New Gallup Poll: More people favor changing state laws to limit the bargaining power of state employee unions than oppose

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

    Mar 11, 2011 3:27 AM GMT
    The article is very interesting because it shows how the wording of poll questions can have a significant effect on the results.
    Excerpt:
    The Washington Post headline mirrors the wording used in a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted on Feb. 21 in which Americans were asked about a plan in Wisconsin to “ . . . take away some of the collective bargaining rights of most public unions, including the state teachers’ union.” The results showed 33% in favor with 61% opposed.

    The New York Times headline mirrors the wording used in a separate Gallup poll conducted March 3-6 in which Americans were asked about a plan (Wisconsin not specified) that would involve “Changing state laws to limit the bargaining power of state employee unions.” The results showed 49% in favor, 45% opposed.

    http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 3:33 AM GMT
    This is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority."

    It doesn't matter what a majority believe when it comes to basic rights.

    When majorities were allowed to vote on our civil rights, it didn't end well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 4:34 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidThis is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority."

    It doesn't matter what a majority believe when it comes to basic rights.

    When majorities were allowed to vote on our civil rights, it didn't end well.


    How is this a civil rights issue? Collective bargaining IS NOT a right. The federal court upheld North Carolina's ban on government union collective bargining in Atkins vs. City of Charlotte: “All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 4:37 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThis is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority."

    It doesn't matter what a majority believe when it comes to basic rights.

    When majorities were allowed to vote on our civil rights, it didn't end well.


    How is this a civil rights issue? Collective bargaining IS NOT a right. The federal court upheld North Carolina's ban on government union collective bargining in Atkins vs. City of Charlotte: “All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process.”


    The right to form trade unions is covered under the Constitution's right to freedom of association as well as the US's status as a signatory to the UN's Declaration of Human Rights.

    Unions (public or not) have no "special status". That's a radical interpretation of the text. In fact, as we've seen the unions in Wisconsin, which represent hundreds of thousands of citizens have a lower status than one billionaire from Kansas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 4:55 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThis is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority."

    It doesn't matter what a majority believe when it comes to basic rights.

    When majorities were allowed to vote on our civil rights, it didn't end well.


    How is this a civil rights issue? Collective bargaining IS NOT a right. The federal court upheld North Carolina's ban on government union collective bargining in Atkins vs. City of Charlotte: “All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process.”


    The right to form trade unions is covered under the Constitution's right to freedom of association as well as the US's status as a signatory to the UN's Declaration of Human Rights.

    Unions (public or not) have no "special status". That's a radical interpretation of the text. In fact, as we've seen the unions in Wisconsin, which represent hundreds of thousands of citizens have a lower status than one billionaire from Kansas.


    Too bad the law and courts disagree with you. Collective bargaining does not infringe on the freedom to associate as is very clearly worded. Between trying to guess between whether it is the courts taking a radical interpretation of the law and you, I think I'll side with the courts on this one.

    As an aside, I'm sorry, is that the same United Nations that appointed Libya to the UN Human Rights Council and the same Libya that is now using their planes to bomb civilians?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 5:27 AM GMT
    I don't think you can consider the right to form a trade union as the same as the right to collective bargaining. The two aren't the same.

  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Mar 11, 2011 5:50 AM GMT
    Either way, the situation in Wisconsin is headed to the next chapter.

    The Union and those in Wisconsin who have been charging that their rights are being violated must keep their eye on the prize: recalling Scott Walker next year, and the 8 Republican senators which may be recalled this year!

    Wisconsin, long believed to be a blue state, will prove it now, or it will fall back into anonymity as a place where the wealthy and their political dogs further eradicated the middle class, while at the same time providing business owners with tax breaks!

    If the progressives and Unions in Wisconsin do neither, then the people of Wisconsin are deserving of their fate!

    Oh, and isn't it funny...riddler posted about polls showing support for Walker's union busting when it served his views...but posted nothing afterwards when the polls turned towards the other side.

