Discussion: All Things Union

[hippie_hunter]

That doesn't change what I said. The report you posted took his speech out of context, and that should be clarified. You were waiting for the outrage and there would be a higher chance of that happening when you take what a person said out of context.

The right says things all the time that are taken out of context and the left gets outraged.

 

[dnno1]

The right says things all the time that are taken out of context and the left gets outraged.

I don't think that is what Handsome Rob was expecting to see as a reaction.

 

[Handsome Rob]

I don't think that is what Handsome Rob was expecting to see as a reaction.

How much more simple for you can I make it, dnno1?

Republicans (or their supporters) use war imagery, and the left gets outraged and cries of "inciting violence" and memories of Gabby Giffords are brought up. Obama starts blathering on about "tone."

Democrats (or their supporters) use war imagery, and the left goes silent.

Translation: The left only care about war imagery when they can use it against the right. This has nothing to to with principles or a stand against "violent" rhetoric. It's partisanship, plain and simple.

What does it appear I'm criticizing? What Hoffa said or the partisan reaction of the left to war imagery . . . depending on who is saying it? All I wanted to see was some consistency from the left regarding war imagery:

How did I preface this article?

So, remember all the crying on the Hype over the so-called "violent rhetoric" coming from the Tea Party? Or the outcry over Palin using gunsights to identify battleground districts? Let's see if their outrage is bipartisan . . .

 

[Franklin Richards]

There's a big difference between a goomba and a woman running for the highest office in the land.


What do you expect from a pig but a grunt?

 

[dnno1]

How much more simple for you can I make it, dnno1?

Republicans (or their supporters) use war imagery, and the left gets outraged and cries of "inciting violence" and memories of Gabby Giffords are brought up. Obama starts blathering on about "tone."

Democrats (or their supporters) use war imagery, and the left goes silent.

Translation: The left only care about war imagery when they can use it against the right. This has nothing to to with principles or a stand against "violent" rhetoric. It's partisanship, plain and simple.

What does it appear I'm criticizing? What Hoffa said or the partisan reaction of the left to war imagery . . . depending on who is saying it? All I wanted to see was some consistency from the left regarding war imagery:

How did I preface this article?

Yeah, I see that you are taking that stand point right now, but you still cited an article that took Mr. Hoffa's speech out of context. I just felt it appropriate that it should be clarified that it was before you asked people to be wrongfully outraged. I think that a lot of people are over the Palin incident and that she has clarified herself on it that you can say what she said and not be inciting violence. Although that should stop anyone who genuinely feels offended from voicing their concern or outrage about the choice of words, but let's not actually twist the words to create artificial outrage.

 

[Marx]

UPDATE: OHIO'S SB5 WILL FACE A PUBLIC VOTE ON NOVEMBER BALLOT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/ohio-sb5-referendum-collective-bargaining_n_972321.html

 

[dnno1]

FORD TO EXCEED PLEDGE TO BRING UAW JOBS IN HOUSE; 1,975 HOURLY JOBS COMING TO FORD PLANTS THROUGH 2012


Tentative Chrysler, UAW contract would add 2,100 U.S. jobs


UAW and Detroit Three Agreements Bring Jobs, Cars to U.S.

This happened because of the UAW.

 

[chaseter]

Uhhh Ford is doing good. The UAW has nothing to do with Ford hiring more workers. It isn't the UAW's decision for Ford to hire more workers.

Same thing with Chrysler.

The only thing those articles show is that Ford and Chrysler came to a union agreement that has to give yada yada yada to new union workers that Ford and Chrysler hire.

Just imagine if the UAW didn't exist. Ford and Chrysler wouldn't have to sit on it's thumbs until the UAW say that they agree to the terms. GM also would not have gone bankrupt.

 

[dnno1]

Uhhh Ford is doing good. The UAW has nothing to do with Ford hiring more workers. It isn't the UAW's decision for Ford to hire more workers.

Same thing with Chrysler.

The only thing those articles show is that Ford and Chrysler came to a union agreement that has to give yada yada yada to new union workers that Ford and Chrysler hire.

Just imagine if the UAW didn't exist. Ford and Chrysler wouldn't have to sit on it's thumbs until the UAW say that they agree to the terms. GM also would not have gone bankrupt.

That's just not true. Just this week, the UAW and Ford finalized a contract that would bring jobs from China, Mexico, and Japan back to the United States (an addition of 5750 new UAW jobs). The UAW Ford negotiating team consistently demanded that there be more job security because members understood that without product for their plants, their futures would not secure. These demands lead to the addition of over 5000 new jobs (to be added by the end of 2012) as well as securing existing jobs. The same thing happened over at Chrysler. The negotiations with UAW will add 2100 jobs here in the U.S. The GM UAW deal, ratified last month will save 6000 jobs and add another 5100. If the UAW didn't exist, there still would be no guarantee that these companies would have brought these jobs back, nor would have offered the proper training, upgraded to existing facilities, nor offered the adequate occupational heath and safety standards that came with these deals. The relationship between labor and management should always be a two-way street. That is the best way to see progress.

