Without unions, everyone would be working at least 6 days a week, kids included. Job safety would be even more of a joke than it is now. There would have been no middle class. And on and on.
THe key is WOULD HAVE BEEN. Unions, like all organizations that vie for power, become bloated, top heavy, and greedy over time. While I agree unions have donw many things for the middle class and worker safety, etc., isn’t it time to work WITH management and not demand more and more when the rest of society is getting less and less? Remember, unions have been the downfall of many a company too….and that means NO ONE works. Think of the steel mills and the auto industry. If it weren’t for unions and their greed for more money and power, both of those industries in this country would be strong and healthy.
There has to be balance and cooperation from both sides for it to work. That includes unions.
jc42, unions did not make the middle class, they just made working for a living better. Calling ourselves middle class is one of the biggest hoaxes ever.
Senor, it’s way past time to stop the fiction. Rich people do NOT go tax free. In fact, they pay the vast majority of taxes. And if you don’t like subsidies, then watch the demise of alternative energy.
magicman, wrote: Remember, unions have been the downfall of many a company too….and that means NO ONE works. Think of the steel mills and the auto industry. If it weren’t for unions and their greed for more money and power, both of those industries in this country would be strong and healthy.
There you err. Several things put those industries out of business, mostly the greed and poor management by corporate heads. Labor is just an easy target.
Yes, unions can give - but folks like Walker also lie about what unions do or don’t do. He says they should finally contribute something toward their health care when in fact they already are.
As far as the State of Wisconsin goes, the money was there all along - corporations and the morbidly rich are doing better than ever - it’s just that they are getting more and more tax breaks. The country does better when the gap between the ultra rich and middle class is relatively small.
“and work himself into a better job”
And where might one find that today?
Walmart®? McDonalds®?
Cluelessness seems such a safe place for those that have the fortune of employment security that others do not. It’s time for Americans to withdraw their maws from the Fox News syphon of lies and less-than-half truths, wake up and share at least a little empathy for the unemployed.
Americans corporations pay for our legislators’ campaigns so they can demand that American laws coddle Capitalism. Examples: Bank of America pays 11% in taxes; Tom Cruise uses the law to pay only $400 in property taxes on a huge spread in Telluride. I’m an American old enough to remember when unions were at their peak (1960s), corporations were regulated, and our economy was booming. Now I expect to die in a banana republic. People throughout the world describe America as an empire in decline. I agree.
Americans corporations pay for our legislators’ campaigns so they can demand that American laws coddle Capitalism.
Americans Unions pay for our legislators’ campaigns so they can demand that American union public sector employees receive more benefits and entitlements, beyond the scope of reality.
^I have a problem with businesses lobbying my Congressman just as much as I have a problem Unions doing the same thing. We need campaign finance reform and fund our elections so that our congressmen answer to us.
BTW your claim that Unions ask for more is largely exaggerated.
^^ I think the one big issue with creating a gov’t paid gov’t political lobby is that it’s a direct conflict of interests. With private business there is still a separation. But with gov’t employees there is not.
It’s one thing for an employee to lobby or whatnot. It’s another to have an entity created for the primary purpose of political lobbying for a specific political party without being recognized as such, nor with that being their primary puropse (like, let’s say a teacher’s union).
At least with the GOP and DNC we know their goal and what they represent. But with gov’t unions like teachers unions who spend the much of their coffers (which happen to be filled with public money not voluntarily provided by tax payers) specifically promoting a political party and ideology (even if its contrary to many or even most of its members) without said public openness or equal alternative is just not ethical at all.
It’s one thing if the unions, let’s say teacher’s unions, were doing a necessary job… let’s say improving the quality of education. But they don’t and they aren’t. Yes, they do get their members better pay, better benefits, access to lawyers, etc., but little to none of that causes a quality effect in the classrooms. But it does milk the taxpayers with zero influence and/or oversight by those same taxpayers. Just saying.
DjGuardian, you really don’t have a clue what teacher unions do. You speak off the hip about something you probably heard off of Fox ‘news’. To put it as succinctly as possible, if you actually think our nation would be better served by people with no voice in their job of teaching children, then there is nothing I could possibly say to you that would make you see the light.
DjGuardian, you really don’t have a clue what teacher unions do. You speak off the hip about something you probably heard off of Fox ‘news’. To put it as succinctly as possible, if you actually think our nation would be better served by people with no voice in their job of teaching children, then there is nothing I could possibly say to you that would make you see the light.