    Now that there's another poll, socalfitness here trumpets it's result, suggesting that the polls that went against Walker did so because of the wording. It'd be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous: after all, even I support limiting some powers of the public sector unions.

    However it should be noted that Scott Walker isn't really limiting the collective bargaining power of state unions: he's making a concerted effort to destroy them.

    An accurate wording of the question would be: "Do you support Scott Walker giving tax breaks to businesses while at the same time stripping State employees of salary and benefits, and undermining their union by forcing annual recertification votes and eliminating almost all of their rights to bargain collectively?"

    I can guarantee you, there would be no question that supporters of Walker would be in the minority!

    riddler78As an aside, I'm sorry, is that the same United Nations that appointed Libya to the UN Human Rights Council and the same Libya that is now using their planes to bomb civilians?


    Sure is.

    But Scott Walker is a Republican, is he not?

    Is that not the same Republican party that launched illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, torturing suspects with methods considered a violation of the Geneva Convention in Gitmo, and under whose leadership, relations with Gaddafi's Libya was normalized?

    Maybe sometime in the near term riddler, you'll stop being a hypocrite?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 5:51 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThis is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority."

    It doesn't matter what a majority believe when it comes to basic rights.

    When majorities were allowed to vote on our civil rights, it didn't end well.


    How is this a civil rights issue? Collective bargaining IS NOT a right. The federal court upheld North Carolina's ban on government union collective bargining in Atkins vs. City of Charlotte: “All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process.”


    The right to form trade unions is covered under the Constitution's right to freedom of association as well as the US's status as a signatory to the UN's Declaration of Human Rights.

    Unions (public or not) have no "special status". That's a radical interpretation of the text. In fact, as we've seen the unions in Wisconsin, which represent hundreds of thousands of citizens have a lower status than one billionaire from Kansas.


    Too bad the law and courts disagree with you. Collective bargaining does not infringe on the freedom to associate as is very clearly worded. Between trying to guess between whether it is the courts taking a radical interpretation of the law and you, I think I'll side with the courts on this one.

    As an aside, I'm sorry, is that the same United Nations that appointed Libya to the UN Human Rights Council and the same Libya that is now using their planes to bomb civilians?


    A court disagrees with me. And you know that. The radical interpreter is YOU not the courts.

    The UN is not responsible for Lybia's actions, nor was Lybia on the Human Rights council when UNDHR was signed on to by the US. Perhaps Canada does not take its international relations seriously, but I do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 5:54 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThis is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority."

    It doesn't matter what a majority believe when it comes to basic rights.

    When majorities were allowed to vote on our civil rights, it didn't end well.


    How is this a civil rights issue? Collective bargaining IS NOT a right. The federal court upheld North Carolina's ban on government union collective bargining in Atkins vs. City of Charlotte: “All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process.”




    Well, I'm sure you wouldnt mind this country becoming more like China. They certainly won't allow anything that even resembles a union. (Hence the cheap labor, long work days, limited workers rights, and countless sweatshops.)

    Now ask the majority of Americans and they will emphatically tell you that they do NOT want to live in China.

    If you think that Americans dont have the right to association and bargin in their interest, I suggest you simply move back to Hong Kong. We DO NOT want to be like China.

    If you enjoy the 5(or 6 in some cases) work week, 9-5 hours, safe working conditions, decent health insurance, national holidays off to spend with your family, you can thank UNIONS. Ask any working Chineese and they would kill for the working conditions we have in the US. And you know why? Because of UNIONS.





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

    Mar 11, 2011 5:55 AM GMT
    MascUFdude said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThis is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority."

    It doesn't matter what a majority believe when it comes to basic rights.

    When majorities were allowed to vote on our civil rights, it didn't end well.


    How is this a civil rights issue? Collective bargaining IS NOT a right. The federal court upheld North Carolina's ban on government union collective bargining in Atkins vs. City of Charlotte: “All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process.”




