GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 5 of 6 < 1234 5 6 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Damned Unions! (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1033461)

TheDoc 08-10-2011 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18345319)
Problem with that is what the federal employee's have, they had their collective bargaining taken away by Carter.
Thats how long it's been, I don't see this changing right away.

I think this could be only the beginning of the end for unions in public sectors. I just think it's not going to work in a bad economy. The government has too many bills to pay and getting less back as the unemployment rate stays fixed at above 9% and the kind of money some local governments have to pay for illegal aliens. They have to cut somewhere and the only thing they can cut is the employees benefits. It sucks, but until we start cutting away all the things we pay for that we shouldn't, thats the way it's going to be.
I would rather spend the money to have half decent cops, good teachers and keep the parks clean. But instead, we are blowing money on things like Los Angeles County spending over 600 million dollars a year on illegal aliens. That does not include the hundreds of millions the state and county pay for educating illegal aliens as mandated by federal law. Which put the total around 1.6 billion, this is one county. FAIR puts it at 22 billion for the state.
That's sad... as they aren't the real issue.

As long as Cali has to sell its resources and buy back at a loss, it will always be screwed. Even if you removed every illegal and it cost the State nothing, the State would still be screwed. However, more border security, simply means that money will be moved, not saved and then add in the loss tax revenue, micro economy they do create, etc, even more lost. And the same real problems still in place....

Minte 08-10-2011 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 18345539)
Wisconsin Democrats will extend their recall battle into next year with an effort to oust Republican Governor Scott Walker, possibly on Election Day 2012, the state?s party chairman said today.

One day after falling short of a goal to recall three Republican state senators and gain control of the legislative chamber, Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate said he would like to see a signature-gathering effort to force a vote ?as soon as feasible.?

Continues here...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...t-failure.html
I hope that they do. Let them tap their union coffers for another $40 million only to get shot down again. What you people don't understand is that Wisconsin hasn't broken the union. They have only stopped the ability of the public union to bargain collectively.

All of this is available online if you actually care about it.

As far as private unions, I was in one early in my career. Aerospace and Machinists. Every other year they struck the company. This company had over 1100 of the highest paid employees in the state. After the 10th strike in 20 years. They closed te plant.

MrMaxwell 08-10-2011 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minte (Post 18345578)
I hope that they do. Let them tap their union coffers for another $40 million only to get shot down again. What you people don't understand is that Wisconsin hasn't broken the union. They have only stopped the ability of the public union to bargain collectively.

All of this is available online if you actually care about it.

As far as private unions, I was in one early in my career. Aerospace and Machinists. Every other year they struck the company. This company had over 1100 of the highest paid employees in the state. After the 10th strike in 20 years. They closed te plant.

It is very similar here in Wichita. We have people who aren't worth ten cents earning over $20 an hour and then striking over it. The people who do work carry the rest and nothing ever changes.

As an aside - never fly in anything Hawker Beechcraft has made in the past half decade because I am sure that my ex worked there between 2006-2007 and if she helped build it and you fly on it, you're just wrong. :1orglaugh

BFT3K 08-10-2011 03:25 PM
Unfortunately the old saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" can be applied to almost any situation. - from greedy politicians, to greedy union leaders.

The key is to keep balance. Government is necessary, but corruption is not. Same with unions. Balance is key.

Remove government completely and we will have anarchy. Remove unions completely and the corporate powers that be, will happily take away more of the people's rights, as the "people" will be further divided.

None of our problems can be solved without a balanced approach. Most issues are not as black-and-white as we wish they were.

Cherry7 08-11-2011 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Day (Post 18345575)
Unions have been around for centuries, they were called guilds.
The minimum wage is BS. The minimum wage, is what a family needs to realistically live on. Say, the Flintstones, the Simpsons, The Beaver Cleaver family. It takes at least $70,000+ a year for a family of 2-4 to live basic American Dream. The average worker in the US makes a lot less than $70K per year
Walmart, America's largest retailer has no unions.
Of course, those pesky employees keep suing, since the Great, Wonderful Walmart makes them clock out after 40 hours to avoid overtime. But then makes them work for free. That's Slavery.
Walmart has no health benefits, but new employees are instructed on how to apply for food stamps and Medicaid.
Walmart has no retirement plan. Since you can't afford to work at Walmart and eat, how are you going to afford a 401K?
I used to eat with some older guys. One who bad mouthed welfare every day. But the govt. paid him to grow Angora Goats, for our next World War II. Same place, at the bar were 2 guys always bitching about "welfare mothers," while bragging about how they were getting federal money to rehab some old buildings, into condos, no one would ever buy.
The UAW was created after GM & Ford pulled so much crap. You never knew from day to day if you would work. You just showed up at the gate and hoped for the best. It was up to the supervisor to let you in. Sometimes the only way you got in, was your wife did his laundry. Sometimes she had to fuck him. That or let your family starve.
Anybody who bad mouths unions is a lackey for the Kochs. Unions aren't perfect, but without them, employees in the US would be working in the same conditions as China.
That's the ticket, fire all adult Americans. Hire children and make them work 16 hours, 7 days a week. So what if the factory burns down with all locked inside. there's plenty more children as people keep making more.
Long as rich, white folk are safe in their mansions, who cares?
Thank you for the interesting post....

