Why it's okay to hate union workers

  • metta

    Posts: 39077

    Mar 06, 2011 7:48 PM GMT
    Why it's okay to hate union workers

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/06/953112/-Why-its-okay-to-hate-union-workers
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2011 8:55 PM GMT
    metta8 saidWhy it's okay to hate union workers

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/06/953112/-Why-its-okay-to-hate-union-workers


    Heh other than the specious ad hominem and straw men attacks... - the alternate, and more learned view instead of the ridiculous argument that it's because the rest of us are "carrying water for billionaires":
    http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2011/02/the-case-against-public-sector-unionism.html

    FDR was also against public sector unions - or at least any form of militancy:
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Mar 06, 2011 9:08 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    metta8 saidWhy it's okay to hate union workers

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/06/953112/-Why-its-okay-to-hate-union-workers


    Heh other than the specious ad hominem and straw men attacks... - the alternate, and more learned view instead of the ridiculous argument that it's because the rest of us are "carrying water for billionaires":
    http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2011/02/the-case-against-public-sector-unionism.html

    FDR was also against public sector unions - or at least any form of militancy:
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445


    It fascinates me that I've been attacked by the political left AND the political right in past...and yet it's only people like riddler78 who leave me feeling like I need a shower after reading their musings.

    Look, say what you will about FDR...but when you talk about his Union viewpoints, you conveniently leave out that many of the benefits that Unions have fought for were in fact rights that FDR wanted EVERY American to possess.

    So yes, the man may well have opposed public sector unions...however if FDR had had his way, every American would have the right to stable employment, home ownership, fully paid vacations, affordable health care, to be able to send their children to college or university without having to take on enormous debts, etc...

    In that environment, the Unions would be largely irrevelant because the ultimate union would be WE...as in THE PEOPLE!
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Mar 06, 2011 9:12 PM GMT
    metta8 saidWhy it's okay to hate union workers

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/06/953112/-Why-its-okay-to-hate-union-workers


    It's a great article.

    Of course the responses have already started...and predictably the first response was from one of the resident greedy, selfish individuals who wants to take from the working man and consistently trumpets the alleged virtues of the rich and their wannabe lackeys!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2011 9:30 PM GMT
    TrentGrad said
    riddler78 said
    metta8 saidWhy it's okay to hate union workers

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/06/953112/-Why-its-okay-to-hate-union-workers


    Heh other than the specious ad hominem and straw men attacks... - the alternate, and more learned view instead of the ridiculous argument that it's because the rest of us are "carrying water for billionaires":
    http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2011/02/the-case-against-public-sector-unionism.html

    FDR was also against public sector unions - or at least any form of militancy:
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445


    It fascinates me that I've been attacked by the political left AND the political right in past...and yet it's only people like riddler78 who leave me feeling like I need a shower after reading their musings.

    Look, say what you will about FDR...but when you talk about his Union viewpoints, you conveniently leave out that many of the benefits that Unions have fought for were in fact rights that FDR wanted EVERY American to possess.

    So yes, the man may well have opposed public sector unions...however if FDR had had his way, every American would have the right to stable employment, home ownership, fully paid vacations, affordable health care, to be able to send their children to college or university without having to take on enormous debts, etc...

    In that environment, the Unions would be largely irrevelant because the ultimate union would be WE...as in THE PEOPLE!


    What surprise. More ad hominem and more specious arguments. For clarification, are you saying that public workers who are not unionized have been denied the right to stable employment, home ownership, fully paid vacations, affordable healthcare? I disagree much with FDR on a wide berth of issues and yet, I point out his quotes and position only to show how extreme you have to be in order to believe in the position public unions take.

