid by the corporation.
I operate a tax service and I am speaking from some knowledge on the subject.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/14/2009 @ 12:49pm
'Serves 1'
Perfect
Posted by canaarak at 03/14/2009 @ 1:42pm
He's distorting the numbers. The fed rate is actually 13 - 17% depending on filing status. He's also equating consumption with income taxes. Because he is self employed, he no doubt is using business write offs to lower his reported income substantially - the combination of higher consumption and lower income (through write offs) creates the illusion he's trying to create. If he isn't using tax write offs, he is an idiot. However, this also points to another problem with the neocons - they have managed to shift tax burdens down to the lower income brackets, while basically exempting the upper brackets. That's why Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher percentage than he does. It is a regressive tax system, not a progressive. The same can be said about consumption taxes.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 03/14/2009 @ 12:49pm
the idiocy has been your posts the past two days.
1st of all, I'm not stupid enough to give my own numbers. I used an example of a cross section of clients. The numbers reflect after deductions.
As to shifting the burden, this is where you reveal that you have no idea what your talking about.
The top 1% pay 39% of personal income taxes according to the IRS. It was 37% in 2000 and 19% in 1980 when the top rate was 70%.
The top 25% pay 86% and the top 50% pay 97%.
40% of Households pay ZERO.
And according to the Tax Foundation 2007 study:
"We find households in the lowest quintile of income received roughly $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004, while households in the middle quintile received $1.30, and households in the top quintile received $0.41."
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp1.pdf
Like many on the left, you prefer to spin disinformation and lies
Posted by antisocialist at 03/14/2009 @ 1:49pm
Maybe I'm misinterpreting Larry. As a kid, I was told you can be anything you want if you just try hard enough. I think that's bullshit. I wasn't born with the personality, figure, or hair needed to lead a fortune 500 company. I wasn't born with the advantages needed to be elected Senator of my state. I don't have the looks to be an actor as successful as Tom Cruise. I don't have the intellectual capcity to earn a PhD in French literature. And no amount of effort will change that.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/14/2009 @ 06:17am
I completely agree with you. Saying that anyone can be anything is just ignoring the realities of circumstance. Anyone can be anything IF they get lucky enough to be suited to be that thing.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/14/2009 @ 2:33pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/14/2009 @ 2:33pm
College degree will get you in the door, demonstative competence will get you the job,a work ethic will keep you at the job, fortitude will get you an advancement...and drive will get you to open up a company to compete with the one you are working at...:)
Nothing is guarenteed...determination is worth more than luck...Robert Kennedy JR has luck....ALGORE had luck.....my neighbor has determination..
And a union will keep you in the job at minimal increases in wages based on your time there...like the hotel workers unions...or the DMV..it will not matter how fast or how many more liscense plates or sheets you change.. you are paid the same...no competition and no room for innovations..perfect for union formation, which is why it thrives in unskilled areas(govt)...skilled workers can almost name their own ticket if they wish to push the issue...and form their own business.
More and more people are 1099 earners than W-2..for a reason.
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/14/2009 @ 4:06pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/14/2009 @ 4:06pm
Film is unionised and skilled labor. You guys always say unions can't survive in non-government areas. But unions DO survive in non-government areas IFt he union has use in protecting it's employees. Not ALL unions are bad and they all once had a purpose. Some no longer do, UAW, but some still have a purpose and a use in protecting the people who work under them. A blanket statement like all unions are bad is a subscription to rhetoric more than thinking freely and examining what unions have done for this country in the past and examining ALL of the current unions rather than just the few bad eggs.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/14/2009 @ 4:51pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/14/2009 @ 4:51pm |
There are always excepptions to the rukes ...thanks for pointing out the exceptions...
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/14/2009 @ 6:47pm
What would you wager is above and below the table (i.e. what about the 3rd segment, untaxed income)?
Posted by snowball666 at 03/14/2009 @ 8:56pm
Go to a consumtion tax and it wont matter how or how much one gets paid...all will pay a consumtion tax..with exemptions below a certain income level...
That way the libs wont have any class envy to keep them awake at night.
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/14/2009 @ 10:28pm
Let the unions do their thing and co-opt them. My family tree is chock full of die-hard union guys and NONE of them ever heard of Eugene Debs or Saul Alinsky.
The unions are full of decent folk, and we all know it. The fact that many people are satisfied with a job well done producing quality product and providing for their families is not a lack of grit or anything else. It is not a function of mediocrity to forego the quest for waterfront mansions to earn by sweat, skill, and tricep a small piece of the dream for you and yours.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/14/2009 @ 11:32pm
"Right-to-fire" laws are unconstitutional on first, third, eleventh, and thirteenth amendment grounds, at the very least. Employees have a right to earn a decent living from their work. They have a right to expect decent working conditions. They don't have to put up with flexible schedules that work against them, steadfast refusal to pay a living wage, and practial enslavement to their bosses. They can quit, you say, but work where? Most people are hard workers who are being stripped of their lives to be underpaid and abused. If the Government refuses to protect the working person in favor of the wealthy non-producer who's raking it all in, then employees have the right to protect themselves, and increase their rightful wages, by forming a union. End of story.
Posted by Kristev at 03/15/2009 @ 01:15am
I live in CA, am self-employed, know that FICA/OASDI taps out for people in my income bracket in July, don't pay property taxes (at least not directly, I can do exponentiation and recognize asset bubbles, so I rent and save and wait), only bought ~80 gallons of gas last year, and don't spend money such that sales tax concerns me enough to even replace it with shipping costs.
Some of these choices define why I see these taxes differently than you do.
And that 17.7% rate was on Warren's personal $46M take as a hedge manager, not Berkshire's billions.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/14/2009 @ 1:43pm
I'm also in CA and my property tax bill is just over $4000. I bought over 1400 gallons of gas last year just for business travel.
For Self-employed as you know, we pay the entire 15.3%. Yes, half is deductible, but it's still an expense.
And lost in this is my original point. That of the effect on average middle class families. Not upper middle class like yourself.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/15/2009 @ 11:46am
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/14/2009 @ 10:28pm
The exemptions to the rule are the reasons that life shouldn't have rules. It's the reason you can't subscribe to rhetoric in the way that LVL does because then you ignore the ones that truly work. I stand in the middle on unions. I don't think they are bad or good. They just are. When they lose their usefulness they go one of two ways quick and clean or slow and painful. The UAW is going slow and painful and due to their aiding the auto industry in it's downfall they are taking many of us with them.
On the matter of a consumption tax. You say that some people would get exemption because of income level. How would that work? If it's in the form of a sales tax how would the seller know that the person was below a certain income level?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/15/2009 @ 3:11pm
When did you buy your house? Pre-Prop 13? And what kind of interest do you get to write off?
Posted by snowball666 at 03/15/2009 @ 2:42pm
I bought my house in 2003. We had been in the mission field off and on so we rented for years.
I write off about 22k per year in interest.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/15/2009 @ 4:30pm