Are unions feasible today?

Originally posted by inimalist
duh, they just quit, find a better job, or commit to one of the several other sources of income all people should have, because that is a reasonable expectation of all people everywhere

Oh, no. They DO have those other sources, they just chose not to follow them becuase their participation in a union means they get to be lazy, awful workers at the expense of their fellow tax payers and shareholders. Oh, and teachers suck because they try to educate the children of low income families where the parents don't know how to read either.

Originally posted by skekUng
Oh, no. They [b]DO have those other sources, they just chose not to follow them becuase their participation in a union means they get to be lazy, awful workers at the expense of their fellow tax payers and shareholders. Oh, and teachers suck because they try to educate the children of low income families where the parents don't know how to read either. [/B]

look, teachers want nothing more than what is the worst for our children, obviously

thats why they went through that extra schooling so that they could get cushy, well paying jobs and their summers off.

Originally posted by inimalist
look, teachers want nothing more than what is the worst for our children, obviously

thats why they went through that extra schooling so that they could get cushy, well paying jobs and their summers off.

Obviously! That's why they teach the kids that 2x2 = 5 while slipping their milk money out of their intentionally middle class pockets.

If it weren't for me substantially supplimenting the household income, my significant other would just be laughing it up and relaxing at the pool all summer, mocking those stupid ****s that were dumb enough to be born rich, instead of teaching them in summer school.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you're basically saying, that you see nothing wrong with the CEO making more than his 160,000 employs combined?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Unions are necessary for protectionism, legal hiring, fair wages, benefits, standards of both work and pay, and as a counter-balance to political corporate power. When the government becomes as entrenched with money as it is now, the unions organize a general strike, ideally freezing the economy. Unions are necessary which is why there is a direct correlation in the American economy to % union membership and economic growth and prosperity.

Originally posted by skekUng
I'm telling you what we can both see and read on this very website.

I'm telling you what is on several websites and surveys and polls. And articles, a small thread isn't really the majority. Also not to mention the condition of many of the posters here, many here are just getting buy or don't have a whole lot, hence their belief on the matter. Not to mention most posters are just posting one liners or smart remarks without really adding anything.

This thread really started out with people saying the majority were against it. The people who generally post here tend to hold more socialist beliefs. But I've seen arguments on both sides, I've been the only one to hold the fort on the beliefs otherwise. There were also people in the other thread that were against it. Many just didn't want to bother with constantly posting it here. The polls aren't too far off either. I don't know how long you have been here, but polls tend to be socked and hack, I wouldn't worry about those too much.

Originally posted by skekUng
So, you're saying a person who owns a "few shares" in a company refuses to join a union because the return on their "few shares" is going to somehow make their investment a waste? What person do you know that owns enough shares of the company they work for that they are suddenly more concerned about the cost of doing business with a union because of a lackluster return on their investment than they are fair wages they recieve as an employee? Last time I checked, people don't get health insurance by investing in a company that offers it to their employees.

Originally posted by inimalist
duh, they just quit, find a better job, or commit to one of the several other sources of income all people should have, because that is a reasonable expectation of all people everywhere

Oh, and everybody can earn an extra source of passive income, you should try it. More money that is taxed on a smaller scale than earned income. No reason not to, most people just don't know how. The education system is based on the Prussian system, a system that was created to make employees and soldiers, not job creators. Something our system is missing. Because clearly we should just take all that money we have out of the sky and give it to people who do no more work than they already are doing. Or create pointless jobs which just end up losing money?

Originally posted by skekUng
Oh, no. They [b]DO have those other sources, they just chose not to follow them becuase their participation in a union means they get to be lazy, awful workers at the expense of their fellow tax payers and shareholders. Oh, and teachers suck because they try to educate the children of low income families where the parents don't know how to read either. [/B]

Yes clearly, there are no options in a time where people have the time and energy to post their opinions on a computer rather than use that computer to find other opportunities. A time where the poor kid has a $500 ipod/ipad, but doesn't have any food in the house. There are far less opportunities than there were hundreds of years ago, and far worse working conditions, which is why people were a lot more independent than they are now?