    It isn't so much that you should believe that there shouldn't be public unions because of what FDR said, it's that _even_ FDR didn't believe in public unions in spite of all those issues.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 06, 2011 9:40 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    metta8 saidWhy it's okay to hate union workers

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/06/953112/-Why-its-okay-to-hate-union-workers


    Heh other than the specious ad hominem and straw men attacks... - the alternate, and more learned view instead of the ridiculous argument that it's because the rest of us are "carrying water for billionaires":
    http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2011/02/the-case-against-public-sector-unionism.html

    FDR was also against public sector unions - or at least any form of militancy:
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445


    Careful where you get your information ..... when you hang out among fish mongers ............ you start to smell like Fish Yourself
    ProfessorBainbridge.com
    The Vocational and Avocational Journal of a Corporate Law Professor


    and if you actually READ what FDR said in his letter
    He was wary of the Federal Employees ability to stop government from functioning by their ability to strike

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2011 9:44 PM GMT
    GQjock said
    riddler78 said
    metta8 saidWhy it's okay to hate union workers

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/06/953112/-Why-its-okay-to-hate-union-workers


    Heh other than the specious ad hominem and straw men attacks... - the alternate, and more learned view instead of the ridiculous argument that it's because the rest of us are "carrying water for billionaires":
    http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2011/02/the-case-against-public-sector-unionism.html

    FDR was also against public sector unions - or at least any form of militancy:
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445


    Careful where you get your information ..... when you hang out among fish mongers ............ you start to smell like Fish Yourself
    ProfessorBainbridge.com
    The Vocational and Avocational Journal of a Corporate Law Professor


    and if you actually READ what FDR said in his letter
    He was wary of the Federal Employees ability to stop government from functioning by their ability to strike


    Bainbridge is on record for being for private sector unions. Not for public sector unions. That would be my position as well. I presume you would agree there is an inherent conflict of interest if you have a government vendor who contributes heavily back to politicians who give them contracts. Why is this not true for unions? Besides, read his arguments - which are very specific as to why public sector unions are against the public interest.

    On FDR, yes I agree which is why I said at least the militancy of unions - which is then what you can argue that they're doing in Wisconsin in effectively denying the unions the ability to strike.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2011 10:05 PM GMT
    oh lol. Riddler said, " For clarification, are you saying that public workers who are not unionized have been denied the right to stable employment, home ownership, fully paid vacations, affordable healthcare?"

    Yes, they're called called 'temps'. They get zero benefits, a low wage, inconsistent and unstable hours of work, and can be let go at the drop of a hat.

  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Mar 06, 2011 10:40 PM GMT
    meninlove said oh lol. Riddler said, " For clarification, are you saying that public workers who are not unionized have been denied the right to stable employment, home ownership, fully paid vacations, affordable healthcare?"

    Yes, they're called called 'temps'. They get zero benefits, a low wage, inconsistent and unstable hours of work, and can be let go at the drop of a hat.




    in the federal civil service employment system, these workers are called "intermittents".

    the agency that employees me has hired a large number of these "intermittents' in the last few years as replacements for full time carrer employees who have retired after 20, 25, 30 years of service to the federal govenment..

    these "intermittents" have little/no job loyalty, their performance is marginal at best, the call in sick on weekends and holidays and espically on the midnight shift. with no future, no benefits and no set hours...who can blame them?
  • mke_bt

    Posts: 707

    Mar 06, 2011 11:11 PM GMT

    Sure, drag out something FDR was against back in 1932 or whatever. Is that all you've got? What do you think he would be for in 2012? If I had the inclination I would research positions of Ronald Reagan that would make the right foam at the mouth today. I'm sure they exist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2011 11:50 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    GQjock said
    riddler78 said
    metta8 saidWhy it's okay to hate union workers

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/06/953112/-Why-its-okay-to-hate-union-workers


    Heh other than the specious ad hominem and straw men attacks... - the alternate, and more learned view instead of the ridiculous argument that it's because the rest of us are "carrying water for billionaires":
    http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2011/02/the-case-against-public-sector-unionism.html

    FDR was also against public sector unions - or at least any form of militancy:
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445


    Careful where you get your information ..... when you hang out among fish mongers ............ you start to smell like Fish Yourself
    ProfessorBainbridge.com
    The Vocational and Avocational Journal of a Corporate Law Professor


    and if you actually READ what FDR said in his letter
    He was wary of the Federal Employees ability to stop government from functioning by their ability to strike


    Bainbridge is on record for being for private sector unions. Not for public sector unions. That would be my position as well. I presume you would agree there is an inherent conflict of interest if you have a government vendor who contributes heavily back to politicians who give them contracts. Why is this not true for unions? Besides, read his arguments - which are very specific as to why public sector unions are against the public interest.