    Well, I'm sure you wouldnt mind this country becoming more like China. They certainly won't allow anything that even resembles a union. (Hence the cheap labor, long work days, limited workers rights, and countless sweatshops.)

    Now ask the majority of Americans and they will emphatically tell you that they do NOT want to live in China.

    If you think that Americans dont have the right to association and bargin in their interest, I suggest you simply move back to Hong Kong. We DO NOT want to be like China.

    If you enjoy the 5(or 6 in some cases) work week, 9-5 hours, safe working conditions, decent health insurance, national holidays off to spend with your family, you can thank UNIONS. Ask any working Chineese and they would kill for the working conditions we have in the US. And you know why? Because of UNIONS.



    Stop trying to confuse riddler with the facts. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 5:58 AM GMT
    This is a funny thread post.

    Even RASMUSSEN'S poll shows that the people of Wisconsin are disgusted by Walkers' power grab and are siding with the UNIONS.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/ramussen-poll-majority-of-wisconsinites-side-with-unions-on-collective-bargaining.php
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 6:02 AM GMT
    MascUFdude said... Ask any working Chineese and they would kill for the working conditions we have in the US. And you know why? Because of UNIONS.

    How do you explain the workers at Japanese automakers in the southeast part of the US have no unions and don't want them either, despite union attempts to move in. And why do unions want to eliminate secret ballot so they can intimidate workers to join?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 6:07 AM GMT
    TrentGrad said ... Now that there's another poll, socalfitness here trumpets it's result, suggesting that the polls that went against Walker did so because of the wording. It'd be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous: after all, even I support limiting some powers of the public sector unions.
    ...
    I can guarantee you, there would be no question that supporters of Walker would be in the minority!

    So you think the Gallup poll and the article from Gallup is so ridiculous? That's beyond funny.

    And you can guarantee nothing but cheap words. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 6:18 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    MascUFdude said... Ask any working Chineese and they would kill for the working conditions we have in the US. And you know why? Because of UNIONS.

    How do you explain the workers at Japanese automakers in the southeast part of the US have no unions and don't want them either, despite union attempts to move in. And why do unions want to eliminate secret ballot so they can intimidate workers to join?


    Good point. But I am not going to sit here and explain the differences between Chinese and Japanese management approaches.

    As far as Wi, I am not saying that some reform is needed. But to completely bash workers ability to collectively bargain for better pay is to completely ignore the good that unions have contributed to this country over its history.

    You must be a cold hearted son of a bitch to say that teachers, who already have a difficult job, don’t deserve to join together and bargain for better pay and working conditions (such as a smaller classroom-I teach high school and the difference between 20 and 30 students and the ability to effectively teach is enormous).

    Or, you’re a CEO whose bonus depends on cutting costs (through employee benefits)...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 6:35 AM GMT
    MascUFdude said
    socalfitness said
    MascUFdude said... Ask any working Chineese and they would kill for the working conditions we have in the US. And you know why? Because of UNIONS.

    How do you explain the workers at Japanese automakers in the southeast part of the US have no unions and don't want them either, despite union attempts to move in. And why do unions want to eliminate secret ballot so they can intimidate workers to join?


    Good point. But I am not going to sit here and explain the differences between Chinese and Japanese management approaches.

    As far as Wi, I am not saying that some reform is needed. But to completely bash workers ability to collectively bargain for better pay is to completely ignore the good that unions have contributed to this country over its history.

    You must be a cold hearted son of a bitch to say that teachers, who already have a difficult job, don’t deserve to join together and bargain for better pay and working conditions (such as a smaller classroom-I teach high school and the difference between 20 and 30 students and the ability to effectively teach is enormous).

    Or, you’re a CEO whose bonus depends on cutting costs (through employee benefits)...

    I think ultimately folks of all ends of the political spectrum don't want workers to be hurt. The problem is there needs to be a balance. In recent years, public employee unions and many Democratic politicians had an incestuous relationship that led to benefits packages better than the private sector, which taxpayers had to pay for. I think measures like these are drastic, but needed to stop the recent pattern. If down the road it appears that teachers and others are starting to be at a disadvantage, voters will support corrections.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 6:42 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    MascUFdude said
    socalfitness said
    MascUFdude said... Ask any working Chineese and they would kill for the working conditions we have in the US. And you know why? Because of UNIONS.

    How do you explain the workers at Japanese automakers in the southeast part of the US have no unions and don't want them either, despite union attempts to move in. And why do unions want to eliminate secret ballot so they can intimidate workers to join?


    Good point. But I am not going to sit here and explain the differences between Chinese and Japanese management approaches.

    As far as Wi, I am not saying that some reform is needed. But to completely bash workers ability to collectively bargain for better pay is to completely ignore the good that unions have contributed to this country over its history.

    You must be a cold hearted son of a bitch to say that teachers, who already have a difficult job, don’t deserve to join together and bargain for better pay and working conditions (such as a smaller classroom-I teach high school and the difference between 20 and 30 students and the ability to effectively teach is enormous).

    Or, you’re a CEO whose bonus depends on cutting costs (through employee benefits)...

    I think ultimately folks of all ends of the political spectrum don't want workers to be hurt. The problem is there needs to be a balance. In recent years, public employee unions and many Democratic politicians had an incestuous relationship that led to benefits packages better than the private sector, which taxpayers had to pay for. I think measures like these are drastic, but needed to stop the recent pattern. If down the road it appears that teachers and others are starting to be at a disadvantage, voters will support corrections.


    Unfortunately, one party does everthing it can to support corporations and the top income earners, while the other does 50% of what it can to help corporations and the top income earners and no one is doing 100% to ensure the survival of the middle class. Sad day when I look around and the America I grew up in is no where to be seen...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 6:46 AM GMT
    MascUFdude said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThis is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority."

    It doesn't matter what a majority believe when it comes to basic rights.

    When majorities were allowed to vote on our civil rights, it didn't end well.


    How is this a civil rights issue? Collective bargaining IS NOT a right. The federal court upheld North Carolina's ban on government union collective bargining in Atkins vs. City of Charlotte: “All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process.”




    Well, I'm sure you wouldnt mind this country becoming more like China. They certainly won't allow anything that even resembles a union. (Hence the cheap labor, long work days, limited workers rights, and countless sweatshops.)

    Now ask the majority of Americans and they will emphatically tell you that they do NOT want to live in China.

    If you think that Americans dont have the right to association and bargin in their interest, I suggest you simply move back to Hong Kong. We DO NOT want to be like China.

    If you enjoy the 5(or 6 in some cases) work week, 9-5 hours, safe working conditions, decent health insurance, national holidays off to spend with your family, you can thank UNIONS. Ask any working Chineese and they would kill for the working conditions we have in the US. And you know why? Because of UNIONS.


    How racist you must be, and it doesn't surprise me that Christian agrees with you. Move back to Hong Kong? Sorry, I'm not actually from there or China for that matter. I wonder if you regularly tell Blacks who disagree with the way government is run to go back to Africa? Way to create a number of ad hominem attacks - and again, no surprise Christian agrees with your offensive diatribe. Unions may have accelerated some trends towards better working conditions and they were far more effective and useful in the day, but their overreach today shows their utter incompetence, and lack of relevance.

    Nevertheless, let me restate this for you - there is a right to association. There is not a right to collective bargaining. To have one does not necessitate the other. What do you not understand?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 8:38 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    MascUFdude said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThis is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority."

    It doesn't matter what a majority believe when it comes to basic rights.

    When majorities were allowed to vote on our civil rights, it didn't end well.


    How is this a civil rights issue? Collective bargaining IS NOT a right. The federal court upheld North Carolina's ban on government union collective bargining in Atkins vs. City of Charlotte: “All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process.”




    Well, I'm sure you wouldnt mind this country becoming more like China. They certainly won't allow anything that even resembles a union. (Hence the cheap labor, long work days, limited workers rights, and countless sweatshops.)