Has anyone not noticed the correlation between the lack of union members and the more they try to jump into politics? There are already laws to protect workers, but they have no special right to their job, just like the producer has no special right to them.

Originally posted by inimalist
look, teachers want nothing more than what is the worst for our children, obviously

thats why they went through that extra schooling so that they could get cushy, well paying jobs and their summers off.

Originally posted by skekUng
Obviously! That's why they teach the kids that 2x2 = 5 while slipping their milk money out of their intentionally middle class pockets.

If it weren't for me substantially supplimenting the household income, my significant other would just be laughing it up and relaxing at the pool all summer, mocking those stupid ****s that were dumb enough to be born rich, instead of teaching them in summer school.

Yea the people who had the funds had to do something to keep and secure those funds.

Funny how the education scores are lacking or stagnating even while more money is being spent, maybe because a lack of money isn't the issue. Other countries spend far less on their education, and their kids are outperforming ours. Why is it that that other people come from poor countries (in which the average citizen here would be "rich"😉 and they outperform them and end up more successful than someone who was here for generations. They have the hunger many of us used to have.

Look at that big increase in money and test scores there. Great job guys. Our youth are so much better off. Teacher's should be paid on their performance, and not anything else. Not "just because". Kids passing who are medoicre at massive levels just shows the failure of our education system. It's a failure. Public schools are broken and need to be fixed, the nations are broken and need to be fixed. Unions haven't made things better in many cases, they've made things worse. They've become more power hungry than the companies they fight against. They've had some good in the past, but they aren't as effective.

I, too, enjoyed Waiting for Superman

I've actually just heard about it. I need to watch it. I was doing some reading on schools and it came up.

Here we go... death threats sent to lawmakers. They're for the good of the common man. So effective they have to send death threats to get their point across.

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/117732923.html

IMO, the education problem extends past the education system into society at large. For all the lip service, education (preparation for reality) is not really valued in this country, as evidenced by not only the comparative pay, but the general respect and regard, which is certainly far below how we pay/regard actors, rock stars, pro athletes, etc: basically "entertainment" (ie, escape from reality).

Clearly, we can see where are main priorities lie.

But then, as I've written in the past, what can you expect from a society that puts real lemon juice in its dishwashing liquid and artificial lemon flavor in its lemonade.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, the education problem extends past the education system into society at large. For all the lip service, education (preparation for reality) is not really valued in this country, as evidenced by not only the comparative pay, but the general respect and regard, which is certainly far below how we pay/regard actors, rock stars, pro athletes, etc: basically "entertainment" (ie, escape from reality).

Clearly, we can see where are main priorities lie.

But then, as I've written in the past, what can you expect from a society that puts real lemon juice in its dishwashing liquid and artificial lemon flavor in its lemonade.

True on some aspects, we've been a "get rich fast" society where pro athletes and singers are popular. However teachers and firefighters are amongst the most respected. While politicians and union leaders are more towards the bottom lol.

The pay comes from the lack of demand because there are so many teachers, if there were a shortage, they would up the pay to attract more of them.

I mean farmers have the most important job there is. They don't make a whole lot of money generally. That's because of technology and the huge amount of people out there that are/were doing it drives the cost and demand down. It's the same reason diamonds cost more than apples.

I actually hated school. I love learning and reading very much, but I didn't like the system itself. It doesn't cater to the needs of students. Different people have different ways of learning and different intelligences (schools focus more on linguistic intelligence). So it is made for a certain person who is willing to go with the system and work their way through the system with the hopes of a steady paycheck at a secure job. This was never the life for me, so I focused on educating myself in the things that would bring me freedom.

Does this mean that I think all teachers are bad? Of course not. I think many are good and many are bad. They are just part of a system that isn't working well. An individual teacher doesn't have much control over that.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Again with responding to the one portion you want and ignoring the rest?