 

[Marx]

"SB5" is officially up for public referendum today. Let's see how it turns out...

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I voted against it this morning. Keeping my fingers crossed that it fails.

 

[Marx]

I voted against it as well.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I voted against it as well.

I forgot that you were a fellow Ohioan.

I'd like to vote that crook John Kasich out of office too but for some reason we aren't allowed to do that in our "great" state.

 

[Marx]

I forgot that you were a fellow Ohioan.

I'd like to vote that crook John Kasich out of office too but for some reason we aren't allowed to do that in our "great" state.

I voted for Strickland both times and would GLADLY vote Kasich out of office. The guy is shady! I don't like him at all.

 

[Franklin Richards]

As soon as my baby mamma get home, I'm going to go vote. Luckily I won't have to read any of the amendments up for vote, I'll just vote NO. Texas has WAY too many amendments.

Any national referendums or anything I should be aware of?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I voted for Strickland both times and would GLADLY vote Kasich out of office. The guy is shady! I don't like him at all.

Unfortunately most people didn't vote for Strickland. People who actually voted for Kasick (mis-spelling on purpose) don't even like this SB5. Now I'm not going to get over confident about it failing though because the same people voting on it did vote Kasich into office. He has the money to give his right hand men raises but he thinks that firefighters, police and other fine citizens who are apart of unions are overpaid? We should have the right to vote on him again.

 

[Marx]

As soon as my baby mamma get home, I'm going to go vote. Luckily I won't have to read any of the amendments up for vote, I'll just vote NO. Texas has WAY too many amendments.

Any national referendums or anything I should be aware of?

Not that I'm aware of. Everything on my Ohio ballot seemed to be issues within the state.

Unfortunately most people didn't vote for Strickland. People who actually voted for Kasick (mis-spelling on purpose) don't even like this SB5. Now I'm not going to get over confident about it failing though because the same people voting on it did vote Kasich into office. He has the money to give his right hand men raises but he thinks that firefighters, police and other fine citizens who are apart of unions are overpaid? We should have the right to vote on him again.

Kasich cannot get out of office quick enough as far as I'm concerned.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Unfortunately most people didn't vote for Strickland. People who actually voted for Kasick (mis-spelling on purpose) don't even like this SB5. Now I'm not going to get over confident about it failing though because the same people voting on it did vote Kasich into office. He has the money to give his right hand men raises but he thinks that firefighters, police and other fine citizens who are apart of unions are being overpaid. We should have the right to vote on him again.

I think that there really needs to be a middle ground on this issue. Public unions are really being a drag on the finances of state and local governments, but on the other hand, there is no reason for Scott Walker and John Kasich to have done it the way they did.

They really could have tackled public unions the way Chris Christie did by vilifying incompetent union leadership and not union workers. They could have also negotiated with them as opposed to the "my way or the highway" approach they took.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think that there really needs to be a middle ground on this issue. Public unions are really being a drag on the finances of state and local governments, but on the other hand, there is no reason for Scott Walker and John Kasich to have done it the way they did.

They really could have tackled public unions the way Chris Christie did by vilifying incompetent union leadership and not union workers. They could have also negotiated with them as opposed to the "my way or the highway" approach they took.

I hear ya. I don't really agree with you but you evenhandedly stated your point and I appreciate hearing a point of view if it's evenhandedly stated.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Great clip I saw today from the film MATEWAN, featuring a young Chris Cooper as a union organizer:

[YT]R2cuF3WNMHk&feature=related[/YT]

"You ain't men to that coal company - you're equipment, like a shovel or a gondola car or a hunk of wood brace. They'll use you till you wear out or you break down or you're buried under a slate fall and then they'll get a new one, and they don't care what colour it is or where it comes from...if you stand alone, you're just so much **** to those people!"

This is exactly why the unions need to dump the bosses' parties (which in this case means the Democrats) and form a mass party of labor.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Looks like Kasich's law to curb union rights is on the verge of a rather heavy defeat.

 

[Marx]

...looks like a good slap in the face of Kasich is coming. CNN has actually weighed in on it and projected that SB5 will be struck down.

The local news is reporting...

62 percent rejecting the law
38 percent in support of the law

 

[Ironfan72]

I voted no on SB5 as well, I also did not vote for Kasich and voted for Strickland, felt he had actually done a good job, but was a victim of people getting caught up voting in change.
I don't buy into these scare tactics pro issue 2 people were taughting or that state workers are greedy and want more, was disgusting, also voted for Mayor Coleman for 4th term mayor or Columbus.

 

[Marx]

What I took issue with (in particular) was the line of attack that suggested teachers, policemen, and firefighters were greedy and wanted more. State workers do tend to have an unfair advantage but the others that were included in on the attack was shameful.

 

[Ironfan72]

I agree, and all we heard was how this was a way to save our communities that state workers were holding them hostage, its shameful that the people who protect us were thrown under the bus in a attempt to break unions in Ohio, I have no issue with accountablity, but that needs to purtain not just to clerks and lower state workers but our politicians as well and it doesn't, in fact they made themselve exempt from the law.