Labor Day
Posted by
tgirsch
Never forget that most of the benefits we in the working class take for granted today are ones we have because people in labor unions literally fought, and sometimes died, to obtain them.
I have issues with some unions, but I’d much rather live in a world with them than without them.
Hell, I’m a hardcore capitalist and I’ve got no problem with unions in general. Some groups and individuals and union-side laws in them are a problem, sure, but then again there are some business owners and business-side laws that could step under a semi without me shedding tears.
On the other hand, methinks you might be overstating the benefits, at least for a good group of folk. From a network administration viewpoint, I don’t get too much from unions.
Comment 9/3/2007
What are you saying? - that the union doesn’t administer your corporate network? Um . . . that’s not really their job, and at any rate it would seem to be a benefit to the corporation more than the worker.
If you mean that you work as a network administrator and don’t find unions helpful . . . do you work an 8-hour day? A 40-hour week? Do you get overtime? Do you get weekends off? Paid holidays? Is there a grievance procedure in your company? Do you prefer that 8-year-old children not work in factories in this country, as they still do in many others? Do you favor anti-discrimination and anti-sexual-harassment laws? Are there educational or job-training benefits available to you? Is there an organized seniority and advancement system in your trade? Do you get regular raises in wages? Thank a union organizer. (You can thank the communists and feminists next.)
If you’re an “exempt” employee and find yourself working 60 hours a week with no overtime, because being a network “administrator” makes you “management”, well . . . think about what you’re missing from not being in a union.
Comment 9/3/2007
Almost no computer-related industries are unionized, and yes, we’re all “exempt”. I did in fact that his comment to be about the lack of unionization in IT.
Comment 9/3/2007
There are good unions and there are bad unions. There are good companies and there are bad companies. The problems arise when the unions forget their employees jobs rely on company profitability and when owners or management forget that company profitability relies on employee productivity and ability.
Unfortunately greed on both sides often screw things up overall. Auto industry is a perfect example of where unions were stuck in the old mindset and helped to destroy an industry while at the same time companies like Walmart are the perfect example of companies not caring a whole lot about their employees.
Comment 9/3/2007
We’re not unionized. Right now I’m in a start-up company so I tend to work 9-10 hour days, six to seven days a week, and am at work right now. No real overtime pay. But that’s just my choice — the boss actually said for me to head home, I just want to make sure we get a fresh install system taken care of before Thurday.
My other IT work has been overwhelmingly un-unionized. Despite that, every single case has managed to keep an organized seniority and advancement system (
based on merit!), regular raises ( 
based on merit!), paid training, and even paid certification testings.
As a side effect, I haven’t had to pay unions to advocate political groups I can’t stand or who have, just to get work more than ninety days at a time. Federal minimum wage continues to mean very little directly to my paycheck.
Unions and other collective bargaining systems are very important for dealing with companies or management that won’t put together basic systems like the above in fields that justify them. They’re wonderful for smoothing the rough parts out of capitalist economics, and while I don’t think it’s fair to give them all the credit for good laws like parts of FSLA, they do tend to have a large role.
Things like ‘union shops’, forced collective wage bargaining (more of a problem for non-salaried workers), and the supreme idiocy of tying minimum union wages to national minimum wage… not so fun.
Comment 9/3/2007
Ah, and my apologies — copied “seniority” when I just meant to put “organized advancement system”.
Comment 9/3/2007
What Kevin is not telling you is that unions are primarily a political force used to funnel millions of dollars from the rank and file straight into liberal candidate campaign chests. Unions also keep people working that are mostly worthless to the company. Unions do not generate a penny of income, they just take, take, take… from the rank and file. Unions are extremely deceptive to workers about how difficult it is to leave the union. They are like the Hotel California where “you can check out any time you like but you can never leave…”.
KTK is closer to the mark but the point he is missing is that, yes thanks in large part to unions, the protection to workers is no longer needed. There are a plethora of EEOC, and other, laws on the book to protect workers. If you go back to the 30’s you will find many an abusive situation where unions were desperately needed. This is no longer the case.
Let me ask you this Kevin, is the company you are working for unionized? If not doesn’t that prove my point? Furthermore, if you feel strongly about it, what steps have YOU personally taken to unionize your company? As a matter of fact why don’t you start organizing and then get back with us and let us know how well it worked out for you. If you aren’t willing to organize you have more than made my point and are obviously supporting unions as a cheap deceptive way to funnel money to democrats.
Comment 9/3/2007
That’s not really fair, Truth. I can’t deny that a good portion of union funds go to Democratic political activities, but that’s not to say unions have no beneficial economic aspects.
They can provide negotiations in certain fields to bring the value of work to the same layer as it is in other successful companies within days rather than months or years, or provide a collective and anonymous voice when correction is needed but unwanted. And, while it is a cliche, [i]on average[/i] satisfied and trained workers are much more effective at any given task than ; forcing such tactics in situations where voluntary unions thrive (jobs with low turnover, value of trained or qualified worker is high) has been shown to have a net economic benefit.
Unions have had some (very) bad track records, such as the modern US automobile sector (I personally blame that on how crappy a Ford Malibu is compared to a Toyota). They have also had success stories, like the first twenty-five years of their place within the modern educational system. Not all, or even most, sectors benefit from unification, but there are places they can be very helpful even in their most formal versions.
Comment 9/4/2007
“Unions also keep people working that are mostly worthless to the company.”
This is pure rhetoric. First of all, it is incredibly vague. Worthless is what sense?
Even if this generic statement contains grains of truth, who cares? There are social issues that involve employment that are a lot deeper than the myopic CEO perspective. People need to have jobs, society flourishes when people work.
If you want to increase the chances that your kid doesn’t go to school with classmates who have untreated tuberculosis, if you want to increase the chances that you will not get mugged today, you want the people in your community working, and making decent wages. It’s really not that complicated fellas, if you aren’t pulling down mega fucking bucks, I don’t know why you feel this way.
Comment 9/4/2007
Well, for starters, most of are quite capable of understanding that there is seldom such thing as a free lunch. Employing one person of no value to the company can quite often come at the cost of other employees or infrastructure resulting in new positions.
Comment 9/4/2007
Somehow, I don’t think we are talking about the same thing.
Until we are enlightened as to what was meant by “mostly worthless” I’m not really sure how to proceed.