12clicks 08-11-2011 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReGGs (Post 18345545)
I'm so tired of hearing this crap. It's the "conservative" states that feed off the government trough much the same way a lot of scrappy independent businessmen wouldn't have a dime if it wasn't for no-bid government contracts provided through bought and paid for political appointments.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6126/...aa4087f07f.jpg

So yeah keep feeding from the liberal trough.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ates_feed.html
this uneducated argument comes up often.
take NJ for example. You have a minority of successful people propping up the state and voting conservative and then you have the rabble in towns like camden, jersey city, trenton, etc. etc. leeching off of the system and voting democratic.
Your chart is an accurate lie.
a misstating of the facts to convey an inaccurate picture.

raymor 08-11-2011 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18343583)
I don't even know where to start.... so I'll start with, wtf does that bullshit have to do with you being off by a 100 years of the op or any damn subject in this thread? Not a damn thing, that's what!

And I wish dems supported civil rights and they were good guys? I'm shocked, I had no idea I felt this way... heck, I had no idea that I even cared, shit... I had no idea I was a democrat, I'm not registered as one, so this is all pretty new to me.

Next time, you should just say oops, my bad, I read it wrong... rather than coming up with stupid as long winded post where you assume you have a clue about someone you don't know.

I wouldn't want to be on the side of misinformation... so I'll stay put.
In that case I don't know what you mean by "a hundred years off."
The OP stated that the unions were directly responsible for the civil rights act of 1964. I showed that in fact their side, the left, tried to stop it. Please explain how that's a hundred years off.

The OP also claimed that the unions were responsible for the eight hour day standard. I mentioned that president Grant made tge right hour proclamation long before powerful unions existed. Please explain your comment.

Given the few words you said, I guessed that you meant I was confusing 1964 with 1866, that the left actually supported civil rights in '64. People who claim that simply don't know recent history, or wish it were different and claim their wishes as fact.

TheDoc 08-11-2011 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18347376)
In that case I don't know what you mean by "a hundred years off."
The OP stated that the unions were directly responsible for the civil rights act of 1964. I showed that in fact their side, the left, tried to stop it. Please explain how that's a hundred years off.

The OP also claimed that the unions were responsible for the eight hour day standard. I mentioned that president Grant made tge right hour proclamation long before powerful unions existed. Please explain your comment.

Given the few words you said, I guessed that you meant I was confusing 1964 with 1866, that the left actually supported civil rights in '64. People who claim that simply don't know recent history, or wish it were different and claim their wishes as fact.
The fact that you even attempted to show dems were against it is, pointless, then referencing history a hundred years before, is even more pointless. That's was the point.

Moving on... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

"In the United States, Philadelphia carpenters went on strike in 1791 for the ten-hour day. By the 1830s, this had become a general demand. In 1835, workers in Philadelphia organized a general strike, led by Irish coal heavers. Their banners read, From 6 to 6, ten hours work and two hours for meals. Labor movement publications called for an eight-hour day as early as 1836. Boston ship carpenters, although not unionized, achieved an eight-hour day in 1842."

"....On May 19, 1869, Grant signed a National Eight Hour Law Proclamation."

78 after they first went on strike.... thank you unions!

_Richard_ 08-11-2011 09:37 AM
remember reading that story about american military bombing striking unions.. in america..

raymor 08-11-2011 10:01 AM
The Flintstones, Cleaver post is excellent in that it makes so strikingly clear the heart if the disagreement. The poster says that minimum wage should support an average family. On the other side I recognize that I started at minimum wage when I read fifteen, working a job that taught me basics like showing up on time. By showing up and doing my job, I earned a raise within two months and two years later I was earning twice minimum wage. From where I sit, minimum wage is the MINIMUM for a minimally useful employee, probably a teenager just starting out. It's also the minimum cost to hire a drunk who calls in all of the time.

