Striking at WalMart - Page 5 - GoFuckYourself.com

astronaut x · 11-24-2012, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

Another of the GFY simpletons with an opinion and nothing to back it up.

Now that the Obama gang thinks they have business where they want it, they are embolden. Yet they forget that it's business that has the cash. Last week the bakers found out first hand who has the power. 18,000 union members go hungry and the owners take their citation jets off to the islands for the holidays.

Here is a short list of where the Obama/democrat campaign funds come from. Do you see the pattern. The top number over every contributor is to the democrats. The lower to the republicans.

American Fed. of State, County, & Municipal Employees
Dem - $40,281,900
Rep - $547,700

Intel Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Dem - 29,705,600
Reb - 679,000

National Education Association
27,679,300
2,005,200

Service Employees International Union
26,368,470
98,700

Communication Workers of America
26,305,500
125,300

Service Employees International Union
26,252,000
1,086,200

Laborers Union
25,734,000
138,000

American Federation of Teachers
25,682,800
200,000

United Auto Workers
25,082,200
182,700

Teamsters Union
24,926,400
1,822,000

Carpenters and Joiners Union
24,094,100
658,000

Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union
23,875,600
226,300

United Food and Commercial Workers Union
23,182,000
334,200

AFL-CIO
17,124,300
713,500

Sheet Metal Workers Union
16,347,200
342,800

Plumbers & Pipefitters Union
14,790,000
818,500

Operating Engineers Union
13,840,000
2,309,500

Airline Pilots Association
12,806,600
2,398,300

International Association of Firefighters
12,421,700
2,685,400

United Transportation Workers
11,807,000
1,459,300

Ironworkers Union
11,638,900
936,000

American Postal Workers Union
11,633,100
544,300

Nat'l Active & Retired Fed. Employees Association
8,135,400
2,294,600

Seafarers International Union
6,726,800
1,281,300

Facts? and what facts do you have? You are just posting numbers you copied from somewhere. what the fuck does that prove?

Nothing.

Robbie · 11-24-2012, 01:32 PM

I think the bakers themselves would have rather taken a pay cut than have the union bosses negotiate them out of a job completely.

Something is always better than nothing in the real world.

crockett · 11-24-2012, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

unions were the ones who got these laws in place. without them, would they slowly be eroded? the financial industry is constantly trying to remove laws that protect consumers, i don't doubt the same could apply here. there needs to be some kind of middle or balance in the power struggle between owners and workers. maybe the money equation needs to be taken out of unions or something completely different needs to be set up.

There is it's called the Govt.. Sadly the only way to have the govt on your side is to shower it with lobbyist.

Lobbying is the problem not regulations, laws & taxes.. If there were no more lobbying then politicians would have to be elected by the power of the people, not by whom ever can get the most money out of a corporation or special interest group for their campaign.

This in turn means they would have to work for the people not the corporations & special interest groups as they do today.

tony286 · 11-24-2012, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I think the bakers themselves would have rather taken a pay cut than have the union bosses negotiate them out of a job completely.

Something is always better than nothing in the real world.

actually no read the story.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,966735.column

"That overlooks the years of union givebacks and management bad faith. Example: Just before declaring bankruptcy for the second time in eight years Jan. 11, Hostess trebled the compensation of then-Chief Executive Brian Driscoll and raised other executives' pay up to twofold. At the same time, the company was demanding lower wages from workers and stiffing employee pension funds of $8 million a month in payment obligations."

"Hostess first entered bankruptcy in 2004, when it was known as Interstate Bakeries. During its five years in Chapter 11, the firm obtained concessions from its unions worth $110 million a year. The unions accepted layoffs that brought the workforce down to about 19,000 from more than 30,000. There were cuts in wages, pension and health benefits. The Teamsters committed to negotiations over changes in antiquated work rules. The givebacks helped reduce Hostess' labor costs to the point where they were roughly equal to or even lower than some of its major competitors'."

Robbie · 11-24-2012, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

This in turn means they would have to work for the people not the corporations & special interest groups as they do today.

Thing is, I'm not even sure who the "people" are anymore.

Is it me? Is it you? Is it gang members? Is it the religious right (who can turn out their vote without any "big money" needed)?

What you're saying is that people would actually have to give a damn and get out and vote.

And what if the "99%" voted to nationalize everything and take all the money from the greedy 1%?

Not saying that would happen, just being theoretical.

Would that really be a good thing? Or would the majority of the "99%" prove or disprove that they belonged in the lower rungs? In other words would they run the whole thing into the ground?