Yes, again with responding to the only portion of your response that addresses the conversation we are having with one another. I'm glad you can read other websites and other polls, but this comment was directed at what you and I can both see and read on THIS website; as in this website that has this thread where our entire conversation has taken place. I have no doub there are countless websites that will corroborate your assertion that Unions are a concept of the past and that the future is going to be all about applying private sector, manufacturing and trickle down economics principles to every corner of every industry, and how holidays and vacations will eventually disappear in favor of a few days off once we've met our quota. I told you that the opinion you share with these people is the result of very focused propoganda funded by the private sector that would profit from getting people to believe that, despite it being against their own best interest. I highly doubt they spent all their money on one website where they keep all their bullshit. And it has worked. Reasonably intelligent people who would consider themselves members of the academic class, the class of though and record, are actually publishing papers and propogating the absurd notion that unions do nothing for the people in them except keep them in jobs they don't deserve and make them think they deserve everything for nothing.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
No a bulk of people owning shares in a company gives them say in that company, actively investing. Not demanding more while giving little back.

See, exactly what I just said. You're so convinced of your own ill-informed opinion that you come across as a teenager repeating what you've heard your dad yell at the TV. It's astounding to me how easy it is for you to spend someone else's money on stocks and shares, all while asserting that these people are jumping around wal-Mart and Barnes & Noble, spending money they don't have on things they can't afford, like iPods or Kindls or iPhones; which would likely be better spent on making something of themselves -as if you know them, at all. Maybe we should just not get paid, at all! maybe if the company keeps all the money they owe their employees, they could spend it much more wisely! We should go back to the days of Mill Villages and once a person has been physically used up, they'll get a few bucks to go back to the family farm and die quietly, assuming they weren't spending up all their company credit on things like food and fire wood and medicine. You don't know what these people spend their money on. And you talking about a "bulk of people" buying up shares and controlling the company, like some sort of pseudo-proletariat uprising, practically-a-union. I mean, you do know what a controlling interest is, don't you? you do know people aren't quite as easily talked out of them as they are at the end of the movie Wall Street? You're right, you don't come across as rich, just extremely convinced of yourself.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Has anyone not noticed the correlation between the lack of union members and the more they try to jump into politics?

What do you mean, try to jump into politics because they have no union?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Here we go... death threats sent to lawmakers. They're for the good of the common man. So effective they have to send death threats to get their point across.

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/117732923.html

What does that have to do with anything? I mean, you didn't really think that supported your argument, AT ALL, did you?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Well they could do that if they had better financial education

yes, because all people have the time and money to take courses on finance

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, because all people have the time and money to take courses on finance

People who are the beneficiaries of the unions raping privates business and are over paid to work only a few hours a day in perfect conditions with better healthcare than the President have all the time and money to do anything they want; apparently except for improving their own lives through a little hard work. Only liberals join unions.

Originally posted by skekUng
People who are the beneficiaries of the unions raping privates business and are over paid to work only a few hours a day in perfect conditions with better healthcare than the President have all the time and money to do anything they want; apparently except for improving their own lives through a little hard work.

hey, some guy working a 40 hour week at a chemical plant, maybe without their highschool, has it MADE.

he totally isn't going to be reliant on that job to feed his kids, and the thought that he and his fellow workers could get together to influence their employer by stoping the gears of production, pffft, who would ever need that. He should be tankful to even have a job, and if he doesn't like it, he should quit.

Just like all those engineering master's students at my university. They don't like it, just get into an engineering master's program at another university, not like that is an unreasonable request.

Originally posted by skekUng
Only liberals join unions.

oh ya, workers rights are totally a left/right issue. Thats why the Wisconssin protests were only attended by hippies and colledge professors...

wha... whats that? firefighters and police officers too... hmmm, sounds fishy.

Originally posted by inimalist
firefighters and police officers too... hmmm, sounds fishy.

Those were clearly hippies in disguise, having just left the breakroom where they get high and expect to be paid to do nothing.

So much sarcasm.... 😑 It's hard to tell who's for what anymore.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Never said anything of the sort. Just saying they cost much more. Or are you saying it is ok for unions to hemorrhage a company?

Skekung for a person who accuses me of being a teenager, you sure type and spell like a young child. Typical person who graduated from the current education system I suppose. I haven’t seen so much red show up except when I go to Target.