It seems to me that the sixteen year old and the lazy slob who doesn't bother to show up on time do not produce enough to support a family. If you need to support a family, you need to show up on time and learn your job so you'll be worth a lot more than minimum wage. Regardless of "right" or "wrong", the claim that minimum wage should support a family with a couple kids shows clearly where rhe underlying thinking differs.

I don't need a union to set my wage and I didn't need one when I was flipping burgers because I worked hard to be worth what I needed to earn. When I left one burger place, I had two other job offers within an hour.

I am curious, assume minimum wage were set high enough to support a family of four, say $20 / hour. Do you think teenagers would be paid $20 / hour to do work that's worth only $8, with companies losing money on every employee, or do you think that the young, the drunk and the lazy simply wouldn't be hired at all?

I know the answer for our company.

dyna mo 08-11-2011 10:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 18347507)
remember reading that story about american military bombing striking unions.. in america..
what story would that be?

JamesGw 08-11-2011 10:12 AM
It's insane how much more money you can make by being union. I knew a girl that got ~150/hr doing sheet metal because he was union. After he moved to an area without unions, he would have been doing 30/hr for the same work.

raymor 08-11-2011 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18347494)
...
"In the United States, Philadelphia carpenters went on strike in 1791 for the ten-hour day. By the 1830s, this had become a general demand.
...
Boston ship carpenters, although not unionized, achieved an eight-hour day in 1842."

"....On May 19, 1869, Grant signed a National Eight Hour Law Proclamation."

78 after they first went on strike.... thank you unions!
Thank you for clarifying. I believe I understand your point now. Your point is that a
local guild in Philadelphia was helpful to it's dozens of members long before the
modern age of powerful national unions and that was also before the eight hour day
was implemented nationally under Grant. I wonder how a few dozen Philadelphia
carpenters in the 1700s relate to the 11 million member AFL-CIO today. Should the
AFL-CIO get credit for what a few dozen Philadelphia carpenters did in 1791, because
they could both be called "unions"?

I wonder if small local unions would be as helpful today as they were around the
time the country was founded. Of course, I don't know what problems those small
local unions caused back then. Maybe they caused big problems, maybe not, I don't know.
Maybe that style of small local union would be more helpful today. I don't know.
Did the modern age of national mega-unions as a result of WWII ruin a good thing?

_Richard_ 08-11-2011 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18347565)
what story would that be?
the story of the us military bombing union strikers.. i am sure you have as much access to google as i do

Sly 08-11-2011 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 18347680)
the story of the us military bombing union strikers.. i am sure you have as much access to google as i do
Not finding anything.

Why would you mention an obscure story and then refuse to post information about it?

dyna mo 08-11-2011 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 18347680)
the story of the us military bombing union strikers.. i am sure you have as much access to google as i do
of course i have google and i used it in this instance- results = nada

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...triking+unions

thus my asking you what story are you talking about.

Sly 08-11-2011 10:53 AM
Okay, I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...military_force

_Richard_ 08-11-2011 10:55 AM
oh weird.. you guys are having trouble pulling up results

how.. odd.

baddog 08-11-2011 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18347565)
what story would that be?
Back in the day, union busting used to be a lot harsher than what WI is doing today. While I am confident the US military never got involved in union busting, he may be referring to Hooverville and when the Army was called in to remove the occupants during the Great Depression

_Richard_ 08-11-2011 11:09 AM
woo forgive my sassiness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

even this is incorrect lol private planes in 1921 with access to ordinance from ww1? haha

baddog 08-11-2011 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 18347771)
woo forgive my sassiness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

even this is incorrect lol private planes in 1921 with access to ordinance from ww1? haha
You like to spin everything you can to be anti-US even if it means making shit up. :2 cents:

_Richard_ 08-11-2011 11:13 AM
here is a 'less edited' version of the story

http://www.redneckpossum.com/BattleOfBlairMountain.htm

victors do write the history apparently

_Richard_ 08-11-2011 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 18347786)
You like to spin everything you can to be anti-US even if it means making shit up. :2 cents:
a personal attack based on nothing? why baddog, i am disappoint

dyna mo 08-11-2011 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 18347712)
oh weird.. you guys are having trouble pulling up results

how.. odd.
no reason to be defensive.

you can make this about my google skills all you want and maybe i am not the top notch googler, yawn, but i simply inquired as to what story you are talking about.