    Now ask the majority of Americans and they will emphatically tell you that they do NOT want to live in China.

    If you think that Americans dont have the right to association and bargin in their interest, I suggest you simply move back to Hong Kong. We DO NOT want to be like China.

    If you enjoy the 5(or 6 in some cases) work week, 9-5 hours, safe working conditions, decent health insurance, national holidays off to spend with your family, you can thank UNIONS. Ask any working Chineese and they would kill for the working conditions we have in the US. And you know why? Because of UNIONS.


    How racist you must be, and it doesn't surprise me that Christian agrees with you. Move back to Hong Kong? Sorry, I'm not actually from there or China for that matter. I wonder if you regularly tell Blacks who disagree with the way government is run to go back to Africa? Way to create a number of ad hominem attacks - and again, no surprise Christian agrees with your offensive diatribe. Unions may have accelerated some trends towards better working conditions and they were far more effective and useful in the day, but their overreach today shows their utter incompetence, and lack of relevance.

    Nevertheless, let me restate this for you - there is a right to association. There is not a right to collective bargaining. To have one does not necessitate the other. What do you not understand?


    Fine, let’s just get rid of everything that is not a "right" even if it’s proven benefits our nation. Just get rid of it. Who cares if we wont be able to attract quality teachers to teach our children, or have competent EMTs and First Responders willing to risk thier lives to help us if we get into an accident or our building is on fire...What don’t YOU understand?? Do you not see the utter erosion of America's middle class?

    Simply admit that there is a place for labor unions, and the power they give individual workers to negotiate better working conditions, benefits, pensions, etc. When someone interviews for a CEO position in a major corporation, they have very experienced attorneys review contracts, and assist them in negotiating salary, benefits, and pension/golden parachutes. Why are you so opposed to workers joining together to negotiate better conditions/pay??

    And it has nothing to do with "racism", but everything to do with comparing our system of labor/workers protection with our largest competitor and their workers protections, and lack there of. Sure, China has a booming economy-due to low wages, but you would be hard pressed to find more than a handful of Americans willing to permanently trade places and give up what they have here(thanks to unions ability to collectively bargain) to live like the typical Chinese worker who can not even speak freely for fear of prison.

    The America you are suggesting, without public workers ability to bargain for themselves might be like the country youre from, but is not the America I grew up in or want to live in. And I dont need a poll to support the fact that there are not many Americans who want to live under the America you are suggesting/arguing for...


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

    Mar 11, 2011 8:51 AM GMT
    MascUFdude saidThe America you are suggesting, without public workers ability to bargain for themselves might be like the country youre from, but is not the America I grew up in or want to live in. And I dont need a poll to support the fact that there are not many Americans who want to live under the America you are suggesting/arguing for...


    Are you really that slow you racist prick? I'm from Canada. Figure out where that is on the map. I'm not from HK or China or was there something about the phraseology of my last response that you found difficult to understand? You clearly have no idea what kind of America I'm advocating for (not that I'm advocating for any at all beyond one that is economically free and strong) if you have problems understanding a few simple English phrases.

    I suppose you missed the repeated times I pointed out that I'm for collective bargaining in the private sector and do find it has utility but not for public sector employees - where there is no right to collective bargaining but where there is one to association.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Mar 11, 2011 9:16 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TrentGrad said ... Now that there's another poll, socalfitness here trumpets it's result, suggesting that the polls that went against Walker did so because of the wording. It'd be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous: after all, even I support limiting some powers of the public sector unions.
    ...
    I can guarantee you, there would be no question that supporters of Walker would be in the minority!

    So you think the Gallup poll and the article from Gallup is so ridiculous? That's beyond funny.

    And you can guarantee nothing but cheap words. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Actually I just think you're ridiculous...look at you, trying to invent shit. I actually think about things, which seems to be a weak point for you...but let's try to help you out a little bit.

    There is no smoking gun in anything you've posted: on the one hand, the public does not agree with union busting; on the other, they feel like Union demands could get out of control, and they don't feel like they should have to shoulder the burden of erasing the deficits and debts all on their own by way of service cuts and tax hikes.