Comment 9/4/2007
The notion that some industries need unions while others don’t is ludicrous. Teachers definitely need better pay. The union hasn’t done squat with this issue. All you hear is the sucking sound of more money leaving the teachers pockets and going into the union pockets. Suck, suck, suck… sounds like the oval office when Clinton was president. Try this… stop taxing the productive members of society and sending those dollars to “welfare”. Use part of that money to give performing teachers a large raise. What a concept. Rewarding someone for working instead of rewarding someone that refuses to work (there are some people that need help, the majority are getting a free ride.) Unions are taking membership money and giving it to candidates that support the bizarre notion of rewarding people for not working. The unions need to completely go away.
digglahhh
Oh come on now. If you work in a union environment you know what I’m talking about. If you don’t work in a union environment you are less likely to see it because your company will fire the deadbeats! The ones that are not productive, complain all the time, have huge attendance issues, stir up trouble with fellow employees, argue more often than not, do personal business while on the clock, etc. I have no problem with a “slow” employee that is trying to the best of their ability. I would take them any time over the deadbeats the union keeps working. I have no problem with someone hitting a slump once in a while. I have a huge problem with someone generating very little productivity but is very capable of doing so. Someone that loves to complain about the company yet shows up every payday to get their check. Morale is dragged down by the occasional deadbeat because the employees with a work ethic get sick of picking up the slack the deadbeats generate.
gattsuru
You are right on with your auto industry observation. To eliminate the union is certain death. Keeping the union is a slower death. After all, the unions really did all those unemployed workers well, no? You are also right about employee turnover. However, the company needs to find the balance and it will as long as it can run in a competitive environment. Unions drag down the company’s ability to compete. The company is the one completely financially invested in their business. The unions only suck the company dollars out and funnel them to liberals. That is pathetic.
Kevin
Still waiting to hear if YOU work in a unionized workshop… Based on your silence I am guessing… no!
Comment 9/4/2007
Truth:
Teachers definitely need better pay. The union hasn’t done squat with this issue. All you hear is the sucking sound of more money leaving the teachers pockets and going into the union pockets.
I don’t suppose you can back that up with actual facts, can you? How does the average union teacher’s pay compare to the average non-union teacher’s pay? I mean, I suppose if you could show that non-union teachers are compensated every bit as well as union teachers (including benefits), then you’d have a point. My bet is that you can’t demonstrate that, and that you’ll cut and run without even trying to defend that statement by backing it up with statistics.
And for what it’s worth, I’ve worked mostly in non-union shops, and there are always plenty of dead weights hanging around. Many of them are in management, pulling down substantial salaries. I haven’t noticed a substantially higher percentage of deadbeats in the few union shops I’ve worked in.
Comment 9/4/2007
Tgirsch to Kevin’s rescue!
Uhhh… you left out the brilliant line “Suck, suck, suck… sounds like the oval office when Clinton was president.”
For starters, there is a teacher’s union where I live and their pay still sucks. My father taught his whole working life and his pay sucked. If teacher pay sucks, it sucks no matter how many stats you want. Are you saying teacher pay is good to great (I can hardly wait for your answer)?
How about this… If you disagree with me you can bring your own facts and stats into the mix. I’m guessing you will cut and run and not even do anything other than make a bit of noise.
By the way, are you pro-union? If so, what are you doing in a non-union shop? What have you done to unionize your shop? You are making my point for me that unions are not necessary.
PS Good talkin’ to ya Tgirsch
Kevin
Are ya out there man? Do you work in a union shop? Your silence is speaking volumes.
Comment 9/4/2007
Truth:
If teacher pay sucks, it sucks no matter how many stats you want.
Nice try at changing the subject. But if that pay sucks measurably less for union teachers than for non-union teachers, your allegation that unions do “nothing” for teachers would be proven false. Which is why I knew you wouldn’t go after the stats.
Are you saying teacher pay is good to great[?]
I didn’t say anything about teacher pay with respect to where it ought to be. But since you asked, I’d say they don’t get nearly enough. As Kevin says, teacher ought to be one of our highest paying jobs. Somehow I suspect that if teachers’ unions disappeared tomorrow, the teachers would not only still be underpaid, they’d fare considerably worse than they do now.
If you disagree with me you can bring your own facts and stats into the mix.
I know you are, but what am I? Seriously, YOU are the one who made the allegation about unions doing nothing to help teachers, so it’s incumbent upon YOU to make a case for that, backing it up with statistics if necessary. That’s how informed debate works. Otherwise, I could just make statements like “Truth fucks goats” and everyone would be required to believe it unless and until YOU not only disagreed, but made a convincing case that you do NOT, in fact, fuck goats. Just as a random example, of course…
By the way, are you pro-union? If so, what are you doing in a non-union shop?
By the way, are you pro-Iraq war? If so, what are you doing commenting on blogs instead of picking up a rifle? Just to point out how asinine that sort of comparison is.
One need not personally engage in something to support it. I support abortion rights, too, and yet I’ve never actually had an abortion.
You are making my point for me that unions are not necessary.
That’s like saying “I’ve never needed a gun, therefore guns aren’t necessary.” In other words, imbecilic. At best, if one stretched imagination to the limits, you could say that my particular line of work doesn’t need a union. That doesn’t make unions unnecessary, any more than the fact that you don’t use a douche proves that douches are unnecessary.
Comment 9/4/2007
I’d just like to jump in here and state that unions have other important and specific benefits that may have gone without mention. Especially today, primarily, unions help to ensure that some of the lowest paid workers in the market have access to worthwhile health insurance coverage at an affordable price.
It’s pretty sad… the rate of workers with health care coverage has seriously gone downhill in America these last few years. The trend is troubling: 38 million uninsured in 1999 [14.0%] vs. 47 million uninsured in 2006 [15.8%]. And this is in spite of these years having been marked as relatively prosperous. This lack of coverage has hit retail workers (in particular) exceptionally hard.
I’ve been working at a Walmart-type store here in Ohio since I’ve been in school, and it’s union. We pay our fees, we bitch about the stupid little things they sometimes do, and we receive their newsletter every month. But you know, if you asked any of us employees, we will tell you that there is no doubt in our minds that we owe our rather robust coverage to the UFCW. We enjoy much better benefits than any of our non-union competitors. No question.
Take Wal-Mart, for instance… Deductibles are extremely high — some are as low as $350 and as high as $3,500. Yet the family premium is almost $225/month. Sixty percent of Wal-Mart employees are even forced to get coverage from their spouses’ plan or the government. And as has been rightly pointed out in many reports, it tops the list of companies in many states whose employees and/or their children rely on taxpayers to foot the bill for health care. (Let it also be noted: This company’s present size and rate of growth dwarfs every other retail chain ever known to man.)
And herein lies the quandary that has always baffled me about some of the more vociferous union-haters… The simple fact is that if the unions didn’t exist, the lack of adequate health care coverage would leave a void that something will need to fill. People need a health plan. It logically follows that everyday Americans would then give that responsibility to the government (it would happen… you know it would), creating a new huge government institution that is among the worst nightmares of the free-market mentality.