    On FDR, yes I agree which is why I said at least the militancy of unions - which is then what you can argue that they're doing in Wisconsin in effectively denying the unions the ability to strike.


    Most states do not permit public employees to strike, and neither does the federal government. That doesn't mean they can't but they are punished for it. Personally, I find it outrageous and am opposed to any constraints on collective action and bargaining. Particularly, post-Citizens United, striking may be the only lever that middle class public workers have against the torrent of money being used to demonize them.

    If the Republicans can jerk the counry along with threats of a "government shutdown", so they can appease their corporate masters, why should union workers - who make the damn thing run in the first place - be able to threaten a shutdown as well?

    And, guess what? There has been no strike in Wisconsin. So even in a very extreme instance, those public workers are better people than FDR thought they would be.

    With every post you reveal yourself to be increasingly craven in your desire to force everyone into off of the lifeboat but yourself. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 12:24 AM GMT
    mke_bt said
    Sure, drag out something FDR was against back in 1932 or whatever. Is that all you've got? What do you think he would be for in 2012? If I had the inclination I would research positions of Ronald Reagan that would make the right foam at the mouth today. I'm sure they exist.


    But that is precisely the nature of right-wing thinking. It is inconceivable to him that a position should evolve with the times. The mind like riddler 's assumes that as it was in 1932, so it goes would be in 2012.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 12:26 AM GMT
    Upper_Canadian said
    mke_bt said
    Sure, drag out something FDR was against back in 1932 or whatever. Is that all you've got? What do you think he would be for in 2012? If I had the inclination I would research positions of Ronald Reagan that would make the right foam at the mouth today. I'm sure they exist.


    But that is precisely the nature of right-wing thinking. It is inconceivable to him that a position should evolve with the times. The mind like riddler 's assumes that as it was in 1932, so it goes would be in 2012.


    Yep, let's go with the ad hominem attack. Did you bother to read my explanation for why it's relevant? Or perhaps you bothered to actually understand FDR's argument as it was in 1932 and why it differs to 2012? Are you really going to argue that conditions in the federal service or public service gotten worse since then?
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Mar 07, 2011 12:31 AM GMT
    Christian73 said...With every post you reveal yourself to be increasingly craven in your desire to force everyone into off of the lifeboat but yourself. icon_rolleyes.gif


    sounds like the long term goal of the republican party to me.

    icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 12:46 AM GMT
    rnch said
    Christian73 said...With every post you reveal yourself to be increasingly craven in your desire to force everyone into off of the lifeboat but yourself. icon_rolleyes.gif


    sounds like the long term goal of the republican party to me.

    icon_idea.gif


    The lack of perspective and context of a number of you never ceases to surprise me. Yep, forget how much life has improved in the last several decades despite falling union participation, Republicans and libertarians just want everyone out on the streets and starve icon_rolleyes.gif

    It occurs to me after a much required nap that this is a silly debate that doesn't matter. No matter how much those like Christian rant and rave, the fundamental nature of work is changing. The reason private unions are on the decline is not because everyone is being forced onto the streets but because work and value is decentralizing - that value comes more from ideas and less from things. Public sector unions are the last hold out. But for them, this is the beginning of the end - and that is why public unions and their supporters like Christian, cling so bitterly to their existence. The gravy train is over.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 1:28 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    rnch said
    Christian73 said...With every post you reveal yourself to be increasingly craven in your desire to force everyone into off of the lifeboat but yourself. icon_rolleyes.gif


    sounds like the long term goal of the republican party to me.

    icon_idea.gif


    The lack of perspective and context of a number of you never ceases to surprise me. Yep, forget how much life has improved in the last several decades despite falling union participation, Republicans and libertarians just want everyone out on the streets and starve icon_rolleyes.gif

    It occurs to me after a much required nap that this is a silly debate that doesn't matter. No matter how much those like Christian rant and rave, the fundamental nature of work is changing. The reason private unions are on the decline is not because everyone is being forced onto the streets but because work and value is decentralizing - that value comes more from ideas and less from things. Public sector unions are the last hold out. But for them, this is the beginning of the end - and that is why public unions and their supporters like Christian, cling so bitterly to their existence. The gravy train is over.