    Now here's an interesting poll to consider:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024494-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

    According to the CBS News poll, just 26% of Americans supported extending Bush era tax cuts to those earning > $250,000...while 53% supported extending them to those earning < $250,000.

    Where it gets really interesting is that just 46% of Republicans and 25% of Independents actually supported extending the tax cuts to those earning >$250,000.

    The interpretation here should be crystal clear, but as we've already established that interpretation is not your strong suit, let me hold your hand on this one: with the US in dire fiscal straits, most of your fellow Americans believe that the rich should be paying more...while the poor and middle classes...and even moderately wealthy professionals, should continue to get the tax break!

    When you read the poll numbers, why not try to understand what they mean? When one poll tells you Americans oppose what's happening in Wisconsin, and another tells you they agree with limits on collective bargaining, it should be clear enough that for the public, the balance sits somewhere in the middle!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 9:44 AM GMT
    TrentGrad said
    socalfitness said
    TrentGrad said ... Now that there's another poll, socalfitness here trumpets it's result, suggesting that the polls that went against Walker did so because of the wording. It'd be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous: after all, even I support limiting some powers of the public sector unions.
    ...
    I can guarantee you, there would be no question that supporters of Walker would be in the minority!

    So you think the Gallup poll and the article from Gallup is so ridiculous? That's beyond funny.

    And you can guarantee nothing but cheap words. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Actually I just think you're ridiculous...look at you, trying to invent shit. I actually think about things, which seems to be a weak point for you...but let's try to help you out a little bit.

    There is no smoking gun in anything you've posted: on the one hand, the public does not agree with union busting; on the other, they feel like Union demands could get out of control, and they don't feel like they should have to shoulder the burden of erasing the deficits and debts all on their own by way of service cuts and tax hikes.

    Now here's an interesting poll to consider:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024494-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

    According to the CBS News poll, just 26% of Americans supported extending Bush era tax cuts to those earning > $250,000...while 53% supported extending them to those earning < $250,000.

    Where it gets really interesting is that just 46% of Republicans and 25% of Independents actually supported extending the tax cuts to those earning >$250,000.

    The interpretation here should be crystal clear, but as we've already established that interpretation is not your strong suit, let me hold your hand on this one: with the US in dire fiscal straits, most of your fellow Americans believe that the rich should be paying more...while the poor and middle classes...and even moderately wealthy professionals, should continue to get the tax break!

    When you read the poll numbers, why not try to understand what they mean? When one poll tells you Americans oppose what's happening in Wisconsin, and another tells you they agree with limits on collective bargaining, it should be clear enough that for the public, the balance sits somewhere in the middle!

    Look, you did not like this comment I made to you:
    So you think the Gallup poll and the article from Gallup is so ridiculous? That's beyond funny.
    So you tried to insult and comment about about my ability to interpret. Get your head out of your ass. Really. Aside from providing excerpts and the article, this is all I added:

    The article is very interesting because it shows how the wording of poll questions can have a significant effect on the results.

    So I didn't make any interpretation at all. You comment about my looking ridiculous and trying to invent shit, but that is exactly what you did. And interpretation not my strong suit. It's not your strong suit. Seriously, for basically just providing the poll and article and stating it is interesting, you try and lecture me. Sounds like a cover for your very fragile ego because I scoffed at your stupid statement. So take your politics and your extremely trite comments and shove em. Maybe you're better than your response suggests, but you do look like a total moron.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 11:37 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    MascUFdude said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThis is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority."

    It doesn't matter what a majority believe when it comes to basic rights.

    When majorities were allowed to vote on our civil rights, it didn't end well.


    How is this a civil rights issue? Collective bargaining IS NOT a right. The federal court upheld North Carolina's ban on government union collective bargining in Atkins vs. City of Charlotte: “All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process.”