And this goes for all sorts of other worker benefits that private industry would inevitably eliminate (er, “sacrifice”) given the proper amount of years gone by and recessions “weathered”.
The bottom line is that — with some things — it’s going to be either unions that step in in the workers’ defense or the government. It’s really that simple.
So pick one.
Comment 9/5/2007
TG,
I’m trying to be objective, and not say this because I am completely on your side, but, that has to be one of the worst comment-post ass-kickings I’ve read in a long time. Kudos, brotha!
If it ain’t about sabermetric baseball stats, I ain’t fucking with you…
Comment 9/5/2007
“Workers of the world, unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains.” Hurray for the unions and the democratic revolution!
Thank you, I’m stickin’ with the union. Let’s get this “Hoobert Heever wannabe” republican administration out of there.
Comment 9/5/2007
well, then, you’d think corporate executives wouldn’t have any beef with unions, wouldn’t you?
Comment 9/5/2007
Tgirsch,
I hope you don’t have high blood pressure. I’m a little concerned for your health after reading your post.
“At best, if one stretched imagination to the limits, you could say that my particular line of work doesn’t need a union.” That’s exactly what I’m saying about existing unionized workplaces.
I, like you, support everyone’s right to support unions without actually having a union. I feel everyone should be afforded the opportunity to not have a union.
As much as you seem to enjoy talking about goats I’m afraid you haven’t come close to demonstrating why unions should be allowed to take millions of membership dollars and transfer them to liberal candidates. My assertion still stands that union’s primary purpose for existence is for political purposes. Their deceitful practices demonstrate they are not worthy of being in existence (much like at your workplace).
Kevin
I can only assume you do not work in a union shop.
Comment 9/5/2007
My assertion still stands that union’s primary purpose for existence is for political purposes.
And I still maintain that my union, as well as almost every other one, has given me benefits that I would not otherwise have.
Comment 9/5/2007
Truth:
You’re awfully good at dancing around issues without ever addressing them head-on. So kudos for that. If you’re going to consistently avoid ever giving anything resembling evidence for any of your assertions, instead expecting us all to buy the “gospel according to Truth” devoid of evidence, then you can safely be ignored.
you haven’t come close to demonstrating why unions should be allowed to take millions of membership dollars and transfer them to liberal candidates
From a libertarian perspective, the market has decided that they can, therefore they can.
From a more pragmatic perspective, nobody is forced to be a member of a union. If their place of employment unionizes, so what? As conservatives love to point out (when the issue is, say, inadequate health care or workplace safety regulations, etc.), they can always quit that job and go somewhere else. Right?
But again, we have an actual Union member here who doesn’t seem to mind at all. Of course, I’m sure you know better than he does.
Comment 9/5/2007
“As much as you seem to enjoy talking about goats I’m afraid you haven’t come close to demonstrating why unions should be allowed to take millions of membership dollars and transfer them to liberal candidates. My assertion still stands that union’s primary purpose for existence is for political purposes.”
You know the most irksome thing about these arguments is that I (or somebody else) has to waste their fucking time responding to them, even though they are disingenuous in the first place. You know the answer to this, why make somebody else spend time addressing it if it was a genuine inquiry.
They can donate money to candidates who they feel will act in the greatest interest of their constituency. It is no different than a corporation or advocacy group donating money. Union contributions are a way for workers to increase their leverage by representing themselves as collectively, as a voting bloc. But this isn’t purely political, it is also pragmatic. You support candidates who will attempt to pass legislature that will give you tangible improvements.
Oops, there goes the bell, make your way to gym class now, freshmen. Remember don’t buy the passes for the rooftop pool that the seniors will try to sell you…
Comment 9/6/2007
digglahhh:
even though they are disingenuous in the first place
It’s worse than that. Truth made an assertion while presenting absolutely no evidence to support it. Instead of cowboying up and assuming the burden of proof of his own statements, he instead wussed out and left it to everyone else to prove him wrong. He’s not willing to put any effort at all into defending the statements he makes; he just makes them and sits back and watches as everyone pretends he’s actually intellectually honest and interested in serious, reasoned discourse. In fact, he’s a troll, pure and simple. I’m quite sure that’s why Kevin hasn’t bothered to respond to him. What would be the point? Even if he did, Truth would avoid substance like the plague.
Comment 9/6/2007
digglahhh
“You know the most irksome thing about these arguments is that I (or somebody else) has to waste their f****** time responding to them… blah, blah, blah… make your way to gym class now, freshmen.”
This is actually pretty funny coming from someone that uses 7th grade language and then takes himself seriously!
“It is no different than a corporation or advocacy group donating money.”
Actually it is vastly different. A corporation is in charge of its own destiny and is spending ITS own money to do so. This is a concept liberals have trouble understanding… Spending your own money rather than someone else’s. The union is spending the hard earned dollars of the rank and file to keep liberals in office.
“They can donate money to candidates who they feel will act in the greatest interest of their constituency.”
This would almost make sense if 100% of the membership were liberal. Believe it or not, oh master of wit, the figure is much closer to 50-50.
Tgirsch
“Instead of cowboying up and assuming the burden of proof of his own statements, he instead wussed out and left it to everyone else to prove him wrong.”
Uhhh… I no more provided a series of stats regarding unionized teacher pay than you did. So whilst you would like to think you proved me wrong all you have done is said you proved me wrong. Where’s your stats to back up your statement?
“I’m quite sure that’s why Kevin hasn’t bothered to respond to him. What would be the point? Even if he did, Truth would avoid substance like the plague. ”
Gosh Tgirsch, you must be referring to brilliant substance from Kevin in statements such as “To be blunt, if you still think there is a liberal bias in the media, you are either stunningly ignorant or deliberately spreading a lie.” I can see why you feel Kevin has so much substance when he makes a statement like that which is full of supportive facts and follows every rule of logic and debate!
Comment 9/6/2007
Matt
“And I still maintain that my union, as well as almost every other one, has given me benefits that I would not otherwise have.”
Ok Matt, this is a fair argument. Tell me this… What has the UFCW done for your health coverage, say, in the last 2 contracts?
As a member of the UFCW can you tell me what you would need to do to leave the union if you desired to do so?
Comment 9/6/2007
Listen, Lord of the Ironic Handles,
Of course you would make the statement that the money that the Union spends is not theirs. You are under still under the delusion that even after the government collects taxes from you, the money is still yours. Working in a union shop, becoming a union member, is a voluntary action. The membership dues and the Union’s capacity to donate money to political candidates that, in their view, best represent the constituency is something that the union members agree to upon joining.