Originally posted by skekUng
Yes, again with responding to the only portion of your response that addresses the conversation we are having with one another. I'm glad you can read other websites and other polls, but this comment was directed at what you and I can both see and read on THIS website; as in this website that has this thread where our entire conversation has taken place.

You're responding to what suits you. And choosing what suits you, and yet you have the gall of trying to point that on me. Sounds like a person who loves unions, they pick and choose what they want to hear, and discard the rest. Did you not notice that many threads start with an article linked into the thread? I post whatever I damn well please. Maybe it's because you're new here, or slow at understanding, but I'm more than welcome to back up what I'm saying. Something you have a hard time doing. All you've done is throw out opinions. I've mentioned the various industries that were affected, and provided numbers. That is how you debate. What have you provided?

Nothing, but ad hominem attacks because you can't prove a point.

Unions don't just exist on "this" website, they exist at large, and there have been many polls and point that prove my point.

What, who said anything about holidays or vacations? Btw I had to work quite a while at what I did before I had any vacation. My point is jobs are going global and prices are competitive, that's the way it is. There is no propaganda by a private sector, it's the way the world works. The only propaganda here is that without unions there will be no jobs or middle class, the irony is that the unions helped destroy many industries that provide jobs to the middle class. You've provided no facts, no statistics, no data, nothing except constant attacks on me. I said that unions had their point before, they are just too costly now for the global market and people vote with their feet.

Originally posted by skekUng
I have no doub there are countless websites that will corroborate your assertion that Unions are a concept of the past and that the future is going to be all about applying private sector, manufacturing and trickle down economics principles to every corner of every industry, and how holidays and vacations will eventually disappear in favor of a few days off once we've met our quota.

Trickle down? No I believe in a free market fixing itself actually. But I'm sure that you can find evidence that can back up your opinion that Unions are for the middle class, even though they've help eliminate entire industries in America that keep the middle class employed. Which has also triggered jobs sending overseas. It's a change of times. I and other people with sense can see the changes coming, and many do not. You are like the ones who thought everything was fine up into the crash and buried your head into the sand.

Originally posted by skekUng
I told you that the opinion you share with these people is the result of very focused propoganda funded by the private sector that would profit from getting people to believe that, despite it being against their own best interest. I highly doubt they spent all their money on one website where they keep all their bullshit. And it has worked.

The only propaganda is the nonsense from the people who back up such entitlements and that unions are the reason the country is together even after destroying so much. Why do they have to coerce people to join if it is such a good deal? Please, and government sectors should not have a union anyways.

What you don't realize, or would rather not accept is that raising the pay of everyone only causes the cost of everything to rise accordingly. The reason many jobs are gone and less people are working is because of the costs, especially in those areas. People are turning on unions more and more now because of the problems it has caused.

I know you'd like to believe the typical poor-man tale of "Corporations are evil, and the rich are all greedy." With your friends and family, but that is just propaganda from those who want to take more and more. People will continue to take more and more and provide less and less. The companies and the owners who made them had to make a service wanted by a large number of people. They have to look at the whole picture. Employees generally look at... themselves.

Originally posted by skekUng
Reasonably intelligent people who would consider themselves members of the academic class, the class of though and record, are actually publishing papers and propagating the absurd notion that unions do nothing for the people in them except keep them in jobs they don't deserve and make them think they deserve everything for nothing.

Kindergarten? Kinder=Child, garten=garden. It’s a children garden where they breed employees and soldiers. There’s far more focus on employees and security, than managing money and entrepreneurship. A system that keeps people dependent.