I guess it couldn't be a whole lot worse than the corruption, greed, and crazy ass deficit spending that goes on in Washington D.C. today.

My feeling is that would be step one: Vote out EVERYONE. Let real citizens start serving in Congress and The Senate like it was originally intended. Not just rich lawyers.

Robbie · 11-24-2012, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

actually no read the story.

Okay, I read that biased story. It certainly tells the sordid tale from the anti-business perspective.

But it still doesn't address what I said:
I think the bakers would rather have taken a pay cut than to have their union bosses fuck up the negotiations and find themselves UNEMPLOYED in a horrible economy.

tony286 · 11-24-2012, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Okay, I read that biased story. It certainly tells the sordid tale from the anti-business perspective.

But it still doesn't address what I said:
I think the bakers would rather have taken a pay cut than to have their union bosses fuck up the negotiations and find themselves UNEMPLOYED in a horrible economy.

Actually heard interviews of a few of them and they said they were tired of getting fucked. They didnt use the word fucked.

Robbie · 11-24-2012, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Actually heard interviews of a few of them and they said they were tired of getting fucked. They didnt use the word fucked.

I can understand that.

But still...in the cold light of day, they now are unemployed. The rent is still due, the electric and water need to be paid. The kids are hungry.

I GUARANTEE you that they are wishing that the union bosses had backed the fuck up now.
And yeah, they would have been celebrating if it had worked. But it didn't. And that's my point.

TheSquealer · 11-24-2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astronaut x

Facts? and what facts do you have? You are just posting numbers you copied from somewhere. what the fuck does that prove?

Nothing.

haha.. you expect him to compile and analyze the data himself, otherwise its irrelevant or untrue?

Rochard · 11-24-2012, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

The false sense of bravado and security the unions have with the reelection of Obama will do nothing positive for workers. It will only cost them more jobs,as we've already seen.

This strike would still be happening if Romney won, and it would still be happening if Romney was in office. You seem to think that if the Republican Party won that businessmen would be happy and employees would be happy.

You are on crack.

epitome · 11-24-2012, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Thing is, I'm not even sure who the "people" are anymore.

Is it me? Is it you? Is it gang members? Is it the religious right (who can turn out their vote without any "big money" needed)?

What you're saying is that people would actually have to give a damn and get out and vote.

And what if the "99%" voted to nationalize everything and take all the money from the greedy 1%?

Not saying that would happen, just being theoretical.

Would that really be a good thing? Or would the majority of the "99%" prove or disprove that they belonged in the lower rungs? In other words would they run the whole thing into the ground?

I guess it couldn't be a whole lot worse than the corruption, greed, and crazy ass deficit spending that goes on in Washington D.C. today.

My feeling is that would be step one: Vote out EVERYONE. Let real citizens start serving in Congress and The Senate like it was originally intended. Not just rich lawyers.

What's weird is people in Congress don't even get paid all that much. If a person manages to get in and not have a high net worth they sure do seem to have one a few years after getting out.

It's not supposed to be that way. You are supposed to serve for the honor of serving.

Rochard · 11-24-2012, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

What's weird is people in Congress don't even get paid all that much. If a person manages to get in and not have a high net worth they sure do seem to have one a few years after getting out.

It's not supposed to be that way. You are supposed to serve for the honor of serving.

They make an average of $175k a year, which is a fair amount - more than the average. And this is why only multi millionaires do it. There was a story about one Congressman from some small state who was only paid $75k a year... Not a bad salary until you factor in he owns a home back in his home state and needs to pay for a house in Washington DC. To save money, he slept in his office.

Freedom6995 · 11-24-2012, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

This is the 49th post and I'm still trying to figure out what Obama has to do with strikes since they existed long before him.

he's black...kinda, nah mean?

epitome · 11-24-2012, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

They make an average of $175k a year, which is a fair amount - more than the average. And this is why only multi millionaires do it. There was a story about one Congressman from some small state who was only paid $75k a year... Not a bad salary until you factor in he owns a home back in his home state and needs to pay for a house in Washington DC. To save money, he slept in his office.

Wait and see where he is a few years after he gets out and exploits all the things he cannot exploit right now. That was my point.

epitome · 11-24-2012, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom6995

he's black...kinda, nah mean?

Accusing someone else of being racist is racist. At least that's what's it has become.

11-24-2012, 01:32 PM	#202
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	I think the bakers themselves would have rather taken a pay cut than have the union bosses negotiate them out of a job completely. Something is always better than nothing in the real world. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com