Also, the union is not a political organization, per se. Theoretically, the union is to endorse the candidate that is most likely to benefit their constituency as workers - in the capacity in which the union represents its members. The party affiliation or overall political philosophy of the candidate is secondary to the said candidate’s position on labor related issues. Often times, these are one in the same, but that is not by design, and certainly not by design on the union’s part.
Further, workers contribute to a corporations productivity and generation of revenue. Yet, that corporation makes donations to candidates without regard of the break down of the political viewpoints of their employees. A corporation, after all, is a collective of individuals by definition. The same arguments against the unions would apply here. Of course, large corporations donate to both parties, maybe you’ll be disingenuous enough to contend that this is done altruistically, to fairly represent the different positions members of their workforce may hold…
BTW, where are all these fucking liberal candidates you continually speak of?
I assume the 7th grade comment was in reference to my cursing. I thought we were all adults here, what’s the problem? But, if you want to ascribe moral or intellectual superiority to yourself based on the refrain of using a taboo phoneme, go ahead - just don’t expect anybody genuinely concerned with intellectual integrity or responsibility to take you seriously.
Comment 9/7/2007
digglahhh
“Working in a union shop, becoming a union member, is a voluntary action. The membership dues and the Union’s capacity to donate money to political candidates that, in their view, best represent the constituency is something that the union members agree to upon joining.”
Obviously you are not aware there are requirements that non-union members must pay fees to offset bargaining costs and the unions actually USE THESE FEES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES! Kinda throws your ‘voluntary’ theory out the window and demonstrates you don’t know what you are talking about! Please don’t make me laugh whilst drinking my morning coffee, it can get messy.
“The party affiliation or overall political philosophy of the candidate is secondary to the said candidate’s position on labor related issues. Often times, these are one in the same, but that is not by design, and certainly not by design on the union’s part.”
You are almost there. You should say ‘Always’ instead of ‘often times’ and remove the two following ‘not’s.
“A corporation, after all, is a collective of individuals by definition. The same arguments against the unions would apply here.”
Puhleeezee… Actually dictionary.com says this about a corporation “an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.” That little phrase “powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.” completely kills your argument about definition.
“BTW, where are all these f——… blah, blah, blah…want to ascribe moral or intellectual superiority to yourself … blah, blah, blah… just don’t expect anybody genuinely concerned with intellectual integrity or responsibility to take you seriously.
Actually YOU are the one doing the ascribing and YOU are the one that started with the school stuff so calm down would ya? I actually think your use of the f-word makes you sound like a man and look very intelligent.
Matt
So how easy IS it to leave the UFCW?
Comment 9/7/2007
Truth:
A corporation is in charge of its own destiny and is spending ITS own money to do so.
The corporation makes its money on the backs of its workers. So does the union. The employees can withdraw their support from both the company and its union by quitting that job. So how, again, are these two any different? Oh, yeah, the Union is much more likely to spend the money in the interests of its workers than the corporation is. And the union members get to vote on their leadership, whereas employees at a corporation don’t have any such right. So which is anti-democratic, again?
So whilst you would like to think you proved me wrong all you have done is said you proved me wrong.
Where, exactly, did I ever say I had proved you wrong? All I’ve ever done is ask you to attempt to prove yourself right, a task you haven’t even pretended to have any interest in. You clearly cannot be bothered to try to substantiate any of your own arguments.
Kinda throws your ‘voluntary’ theory out the window
How so? If they’re not in the union, then they’re not covered under any contract, and by law are engaged in employment at will. This means they can quit that job at any time and for any reason — including to go to work for a non-union shop. What part of “employment at will” do you not get?
So how easy IS it to leave the UFCW?
Easy as pie. Just quit your job and go work for Wal-Mart. They’re always hiring, you know…
Comment 9/7/2007
Tgirsch
I certainly admire the way Walmart has kept the union out.
If a person in a job covered by the UFCW wanted to stay working where they are, yet leave the UFCW what steps would they have to take?
Comment 9/7/2007
Matt the UFCW member doesn’t seem to know. Tgirsch doesn’t seem to know. digglahhh has demonstrated an ability to express himselF intelligently but obviously doesn’t know too much about unions. Tim the teacher’s union president can’t be found. Kevin isn’t even in a union…
How ’bout all the rest of you liberals out there that know so much about unions… If a person in a job covered by the UFCW wanted to stay working where they are, yet leave the UFCW what steps would they have to take?
Yep. Unions are extremely deceptive to the rank and file. The deception goes well with their outright lies, intimidation and proclivity to use violence during a strike.
Comment 9/11/2007
Truth:
Nobody answered your question because it was contrived and, frankly, stupid. Asking how an employee at a UFCW shop can retain his or her job without being a member of the union is rather like asking how a vegetarian can work at a steak joint without having any reliance upon the meat industry.
A shop either is a union shop or it isn’t. And in any case, a mix of union and non-union employees doesn’t make any sense at all. It completely defeats the purpose of collective bargaining. But you knew that.
That said, quitting the job is not the UFCW worker’s only choice. She could try to convince her coworkers to decertify the union, and then NOBODY would be a member.
Comment 9/11/2007
Truth:
Let’s try it this way. Suppose someone wants to be a citizen of the United States, but doesn’t want any of their tax dollars to support the Iraq War. What steps would they have to take?
Comment 9/11/2007
“A shop either is a union shop or it isn’t. And in any case, a mix of union and non-union employees doesn’t make any sense at all. It completely defeats the purpose of collective bargaining. But you knew that.”
You obviously do not know much about unions other than they funnel money to liberals.
Have you ever heard of open vs. closed states? Maybe you live in a closed state, which is yet another union abuse. In an open state such as Arizona everyone has the choice of being in the union or not being in the union whether or not it is a union shop.
Even though you have tried to change the subject, my question still stands, is valid and demonstrates that indeed unions are deceptive.
Comment 9/13/2007
Truth:
You haven’t demonstrated crap, expect that you’re an idiot, and a disingenuous one at that.
If you’ve got a point you’re trying to make, how about just making it (and, horror of horrors, providing evidence to support it) rather than playing a childish and protracted game of 20 questions?
(And, of course, I’m sure corporations never deceive anyone about anything… That’s the exclusive domain of the Unions, I’m sure.)
You obviously do not know much about unions other than they funnel money to liberals.
I know that they funnel money to the more pro-union party. If the GOP became more pro-union than the Democrats, then they’d get the money. But then you’d accuse the GOP of being “liberals,” I’m sure.
Why do you find it so distasteful that unions should donate money to the political candidates who best represent the union’s interest? Doesn’t that just make sense?
Finally, despite your artful avoidance of my question to you, it was directly on point. I’m not changing any subjects. You’re the one who keeps doing that, not me.
Comment 9/13/2007
Tgirsch
“expect that you’re an idiot”
How can I expect that? I already expect you eventually resort to name calling. How does that tie in with logic and reasoned debate?
“If you’ve got a point you’re trying to make, how about just making it”
I have more than made my point that “Unions are extremely deceptive to the rank and file” and thanks, you have made it quite well too with your inability to answer my question. You would think you could just call and say “I’m out”.
“(And, of course, I’m sure corporations never deceive anyone about anything… That’s the exclusive domain of the Unions, I’m sure.)”
Where’s your facts?
“If the GOP became more pro-union than the Democrats, then they’d get the money. But then you’d accuse the GOP of being “liberals,” I’m sure.”
Actually my liberal, non-idiot friend… They WOULD be liberals!
Why do you find it so distasteful that unions should donate money to the political candidates who best represent the union’s interest? Doesn’t that just make sense?
Because they are taking it from the rank and file, only half of which are democrat with even fewer being liberals. To be clear, NO. This does not make sense. It is yet another deceptive tactic the union uses when they recruit (that’s how they do it in an open state). They do not mention one word about giving millions to liberals on the backs of the worker.
“I’m not changing any subjects. You’re the one who keeps doing that, not me.”
Good try but Tgirsch is the main subject changer around this post.
OK liberals… Tgirsch can’t answer the question. Anyone else care to try? If a person in a job covered by the UFCW wanted to stay working where they are, yet leave the UFCW what steps would they have to take?
Comment 9/14/2007
Truth:
Enlighten us, O Mr. I-Know-Everything-About-Unions-But-Refuse-To-Share! I admit: I don’t know. So answer your own question: What steps would that hypothetical UFCW worker have to take? Please do share!
“Unions are extremely deceptive to the rank and file”
How have you made that point? Exactly where have you given even a single example of a union deceiving its rank-and-file membership? You simply make quasi-matter-of-fact statements about how deceptive they are, without ever providing a lick of evidence (surprise, surprise).
Where’s your facts? [About corporate deception]
Start here. This took all of five seconds on Google, by the way.
Because they are taking it from the rank and file, only half of which are democrat with even fewer being liberals.
So what do you suggest they should do? Sit on their asses and do nothing? Unions shouldn’t lobby in the interests of unions and their members? By that logic, I suppose you think the Republicans should stop funding George W. Bush’s Iraq War, since “only half” of them approve of it. (CBS News Poll, 9/07)
(That’s assuming, of course, one takes as gospel your assertion that only half of union members are Democrats — that’s certainly not how they voted in 2006…)
They do not mention one word about giving millions to liberals on the backs of the worker.
Even if true, I don’t think “deceive” means what you think it means. Failing to mention something is not deceit. Actively causing/encouraging someone to believe the opposite of what is true is deceit (like, for example, causing people to believe that Saddam Hussein was supplying WMDs to al-Qaeda, or and something to do with 9/11, just as a couple of ferinstances).
And finally, you still haven’t answered why it’s unfair that unions should send money to candidates that “only” half of their members support, while it’s perfectly acceptable to send billions of tax dollars a week to a war that barely a third of all Americans support. Of course, you claim that’s me trying to change the subject, when in fact I’m merely pointing out your blindingly obvious hypocrisy.
Comment 9/14/2007
Tgirsch
“Enlighten us, O Mr. I-Know-Everything-About-Unions-But-Refuse-To-Share! I admit: I don’t know. So answer your own question: What steps would that hypothetical UFCW worker have to take? Please do share!”
Are you saying Matt is a hypothetical person? I don’t know everything about unions Tgirsch, just more than you do. I think I’ll leave this one be. I’ll pull it out again when one of you guys pull this tired topic out again… Unions are great, Wal-Mart is evil, blah blah blah.
“How have you made that point? [deception]”
If YOU can’t answer a seemingly easy question it indicates a deceptive practice by the union. Once you dig further you will find full blown deception. One of the points I earlier made is its very difficult to get out of the union. The union is deceptive, among other things, to the recruit about how they can leave the union, about the truth of where the health benefits come from, the truth about how the union gives millions to liberals, the truth about minors needing parental signatures, the truth about contractual issues… Deceptive in other areas? This two second google shows that to be the case as well. http://www.cintas.com/company/news_media/press_releases/cintas_sues_union0204.aspx
“So what do you suggest they should do? Sit on their asses and do nothing? Unions shouldn’t lobby in the interests of unions and their members? “
I would suggest the unions take every dollar they give to liberals and instead use it in effective recruiting. Recruit Wal-mart, your company and everyone else that is non union. If unions primary purpose were not political I would not have as much of a gripe with them. This way you wouldn’t look so silly when you advocate Wal-Mart being unionized but not the company you work for.
“(That’s assuming, of course, one takes as gospel your assertion that only half of union members are Democrats — that’s certainly not how they voted in 2006…)”
Do you even read the stuff you link to? It clearly states that 54% of the voters are moderate to conservative. All you give me are union stats regarding a handful of states and working drop off voters into the totals for crying out loud. You call that reasoned debate? LOL.
“Even if true, I don’t think “deceive” means what you think it means. Failing to mention something is not deceit. Actively causing/encouraging someone to believe the opposite of what is true is deceit blah blah blah…”
The dictionary seems to think otherwise. “concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading”
“And finally, you still haven’t answered why it’s unfair that unions should send money to candidates that “only” half of their members support… blah blah blah “
I thought this post was on unions. If you want to change the subject simply read any of your random anti-Iraq, anti-troop posts out there.
Comment 9/16/2007
Look, in the interest of putting this to rest, I will inform you as to what’s what.
A person doesn’t have to be part of the union if he doesn’t want to. He still, however, must pay the dues. And he still is, in effect, covered by the union whether he’s a member or not. And by that I mean that the union still acts as the person’s collective bargaining representative despite the fact that the person is not a union member. Everyone gets paid the same amount, gets the same vacations, the same breaks and meal-breaks, and things like disciplinary procedures do not differ from one worker to the next depending on union membership. Because the union is there, things are universalized.
Now, you talk about “deception”… That’s just bullshit. First of all, you are completely neglecting to recognize the fact that everyone knows there’s a union there. They aren’t operating in secret, they don’t hide themselves. It’s not like they hire new employees and then stealthily sneak union dues out of their paycheck without the new employee’s foreknowledge. Everyone is well aware of this one very simple fact:
A job at Meijer Stores equals membership in the UFCW.