Originally posted by skekUng
See, exactly what I just said. You're so convinced of your own ill-informed opinion that you come across as a teenager repeating what you've heard your dad yell at the TV. It's astounding to me how easy it is for [b]you to spend someone else's money on stocks and shares, all while asserting that these people are jumping around wal-Mart and Barnes & Noble, spending money they don't have on things they can't afford, like iPods or Kindls or iPhones; which would likely be better spent on making something of themselves -as if you know them, at all. [/B]

My opinion is ill informed? I educate people on this day and day again and I’ve done numerous discussions. I’ve also been asked to spread my lessons. But I have no interest in teaching everybody for profit, only those who want to make something of themselves.
It isn’t that difficult to do some research on what is bought and who buys it. It’s not difficult to figure out where the domestic loans and re-defaulting mortgages come from. I know this class of people because I’ve seen all classes of people my entire life and monitored their behavior.
I charge my customers electronically through an automated merchant. You’d be surprised how many (never the ones in the million plus dollar areas, but the lower income areas) just got a new position, but they never have enough money for the services and need to postpone. For a *luxury* service. You don’t know how many people have to foreclose on homes and see these people with an empty house, or the ones who get their water turned off and have a big screen tv and fancy cars in there.
The poorer the area, the bigger the price skew between their car and house. Don’t believe me? Go to an apartment and you’ll see many people drive a Lexus and a Jaguar. People living beyond their means and for the moment. You’re not going to truly tell me that in America, the “richest country” people are barely getting by in many cases because of “bad luck” and not because of their decisions.
I take responsibility for my actions, I’m weird like that, funny huh?
Allow me to introduce myself. Hi, I’m C-Master, and I know a thing or two about business and money, so don’t try to run one by on me.

Originally posted by skekUng
Maybe we should just not get paid, at all! maybe if the company keeps all the money they owe their employees, they could spend it much more wisely! We should go back to the days of Mill Villages and once a person has been physically used up, they'll get a few bucks to go back to the family farm and die quietly, assuming they weren't spending up all their company credit on things like food and fire wood and medicine.

Originally posted by skekUng
You don't know what these people spend their money on.

Originally posted by skekUng
And you talking about a "bulk of people" buying up shares and controlling the company, like some sort of pseudo-proletariat uprising, practically-a-union. I mean, you do know what a controlling interest is, don't you? you do know people aren't quite as easily talked out of them as they are at the end of the movie Wall Street?

Originally posted by skekUng
You're right, you don't come across as rich, just extremely convinced of yourself.

Originally posted by skekUng
What do you mean, try to jump into politics because they have no union?

Union numbers are decreasing, so they are going into politics more, simple.

Originally posted by skekUng
What does that have to do with anything? I mean, you didn't really think that supported your argument, AT ALL, did you?

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, because all people have the time and money to take courses on finance

Try the library, or a mentor. It would be useless to run into courses if you don’t know what you are even trying to learn. Many “teachers” are salesman and are trying to make a commission selling you something.

People make the time to sit online and post in a thread, I’m sure they have time to invest into something that affects their future and their children’s future.

Originally posted by skekUng
People who are the beneficiaries of the unions raping privates business and are over paid to work only a few hours a day in perfect conditions with better healthcare than the President have all the timeand money to do anything they want; apparently except for improving their own lives through a little hard work. Only liberals join unions.

Not only that but many unions rape government jobs as well.

Originally posted by inimalist
hey, some guy working a 40 hour week at a chemical plant, maybe without their highschool, has it MADE.

he totally isn't going to be reliant on that job to feed his kids, and the thought that he and his fellow workers could get together to influence their employer by stoping the gears of production, pffft, who would ever need that. He should be tankful to even have a job, and if he doesn't like it, he should quit.

Just like all those engineering master's students at my university. They don't like it, just get into an engineering master's program at another university, not like that is an unreasonable request.

oh ya, workers rights are totally a left/right issue. Thats why the Wisconssin protests were only attended by hippies and colledge professors...

wha... whats that? firefighters and police officers too... hmmm, sounds fishy.

Nobody should be totally reliant on a job being there for them forever, it could be lost at any time. Basing one's financial future on stream of income is not effective in the long run. Especially if it is the highest taxed income, a.k.a earned income. People who think a job should be from the point they are hired until the point that they die are being unrealistic in the global economy and entitled. Their loss.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What i'm saying is that if the CEO is making anything close to 80,000 employees, then you should probably be cutting that CEO's pay and giving it to the employees instead.

It should be going into company savings. If a company is losing money nobody should be paid more.

Originally posted by The MISTER
So much sarcasm.... 😑 It's hard to tell who's for what anymore.