    Every time I try to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're intelligent but just misguided in your beliefs, you lay one out there which is so stunningly stupid, the mind wobbles.

    "Work and value is decentralizing..."

    In a very surface way this is true, particularly of certain kinds of work. I, myself, work from home frequently because most of the people I interact with are not in New York, and technology makes it possible to do so. But in every way that really matters "value" hasn't been so centralized (and in some cases completely fictitious) since the Gilded Age. My money is in fewer hands than ever before. Several of the worlds largest economies are multinationals not countries. That is not a move toward decentralization and it's certainly not a move toward democratization.

    Instead, in Wisconsin and the Middle East, workers have to literally fight in order to preserve or gain just a little bit of the "value" that you think is just floating around. And, given the increasingly complex and knowledge-laden focus of American work, we should have a public policy that puts teachers in higher esteem - as the Tiger countries do. But, no, people like the Koch brothers and their sycophants in state and federal government just want to drain that last little bit of "value" from the workers, and ensure that whatever leveling of the playing field occurred since the New Deal is erased.

    Edited to add: There never was a "gravy train" for public workers. The real gravy train is ridden by bankers who create nothing but increasingly high stakes gambling, and the inheritors of great wealth who enjoy gambling as long as the game is rigged in their favor and the public pays their debts.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Mar 07, 2011 1:28 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    rnch said
    Christian73 said...With every post you reveal yourself to be increasingly craven in your desire to force everyone into off of the lifeboat but yourself. icon_rolleyes.gif


    sounds like the long term goal of the republican party to me.

    icon_idea.gif


    .... forget how much life has improved in the last several decades despite falling union participation...


    improved???

    are you putting forth the hypothesis that middle class Americans are better off today than they were several decades ago????

    icon_confused.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 1:49 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    metta8 saidWhy it's okay to hate union workers

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/06/953112/-Why-its-okay-to-hate-union-workers


    Heh other than the specious ad hominem and straw men attacks... - the alternate, and more learned view instead of the ridiculous argument that it's because the rest of us are "carrying water for billionaires":
    http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2011/02/the-case-against-public-sector-unionism.html

    FDR was also against public sector unions - or at least any form of militancy:
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445


    Ah, only a selfloathing gay provides "his" reasons"...and FIRST to respond to boot !.

    Figures.




  • musclmed

    Posts: 3271

    Mar 07, 2011 2:48 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    rnch said
    Christian73 said...With every post you reveal yourself to be increasingly craven in your desire to force everyone into off of the lifeboat but yourself. icon_rolleyes.gif


    sounds like the long term goal of the republican party to me.

    icon_idea.gif


    The lack of perspective and context of a number of you never ceases to surprise me. Yep, forget how much life has improved in the last several decades despite falling union participation, Republicans and libertarians just want everyone out on the streets and starve icon_rolleyes.gif

    It occurs to me after a much required nap that this is a silly debate that doesn't matter. No matter how much those like Christian rant and rave, the fundamental nature of work is changing. The reason private unions are on the decline is not because everyone is being forced onto the streets but because work and value is decentralizing - that value comes more from ideas and less from things. Public sector unions are the last hold out. But for them, this is the beginning of the end - and that is why public unions and their supporters like Christian, cling so bitterly to their existence. The gravy train is over.


    Every time I try to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're intelligent but just misguided in your beliefs, you lay one out there which is so stunningly stupid, the mind wobbles.

    "Work and value is decentralizing..."

    In a very surface way this is true, particularly of certain kinds of work. I, myself, work from home frequently because most of the people I interact with are not in New York, and technology makes it possible to do so. But in every way that really matters "value" hasn't been so centralized (and in some cases completely fictitious) since the Gilded Age. My money is in fewer hands than ever before. Several of the worlds largest economies are multinationals not countries. That is not a move toward decentralization and it's certainly not a move toward democratization.

    Instead, in Wisconsin and the Middle East, workers have to literally fight in order to preserve or gain just a little bit of the "value" that you think is just floating around. And, given the increasingly complex and knowledge-laden focus of American work, we should have a public policy that puts teachers in higher esteem - as the Tiger countries do. But, no, people like the Koch brothers and their sycophants in state and federal government just want to drain that last little bit of "value" from the workers, and ensure that whatever leveling of the playing field occurred since the New Deal is erased.