Period.
This is a factor a person must consider when they are making the decision to accept a position… They must weigh the pros and cons. In turn, if you want to avoid paying union dues, you will have to find a job elsewhere. And a person would be supremely stupid if he accepted a position at a workplace with a union and then expected to avoid that obligation (though I wouldn’t put it past a conservative).
Second, and a bit related to this… A store can vote the union out with a simple majority. If the union is not doing what it should be doing, it is rejected by the workers.
Third, everyone knows that the union gives money to labor-friendly candidates, including those who belong to the union. Who the hell is ignorant of this fact? I mean damn, I told you earlier that we get monthly newsletters in our mailbox…. Every single one of them (every one!) clearly mentions their political positions numerous times. They make it clear who it is that they endorse, they explain proposed legislation, and they tell people how they can get involved. If someone doesn’t like something they’re doing, he can go to a meeting and voice his concern. If what he says has traction, obviously, it will be considered by workers assembled there. (Yay for democracy!)
Now, you asked what the union did for my health care in the last year… Well, that’s the wrong question to ask in trying to discredit the union’s worth. Strangely enough, we finally got Aetna just last spring (April), and the plan is fabulous. It is leaps and bounds better than our previous plan. It’s almost as good as my mother’s, and she’s a high school teacher with a Masters and almost 30 years of experience. I never dreamed that I’d have such a plan at some hourly high school/college retail job. But thanks to the union, I do.
And really to get to the crux of the matter… I have not heard a single person complain about the union contributing money to political campaigns. In fact, that’s something we virtually universally support. Criticism has been leveled at the union’s inability to raise our wages or fight some individual injustices from time to time, but political contribution is something we pretty much all agree on (much less get outraged about). Truth be told, the common complaint regarding political contributions is that the politicians the UFCW endorses are not liberal ENOUGH.
Comment 9/17/2007
I also can’t leave this statement unaddressed:
“I would suggest the unions take every dollar they give to liberals and instead use it in effective recruiting. Recruit Wal-mart, your company and everyone else that is non union. If unions primary purpose were not political I would not have as much of a gripe with them. This way you wouldn’t look so silly when you advocate Wal-Mart being unionized but not the company you work for.”
Ugh.
The UFCW has targeted Wal-Mart for decades now. That corporation is, in essence, its primary adversary. They don’t make it a secret either. The mention of Wal-Mart seems to be given a regular place in each newsletter.
The part that is particularly absurd is your assertion that enough money can magically unionize Wal-Mart. It assumes that we’re all playing fairly. It patently ignores Wal-Mart’s labor law violations.
Perhaps the most widely-known example of these offenses took place in 2005 in Quebec where a store unionized and Wal-Mart suddenly shut it down. In 2000 in Jacksonville, Texas, another notable incident involved 10 meat cutters who succeeded in winning union recognition before Wal-Mart eliminated their positions. In Pennsylvania, the National Labor Relations Board even found that Wal-Mart illegally transferred union supporters out of a store and brought in union opponents to dilute efforts to organize. In fact, there have been no less than 15 rulings against Wal-Mart by the NLRB between 2000 and 2005 that still stand. Compare that to a combined total of four for its seven biggest rivals.
Beyond petty examples, even more significant is their institutionalized campaign to remain union-free… They do not hire people with union histories, the manager’s manual explicitly mentions tactics for battling unions and efforts to organize, they administer personality tests to potential employees, employees are [illegally] made to sign pledges to not unionize, etc.
In short, Wal-Mart has been found guilty of numerous violations, but the fines levied for breaking those laws are so minimal compared to their bottom line that they feel the trade-off is worth it. And this is why Congress is considering the Employee Free Choice Act, which makes it much harder for companies like Wal-Mart to get away with the crimes it does, as well as making it easier for workers to organize.
I have no doubt that you hate unions because they are too political… they are the voice for labor in the United States government; they serve the purpose of battling exploitation. This does fall under the liberal side quite handily, as liberalism has always been about coming together to throw off unfair oppression since the days even before King George III.
Alternately, even though both parties respond to business interests when flattered with monetary contributions, Wal-Mart gives 85% of its political contributions to Republicans. It seems the ties between Democrats and the labor movement are too strong to disregard.
Despite your objections, the unions (ie. the people who are that union) support liberal candidates that will represent them. There is no other entity (theoretical or otherwise) in our market that can truly play that role and deliver.
You attempted to discredit tgirsch’s citation of polling results as illegitimate because 54% of union members consider themselves “conservative or moderate”. Now, besides the fact that moderates are not stereotypically anti-union, and besides the fact that “conservative” likely refers to social issues, you also neglect to recognize that those 54% obviously voted FOR the more liberal crowd. That is, given that they are economic conservatives (which is a stretch), those people would rather have a liberal in office despite their leanings!
Now, if you would either come to terms with these facts, or just fess up and admit that what you really oppose is the labor movement and worker’s rights, you might manage to retain some measure of your intellectual honesty.
Comment 9/17/2007
Matt
“A person doesn’t have to be part of the union if he doesn’t want to.”…
Ok, then what steps would you need to take in order to keep your job yet leave the UFCW?
“He still, however, must pay the dues.”…
Not in an open state! In some states workers who are non-union must pay a fee equivalent to union dues which the union turns around and gives to liberals! This is actually illegal but the unions persist anyhow!
Now, you talk about “deception”… That’s just bulls***…
If the union isn’t deceptive how come you don’t know how to get out?
“A job at Meijer Stores equals membership in the UFCW. “…
Do you even know if you are in an open or closed state?
” And a person would be supremely stupid if he accepted a position at a workplace with a union and then expected to avoid that obligation (though I wouldn’t put it past a conservative).”…
Thanks to Matt here, we now know there are a lot of extremely stupid people out there. His ability to declare who is, and who is not, really elevates him in stature and intellectual prowess. Can we carry Matt’s argument to non-unionized shops like where Tgirsch works? Are those people stupid for not being in a union when they could start the certification process themselves?
“Third, everyone knows that the union gives money to labor-friendly candidates, blah blah blah…”
Does knowledge know equal support? Does knowledge make the union actions fair or right? Heck no. In fact, in a closed state these poor workers are forced to be in the union AND have their money funneled to liberals. You should research this a little before making silly assertions.
“And really to get to the crux of the matter… I have not heard a single person complain about the union contributing money to political campaigns.”…
You must not have been reading my posts! Heck, what are you even writing about then?