_Richard_ 08-11-2011 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18347801)
no reason to be defensive.

you can make this about my google skills all you want and maybe i am not the top notch googler, yawn, but i simply inquired as to what story you are talking about.
i make what about you? i was stating that i had a lot more difficulty finding this information this time around than i did before, why i was apologizing for my sassiness

dyna mo 08-11-2011 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 18347787)
here is a 'less edited' version of the story

http://www.redneckpossum.com/BattleOfBlairMountain.htm

victors do write the history apparently
The fledgling United States Army Air Service dropped a few pipe and tear gas bombs as a demonstration meant to overawe the labor organizers.

_Richard_ 08-11-2011 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18347811)
The fledgling United States Army Air Service dropped a few pipe and tear gas bombs as a demonstration meant to overawe the labor organizers.
keep reading :thumbsup

_Richard_ 08-11-2011 11:20 AM
i like this sentence the best:

"On orders from the famous General Billy Mitchell, Army bombers from Maryland were also used to disperse the miners, a rare example of Air Power being used by the federal government against US citizens."

dyna mo 08-11-2011 11:23 AM
i read the whole thing.

_Richard_ 08-11-2011 11:25 AM
wonderful.

_Richard_ 08-11-2011 11:26 AM
http://i.imgur.com/Dx5pX.jpg

so is this tear gas or pipebomb?

guess you missed the pictures?

baddog 08-11-2011 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 18347819)
i like this sentence the best:

"On orders from the famous General Billy Mitchell, Army bombers from Maryland were also used to disperse the miners, a rare example of Air Power being used by the federal government against US citizens."
You provided two links and each said the planes were there for different reasons. Naturally, you picked the one that implied "american military bombing striking unions."

Since you were not there, you do not know what really happened. History = his story. I know which story you believe.

12clicks 08-11-2011 11:32 AM
..............

Sly 08-11-2011 11:34 AM
So now we are talking about the possibility of the US military bombing striking unions 50+ years ago?

What that has to do with current union politics, I have no idea.

_Richard_ 08-11-2011 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 18347849)
You provided two links and each said the planes were there for different reasons. Naturally, you picked the one that implied "american military bombing striking unions."

Since you were not there, you do not know what really happened. History = his story. I know which story you believe.
if you weren't either, why are you telling me what i do and do not know?

before i mentioned this you were all 'the US military would NEVER', but we know that is now not true as these magical 'private planes' were armed with military ordinance.

it's funny you bring up the idea of 'twisting history'

_Richard_ 08-11-2011 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly (Post 18347866)
So now we are talking about the possibility of the US military bombing striking unions 50+ years ago?

What that has to do with current union politics, I have no idea.
current union politics? or the same politics all along?

Vendzilla 08-11-2011 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18345577)
That's sad... as they aren't the real issue.

As long as Cali has to sell its resources and buy back at a loss, it will always be screwed. Even if you removed every illegal and it cost the State nothing, the State would still be screwed. However, more border security, simply means that money will be moved, not saved and then add in the loss tax revenue, micro economy they do create, etc, even more lost. And the same real problems still in place....
We don't need to add more border control, we need to shut off the silver spoon, we voted to pass prop 187 but we were denied by one fucktard judge. It would have saved the state BILLIONS. The border security is more for control drug and gun traffic and anyone attemping it should be shot. It won't stop them, but enough of them get shot, less of them to keep trying

dyna mo 08-11-2011 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 18347840)
http://i.imgur.com/Dx5pX.jpg

so is this tear gas or pipebomb?

guess you missed the pictures?
i wouldn't even hazard a guess as to what that is. and there were no pics on the link i clicked so yes, i missed the pictures. :-(

baddog 08-11-2011 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 18347869)
before i mentioned this you were all 'the US military would NEVER', but we know that is now not true as these magical 'private planes' were armed with military ordinance.
and you still have not proven that the US military EVER BOMBED strikers. Crowd control in a riot is not an act of war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 18347878)
current union politics? or the same politics all along?
More of your bullshit . . . I can take care of this

Barry-xlovecam 08-11-2011 11:46 AM
Quote:
Feb 28, 2011 ? Just 17 percent of voters in November were from a union household, down from 23 percent in the 2006 midterm elections, according to national ...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...holds-in-2010/
I fail to see the relevance today to the current economic situation.
Stale talking point.

You are assuming that the union household voters form a cohesive voting block -- they don't FYI.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:57 AM.
Page 5 of 6 < 1234 5 6 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc