Lisa Benson by Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson

Comments (27) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    ^ Appreciate the perspective Morty.

  2. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 4 years ago

    There have been corrupt, even criminal, union members in the last 100+ years.. In my opinion, there have been even more corrupt and criminal business owners/managers. There has definately been greedy and self serving politicians in local and state government.
    The good corporations and business owners need little oversight. But people like Collis P. Huntington(“We Shall Build Good Ships Here; At A Profit If We Can, At A Loss If We Must, But Always Good Ships.”) are not why unions came about, though his shipyard did have a dedicated union. Good politicians don’t need to have their feet to the fire, they will make the unpopular votes and say what needs be said in order to serve the people and the Constitution.
    Unions aren’t needed if bosses and politicians are honest, honorable, and willing to put safety over profit.
    But that is not the case.
    Unions, good unions, don’t just get people elected. They don’t just protect the pay and benefits of skilled and unskilled workers. They force a standard of safety and quality on which consumers can depend. They protect workers who blow the whistle on safety violations, or EEO violations, or dangers to the environment and people in the area, and much much more.
    Unions are important and the attacks against them as a whole seems more like the recent efforts to make voting more difficult. Since unions tend to help Dems, Rep administrations in many states, are limiting the ability of Unions to exist just as they have created additional difficulties for minorities, young people, and old people to register to vote or actually vote.
    Morty and Redkay, enjoyed both of your posts. Thank you for the perspective.
    & Happy Holidayze

  3. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, almost 4 years ago

    If one corporate CEO is equal to 1000 workers compensation-wise, and can negotiate as a single party for that massive amount of compensation, why shouldn’t the 1000 workers?

  4. furnituremaker

    furnituremaker said, almost 4 years ago

    unions also train their workers to do stuff right…never belonged to a union,but I appreciate what they do, when they
    are honest, that is

  5. ossiningaling

    ossiningaling said, almost 4 years ago

    Just to be clear, in America this is not about unions it is about putting Republicans permanently in power. Shutting down unions takes money and influence away from Democratic campaigns increasing the likelihood that a Republican will be elected.
    And once they have the legislative and executive branches, they can do two things: ram through laws and appoint judges without debate. And once they are entrenched in a state, they are entrenched nationally.

  6. dean

    dean said, almost 4 years ago

    hee hee, thanks Lisa

  7. mikefive

    mikefive said, almost 4 years ago


    That’s only the big multi-national CEOs that make that kind of money. The annual mean for a chief executive is $176,550.

  8. Jim Guess

    Jim Guess said, almost 4 years ago

    WRONG! Right to work means you don’t have to belong to a union to get a job. There are several states that are right to work states. And, guess what? The unemployment is LOWER in those states than the national average! What is unemployment in Michigan?


  9. Jim Guess

    Jim Guess said, almost 4 years ago

    Maybe, Evil, it is possible that Lisa DOES think for herself instead of following lock-step what the UNIONS want to tell her to say.

  10. Jim Guess

    Jim Guess said, almost 4 years ago


    Sounds like what the DemoTAXocrats have been doing for forty years now …

  11. Darren Blair

    Darren Blair said, almost 4 years ago

    Thing is, here in the US a lot of unions are legitimately guilty of corruption, negligence, and/or incompetence.
    For example, the SEIU (Service Employee’s International Union) has had lawsuits filed against it for coercive behavior during union drives. There have been numerous accounts of SEIU members openly harassing people in organizations that they are attempting to unionize, with individual members standing accused of physical intimidation and even confronting people at home in an effort to force them to vote to join the SEIU.
    As you can imagine, the SEIU sending busloads of purple-shirted members and representatives to Obama’s town hall meetings about Obamacare didn’t help matters any, as it allowed opponents of the administration to indulge in totalitarian imagery (“He’s calling in the storm troopers to silence the dissenters!”), especially after an incident in which a protestor allegedly was injured by an SEIU member who threw a punch at him.

  12. D PB

    D PB said, almost 4 years ago

    Nice lie, but not unexpected. Try exercising your brain a little, look at what the right to work laws prohibit (forced unionism) and what they don’t (your lie).
    That would be asking you to stretch a little though and not go to the daily kos for your talking points, try stepping away for a moment, broaden your sources.

  13. D PB

    D PB said, almost 4 years ago


    Ah, so you are in favor of unions having undue influence in elections, spending their members dues on political candidates and causes that the membership may not support?
    Your diatribe is interesting if it were true, what we really have is quite the opposite. Just take a look at California where unions have been quite able to have undue influence in elections. When the bill comes due and the union boss visit his favorite purchased candidate we get the likes of retirement benefits that can’t be funded, retirement after 20 years at 75% of final salary, no performance requirements, guaranteed job, etc, etc.
    Many municipalities in this state are on the brink of or have declared bankruptcy, the state is not that far behind. If actually hope it happens, the Governor, the Senate and the Assembly are all Democratic or have a super majority now, they won’t have anyone to blame but themselves for the coming failure.

  14. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    All this warm and fuzzy dialog about unions is great but it ignores the realities of today’s business environment. The unions have priced themselves out of a market. As evidenced by the L.A. harbor strike. The longshoreman’s clerical union struck over outsourcing. Thier wage package today is 165,000 a year and the new contract they will be at 195,000, all wages and benefits included. A bit pricey for a clerical job? All this has done is provide incentive for the right to work states with ocean harbors to develop new ports. It’s prompted the widening and improvements to the Panama canal. Oh yes, and Morty’s glowing discussion about Germany is fine, for Germany. They have a completely different economic situation for production and export than we do and our GDP is 6 times larger than Germany’s. Making comparisons between the two countries is unrealistic on many levels, business and labor being one of them and their government structure is very different from ours.

    All these stories about sweatshops and slave labor if the unions aren’t around? Hardly. They are 9% (approx) of the labor force and declining in numbers. The biggest gains are in municipal unions and they are rapidly bankrupting state and local governments with their unfunded pensions and benefits (most recently 4 cities in California).

    Aside from the economics, federal, state and local, labor and safety regulations on the books protect the American worker better than most in the world. I worked in corporate accounting a good part of my life and the labor laws and regulations in force today needs an internal labor force all it’s own just to make sure companies are in compliance.

    I’m sure this does nothing to change anyone’s mind and that’s irrelevant anyway. The economics of the situation will continue to dominate the argument regardless of political conviction. And please don’t accuse me of being a republican, I’m a Libertarian and left the mainstream political ranks years ago.

  15. charliekane

    charliekane said, almost 4 years ago

    . . . et al.

    The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, outlawed the union shop and the closed shop. Hence, since 1947, federal law has prohibited “forcing” or “requiring” anyone to join a union as a condition of work.

    Right to Work laws do not literally protect the “right to work.” What they do is outlaw the agency shop.

    In an “agency shop”, no one is required to join a union, but if a union collectively bargains for the employees, a “fair share” fee is deducted from non-union employees’ wages to allow the union to recoup expenses of representation. Any portion of union members union dues that cover strike funds, union political activity, etc., are not charged to the non-union employee. The non-union employee would pay reduced dues.

    Conservatives say they champion freedom, but in the case of the agency shop, RTW laws positively limit freedom of contract, i.e. the freedom of the employer and union to agree to have an agency shop. What this legislation gives to employees is the right to benefit from collective bargaining, without helping to foot the bill.

    Obviously, RTW laws are intended only to weaken unions.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (12).