    Well, I'm sure you wouldnt mind this country becoming more like China. They certainly won't allow anything that even resembles a union. (Hence the cheap labor, long work days, limited workers rights, and countless sweatshops.)

    Now ask the majority of Americans and they will emphatically tell you that they do NOT want to live in China.

    If you think that Americans dont have the right to association and bargin in their interest, I suggest you simply move back to Hong Kong. We DO NOT want to be like China.

    If you enjoy the 5(or 6 in some cases) work week, 9-5 hours, safe working conditions, decent health insurance, national holidays off to spend with your family, you can thank UNIONS. Ask any working Chineese and they would kill for the working conditions we have in the US. And you know why? Because of UNIONS.


    How racist you must be, and it doesn't surprise me that Christian agrees with you. Move back to Hong Kong? Sorry, I'm not actually from there or China for that matter. I wonder if you regularly tell Blacks who disagree with the way government is run to go back to Africa? Way to create a number of ad hominem attacks - and again, no surprise Christian agrees with your offensive diatribe. Unions may have accelerated some trends towards better working conditions and they were far more effective and useful in the day, but their overreach today shows their utter incompetence, and lack of relevance.

    Nevertheless, let me restate this for you - there is a right to association. There is not a right to collective bargaining. To have one does not necessitate the other. What do you not understand?


    Dude -

    You really have to stop trying to put words in my mouth. The "facts" I was referring to are those in his last paragraph.

    Beyond that, I don't find his post "racist." If he told me to "move back to Ireland" because I have been pushing for Catholicism as a national religion int he US, would that be racist?

    I'm sure Mock will leap in any second to chide you for playing the race card.

    Any second...

    Mock?

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

    Mar 11, 2011 12:08 PM GMT
    MascUFdude said
    socalfitness said
    MascUFdude said... Ask any working Chineese and they would kill for the working conditions we have in the US. And you know why? Because of UNIONS.

    How do you explain the workers at Japanese automakers in the southeast part of the US have no unions and don't want them either, despite union attempts to move in. And why do unions want to eliminate secret ballot so they can intimidate workers to join?


    Good point. But I am not going to sit here and explain the differences between Chinese and Japanese management approaches.

    As far as Wi, I am not saying that some reform is needed. But to completely bash workers ability to collectively bargain for better pay is to completely ignore the good that unions have contributed to this country over its history.

    You must be a cold hearted son of a bitch to say that teachers, who already have a difficult job, don’t deserve to join together and bargain for better pay and working conditions (such as a smaller classroom-I teach high school and the difference between 20 and 30 students and the ability to effectively teach is enormous).

    Or, you’re a CEO whose bonus depends on cutting costs (through employee benefits)...



    ROFL @ Socal comparing a factory in China to a factory in the US.

    MascUFdude, they went after teachers etc for a reason. They were the most expendable and perceived as having the least ability to fight back.

    Fire, Police etc were left untouched. They didn't dare.



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

    Mar 11, 2011 12:31 PM GMT
    meninlove said... ROFL @ Socal comparing a factory in China to a factory in the US.

    No, if you go back and re-read that, you'll see I didn't. The comment was made by the other guy that the Chinese would kill to work in the US because of unions. My point did not pertain to the Chinese, or any comparison of their working conditions to those in the US. I was taking issue with the comment that the good working conditions in the US were because of unions by pointing out workers who were satisfied with their conditions without unions, and apparently did not want to be unionized. My point had nothing to do with China.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 12:51 PM GMT
    Socal, please read:

    " ... Ask any working Chineese and they would kill for the working conditions we have in the US. And you know why? Because of UNIONS. "

    you replied with
    "How do you explain the workers at Japanese automakers in the southeast part of the US have no unions and don't want them either, despite union attempts to move in. And why do unions want to eliminate secret ballot so they can intimidate workers to join?"

    You did NOT say,

    'The US did not get it's great working conditions because of Unions.'

    Being clearer means you will be better understood.

    ...and you need to read some history,. Much of today's working conditions in the US came about from Unions back in the early 20th century.