DjGuardian, you really don’t have a clue what teacher unions do. You speak off the hip about something you probably heard off of Fox ‘news’. To put it as succinctly as possible, if you actually think our nation would be better served by people with no voice in their job of teaching children, then there is nothing I could possibly say to you that would make you see the light.
DjGuardian, you really don’t have a clue what teacher unions do. You speak off the hip about something you probably heard off of Fox ‘news’. To put it as succinctly as possible, if you actually think our nation would be better served by people with no voice in their job of teaching children, then there is nothing I could possibly say to you that would make you see the light.
“isn’t it time to work WITH management and not demand more and more when the rest of society is getting less and less? ”
I think when management is making almost 200 times the wage of the average worker, they’re not working with anyone.
“Rich people do NOT go tax free. In fact, they pay the vast majority of taxes.”
If I pay 1% of my piece of the pie, and own 90% of it, by simple math, I’m going to pay a larger portion with my 1% than those who only have 10% of the pie to contribute 1% with.
But factually, the “rich” pay less in percentage of income taxes than the middle class (this is an irrefutable fact) because Capital Gains are taxes at 15%, which is lower than anyone making $50,000 or more is taxes.
Yes, they pay the MOST taxes, but that’s because through class warfare they have accumulated 90% of the wealth. How is 10% supposed to pay out an equal amount? It’s mathematically impossible.
^^^ As we all know, teachers come in at 7 and leave at 2 and that’s the end of their work day, too, like the media narrative says. A couple of bad apples spoil the bunch. Yet we weren’t supposed to be worried about this when bankers were getting away with murder running around with taxpayer funded bonuses. “Those bonuses were in their contracts.” Contracts are sacred when you’re rich, I suppose. *
Kvasir42 Premium Member about 13 years ago
Without unions, everyone would be working at least 6 days a week, kids included. Job safety would be even more of a joke than it is now. There would have been no middle class. And on and on.
magicman7 Premium Member about 13 years ago
THe key is WOULD HAVE BEEN. Unions, like all organizations that vie for power, become bloated, top heavy, and greedy over time. While I agree unions have donw many things for the middle class and worker safety, etc., isn’t it time to work WITH management and not demand more and more when the rest of society is getting less and less? Remember, unions have been the downfall of many a company too….and that means NO ONE works. Think of the steel mills and the auto industry. If it weren’t for unions and their greed for more money and power, both of those industries in this country would be strong and healthy. There has to be balance and cooperation from both sides for it to work. That includes unions.
grapfhics about 13 years ago
jc42, unions did not make the middle class, they just made working for a living better. Calling ourselves middle class is one of the biggest hoaxes ever.
beenthere41 about 13 years ago
Senor, it’s way past time to stop the fiction. Rich people do NOT go tax free. In fact, they pay the vast majority of taxes. And if you don’t like subsidies, then watch the demise of alternative energy.
cdward about 13 years ago
magicman, wrote: Remember, unions have been the downfall of many a company too….and that means NO ONE works. Think of the steel mills and the auto industry. If it weren’t for unions and their greed for more money and power, both of those industries in this country would be strong and healthy.
There you err. Several things put those industries out of business, mostly the greed and poor management by corporate heads. Labor is just an easy target. Yes, unions can give - but folks like Walker also lie about what unions do or don’t do. He says they should finally contribute something toward their health care when in fact they already are.
As far as the State of Wisconsin goes, the money was there all along - corporations and the morbidly rich are doing better than ever - it’s just that they are getting more and more tax breaks. The country does better when the gap between the ultra rich and middle class is relatively small.
Pjbflyn about 13 years ago
“and work himself into a better job” And where might one find that today? Walmart®? McDonalds®? Cluelessness seems such a safe place for those that have the fortune of employment security that others do not. It’s time for Americans to withdraw their maws from the Fox News syphon of lies and less-than-half truths, wake up and share at least a little empathy for the unemployed.
lmanningok about 13 years ago
Americans corporations pay for our legislators’ campaigns so they can demand that American laws coddle Capitalism. Examples: Bank of America pays 11% in taxes; Tom Cruise uses the law to pay only $400 in property taxes on a huge spread in Telluride. I’m an American old enough to remember when unions were at their peak (1960s), corporations were regulated, and our economy was booming. Now I expect to die in a banana republic. People throughout the world describe America as an empire in decline. I agree.
josefw about 13 years ago
Americans corporations pay for our legislators’ campaigns so they can demand that American laws coddle Capitalism.