“It’s not like they hire new employees and then stealthily sneak union dues out of their paycheck without the new employee’s foreknowledge…”
Actually, after the recent strike in California the decimated workers were very surprised when the unions forced them to pay back-dues!
“But thanks to the union, I do.”
I never said unions do not deliver. My stand is they are far more of a problem than a solution.
“The UFCW has targeted Wal-Mart for decades now. That corporation is, in essence, its primary adversary. They don’t make it a secret either. The mention of Wal-Mart seems to be given a regular place in each newsletter…”
Wow! a mention in the newsletter!
“The part that is particularly absurd is your assertion that enough money can magically unionize Wal-Mart…”
Dude, you’re making me laugh too hard! You must not be aware that union funded liberals have thrown trillions at welfare. What’s really absurd here is your logic.
How is making a business decision to close a store a labor law violation? You are confusing a company’s right to make sound business decisions with labor law violations. Liberals do not seem to understand that corporations generate their own money. Unions take that money and give it to liberals.
“In 2000 in Jacksonville, Texas, another notable incident involved 10 meat cutters who succeeded in winning union recognition before Wal-Mart eliminated their positions. …”
Where are you getting these pathetic examples? Elimination of a position is a company prerogative. The truth of the matter is that the unions are responsible for meat cutters everywhere becoming in danger of being completely phased out. The union forced Wal-Mart, (the company that generates the dollars and is in charge of their own destiny), to completely eliminate meat cutters. They went to a less expensive cryo-wrap meat solution. Thanks to the union meddling in Wal-Mart’s business other chains are now introducing their own precut cryo-wrapped meats bypassing cutters.
Heck, if you want to counter some Wal-Mart abuses why don’t you research union intimidation, violence and murders that have taken place over the years. If Wal-Mart breaks the law they should pay the consequences like everyone else… except Bill Clinton.
“…liberalism has always been about coming together to throw off unfair oppression ..”
Yeah yeah yeah… everyone’s a victim and we need liberals to protect them. Yawn.
“Wal-Mart gives 85% of its political contributions to Republicans.”…
Stats please.
“54% obviously voted FOR the more liberal crowd.”
Hmmm… If the liberals all voted for the liberals and the remaining 54%, (union stats that are most likely full of poop), voted for liberals… This means liberals won 100% to zero. You better double check your math on that one my friend.
“Now, if you would either come to terms with these facts, or just fess up and admit that what you really oppose is the labor movement and worker’s rights, you might manage to retain some measure of your intellectual honesty. “…
As I pointed out, your facts are full of holes. We call that garbage in, garbage out. That is why you have such a distorted understanding of unions.
“what you really oppose is the labor movement and worker’s rights…”
Actually the truth is you oppose companies and individuals prospering and becoming the best they can be without liberals taking money from them.
I looked up your “intellectual honesty” assertion and this is what I found… “The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audient reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker’s on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy. In such cases, the speaker is (perhaps unwittingly, and always ironically) guilty of both intellectual dishonesty and ignorance, because he or she has mistaken opinions for verifiable facts. ” LOL
Comment 9/17/2007
Truth:
I think I’ll leave this one be.
We should be so lucky.
You seem to be outraged — outraged, I tell you — that unions donate a lot of money to pro-labor candidates because those candidates happen to be overwhelmingly liberal, even though their membership is not 100% liberal. I’m sure you’re equally outraged that the NRLC donates a lot of money to pro-life candidates who happen to be overwhelmingly conservative, even though their membership is not 100% conservative, too.
If YOU can’t answer a seemingly easy question it indicates a deceptive practice by the union.
How so? I’m not in a first-hand position to know, given that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the UFCW. I have no idea what’s required to leave the GOP once someone becomes a member, either. Does that make the GOP “deceptive?”
I would suggest the unions take every dollar they give to liberals and instead use it in effective recruiting.
So, you’re suggesting that unions shouldn’t use the union dues to actually advance the cause of unskilled workers, but instead should use that money to convert more companies to unions, and thus collect even more dues? That seems odd. It would seem to me that taking care of existing members ought to be a higher priority — for any organization, not just unions — than attracting new members. But not in Truth-land, apparently.
As to Wal-Mart, Matt’s already addressed that. People have been trying to unionize Wal-Mart for years. The one place they did succeed, Wal-Mart pulled out rather than — the horror — being forced to provide decent pay and benefits for their workers.
Do you even read the stuff you link to? It clearly states that 54% of the voters are moderate to conservative.
And yet these self-described “moderate to conservatives” voted against the conservative and for the liberal at better than a two-to-one margin, a fact which you conveniently ignore. Gee, I wonder why you would ignore that teensy-weensy little inconvenient detail. It certainly couldn’t be cognitive dissonance on your part…
I thought this post was on unions.
Continue to hide behind that all you want, but it doesn’t excuse you from refusing to hold absolutely anything else (or, at least anything you support) to the same standards to which you would hold unions.
But hey, if you’re too much of a coward to man up and directly address your own hypocrisy, that’s not really my problem, now, is it? Just keep on pointing out the specks in the eyes of others while ignoring the plank in your own…
(And since when is wanting to take the troops out of harm’s way “anti-troop?” As Fred would say, you are a strange person… Once again, we see your hypocrisy — you resist even the slightest hint that pro-union and pro-worker have anything to do with one another, but do not hesitate to equate an anti-war position with an anti-troop one.)
Does knowledge know equal support? Does knowledge make the union actions fair or right?
No, but if everyone knows about it, then you can’t exactly accuse anyone of deception, now can you? Your back must be killing you from dragging those goal posts so far…
Actually, after the recent strike in California the decimated workers were very surprised when the unions forced them to pay back-dues!
Once again, Truth makes an allegation without any evidence to support it. Shocking, I tell you!
I never said unions do not deliver.
You sure as hell implied it. Comment 7: “Unions … just take, take, take… from the rank and file.” That would seem to imply that the “rank and file” get nothing in return, no?
Comment 12: “Teachers definitely need better pay. The union hasn’t done squat with this issue. All you hear is the sucking sound of more money leaving the teachers pockets and going into the union pockets.” Seems you think the teachers aren’t benefiting from union membership — that the unions don’t deliver for them. But maybe I read “all you hear is the sucking sound” wrong. (And for the record, you still haven’t answered my direct challenge about whether or not union teachers are better-compensated than their non-union counterparts.)
Comment 26: “What has the UFCW done for your health coverage, say, in the last 2 contracts?” Now why would you ask that question, if not to imply that your expected answer is “nothing” or “not much?”
The bottom line here, the one that you’ve been avoiding like George W. Bush avoids unscripted interviews, boils down to this question: generally speaking, do union workers fare better, in terms of job security, benefits, and total compensation, than their non-union counterparts? If the answer to that question is “yes,” then unions clearly have a good reason to continue to exist, no matter how many objections you might raise to the contrary.