    Edited to add: There never was a "gravy train" for public workers. The real gravy train is ridden by bankers who create nothing but increasingly high stakes gambling, and the inheritors of great wealth who enjoy gambling as long as the game is rigged in their favor and the public pays their debts.



    Your post assumes everyone who finds the abuses of public union members ( calling in sick to your shift then working the subsequent one for overtime) also finds nothing wrong with Wall Streets abuses.

    I think alot of people and or institutions should have paid the price ( literally) for 2008's crisis.

    The 2009 bailout was monetized based on bonds sold to investment houses we bailed out with TARP in 2008.

    So the U.S.A was just loaned its own money back at interest.

    In comparison any free lunch a public employee received at least stays in the community agreed. But its still a free lunch.

    That being said the energy and political capital Obama the democrats had in 2009 was wasted on a useless healthcare bill instead of real investigations of Wall Street.

    The tea party is a desperate movement of people wanting to get back to basics. Since its politicians both R and D cannot mind government for them they just want a smaller government.
    And likely thats the way it should be small.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 3:23 AM GMT
    Christian73 said... If the Republicans can jerk the counry along with threats of a "government shutdown", so they can appease their corporate masters, why should union workers - who make the damn thing run in the first place - be able to threaten a shutdown as well?...

    Your statement is seems to me to be highly partisan and not objective. Both Republicans and Democrats not agreeing can lead to a government shutdown. Your statement suggests only the Republicans can cause a shutdown. Where the blame would fall is a separate issue and that is debatable.

    http://www.schneiderdowns.com/Government_Shutdown

    The current war over government spending among House Republicans and Senate Democrats and President Obama hints of a possible federal government shutdown at midnight on March 4. If both sides fail to compromise on new stop-gap funding for federal government operations by then, the current continuing budget resolution will expire, forcing the government to shut down. ...
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Mar 07, 2011 3:26 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]socalfitness said...The current war over government spending among House Republicans and Senate Democrats and President Obama hints of a possible federal government shutdown at midnight on March 4. If both sides fail to compromise on new stop-gap funding for federal government operations by then, the current continuing budget resolution will expire, forcing the government to shut down. ...[/quote]


    you and southbeach jane would love for this to happen, wouldn't you!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 4:34 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said... If the Republicans can jerk the counry along with threats of a "government shutdown", so they can appease their corporate masters, why should union workers - who make the damn thing run in the first place - be able to threaten a shutdown as well?...

    Your statement is seems to me to be highly partisan and not objective. Both Republicans and Democrats not agreeing can lead to a government shutdown. Your statement suggests only the Republicans can cause a shutdown. Where the blame would fall is a separate issue and that is debatable.

    http://www.schneiderdowns.com/Government_Shutdown

    The current war over government spending among House Republicans and Senate Democrats and President Obama hints of a possible federal government shutdown at midnight on March 4. If both sides fail to compromise on new stop-gap funding for federal government operations by then, the current continuing budget resolution will expire, forcing the government to shut down. ...


    No... My point is that SouthBeach and the right-wing blogosphere is screaming about the Wisconsin 14 and what they're doing isn't nearly as bad as the last 2 years of endless Republican obstructionism.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 07, 2011 10:47 AM GMT
    The republicans over reaching in Wisconsin

    the job killing agenda of their cuts .... with things like Boehner's So Be It comment

    and the Possibility of a shut down
    It all goes hand in hand
    Let the republicans shut down the government
    Let's see republican governance as it is

    .... and what the public has seen so far ... they don't like
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 5:09 PM GMT
    GQjock saidThe republicans over reaching in Wisconsin

    the job killing agenda of their cuts .... with things like Boehner's So Be It comment

    and the Possibility of a shut down
    It all goes hand in hand
    Let the republicans shut down the government
    Let's see republican governance as it is

    .... and what the public has seen so far ... they don't like




    jobs, JOBS, JOBS is what Boner has been spewing for months.....

    ( LITTLE did we know he meant cut jobs, CUT JOBS, CUT JOBS)
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 07, 2011 8:37 PM GMT
    198632_10150104026289751_769689750_64362