Americans Unions pay for our legislators’ campaigns so they can demand that American union public sector employees receive more benefits and entitlements, beyond the scope of reality.
WarBush about 13 years ago
^I have a problem with businesses lobbying my Congressman just as much as I have a problem Unions doing the same thing. We need campaign finance reform and fund our elections so that our congressmen answer to us.
BTW your claim that Unions ask for more is largely exaggerated.
DjGuardian about 13 years ago
Sorry, I actually thought that was a funny toon.
DjGuardian about 13 years ago
^^ I think the one big issue with creating a gov’t paid gov’t political lobby is that it’s a direct conflict of interests. With private business there is still a separation. But with gov’t employees there is not.
It’s one thing for an employee to lobby or whatnot. It’s another to have an entity created for the primary purpose of political lobbying for a specific political party without being recognized as such, nor with that being their primary puropse (like, let’s say a teacher’s union).
At least with the GOP and DNC we know their goal and what they represent. But with gov’t unions like teachers unions who spend the much of their coffers (which happen to be filled with public money not voluntarily provided by tax payers) specifically promoting a political party and ideology (even if its contrary to many or even most of its members) without said public openness or equal alternative is just not ethical at all.
It’s one thing if the unions, let’s say teacher’s unions, were doing a necessary job… let’s say improving the quality of education. But they don’t and they aren’t. Yes, they do get their members better pay, better benefits, access to lawyers, etc., but little to none of that causes a quality effect in the classrooms. But it does milk the taxpayers with zero influence and/or oversight by those same taxpayers. Just saying.
khranicky about 13 years ago
DjGuardian, you really don’t have a clue what teacher unions do. You speak off the hip about something you probably heard off of Fox ‘news’. To put it as succinctly as possible, if you actually think our nation would be better served by people with no voice in their job of teaching children, then there is nothing I could possibly say to you that would make you see the light.
khranicky about 13 years ago
DjGuardian, you really don’t have a clue what teacher unions do. You speak off the hip about something you probably heard off of Fox ‘news’. To put it as succinctly as possible, if you actually think our nation would be better served by people with no voice in their job of teaching children, then there is nothing I could possibly say to you that would make you see the light.
khranicky about 13 years ago
DjGuardian, you really don’t have a clue what teacher unions do. You speak off the hip about something you probably heard off of Fox ‘news’. To put it as succinctly as possible, if you actually think our nation would be better served by people with no voice in their job of teaching children, then there is nothing I could possibly say to you that would make you see the light.
khranicky about 13 years ago
DjGuardian, you really don’t have a clue what teacher unions do. You speak off the hip about something you probably heard off of Fox ‘news’. To put it as succinctly as possible, if you actually think our nation would be better served by people with no voice in their job of teaching children, then there is nothing I could possibly say to you that would make you see the light.
josefw about 13 years ago
Who donates more to who???
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?type=L
Quite a few unions near the top of the list. The Koch Bros are #83 so stop mentioning their name.
Jaedabee Premium Member about 13 years ago
“isn’t it time to work WITH management and not demand more and more when the rest of society is getting less and less? ”
I think when management is making almost 200 times the wage of the average worker, they’re not working with anyone.“Rich people do NOT go tax free. In fact, they pay the vast majority of taxes.”
If I pay 1% of my piece of the pie, and own 90% of it, by simple math, I’m going to pay a larger portion with my 1% than those who only have 10% of the pie to contribute 1% with. But factually, the “rich” pay less in percentage of income taxes than the middle class (this is an irrefutable fact) because Capital Gains are taxes at 15%, which is lower than anyone making $50,000 or more is taxes. Yes, they pay the MOST taxes, but that’s because through class warfare they have accumulated 90% of the wealth. How is 10% supposed to pay out an equal amount? It’s mathematically impossible.^^^ As we all know, teachers come in at 7 and leave at 2 and that’s the end of their work day, too, like the media narrative says. A couple of bad apples spoil the bunch. Yet we weren’t supposed to be worried about this when bankers were getting away with murder running around with taxpayer funded bonuses. “Those bonuses were in their contracts.” Contracts are sacred when you’re rich, I suppose. *