Scott Walker's crusade continues

[The Mad Monk]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]173078[/ATTACH]

A more psychedelic state flag?

[MrFun]

A union derives its authority to represent the workers from the consent of the workers. Consent can not be given by somebody who's looking for a job so they don't lose their house. That's exploitation.

Where's your outrage in all the multitude ways that corporate CEOs exploit their employees? Man, I hate the foul stink of hypocrisy.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Democrats consistently get 60% of the union vote. Do you think they only get 60% of the union cash? People don't have much choice in where they work, and once they find a job, they're forced to join a partisan organization that takes money straight from their pay checks. Even if it's not a lot, it's a violation of a worker's right to do with his money as he pleases.

Really? I've always managed to find jobs. It's also inconsistent with conservative doctrine to coddle workers - they're at will creatures, at the convenience of the employer in every other sense. So why is it in this one sense, then "Oh, it's so difficult to find jobs, we have to coddle them" - the majority of jobs in the economy are non-union, so it's not like there's a shortage of alternate jobs.

Oh, and maybe the Republicans who are so concerned about union political contributions could try to soften their anti-union rhetoric and maybe even adopt a few positions which favor the working man. Thanks though, for admitting the real issue here - "if we can't feed at the trough, we want to kick it over so nobody else can feed from it." ink:

There's a mechanism to prevent this. If you're really sincerely worried about free riders, restrict mandatory union dues to non-political activities, like in a 501(c)(3). So they could build war chests for strikes, or spend it on educating the public, but they'd have to raise campaign donations voluntarily from the workers. That I'd be cool with, but you'd rather exploit workers than treat them with dignity and respect.

Unions are people too, my friend.

I'm a right to work proponent, and I do care about the couple of dollars per pay check. I don't think it's okay to force somebody to pay a single penny for political activities that they don't support.]

They're not forced, they can get another job, or not take the union job in the first place. I've never taken a union job yet.

So companies relocating in response to economic necessity is evil, but unions taking money from the workers for political campaigns is good.

They have a discount on straw where you come from? Or do you get your strawmen pre-built? That's at least a slightly amusing troll. Economic necessity is a fluid term. You mean greed? And political campaigns can be similarly fluid. You mean supporting candidates who are pro-worker and pro-middle class?

A union derives its authority to represent the workers from the consent of the workers. Consent can not be given by somebody who's looking for a job so they don't lose their house. That's exploitation.

And non-union employers offering new jobs at substantially lower wages than just a few years ago is just adjusting to the labor market, right? A worker can't consent to taking a job at 30% less pay than they made in 2007, because they're looking for a job so they don't lose their house. That's exploitation. Right? BS, they're both market conditions. I'm self employed and making half the hourly rate I made five years ago, because that's the market. If the worker is trying to save his house, a couple of bucks a paycheck going to dem campaigns isn't going to be on his priority list. Remember the old Chinese saying, "you don't worry about your beard when your head is about to be taken?" If the worker didn't have that union job available, he'd take a WalMart job or whatever was available. Hired at the highest net pay is pretty much the key there if you're trying to save your house. If union political contributions is way up on your personal radar, then you're probably not too concerned about saving your house. Or you're a Republican troll in a non-union job trying to sell snake-oil and pass it off as concern for the working man.

[MrFun]

The absurdity is two-fold: First, that you think anyone takes seriously the notion that Walker or any of the other right to work proponents care about a couple of dollars a paycheck for the average union worker - which is on the high side of the proportion of union dues which get channeled to union supported PACs and direct donations to candidates.

Second is that you think anyone takes seriously the crocodile tears shed over how tough it would be for those workers to get different jobs if they feel so upset that the union supported a Dem candidate for congress with a few pennies of that particular worker's per-paycheck contribution. If this was any other issue, say the owners outsourcing or relocating to increase profits, you'd be cheering the capitalist system at work and suggest those workers should suck it up and get another job instead of feeling entitled.

QFT

[MichaeltheGreat]

The line is being drawn in the sand by the people you support and openly call cretins by their insulting offer and refusal to back away from it in the face of GOP Senators signaling willingness to partially cave on taxes.

That's this particular line in the sand at this particular moment. One of hundreds of lines in the sand that have been drawn over the last several decades.

[MrFun]

Hired at the highest net pay is pretty much the key there if you're trying to save your house. If union political contributions is way up on your personal radar, then you're probably not too concerned about saving your house. Or you're a Republican troll in a non-union job trying to sell snake-oil and pass it off as concern for the working man.

QFT

[MichaeltheGreat]

Point being much is forgotten/forgiveable (even stupid expenditures) when economic growth is underway and a reality. There is no reason to think given the administrations own rationalizaton for a new elevated expected norm of unemployment to think growth is a reality anytime soon.

Probably not. As Alan Simpson recently said: "We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory." Nobody in office now can do much to move growth along, unless the Europeans find a magic solution to un**** themselves, and a million other things outside of US control magically resolve themselves. Given China's political system and the ME being the ME, that isn't really likely.

[Hauldren Collider]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]173078[/ATTACH]

Your flag may be the only one depicting drug paraphernalia (reminder: I was the one who pointed that out to you ) but OURS has murder and nudity!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The line is being drawn in the sand by the people you support and openly call cretins by their insulting offer and refusal to back away from it in the face of GOP Senators signaling willingness to partially cave on taxes.

There is no "they did it too" hypocrisy at play here. The cretins Pelosi, Reid, and Boxer all voted against the tax cuts previously under the Bush administration out of a perverse feeling of a need to stick it to the rich. Be damnded if it helped everyone else. They hated it then and are more than willing to go over the cliff now. Particularly if they can pin it on the pugs.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Probably not. As Alan Simpson recently said: "We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory." Nobody in office now can do much to move growth along, unless the Europeans find a magic solution to un**** themselves, and a million other things outside of US control magically resolve themselves. Given China's political system and the ME being the ME, that isn't really likely.

On a more respectful note, knowing you were at one point in the energy sector, what are your thoughts of any (if any) recent technological improvements re: oil shale extraction. Are we still in pipe dream territory or is ME reliance a fact of life forever?

[Felch]

Where's your outrage in all the multitude ways that corporate CEOs exploit their employees? Man, I hate the foul stink of hypocrisy.

I hate corporate exploitation as well. When have I ever come out in favor of it?

Really? I've always managed to find jobs. It's also inconsistent with conservative doctrine to coddle workers - they're at will creatures, at the convenience of the employer in every other sense. So why is it in this one sense, then "Oh, it's so difficult to find jobs, we have to coddle them" - the majority of jobs in the economy are non-union, so it's not like there's a shortage of alternate jobs.

I'm not a doctrinaire conservative, so comparing me to them just shows how out of touch you are.

Oh, and maybe the Republicans who are so concerned about union political contributions could try to soften their anti-union rhetoric and maybe even adopt a few positions which favor the working man. Thanks though, for admitting the real issue here - "if we can't feed at the trough, we want to kick it over so nobody else can feed from it." ink:

Republicans already pull in a decent percentage of the union vote - somewhere between a third and two fifths depending on the election. Which tells me that they seem to have plenty of positions the working man is comfortable with. Maybe if unions bosses weren't just Democratic party stooges, they'd have an easier time convincing people to contribute without relying on coercion.

Unions are people too, my friend.

And people have no right to take things that don't belong to them.

They're not forced, they can get another job, or not take the union job in the first place. I've never taken a union job yet.

Or they can go without a job and just lose their homes and starve. You really are a compassionate man, aren't you?

They have a discount on straw where you come from? Or do you get your strawmen pre-built? That's at least a slightly amusing troll. Economic necessity is a fluid term. You mean greed? And political campaigns can be similarly fluid. You mean supporting candidates who are pro-worker and pro-middle class?

Businesses fail all the time. Economic necessity is a real thing, and pretending like it doesn't exist just shows how shallow your thinking is.

If the candidates are pro-worker and pro-middle class then they should have no trouble getting workers and middle class people to support them freely and voluntarily.

And non-union employers offering new jobs at substantially lower wages than just a few years ago is just adjusting to the labor market, right? A worker can't consent to taking a job at 30% less pay than they made in 2007, because they're looking for a job so they don't lose their house. That's exploitation. Right? BS, they're both market conditions. I'm self employed and making half the hourly rate I made five years ago, because that's the market. If the worker is trying to save his house, a couple of bucks a paycheck going to dem campaigns isn't going to be on his priority list. Remember the old Chinese saying, "you don't worry about your beard when your head is about to be taken?" If the worker didn't have that union job available, he'd take a WalMart job or whatever was available. Hired at the highest net pay is pretty much the key there if you're trying to save your house. If union political contributions is way up on your personal radar, then you're probably not too concerned about saving your house. Or you're a Republican troll in a non-union job trying to sell snake-oil and pass it off as concern for the working man.

If unions are so great, why do they need to coerce people to pay them? That's the actual issue, not all this chaff you're tossing up. Either people want what unions give them (i.e. right to work is a non issue) or they don't, and you're on the side of the thugs and racketeers.

[Felch]

This statement is so fvcking retarded. American history is FULL of examples of good people suffering under certain types of laws.

Certain types of laws? No ****. Prove to me that this is one of those laws.

[Felch]

Your flag may be the only one depicting drug paraphernalia (reminder: I was the one who pointed that out to you ) but OURS has murder and nudity!

Drugs are better than murder.

Nudity is so easy to come by it's not even worth putting on a flag.

[Felch]

QFT

QFT

Let the record show that MrFun is okay with coercing workers into supporting political candidates that they don't agree with.

[kentonio]

You mean like threatening to sack them if the 'right' candidate doesn't get elected?