Stats please.
It’s risible that you would demand evidence from anyone else on anything, considering that you’re either too lazy or too dishonest (or both) to do that for your own arguments. In any case, a google on “Wal-Mart political contributions” returned this as the very first result. I understand that Google is beyond your cognitive abilities, but sheesh!
(That said, the 85% figure was valid in 2000 and 2004 — in 2002, they “only” gave 78% to Republicans. One wonders if Wal-Mart’s non-Republican customers know that their money is overwhelmingly going to support Republicans. I suppose they could always choose to shop somewhere else, even in small towns where Wal-Mart is the only game in town…)
Comment 9/17/2007
Tgirsch
“You seem to be outraged — outraged, I tell you — that unions donate a lot of money to pro-labor candidates …blah blah blah… I’m sure you’re equally outraged that the NRLC donates a lot of money to pro-life candidates who happen to be overwhelmingly conservative, even though their membership is not 100% conservative, too.”
I would say that what the unions are doing is outrageous but being the even keeled person I am I am not overly outraged. For a person who places so much emphasis on stats I don’t really see any in your assertion about the NRLC.
“So, you’re suggesting that unions shouldn’t use the union dues to actually advance the cause of unskilled workers blah blah blah…”
I am suggesting that unions now exist mainly to funnel money to liberals.
“People have been trying to unionize Wal-Mart for years.”
Another great point. The union is completely inneffective in this area too.
“And yet these self-described “moderate to conservatives” voted against the conservative and for the liberal at better than a two-to-one margin, a fact which you conveniently ignore. Gee, I wonder why you would ignore that teensy-weensy little inconvenient detail. It certainly couldn’t be cognitive dissonance on your part…”
Wrong again my friend. I did address this in #38 ” All you give me are union stats regarding a handful of states and working drop off voters into the totals for crying out loud.” The union sampling is completely skewed. Furthermore, you failed to reply to this… “Gosh Tgirsch, you must be referring to brilliant substance from Kevin in statements such as “To be blunt, if you still think there is a liberal bias in the media, you are either stunningly ignorant or deliberately spreading a lie.” I can see why you feel Kevin has so much substance when he makes a statement like that which is full of supportive facts and follows every rule of logic and debate!” The reason wouldn’t happen to be cognitive disability on your part would it?
“But hey, if you’re too much of a coward to man up and directly address your own hypocrisy, that’s not really my problem, now, is it? Just keep on pointing out the specks in the eyes of others while ignoring the plank in your own…”
Two interesting things here folks. First of all we have an atheist quoting the Bible which is always amusing. Second, I think we’ve addressed this before. I can GUARANTEE you liberals like Tgirsch reserve this sort of name calling for a blog like this. Can you imagine if he was getting gas somewhere while someone was listening to say Rush, and proceeded to call that person a coward? Can’t you see an oncoming whupping the likes of which is reserved for the series Deadwood? The irony is someone like this using the word coward yet not talking to people this way in the general public. And then to use the term “hypocrisy”… This is coming from a guy that insists on facts from conservatives but lets them ride with his cheering section. Case in point; Kevin started this by saying “Never forget that most of the benefits we in the working class take for granted today are ones we have because people in labor unions literally fought, and sometimes died, to obtain them.” Where are all the facts? Hmmm… I can’t really think of a case where anyone has called me a coward to my face. I guess this is what Tgirsch calls “reasoned debate”.
“Once again, Truth makes an allegation without any evidence to support it. Shocking, I tell you!”
There he goes again. My statement about California back-dues is absolutely correct. I would be willing to make a wager… oh yeah, I’m starting to remember how you live up to your end of a bargain….
“You sure as hell implied it. Comment 7: “Unions … just take, take, take… from the rank and file.” That would seem to imply that the “rank and file” get nothing in return, no?”
Actually I think I conceded somewhere along the line that unions do keep people working that shouldn’t be. So I guess the deadbeats get a return.
“Comment 12: “Teachers definitely need better pay. The union hasn’t done squat with this issue. All you hear is the sucking sound of more money leaving the teachers pockets and going into the union pockets.” Seems you think the teachers aren’t benefiting from union membership — that the unions don’t deliver for them. But maybe I read “all you hear is the sucking sound” wrong. (And for the record, you still haven’t answered my direct challenge about whether or not union teachers are better-compensated than their non-union counterparts.)”
We all agreed that teachers are underpaid.
“Comment 26: “What has the UFCW done for your health coverage, say, in the last 2 contracts?” Now why would you ask that question, if not to imply that your expected answer is “nothing” or “not much?””
Because after the California strike contracts across the country were severely weakened and companies placed a cap on health care benefits. I would bet if Matt checked the two previous contracts to this one he would see what I am saying is true. I would also bet his health coverage is not as good as 2 contracts ago. Matt, did you just ratify a contract?
“The bottom line here, the one that you’ve been avoiding like George W. Bush avoids unscripted interviews, boils down to this question: generally speaking, do union workers fare better, in terms of job security, benefits, and total compensation, than their non-union counterparts? If the answer to that question is “yes,” then unions clearly have a good reason to continue to exist, no matter how many objections you might raise to the contrary.”
Tell me how well it’s working in your industry.
“It’s risible that you would demand evidence from anyone else on anything, considering that you’re either too lazy blah blah blah [more name calling]…”
The truly funny thing is I knew you would take issue with this and prove my point that you ask things of conservative that you don’t ask of liberals. I was doing Matt a favor asking for stats knowing how much they mean to you.
“One wonders if Wal-Mart’s non-Republican customers know that their money is overwhelmingly going to support Republicans. I suppose they could always choose to shop somewhere else, even in small towns where Wal-Mart is the only game in town…) ”
Yep, they could.
Comment 9/18/2007
I wonder, tgirsch, if we should perhaps just let this one go. It’s obvious that he’s run out of real points, and I’m actually rather satisfied with his [non-]responses.
Comment 9/18/2007
Matt:
Truth has a long history here of being full of hot air, and never backing up anything he says with statistics. He’ll challenge others to provide statistics, of course, but when they do he’ll conveniently ignore them and move on. Witness, for example, his challenge on the 85% of Wal-Mart’s donations stat.
Maybe he fantasizes about me getting my ass kicked physically to compensate for the fact that he’s constantly getting his ass kicked rhetorically.
Comment 9/18/2007
Tgirsch, tgirsch, tgirsch!!!! Matt and I wanna know what d’ya wanna do next!
Comment 9/19/2007